It is just a matter of knowing what the wheel is throwing at the time.

[cheese]

Then, with this great insight you should be a millionaire.  So why are you wasting time posting hundreds of posts in an internet forum?

Curious said: "I won't be bothering you fellars any more."

That lasted what, 1 day? Congratulations..

[Mike]

The spins are never relevant, how could they be. The spins by themselves don't mean anything, you make them mean something.

You're just repeating the same thing over and over. "past spins have no meaning", but you use them in a game which has nothing to do with roulette and yet results in you winning at roulette, so obviously there IS meaning in those spins which you use.

If past spins really had no meaning, then you could just play your game using spins you made up, or spins taken from another wheel which you're not playing. If you do that, would you win? if the answer is no then it proves that past spins DO have a meaning, although the connection is indirect because of the mapping between the spins and the way you use them to play your own game.

[cheese]

or spins taken from another wheel which you're not playing.

Yes, I discussed that in another thread. I've taken spins from two different wheels at the same time and the outcome of the game is the same.

[Mike]

But you also say that you don't win when playing an RNG - it has to be a real wheel. But if spins have no meaning then why should that be?

[cheese]

But you also say that you don't win when playing an RNG - it has to be a real wheel. But if spins have no meaning then why should that be?

The spins have to be true random, not faux random spit out by an RNG. You could make up a stream of numbers and I couldn't work with them. True random is important, the numbers have to be unique independent events.

[schoenpoetser]

I am very tired of this discussion.Cheese say all knowledge of maths or experience is  worthless.Nothing is predictable.The outcome of the roulette is independent on any fact.So it is very easy to learn the method of cheese to a monkey.The truth is we cannot change the EV of the roulette.The EV can be computed  with maths.Without maths we can learn the features of a roulette.The monkey knows nothing about the EV  and he shall lose 2,7% on a European wheel.So it is not a good idea to let the monkey play

[I have cookies]

The spins have to be true random, not faux random spit out by an RNG. You could make up a stream of numbers and I couldn't work with them. True random is important, the numbers have to be unique independent events.

Lets see, i spin my wheel at home and post the results here and some RNG result - and you would know witch one is from my wheel and witch one is RNG - ridiculous.

[cheese]

.Cheese say all knowledge of maths or experience is  worthless.

No I didn't and you can't find a place where I did. Don't make up false quotes to make your point.

[cheese]

and you would know witch one is from my wheel and witch one is RNG - ridiculous.

Yup. But don't worry, I don't take tests, so you think what you like.

[I have cookies]

so you think what you like.

That is what we have in common.

[curious]

Maybe, if he's got about 6 months, and doesn't have a degree in math to screw him up.

Well, I have read a lot of what you have posted in here and as far as I can tell you just talk gibberish.  I have asked you before and I will ask you again, explain your method so that we can understand it.  Last time I asked you to do that you said I was a trouble maker, blah, blah, blah.  I'm not sure how someone who asks people to back up what they say is "trouble".

[curious]

Curious said: "I won't be bothering you fellars any more."

That lasted what, 1 day? Congratulations..

How is what I do any of your business?

You still have not provided a description of your "method" for beating roulette that is understandable.   You say that I am a trouble maker, all I have ever said to you is prove what you say.  How is that "trouble"?

[gizmotron]

You're just repeating the same thing over and over. "past spins have no meaning", but you use them in a game which has nothing to do with roulette and yet results in you winning at roulette, so obviously there IS meaning in those spins which you use.

Is it possible to make up meaning from a vague set of suggestions? Can a thing have no mathematical connection but still belong to an imagined connection by the use of created identifiers?

Posterior probability: "In Bayesian statistics, the posterior probability of a random event or an uncertain proposition is the conditional probability that is assigned after the relevant evidence is taken into account."

"Conditional probability is the probability of some event A, given the occurrence of some other event B. Conditional probability is written P(A|B), and is read "the (conditional) probability of A, given B" or "the probability of A under the condition B". When in a random experiment the event B is known to have occurred, the possible outcomes of the experiment are reduced to B, and hence the probability of the occurrence of A is changed from the unconditional probability into the conditional probability given B."

Your argument is that past spins have no effect on future spins. But they can in the imagination. You can imagine the connection that the conditional probability conclusions are working. So you use a game within the game that sees a conditional probability sequence turn into an imaginary set of past spins that conform to short term expectations. You are using the syntax of basic probability arithmetic as a language to relate to it. At no time has the past spins had any real effect on future spins.. But they did in your imagination.

[curious]

Is it possible to make up meaning from a vague set of suggestions? Can a thing have no mathematical connection but still belong to an imagined connection by the use of created identifiers?

Posterior probability: "In Bayesian statistics, the posterior probability of a random event or an uncertain proposition is the conditional probability that is assigned after the relevant evidence is taken into account."

"Conditional probability is the probability of some event A, given the occurrence of some other event B. Conditional probability is written P(A|B), and is read "the (conditional) probability of A, given B" or "the probability of A under the condition B". When in a random experiment the event B is known to have occurred, the possible outcomes of the experiment are reduced to B, and hence the probability of the occurrence of A is changed from the unconditional probability into the conditional probability given B."

Your argument is that past spins have no effect on future spins. But they can in the imagination. You can imagine the connection that the conditional probability conclusions are working. So you use a game within the game that sees a conditional probability sequence turn into an imaginary set of past spins that conform to short term expectations. You are using the syntax of basic probability arithmetic as a language to relate to it. At no time has the past spins had any real effect on future spins.. But they did in your imagination.

So, a person could win in their imagination but not at the roulette table?  How does this help?

[gizmotron]

So, a person could win in their imagination but not at the roulette table?  How does this help?

I was talking with Mike. Just look at your question. A person can win in their imagination that causes a win at the roulette table. How does that help? Try to notice that this was not a miss quote.

[gizmotron]

-