Even mathematicians claim that it is unbeatable. Einstein once said the only way to win in a Roulette table is to steal from the dealer.
But I beg to differ, (not by visual ballistics, but by a system)
Although every number is equally likely to appear and there are the house odds against you, the numbers fall within a considerable predictable range. This is not gambler's fallacy, it is simply the truth. Gambler's fallacy state that after 10 red spins, a black or a red is equally likely to appear. While the above is true, I don't deny, but we are talking about the NEXT direct spin in that case. How about a hundred, how about thousands of spins? Most of us gambler's know we don't just play ONE single spin, we play though with some progression (most of us)
To illustrate further, it is a mathematical certainty that at some point that you would reach 9 reds and 1 black if you take a sample of 10 spins. But how about 90 reds 10 blacks? You see? It is not just a simple ratio thing. 9 reds and 1 black is a confirmed event, but 90 reds 10 blacks isn't. I don't deny that if you consider infinity time, anything can happen, but 90 reds and 10 blacks is WAY OUT of the mathematical probability threshold. It wouldn't happen anywhere near our lifetime, or our kids or grand kids lifetime for that matter.
The same goes for numbers, you would never see 6 numbers "sleep" for more than 109 spins. I guarantee that. If it happens, it has hit 100% probability threshold, the wheel is biased and I would advice to bet all the numbers except the 6 and rake in the profits.
So it is very very possible to build a system to win at Roulette.
So it is very very possible to build a system to win at Roulette.>>>
Based on math? I don't think so. Give an example.
Well spike, it is proven that Roulette can be beaten long term, just look around the internet. There are people profiting through a system or testing millions of spins and come out with profit. Although some of their systems they might make only 7k after 100 k of spins testing. it is still consider a "win". Also, there are systems which can make good money I believe, just need all the right criteria.
Also im manually hand-testing one system I created, results so far +3054 units after 4000 spins. It might or might not fail at some point though.
Well spike, it is proven that Roulette can be beaten long term, just look around the internet. There are people profiting through a system or testing millions of spins and come out with profit.>>>
Who? Name somebody that has a proven winning system. I don't mean somebody that CLAIMS it, somebody thats PROVEN it. There isn't one, and you know it.
theres a system called selecta4 around here which people claim to be winning consistently, and even compared against tens of thousands of Hamburg spins still come out with a good profit after 1 year of testing playing everyday with every month ending in a profit.
Well, I use the word "claim" because myself hasn't tried that mentioned method so I can't guarantee anything.
system called selecta4 around here which people claim to be winning consistently>>
LOL! 'Claim' is the right word, nobody has proven they win with that thing. But its been proven over and over with math that its loses long term. Thats all you got, El Chipo's Selecta? Even he doesn't play it, he's disappeared with Signum, his newest losing brainchild.
Noone had ever had a proven winning system.
In theory YES,in action NO.
Spike, you forgot about The Zone!
Geez, The Zone, how quickly we forget... :haha:
spike? so is it a claim or not i do not know, cause i am not that said person, but he did said he compared to hamburg spins and come out a profit a year later, there are ppl in this forum who also said they earn more they lose with it.
Anyway why are you so one-sided? Roulette is a complex game. Once casinos thought Blackjack was unbeatable, but a man discovered that by card counting it can be beaten. The pit bosses in the casinos thought he was cheating and couldn't for hell figure out how he did it besides cheating because it is programmed in their brains that blackjack cannot be beaten so they did not even consider that alternative.
In roulette, those who know the most, speak the least.
U are correct!
In black jack they used a way that they took advantage.
The same can happen with roulette with VB.
jean-claud - though u dont believe it can be beaten with a system?
but a man discovered that by card counting it can be beaten. The pit bosses in the casinos thought he was cheating>>
There is no 'he'. BJ card counting was done for decades before Thorp wrote his book about it. All he did was prove it worked with a computer. Some of the players who'd been doing it for decades begged him not to write the book, but he didn't care, he had his ego that needed to be stroked.
spike, let me ask you something. Do you believe that in 6000 spins one can profit?
Why I think roulette is beatable is because im testing a system I created out myself and it seems that either
a) It is working
b) I'm incredibly lucky
in 6000 spins, given to me after I've created my system. (I don't get a set of spins, and fit in a system retrospectively to win for that particular spin set) I created the system FIRST then tested it.
Im planning to test it on 20,000 spins.
But so far in 6000 spins I've got about 4700k already.
And no, I wont lose everything if I lose the progression, so far it has only gone to the 11 step progression of my system, if it loses that it loses 920 only. but 4700k in profits > then 920. So even if I lose the 11 step still it seems profit more then loss.
I really don't know what to make of this? Im testing for 20,000 spins. Anyway wish me luck. I will update on results once I reach 20,000 spins.
QuoteEven mathematicians claim that it is unbeatable.
I love the way you say that "even" mathematicians claim that it's unbeatable, as though they are the least qualified. :lol:
RouletteFanatic,
You are claiming that roulette is "definitely" beatable on the basis of....?
Winning several thousand bets using what sounds like a martingale? I'm sorry, but you have a lot to learn. No system can ever work. Learn from those who have fallen into the same error and don't waste any more time searching - it's a highway to nowhere.
Quote from: Bayes on June 13, 2010, 09:03:14 AM
I love the way you say that "even" mathematicians claim that it's unbeatable, as though they are the least qualified. :lol:
RouletteFanatic,
You are claiming that roulette is "definitely" beatable on the basis of....?
Winning several thousand bets using what sounds like a martingale? I'm sorry, but you have a lot to learn. No system can ever work. Learn from those who have fallen into the same error and don't waste any more time searching - it's a highway to nowhere.
Hi bayes, but the thing is the wins exceeds the loss of the martingale. it is not the classic martingale where you go 1, 2, 4, 8,16, 32 etc..
its true that at some point you would lose the progression, but its a portion of your winnings. Thus the winnings exceed the losses.
im not 100% sure of this, but that is my simple observation after testing 6k spins.
Hey RouletteFanatic,
Glad to know you are working on a new method.
Would you share it with us?
Thank you so much,
CashGrowth.
test results:
+2207 profits after 10k of spins. I hit a lost progression 3 times within the last 5k of spins I really dont know what to make of this?
QuoteI really dont know what to make of this?
It's called RANDOM, and there's no way around it. :diablo:
It means nothing. An upswing in an upswing, it's due to luck. The odds, probability and payouts all fit together perfectly and they are engineered to the house's advantage, thus there is no way you can win long term. It never ceases to amaze me that people can claim to have a winning roulette system based on progressions, past spins and nonsense like win goals and stop losses. None of it matters when the expectancy is always negative.
And Number Six arrives on scene to stir the pot. Big surprise. Ken
Hi Numbersix, great answer but i don't entirely agree with it. It has been proven, not by me but by others that Roulette can be beaten (though, what you consider beaten? being rich?) Then maybe not.
As quoted by Poit on the Main Roulette forum:
"I wrote a program that started betting once it reached 9 in a row (betting on the other two dozens).... and yes, after millions of spins I was in profit.... but only a few hundred dollars......... hardly worth actually deploying such a method into real life, EVEN with a bot playing it.... it would probably average 5 cents a day of profit.... not worth it."
So yes even after a million spins, one can still profit though it becomes a paltry sum. Also if you don't consider a million spins long term, that what is? A billion? Trillion? Or Gazillion? Truth is, most ordinary people or even your average roulette lover would not reach a million spins in his or her lifetime.
Why do people fall prey to systems based on the gambler's fallacy like "The Zone"?
To help everyone gain insight into the problem, here's some information that you might find interesting.
Scientific expertise can provoke a backlash: Participants in a University of Maryland experiment were more likely to express belief in ESP if they were told that most scientists thought it was bunk. - Source is Scientific American.
This experminet helps explain why people fall prey to absurd systems like The Zone and The Enigimista Cult. rather than simply believing an encyclopedia. When someone knowledgeable explains why a system won't work, it triggers the activation of a stupid gene in certain people that bascially tells the person to say, "Nuh-uh!"
Quote from: Number Six on June 13, 2010, 01:38:02 PM
It means nothing. An upswing in an upswing, it's due to luck. The odds, probability and payouts all fit together perfectly and they are engineered to the house's advantage, thus there is no way you can win long term. It never ceases to amaze me that people can claim to have a winning roulette system based on progressions, past spins and nonsense like win goals and stop losses. None of it matters when the expectancy is always negative.
Do you believe is statistical variance? A positive, in your favor stretch of statistical variance could be described as an upswing, or as good luck.
Is it possible to wait until your simulated bets enter a statistical variance that benefits you? Can you then play real bets until the first sign of it changing to a flat or downswing form of statistical variance?
The only way for your theory of house's advantage to be true is for the player to place bets no matter what the current condition for statistical variance is showing. Nope, your's is a flawed belief. It's a religion of a theory only. You have never made a compelling argument. Your amazement is not evidence. You need to prove that statistical variance leads to the "house's advantage" for a player, while that player at the same time deliberately attempts to avoid its negative side.
It's also a religious belief that you can not avoid the negative side of statistical variance.
QuoteIs it possible to wait until your simulated bets enter a statistical variance that benefits you?
No. There is no advantage to be gained from this. It's more of the same - betting in the belief that past results can somehow indicate better results to come.
QuoteYou have never made a compelling argument.
So neither logic nor empirical results are compelling, apparently. :haha:
Quote from: Bayes on June 13, 2010, 03:51:32 PM
No. There is no advantage to be gained from this. It's more of the same - betting in the belief that past results can somehow indicate better results to come.
So now there is no such thing as "the win streak, "the losing streak" the concept of the upswing, or the downturn.
If any of you want to take the advice from someone that can't recognize a win streak then perhaps you should questions more of his absolute notions of gambling reality. Even the most inexperienced player knows when he/her is having a win streak. Why can't you?
Gizmo,
You weren't just talking about winning and losing streaks, you said:
Is it possible to wait until your simulated bets enter a statistical variance that benefits you?.
I was looking through some stuff on my hard-drive this afternoon and came across an old book, written in 1987, called "The Punter's Revenge". There's a short chapter on roulette, an extract from which is relevant to many on this forum:
QuoteWe are dealing with an event which is essentially random and therefore unpredictable.
The compulsive roulette player is therefore a kind of scientist gone wrong. Like the scientist, he believes in the orderly and ultimately predictable nature of his world - the world of the roulette wheel. Like the scientist he also has a working hypothesis which is supposed to describe and account for the events he seeks to control. This hypothesis is called the law of averages.
The law of averages is quite different from the law of probability. The latter tells us that the probability of black coming up, say, twelve times in a row is smaller than the probability of it coming up eleven times in a row, and considerably smaller than the probability of it coming up three times in a row.
However, it also recognises that there is no theoretical reason why black should not run up an infinite sequence, and that knowing that black has come up twelve times does not make it any easier to predict exactly when black's winning sequence will end.
The believer in the law of averages remains obstinately convinced that the sequence of winning numbers contains vital clues which point to the identity of the next winning number. He dutifully records each number as it arises on cards thoughtfully provided for this very purpose by the casino management. He attaches an almost cabbalistic importance to his steadily lengthening list of numbers, and bases his entire betting strategy on its supposed predictive power.
However, it is inevitable that the roulette player's assumptions about his world, and his belief in the law of averages, will be empirically falsified. In the long run, reality will prove his theories wrong. He will be unable to make sufficiently accurate predictions and he will lose money. It is at this point that he parts company with the good scientist and becomes instead a scientist gone wrong.
Instead of re-examining the theoretical basis of his actions, the roulette player will simply add convenient epicycles to his existing body of theory, just as Ptolemy and his followers added epicycles to geocentric cosmology when it could no longer be squared with accumulated astronomical observations.
In the case of the roulette player, these may take the form of additional subroutines to existing procedures for interpreting the run of numbers. Or it may even take the form of private incantations and/or propitiatory rituals as the wheel is spinning, in which case his system is essentially based on magic.
There's that assumption again: "We are dealing with an event which is essentially random and therefore unpredictable."
Why does something have to be classified as predictable? These win streaks happen without regard from any predictions. They just happen from time to time. There is no force. If you have a bet selection process it will happen from time to time. If you have a really good bet selection process it will happen more frequent. This concept is about recognition and deliberate action taken. It's about being patient and waiting for it to happen.
I have to go somewhere. Talk later.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 13, 2010, 02:50:23 PM
Is it possible to wait until your simulated bets enter a statistical variance that benefits you? Can you then play real bets until the first sign of it changing to a flat or downswing form of statistical variance?
Of course not, truly I cannot understand how you can be a self-proclaimed expert on randomness when simple things, the fundamentals, completely escape your comprehension. Only in the Blubber World does probability apply to "virtual" bets and the parameters of the game can be changed without physically changing the gaming device. Variance isn't a one-dimensional occurrence, it moulds itself around what you are doing, thus, when considering past spins, there is no way to avoid it, nor can you use it to your advantage. I could explain why, but I really don't think you'd understand.
I liked that excerpt Bayes.
Quote from: Number Six on June 13, 2010, 05:32:49 PM
Of course not, truly I cannot understand how you can be a self-proclaimed expert on randomness when simple things, the fundamentals, completely escape your comprehension.
The Gizmotron fundamentals. :girl_wacko:
>>Or it may even take the form of private incantations and/or propitiatory rituals as the wheel is spinning, in which case his system is essentially based on magic.>
This is how most people play. They have no idea how random works, so they cross their fingers, bet their birthdays and anniversaries, their lucky fortune cookie numbers, and hope for the best. Wising themselves up is too much work, they'd rather be ignorant.
Number Six Proclaimed:
"Variance isn't a one-dimensional occurrence, it moulds itself around what you are doing, thus, when considering past spins, there is no way to avoid it, nor can you use it to your advantage. I could explain why, but I really don't think you'd understand."
C'mon, take a chance. I feel really smart today, please share...
Number Six also said:
>None of it matters when the expectancy is always negative. >
The whole point is to find a way where your expectation is positive. Thats the game changer.
Quote from: Number Six on June 13, 2010, 05:32:49 PM
Of course not, truly I cannot understand how you can be a self-proclaimed expert on randomness when simple things, the fundamentals, completely escape your comprehension. Only in the Blubber World does probability apply to "virtual" bets and the parameters of the game can be changed without physically changing the gaming device. Variance isn't a one-dimensional occurrence, it moulds itself around what you are doing, thus, when considering past spins, there is no way to avoid it, nor can you use it to your advantage. I could explain why, but I really don't think you'd understand.
You idiot. You need the simulated bets to see if you have entered a time that is a win streak. You get out the first moment that it breaks.
Gizmotron,
Do you also believe in ESP?
Quote from: Herb6 on June 13, 2010, 07:21:23 PM
Gizmotron,
Do you also believe in ESP?
This is why the egghead MathBoyz types never get anywhere. They only see black and white. If its not in the books they always quote as their Bibles, then its at the complete other end of the spectrum, fairy tale land. For them there is no middle ground. Either you buy their MathBoyz buloney hook, line, and sinker, or you're rubber room material that believes in the Tooth Fairy and Santa. Its the same with every religion on the planet, its their way or the highway. And math IS a religion.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 13, 2010, 06:57:12 PM
You idiot. You need the simulated bets to see if you have entered a time that is a win streak. You get out the first moment that it breaks.
Probability and fluctuation do not apply to "simulated bets" or virtual tracking or whatever you want to call it, therefore any tracking without betting and any data you derive from it has absolutely no bearing on reality...ie, the only spins that matter are the ones you wager cash on. There is no advantage in simulating bets, nor do they ever change the dynamics of upswings and drawdowns of real cash investment - that only comes from the volatility of any progression you use and the returns gained from your bet selection through
x amount of time, and that only comes from real money wagers. Your argument is faulty and has no credence. In fact, you have no argument because you have nothing remotely plausible with which to support it. The simple fact is, you can't physically change the game device from spin to spin, nor can you change the payouts. The last time I checked, these were pretty ICBM-proof facts.
>Probability and fluctuation do not apply to "simulated bets" or virtual tracking or whatever you want to call it>
And here we have the bedrock of the MathBoys belief system. You can't practice, you can't track, you can't simulate, because absolutely NOTHING we do can EVER improve our bet selection one iota. Its written in stone, nothing can change it. Praise be to the MathGodz...
what a funny thread :-*
QuoteIts the same with every religion on the planet, its their way or the highway. And math IS a religion.
You do come out with a lot of nonsense Spike.
You are the one claiming miracles. :lol:
And anyway, maths doesn't dictate anything, it only describes what actually happens. First reality, then maths, not the other way around.
Quote from: Bayes on June 14, 2010, 12:28:32 PM
You do come out with a lot of nonsense Spike. You are the one claiming miracles. :lol:
And anyway, maths doesn't dictate anything, it only describes what actually happens. First reality, then maths, not the other way around.
Math doesn't explain how anyone can take advantage of coincidence. In fact, you guys always run away from discussions that involve it. You always try to redefine it and then declare yourselves the victors. In a way, the real discussion has broken down on a fallacy know as a straw man. Deal with circumstantial coincidence recognized in the current state. It's a fallacy to broad brush stroke it with "long term statistics deal with it." If it does then explain it.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 14, 2010, 02:02:25 PM
Deal with circumstantial coincidence recognized in the current state.
There is no "current state".
Past lottery results do not give clues to future lottery result.
Next..
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 14, 2010, 02:19:53 PM
There is no "current state".
Past lottery results do not give clues to future lottery result.
Next..
Then there is no such thing as statistical variance.
You people have no idea what is happening in Roulette. The table is always doing something somewhere, even if it gets chaotic. You can't read randomness, you can't read what the table is doing, and there is no current state. It is impossible to discuss Roulette with you.
The truth is pretty simple really, and it renders everything like trend-betting and randomness reading physically impossible, like trying to fit your head through a keyhole. There is a discrepancy between the true odds of the game and the odds the casinos offer relative to the payout. On any spin, is there always 37 or 38 available pockets on the wheel the ball can fall in to? If the answer is yes, then the house advantage remains true on every single spin and the player can never win in the long term because the maths that holds the game together can't be superseded by something phony and illusory like the "odds for a short term elegent pattern". Unlike the arguments of Spike and Gizmo, these facts aren't supposedly flawed or obsolete or erroneous.
Quote from: Number Six on June 14, 2010, 02:36:05 PM
The truth is pretty simple really, and it renders everything like trend-betting and randomness reading physically impossible, like trying to fit your head through a keyhole. There is a discrepancy between the true odds of the game and the odds the casinos offer relative to the payout. On any spin, is there always 37 or 38 available pockets on the wheel the ball can fall in to? If the answer is yes, then the house advantage remains true on every single spin and the player can never win in the long term because the maths that holds the game together can't be superseded by something phony and illusory like the "odds for a short term elegent pattern". Unlike the arguments of Spike and Gizmo, these facts aren't supposedly flawed or obsolete or erroneous.
Big deal. The odds don't change. But what the table is currently doing is constantly changing. Get over it. You are stuck on the odds. The way you attempt to describe things every even chance flat bet must lose. You at least believe that it must lose 19 out of every 37 spins. Now try to imagine that everyone knew that you would lose 19 out of every 37 spins on red or black. That knowledge would shut down every casino that kept letting people play Roulette.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 14, 2010, 02:19:53 PM
There is no "current state".
Past lottery results do not give clues to future lottery result.
Next..
You are worng.
I transferred my strategy to Lotto and predicted in the last 7 games 5 times at minimum five out of six numbers.
br
winkel
""You people have no idea what is happening in Roulette. The table is always doing something somewhere, even if it gets chaotic. You can't read randomness, you can't read what the table is doing, and there is no current state. It is impossible to discuss Roulette with you."""
Gizmo the things u are posting are EXACTLY same as Charles clues!!!
U seem like a nice kid...please man get over ur sickness and tell to everybody that don t play roulette at all!
Only then u will be cured
I am sirious ..this is no joke! U can go blind!
ps.ppl like u are making other ppl to search to find something that doesn t exist!
U should be ashamed of ur self
the player can never win in the long term because the maths that holds the game together>>>
The maths hold YOUR game together. The maths of MY game are different than yours because I have the edge and the casino doesn't. But Gizmo is correct, its almost impossibe to discuss real roulette with you because what you've been taught blinds you to the reality of the game.
This is the point where Herb will come along and post 'Roulette is a game of independent trials. Past spins cannot effect future results'. And we all gasp and fall to the floor on our faces and worship him. Yawn.
Roulette is a game of independent trials. Past spins cannot effect future results :lol:
Gizmo wrote:
"You people have no idea what is happening in Roulette. The table is always doing something somewhere, even if it gets chaotic. You can't read randomness, you can't read what the table is doing"
They think none of that is necessary, the math is all they need. They think even if they could read it, the sacred math has it covered and would render it useless. Ignorance is bliss.
Quote from: Jean-Claud on June 14, 2010, 05:26:30 PM
Roulette is a game of independent trials. Past spins cannot effect future results :lol:
What is this? Herb in disguise?
Quote from: Jean-Claud on June 14, 2010, 04:13:55 PM
Gizmo the things u are posting are EXACTLY same as Charles clues!!!
U seem like a nice kid...please man get over ur sickness and tell to everybody that don t play roulette at all!
Only then u will be cured
I am sirious ..this is no joke! U can go blind!
ps.ppl like u are making other ppl to search to find something that doesn t exist!
U should be ashamed of ur self
Jean-Claud, You are the one that is a disgrace to this open forum.
ps.ppl like u are making other ppl to search to find something that doesn t exist!>>
First, Gizmo is going on 60, is that a 'kid' in your country? Second, how do you know it doesn't exist? You can't find you own rear end with a flashlight and a map. Get real.
"Past spins cannot effect future results" >>> Be careful with your wording. EFFECT future results? Ok, I agree with that. Ken
Quote from: Mr J on June 14, 2010, 07:02:33 PM
"Past spins cannot effect future results" >>> Be careful with your wording. EFFECT future results? Ok, I agree with that. Ken
They can't EFFECT future spins, thats impossible. But they can be used to DEDUCE future spins and no math on earth can prove otherwise.
Let's make an educated guess about Jean-Claud: it's Viper5. I reckon there's a .72 probability.
If I could bet on that, I would. ;D
I agree Spike, thats what I meant. The current spins can NOT EFFECT future results. Who would argue against that? Ken
Quote from: Mr J on June 14, 2010, 07:41:37 PM
I agree Spike, thats what I meant. The current spins can NOT EFFECT future results. Who would argue against that? Ken
Nobody. But they always use it because they like to pretend thats what we're doing, when they know damn well we aren't. Past spins offer clues, they don't physically 'effect' anything.
Jean-Claud: it's Viper5>>>
Probably. Every one of his posts is meant to agitate or piss somebody off.
'Clues' or 'hints'.....I like that. Is it 100%? No but it sure helps. Ken
A clear indicator that you guys have spent too much time on roulette boards is when you think that the only ones who don`t believe roulette can be beaten using past spins as "clues" is the math egg heads. In fact, the entire population outside these tiny roulette boards don`t believe you can beat roulette. Any parent who finds his 19 year old son burried in papers with roulette systems and testing spins from wiesbaden will lock the family funds and hide all cash available in the house.
Any clue from past spins that triggers you to make a bet, is gamblers fallacy. It does not affect future spins, but affects your bets, can`t you guys see a flaw here ???? It tells you to go in one direction, but does not tell the future spins to go with you.
If you can play roulette without looking at the score board, not even the last fallen number, then you play freely. The dealers and pit bosses will always make jokes about system players and people with note pads (when they think you don`t hear it because they still want your wagers), but they respect the high roller who sometimes wins big and sometimes loses big. He is the real player and not a pathetic system player in their world.
I wonder what you guys teaches your kids ? Hey boy, you can`t hang out with your mates before you have done your daily roulette session. Im not counting Kaisan in here, because he was driving a Lamborghini bought from winnings when he was teaching his son VB.
Any clue from past spins that triggers you to make a bet, is gamblers fallacy.>
I certainly hope so, everything I do is based on gamblers fallacy.
>>but they respect the high roller who sometimes wins big and sometimes loses big. He is the real player and not a pathetic system player in their world.>
LOL! Thats what I yearn for, the respect of some jerk casino employee's that I wouldn't let wax my car, let alone be friends with. Do you know how big a loser you have to be to work in the pit of a casino? Loser Deluxe..
>I wonder what you guys teaches your kids ? >>
I have offered to teach my kids but my oldest daughter is allergic to cigarette smoke and hates casinos, my youngest daughter could care less about gambling and my son is a career officer in the AF. Oh well..
I will repeat:
It does not affect future spins, We both agree on that.
but affects your bets, We both agree on that because you say so.
It means you have taken direction but the spins hasen`t because they act like the past hasn`t happened. It does not affect future spins Can`t you see you have been contradicting yourself for 5 years ?
So MrJ , Spike and Gizmotron have all found a consistent winning bet!!!!
>>It means you have taken direction but the spins hasen`t because they act like the past hasn`t happened.>>
Past spins are a roadmap to future spins. They point you in the right direction. Clues to what might be coming next.
Quote from: Kelly on June 15, 2010, 01:00:21 AM
Can`t you see you have been contradicting yourself for 5 years ?
It seems not. :lol:
Thank God for gamblers fallacy! Ken
Gamblers Fallacy is the only reliable method that consistantly wins at roulette. The joke is on somebody, thats for sure... :haha:
Bollocks spike. You say the past spins is a road map to future spins.
So if the past 20 spins looks like road map A it points to A and if it looks like road map B it leads to B. Which means that if you change the past spins you also change the future spins, BUT HEY YOU SAID THAT THE PAST SPINS DIDNT AFFECT THE FUTURE SPINS.
In your attempt to sound mysterious you end up sounding pretty daft.
Hahahahahhahah!
SPOT on kelly!
like ur VB :)
Glad it isn't just me who sees the simple stupidity and self-contradiction in Spike's claims.
Kelly, do you have the guts to stick around?
I just had a session where the same 12 numbers only hit six times in three hours. I noticed the coincidence as soon as it became obvious to me. I was looking for something like that to be happening. I owed it to myself to clean up on the obvious lack of cooperation the house's advantage was doing to the casino at that moment. Can you believe it? It was better than going to an ATM machine. The casino was handing me their money and they didn't even know why.
So now please explain to the entire world how this form of gambler's fallacy was so beneficial to me. In Ellison's book he says to wait until you see what the table is doing. To keep sessions short. To get out of sessions that are not cooperating.
I use the very thing you think is a fallacy to further my gambling experiences. Your use it to make a mindless mathematical generalization. For your meaning of the use to be worth anything to you I have to lose because of it. I chose not to be brutalized by the mindless act of blind selection. Your definition does in fact apply to system players. I chose to play what the table is currently doing.
Now explain that you understand what I just said. Please.
What you saw happened to fit your vision on how trends looks like and it went your way this time, good for you. Shit happens as well and as often as it doesn`t. The numbers didn`t go your way because you saw a trend.
When i played the Guetting bet selection many years ago i once ran into a streak of RRBBRRBB which you according to the rules follow at the break up it went BBBBBBB which you according to the rules also follows to the end. I profited enormous because the table happened to trend along with the Guetting rules. You know what happened when i applyed those rules to some few thousands Hamburg spins ? Absoloutely nothing except a nice -1,35% profit. There were 100s of trending starting out just to fail both within profit but also with a loss. Setting out profit rules like
Quit when:
+1 or -1
+1 or -2
+1 or -3
+2 or -1
+2 or -2
etc. didn`t help ONE BIT.
Look how the tables trends ? Yeah right, be my guest, but you can`t and won`t prove that what you guys peddle gives a profit for longer than the occasional 26 spins.
You obviously can't tell when something is working and when it is not, until you lose at the house's advantage rate that is. Go ahead. Use your belief in that loss rate. You are the one asking people to believe your conclusions and assumptions. Your misunderstandings and conclusions are only the rantings of your own proclaimed failings. You kind of people are impossible to talk to. Because you had a bad experience with trends every trend player must fail. I don't think so.
Quote from: Kelly on June 15, 2010, 03:07:17 PM
What you saw happened to fit your vision on how trends looks like and it went your way this time, good for you. s**t happens as well and as often as it doesn`t. The numbers didn`t go your way because you saw a trend.
When I played the Guetting bet selection many years ago I once ran into a streak of RRBBRRBB which you according to the rules follow at the break up it went BBBBBBB which you according to the rules also follows to the end. I profited enormous because the table happened to trend along with the Guetting rules. You know what happened when I applyed those rules to some few thousands Hamburg spins ? Absoloutely nothing except a nice -1,35% profit. There were 100s of trending starting out just to fail both within profit but also with a loss. Setting out profit rules like
Quit when:
+1 or -1
+1 or -2
+1 or -3
+2 or -1
+2 or -2
etc. didn`t help ONE BIT.
Look how the tables trends ? Yeah right, be my guest, but you can`t and won`t prove that what you guys peddle gives a profit for longer than the occasional 26 spins.
What can i say, i had a few good real life experiences, but when put to the acid it breaks down and so will yours if you ever come that far as actually take a proper test. We can all just talk and talk about 50 good spins here and there but it really doesn`t prove anything. I don`t believe in a strategy until its thorougly testet. I testet a system positive for over 220.000 spins but it had failed when it came to 240.000. Would i play that system today ? Not a chance, it cannot work for obvious reasons and im pretty sure that if i start playing with real money i will hit the bad runs, which were "impossible", within the first 2000 spins.
BUT HEY YOU SAID THAT THE PAST SPINS DIDNT AFFECT THE FUTURE SPINS. >>
The past spins effect my decisions about future spins, not the spins themselves. Get it? I'm afraid I can't turn water into wne or make the ball fall into a 3rd dozen number. Sorry.
The numbers didn`t go your way because you saw a trend.>>>
Nope. I saw a trend and went the numbers way. Big difference.
Same old nonsense.
You can duck and dive all you want, your past spins has put a rail road map out for the future spins that you then are betting on, im amazed you can`t see that you are saying your past spins is creating the future spins. Why would you look at them then ? The past spins is creating your betting pattern that should follow the future spins. There is no difference.
He knows it, he's smart enough to know it. He just makes it look like there's a difference, that's what he does.
I know, he knows, we all knows. Same old same old.
Using past spins is the same as an Indian following the random trail of a randomly wandering deer in the woods. By looking at the clues on the trail, he doesn't alter the deer's path or change what the deer is doing in any way. By correctly reading the clues, he stays on the trail most of the time. Learning to do this takes years.
you are saying your past spins is creating the future spins.>>
Past spins give clues to future spins, they don't create them. The deer's trail gives clues to where he may be going. Just like past spins.
Yeah exactly. He walks in the trail but he is not stepping ahead of the deer because he don`t know where its going. I couldn`t have said it better myself.
But he goes in the direction the deer is going, just like I go in the direction the wheel is going by following the past spins. The past points to the future, it doesn't capture it or predict it. But you can make accurate guesses about it if you read it correctly.