This system is all flat bet that is the good thing, and testing on one set of actuals, it seems to work I'm still profiting at 2000 spins (which is a pretty good statistic considering that its not progression), I profited 732 units. that is for 1 unit of betting, but if you are playing 5 units or 25 units. just multiply it accordingly.
This system works as such, divide the 36 numbers accordingly to 6 sets of numbers for easy use:
1-6, 7-12, 13-18 , 19-24 , 25-30 ,31-16
For me I prefer to classify them with their first number for easy reading.
The groups would be 1,7,13,19,25,31 respectively.
Next we record the numbers that appear according to their groups. once 5 sets of any different groups of numbers has appeared, we flat bet on the last set of numbers for 6 consecutive spins. If we lose after 6 spins, IMPORTANT, we don't continue betting betting or use the past spins to play again as a set might "sleep" for many spins. we wait for that sleeping set to hit before restarting everything and play this system again. Clear?
If we win, we can play again on the next spin without waiting as the "cycle" of the 6 sets of numbers appearing has been completed.
An example:
(spin no) (grp no) (profits)
10 7
16 13
33 31
23 19
19 19
25 25 5 grp nos has appeared namely 7,13,19,25,31 so bet on grp 1
8 7
18 13
19 19
5 1 +12
14 13
7 7
19 19
36 31
12 7
33 31
28 25 5 grp numbers has appeared except grp 1, so bet on grp 1 next 6 spins.
30 25
34 31
30 25
16 13
6 1 +6
Understand clear?
Tell me how your results fair.
Weird thing is, testing on actuals it works, when I test it on RNGs, it doesn't really work.
What gives?
This isn't the first time i'm experiencing the phenomenon.
NIce.
But in real play we can wait a long time for 5 deferent groups.
Sorry,but how could you have won 732 units in 2000 spins????
Mathematically its impossible,my friend.
Waiting 5 groups to alternate until you get a trigger to bet
would be approximately 8 spins,and supose that you win in
your second attempt=10 spins 4+
100 spins 40 +
1000 spins 400+
2000 spins 800+
You must be very lucky man.
Rather ridiculous.
---UNDERSTEND CLEAR---Sure I understand,but are you.
no, because if i read well, when you win, you dont have to wait for more than 5 spins because you can use latest spins . so, it is possible you bet just next spin after one win because you already have 5 differents sets in the last.
Quote from: snoowly on June 21, 2010, 11:03:02 AM
no, because if I read well, when you win, you dont have to wait for more than 5 spins because you can use latest spins . so, it is possible you bet just next spin after one win because you already have 5 differents sets in the last.
Even with such scenario its impossibe my dear friend.
btw-re-read it again----he said;We don't chase same numbers after 6 loses,
but we restart same procedure,all over again.
6 numbers are 6 numbers. Waiting for this or that to happen has NO bearing what so ever. If you do profit for a while, it is just dumb luck. If you don't improve the strike rate over the long haul, you have accomplished nothing. There is no reason for your method to improve the strike rate.
I am sorry, but progressions give you a chance to profit with a lower strike rate. Flat bets will NEVER work anywhere on the table because of the maths.
Quote from: keel44 on June 21, 2010, 03:18:09 PM
6 numbers are 6 numbers. Waiting for this or that to happen has NO bearing what so ever. If you do profit for a while, it is just dumb luck. If you don't improve the strike rate over the long haul, you have accomplished nothing. There is no reason for your method to improve the strike rate.
I am sorry, but progressions give you a chance to profit with a lower strike rate. Flat bets will NEVER work anywhere on the table because of the maths.
Except Spikes and Gizmos EDUCATED GUESSING----------LOL
Yes, I did win 732 units in 2000 spins using actuals. Maybe the theory is that this system works for that particular wheel. That wheel might have some kind of bias..
Quote from: RouletteFanatic on June 21, 2010, 03:24:53 PM
Yes, I did win 732 units in 2000 spins using actuals. Maybe the theory is that this system works for that particular wheel. That wheel might have some kind of bias..
You nor any kind of bias could-MATHEMATICALY-do that.
Do you really know what you are talking about.
Do not make yourself ridiculed with your further statements.
/color]
well it did happened, it would be more ridiculous for me to say it didn't. maths is one thing, reality is another.
Reality IS maths :)
But medo U don t have to be so cruel to our friend...he is trying! What are u doing? NOTHING
Quote from: Jean-Claud on June 21, 2010, 04:38:24 PM
Reality IS maths :)
But medo U don t have to be so cruel to our friend...he is trying! What are u doing? NOTHING
JCJ,
Cause am doing something,correcting.
Are you saying it is possible,also????
If so you are the one that should give up,not me.
I posted that reality IS maths...
This means that this system and any other system CAN NOT win Roulette!!!!!!!!!!!
But u must be a MONGOLIAN :haha:
Quote from: Jean-Claud on June 21, 2010, 05:22:43 PM
I posted that reality IS maths...
This means that this system and any other system CAN NOT win Roulette!!!!!!!!!!!
But u must be a MONGOLIAN :haha:
You got problem man.Suggest you find some help.
It shouldn't work.
How many bets were placed?
IF you placed 2000 bets, betting 6 numbers each time, you can't get +732. It could either be +708 or +744, but not +732.
If it's +744 then that would be +1.8 standard deviations. A VERY normal result that could easily be the outcome of randomness (instead of a winning system), nothing significant.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 21, 2010, 05:38:48 PM
It shouldn't work.
How many bets were placed?
IF you placed 2000 bets, betting 6 numbers each time, you can't get +732. It could either be +708 or +744, but not +732.
If it's +744 then that would be +1.8 standard deviations. A VERY normal result that could easily be the outcome of randomness (instead of a winning system), nothing significant.
Not only that NS,
BUT TO BET THESE 6 NUMBERS FOR 6 SPINS---5 OTHER STREETS MUST ALTERNATE,IN OTHER WORDS HE IS
BETTING ON UNHITED STREET------HOW MANY SPINS UNTIL THAT HAPPENED??????----AND AFTER EACH HIT,RESTART AGAIN WITH SAME PROCEDURE.---------HOW IT COULD BE POSSIBLE TO WIN SO MANY UNITS IN 2000 SPINS.
IT IS SCIENCE FANTASY--HALUCINATIONS---but who cares anyway,all kinds.
medo is right.
But anyway, even if this specific system does not work we would have gained something if the original poster (roulettefanatic) had started by explaining why he thinks his system might work. Explain your reasoning people! Your reasoning and your ideas are more valuable than just laying out your bets or rules. We could expand on your reasoning and discuss about it. Your system is just your system It just works or it doesn't and most times it doesn't!
Kav, really nothing scientific behind this system, im just trying out different ideas that come to my mind and test to see if it worked, this one did for 2000 spins and is a flat bet method at that, therefore I thought I was on to something. I switch the test to RNGs and then it didn't really work. You could say this is based on gambler's fallacy, since everyone says that waiting makes no difference. Anyway, sometimes the greatest inventions/findings are accidental, not by purposeful research.
Reason? ;D
what reason kav are u talking about?
have u seen any system that has a reason?
how can u have a reason in a random game?
I think u sould study roulette more :D
This thread should have been done with after reply #6
KEEL
The stock market and life itself are more "random" (please people stop using this word that is the reason for so much confusion) and unpredictable than roulette. Yet people try and sometimes manage to make successful decisions based on a number of parameters. Something similar can be done about roulette.
Quote from: kav on June 22, 2010, 01:58:52 PM
Yet people try and sometimes manage to make successful decisions based on a number of parameters. Something similar can be done about roulette.
Yes, it's called roulette physics/AP. If you're referring to "system play" however, then I disagree. No body has/is beating roulette consistently with a system. Nobody on earth proved it or ever will, and if they tell you otherwise, they're either lying (as an attempt to glorify their egos or sell something) or simply don't know what they're talking about.
If you insist otherwise then, well, it's your time to waste. :)
EXACTLY NS!
Quote from: kav on June 22, 2010, 01:58:52 PM
(please people stop using this word that is the reason for so much confusion)
No, people needn't be afraid of the word "random", they just need to research and understand it from genuine scientific sources (and not from gambling forum people like Spike and Gizmotron).
With the right research, study, and testing (I highly recommend you learn coding or excel, hand testing is worthless, make use of your computer) they would understand that the only way to make money in the real world is through positive expectancy situations. That is the way the real winners (such as the casinos) make money.
hand testing is worthless>>>
No, your advice is worthless. Hand testing is all you have for a non mechanical strategy, and thats the only thing that will beat roulette. Except staring at the wheel for hours and making guesses at which half it will end up in this time. But thats for clueless beginners..
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 22, 2010, 05:57:35 PM
No, people needn't be afraid of the word "random", they just need to research and understand it from genuine scientific sources (and not from gambling forum people like Spike and Gizmotron).
With the right research, study, and testing (I highly recommend you learn coding or excel, hand testing is worthless, make use of your computer) they would understand that the only way to make money in the real world is through positive expectancy situations. That is the way the real winners (such as the casinos) make money.
--Positive expectancy situations----
And when you adopt above situation in roulette game
with strict --know how--rules,you can expect positive results.
btw-I know several ppl.that are making good income for years,
just playing roulette.
Quote from: Spike! on June 22, 2010, 06:35:45 PM
No, your advice is worthless. Hand testing is all you have for a non mechanical strategy
Duh, I was clearly talking about systems.
"non mechanical strategy" (cough) seems to be the term used by some people who claim to be able to read past random outcomes and guess future ones correctly at a high rate but don't want their method to be testable and therefore provable for the nonsense that it is.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 22, 2010, 05:49:27 PM
No body has/is beating roulette consistently with a system. Nobody on earth proved it or ever will, and if they tell you otherwise, they're either lying (as an attempt to glorify their egos or sell something) or simply don't know what they're talking about.
You seem pretty convinced about something you haven't researched enough (since you consider it a waste of time). That's not very wise. And btw, you can't (none can) mathematically prove that's it is impossible to make profit at roulette without using AP. That's because it isn't.
Warren Buffet cannot prove that he will be profitable till the end of his life. But I'd surely bet my life savings that he will.
You don't need to be able to mathematically prove you can do something in order to be able to do it.Science is the organized skepticism in the
reliability of expert opinion. — Richard Feynman
Quote from: medo on June 22, 2010, 06:41:16 PM
btw-I know several ppl.that are making good income for years,
just playing roulette.
I know a few as well. Not system players for sure.
Quote from: kav on June 22, 2010, 06:48:55 PM
You seem pretty convinced about something you haven't researched enough (since you consider it a waste of time). That's not very wise.
You seem pretty convinced that I haven't researched system play even though you don't really know. That's not very wise.
Have you developed/simulated/tested more roulette systems than I privately have? Based on your beliefs, I doubt it.
Have you seen or tested a system that wins consistently?
Have you ever seen a
real physical edge and what it can do?
That's what I thought.
Quote from: kav on June 22, 2010, 06:48:55 PM
Warren Buffet cannot prove that he will be profitable till the end of his life. But I'd surely bet my life savings that he will.
You do of course realize that Warren Buffet is an investor and has nothing to do with picking roulette numbers or roulette systems. If you think a guy like that would ever waste a moment playing a gambling system, you are laughably mistaken.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 22, 2010, 06:49:09 PM
I know a few as well. Not system players for sure.
On the contrary,also personaly know the -RITZ-guy,N.T.--who is these days
struggle with his VB play,cause of new wheels,rotors,balls---and is stack down under-AU-
hopping earning some dough to return back home.
The old school VB'ers do indeed tend to struggle with modern wheels.
VB kids from my generation don't know what a non-modern wheel is like or how it behaves, never saw or care to see one.
guess future ones correctly at a high rate but don't want their method to be testable>>>>
Nooooooo, it really is untestable. Thats why its almost impossible to teach, its experience oriented and requires unique decisions on almost every spin. Quit tring to 'dumb down' roulette to your level, not all of us closed our minds when we left school.
>>you can't (none can) mathematically prove that's it is impossible to make profit at roulette without using AP>>
Of course they can't and it drives them crazy. They think proving something one way disproves it another way, and it doesn't.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 22, 2010, 06:56:52 PM
You seem pretty convinced that I haven't researched system play even though you don't really know. That's not very wise.
Have you developed/simulated/tested more roulette systems than I privately have? Based on your beliefs, I doubt it.
Have you seen or tested a system that wins consistently?
Have you ever seen a real physical edge and what it can do?
That's what I thought.
You do of course realize that Warren Buffet is an investor and has nothing to do with picking roulette numbers or roulette systems. If you think a guy like that would ever waste a moment playing a gambling system, you are laughably mistaken.
You said systems are a waste of time; that made me think you didn't want to waste your time testing systems. Anyway. The truth is that I spend more time thinking, reading, learning, devising and playing than testing in excel. Based on your beliefs I guess you spent most of your time testing billions of spins. To each his own.
Warren Buffet is an example of a man that can consistently beat something as volatile and "random" (efficient market hypothesis) as the stock market without being able to mathematically prove that his method will be successful in the "long run".
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 22, 2010, 07:08:39 PM
The old school VB'ers do indeed tend to struggle with modern wheels.
VB kids from my generation don't know what a non-modern wheel is like or how it behaves, never saw or care to see one.
Yeah, those old school guys are low IQ morons who just can't seem to 'get it' on the new fangled wheels, that can only be figured out by the new super smart wiz kids. Those poor old school guys can barely even figure out how to turn a computer on, let alone use one. Thank god those those uber smart kids are around to show them the way.
Talk about getting over you bad self, geez... LOL!!
There are only 2 ways to tackle the roulette problem:
1) Methods which concentrate on the factors which determine where the ball will land (physics, bias).
2) Everything else.
'Everything else' cannot be subdivided into 'mechanical' and 'non-mechanical' systems. A system is a system, and they all work within the framework of statistics and therefore cannot win consistently because of the symmetry in the outcomes. The mathematics models that symmetry so only confirms what should be obvious in the first place. That's why every mechanical and non-mechanical method loses in the long run. There are always an equal number of sequences which are a nemesis to the ones your system targets, so the final result is zero gain, minus the house edge.
If there was some permanent asymmetry in the outcomes, then you could get a real edge. But of course, such a game would never be offered, or if it was, the payouts would be adjusted to compensate.
Quoteyou can't (none can) mathematically prove that's it is impossible to make profit at roulette without using AP
What the hell are you talking about? the proof is everywhere! :lol:
Quote from: kav on June 22, 2010, 07:15:02 PM
Warren Buffet is an example of a man that can consistently beat something as volatile and "random" (efficient market hypothesis) as the stock market without being able to mathematically prove that his method will be successful in the "long run".
I'm into trading.
The markets are not "random" to me. I don't see the price as a random walk. I'm familiar with graphs of true random outcomes (I spent a lot of time doing nothing but graphing roulette outcomes and then studying them) and I can tell you that there are things that happen in the markets that you don't see in a graph of a true random walk (such as roulette outcomes), e.g. how the price "reacts" to certain "levels".
Have you ever seen a real physical edge and what it can do?>>
Whats the best VB can give you, 20%? Ooooh, hold me back, teach me that ol VB!!! I wouldn't go to the casino for a lousy 20%. You have no idea what a REAL edge is and you never will, which is fine with me. Wising up chumps isn't in my job description..
Quote from: Bayes on June 22, 2010, 07:23:22 PM
There are only 2 ways to tackle the roulette problem:
1) Methods which concentrate on the factors which determine where the ball will land (physics, bias).
2) Everything else.
'Everything else' cannot be subdivided into 'mechanical' and 'non-mechanical' systems. A system is a system, and they all work within the framework of statistics and therefore cannot win consistently because of the symmetry in the outcomes. The mathematics models that symmetry so only confirms what should be obvious in the first place. That's why every mechanical and non-mechanical method loses in the long run. There are always an equal number of sequences which are a nemesis to the ones your system targets, so the final result is zero gain, minus the house edge.
If there was some permanent asymmetry in the outcomes, then you could get a real edge. But of course, such a game would never be offered, or if it was, the payouts would be adjusted to compensate.
Very well said Bayes.
Quote from: Bayes on June 22, 2010, 07:25:56 PM
What the hell are you talking about? the proof is everywhere! :lol:
;D
There are always an equal number of sequences which are a nemesis to the ones your system targets>>>
And thats why systems and rule based strategys will never work. Its really that simple.
>>What the hell are you talking about? the proof is everywhere!>>
One man's proof is another man's belly laugh. Thats the real truth..
Quote from: Bayes on June 22, 2010, 07:23:22 PM
so the final result is zero gain, minus the house edge.
Bayes,
I don't want to shock you or something, but you will be not alive to see the long run.
And about the house edge you nay sayers bring up again and again...
an excerpt from a message I posted today in the Roulette 30 forum:
[...]And to finish this issue once and for all for all the house-edge-obssesed gentlemen: show me a system that would win if there was no house edge. I dare anyone to show me a system that could beat roulette if there was an edge in favor of the player!!!! Say you don't lose your money when 0 comes, and you gain a chip bonus for every 100 spins played. Now show me a system that will win with this favorable conditions!!! Hey! Not a system that will win after 5 millions spins, but a system that I could play say for 10 days, 100 spins per day and be sure that in total I will come ahead after the last day. This means a system that will generate profit in real life. If you give me such a system I most certainly could turn it to successful system taking into account the house edge. It's not the house edge that's the problem. How else can I explain it to you?
Oh, and by the way, even if you could find a system that is profitable in the long run (3 mil spins) this does not guarantie its success in the short run (hundreds of spins) and if it is not successful in the short run, then it is useless. You are just looking in the wrong direction.
Quote from: Spike! on June 22, 2010, 07:27:17 PM
I wouldn't go to the casino for a lousy 20%.
Say what? lol
20% is a lousy edge, not worth it.
$50,000 is peanuts, not worth it.
lol! it's you who needs to get over himself, seriously.
The market is not a random walk. An efficient market cannot be 'efficient' and random at the same time. The market is driven by rational forces, so can to a certain extent be predicted. Such is not the case with the random game of roulette.
Quote from: Bayes on June 22, 2010, 07:25:56 PM
What the hell are you talking about? the proof is everywhere! :lol:
That's what they said when they believed the earth was flat
20% is a lousy edge, not worth it.>>
Not to me. At 20%, too much can happen. But how would you know, its like trying to explain color to somebody who's blind. Waste of time..
Guys much smarter than you, even Nobel prize winners in finance (LTCM) tried to predict the market and failed. Don't tell me it can be predicted with mathematical certainty. It can not. Everybody knows that, don't you?
Quote from: kav on June 22, 2010, 07:32:17 PM
Bayes,
I don't want to shock you or something, but you will be not alive to see the long run.
The long run doesn't take long to manifest. Usually a few thousands spins or less is enough. Again, the proof is all around you, why do you think this forum exists? :-\
And if you had a real edge (the kind of asymmetry I was talking about) you could easily multiply your bankroll into millions. The Wizard of Odds shows on his site that with an edge of only 0.5% you would be a millionaire within a year, playing for 40 hours per week.
I can easily write a program to show this.
Any system posted here will win if you have the edge.
Such is not the case with the random game of roulette.>>
You math people talk about random like its the bogeyman. Can't predict it, can't understand it, can't even look it in the eye without being paralyzed by fear. Best just to respect it as an enemy that can never be defeated and stay out of its way.
Roulette is my b***h, its not my enemy. I spank it every time I play and it respects ME, not the other way around..
Quote from: Spike! on June 22, 2010, 07:42:17 PM
Not to me. At 20%, too much can happen. But how would you know, its like trying to explain color to somebody who's blind. Waste of time..
lol If you say so Spike. Why should I talk to you? You're no different than Charles Hampshire or Wendel.
The Wizard of Odds shows on his site that with an edge of only 0.5% you would be a millionaire within a year>>>
Playing in the Fantasyland Casino, thats true. But that casino doesn't exist. No casino would tolerate a player just sitting there winning week after week and month after month. Sherminator on GG just posted that he was in a casino in England last week and won a few pounds one day playing a system and the next DAY they refused to let him in. Thats reality, not the fantasy the Wiz enjoys.
QuoteThat's what they said when they believed the earth was flat
I never understand why people drag up irrelevant analogies whenever they can't show or prove anything. What does this have to do with the matter under discussion? people believed many things throughout history, some of which have been proved wrong, so what?
'They said the bumble-bee could never fly' is another old favourite.
QuoteSherminator on GG just posted that he was in a casino in England last week and won a few pounds one day playing a sytem and the next DAY they refused to let him in. Thats reality, not the fantasy the Wiz enjoys.
Sherminator is 'johnnyg'. Remember him? a scammer and pathological liar.
Quote from: Bayes on June 22, 2010, 07:56:30 PM
I never understand why people drag up irrelevant analogies whenever they can't show or prove anything. What does this have to do with the matter under discussion? people believed many things throughout history, some of which have been proved wrong, so what?
'They said the bumble-bee could never fly' is another old favourite.
It has to do with the fact that
"the proof is everywhere!" is not a real proof.
You're no different than Charles Hampshire or Wendel.>>
You make my point exactly. You're so full of yourself and so ignorant, everybody who has a different view gets lumped together. You can't differentiate between the kooks and the legitimate players, to you they're all the same. Which, believe it or not, is fine with me. Wising up chumps being what it is.. :lol:
Kav,
I can post a mathematical proof if you want. Would it make any difference to you? why do you care? just carry on doing what you're doing.
Sherminator is 'johnnyg'. Remember him?>>>
The story has the stink of authenticity. Its how casinos are these days, they are all looking at the bottom line. The Wiz can win all day long on paper, finding a real casino to do it in is impossible.
I can post a mathematical proof if you want.>>>
You can post proof that says I can't accurately guess the next spin at greater than 50% by looking at past spins? No you can't. And you know it.
Quote from: kav on June 22, 2010, 07:46:01 PM
Guys much smarter than you, even Nobel prize winners in finance (LTCM) tried to predict the market and failed. Don't tell me it can be predicted with mathematical certainty. It can not. Everybody knows that, don't you?
Did I say I can predict the market with mathematical certainty? Of course not, everybody knows that. Anything can happen, there are always unknown forces and traders operating.
I just said that sometimes I see things that I wouldn't see in a random walk. Would a mindless random walk for instance react to support/resistance levels or big round numbers the same way the price does?
But then again, I doubt you'll know what I mean unless you spent enough time studying price action. So just ignore it, and let's get back to (and stick to) roulette.
Guys much smarter than you or any gambling system author (including Nobel prize winners) couldn't beat roulette consistently without physics. You fail to accept that, not because
it is unacceptable or unprovable, but simply because you don't want to. I know, I've been there too.
What you chose to believe in is your business for sure, just try not to spread misinformation like you sometimes do (here and in your blog).
The proof no method or system can ever work consistently is simple to explain, impossible for people to accept.
In a fair game, on any spin, does the ball have an equal chance of falling into any of the pockets? Answer: yes.
Quote from: Spike! on June 22, 2010, 08:06:09 PM
You can post proof that says I can't accurately guess the next spin at greater than 50% by looking at past spins? No you can't. And you know it.
Your statement is pointless. Show us the maths behind your system and we can rebuke it for you. Otherwise this is like saying, can you prove I am not wearing Speedos at the moment?
does the ball have an equal chance of falling into any of the pockets?>>>
Thats WHY it can be beaten, because its dependable. What you think is a negative, is really the Achilles Heel of the game. Ironic, huh.
Show us the maths behind your system and we can rebuke it for you. >>>
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.
Noble Savage,
You consider everything different than your (baseless) opinion misinformation. That's your problem. I'd let the readers decide.
PS: hey! why not ban everyone who disagrees with you out of the forum, as to help stop the spread of misinformation? doesn't this sound good?
Quote from: Number Six on June 22, 2010, 08:08:48 PM
The proof no method or system can ever work consistently is simple to explain, impossible for people to accept.
In a fair game, on any spin, does the ball have an equal chance of falling into any of the pockets? Answer: yes.
Yes and no.
Due to the very unique set of physical properties created at the commencement of each new spin, certain areas of the wheel can be calculated for inclusion/exclusion in the landing zone. However, ball scatter will destroy this calculation much of the time. I think this method is called visual ballistics or something. :o
Quote from: Spike! on June 22, 2010, 08:12:23 PM
What you think is a negative, is really the Achilles Heel of the game. Ironic, huh.
Not really, because it isn't true. YOU can't prove otherwise.
Quote from: Spike! on June 22, 2010, 08:15:36 PM
you guys are the ones who say you have the math that says I can't win.
The ball has an equal chance of falling into any pocket. Therefore the odds hold true on every spin. Any sequence of ECs of any given length has the same chance of happening as any other of the same length. The past doesn't matter.
Quote from: kav on June 22, 2010, 08:17:15 PM
You consider everything different than your (baseless) opinion misinformation.
Baseless? lol
Show me one system/strategy that wins consistently. Just ONE out of hundreds of years of roulette existence, all the gamblers, mathematicians, and system developers who studied it and still do.
You have no proof, just wishful thinking.
I have science, math, reality, along with my own personal experience (much of which is in the form of documented results).
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.
Show me one system/strategy that wins consistently.>>
The funny thing is, thats what the casinos said about BJ before Thorp. When in fact, people all over the world had quietly been counting cards since the game began and winning doing it. Some of them begged Thorp not to write his book, to no avail. So never assume that just because nobody has shown you something, that means it doesn't exist.
>>I have science, math, reality, along with my own personal experience>>
You're what, 22? Are you trying to make me laugh on purpose? Like Mark Twain said, "When I was 15 my father was the stupidest man on earth. By the time I was 25, it was amazing how much the old man had learned." When I was 22 I thought I knew EVERYTHING. When I look back its just slightly embarrassing at how much I really knew.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 22, 2010, 08:33:01 PM
Show me one system/strategy that wins consistently. Just ONE out of hundreds of years of roulette existence, all the gamblers, mathematicians, and system developers who studied it and still do.
If, at the end of this nebulous discussion, eons from now, all will finally admit that the simplification of the technique will require the player to use a balanced system with one win above the normal expected distribution as the basis for educated guessing, a winning system. For example, if you bet the two dozens with a one unit win against a two unit loss by covering two of three dozens then you must win twice to balance and three times eventually to get the simplification amount. That extra win represents the completion of the system. This is an amount fought for by reading randomness and using educated guessing. A statue outside of Vegas belongs to Spike. There should be a monument to math believers too. How about the iniquitous misconceptions and assumptions of them? Don't forget them. They get the ubiquitous 'Thinker' once again. A monument to losers.
So the question remains: Who will shut Vegas down first, Fender1000 or Spike? :sarcastic:
Like Herb says, it's theater of the absurd with you guys.
Who will shut Vegas down first>>>
Nothing will shutdown Vegas, they just take counter measures lie they did with BJ.
>it's theater of the absurd>>
Whats absurd is people who know a little and think its enough, when in truth their real education hasn't even been started yet. They're the ones dressed in the clown outfits on the stage, bumping into each other, saying 'Huh?' 'What?'
Spike, can you tell us how you play roulette? Do you have a "technique" or strategy you can share?
I am open minded. We need more of that.
:good:
:good:
There should be a monument to math believers too>>
The dogs need somewhere to relieve themselves..
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Ffindavet.us%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fdog-fire-hydrant-300x300.jpg&hash=c2b11fc2629139ba1134f364c9d523c754666f6e)
Spike, can you tell us how you play roulette? >>>
I look at the past spins and make an educated guess. Thats 95% of it.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fblog.uspsoig.gov%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2Fpicture.jpg&hash=8455e9f2769dac7ff4d7769022420f10ca367dbb)
Quote from: Spike! on June 22, 2010, 09:17:36 PM
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.
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.
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..
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.
You 22 Noble? ............... Wish I was 22!
Spike also wishes he was still 22...............hard being 92 hey Spike? :o
Quote from: Spike! on June 22, 2010, 08:15:36 PM
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... :haha:
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.
Quote from: Spike! on June 23, 2010, 05:49:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Spike! on June 23, 2010, 05:49:58 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Spike! on June 23, 2010, 10:02:13 AM
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?
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2F27.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_kut2c7SMf31qatk68o1_400.jpg&hash=af0bc0b13be193e4d724f077666bd2b4a0ef5eb8)
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.
Quote from: keel44 on June 23, 2010, 07:23:19 PM
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. ;D
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.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fcache1.asset-cache.net%2Fxc%2Fsb10070060cl-001.jpg%3Fv%3D1%26amp%3Bc%3DIWSAsset%26amp%3Bk%3D2%26amp%3Bd%3DEDF6F2F4F969CEBDFB9EAF490E5724501C8B733DE2CC979469C19EA2C8C20B1EB984A757BD33E077E30A760B0D811297&hash=64bfc68cf60d21ab0b30e1e00951c775e9873a6a)
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?
????
Quote from: keel44 on June 23, 2010, 08:55:45 PM
Noble, Spike ... either of you know any strategies you can share?
Unless you're into roulette physics, I really don't have anything of real use that I can give you.
Maybe Spike can teach you something actually useful like he did with so many people. ;D
Study past spins and make an educated guess for the next outcome. Can't be any clearer than that.
Quote from: Spike! on June 23, 2010, 09:30:04 PM
Study past spins and make an educated guess for the next outcome. Can't be any clearer than that.
O.K. Thanks Spike.
I'll do it...sheesh
QuoteStudy past spins and make an educated guess for the next outcome. Can't be any clearer than that. -Spike contradicting himself, yet again.
It's amazing how often Spike puts his foot in his mouth, while he insults other people.
-Spike
Roulette is a game of independent guesses.
Roulette is a game of independent guesses.>>>>
EXACTLY! Independent unconnected spins call for independent educated guesses. The spins aren't linked, you have to link them. You have to be clever and original. That immediately lets Herb and Noble Savage off the hook, they had an original thought once and hated it..
Quote from: Spike! on June 23, 2010, 11:10:44 PM
Roulette is a game of independent guesses.>>>>
EXACTLY! Independent unconnected spins call for independent educated guesses. The spins aren't linked, you have to link them. You have to be clever and original. That immediately lets Herb and Noble Savage off the hook, they had an original thought once and hated it..
Gizmo--Spike---Gizmo---Spike--Gizmo---Spike
talking to each other -----should be rather boring talking
to your mirror repeaedly about neverending same story.
-----
EDUCATED GUESSING
PROVE IT.
about neverending same story.>>
Pretty never ending. Is it better to jump from system to system, or find someting that works? Sorry to be boring you, maybe you should find a more exciting foum.
Quote from: Spike! on June 24, 2010, 05:18:35 AM
about neverending same story.>>
Pretty never ending. Is it better to jump from system to system, or find someting that works? Sorry to be boring you, maybe you should find a more exciting foum.
[color=blueI'm not bored--said earlier it would be bored without you 2 --but thought
it my be bored to you repeating PARROT like--educated guessing---maybe the word
should be EXPERIENCED GUESSING--which would be more likely.[/color]
Quote from: RouletteFanatic on June 21, 2010, 03:15:21 AM
Weird thing is, testing on actuals it works, when I test it on RNGs, it doesn't really work.
What gives?
This isn't the first time I'm experiencing the phenomenon.
it is not phenomenon, it is rigged software. try betvoyager RNG, and it will work beautifully
Quote from: iggiv on July 04, 2010, 04:49:41 AM
it is not phenomenon, it is rigged software. try betvoyager RNG, and it will work beautifully
Work beatutifully---for what purposes????
Land live casino,that is the only way.
"educated guess" there is the problem. . . . . . . . . . please spike explain what makes your guess "educated".
Sharing my experience with this method.
I'm back from a week tripto the land Casinos. My objective was to test various Roulette systems.
I used the SLOT/ROULETTE, single 0 using the 25 cents and the Dollar machines.
Initial testing as present was a loss. Then I applied my progression increments. I did good for a while and got excited.
I used 1,1,2,3,4,6 Worse case scenario, it will be a loss of 17 units per bet. (Using as suggested 6 spins).
Playing for a while on the various machines generated profit,$. Until such time that during the bets the area to be HIT was actually a "SLEEPER". It took on one machine to spin about 30 rounds for that "SLEEPER" area to "HIT. I "WAKED" it up if you will by placing 1 unit on RED and one on BLACK until that street hit.
Regards,
John
Question:
You wrote: "once 5 sets of any different groups of numbers has appeared, we flat bet on the last set of numbers for 6 consecutive spins".
What kind of a bet?
1 unit on each number? or,
1 unit on each street bet? meaning area 1 1 unit on 1street 1 (1,2,3) and 1 unit on street 2 (3,4,5)? or,
split the street example:
Or 1 unit split street which represent 1,2,3,4,5,6, pays 6 to 1?
Please explain.
Thanks,
John