Flat bet no progression system that works. (2000 spins, +732 units profit)

[Number Six]

Any sequence of ECs of any given length has the same chance of happening as any other of the same length. >>>

So don't base your bets on sequences. Duh.

It also applies to sequences one outcome in length.

[Noble Savage]

That's right Spike, keep bringing up my age. What is this, the third time you do it?

Online a 22 year old can be more rational than a 50 year old who makes all sorts of claims and spits vulgarities at different beliefs. It's not just possible, it's quite common actually.

[Spike!]

It also applies to sequences one outcome in length.>>>

LOL! Yup, chances are if you see a red, a black will come along soon to oppose it. I'd almost bet on it..

[Spike!]

That's right Spike, keep bringing up my age.>>

Well geez, you walk right into it. You talk about all your 'experience' and I have to laugh. I was 22, my friend, and 32 and 42 and 52. You can't know what I'm talking about till you've been there. If you can remember this converstaion 30 years from, you'll blush, I guarantee it. There's nothing wrong with being 22, unless you act like it means more than it does.

[Jakkalsdraai]

You 22 Noble? ............... Wish I was 22! 

Spike also wishes he was still 22...............hard being 92 hey Spike? 

[Bayes]

No no no, you guys are the ones who say you have the math that says I can't win. Lets see it. You don't have it and you KNOW you don't have it. You can't have it or I wouldn't be doing it.

<sigh>

The simple negative expectation proof applies to each and every bet you make. It's not my fault you don't understand the maths. For the 100th time, it's up to you to prove otherwise with a counterexample (the exception which disproves the rule).

Not holding my breath... 

[Spike!]

 it's up to you to prove otherwise with a counterexample (the exception which disproves the rule).>>

There is no rule of math that says I can't guess the next outcome correctly by looking at past spins. Saying they are independent trials is like saying grass is green. So what.

[Bayes]

Saying they are independent trials is like saying grass is green. So what.

I rest my case. 

Like I said, it's not my problem if you don't understand.

[Number Six]

Saying they are independent trials is like saying grass is green. So what.

It's amazing you can shrug this admission off as nothing and still claim that history holds "clues", I really do think Bayes is right and you simply don't understand, hence the incredible amount of contradictions you bring upon yourself. If each spin is independent the physical parameters of the game hold true on every spin. Your argument to the contrary is ludicrous and invalid. In fact, you haven't even got one. The best you can come up with is "you can't prove otherwise". Actually, you just proved it for us.  

[Spike!]

Like I said, it's not my problem if you don't understand.>>>

Who says I don' t understand?

If each spin is independent>>

Just because its independent doesn't mean its without clues. I'm looking for the next independent event, whats better than looking at recent past events. The game is going SOMEWHERE, studying where its been gives clues to where its going, in a limited fashion. You make too many assumptions and then present them as facts.

>>Saying they are independent trials is like saying grass is green. So what>>

Saying their indpendent trials also seems to be the catchall excuse for everyhing, like just saying that explains any point the MathBoyz want to make. Nice try.

[Number Six]

Just because its independent doesn't mean its without clues.

Yes, of course it does. What do you think independent means? None of the outcomes are connected in any way, therefore the past holds no clues to the future, and if the ball can land in any pocket on the wheel, how can it?

[keel44]

You CAN bet for a condition to appear.  Such as 5 like even chances in a row.  You cannot have 5 in a row unless there was 4 in a row.  And you cannot have 4 in a row unless you saw 3 in a row.  And you can't tell there was 5 in a row unless you looked at the past results.

Of course each consecutive even chance along the way has no basis for the next to appear.  You know at some point there will be 5 like results in a row.  You can't even attempt to play this way unless you looked at the past results.

LOGICAL GUESSING IS THE BEST WAY TO PLAY ROULETTE.  If you object to this statement, you might as well play a different game.

[Noble Savage]

You CAN bet for a condition to appear.  Such as 5 like even chances in a row.  You cannot have 5 in a row unless there was 4 in a row.  And you cannot have 4 in a row unless you saw 3 in a row.  And you can't tell there was 5 in a row unless you looked at the past results.

Of course each consecutive even chance along the way has no basis for the next to appear.  You know at some point there will be 5 like results in a row.  You can't even attempt to play this way unless you looked at the past results.

LOGICAL GUESSING IS THE BEST WAY TO PLAY ROULETTE.  If you object to this statement, you might as well play a different game.

I'd bet my bank account that you don't live off roulette.

[Spike!]

None of the outcomes are connected in any way>>>

YOU make the connections and make a guess. Thats why its not 100% accurate, but its enough to win at gambling. YOU have to actually be clever and do the work. Sheesh.

[keel44]

Somebody, Anybody !!

Help me out if you don't agree.  So many people acting like they know what they are talking about.  Yet nobody gives ANY strategies.  Isn't that why we are at a forum in the first place?  Noble, Spike ... either of you know any strategies you can share?

?

[keel44]

-