Is It Possible To Make a Good Bet on Purpose In Roulette?

[Spike!]

The MathBoyz say things like:

"No one can make a stupid bet any more than they can make a wise bet when dealing with random outcomes"

and

"Any bet selection is a complete joke in a game of chance."

and

"There's not a thing anybody can do to worsen or improve their win rate."

In other words, no matter how hard you try, no matter what you do, its mathmatically impossible to do better than 50/50 on the EC's, (or anywhere else) if you remove the zeros. You can be the worlds best trend player, but you can never do better than 50/50. You can't win on purpose, you can't lose on purpose, every bet you make, no matter how you arrived at it, is totally worthless.

Does anybody here actually buy this load of baloney?

[Kelly]

If anyone can prove otherwise to me, i will change my mind right away.

[Spike!]

Not really a good answer, Kelly. You should be saying "Nobody can prove otherwise, so I will never change my opinion. The math is rock solid."

Isn't it?

[Kelly]

Not really, i don`t give a rats ass what kind of play it is as long as it has an edge. All i need is a logical reason for it to work or in absence of that, statistical proof that it works.

[Spike!]

So you think proof is possible then, you think the math is just a suggestion, that its not written in stone?

[Noble Savage]

Does anybody here actually buy this load of baloney?

Does anybody actually buy YOUR load of baloney?

If you:

1) do have this magic way to beat the game with flat bets
2) are not willing to prove it or show it to anyone
3) don't care about people believing you or not, you prove it to the casino everyday, blah blah blah

Then why keep posting about it?  It's like you indirectly insist that people believe you, whether you provide real/verifiable/reproducible proof or not.

Do you have something to sell Spike?

If not then move on. You made a claim, we didn't believe it, the world keeps on spinning.

[Kelly]

Im happy if the hit rate, flat betting, keeps breaking the boundarys of 3, 4, 5 standard deviations as the hits pile up. Thats all the proof i need. A random game doesn`t do that.

[Spike!]

Does anybody actually buy YOUR load of baloney?>>

Its an important question. If you truly believe the math, that its written in stone, then the subject of anybody proving otherwise should never come up. No proof, no tests, nothing is required of anybody. Its a closed case.
The math is the law, there is no wiggle room whatsoever.

Right?

[Spike!]

 3, 4, 5 standard deviations as the hits pile up. Thats all the proof I need. >>>

But if the math is correct, and you all say it is, that kind of proof is impossible. Is the math iron clad or isn't it? If it is, then asking for proof is ridiculous. Anybody claiming to beat it is either lying or insane. How can there be a middle ground.

[Kelly]

Im not the one asking for acceptance/believing, you are. (Constantly i might add) and as you say, the question shouldn`t theoreticly even come up, but there you go.

All i need to jump on the circus is either a logical reason or statistical proof.

[Mr J]

"statistical proof that it works" <<< And there it is folks.  Ken

[Spike!]

My point is, I don't think most of the people who say the math is the law of roulette, really believe it. They want to believe it, but have nagging doubts. There is no point of being on a forum like this if you 100% believed roulette can't be beaten. You have to have faith that the math is just a suggestion based on whats known about the game. Once you get your foot in the door, even a toe in the door, the math goes out the window.

[Ka2]

Don't forget that math and logic can be applied in more than one way...

[Mr J]

 "They want to believe it" >>> They want to believe it because they LOSE, period. Its like comfort food. 'They' now have an EXCUSE for losing......the math says they can't/shouldn't win so that makes everything better in the world.   Ken

[mistarlupo]

Great topic. Very useful, Spike. Well done.

We definitely got your point!

[mistarlupo]

-