Hey VB Players: You've Been Busted!!

[Spike!]

Funny that you now say random.org data is not like a real wheel's>>

They're both true random, but not identically the same. Don't worry about it, its something you'll never have to deal with. To you, the results from an online casinos RNG look just like any other actuals. How would you possibly know the diffrence.

[Spike!]

Some staff, albeit very few, are properly trained and know from a player's behavior alone if the player is a professional.>>>

Those people are mostly in Vegas. In the hundreds of Indian casinos they don't know squat and don't want to know. All they care about is the bottom line and that means stopping consistant winners any way possible.

[Steve]

I should be able to know the difference between real and rng spins, assuming the real wheel spins meet certain criteria like for example the same wheel. If you were able to give more data for each spins it would make it much easier like for example the diamond that was hit. But manually faking diamond hits for hundreds of thousands of spins would take some time.

[Noble Savage]

@Steve: I was referring to EC outcomes (since that's what Spike plays) of a real wheel vs. EC outcomes of a TRNG (such as random.org).

Sure there is any real quantifiable difference that you can tell between the two?

@Spike: Again, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I won't even suggest a challenge because you won't take it because you're not sure you can (ever) back up your silly claims.

Obviously, whatever you think you can do as far as this game is concerned is pure self-delusion based on the fallacies and psychological biases typical of addicted casino gamblers, so there's no "arguing with you".

[Spike!]

whatever you think you can do as far as this game is concerned is pure self-delusion>>>

LOL! Whatever, pal. Don't paint me with the same brush you use to paint yourself. You remind me of the Native American tribes the Europeans encountered when they first came here. The Indians assumed the invaders were stupid and ignorant because they didn't know the Indian languages. They even mocked them behind their backs. Here were people smart enough to build ships and guns and canons and printing presses, yet the Indians thought they were 'stupid'. The truth was, the Indians were the dumb and ignorant ones, but they were so dumb and ignorant they didn't know it.

You assume everybody is as ignorant about roulette as you are, so you can't fathom anything outside you limited experience. Stay ignorant, the casinos depend on guys like you and so so I, you keep them open.

[Steve]

Sure there is any real quantifiable difference that you can tell between the two?

Yes most definitely, but not if you're talking red/black or EC. I'm sure there would be but I havent found it, yet. Sectors are different. What would I know though. I just recently learned what EC meant.   (I couldnt find a suitable emoticon - it'll do)

[Noble Savage]

you can't fathom anything outside you limited experience.

No, it's not just my experience.

You assume everybody is as ignorant about roulette as you are

This isn't about me. (that's what you and Gizmo do when someone points out your lies with simple logic)

You claim all people (including geniuses and experts of advanced mathematics and physics) are too stupid to "figure it out", except you.

Wheel EC outcomes ARE true random outcomes. You claim you can guess true randomness at a better than expectancy rate - more specifically 72%, or about +27% edge over normal expectancy (which is -5.2%). lol This sounds more like pure predictive ability, not a "guessing" one.

hmm, guessing true-randomness, reading and beating unpredictability itself. Are you aware of how huge and serious such a discovery would be if it were true and what kind of impact it would have on a scientific (and philosophical) level to begin with?

Sorry ol'man, I still think you're delusional.

[Spike!]

are too stupid to "figure it out", except you.>>

And your point is?

[gizmotron]

It doesn't surprise me one bit why educated math types can't look into ground breaking principles, where pattern recognition is already a field of study. There won't be a probability function that relates to short termed current state principles because they don't have an iron clad, chiseled in stone, absoluteness to them that provides them an easy path to riches. They are not considering it, mainly because they lack the imagination to research it. They are only capable of following in the footsteps of others. Unfortunately for them they can't believe that a non math type person is saying it's possible. People have consistently turned what was believed to be the truth about things into new ideas that explain things better. John Nash turned everything upside down in the field of economics. Einstein gave us a new explanation of gravity. Nobody has given us advantage based pattern recognition, for gambling, as of yet. So for now on all you mathboyz are officially "Nobody." Nobody says what I can't do. But, nobody knows for sure. Because Nobody is afraid to be wrong.

No, it's not just my experience.

This isn't about me. (that's what you and Gizmo do when someone points out your lies with simple logic)

You claim all people (including geniuses and experts of advanced mathematics and physics) are too stupid to "figure it out", except you.

Wheel EC outcomes ARE true random outcomes. You claim you can guess true randomness at a better than expectancy rate - more specifically 72%, or about +27% edge over normal expectancy (which is -5.2%). lol This sounds more like pure predictive ability, not a "guessing" one.

hmm, guessing true-randomness, reading and beating unpredictability itself. Are you aware of how huge and serious such a discovery would be if it were true and what kind of impact it would have on a scientific (and philosophical) level to begin with?

Sorry ol'man, I still think you're delusional.

You are illusionless.

[mistarlupo]

Why you don't want to become legend? Like Newton or Einstein?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to argue with you. Plain curiosity.

[gizmotron]

Why you don't want to become legend? Like Newton or Einstein?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to argue with you. Plain curiosity.

My expertise is in algorithms. If I were to produce the proof you require I would have to accept having my discovered opportunity being removed by those that would be damaged by my explanation. Now if you could arrange a method for me to be compensated then I would be very happy to kill off the game of Roulette. I'll settle for 2 million$, tax free. Then you can take the algorithm and explain why it works mathematically according to new concepts of probability. You can't spend legend. I can spend the winnings now. I can also taunt the lazy now. When these principles become wide spread truth I will have already "been there, done that." So I already have enough of the legend. There is no way for your ilk to remove that. You are the rejecting peanut gallery of that legend.

[Spike!]

Why you don't want to become legend?>>>

Which pays better, being a legend, or playing a winning system in the casino? The occupation of 'legend' doesn't even pay minimum wage, get real.

[mistarlupo]

Fair enough. It doesn't pay the bills. I'm asking for the reason not to use an edge to build a fortune AND THEN the legend-ary stuff...

[mistarlupo]

My expertise is in algorithms. If I were to produce the proof you require I would have to accept having my discovered opportunity being removed by those that would be damaged by my explanation. Now if you could arrange a method for me to be compensated then I would be very happy to kill off the game of Roulette. I'll settle for 2 million$, tax free. Then you can take the algorithm and explain why it works mathematically according to new concepts of probability. You can't spend legend. I can spend the winnings now. I can also taunt the lazy now. When these principles become wide spread truth I will have already "been there, done that." So I already have enough of the legend. There is no way for your ilk to remove that. You are the rejecting peanut gallery of that legend.

To kill the game of roulette? I doubt it, I think it is more likely to get the odds/rules changed — like Thorp did with Blackjack. Anyway... Don't you think your revolutionary discoveries in pattern recognition will affect not only gambling but many other areas? I would say that $2M is a good price and there may be candidates interested in this offer (not me of course... unless you can offer a long-term lease option =] ) But yeah, the tough bit is the demonstration of the 'product' and the payment in advance. I'll speak to someone more bussiness-oriented than me, sure we can get some ideas to arrange such kind of a deal.

[gtype]

Hi guys, new here but just thought i would say some stuff.  casinos don't care about people who can beat their games, they just want to stop cheating.  since betting after the ball is release does improve odds to the player they stop it.  if anyone got there and said "hey i can beat the game with 72% every time every day", they wouldn't believe you.  since their profit has been the house edge for ages, they really don't care.  the standard factual proven truth presently is that roulette is not beatable without cheating and that's it.  and if somehow you do beat the game, they just politely ask you to leave.

also, having read all posts by Gizmo and doing some math, their system seems like any normal system.  can make profits "short-medium" term but useless short and medium-long term.  And it requires a very good stop loss system.  Nothing indicated about 72% advantage, but again, i only used the notions generally given by Gizmo in the forums.  Also i should emphasize that the single most important thing in their system (according to the incomplete information i have and the ignorance of practice in it) is the stop loss strategy.  that's true for most systems though.  erm. .  replace everything system above with strategy please

oh, about the RNG.  short term, big difference.  since they bet in what they call "patterns" it should be an influencing factor.  no difference at all globally.

[gtype]

-