Is It Possible?

[stavros]

How many here feel that it is possible to win consistently, over the long term at dice, bac, or roulette?

[pins]

it is possible. but very unlikely.

[Marven]

I'm only into roulette.

It's possible, but it isn't as easy as people who are new to roulette might think.

It can take you years to develop the skills needed to beat the wheel (and yes, "skills". There is no easy mechanical way to win consistently, as many lazy gamblers like to believe).

Where you look is also very important. For instance you can spend the remainder of your life testing all these countless systems you can find and nothing will work. This is a random game, so you need to understand the facts about randomness, what's possible and what's not, from a scientific view-point, not from a gambler's perspective.

[Proofreaders2000]

To answer your question, of all the games, roulette has the most promise IMO.  Then there is the casino itself, which gives the games its TEETH.

[TwoCatSam]

"This is a random game, so you need to understand the facts about randomness, what's possible and what's not.....", said Marven.

Will Rogers, a famous Oklahoman, once said, "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."

The same could be said about random:  Everybody talks about how we should learn random, but nobody gives a single clue about how to do it.  OR..if they have, I've missed it.  I'd appreciate a link.

Think about this.

Assume Joe can read random.  Does Joe look at the marquee?  Does he collect some numbers?  Why?  We are told ad nauseum  that all those numbers that came have no bearing on the next number coming.  True?  Not true?

Let's assume Joe needs no marquee or collection to read random.  What, then, does he read?  Tea leaves?

Can anyone see that this argument speaks out of both sides of its mouth?  One of two things must be true:

1.  The last X number of spins does in fact have some bearing on the next spin, or
2.  Joe can read random out of thin air.

When it comes to this argument, all I hear is obfuscation and bloviation.  

If I were to believe anything, I would believe that Joe does look at the marquee and makes his decision.  However, the last spins have no bearing on his decision.  Yet he wins 70%.  How does he do it?  Joe has a sixth sense.  

Before you laugh, perhaps you should delve into some of the laboratory-controlled experiments on precognition.  You might learn something if you will forget the assumption those scientists are all liars, too.

Sam

[Marven]

"This is a random game, so you need to understand the facts about randomness, what's possible and what's not....." said I.

You just did that, Sam, or at least are trying to.

Whether or not I concur is another story, but at least I know that you are thinking, holding on to commonsense and considering what should and what shouldn't be possible, instead of ambitiously rushing to the casino with that martingale.

[Bo0Merang]

i hardly  believe  in  martinGaGayle   if you  bet 3  next  you just double. . that s it ,and guys dont disgrace me for  my funny  attitude dont forgoth im  still one  of the bigest beginer, thats why i  use flat bet without progression and still waiting for spike  help  with  even chances  but  thats not  happened  becouse  that B,,    dont answare yet

[kav]

"This is a random game, so you need to understand the facts about randomness, what's possible and what's not.....", said Marven.

Will Rogers, a famous Oklahoman, once said, "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."

The same could be said about random:  Everybody talks about how we should learn random, but nobody gives a single clue about how to do it.  OR..if they have, I've missed it.  I'd appreciate a link.

Think about this.

Assume Joe can read random.  Does Joe look at the marquee?  Does he collect some numbers?  Why?  We are told ad nauseum  that all those numbers that came have no bearing on the next number coming.  True?  Not true?

Let's assume Joe needs no marquee or collection to read random.  What, then, does he read?  Tea leaves?

Can anyone see that this argument speaks out of both sides of its mouth?  One of two things must be true:

1.  The last X number of spins does in fact have some bearing on the next spin, or
2.  Joe can read random out of thin air.

When it comes to this argument, all I hear is obfuscation and bloviation.  

If I were to believe anything, I would believe that Joe does look at the marquee and makes his decision.  However, the last spins have no bearing on his decision.  Yet he wins 70%.  How does he do it?  Joe has a sixth sense.  

Before you laugh, perhaps you should delve into some of the laboratory-controlled experiments on precognition.  You might learn something if you will forget the assumption those scientists are all liars, too.

Sam

totally agree, very good points Sam

[Spike]

However, the last spins have no bearing on his decision.  Yet he wins 70%.  How does he do it?  Joe has a sixth sense.>>>

Doubtful. Look at the EC's as a puzzle thats continually unraveling in front of you. The past spins give clues to POSSIBLE future spins, if you learn how to read them. It takes lots of time and lots of patience. I figured out the other day that in the last 3 years I have over 5000 hours of practice time in.  Do you have that kind of dedication?

[curious]

"This is a random game, so you need to understand the facts about randomness, what's possible and what's not.....", said Marven.

Will Rogers, a famous Oklahoman, once said, "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."

The same could be said about random:  Everybody talks about how we should learn random, but nobody gives a single clue about how to do it.  OR..if they have, I've missed it.  I'd appreciate a link.

Think about this.

Assume Joe can read random.  Does Joe look at the marquee?  Does he collect some numbers?  Why?  We are told ad nauseum  that all those numbers that came have no bearing on the next number coming.  True?  Not true?

Let's assume Joe needs no marquee or collection to read random.  What, then, does he read?  Tea leaves?

Can anyone see that this argument speaks out of both sides of its mouth?  One of two things must be true:

1.  The last X number of spins does in fact have some bearing on the next spin, or
2.  Joe can read random out of thin air.

When it comes to this argument, all I hear is obfuscation and bloviation.  

If I were to believe anything, I would believe that Joe does look at the marquee and makes his decision.  However, the last spins have no bearing on his decision.  Yet he wins 70%.  How does he do it?  Joe has a sixth sense.  

Before you laugh, perhaps you should delve into some of the laboratory-controlled experiments on precognition.  You might learn something if you will forget the assumption those scientists are all liars, too.

Sam

I know a lady who lives in Puerto Rico (I almost married her daughter, but that is another story) who can pick winners in horse races like no one I ever saw.

She doesn't look at the racing forms, she doesn't do research.

She takes the Entries and reads through the names of the horses and circles the ones she likes.  She doesn't play every race and only plays a few tracks.

She wins enough to make a decent living.

How does she do this?  I asked her that question and she just smiled.  Oh, she is very heavily involved in Santeria. 

So, is she lucky?  Using precognition?  Using black magic?

[Spike]

She's lucky. It never lasts. If its even true. People lie outrageously about their wins and losses, never believe anything you can't witness first hand.

[Spike]

I'm not calling anybody a liar. Its just I've heard stories like this for 30 years and they always turn out to be false. If shes that good, she should see about winning some of the prize money offered in different places for this kind of talent. So far none of it has been collected because not one single person has demonstrtaed they can do it. But I'm sure your friend is legit and will have no trouble being the first.

[Spike]

Also, if you watched  her do it every week for 2 years, you must be very wealthy by piggybacking on her choices. You must have realized right away the talent she had and if you were right there every Sunday, you must have really made out like a bandit. I envy you..

[Mr J]

"is possible to win consistently" >>> Depends. Meaning (roulette) YES if I count dropping a losing method and then starting up (or continue playing) a NEW method, then I say YES. NO, if I am only allowed to stick to a couple methods and NEVER change them. Ken

[TwoCatSam]

Ken

Please consider this an honest question for debate.  Taking your statement:  "NO, if I am only allowed to stick to a couple methods and NEVER change them."

Are you saying that once upon a time these methods worked but now they don't?  Did the game change?  Did the wheel change?  Why would something work and then quit?

We all know a system has ups and downs.  Are you hoping you halt the system just before the down and start another just as it picks up steam?  Do you ever go back to the original?

Sam

[TwoCatSam]

-