Someone should go tell the guys in this competition Bombus is holding. Those poor guys think they can make money at this game.
Just look at their scores. Why, you'd think they'd know better!!
Someone should shake alberto and Matty; they're living in a dream world.
Yep, I'm rummy again!!
:no:
Sam
Cheers!!!! Next one it's on me!!! :pleasantry:
Regards,
Carlos.
there is no one with negative scores yet, wich i find very positive.
:thumbsup:
I am totally impressed!!
Congrats to all you guys. Champions all!
Sam
I know you are a nice guy, Sam. Always trying to be a helpful soul when others ask for advice.
Said so you'll know I dont want to be rude but what really impresses me it is to see you (in another forum) wasting your time and energy testing ridiculous systems with incredible rules to make hit and run almost always a profitable strategy.
The owner of such systems is always promoting and creating new improvements for them.
He is always in a loop of delusion pulling people who want to believe in a whirl-wind of nonsense.
I know you are not so naive to believe those systems can work.
So why are you wasting your time in such tasks?
Regards,
Carlos.
It's never a waste of time for people to test these things out.
It might appear to be a negative exercise but only positive will come of it.
That's my opinion.
Quote from: Carpanta on May 29, 2012, 06:31:56 AM
I know you are a nice guy, Sam. Always trying to be a helpful soul when others ask for advice.
Said so you'll know I dont want to be rude but what really impresses me it is to see you (in another forum) wasting your time and energy testing ridiculous systems with incredible rules to make hit and run almost always a profitable strategy.
The owner of such systems is always promoting and creating new improvements for them.
He is always in a loop of delusion pulling people who want to believe in a whirl-wind of nonsense.
I know you are not so naive to believe those systems can work.
So why are you wasting your time in such tasks?
Regards,
Carlos.
[/quote
--Wouldn't agree.If anything every post of Sam is a new anecdote.
As Bombus said only positive might occure.Shouldn't underestimate anybody.
That's fine for me. I just gave my opinion too. Everybody is free to think and do as they feel.
Not my problem, of course.
But when one does then one can expect a consecuence of that action.
My post was a consecuence to his one. Whatever disturbance can provoke another disturbance.
That's the risk.
Cheers,
Carlos.
There are a few punters that can beat Roulette on a constant basis.
A pair of stories--Not long ago there were two men that won $30,000 on a roulette machine and were asked to leave by the casino. Apparently there were three numbers that kept hitting, so they put hundereds of dollars on those.
Our very own Mr. J says he made $17,000 by continuously placing a $100 chip on the most hit number in the newest 24 spins.
Proof
Certainly not saying you did, but I would never doubt Mr J. Apparently the man has it to throw at cats and isn't afraid to throw it.
Carlos
You know, I ask myself why I get into those tangles with people. I guess I thought the guy was really something--the name and all. I had been away for a while and did not know his stuff. I truly thought he had a twist on the game.
I actually bought a system a lot like his years ago from a guy named Jerry Adams. Adams system worked for trial after trial and then it failed and cleaned you out.
Still, if I learn any little thing from a discussion, I have profited from the time. I agree with Bombus on this point but one has to know when to get out. Will Rogers said, "Never argue with a fool as people can't tell the difference."
Lastly, I'm retired and I guess I just love to argue! :angry2:
Thanks for your post! I'll take it to heart.
Sam
Dear Sam,
Welcome mate.
You know i appreciate your person, your fine behavior in forums and common sense. But i disliked your former post (you are not a bitter fellow) so then that was my response.
Cheers,
Carlos.
The first thing a new Roulette player attempts to accomplish is succeeding in
finding a system that wins consistently. Most try these systems out at casinos
and they end up getting stung. The lucky ones find ways to test out these systems
outside of any chance of losing any money. This becomes a learning stage where
they learn to make use of rules that depend on triggers. This stage of learning is
continued until the person has exhausted every conceivable idea they can imagine
or find. This is a stage they must get beyond. Some give up and take on an almost
fundamentalist approach to explaining to others why they can't win, that they can't
succeed. If they continue, and that tends to be very few, then they have realised that
if they are to succeed then they are to move past the rules and triggers stage. One way
is to find a way of analyzing the current conditions. Once that is achieved they can use
playing experience to find profitable ways to take advantage of these conceivable
opportunities. Since I belong to this stage I can't say if this is a stepping stone stage
too. Discovering and making use of the most recent conditions is a simple and basic
craft. Knowing how conditions change comes from playing experience. Knowing how
and why to attack continuing opportunities is an art form. It's a journeyman's craft. It's
nearly impossible for a beginner to master in a few weeks. You must lose real money for
years before you can master this stage. In that learning you gain the skill not to lose any
more money. Far too often many give up and declare that it is an impossible task. These
kinds of people frequent these forums year after year. They are self appointed white
knights that ride in with the goal to get others to quit just as they have. They are always
obnoxious and abusive. As long as the few of us that know differently and that never
give in to them stand our ground then these losers will always remain to be seen as losers.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 29, 2012, 06:07:57 AM
I am totally impressed!!
Congrats to all you guys. Champions all!
Sam
Thanks Sam - lets hope it continues till the end!
MM
Quote from: Proofreaders2K on May 29, 2012, 09:32:51 AM
There are a few punters that can beat Roulette on a constant basis.
A pair of stories--Not long ago there were two men that won $30,000 on a roulette machine and were asked to leave by the casino. Apparently there were three numbers that kept hitting, so they put hundereds of dollars on those.
Our very own Mr. J says he made $17,000 by continuously placing a $100 chip on the most hit number in the newest 24 spins.
These are not constant ways 2 beat roulette. :D Although i made some coin playing Mr J street system.
There is a great difference between winning a few shekels here and there and beating a negative expectation game.
The Godess of fortune is very fickle and soon asks back what she has given. :ok:
N.D.
Quote from: Nathan Detroit on May 29, 2012, 03:30:19 PM
There is a great difference between winning a few shekels here and there and beating a negative expectation game.
The Godess of fortune is very fickle and soon asks back what she has given. :ok:
N.D.
Totally agree ND and for the record I would never expect the way I'm playing to hold up for very long (just hopefully long enough! )
MM
Lastly, I'm retired and I guess I just love to argue! :angry2:
Sam
[/quote]
LOL.Another beauty.
Quote from: crackers on May 29, 2012, 12:02:51 PMYou must lose real money for
years before you can master this stage.
Another educated guess from Gizmo, cause he certainly
doesn't know this from first hand experience.
Quote from: cheese on May 29, 2012, 05:52:22 PM
Another educated guess from Gizmo, cause he certainly
doesn't know this from first hand experience.
More proof that Spike just makes stuff up. And yet another post that shows he is
incapable of sharing anything of value to anyone. There are more than 16,000 postings
at GG from him and in all that there is nothing of any value. Now all he is is the
reflection of his own bitterness and the end stages of his fading memories.
Alberto and Carpanta are not living in a dream world. I mean they may have their dreams, but they are in reality with roulette. I think so. I dunno about other guys but those two are down to earth diggers.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 29, 2012, 03:43:05 AM
Someone should go tell the guys in this competition Bombus is holding. Those poor guys think they can make money at this game.
Just look at their scores. Why, you'd think they'd know better!!
Someone should shake alberto and Matty; they're living in a dream world.
Yep, I'm rummy again!!
:no:
Sam
ig
That was tongue-in-cheek humor. I mean the guys are doing great and the naysayers should pop in for a look.
Sam
nolinks://nolinks.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
Quote from: iggiv on May 30, 2012, 12:12:40 AM
Alberto and Carpanta are not living in a dream world. I mean they may have their dreams, but they are in reality with roulette. I think so. I dunno about other guys but those two are down to earth diggers.
In my case it's family business. Undertakers.
More seriously now.
As you know Iggiv, I believe roulette outcomes have rhythms and tendencies. All i do is recording some characteristics of those outcomes in matrices and then seek patterns produced by their rhythms and tendencies. Proper money managment do the rest.
No wonder i know by heart how all the variances i play are arranged along the wheel.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Carlos
And I plan to print every page of this thread to study your methods exactly.
Surely you know my original post was a compliment! Matty did.
TwoCat
Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 30, 2012, 05:28:18 AM
Carlos
And I plan to print every page of this thread to study your methods exactly.
Surely you know my original post was a compliment! Matty did.
TwoCat
Surely my english language skills failed to grasp the compliment. Rather the opposite lol.
There is no way to study my methods exactly as i can change them while playing.
No rules since randomness wont stick to them. Changing conditions changing strategies.
Cheers,
Carlos.
Quote from: Carpanta on May 30, 2012, 07:55:35 AM
There is no way to study my methods exactly as I can change them while playing.
No rules since randomness wont stick to them. Changing conditions changing strategies.
So I will say it again. You find what is working. As long as it continues to work you can
treat the game like you very own ATM machine. When it stops working you must stop
making these bets. So you search for anything that continues. That includes things that
don't continue too. You can use the facts that when things are not one thing then they
must be the other. When you combine things that are capable of combination and that
when you do they also continue then you have found a trend that is continuing. You can
find trends everywhere. They tend to exist at more than twice the amount of just basic
trend characteristics. They also confirm their accuracy and their existence on each last
spin. Now watch cheese say his usual worthless comments.)
Quote from: crackers on May 30, 2012, 12:01:34 PM
As long as it continues to work you can
treat the game like you very own ATM machine.
When will you give another public example of this
mysterious ATM. The last few times you tried it seemed
to take your money and not give you any.
Quote from: cheese on May 30, 2012, 05:28:52 PM
When will you give another public example of this
mysterious ATM. The last few times you tried it seemed
to take your money and not give you any.
I've never given an example. Do you really think that 12 spins is enough? Your entire
complaint is about me and a few spins. Where is there any examples of your betting
choices? You are in no better situation to either lie or complain. You should have entered
the competition. If you want to prove you are better than me then do it. Otherwise you are
just so much hot air. You can't do it can you.
-271 in 10 spins with a 3,000 BR proves nothing.
Quote from: crackers on May 30, 2012, 05:57:12 PM
I've never given an example. Do you really think that 12 spins is enough? Your entire
complaint is about me and a few spins. Where is there any examples of your betting
choices? You are in no better situation to either lie or complain. You should have entered
the competition. If you want to prove you are better than me then do it. Otherwise you are
just so much hot air. You can't do it can you.
-271 in 10 spins with a 3,000 BR proves nothing.
You just got PWND...
just admit it!
Quote from: albertojonas on May 30, 2012, 06:27:38 PM
You just got PWND...
just admit it!
Coming from you that's funny. Aren't you the one that was going to explain everything?
QuoteJust wasting my time, I thought you were serious about this. But you prefer to feed a pointless and vague discussion with cheese. Your choice. Just deleted my posts. Stupidity is the most common element on universe. Good Luck Troll.
Quote from: crackers on May 30, 2012, 06:40:45 PM
Coming from you that's funny. Aren't you the one that was going to explain everything?
I started to expose something you could not understand. It was a concise and precise system to "read" the flow of a distribution. At least Cheese started to discuss the validity of it with me, as you just trolled with your insignificant and pointless remarks.
Thing is, if i quit the competition today, i leave in the first place.
As for the above remark, explaining as nothing to do with the fact that it proves something or not and even less with the fact that you Lost, were loosing, and abandoned the competition.
I am not feeding the troll anymore.
You lost your opportunity of being humble and learn something.
.|.
AJ -" You lost your opportunity of being humble and learn something."
What a privilege that would have been. I've been using distribution probability as
a baseline statistic for decadse. I openly argued the points many years ago at GG.
There is no way you have done anything substantial and that you can teach
that is new. At most you have created your own way to categorize characteristics
of randomness. It is clear that you really don't know me. Had you made a valuable
contribution to understanding randomness I would have been at the front of the
line stating it. Any time anyone demands from me underserved or unearned praise
then my immediate reaction is to question its source. You need to earn the right to
be heard. If you can't do that then please don't blame me.
Quote from: crackers on May 30, 2012, 08:31:23 PM
AJ -" You lost your opportunity of being humble and learn something."
What a privilege that would have been. I've been using distribution probability as
a baseline statistic for decadse. I openly argued the points many years ago at GG.
There is no way you have done anything substantial and that you can teach
that is new. At most you have created your own way to categorize characteristics
of randomness. It is clear that you really don't know me. Had you made a valuable
contribution to understanding randomness I would have been at the front of the
line stating it. Any time anyone demands from me underserved or unearned praise
then my immediate reaction is to question its source. You need to earn the right to
be heard. If you can't do that then please don't blame me.
You simply can not admit that there is something you do not know, that's precisely what makes you blind.
You did not understand what i was writing about. admit it.
Your loss i do not need to be heard. I was sharing and contributing for free common knowledge of a forum interested in roulette.
.|.
:punish:
"I am sort of living proof that Roulette can be
beat every time I set out to beat it." Cracked.
Except in public competitions, of course. Then
everybody BUT Gizmo proves it can be beaten.
Ironic, huh. Its called Proof talks and bullshit walks.
Or in this case, runs as fast as he can the other way.
Quote from: albertojonas on May 30, 2012, 08:41:37 PM
You simply can not admit that there is something you do not know, that's precisely what makes you blind.
You did not understand what I was writing about. admit it.
Your loss I do not need to be heard. I was sharing and contributing for free common knowledge of a forum interested in roulette.
What an ego. I didn't even know you were sharing anything that required my attention.
At least not until you flipped out and took your toys away. You've been a real pill ever
since. Now you want me to admit something where I have nothing to base it on. You
said you were getting somewhere with cheese. I would love to see you explain your
discoveries with him. You were going to have a discussion involving probability
distribution with cheese. Perhaps you will find that much needed praise the way
you require it from him. Don't hold your breath.
Quote from: crackers on May 30, 2012, 08:57:27 PM
What an ego. I didn't even know you were sharing anything that required my attention.
At least not until you flipped out and took your toys away. You've been a real pill ever
since. Now you want me to admit something where I have nothing to base it on. You
said you were getting somewhere with cheese. I would love to see you explain your
discoveries with him. You were going to have a discussion involving probability
distribution with cheese. Perhaps you will find that much needed praise the way
you require it from him. Don't hold your breath.
.|.
:skull:
Quote from: cheese on May 30, 2012, 08:46:07 PM
Except in public competitions, of course. Then
everybody BUT Gizmo proves it can be beaten.
Ironic, huh. Its called Proof talks and bullshit walks.
Or in this case, runs as fast as he can the other way.
One problem Spike. You already said these demonstrations prove nothing. 12 spins
in two separate examples proves I'm a fraud. Fine. The world is a better place because
you are here to protect everyone. Don't you have an appointment with your new
prodigy?
Quote from: crackers on May 30, 2012, 09:03:33 PM
One problem Spike. You already said these demonstrations prove nothing. 12 spins
in two separate examples proves I'm a fraud. Fine. The world is a better place because
you are here to protect everyone. Don't you have an appointment with your new
prodigy?
.|.
:skull:
Quote from: crackers on May 30, 2012, 09:03:33 PM
12 spins
in two separate examples proves I'm a fraud.
I believe you think you can win when you enter
a competition and are completely baffled when
you don't. Its because your testing is flawed
and you curve fit the results so it looks like you're
winning, when in reality you're losing.
Quote from: cheese on May 30, 2012, 11:28:41 PM
I believe you think you can win when you enter a competition and are completely baffled when
you don't. Its because your testing is flawed and you curve fit the results so it looks like you're
winning, when in reality you're losing.
I'm so glad that you've committed yourself to what you think I do.
I expect at least three extraordinary opportunities in 150 spins. I never
worry about using my bankroll to my advantage. This is far beyond your
flat bets only experience. Using ten percent of my bankroll is part of my
method. Had you seen 150 bets you would see. Flat betting is ridiculous.
But it suits you. Too bad you can't prove anything. That includes your
opinion too.
Quote from: crackers on May 31, 2012, 12:43:22 AM
I expect at least three extraordinary opportunities in 150 spins. I never
worry about using my bankroll to my advantage. This is far beyond your
flat bets only experience. Using ten percent of my bankroll is part of my
method. Had you seen 150 bets you would see. Flat betting is ridiculous.
But it suits you.
150 spins is completely unplayable under normal casino
conditions. You're talking 4-5 hours of play and even longer
if its real busy. Flat betting is only ridiculous to you because you
can't do it. Once you understand how random works, its the
other bets that become ridiculous. This is because there are no
'better' bets in roulette, they all can be condenced down to flat
betting on the EC's. This is obviously over your head, just keep
tilting at your windmills, you seem to enjoy it.
What a joke you are. I spend a minimum of five to ten hours every time I
go to a casino to play. Remember those years at GG? I gave flat betting EC
only a try. Yes, at a minimum of 150 - 200 spins on real wheels. I came to the
conclusion that reading all that is random is not beyond my thinking
capacity. After watching you debate the mathboyz all these years I can
see why you are stuck with flat betting the randomness of just the EC's
only. It's your unqualified claim to fame. Take a look around Spike. The
world is leaving you behind. Nobody is flat betting the EC's.
Quote from: cheese on May 31, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
150 spins is completely unplayable under normal casino
conditions. You're talking 4-5 hours of play and even longer
if its real busy. Flat betting is only ridiculous to you because you
can't do it. Once you understand how random works, its the
other bets that become ridiculous. This is because there are no
'better' bets in roulette, they all can be condenced down to flat
betting on the EC's. This is obviously over your head, just keep
tilting at your windmills, you seem to enjoy it.
Quote from: crackers on May 31, 2012, 01:36:53 AM
I spend a minimum of five to ten hours every time I
go to a casino to play.
LOL, sure you do. All beginners do that. Don't
worry, you might get better at it eventually and
only have to spend 2-3 hours there. Do you take
a cot with you so you can lay down when 'roulette
stress' kicks in, like it does with every contest you
enter?
Spike, you are one of those foolish idiots that expects randomness to be
opportunistic just because you just arrived at the casino. So you win every
time with just 30 to 50 spins. No wonder. As I recall you leave once you have
your $100. Man you can have the baloon concession market. The chump and
his chump change mentality. Look at all the people claiming they read
randomness. They are all around here. I told you to go out and win your
millions. You still riding the casino bus? You better hurry up. I'm winning
this war. People, by whatever means, are wrapping their heads around
randomness. There is no chance in this world that it's because of you.
Quote from: crackers on May 31, 2012, 02:06:18 AM
So you win every
time
Plan the play and play the plan. Seriously,
5-10 hours, do you take a bag lunch and
put your name on it? You don't want to
miss what might be THE spin. You pro's
and the lives you lead.
Prove it to yourself. Download real spins from online resources of real spins.
For every 150 spins you will find continuous opportunities that last an average
of 15 consecutive spins. These are opportunities that are worth thousands. So
you keep thinking you are funny. And you are funny, like a joke. Only one
problem for you though. You aren't actually looking for those opportunities.
But that doesn't stop you from pretending to be an expert of everything.
You are FLASH! the speed demon of Roulette players. I'll bet you have a
Spiderman suit hidden under your secret identity disguise.
Quote from: cheese on May 31, 2012, 02:51:58 AM
Plan the play and play the plan. Seriously,
5-10 hours, do you take a bag lunch and
put your name on it? You don't want to
miss what might be THE spin. You pro's
and the lives you lead.
Quote from: crackers on May 31, 2012, 03:09:37 AM
For every 150 spins you will find continuous opportunities
You're an old sick guy on lots of med's, you've said
so many times. How do you stay sharp for 5-10 hours
of tracking and concentration. I'll admit, after an hour
I'm wiped and need a 2 hour break. Even pro BJ players
don't play longer than 4-5 hours total in a day, its too
much.
Yet you, old, sick with a bad heart, can go for 10 hours.
Its a miracle. But in a 3 spin a day contest, you can't sleep you're
so messed up from the stress. Oh, the stories, the stories.
They never end, do they.
ALWAYS WITH THE QUESTIONS AND NEVER WITH ANY ANSWERS. So typical Spike. You
always jump to conclusions celebrating your great achievements. In this competition I
put 480 units in play on my declared last bet, before the spin. I lost 240. Before that I
was only down about 40 if I recall. You are declaring to anyone still listening that I'm a
big failure based on one single departing bet. My other great failure was a very long shot
four step progression that had odds of losing of more than 100 to 1. It lost on the very
first four spins. Watch this. Spike can't calculate the odds for this four step progression
failing on the first 4 spins of a 150 spin test. Here is another clue for my very own personal
pest. I can't lose sleep while I'm at the casino. I'm not so bad that I require daily naps.
Has anyone noticed this one thing. Nobody questions Spikes 72% win rate at all. He no
longer defends his claims. It's been that way ever since he started harassing me. He's now
on the naysayers side of things. When I started sharing there were only two people that
regarded randomness as a possible advantage method for consistently winning. Now there
are far more than that. I wonder how many are because Spike attempted to stop it. Wouldn't
it be funny if Cheese's own feeble efforts caused the spread of all this. I wonder where reading randomness got its wider usage. No matter how it has happened I win this war. I've seen it get out in the public domain. And in all that there is only one guy that flat bets the EC 's only. He's the obvious loser of this past two years. There is no other possible way to validate this.
Quote from: cheese on May 31, 2012, 03:25:12 AM
You're an old sick guy on lots of med's, you've said
so many times. How do you stay sharp for 5-10 hours
of tracking and concentration. I'll admit, after an hour
I'm wiped and need a 2 hour break. Even pro BJ players
don't play longer than 4-5 hours total in a day, its too
much.
Yet you, old, sick with a bad heart, can go for 10 hours.
Its a miracle. But in a 3 spin a day contest, you can't sleep you're
so messed up from the stress. Oh, the stories, the stories.
They never end, do they.
Quote from: cheese on May 31, 2012, 03:25:12 AM
How do you stay sharp for 5-10 hours of tracking and concentration. I'll admit, after an hour I'm wiped and need a 2 hour break.
I'm sure you are exaggerating a bit. Don't you start to experience brain fatigue in just
20 minutes? I'LL bet that others here can guess why I don't get worn out in five hours
of continuous play. It's right here on this forum how I do it. What a pathetic tragedy it
must be to never see all the great opportunities randomness has to offer. Spike has
never seen an elegant pattern. Heck, he's never even seen a perfect pattern. One
pathetic hour and then out. What a show boating spazztic. I actually feel sorry for
you Spike. Your limited understanding of randomness is growing less and less the
more you revisit your great understanding. What a pathetic joke. I've been debating
a rank amateur all these years.
Quote from: Rdick on May 31, 2012, 04:55:46 PM
The roulette forum at Gamblersglen is all but dead.Seems contributions are hitting similar levels by certain individuals here too.
On the left Pseudo intelligence
On the right Disruptiion
And with that perspective we have the ubiquitous trekers on their journeys beyond
the Martingale and all other possibilities to discover a rule based success. But there
is a new emerging craft. There are those that give serious effort to discover favorable
opportunities in common randomness studies. I predict that it will be a study of
playing experience combined with opportunistic characteristics in randomness
sequences that becomes the predominant topic of these forums. That's including
the ever present math Nazi clad in their robes of integrity and stuborness.
Quote from: crackers on June 01, 2012, 12:36:14 PM
There are those that give serious effort to discover favorable
opportunities in common randomness studies. I predict that it will be a study of
playing experience combined with opportunistic characteristics in randomness
sequences that becomes the predominant topic of these forums. That's including
the ever present math Nazi clad in their robes of integrity and stuborness.
If you look up Gizmo in the dictionary, theres his picture and underneath it says " Blah Blah Blah".
"The Godess of fortune is very fickle and soon asks back what she has given. "
ND, this is a classic quote!! I won $2000 euro and within a week, all back. I won $600 USD, within a week, all back. haha...
that's fair though, i m not sure how much dealer earned per hour, but he will never get $2000 euro within hours. so easy come, easy go. right?
Quote from: cheese on June 01, 2012, 04:51:13 PM
If you look up Gizmo in the dictionary, theres his picture and underneath it says " Blah Blah Blah".
not the "blah blah blah" argument. anything but that...
anderslee 71
All indicatiins are that you know how to gamble but what you need to learn is how to KEEP those winnings . That should be your next project ": NOT GIVING IT ALL BACK".<<<<<<<<<< Even for that there are methods available.
Nathan Detroit
Quote from: Rdick on June 02, 2012, 09:08:29 AM
Night follows Day
or your (ad nauseam) Hallucinatory trend patterns
So you think Spike is on the right track right? Spike doesn't use patterns. You think I've
gone on about them (ad nauseam). In the past six years I've written very little describing
them. It's no wonder too. I almost always get the same reaction you are giving me now.
Perhaps following a guy like Spike, that gets worn out in just an hour of guessing,
perhaps that limited capacity of expertise is just your speed too.
The reason you think that patterns are not real is because I've never proved their
existence. It's so easy to do. Anyone can set out to find them and demonstrate them.
All those real spins published on the net. There's your proof right there. Is this making
you tired?
Quote from: Nathan Detroit on June 02, 2012, 11:02:06 AM
": NOT GIVING IT ALL BACK".<<<<<<<<<< Even for that there are methods available.
Nathan Detroit
This is an essential part of my playing technique too. I've grown better at it by repetition
of experiencing getting out while ahead and avoiding deep drawdowns. I depend on my
playing experience to know how to attack & retreat. How do you teach that?
Quote from: crackers on June 02, 2012, 01:46:13 PM
This is an essential part of my playing technique too. I've grown better at it by repetition
of experiencing getting out while ahead and avoiding deep drawdowns. I depend on my
playing experience to know how to attack & retreat. How do you teach that?
BS
J.P. teaches all that in his book on roulette ( Advanced edition) " SO YOU WANNA BE A GAMBLER ". 1987
Quote from: Nathan Detroit on June 02, 2012, 02:29:23 PM
J.P. teaches all that in his book on roulette ( Advanced edition) " SO YOU WANNA BE A GAMBLER ". 1987
JP doesn't teach much about trends other than mentioning them in passing. He does
teach about getting out before you are hurt much. He teaches extensively about a
regression technique that guarantees you will keep at least a little once you have it.
Quote from: albertojonas on June 02, 2012, 02:00:33 PM
BS
Bet Strategy ... So are you wasting your time? You picked up your pearls of wisdom
and stormed off in a sycophantic rage. Now that was BS.
Quote from: crackers on June 02, 2012, 03:00:20 PM
Bet Strategy ... So are you wasting your time? You picked up your pearls of wisdom
and stormed off in a sycophantic rage. Now that was BS.
More nonsense, troll
Quote from: albertojonas on June 03, 2012, 06:57:53 AM
More nonsense, troll
If I'm a troll then you are an empty hat. Let's see if you are the hot shot that you
claim to be. One: do you get all tuckered out (tired) after just one hour of real
play on a real wheel, at a real casino? Two: do you see the obvious holy grail
posted at my "course" thread that just started? With your claims of capability
it should be easy for you. Please don't take this personally. This is not a
personal attack. It's purely scientific.
Quote from: crackers on June 03, 2012, 10:23:16 AM
If I'm a troll then you are an empty hat. Let's see if you are the hot shot that you
claim to be. One: do you get all tuckered out (tired) after just one hour of real
play on a real wheel, at a real casino? Two: do you see the obvious holy grail
posted at my "course" thread that just started? With your claims of capability
it should be easy for you. Please don't take this personally. This is not a
personal attack. It's purely scientific.
not interested in your BS.
Play 24 numbers that are "pseudo"-trending with a regretion money management is not the incredible knowledge you claim.
anyway keep trolling and don't mind me more than i mind you.
FOff
Cheese and Crackers, you must be old couple, married 1955 and now must watch who is right..? :girl_wacko:
Regards Timo
Quote from: albertojonas on June 03, 2012, 05:08:38 PM
not interested in your BS.
Play 24 numbers that are "pseudo"-trending with a regretion money management is not the incredible knowledge you claim.
anyway keep trolling and don't mind me more than I mind you.
FOff
You flunked that one. Try not to bail out all the time. You don't really know as much as you
think. By the way. It's you acting like a troll. If you want to be respected then earn it.
Quote from: Rdick on June 03, 2012, 08:50:50 PM
Give credit where it's due,Spike/Cheese,knows roulette.You don't.
Why YOUR the chosen one to prove the existence of patterns is beyond me.
As for throwing out 'troll' to people who can see through you.Bit rich with your record.
Anyone can play the fool. That includes you. Spike only flat bets the even chance
bets. On top of that he takes a two hour nap after each hour of play. I can show
you the real world of randomness. In fact I have. You really should know why I
do that. I mean it's flat out stupid to do that if it's really worth while information.
It's people like you. You don't get it. Its because you don't get it that I show
everything. I'm conducting my own experiment in futility and rats in the maze
effect. You are a top rat. CONGRATULATIONS.
This forum is boring. Just non stop seeing cheese and gizmo argue. Its so f**king boring. Both should be banned for trolling. There is no discussions about roulette any more.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 04, 2012, 12:29:10 AM
This forum is boring. Just non stop seeing cheese and gizmo argue. Its so f*****g boring. Both should be banned for trolling. There is no discussions about roulette any more.
Your argument at the old GG would be met with outright ridicule. Your complaint is
almost as pathetic as getting excited over a strategic system that ends as the usual
pathetic waste of time that all of them do. You are the king of all the lemmings. Tough
crap if you are clueless. You are too dumb to grasp a favor given freely. There is no
greater curse upon you than your own blindness. You want me gone then just demand
it.
Look, I'm not the one who spends my life on a forum arguing with some guy who is also clueless about roulette. The difference between me and you, I am in the circle, you are out of the circle.
Out of the circle means you don't know the truth about roulette and how it can be beaten.
People can spend there entire life ignoring what is put in front of them and believing they know best when really they know shit.. Head in the sand. I am blessed not to be one of those people.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 04, 2012, 01:03:05 AM
I am in the circle, you are out of the circle.
I have always wondered. You've said on this forum a hundred
times that 'roulette is not random'. The outcomes are produced
by an unbiased random number generator, a roulette wheel. How
can they be anything but random?
if i could beat roulette i would not waste my time here. roulette is pure chance. you win its just chance. no magic. self deception
if you think you have a special talent that others do not possess. good chance.
Quote from: Rdick on June 04, 2012, 07:25:43 AM
A topic is started on Gamblersglen regarding Frank Scoblete.You troll over and he's a pathetic moron.Why ?.This is all you do.
From that thread: "Trend bettors fail to understand that what they are betting on is hindsight, and has nothing to do with proper play in the future-----even if that future is the very next spin ,roll or turn of the cards."
ND then goes on to suggest that if the trend is not working then bet the opposite of
what it is suggesting. Now where have I heard that before. Let's see.... That's right. I've
been saying "test as you go" for the past five years. I wonder if this is trollcraft. It's
not going to work. Troll craft is a process that attempts to hijack a thread. That thread
is pure discussion. So is this thread.
Here is some troll craft you can "put in your pipe and smoke it." On that FS thread
at GG the ever present snowman hits me with his usual prove it demand. Ok, let's
do it. Another member of this forum pointed out the mathematical odds for a
single dozen to sleep at least 15 consecutive spins is 1 in 300. If you keep track
of six unique sets of dozens then the odds change to 1 in 50 that you will see
one of these dozens sleeping 15 consecutive spins. If you track 20 unique sets
of dozens then the odds drop to 1 in 15 that you will see 15. So if you track
enough groupings there will average out that there will always be a sleeping
dozen going on somewhere. Now add to that long sections of singles. There
is overwhelming evidence that there are trends that work just based on the
available mathematics showing that they are there and if you are properly looking
for them.
Quote from: cheese on June 04, 2012, 02:17:12 AM
I have always wondered. You've said on this forum a hundred
times that 'roulette is not random'. The outcomes are produced
by an unbiased random number generator, a roulette wheel. How
can they be anything but random?
Nothing in roulette is random, because its a real physical object. Over time Physical objects can wear and tear.... What if a wheel has a tilt? Do you think the results are random then?
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 04, 2012, 11:33:36 AM
Nothing in roulette is random, because its a real physical object. Over time Physical objects can wear and tear.... What if a wheel has a tilt? Do you think the results are random then?
Wow, there's still wheel bias hold outs. Snowman would love that. "Never say die."
The laws of physics having been perfected years ago by real experts determined that the
very best known opportunities of wheel bias produces a 6 in 100 advantage. That means
that if these excellent conditions where to be present then that would improve the chances
of a sleeping dozen in at least 10 of my tracked groupings of dozens. So from the randomness side of the forum, I love it too.
If there are wheels with a "tilt" then you might find them in Lower Slobbovania where casinos are still being operated by trolls.
Give `em my best regards when you get there.
N.D.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 04, 2012, 11:33:36 AM
Nothing in roulette is random, because its a real physical object. Over time Physical objects can wear and tear.... What if a wheel has a tilt? Do you think the results are random then?
If its a biased wheel, the results are not random. But thats
a very rare case these days. To say nothing in roulette is
random is patently ridiculous. Only someone with no knowledge
of random at all would make such a foolish statement.
Only play the random sequences and you are on your way.......
ex: 1,1,1,2,1,2,5,1,2,2,4,1,2,3
This always kills me.....casino staff (not the idiot dealer) won't know about the 'tilt' (cough) but a few AP (cough) guys will? :skull:
Ken
Quote from: Rdick on June 04, 2012, 07:46:13 PM
I'm underwhelmed.
Crooks have been selling roulette play like this for decades.You need to do some research.It'll be hard but do try.
Thank you for making a complete embarrassment of yourself. You are completely
groundless in your claims. I dare you to prove it even once. Show us all at least
one person selling sleeping dozens in so many groupings as I have clearly given
away for free. You are so dense that this goes right over your head. Come on now.
Back up at least one of your claims. You don't get the significance of the probability
stats do you?
Quote from: crackers on June 04, 2012, 08:04:22 PM
Thank you for making a complete embarrassment of yourself. You are completely
groundless in your claims.
I said it before and I'll continue to say it. You
can't make a bet in roulette that pays less than the
bet itself, like betting two dozens at once, and
win consistantly. As Gizmo has proven every
time he enters a contest. You don't even have
the edge and you're making a bet that pays you
half when you win? Its folly to pursue such a
strategy.
Quote from: cheese on June 04, 2012, 08:17:26 PM
I said it before and I'll continue to say it. You
can't make a bet in roulette that pays less than the
bet itself, like betting two dozens at once, and
win consistantly. As Gizmo has proven every
time he enters a contest. You don't even have
the edge and you're making a bet that pays you
half when you win? Its folly to pursue such a
strategy.
Great. Two imbiciles for the price of one. I'll say this one last time. Although I
seriously doubt that you will ever do it. Go make your millions now. Anyone
that understands what I just used as mathematical proof will of course need
the brain capacity to deal with 20 individual dozens.
I'm officially done with these gambling forums. I'm going to make a huge impact
the correct way. I'll seek validation in the academic world. Nothing dazzles them
more than turning over centuries of accepted belief. I've had enough fun setting
up the mathboyz and Spike with his followers. You just have to love these
searchable forums. Now make that standard prediction.
Quote from: crackers on June 04, 2012, 09:11:50 PMI'm going to make a huge impact
the correct way. I'll seek validation in the academic world.
You're going to self publish a book nobody will read?
You might as well, you certainly can't convince a
casino that what you do works, all you do is lose.
Quote from: cheese on June 04, 2012, 09:59:00 PM
You're going to self publish a book nobody will read?
You might as well, you certainly can't convince a
casino that what you do works, all you do is lose.
I may not be able to spell but I do know how to defend a dissertation through
a peer review board. I don't have to be a PHD candidate to get real validation.
This is the good stuff. People will ask you and others here why you of all
people couldn't see it. Especially when it was laid right before your feet. This
is your chance to prove how smart and/or knowledgeable any of you are.
Prove me wrong while you think you have a chance.
Quote from: crackers on June 04, 2012, 10:50:46 PM
This
is your chance to prove how smart and/or knowledgeable any of you are.
Prove me wrong while you think you have a chance.
Prove that following 20 sets of dozens in a real casino
is way more work than its worth? I think you've already
convinced us of that. You think you're the first one to
come up with this brain fart? I looked into it and rejected
it 6 years ago. But then, I'm not a genius like you.
Two more points on the IQ scale and you'd be retarded.
Quote from: cheese on June 04, 2012, 11:58:18 PM
Prove that following 20 sets of dozens in a real casino
is way more work than its worth? I think you've already
convinced us of that. You think you're the first one to
come up with this brain fart? I looked into it and rejected
it 6 years ago. But then, I'm not a genius like you.
Here's an easy one on the Richter scale:
What comes after 69?
G'day,
I don't know about the Richter scale,
but on the Glenn scale it's usually intercourse,
followed by killing whatever the animal is.
Glenn.
Mouthwash
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on June 05, 2012, 02:21:28 AM
G'day,
I don't know about the Richter scale,
but on the Glenn scale it's usually intercourse,
followed by killing whatever the animal is.
Glenn.
So Glenn, we havin' another BBQ at your place are we? :lol:
G'day Bombus,
I don't always eat them afterwards, ie: canetoads when visiting far North Queensland!
Yes Robeenhutt, mouthwash and a shower when I'm finished.
Glenn.
No dessert before mouthwash?
G'day Carpanta,
Sometimes I might have some apple pie,
just to clean out the pipes,
I give it a big squirt of the white stuff,
cream it in the centre!
Glenn.
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on June 05, 2012, 05:20:34 AM
G'day Carpanta,
Sometimes I might have some apple pie,
just to clean out the pipes,
I give it a big squirt of the white stuff,
cream it in the centre!
Glenn.
G'day Glenn
This is almost as much fun as "crackers vs cheese" :yahoo:
Matthew
G'day Robeenhutt,
I could have some crackers and cheese
with a little whine (white wine)
for supper, when I've refilled!
Glenn.
After 69 comes 71.
N.D.
Quote from: Nathan Detroit on June 04, 2012, 03:40:03 PM
If there are wheels with a "tilt" then you might find them in Lower Slobbovania where casinos are still being operated by trolls.
Give `em my best regards when you get there.
N.D.
If you knew what you was talking about, you would realise almost all wheels have a tilt. It is quite rare to encounter a perfectly level wheel.
Quote from: crackers on June 04, 2012, 01:33:50 PM
Wow, there's still wheel bias hold outs. Snowman would love that. "Never say die."
The laws of physics having been perfected years ago by real experts determined that the
very best known opportunities of wheel bias produces a 6 in 100 advantage. That means
that if these excellent conditions where to be present then that would improve the chances
of a sleeping dozen in at least 10 of my tracked groupings of dozens. So from the randomness side of the forum, I love it too.
Dopey. Wheel bias does not integrate with outside bets. With such a ridiculous statement, it clearly tells me you don't even know the meaning of Wheel bias. Some people just don't have a clue. I look at the wheel, not the table unlike most people on this forum.
Quote from: cheese on June 04, 2012, 05:26:38 PM
If its a biased wheel, the results are not random. But thats
a very rare case these days. To say nothing in roulette is
random is patently ridiculous. Only someone with no knowledge
of random at all would make such a foolish statement.
Wheel bias is not rare.... Its just that most casinos now have the software to detect it. So by the time its been found, the wheel would off been recalibrated.
Lol you are correct, i don't have any knowledge in random, and do you know why :D? Because roulette is not random :biggrin:
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 05, 2012, 07:38:07 PM
Dopey. Wheel bias does not integrate with outside bets. With such a ridiculous statement, it clearly tells me you don't even know the meaning of Wheel bias. Some people just don't have a clue. I look at the wheel, not the table unlike most people on this forum.
You are the dope. Ten of my dozens are based on the wheel layout and not the
table layout. You are a classic idiot. You don't know shit so put a cork in it. And
this too fool. You don't know about the natural temporary randomness that acts
like wheel bias. So that makes you a dope to your own expertise two times
over. Get out of my face stupid.
dont worry. be happy. winners are grinners.
Quote from: Rdick on June 05, 2012, 07:59:53 PM
YES get out of his stupid face.
Great, we have another comment from the proxied pissant.
Quote from: crackers on June 05, 2012, 07:53:01 PM
You are the dope. Ten of my dozens are based on the wheel layout and not the
table layout. You are a classic idiot. You don't know shit so put a cork in it. And
this too fool. You don't know about the natural temporary randomness that acts
like wheel bias. So that makes you a dope to your own expertise two times
over. Get out of my face stupid.
Well not really. Again how can i put it, roulette is not random. My head hurts.
ND was right. This is pointless.
Quote from: crackers on June 05, 2012, 08:34:14 PM
ND was right. This is pointless.
Age is irrelevant. All that ever matters is discovering the real true facts, early age or not. The reality is im laughing at you :) Because guys like you spent there whole life trying to beat this game or believing they can beat it with some stupid colum/dozen system. Where as me, i spent a few years trying to find out what was what, and i found out...
You are in your sixties... and i am in my twentys hahah :biggrin: Who's the fool? You my friend.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 05, 2012, 08:30:21 PM
Well not really. Again how can I put it, roulette is not random. My head hurts.
Saying roulette is not random is meaningless without proof.
I know for a FACT that its random because I cannot beat
non random results. You can't beat either random or non
random so your opinion means nothing.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 05, 2012, 08:42:19 PM
I spent a few years trying to find out what was what, and I found out...
You haven't found shit. You're in your 20's? I would have
thought you were still in grade school from the quality of
your posts and the constant insults you hurl at everybody
here.
Quote from: cheese on June 05, 2012, 10:24:36 PM
Saying roulette is not random is meaningless without proof.
I know for a FACT that its random because I cannot beat
non random results. You can't beat either random or non
random so your opinion means nothing.
Correction - YOU cant, but others can. But yes i agree on that random result cant be beaten. That's obvious! to say the least.
There is a great difference between opinion and fact. Your following statement is an opinion, where as my post are facts.
It is not my problem that people cant be bothered to do there own research or ad least look at what is put in front of them.
"Without proof" Well how many times have I posted here about advantage play? Honestly, do you think im making it all up for the fun of it? If you don't want to take my word for it then all I can suggest is do your own research. I know you won't, but will continue to ask for proof etc. That's plain ignorant.
Quote from: cheese on June 05, 2012, 10:28:17 PM
You haven't found shit. You're in your 20's? I would have
thought you were still in grade school from the quality of
your posts and the constant insults you hurl at everybody
here.
Hey, i am not the one who spends my life on forums posting invalid bullshit that means nothing! My posts actually mean something, they are facts, weather you believe it or not.
I do not wish to hurl at anybody, but it seems when i post facts, i get attacked for it. All you care about is your pride and how you want to be seen as the roulette king. The truth is irrelevant to you. When i say that roulette is not random, this goes against your method, so you panic and post a load of useless invalid information that means nothing.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 05, 2012, 11:57:56 PM
I do not wish to hurl at anybody, but it seems when I post facts,
Oops, gotcha. I actually took the time and read
90% of your 400 posts and I never saw any
facts at all. Just statements without anything
to back them up and lots and I mean LOTS
of personal attacks when somebody disagrees
with you.
Lets have some of those 'facts' you say you
presented. You do know the difference between fact
and opinion, right?
Quote from: cheese on June 06, 2012, 12:27:36 AM
Oops, gotcha. I actually took the time and read
90% of your 400 posts and I never saw any
facts at all. Just statements without anything
to back them up and lots and I mean LOTS
of personal attacks when somebody disagrees
with you.
Lets have some of those 'facts' you say you
presented. You do know the difference between fact
and opinion, right?
Sure, here you go :
-1873 - A guy called
Joseph Jagger's recorded the outcome of spins with the help of 6 clerks on 6 roulette wheels.
Basically, he discovered on ONE of the SIX wheels, there was a clear bias to be exploited. He took the Monte Carlo for over 100 K - Hence the song "The man to break the bank at Monte Carlo" He established 9 bias numbers.
-1990 - Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo an ex music producer, one night sat at a roulette wheel and noticed roulette was not as random as he thought it was. Gonzalo and he's family sat around 4-5 roulette wheels in casino madrid. For 2 weeks they all collected data from each wheel. Gonzalo then inputted ALL the data into a basic computer program.
The results concluded there was a very strong bias on one of the wheels. A man of the arts who knew nothing about roulette, simply stumbled across this and reached for what was to be thought impossible.
Gonzalo and he's team, kept winning and winning until the casino banned them. How ever the court ordered that the casino had to let them play. So in the end the casino took apart each wheel and managed to kill the bias. The team then moved on and did the exact same thing all over the world.
If you want to watch the do cumentry, here it is : Breaking Vegas - The Roulette Assault 01 (nolinks://nolinks.youtube.com/watch?v=cs9zcWGurJU#)
-2004 - The Ritz team who smashed it over 2 nights when using a roulette device to predict the outcome of a spin. Here is a short documentary about this here nolinks://nolinks.mediafire.com/?z5d4oj385qp0qpb
The team predicted the area of where the ball would land, and placed 5 numbers on that area.
I just gave TWO examples of factual methods of how to beat the game. There are other variants.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 06, 2012, 01:08:48 AM
I just gave TWO examples of factual methods of how to beat the game. There are other variants.
From these two examples of biased wheels, and using a roulette
computer, you've come to the conclusion that roulette is not a random game?
I don't mean to be insulting, but, are you insane? Seriously dude,
do some research. I can't believe I wasted this much time on a 6th
grade dropout. Never mind..........
2006 The notorious " Roulette King" within 6 weeks lost his EURO 2.6 million winnings from that same year at the roulette table in Monte Carlo ,Monaco. He too entertained the notion that he could outsmart the wheels at a casino. Fortuna had the last laugh because she is fickle and soon asks back what she has given..............................
That`s NOT ancient history but recent facts.
N.D.
P.S. This cat was an inside player.
-2004 - The Ritz team who smashed it over 2 nights when using a roulette device to predict the outcome of a spin. Here is a short documentary about this here nolinks://nolinks.mediafire.com/?z5d4oj385qp0qpb
The team predicted the area of where the ball would land, and placed 5 numbers on that area.
[/quote]
There was no roulette device involved but genius Niko Tosha whom I assist
in many games from 2003-2007 around EU casinos.To end the story,ever since 2008 he/we/
couldn't find suitable wheel to play in EU any more..Went to Russia,ex Russian countries,Macao and finally in Australia...lost all previous wins and last I heard of him that he went broke Down under.....which assures me today there is no place for VB players any longer.
The same is happening to the old guard of VB players at the Berlin , Germany casinos. This from a Danish VLS poster who stated that those guys are losing their shirt whille the younger ones who could be their sons are doing realtively well..
N.D.
Quote from: cheese on June 06, 2012, 04:22:38 AM
From these two examples of biased wheels, and using a roulette
computer, you've come to the conclusion that roulette is not a random game?
I don't mean to be insulting, but, are you insane? Seriously dude,
do some research. I can't believe I wasted this much time on a 6th
grade dropout. Never mind..........
Lol and what a surprise, you have an answer for everything even though you are stone dead wrong... What is it you say? "
WISING UP A CHUMP IS A WASTE OF TIME AND IT JUST ANNOYS HIM ANYWAY" How rich from the man himself.
Please...
Lol you cant be serious. Wtf really? haha you must be trolling or just trying to piss me off. Cmon, no one can be this stupid. It is not possible to beat and take advantage of something that is random.. Biased wheel, that's random? LOL do you even know what a biased wheel is? If you did, you would understand very easily that roulette is not random. Ofcourse it is not.
Quote from cheese"From these two examples of biased wheels, and using a roulette
computer, you've come to the conclusion that roulette is not a random game"Yes! No s**t, of course that's what I am saying. Is that not obvious..? Do you really need me to tell you that?. A biased wheel, the ball is landing in certain pockets more than probability dictates. HOW IS THAT RANDOM???? ITS NOT IS IT. Biased is exactly what it is, BIASED. So how do you come to a conclusion that the results are still random on a biased wheel? :biggrin: You just confirmed you don't even understand what a biased wheel is.
Without wheel bias, the game is still not random, of course it is not. Remember what I said about tilted wheels and dominant diamonds? Do you think roulette is random when you can clearly see a dominant drop zone? You just don't seem to understand this and a lot of people don't. What seems to be obvious for some people, is just not for others. But I suppose you have not been told what to evaluate to realise that roulette is not random, how ever this is your own problem for not doing any proper valid research. But really, your current statement is just ridiculous.
There is no such thing as random, every event around us happens for a reason. You obviosly do not know anything in what you are talking about. You are about as bright as an eclipse :biggrin:, and this is the guy who is tellin me to do research :biggrin:
If you are really serious in what you just said, then there is nothing more I can say to you.
Oh and no you are not insulting me, I find there are many people like you in this industry, so I am used to it by now. Ignorant, clueless fools who insist they know best.
But the best so far is you cheese, the guy who thinks a biased wheel gives out random results. Brillient :biggrin:
I have nothing more to comment, everything is all very clear, you simply don't even have the basic knowledge of how roulette works. I know that is there is nothing more I can possibly say to you that will change your views. Its like trying to melt chocolate in a fridge, ITS JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
As you don't even understand the basics of roulette, I suggest you start here : nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv
Quote from: mcmonaco on June 06, 2012, 10:28:09 AM
-2004 - The Ritz team who smashed it over 2 nights when using a roulette device to predict the outcome of a spin. Here is a short documentary about this here ritz.wmv (nolinks://nolinks.mediafire.com/?z5d4oj385qp0qpb)
The team predicted the area of where the ball would land, and placed 5 numbers on that area.
There was no roulette device involved but genius Niko Tosha whom I assist
in many games from 2003-2007 around EU casinos.To end the story,ever since 2008 he/we/
couldn't find suitable wheel to play in EU any more..Went to Russia,ex Russian countries,Macao and finally in Australia...lost all previous wins and last I heard of him that he went broke Down under.....which assures me today there is no place for VB players any longer.
Thanks, but its all irrelevant as its not the point I am trying to make here.
Ahh yeh, and that guy who assured you that VB players don't exist? He is either clueless or simply just just lieing to you. Its like saying computer players don't exist... Well anyway, like I said in old POSTS. Virtually predicting where the ball is going to land is easy enough. Your main efforts are staying on top of your conditions, ie focusing on the ball scatter on different rotor speeds. So how far is the ball landing from your visual prediction?
What a joy. Why is it that Wheel Bias Fundamentalists always go on like they
are so sure they are right. Snowman must be the xxxxxxxxxxxx that
ever visited a casino. Now we have this new guy here. He's just like the snowball
himself. What are chances that two guys have the very same affliction?
@Crackers >> Although I agree with you 100%, you have to tone down the language a bit, sorry man.
Ken
Right you are Ken. Man - with x's like that I'm on a win streak.
Do what I've been doing for 18 months or so.......you dont need approval from anyone if you are doing 'well' with this game. 'F' it, who cares?
I merrily go about my casino business regardless of...."you cant win". Who has the time for all the arguing?
My results stay the SAME if I have people ripping on me AND if I have people on my side......SAME RESULTS.
Ken
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 09, 2012, 11:50:12 PM
There is no such thing as random, every event around us happens for a reason.
Probably the funniest thing I've ever read on a gambling forum.
Don't worry, when you get to Jr High and start wearing long pants
and stop calling your mother 'mommy', a whole new world will open
up for you. Until then you're on my ignore list. Buh Bye..
ReDsQuaD
Could you elaborate bit on this: There is no such thing as random, every event around us happens for a reason.
When the ball lands in pocket 36, there is a reason?
Sam
Sam ,
There certainly is a reason why the ball drops into pocket # 36............................BECAUSE IT`S THERE !
N>D>
Quote from: TwoCatSam on June 10, 2012, 10:12:23 AM
ReDsQuaD
Could you elaborate bit on this: There is no such thing as random, every event around us happens for a reason.
When the ball lands in pocket 36, there is a reason?
Sam
Yes of course there is a reason. But of course there many different variable's. Lets take the rotor speed for an example. Lets say the dealer was spinning the rotor in the speed of 4-5 seconds per revolution for 50 spins. In those 50 spins we can identify roughly where the ball is going to land from our
visual/initial prediction. If the dealer is spinning random rotor speeds, then it can get more difficult to determined where our edge is, but of course there are ways to deal with this. But anyway lets keep this as simple as possible.
One thing to note, the number of spins to determined where our edge is, can vary on different wheels and different conditions etc. Some wheels it could be 10 spins, others 50. It just all boils down to the conditions of the wheel.So the first thing we must do, is our
visual prediction. To do this, we measure the speed and deceleration of the wheel to produce predictions.
Our next and most important part, is to determined how the far the ball is landing from our visual prediction
(initial prediction). When the ball drops, it can do either roll around the rotor, hit a diamond, bounce around or just plonk straight into the
visual prediction pocketSo in 50 spins with the rotor at 4-5 seconds per revolution, we must identify roughly how far the ball is landing from our
initial prediction. So say our
visual/initial prediction was 0, and the ball landed on 2, that's 6 pockets away from our
initial prediction. Our next spin, our
initial prediction is 6, the ball lands on 10, that's 8 pockets away from our
initial prediction. So if after 50 or so spins, the ball has landed around 6 pockets left of our
initial predction and 11 pockets right of our
initial prediction, we now know where our edge is. So from this, we now know where to place our bets as we have solid data showing how far the ball is
consistanly landing from our
initial prediction. Scatter is of course different on al wheels. All we ever want and need, is
predictable ball scatter. Some wheels the scatter can be a mess and therefore it would just be better to avoid it and go find an easier wheel to beat.
On this screenshot below, this is what our scatter chart could look like after 50 spins or so on an average easy wheel. We can see 0 is our
initial prediction (blue). The
yellow segments represents our betting area, its the pockets that show how far the ball has been
consistently landing in from our
initial prediction. So thats 6 pockets left of our
initial prediction, and 11 pockets Right of our
initial prediction. The
white segments just represent other pockets that have been hit, but are not consistent enough to cover, but remember all we ever focus on is the pockets that the ball has
consistently been landing in. But as you can see we already have a clear edge. So consider the white segments as a loss as we are not covering that inactive area. We only cover the most active area, and that's the yellow segments.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi49.tinypic.com%2F2gy0mww.png&hash=e9234dc7d13a6f4cead802b3533b148e9e0e7f4a)
So our next prediction is 29, again we are covering 6 pockets right and 11 pockets left our of
initial prediction. etc etc.
With this info, we now know where to place our bets and therefore have an edge over the 2.7%. Covering 15 numbers is considered to be a big edge. All you ever need is a small edge to overcome there edge.
Every wheel obviously gives out totally different scatter. And again the scatter can totally change on different rotor speeds. Anyhow,
this is how roulette is beaten, increasing the accuracy of predictions!Its not possible to determined the exact pocket the will land in, but again we have that data that shows over 50 or so spins where the ball has
consistently been landing. So the concept is to bet 15 numbers on the area where the ball has been
consistantly landing in from our
initial prediction. To determine how many numbers to cover, just all depends on what the scatter looks like. When a new dealer comes along and spins a totally different rotor speed, then the scatter in most cases will be different. Therefore new analysis for that rotor speed. On some wheels, the scatter could remain the same regardless of any rotor speed. We also have to account for ball speed, but again I am just trying to keep this simple.
So the answer to your question, the ball lands in that pocket for a reason because of the momentum of the ball on that current rotor speed. This is just a basic explanation. You are best to contact Steve for more accurate reasons.
But that's why there is no such thing as random in roulette, everything is all about the physics of the wheel. Rotor speed is one of the most important factor to account for. In most cases different rotor speeds = different scatter. From this, you should be able to work out that roulette is not random.
What may appear to look confusing, once understood its really very simple. Just visit the link in my sig if you are unsure of anything.
Quote from: cheese on June 10, 2012, 03:08:31 AM
Probably the funniest thing I've ever read on a gambling forum.
Don't worry, when you get to Jr High and start wearing long pants
and stop calling your mother 'mommy', a whole new world will open
up for you. Until then you're on my ignore list. Buh Bye..
And that's your best defence? Not even relevant to roulette and what i was saying. You see, you cannot argue against me, you simply don't have the knowledge to argue! And again, facts cannot be argued.
Wake the f**k up.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 10, 2012, 03:03:40 PM
And that's your best defence? Not even relevant to roulette and what I was saying. You see, you cannot argue against me, you simply don't have the knowledge to argue!
Let's see if you can deal with real scientific facts. I created a real world based RNG based
on the physics that is used to make prediction computers. Now I didn't use the actual
math formula. I used codebook type tables for velocity & size of ball combinations. Add to
that the human factor. It is impossible for a trained musician to keep perfect time. I know.
It is impossible to get accuracy from a dealer. It only takes a few milliseconds to make a
ball leave a sector on the wheel. With the modern wheels its virtually impossible now to
make a milliseconds guess that makes an accurate difference. So I programmed my real
world RNG to see if it could stand up to a large number test. Guess what? It's random.
Guess what else. So are the wheels at Weisbaton Germany. A wheel is nothing more than
a physical based RNG.
Quote from: crackers on June 10, 2012, 03:59:21 PM
Let's see if you can deal with real scientific facts..
They are scientific facts lol. If you did your proper research like I advised, you would realise.
So are the wheels at Weisbaton Germany.
Huh? What does wheels in germany have to do with anything?
Gizmo, the only options left I have in my mind to why you cannot understand something that is so simple -
You are either : To dumb, to old that your brain is just not capable of taking in easy enough information, biased to your own system that is based on random :blink: Or you know what I am saying is valid, but again the truth is not relevant to you, because you spent your whole life believing in this random nonsense, therefore biased and slate people who say roulette is not random.
Ill properly go with the last option.
Oh yes. Gizmo, one last thing, I asked the same thing to your best friend Cheese, but he was incapable of answering. You know what a biased wheel is right? If you don't, a biased wheel : The ball is landing in certain pockets more than probability dictates. OK, basic answer but easy enough to understand, even for you. So please answer me this. HOW IS A ROULETTE WHEEL A physical based RNG when you encounter a biased wheel???
You total clown :lol:
Yes, roulette is not random regardless of any method, I am just trying to make this example as simple as possible for you as you couldn't seem to understand what i said about Visual ballistics.
Bit of a sweeping statement to say that Roulette is not random. Obviously, the game (as opposed to the wheel - the physical device) IS random because it's defined that way. The ball has an equal chance of landing in each slot on a fair wheel. Wheels can be biased, in which case you don't have a random game anymore, but even Steve doesn't claim that every wheel can be beaten. If I remember rightly it's somewhere below 50%.
In any case it's confusing to say that something is random, because random depends on what you know. Something which seems random to the average punter may not be to an expert wheel clocker.
Like Ken says, there's no point in arguing. Anyway There are no successful VB
players without the use of a very well built computer device to assist them. The
best part is that you think you can do it. So you get to spend your money finding
out.
Quote from: crackers on June 10, 2012, 05:41:15 PM
Like Ken says, there's no point in arguing. Anyway There are no successful VB
players without the use of a very well built computer device to assist them. The
best part is that you think you can do it. So you get to spend your money finding
out.
And as i thought, you could not answer me.
Yes indeed, you cannot argue facts. You can apply VB quite easily without a computer, its simply just more work recording data manually where as a computer device you have automatic charts built. Not that you would no, but yes using a computer is more accurate. Anyway, do you honestly think you are in any position to comment about VB and computer devices? You don't even understand the basics...
You don't need to spend money to find the facts, you just need to spend your hard efforts.
Quote from: Bayes on June 10, 2012, 05:37:19 PM
Bit of a sweeping statement to say that Roulette is not random. Obviously, the game (as opposed to the wheel - the physical device) IS random because it's defined that way. The ball has an equal chance of landing in each slot on a fair wheel. Wheels can be biased, in which case you don't have a random game anymore, but even Steve doesn't claim that every wheel can be beaten. If I remember rightly it's somewhere below 50%.
No no, i think you mean 50% of the worlds regions computer play is legal.
In any case it's confusing to say that something is random, because random depends on what you know. Something which seems random to the average punter may not be to an expert wheel clocker.
Mission accomplished. Who says I wanted to answer you. I wanted you
to claim what you just ended up claiming. Now you have to own it.
Thanks
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 10, 2012, 05:53:50 PM
And as I thought, you could not answer me.
Yes indeed, you cannot argue facts. You can apply VB quite easily without a computer, its simply just more work recording data manually where as a computer device you have automatic charts built. Not that you would no, but yes using a computer is more accurate. Anyway, do you honestly think you are in any position to comment about VB and computer devices? You don't even understand the basics...
You don't need to spend money to find the facts, you just need to spend your hard efforts.
QuoteNo no, I think you mean 50% of the worlds regions computer play is legal.
This is what Steve says in his FAQ -
Quote19. What percentage of wheels can be beaten?
There is a difference between a wheel beating beatable, and being practical to beat. Virtually every wheel (95%) is beatable with one or another with the techniques I teach you. Very rarely will a wheel be "completely unbeatable". However, it is prudent to focus on wheels that are easiest to beat. Generally about 20-50% of wheels are both beatable and 'practical' to beat. An example of what may make a wheel "impractical" to beat is perhaps the wheel may only spin once every 5 minutes, which is too infrequent for practical play.
Ok thanks but what you stated was this : " but even Steve doesn't claim that every wheel can be beaten. If I remember rightly it's somewhere below 50%"
This is invalid, its 95% not 50% which is why i knew that percentage was incorrect.
Quote from: crackers on June 10, 2012, 06:53:47 PM
Mission accomplished. Who says I wanted to answer you. I wanted you
to claim what you just ended up claiming. Now you have to own it.
Thanks
You could not answer even if you wanted too :)
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 11, 2012, 09:17:10 AM
Ok thanks but what you stated was this : " but even Steve doesn't claim that every wheel can be beaten. If I remember rightly it's somewhere below 50%"
This is invalid, its 95% not 50% which is why I knew that percentage was incorrect.
Well, I don't see the point in making the distinction between wheels which are 'beatable' and those which are 'practical' to beat. If it isn't practical to beat then it's as good as random, so the 95% figure is purely theoretical. You could say the same thing about dice in the game of Craps. Which side lands uppermost on dice is just as much dependent on physics as where the ball ends up in a roulette wheel, so perhaps Craps isn't a random game either?
The fact is, roulette is extremely sensitive to initial conditions, it's chaotic, so 'in practice' you can't get good predictions without there being significant bias present in the wheel, and Casinos work very hard to eliminate such bias or at least prevent the punters from taking any advantage of it.
Quote from: Bayes on June 11, 2012, 09:57:11 AM
Well, I don't see the point in making the distinction between wheels which are 'beatable' and those which are 'practical' to beat. If it isn't practical to beat then it's as good as random, so the 95% figure is purely theoretical. You could say the same thing about dice in the game of Craps. Which side lands uppermost on dice is just as much dependent on physics as where the ball ends up in a roulette wheel, so perhaps Craps isn't a random game either?
The fact is, roulette is extremely sensitive to initial conditions, it's chaotic, so 'in practice' you can't get good predictions without there being significant bias present in the wheel, and Casinos work very hard to eliminate such bias or at least prevent the punters from taking any advantage of it.
If a wheel is not practical to beat, it does not mean its random. No roulette wheel in the world is random.
A non practical wheel could be a non practical wheel for many reasons. One example could be, if you are using the Lite computer. The lite computer cannot possibly deal with all wheel conditions, where as the Uber can with the advanced settings.
Also, to produce predictions on a wheel, there does not have to be any form of bias... As long as there predictable ball scatter, that's all that matters. Visual ballistics and Bias are totally different variants.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 11, 2012, 09:18:41 AM
You could not answer even if you wanted too :)
Wow, son of Snowman or son of Sam. When will VB die?
That's right. It died two years ago.
Randomness Effectiveness Versus Visual Ballistics Effectiveness in General Board - Page 1 (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/general-board/14/randomness-effectiveness-versus-visual-ballistics-effectiveness/16033/)
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 11, 2012, 10:14:47 AM
No roulette wheel in the world is random.
So let me get this right, you're saying you could walk up to ANY roulette wheel in the world and be confident you can predict better than expectation where the ball will land? :blink:
What about the 5% of wheels that are NOT beatable, according to Steve?
Just look at where ReD was just two years ago.
" Hi. My name is james, I am from the UK. About june last year I fell into the most commonly known scam online (The famous martinfale) as I like to call it, When I realised it you would finally hit 22 reds and reaching the table max, then realised that Roulette was over. I could not give up so I moved on ..."
Quote from: Bayes on June 11, 2012, 11:46:12 AM
So let me get this right, you're saying you could walk up to ANY roulette wheel in the world and be confident you can predict better than expectation where the ball will land? :blink:
What about the 5% of wheels that are NOT beatable, according to Steve?
Look in my previous post and you will see I never suggested this. I am trying to say that no roulette wheel is random. If the scatter is not in a predictable fashion, you are just best to seek another wheel.
Red
Thank you for your well-written explanation. It gives me food for thought.
Sam
Quote from: crackers on June 11, 2012, 11:13:35 AM
Wow, son of Snowman or son of Sam. When will VB die?
That's right. It died two years ago.
Randomness Effectiveness Versus Visual Ballistics Effectiveness in General Board - Page 1 (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/general-board/14/randomness-effectiveness-versus-visual-ballistics-effectiveness/16033/)
Your brain died two years ago. :biggrin:
Quote from: crackers on June 11, 2012, 11:49:33 AM
Just look at where ReD was just two years ago.
" Hi. My name is james, I am from the UK. About june last year I fell into the most commonly known scam online (The famous martinfale) as I like to call it, When I realised it you would finally hit 22 reds and reaching the table max, then realised that Roulette was over. I could not give up so I moved on ..."
I stand by 100% what I said.
You are making out that it takes years and years to discover how to beat roulette. Maybe for you, trouble is you still haven't :biggrin:
Is it really that hard to believe that 2 years ago I was clueless, and now... In fact it took 1 year to learn what I know and there is still a lot more to learn. Remember I was going to be one of your students but wanted to charge me for your time which is fair enough. I am glad I never gave you a penny as it would of been a total waste :biggrin:
WOW! LUCKED OUT ON THAT ONE.
So you are an expert AP guy in just one year are you? The real experts in the heyday
of that expertise took years to acquire that level. You must really be gifted.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 11, 2012, 12:24:20 PM
Is it really that hard to believe that 2 years ago I was clueless, and now... In fact it took 1 year to learn what I know and there is still a lot more to learn. Remember I was going to be one of your students but wanted to charge me for your time which is fair enough. I am glad I never gave you a penny as it would of been a total waste :biggrin:
Quote from: crackers on June 11, 2012, 12:41:03 PM
WOW! LUCKED OUT ON THAT ONE.
So you are an expert AP guy in just one year are you? The real experts in the heyday
of that expertise took years to acquire that level. You must really be gifted.
Negative. You need to be able to accept criticism and to learn from your mistakes and accept what people tell you, digg deeper to find out for your self weather its true or not. If you cannot be bothered to do this and just chuck the info back in their face, then just expect to go round in circles.
There are a lot of short sighted people in this world, just ignorant and refuse to listen. I've said it before and ill say it again, i'm glad i am not one of them.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on June 11, 2012, 12:15:37 PM
Red
Thank you for your well-written explanation. It gives me food for thought.
Sam
You are most welcome Sam.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 11, 2012, 12:56:47 PM
Negative. You need to be able to accept criticism and to learn from your mistakes and accept what people tell you, digg deeper to find out for your self weather its true or not. If you cannot be bothered to do this and just chuck the info back in their face, then just expect to go round in circles.
There are a lot of short sighted people in this world, just ignorant and refuse to listen. I've said it before and ill say it again, I'm glad I am not one of them.
Thanks for the laugh. Does pot kettle black ever come into it?
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 11, 2012, 12:12:27 PM
Look in my previous post and you will I never suggested this. I am trying to say that no roulette wheel is random. If the scatter is not in a predictable fashion, you are just best to seek another wheel.
I think one reason why there are so many arguments around this subject is that there is no agreed understanding about what "random" means. It's a tricky concept and there's a long history of disputes about the interpretation of random. To me it seems clear that "random" is not a property of the wheel (or any object) in the sense that it "has" that property in the same way that it has the property of being round or having 37 pockets, because "random" only means something in relation to knowledge. The wheel will still have 37 pockets even if I've never seen it, but it's meaningless to say it's "random" without referring to something I have in relation to the wheel, it's not simply about the wheel itself.
If I try to predict where the ball will land and I can't do any better than pure chance (in other words if my results conform to the normal distribution), then I say the wheel is random, but if I do better than chance I say it isn't random. Furthermore, someone else (who maybe has a roulette computer) might be able to make better predictions than I do so in that sense the wheel is less random to them. But if random is something objective, something which belongs to the wheel, as it were, then it should have the same degree of randomness for everyone, which it clearly doesn't. That's why it seems nonsense to me when Spike and Gizmo talk about "reading random", because it's just a contradiction in terms. To say something is random means that you're admitting you don't have any knowledge or understanding of how or why the phenomena occurs, so to say that you can "read random" means "I have knowledge and understanding of something of which I have no knowledge and understanding" - ie: gibberish. :girl_wacko:
Similarly, you saying that if the "scatter is not predictable" and yet insisting that the wheel is, nevertheless, not random seems to me to be the same kind of meaningless statement. Why not just say, in those situations where the scatter is unpredictable, that the wheel is random?
Bayes, i thnk you need to do some proper research into why roulette is not random. I am getting bored of repeating my self over and over again.
If the ball scatter does not appear to be predictable, you simply just have to do more spins. No matter what though, there is always predictable behaviour, its just going to take even longer to find it.. But again, you are just best to seek an easier wheel to beat.
I would not feel comfortable taking loads and loads of data to establish the main variable's to have an edge on that wheel, mainly because by the time I am finished and have the data I need to start betting, the conditions could of changed, ie the ball. This is not conmen but of course it can happen.
Bayes - " To say something is random means that you're admitting you don't have any knowledge or understanding of how or why the phenomena occurs, so to say that you can "read random" means "I have knowledge and understanding of something of which I have no knowledge and understanding" - ie: gibberish."
"Reading Randomness" is a metaphore, an acceptable form of communication.
It would work as well as reading features or reading form. Others have debated
whether or not that randomness has form or if it has features. The number one
topic of a type of form or feature of randomness is the pattern. That is a long
debated topic outside the world of gambling. It is a big task taking on the world
with accusations of it conspiring to commit gibberish. Go ahead Bayes.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 11, 2012, 01:42:25 PM
Bayes, I thnk you need to do some proper research into why roulette is not random. I am getting bored of repeating my self over and over again.
If the ball scatter does not appear to be predictable, you simply just have to do more spins. No matter what though, there is always predictable behaviour, its just going to take even longer to find it.. But again, you are just best to seek an easier wheel to beat.
I would not feel comfortable taking loads and loads of data to establish the main variable's to have an edge on that wheel, mainly because by the time I am finished and have the data I need to start betting, the conditions could of changed, ie the ball. This is not conmen but of course it can happen.
No, you're missing the point. It's not about doing more research, and it's a cop-out to say that you just need more data if the current data is inconclusive. The fact that the conditions might have changed means you can never be certain that the conditions won't change when you're betting, there is no guarantee that the current nonrandom state of the wheel won't change at any time, which is just to say that the wheel is in fact, random. I'm not saying that there aren't conditions where you can be pretty certain the nonrandomness will continue, but those conditions only arise in situations where the wheel is biased. To say that bias isn't necessary in order to get an edge is just absurd. To use one of your favourite phrases, you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: crackers on June 11, 2012, 02:13:56 PM
"Reading Randomness" is a metaphore, an acceptable form of communication.
It would work as well as reading features or reading form.
Ok, well maybe I'm nit-picking, but that's the philosopher in me. :blush2:
"reading form", I like that.
Quote from: Bayes on June 11, 2012, 03:17:09 PM
"reading form", I like that.
It's not mine. Some other man's comment.
Quote from: Bayes on June 11, 2012, 02:51:19 PM
To use one of your favourite phrases, you don't know what you're talking about.
The first (and only) thing to keep in mind when reading
a post by RedSquash is he's a fricking kid, he's been looking at roulette for a really short
amount of time.
Quote from: Bayes on June 11, 2012, 01:15:39 PM
To say something is random means that you're admitting you don't have any knowledge or understanding of how or why the phenomena occurs
This is something we discussed on GG years ago. The problem lies in the interpretation of what random is. There are degrees of random. The purest form we know of comes from decaying radioactive material. That form of random is unreadable, its gibberish. The random we get from a roulette wheel is still random, but its not pure, its diluted. What a computer RNG produces is crap, I don't know what it is, but its not random.
Random is random is too broad a statement. Gold is gold is too broad a statement also. Gold in its natural state varies a lot in purity. A better statement would be, there's gold, and then there's gold. You can't lump all random together as being the same. Pure random is unreadable, watered down random like a coin flip or a roulette wheel is readable, and psuedo random from a computer is just that, psuedo, fake. I don't think we can produce a device that would provide pure random results. They would be useless in gaming anyway.
Quote from: Bayes on June 11, 2012, 02:51:19 PM
No, you're missing the point. It's not about doing more research, and it's a cop-out to say that you just need more data if the current data is inconclusive. The fact that the conditions might have changed means you can never be certain that the conditions won't change when you're betting, there is no guarantee that the current nonrandom state of the wheel won't change at any time, which is just to say that the wheel is in fact, random. I'm not saying that there aren't conditions where you can be pretty certain the nonrandomness will continue, but those conditions only arise in situations where the wheel is biased. To say that bias isn't necessary in order to get an edge is just absurd. To use one of your favourite phrases, you don't know what you're talking about.
With respect, this is true. Again you just confirmed it.
Do you not understand that Bias and VB are two different variants? You do not need a biased wheel to produce predictions. How hard is to understand this? f**k. Its quite rare you will even find biased wheels any more.
Bayes awsner me this. Simply, why do you need a biased wheel to use VB?. There totally different things :biggrin: If you don't believe me, ask Steve. Because I cant be bothered to keep arguing with you.
A vls member just messaged me and advised me to give up as people will never change there ways of thinking. I think I agree with him.
"your flogging a dead horse lol
some people will never ever change there way of thinking" Indeed this is correct.
Quote from: cheese on June 11, 2012, 04:06:34 PM
The first (and only) thing to keep in mind when reading
a post by RedSquash is he's a fricking kid, he's been looking at roulette for a really short
amount of time
Hey bro, I thought I was on your ignore list? I smell anger as I destroyed you in front of of everyone here :)
And that's true, I have been looking at roulette for a short time (2 years), does that not ring alarm bells ? I know what I am talking about where as you are as clueless a born baby and spent your entire life on this random nonsense.
I think most people who view this topic, can make up their own mind to who is correct. My statements are valid and factual. The evidence is out there if you do some digging. Unlike me, cheese is talking about beating roulette with randomness.. How could you possibly beat something that has random outcomes?
Ahh yeh, and this is the guy who thinks a biased wheel is random :lol:
Haha :biggrin:
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on June 11, 2012, 04:36:30 PM
Do you not understand that Bias and VB are two different variants? You do not need a biased wheel to produce predictions. How hard is to understand this? f**k. Its quite rare you will even find biased wheels any more.
Bayes awsner me this. Simply, why do you need a biased wheel to use VB?. There totally different things :biggrin: If you don't believe me, ask Steve. Because I cant be bothered to keep arguing with you.
Are you sure you're not a shill for Steve? c'mon, gimme a break. Any VB player with any credibility (Kelly, Snowman, Laurance Scott) will confirm what I've said. I'm not interested in a pissing contest, and I've said my piece, so like you say, let readers make up their own minds.
You tried the martingale and lost, then decided to go down the so-called 'Advantage Play' route. Great, I'm happy for you, but the fact that you lost using the martingale doesn't give you much credibility for pronouncing on other forms of play. Remember, even your hero Steve hasn't dismissed the possibility which YOU are so willing to write off as nonsense.
QuoteHow could you possibly beat something that has random outcomes?
So now the outcomes are random? Thanks, I knew you'd come around. :lol:
Quote from: Bayes on June 11, 2012, 06:32:55 PM
Are you sure you're not a shill for Steve? c'mon, gimme a break. Any VB player with any credibility (Kelly, Snowman, Laurance Scott) will confirm what I've said. I'm not interested in a pissing contest, and I've said my piece, so like you say, let readers make up their own minds.
No, I don't think they would mate. Its about dominant diamond combinations which affect the scatter. Do you actually think to beat a wheel with VB we must locate a wheel bias? Good luck with that. To locate a wheel bias, it can take thousands of spins... To apply VB we do not need thousand of spins.
You tried the martingale and lost, then decided to go down the so-called 'Advantage Play' route. Great, I'm happy for you, but the fact that you lost using the martingale doesn't give you much credibility for pronouncing on other forms of play. Remember, even your hero Steve hasn't dismissed the possibility which YOU are so willing to write off as nonsense.
Oh so your theory is, we are not aloud to learn from our mistakes? Sorry but if we cant learn from mistakes, then how can we move up in life?
So now the outcomes are random? Thanks, I knew you'd come around. :lol:
wtf is going on here? the thread is full of incorrect statements and misconceptions.
To clarify:
* Roulette is only a negative expectation game.... if your predictions are not more accurate than random. Advantage play specifically increases accuracy of prediction. It is called advantage play by the casinos because it gives an advantage. I keep saying it: you can only beat roulette by increasing the accuracy of predictions.
* It is rubbish that roulette cant be beaten. It is a friggen little wheel and ball, subject to physics. Are some saying where the ball will land cant be predicted with any accuracy better than random? Just because you dont know how to do something doesnt mean it isnt being done. Roulette was first beaten a long time ago, and is still being beaten today although it is getting harder - but still not too hard.
* Of course there are still biased wheels around. Every wheel has some bias, but it is usually:
i. not strong enough by itself to overcome the house edge
ii. only present under specific conditions
You will never, never find a perfectly "random" wheel. Download nolinks.genuinewinner.com/bias.exe
I give free bias methods and software away because almost none of my players use bias analysis. It works but is time consuming and impractical, and there are much better ways to beat roulette.
As for snowman, he is more a poser than the professional he wants people to believe. At best, has-been. I know literally hundreds of professional players, and almost none focus on bias analysis. It is just a comparatively poor way to play roulette these days.
* You cant beat roulette with outside bets unless you find a way to actually increase accuracy of predictions. Progression doesnt do it. Progression is nothing more than seperate and different size bets. It is all explained at How to Beat Roulette | How to Win at Roulette Facts and Fiction (nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/truth.html) - a player may think he has an outside betting strategy to beat roulette, but really has just been lucky. Try testing bets on red/black for 10,000 spins. Sometimes you will have profited. Not many people play over 10,000 spins in their life. So a player may have profited in their roulette "career", yet still have a worthless system. If 100 other people applied the same system, 55 would have made an overall loss, and 45 would have made an overall profit. Thats how the house edge works. Does it mean the 45 people had a working system? No, not at all.
* Very rarely do wheels have no significant diamonds dominant. Almost every wheel has a dominant diamond. Most have two clear dominant diamonds. If you have a wheel of your own, even near new, you may know how difficult it is to have no dominant diamonds. Anyone that says otherwise has not checked for themselves. Nothing is ever random. Dominant diamonds are an effect of variables and conditions. They are not random and inevitably lead to "not random" spin results.
* Outside bets generally do not correlate to wheel bias, unless the situation is the biased numbers are mostly black and you bet on black.
* Most people know about the ritz team, the pelayo family etc etc. There is much, much more that goes on that isnt in the media. Roulette is being beaten every day. It is really not that difficult.... unless you bet outside. It is more a matter of finding suitable conditions, and applying appropriate methods to exploit what is predictable.... with at least enough accuracy to overcome the house edge.
* The examples redsquad provided indicate there is reasonablke proof that the wheels involved did produce predictable spins. But the same techniques may not work on another wheels, true. But a good roulette computer may have no problem to beat this other wheel. Why would it be possible?... because the spin is not random. Whatever the technology or technique used, beating roulette is only possible when spins are not random. And they never are.
* Nobody but the ritz team know what they used. Based on what I know, it could have easily been roulette computers or vb. Clearly some form of ballistics. It is not the wheels that makes life harder for vb players now. It is the security and awareness of staff. vb dfor modern conditions requires a lot of skill and intense wheel glaring. But most of all, some transparent behavior. It is more about being covert than beating a wheel in casino conditions, that is assuming you have the skill and knowledge for a given wheel. VB is usually a very basic thing. Start with the free tutorial below:
Free Professional Roulette System That Works | The Real Thing
- YouTube
(nolinks://youtu.be/vNW0hbRmt1A)
But dealing with modern wheels and conditions involves more.
What I did at the public demo nolinks://nolinks.roulettesystemanalysis.com/m/publicdemo.wmv was using a relatively basic ballistic approach with something extra. A very skilled vb player could replicate the results, but team play would be required to have a hope of staying covert. A good computer has many advantages to stay covert. I mean a computer beyond basic nonsense. A new or basic vb player would struggle to get any accuracy unless they got predictions very late.
QuoteWhen the ball lands in pocket 36, there is a reason?
The ball lands where it does because of variables and physical factors like ball speed, ball track, ball material, gravity etc etc. To say an event is "random" is saying the ball lands where it does for no reason at all. It is a simpleton comment to merely say "oh roulette is just random". NOTHING is ever random.
QuoteWith the modern wheels its virtually impossible now to
make a milliseconds guess that makes an accurate difference.
Roulette doesnt work that way. Roulette deals with FULL REVOLUTIONS. For example, the ball can be released at two different speeds: 700ms and 720ms. Thats a 20ms difference. But the ball will still complete say 15 revolutions before it hits a dominant diamond, has the momentum knocked out of it, then the ball falls and bounces with reasonable consistency. So with a ballistic method like vb, do you need to be very accurate with timings? Hell no. You only need to know how many revolutions to go. There is much more to it, but vb is much simpler than most people think. It is not difficult to get an edge. Especially if the wheel has the classic signs of predictable behavior that is familiar to experienced players, you can almost beat the wheel blindfolded. I mean if you said NOW based on ball sound, and someone just told you what number was under a specific diamond at that time, really you could do it blindfolded.
QuoteThe ball has an equal chance of landing in each slot on a fair wheel.
This is incorrect. The ball will land where it does because of the variables. If you can predict the variables and relate it to outcomes, you can predict future outcomes. You cant know or predict all variables, but you dont need to just to overcome a small house edge.
QuoteIn any case it's confusing to say that something is random, because random depends on what you know. Something which seems random to the average punter may not be to an expert wheel clocker.
What one player may perceive as random is not random at all. We see the variance in knowledge affect opinions on every forum. But many people refuse to accept that they dont know everything, and may be wrong. But when people openly admit mistakes and accept the truth, it gains respect because most people dont have the balls to admit they arent gods.
I have more to say but it would probably be going in circles. Money talks, BS walks. I know many people who earn a living from roulette, including myself. We only use methods that are ultimately ballistic / physics in nature. I know many others who have tried to beat roulette other ways, but none that have succeeded except for people who clearly have been lucky, as proper testing of their system reveals. This is not to say beating roulette with outside bets is not possible, just that it is unlikely that anyone has achieved it yet. Certainly nobody has won the challenge at $100k RNG Roulette Challenge (nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/100k.html) but there have been numerous takers, but they never get past the first proper testing part.
ps - everyone can disagree but please keep it civil. for now this is a runaway thread with a few breaches. mods please if you see further breaches from anyone from this point on, please apply temporary bans. the involved members are mostly long term so everyone should know better.
Wow Steve, very nice post. I wasn't sure what to do with this mess, I even thought about locking it. Lots of arguing but......not too bad for now.
Ken
Quote from: crackers on June 10, 2012, 05:41:15 PM
Anyway There are no successful VB players without the use of a very well built computer device to assist them.
I was hoping Steve would have seen this. I don't think that anyone can be an effective VB
player these days. It's too difficult. Please elaborate if you think it is a widespread skill.
Crackers, I know people doing well with vb today so I know it is more than possible. In some casinos, no. In others, yes. But as a whole, on the average wheel today, you will struggle if your vb is very simplistic. And by simplistic I mean just note the reference number when the ball has X revolutions to go, then adjust offset after some sample data. Modern vb needs you to do much more. It is in the area of "too hard for the average person", but everyone has the capacity to learn and be skilled. Like I keep saying though, I'm not a fan of vb. The biggest thing is staying covert. VB behavior is a dead giveaway. If you are going to bet after ball release, just use a computer. But unless the computer is very well made, uses proper undetectable wireless etc, you may as well just use vb.
Quote from: Steve on June 11, 2012, 10:47:18 PM
Crackers, I know people doing well with vb today so I know it is more than possible.
Its more popular in EUR than the States. You can make money here, but
its constant travel and you risk getting busted for being so obvious about
what you're doing. And Huxley is getting better and better about making
wheels that are almost VB proof. The pockets are a solid piece of cast aluminum
now, each pocket barely bigger than the ball.
It is harder to make a wheel without any predictability than to predict a wheel with reasonable accuracy. In fact it is just about impossible to make a wheel "completely" unpredictable. It can partially be done mechanically, with some auto wheels like cammegh's slingshots, and cammegh's rrc, but casinos using such technology will have reduced confidence in the integrity of the games, and ultimately casinos lose revenue this way. A casinos best defense is detection of consistent winners and dealing with each case individually. ie for a VB player, calling no more bets earlier until they start to lose or leave. But then the casino relies on staff attention and competence, and most staff are nowhere near as attentive as they need. I know casino staff that would prefer you to win and turn a blind eye to your approach provided you are discrete to the point where their willful ignorance doesnt get them in trouble.
Quote from: Steve on June 11, 2012, 09:04:20 PM
Just because you dont know how to do something doesn't mean it isnt being done.
Couldn't agree more with that. Mr J, Minibaccarat, gizmo, spike, bombus and others, are they all liars? or perhaps they're doing something you don't know how to do?
I understand you have a business and an agenda here, Steve, but it just irritates me when members trash something they clearly know very little about (and indeed, dismiss the whole thing as nonsense), and at the same assert that THEIR way is the one true path, and use very dodgy arguments to "prove" it.
It works both ways. Physics based approaches can work, but they are not the be all and end all of success in roulette. And in fact, some of your methods seem to go way beyond conventional physics. You can show that physics based methods are plausible, but there are equally plausible approaches which don't rely on physics. In neither case can it be conclusively shown that one or another approach works. The way to refute the non-physics way is to appeal to the house edge, but you can't simply bring in the fact that "roulette depends on physics" as a way to establish that a physics based approach can overcome said house edge, any more than you can use physics to justify being able to fly by flapping your arms - you're simply ignoring too many inconvenient details.
I don't have the time or inclination to continue posting in this thread, but I repeat that a lot of this arguing is just over the meanings of words and lack of clear definitions. For example, you talk about dominant diamonds and how they're necessary for VB. Well, a dominant diamond is a kind of bias, is it not? and yet you say that bias is very rare these days. So I think a lot this heat could have been avoided by defining terms.
Bayes:
QuoteI understand you have a business and an agenda here, Steve, but it just irritates me when members trash something they clearly know very little about (and indeed, dismiss the whole thing as nonsense), and at the same assert that THEIR way is the one true path, and use very dodgy arguments to "prove" it.
Let's make it clear that I dont give a flying **** about any agenda or profiting from this. I will always tell the truth, as it is, popular or not. To do otherwise is to degrade who I am. Take or leave that. I am dead-set serious about basic truth and dedication to it. I am not trashing anything here.
Secondly there is no "my path" here. This is not about ego. It is about simple truth. I am of course open to being proven wrong. I would welcome it because it would then mean I progressed.
QuoteMr J, Minibaccarat, gizmo, spike, bombus and others, are they all liars? or perhaps they're doing something you don't know how to do?
No. If they claim to beat roulette consistently with outside bets and/or progression, I believe they may have profited, but that their success is more a matter of what I explained before:
You cant beat roulette with outside bets unless you find a way to actually increase accuracy of predictions. Progression doesn't do it. Progression is nothing more than seperate and different size bets. It is all explained at How to Beat Roulette | How to Win at Roulette Facts and Fiction - a player may think he has an outside betting strategy to beat roulette, but really has just been lucky. Try testing bets on red/black for 10,000 spins. Sometimes you will have profited. Not many people play over 10,000 spins in their life. So a player may have profited in their roulette "career", yet still have a worthless system. If 100 other people applied the same system, 55 would have made an overall loss, and 45 would have made an overall profit. Thats how the house edge works. Does it mean the 45 people had a working system? No, not at all.Of course I could be wrong. Of course I'm human and can make mistakes. But what is more likely... they have the holy grail, or relative short term profits have been achieved which can give illusion of a working system? It is not a disrespect to them or any system players. I believe it is likely the truth.
QuotePhysics based approaches can work, but they are not the be all and end all of success in roulette
Physics is study of the universe. There is no escaping the universe. Wouldnt you agree? Physics is everything. The maths, the variables, cause and effect. There is no escaping it. You would have to be deluded if you think you can escape basic universal laws.
QuoteAnd in fact, some of your methods seem to go way beyond conventional physics
Then you dont know much about my methods. There is absolutely nothing voodoo about them. Just plain physics. Although it appears I may have applied it more extensively t roulette than anyone else, at least that I know of.
Quotethere are equally plausible approaches which don't rely on physics
Maybe we have different definitions of physics. To me, it is the model of the universe to explain all things. If something is against the universe and doesn't have a clear and correct mathematical foundation, it is only as valid as 1 + 1 = 5. That is why it is called fallacy.. because it is only true in the player's mind.
QuoteIn neither case can it be conclusively shown that one or another approach works
Bayes, respectfully you have no idea what you're talking about.
Also dominant diamonds are not bias as per definition. Dominant diamond can and often is caused by wheel defects, but it is also caused by the wheel being on an uneven surface. Bias is more directly relating to wheel defects and resulting uneven spread of winning numbers. Will almost every wheel have a strong easily noticed bias? No. Will almost every wheel have clearly significant dominant diamonds? Yes.
Also you do NOT need dominant diamonds to achieve an edge on a roulette wheel. It is a common misconception. Mostly what a wheel without dominant diamonds means is overall scatter is less predictable, but it is more that exploitable patterns occur in a more tightly confined set of variables. For example, rotor speed ranges. APs would know it as overlap at a sweet speed.
At the end of the day, like I said, money talks, BS walks. We can agree to disagree, and it wouldnt affect whoever is correct.
Quote from: Steve on June 12, 2012, 08:31:50 AM
relative short term profits have been achieved which can give illusion of a working system? It is not a disrespect to them or any system players. I believe it is likely the truth.
Thats the public explanation I try and encourage the most now,
its readily believed and makes people the most happy. And incurious.
Quote from: Steve on June 12, 2012, 08:31:50 AM
No. If they claim to beat roulette consistently with outside bets and/or progression, I believe they may have profited, but that their success is more a matter of what I explained before:
You cant beat roulette with outside bets unless you find a way to actually increase accuracy of predictions. Progression doesn't do it. Progression is nothing more than seperate and different size bets. It is all explained at How to Beat Roulette | How to Win at Roulette Facts and Fiction - a player may think he has an outside betting strategy to beat roulette, but really has just been lucky. Try testing bets on red/black for 10,000 spins. Sometimes you will have profited. Not many people play over 10,000 spins in their life. So a player may have profited in their roulette "career", yet still have a worthless system. If 100 other people applied the same system, 55 would have made an overall loss, and 45 would have made an overall profit. Thats how the house edge works. Does it mean the 45 people had a working system? No, not at all.
Of course I could be wrong. Of course I'm human and can make mistakes. But what is more likely... they have the holy grail, or relative short term profits have been achieved which can give illusion of a working system? It is not a disrespect to them or any system players. I believe it is likely the truth.
Steve,
With respect, this is the same old line that all the skeptics wheel out whenever something comes up against their ingrained beliefs. What it completely ignores is the fact that you can only be lucky for so long. I can't speak for the others but I know I've made many thousands of bets, and according to the maths, I should have gone broke years ago. The fact that I haven't, and am still making consistent profits, surely says something about the simplistic mathematical model which predicts that I can't possibly win in the long term? A model which doesn't account for dynamic play, awareness, intelligence, flexibility and shrewd money management, but is always fulfilled whenever you play a simple mechanical system mindlessly.
I know, it all sounds a little lame when compared to the almighty PHYSICS, but don't forget that physics itself is a human invention (or it might be more accurate to say "discovery", since the laws of physics aren't invented), and where there's a will there's a way.
To be honest, I'm surprised that you aren't more open-minded, given that you're interested in stuff like precognition and telepathy etc, and aren't some of your methods based on ideas by Viktor Shauberger? That may not be what you call "voodoo" physics, but it's certainly well away from the mainstream views.
And here's a thought, since some of your methods don't require that you even see the wheel (as traditional VB methods do), and rely only on "patterns" (past spins) derived from variables, who's to say that some "method" players haven't tapped into some of these patterns and are unknowingly exploiting them?
Quote from: Bayes on June 12, 2012, 02:01:57 PM
dynamic play, awareness... flexibility
Three powerful concepts when applied to a casino
game. I think flexibility is the strongest of them.
Our natural tendency is to be rigid and learning
to be continuously flexible is a lot of work. To look
at each new spin as seperate from the others and how
it effects the unfolding game is the challenge, it
takes a lot of practice and concentration.
QuoteI know, it all sounds a little lame when compared to the almighty PHYSICS
Yes the almighty universe does rule all.
Bayes if what you are doing is working for you, keep doing it. I know of a few people that have been playing what I would call a definite losing system, but overall have still profited. But refer back to what I said before. And if you or these people conducted thorough testing, you may be surprised. In any event, if you really have the holy grail, see $100k RNG Roulette Challenge (nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/100k.html) and consider selling it for $100k.
QuoteTo be honest, I'm surprised that you aren't more open-minded, given that you're interested in stuff like precognition and telepathy etc, and aren't some of your methods based on ideas by Viktor Shauberger? That may not be what you call "voodoo" physics, but it's certainly well away from the mainstream views.
The applied concepts from Viktor are about energy interactions and how one thing affects another and another etc. It is plain physics. Far from voodoo. And I do have an open mind, but what you need to understand when someone says 1 + 1 = 5, of course I'm going to be logical about it and say "no, it doesn't.. because....". Advantage players use this kind of example often, and system players tend not to understand what we're talking about. It is not us on our high horse. It is not our way vs your way. It is plain fact that unless you increase the accuracy of predictions, progression is nothing more than separate different sized bets. And systems based on something not spinning for some time have no basis which can be verified if you test the working principle.
See How to Beat Roulette | How to Win at Roulette Facts and Fiction (nolinks://nolinks.genuinewinner.com/truth.html) which explains it all in plain language.
Understand just about every professional player was once working on systems with dozens and various outside bets. It took me years to understand WHY I was beating a dead horse. I kept thinking "yeah but there's still a possibility".. I didnt understand the basic mathematics of it, and now wonder how I could have been so blind.
Anyway lets not argue about it. You have your way, I have mine. We both have profited. Good. End of story.
G'day,
This 'popped' up on the jokes page,......................
I pulled into a town I couldn't believe still existed in 1999.
A dusty, dirt road, a little old wooden store that actually said "General Store", and that was it.
There was a little old man sitting in front of the store in a rocking chair. I said to him, "What do you folks do around here?"
He said, "We don't do nothin' but hunt n' f**k."
I said, "What do you hunt?"
He said, "Somethin' to f**k."
Brought to you by nolinks://nolinks.jokes2go.com
Quote from: crackers on May 29, 2012, 12:02:51 PM
The first thing a new Roulette player attempts to accomplish is succeeding in
finding a system that wins consistently. Most try these systems out at casinos
and they end up getting stung. The lucky ones find ways to test out these systems
outside of any chance of losing any money. This becomes a learning stage where
they learn to make use of rules that depend on triggers. This stage of learning is
continued until the person has exhausted every conceivable idea they can imagine
or find. This is a stage they must get beyond. Some give up and take on an almost
fundamentalist approach to explaining to others why they can't win, that they can't
succeed. If they continue, and that tends to be very few, then they have realised that
if they are to succeed then they are to move past the rules and triggers stage. One way
is to find a way of analyzing the current conditions. Once that is achieved they can use
playing experience to find profitable ways to take advantage of these conceivable
opportunities. Since I belong to this stage I can't say if this is a stepping stone stage
too. Discovering and making use of the most recent conditions is a simple and basic
craft. Knowing how conditions change comes from playing experience. Knowing how
and why to attack continuing opportunities is an art form. It's a journeyman's craft. It's
nearly impossible for a beginner to master in a few weeks. You must lose real money for
years before you can master this stage. In that learning you gain the skill not to lose any
more money. Far too often many give up and declare that it is an impossible task. These
kinds of people frequent these forums year after year. They are self appointed white
knights that ride in with the goal to get others to quit just as they have. They are always
obnoxious and abusive. As long as the few of us that know differently and that never
give in to them stand our ground then these losers will always remain to be seen as losers.
Well said no one can master this game at the beginning just like no one can master any other sport or game. It takes patience and practice.
Quote from: bbush231 on August 06, 2012, 02:14:22 AM
Well said no one can master this game at the beginning just like no one can master any other sport or game. It takes patience and practice.
Don't quote Quackers, it just encourages him
to come here and post.
Quote from: cheese on August 07, 2012, 01:16:06 AM
Don't quote Quackers, it just encourages him
to come here and post.
Hahaha!
Cheese is the Devil!
Quote from: cheese on August 07, 2012, 01:16:06 AM
Don't quote Quackers, it just encourages him
to come here and post.
Have you ever noticed that Sleaze never shares anything of value? Except this: he's
still all ticked off at me. When you pass him behind you will have noticed that flat-betting-only is for amateurs like him. Educated guessing and flat betting
are too basic. They don't really capitalise on obvious opportunities that exist.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fvlsroulette.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D20108.0%3Battach%3D7583%3Bimage&hash=9e707096f46f3defdc3ad3ec2b580f4248566955)
.
and nobody takes my title of the devil, at least while I'm admin
Quote from: crackers on August 07, 2012, 12:36:34 PM
Have you ever noticed that Sleaze never shares anything of value?
Here comes Quackers, quack quack quacking right
on cue. Told you not to quote him...
cheese and crackers.. ha! no wonder my wife calls me a self-entertainment unit.. oO(what does she mean when she says only I think I'm funny?)
Cheese waits for my
next posts. :good:
I'm not taking any sides but you both seem to waste so much energy. At least when people to attack me, they have something to lose
Quote from: Steve on August 08, 2012, 03:02:10 AM
I'm not taking any sides but you both seem to waste so much energy. At least when people to attack me, they have something to lose
I can attack you if you are feeling left out. I'm not ignoring you. I just have
no interest in getting arrested for using a gaget that might actually work.
I've gotten a pretty thick skin over the years so unless you talk about my mother's weight, I'll be alright.
I don't try Mama's jokes unless I know it's a good one.
G'day?
Glenn, don't tell me you tapped that!
If you did then I'm afraid Steve has lost his title as the Devil. :lol:
G'day,
NOT YET, give Me time,
I might give Her My 'A Game' in return.
Glenn.
That picture is a living nightmare.How gross can it get.
Glenn,
We understand that you like your women fat but not that fat.
G'day,
What are You 'insinuating' about My future wife,
if she'll lower Her standards for someone (Me) UGGLIER than herself!!
Glenn.
50 lbs. camel toes. Sounds yummy!
hmm looks better than a latex pillow. nice and cushy and never loses shape. but you'd need to feed her a lot
G'day,
Quote from: Steve on August 08, 2012, 07:45:09 PM
hmm looks better than a latex pillow.
nice and cushy and never loses shape.
but you'd need to feed her a lot
Is that an educated guess or experience!
Would You believe I bombed out with her,
Would You believe She said She'd lower Her standards for Me,
If I could find where She hides Her Son's roulette computer,
I tried lifting Her stomach up, but I couldn't get to the 'spot'!!
Glenn.