Theater of The Absurd

[Herb6]

Here's what I can't figure out.



Why can't you guys build on the documented knowledge of others?



Why are you still trying to figure out a system to beat the game of roulette, when it's already a known fact that it can't be beaten?  This is not even open for debate.  The prove is solid. When you look down this road, you will find that others have been there about 100 + years ahead of you.



Why do any of you think all of the those encyclopedias and mathematicians are wrong?
Claiming they are wrong is a sign of ignorance.   Attempting to do the same thing over and over, while expecting a different outcome is also insane.  



What you should be doing is building upon the information that is already known as fact.  Learn from the people that have already been down this road over the last 100+ years.  Read the encyclopedias and about the history of the game.



Here are the facts on which you should be building your methods:



1. You can beat the gaming device by exploiting it's non random nature.  (Exploiting the normal wear and tear and design flaws.)

2. You can also predict where the ball will land with enough accuracy to beat the house edge. (Various forms of visual ballistics.)

-Herb

[Spike!]

1. You can beat the gaming device by exploiting it's non random nature.  

2. You can also predict where the ball will land with enough accuracy to beat the house edge.>>

                                                                   OR

3. Learn how to read random and use that skill to give you the edge over the house. Its childs play..

[MiniBaccarat]

Here's what I can't figure out. Closed Mind

Why can't you guys build on the documented knowledge of others? We have, through the internet.

Why are you still trying to figure out a system to beat the game of roulette, when it's already a known fact that it can't be beaten?  This is not even open for debate.  The prove is solid. When you look down this road, you will find that others have been there about 100 + years ahead of you. Do you take the Bible 100% literally.

Why do any of you think all of the those encyclopedias and mathematicians are wrong? Because what they say is not happening.
Claiming they are wrong is a sign of ignorance.   Attempting to do the same thing over and over, while expecting a different outcome is also insane. I agree, I keep betting and keep winning, why would it change.  

What you should be doing is building upon the information that is already known as fact.  Learn from the people that have already been down this road over the last 100+ years.  Read the encyclopedias and about the history of the game.
We see how with technology history & life has changed, so has the chance of beating Roulette,
100 years ago there was no such thing as VB or AP (but cough was already around)

Here are the facts on which you should be building your methods:

1. You can beat the gaming device by exploiting it's non random nature.  (Exploiting the normal wear and tear and design flaws.)

2. You can also predict where the ball will land with enough accuracy to beat the house edge. (Various forms of visual ballistics.)

-Herb

This just ISN'T TRUE,
to just keep repeating that you can't beat Roulette with a mechanical progression based system is just
IGNORANT, YOU CAN"T, fine you've admitted your failing, but don't try and pull everybody else down to your level.

Some of us have a method that the maths shows has to succeed and
anybody that sits and examines it can see the logic involved.

While this thread might just be put out there to try and generate more sales for VB sellers,
stating 'YOUR BELIEFS' as fact is immoral!

Glenn.

[Spike!]

stating 'YOUR BELIEFS' as fact is immoral>>>

Its part of their Bible, they have to convert others, its part of their religious doctrine. You think I'm joking?

Here's Snowman/Herb as the in house censor on GG:

[Bayes]

While this thread might just be put out there to try and generate more sales for VB sellers,
stating 'YOUR BELIEFS' as fact is immoral!

And how do we know you're not trying to generate sales for your system, which you keep bragging about?

It's easy to take cheap shots. The facts are - there is no evidence that the game can be beat using systems and progressions, but there is plenty of evidence that they can't. 

[Herb6]

Glen,

It's not just me saying this, it's every encyclopedia and mathematician out there.

At some point, you have to come to terms with the truth.  I'm not trying to keep you from winning.  On the contrary,  I've basically just told you how you can really begin to build methods that stand a chance of winning based on the FACTS laid out above.

Whether you continue on the journey of fools is up to you. (Please understand I'm not calling you a fool, I saying the journey is a foolish one.)

-Herb6

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

Herb6,

Your comments are just so WRONG!!

I'm told that you're an OK bloke,
you just don't understand systems!

As far as

Glenn,

It's not just me saying this, it's every encyclopaedia and mathematician out there.
They do not address the issue of the particulars of my system.

At some point, you have to come to terms with the truth.  I'm not trying to keep you from winning. 
On the contrary,  I've basically just told you how you can really begin to build methods
that stand a chance of winning based on the FACTS laid out above.
The facts 'laid out above' ARE WRONG or at their best, don't tell the FULL story!
The fact is my system makes as much sense as 2 + 2 = 4!     
I need within 200 decisions (Roulette or Baccarat) an occurrence of
r,r,r,r, or b,b,b,b or r,b,r,b, or b,r,b,r to win!



Whether you continue on the journey of fools is up to you. (Please understand I'm not calling you a fool, I saying the journey is a foolish one.)
How can I lose, I have now won over a 1,000 times more than my current BR (since modification due to knowledge gained from VLS & GG!

-Herb6

Glenn

[Herb6]

Sorry Glen, but you're wrong, the encyclopedias and mathematicians are correct.

If you feel differently, then try your best to explain why your system is different.  If possible, I will try and help you prove that you are correct by helping you with the math.  All you really need to do is explain the system.

 However, based on what you've said above, it looks as though it's probably just another system based on a misunderstanding of basic probability and the gambler's fallacy.

Best of luck,

-Herb6

[Bayes]

I need within 200 decisions (Roulette or Baccarat) an occurrence of
r,r,r,r, or b,b,b,b or r,b,r,b, or b,r,b,r to win!

The stakes must get pretty scary on that. I thought you said it failed testing in the zumma baccarat book?

[Mr J]

"don't try and pull everybody else down to your level" >>> I agree. Some people that do not win too often (roulette), HATE people that do. Its called being jealous. Its a damn tough world out there folks and roulette is only a pin prick part of it!!  Ken

[Mr J]

-