The MathPeeps say the math ruling roulette prevents you from accurately guessing the next spin consistantly. What is the math of short term probability, exactly? What's the math that says the next spin can't be red? Whats the math that says a trend of 30 reds and 5 blacks will end on the next spin? Whats the math that says trends don't exist?
Noble Savage says the math of short term probability is 'easy' and I should do the research myself. I did and found nothing on it. So, MathBoyz, whats the math? You're so absolutely convinced that I can't master short term probability, where's the math that says I can't?
I replied in the other thread.
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/roulette-and-gambling-framework/law-of-averages-the-limited-law-of-likely-events/msg102543/#msg102543 (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/roulette-and-gambling-framework/law-of-averages-the-limited-law-of-likely-events/msg102543/#msg102543)
But you didn't cover the math of short term probability at all. For instance, whats the math that says red can't (or can) occur 12 times in a row? Whats the math that shows when a trend will end? Saying it might or might not end on the next spin is like shrugging your shoulders, meaning you have no answer. We already know it went 12 in a row, why is betting red one more time a bad bet? Was betting the 12th spin to be red a bad bet? Obviously it wasn't. My point is, you act like you have all the answers, but for the extreme short term, you have no math and no answers at all.
Your problem is that you argue with MATH.
you should argue with LOGIC!
you should argue with LOGIC!>>>
Whats the logic of roulette?
Spike,
Start by practicing a little common sense. :)
Quote from: Spike! on April 23, 2010, 07:59:30 PM
you should argue with LOGIC!>>>
Whats the logic of roulette?
There´s a spin
Quote from: Herb6 on April 23, 2010, 08:09:43 PM
Spike,
Start by practicing a little common sense. :)
as usual you are talking about things you´re not common with
why do you people drown yerselfs with maths,there is a lot of ways to win at roulette.watch the wheel and see whats happening.it really is in front of you.
Start by practicing a little common sense.>>
Herb has nothing to say, so of course he says nothing that means anything. Yawn.
you should argue with LOGIC!>>>
Whats the logic of roulette?
Quote from: Spike! on April 24, 2010, 06:47:28 PM
you should argue with LOGIC!>>>
Whats the logic of roulette?
I did already answer! and see: there´s another spin!
I guess its a joke or something, I didn't get it.
QuoteSo, MathBoyz, whats the math? You're so absolutely convinced that I can't master short term probability, where's the math that says I can't?
The mistake is in thinking there's a difference between "short term" and "long term" probability. Probability is defined only in the long term. But just because there's no short term probability and therefore no math that says you can't master it, it doesn't follow that you
can. Again,
you are the one claiming something exists for which there is no evidence, so it's up to you to provide some.
Quote from: Spike! on April 24, 2010, 07:39:16 PM
I guess its a joke or something, I didn't get it.
Hi spike,
a spin is just a spin and on its own it is telling nothing!
But after that we know, will be some things that will appear again and again.
e.g.:
Poker:
a) you have AK? Do you bet?
b) on flop there is AKK? Do you bet?
c) it follows Q and J. do you bet?
d) on table AKQJ are same color. do you bet?
You have RBRB... Do you bet? and what?
(just an very shorted example)
br
winkel
Its a crappy question asked by someone who clearly don`t get the math at all.
There are no ruling that says red or black or 12 reds cant appear in the next 12 spins, but the probability for a 12 red serie can be calculated and you can calculate how many of that serie type (or any other serie mix consisting of 12 spins) you can expect in X amount of spins. Thats the math behind.
When you then start counting the amount of different serie lenghts (trends) you will soon find out that it is a impossibility to play trends because they break up just as often as they start, (Google "law of the series, roulette" or go to nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics11.html (nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics11.html)
There are no way you can benefit from series/trends/patterns unless you know up front they are gonna appear. There are just as many break ups as there are starters. Simple back counting on real permanences proves that. There are plenty of claims from pseudo players/priests/religious fanatics that claims they can see when a elegant pattern is about to appear because there has been another elegant pattern distribution just before that. You can choose to believe that if thats your way, but there is no logic or math behind it, its simple believing. Some call it religion, with a pope (spike) and a super priest (gizmo). If they one day show me that they actually CAN walk on water, i will never laugh at them again.
Im not even interested in knowing how they do it, i just wanna see them do it. Will it happen................naa. There is a trend that shows that its all talk, my bet is that the trend will continue. The law of the series doesn`t count in this case.
Well said kelly! :thumbsup:
lol
My thoughts exactly Kelly.
Quote from: Kelly on April 25, 2010, 08:12:23 AM
When you then start counting the amount of different serie lenghts (trends) you will soon find out that it is a impossibility to play trends because they break up just as often as they start, (Google "law of the series, roulette" or go to nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics11.html (nolinks://nolinks.win-maxx.com/basics/basics11.html)
There are no way you can benefit from series/trends/patterns unless you know up front they are gonna appear. There are just as many break ups as there are starters.
Actually you are presenting a notion that is far too generous. If you look at the probabilities for series you will see that more trends break up than those that continue. There are twice as many that end as there are those that continue. On Ec's there is a 25% chance of getting two in a row of black. On three in a row there is a 12.5% chance.
Since you know that a series has less chance to continue why don't you place bets for it to end? On any single bet you also have the odds for that bet too. In case of the Ec's it's basically 50/50 if the zeros are sleeping. So somehow these sets of odds have no direct effect on the outcome, yet they are connected by probability expectations. I say that probability math is some kind of clustering illusion. That makes it the source for many mathematical fallacies. You have a situation where one set of numbers says that there is a 12.5% chance something will happen while another set of numbers says 50%.
I'm sure you are all very happy with results like that?
You're way off base.
Try again.
I suggest you do your homework on the basics a little better. What you describe is a typical beginner conclusion. Trend starters and stoppers are a 50/50 game minus the house edge. Otherwise you could just aim for a break up in each bet and book a fortune, thats not really happening is it. I could explain it to you, but i would have to kill you afterwards. No seriously, read again, that will be easyer than i rewrite it in my own words.
The series has the same chance to continue as they have to break up. No matter which way you look at it.
Probability gives conclusions on for example how many series of 3 you would on average expect in 1000 spins. Sometimes its spot on, sometimes its far from, but when you add all testsamples up in a larger pot, the results matches the probability calculation so the probabilty theory is sound enough. Short term it also fits, the variation from the mean is measured in standard deviations.
The math boyz that you guys keeps bashing would NEVER NEVER EVER use probability math to any prediction connected to Roulette. I don`t know where you get that impression. I don`t know a math boy that would place a single bet because he thought something was due unless there were a physical flaw that he was basing his prediction on.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 25, 2010, 12:56:36 PM
If you look at the probabilities for series you will see that more trends break up than those that continue. There are twice as many that end as there are those that continue.
LOL
That is as wrong as wrong can be:
There are the same number of continuing and breaking Trends.
RRB and RRR has the same probability.
The other thing is:
Quotewhy don't you place bets for it to end?
if you bet on breaking after RRR you will lose with every other R that follow up to 15 or 26 R.
If you bet on continuing you will just lose 1 chip if it stops at once!
That´s logic, isn´t it?
Any pattern can´t be predicted. But I know there is always a pattern.
So if I just bet on a possible pattern I will have a better chance.
RBRBR. why not bet on B?
RRRBB. why not bet on B?
RRBBR. why not bet on R?
I just lose one chip? What is the problem?
br
winkel
QuoteRBRBR. why not bet on B?
RRRBB. why not bet on B?
RRBBR. why not bet on R?
I just lose one chip? What is the problem ?
No problem, but its a dead end or 50/50 game.
Great, "The series has the same chance to continue as they have to break up. No matter which way you look at it."
So I can't pull the wool over the newbies eyes, you won't let me.
Here is where you are really stuck. None of you will ride a long trend. You advise against trends so you get none of the good runs. By your own logic there is nothing but a slight advantage to the house. You admittedly think that you can't do better than that. But I'm saying that you can maneuver through the data and take the advantages as times to pocket more than just blind house advantage stakes. You see, I can't try to not see the big trends. I can't just forget that it's right in front of me happening and not see it. You can. You admit that there is no advantage ever. I see them all the time. There is no math solution for that. I get it. You don't.
I belive you as soon as you show me just 1 that i can safely bet on. Like i said, if you know a 12 serie is gonna occur, you can safely bet on it with an advantage, but you need a crystal bowl for that, not previous spins. I got software that can test all kind of trend chasing from 1 to 99 R/B in a row. I have testet the better part of 100 triggers to start chasing a trend starting from BB to BBBBBBBBBB ending with the fist loss, and letting it ride for as long as the trend is.. IT DOES NOT WORK. Negative figures in the end, always.
But thats the problem with you, you have to hide behind the big picture because when it comes down to actually putting the big picture together in real play, it will fall apart. Otherwise im sure you would have been much more specific ages ago. Its much easyer to hide behind a black cape with a logo saying: "Everybody else are fools because they can`t prove i can`t walk on water as long as i won`t show them i can"
But then again, who should we pick on, on a slow afternoon if we didn`t have you guys.
Quote from: Kelly on April 25, 2010, 01:56:38 PM
I belive you as soon as you show me just 1 that I can safely bet on.
Here is how it works. There are an equal number of losses to all the wins achievable by any streaks, if you were to blindly bet everything the same. There is no way to select any trend without it balancing out in the long run, if you bet without changing. None of that can prevent you from betting larger at the streaks of favorable guesses though, and betting minimum at the typically balanced times when guessing gets you house average results. If you lose a bet you know that a streak of bad guesses might follow soon. So you bet until you see a change. You just don't attack while things are hinting bad things. So all I can do is tell you when it is definitely not safe. Knowing when things correct in order to balance the outcomes is more important than breaking even. Losing when you are supposed to is part of making the house's advantage work the way it does. So you must limit your losses while attacking your good moments. This whole idea for trends is just so that you can see what is happening with bet selections. You can use any bet selection method that you want to. You just have to use flat betting as the discovery method.
Quote from: Kelly on April 25, 2010, 01:31:56 PM
No problem, but its a dead end or 50/50 game.
Yes if you just purely put the math on it, and let your intelligence in front of the door!
If there is 50/50 to breck or continue
then
if it breaks I lose -1
if it continues I win 1
if it breaks now I´m +-0
if it continues I´m +2
and so on.
but not only BBBBBB is a pattern or serie
also RBRBRB....
also RRBBRRBB..
also RBBRBBRBBR
so what ist the chance to meet any pattern?
so what is the chance to meet at least one pattern?
so what is the calc if you win a pattern with a "earning" progression (progression in the win) against losing just 1 chip with every broken pattern?
I bet with you: give me any 20 spins and I will find and win on a pattern I saw coming up!
br
winkel
No you can't.
The chance of you guessing the EC correctly on the next spin remains 18/37 on the single zero wheel.
I don't know why you guys can't grasp that each spin of the wheel is an independent trial.
In the long run you will find that you can't predict an EC any better or any worse than chance would dictate. (Outside of any statistical significance.)
Quote from: Winkel on April 25, 2010, 02:21:07 PM
If there is 50/50 to breck or continue
then
if it breaks I lose -1
if it continues I win 1
if it breaks now I´m +-0
if it continues I´m +2
I was at a table two weeks ago that had all red numbers on the marquee. If I were to play minimum flat stakes until that began to form up I could have risked table limits to win at least 10 times the table limits. Doing this is all about being comfortable losing a single table limit bet. To win at trends you must figure out how to stake a full powered bet. So if you can win one big bet, later, you can attack the strong trends with it. The entire game of Roulette is about winning one single large bet. You then take what that gives you to the bank. Playing small stakes to find a working streak at minimums is ridiculous.
Gizmo,
It's very easy to look back and curve fit to what has already happened and say, "See, I would have won this ---------much!"
What you're not seeing or remembering is the series after that series and the one after that where you would have lost.
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 02:37:22 PM
No you can't.
The chance of you guessing the EC correctly on the next spin remains 18/37 on the single zero wheel.
I don't know why you guys can't grasp that each spin of the wheel is an independent trial.
In the long run you will find that you can't predict an EC any better or any worse than chance would dictate. (Outside of any statistical significance.)
You don't have to predict it. You only need to do it correctly more times than not. If there is no way to predict something then you must come up with a different reason to be right more times than wrong. That's that zone you are afraid to go.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 25, 2010, 02:43:43 PM
...
The entire game of Roulette is about winning one single large bet.
...
Playing small stakes to find a working streak at minimums is ridiculous.
I presume you don´t know nothing about roulette.
like this stupid Herb with his repeated phrase of independend spins.
I don´t have to know what comes next, I just have to know where to place my bet.
br
winkel
Gizmo,
Kelly and I both have powerful simulators that have tested such wild ideas in the past. This just simply doesnt work.
It is nothing more than a fools folly to continue down this road of chasing trends in the ECs.
Winkel,
Prove it. Show us the math. Post the calculations that you are making that support your theory.
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 02:57:13 PM
Winkel,
Prove it. Show us the math. Post the calculations that you are making that support your theory.
If you only could read!
There is no math in it, its pure logic.
br
winkel
If you want a proof, lets open a new test-post and let us play as many spins as you want.
Winkel, yes i know it sound tempting, you are german so i asume you know casinosoft.de, Jôrg Krause, i got his old software, System spieler and you can experiment a lot with win goals and losses. Even though the logic that a 16 red serie will give you some +12 if you need 3 x red as trigger and only -1 if it appears to be only a 3 serie, it WILL end up negative. Trust me, i have spend at least 200 hours trying back and forth with different triggers and trend patterns, even illogical like RRBRRBRB etc. The Guetting Marsch follows both series and chops and also groups of 2er series. Also "nasen" pattens etc. It doesn`t work long term, no matter how you twist it.
Quote from: Kelly on April 25, 2010, 03:18:09 PM
Winkel, yes I know it sound tempting, you are german so I asume you know casinosoft.de, Jôrg Krause, I got his old software, System spieler and you can experiment a lot with win goals and losses. Even though the logic that a 16 red serie will give you some +12 if you need 3 x red as trigger and only -1 if it appears to be only a 3 serie, it WILL end up negative. Trust me, I have spend at least 200 hours trying back and forth with different triggers and trend patterns, even illogical like RRBRRBRB etc. The Guetting Marsch follows both series and chops and also groups of 2er series. Also "nasen" pattens etc. It doesn`t work long term, no matter how you twist it.
How long is long term?
It is all theory, that a strategie or betselection will lose after more spins than a man can play in his whole life.
It just needs one win per day. and I can guarantee this at minimum one more often as you need to stay in plus
br
winkel
QuoteHow long is long term?
Answer: How much sand does it take to make a heap? Short term + short term = long term.
QuoteIt is all theory, that a strategy or bet selection will lose after more spins than a man can play in his whole life.
The casinos rely on this theory to turn a profit. They don't build casinos because of the winners.
QuoteIt just needs one win per day. and I can guarantee this at minimum one more often as you need to stay in plus
This statement tells me where you are on the gambler's experience timeline. You're at number five.
1. The gambler discovers the Martingale.
2. The gambler falls prey to "gambler's fallacy", events become "due".
3. The gambler begins to realize it isn't working and looks for "just the right progression" to make it work as well as just the right "entry point". "Sleepers" becomes the new theory.
4. The gambler begins to lower expectations and in an effort to limit losses begins to try for smaller and smaller unit wins. Begins to believe in "hit and run". "He also continues to experiment with trying to find, "just the right size of loss limit".
5. The gamblers begins to believe that, "If I just try for one unit per session, then I can win more often than I lose."
6. The disillusioned gamblers begins to ask, "Where do I go when I hit and run?" And, "How long must I stay away before I can begin a new session if I do win?"
7. The gambler faces ruin as he realizes that he can't even win one unit per session in the long run, because there are several sessions where he's never ahead even one unit.
Herb6
Just try me instead of posting the same old stupid posts again and again.
but you are afraid of being proofed stupid.
we can play 10000 spins or more if you like perhaps 100000. Just try me or close your dirty mouth
Sorry winkel, I have seen it with my own eyes. Everything goes down if you run enough spins on it. I haven`t said that with a bit of luck and if a man didn`t go to the casino too often might stay a head for a life time. It could happen, but only with luck and not too many bets placed. If you got some rules you want me to apply to something, send me an e mail and I run it through systemspieler and 340.000 spins, but I won`t be back before next monday so there is no rush.
Long term = for the EC`s above 50.000 placed bets. The spins must be unknown before the test. You can "easyli" backwards engineer 50.000 placed bets to come out positive. 50.000 placed bets is where the 3 standard deviation treshold runs. Meaning if you out of pure luck had a hit rate that hit +3 standard deviation over 50.000 spins, your bankroll would at this point be 0 due to the zero losses even though you had way more hits than losses.
PS: It also takes forever to do these tests on line and like laurance posted on GG, it would be relatively easy to construct some sort of tracking program that traced the numbers as they came out and searched through all public available databases to find a match and when it did, in the end the person in test would know which permanenzes was being used.
Winkel,
Try Kelly's simulator. At the very least you'll get new ideas.
Hi Kelly,
why doesn´t anyone understand? My rules (my intelligence) is not programmable, (perhaps yet)
I offer to play 50000 spins on EC and I will be in front
Anyone is welcome to try me!
br
winkel
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 05:03:25 PM
Winkel,
Try Kelly's simulator. At the very least you'll get new ideas.
try me or shut up
Winkel,
Explain how you want to play it. For example, if you're playing for just one unit, how long must you wait before you can place your next bet?
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 05:44:05 PM
Winkel,
Explain how you want to play it. For example, if you're playing for just one unit, how long must you wait before you can place your next bet?
I play from the very first spin until a double hit. I reach always a double hit!
now try me or shut up. And stop farthing always the same phrases
My question is this, if we are doing a test, and you win, how long must you wait before you can bet again?
Meaning, if you play one spin and win, how long must we wait before you can play the next spin?
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 06:05:19 PM
My question is this, if we are doing a test, and you win, how long must you wait before you can bet again?
Meaning, if you play one spin and win, how long must we wait before you can play the next spin?
I bet every spin until I have 1 unit per bet spin, if I win the very first spin I bet again
Put it this way, how do we test your method if you only play until you've won one unit?
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 06:13:42 PM
Put it this way, how do we test your method if you only play until you've won one unit?
I would agree to bet for 3 (or name it) wins (not units) per test day
Herb spewed the old talking point: >>In the long run you will find that you can't predict an EC any better or any worse than chance would dictate.>>
It all comes down to this. The long run only exists if you play a mechanical system that does the same thing over and over and over. The long term will eat it like a buzz saw. But if you play a method that changes on every spin, that correctly reads the random and anticipates whats coming next, you are ALWAYS in the short term and there is no math that covers the short term. On every spin you're starting over. You just can't get it thru you're math soaked brain that this is possible, so for you, it isn't. Not my problem.
Winkel,
Why must you wait between wins? What determines how long you must wait? Why are you limited on the amount you can win?
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 06:30:51 PM
Winkel,
Why must you wait between wins? What determines how long you must wait? Why are you limited on the amount you can win?
don´t you read?
I don´t wait, I bet every spin.
How many hours will you test me each day? Just tell!
How are you going to be betting? ECs or straight up numbers?
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 06:37:53 PM
How are you going to be betting? ECs or straight up numbers?
would be nice if you would read properly: we were talking about ECs
Would be nice if you learned some manners too. :)
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 06:41:13 PM
Would be nice if you learned some manners too. :)
I have better manners than you boy!
I read properly, that is the honour I ca give another person at minimum
Winkel,
Nobody is going to take you seriously with that attitude problem of yours. :)
What now?
do you try me or not?
Gizmo said: >>By your own logic there is nothing but a slight advantage to the house. You admittedly think that you can't do better than that. >>>
Thats because they're stuck in the long term. They feed a mehanical system into a simulator, and yup, it loses every time, right at the house edge. They have zero flexibility in their betting. The math of roulette totally depends on you doing the same type of thing over and over and over. If you learn how to go with the flow of whats being presented in the random outcomes, to study it and really see whats going on, their long term math goes out the window.
I'm always being asked what my triggers are to bet, and when I say I don't have any, they throw their hands up in disgust and say I'm lying. They cannot wrap their tiny minds around betting without triggers. All a trigger does is trap you in the long term math, why would I want to do that?
G'day,
Winkel, Herb6 is now trying to find an 'out'!
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 06:47:04 PM
Winkel,
Nobody is going to take you seriously with that attitude problem of yours. :)
Who takes YOU seriously?
You are just blowing hot air. I bet you never ever played roulette, you are just in forums to pet your EGO
I already know what the result will be, and testing is incredibly boring. Let me think about it.
Kelly said: >>Trend starters and stoppers are a 50/50 game minus the house edge.>>
All trends, series, patterns, everything in the EC's is a 50/50 game. For every event, there is exactly an equal number of events that are the opposite of it. In the long run. In the short term, where we bet, anything can happen. And learning to anticipate whats coming next by studying whats come before is how the game is beat. Boring but true.
Quote from: Herb6 on April 25, 2010, 07:17:15 PM
I already know what the result will be, and testing is incredibly boring. Let me think about it.
confess: You are just afraid
Nobody is going to take you seriously with that attitude problem of yours.>>>
This is the excuse Herb/Snowman uses to weasel out of everything. He doesn't like your attitude, or your language, or your humor, so he picks up his toys and goes home. He doesn't need to talk to you because he's so much smarter than everybody else, he's always the smartest person in the room. Just ask him.
confess: You are just afraid>>>
You hit the nail on the head, Winkle. All the math people are terrified that something will come along and upset what they've been taught, upset their world view on math. Its a religion to them and they are the High Priests. They wil do anything to keep their jobs, and that includes running away.
Winkel, if you wanna live performance, you gotta do it by yourself, i haven`t got that kind of time. If you can set up some kind of testing board where wiesbaden spins is being posted as they are being produced and you place your prediction a head of the next number, then you could do 3 - 4 hours a day and in about a year you would have completed 50.000 placed bets. Admit it, you haven`t done that before and as such don`t know how your system will react to such rigid expoxure. Until then, i will maintain that there are no proof that you have a winning system. Add spike and gizmo in that basket too. Im not afraid, actually i would be happy for you guys. I just don`t have 3 - 4 hours a day where i can sit and monitor someone else playing.
Add spike and gizmo in that basket too>>
You don't think I've placed 50K virtual bets? I went by that number a couple of years ago.
Quote from: Kelly on April 26, 2010, 01:18:41 AM
Until then, I will maintain that there are no proof that you have a winning system.
Kelly,
isn´t that funny?
I offer to proof, you denie the challenge and say I don´t have anything!
As long as you or anybody else is refusing this test, you don´t have the right to say there is nothing.
You say there is no math-system - I agree
I say there is a logic strategie - You say: prove
I say: give me spins - herb says: he will cheat
I say: give me spin by spin - herb says you will need 50 000 spins
I say: give me 50000 - herb and kelly say: we have no time, it is boring
I´ve done everything to prove, you just don´t accept. It is your fault. so shut up with your saying: There is nothing, as lng as you didn´t prove it!
br
winkel
Kelly,
You are close ! It would take nearly one year to be exact 312.5 days. :ok: You are even allowed 52.5 days for other activities . :clapping:
N.D.
QuoteYou hit the nail on the head, Winkle. All the math people are terrified that something will come along and upset what they've been taught, upset their world view on math. Its a religion to them and they are the High Priests. They wil do anything to keep their jobs, and that includes running away.
You are absolutely wrong about this. I would love to see someone step up to the plate and provide some evidence that it's not all just hot air. A good percentage of posts on gambling forums are about getting the braggers to show some proof, but to my knowledge it's
never been done. It's impossible to demonstrate conclusively that a system is a long-term winner, because the die-hard sceptics will always demand longer tests, but some strong statistical evidence can be shown with a fairly small number of spins. It's not necessary to test over 50,000 spins or anything like that number.
I have some sympathy with Winkel's comments. It's a pity there isn't some software which could grab spins from the wiesbaden wheels and make sure that you bet before the next outcome.
Quote from: Bayes on April 26, 2010, 08:07:00 AM
I have some sympathy with Winkel's comments. It's a pity there isn't some software which could grab spins from the wiesbaden wheels and make sure that you bet before the next outcome.
Just go random.org and pump down million of spins. Pass it to someone. And give me spin by spin. Thats it.
OR
just search for any 20-spin-section without "no" pattern in it. Give me these sequences spin by spin and I will win.
(BTW: you won´t find any)
br
winkel
Hi Winkel.I can give you some spins if you want.
Quote from: bene126 on April 26, 2010, 09:24:24 AM
Hi Winkel.I can give you some spins if you want.
I´ll be back in three hours. If you have time we can start then.
My first bet 1 unit on Red
Bankroll: 6764 units
just open a new thread in Testarea
br
winkel
Hello is there any rules regarding the test - is it about even money or numbers ?
My impression is but i might got it all wrong - that it is about flat betting and even money bets.
Then there is no need to post about 6000 or any other number being an bankroll.
Baiscs are simpel things.
1) You have to flat betting and gain at least +1 and that does overcome the attempts you apply to gain at least +1.
Feel free to use any tendency in the world - good luck ...
Cheers
Ohh Lord, please send brain!
another cookie-monster appears and makes rules not knowing what we talk about.
Do you think I would flat-bet EC over 50000 spins? Have you ever seen a statistic or do you know anything about probability?
Ohhh Lord pls bless the cookie-monsters they definitely need it
Winkel,
Do you think a progression really changes the house edge?
Quote from: Herb6 on April 26, 2010, 12:02:49 PM
Winkel,
Do you think a progression really changes the house edge?
Have I ever talked about house edge?
I don´t mind that
Winkel,
Can you describe the progression that you plan on using?
Quote from: Herb6 on April 26, 2010, 12:13:48 PM
Winkel,
Can you describe the progression that you plan on using?
Fibonacci
How big is the imaginary bankroll?
6764 units
So for this test, you would start with a 6764 unit bankroll?
How large will the first bet be in this test?
Quote from: Winkel on April 26, 2010, 10:05:58 AM
I´ll be back in three hours. If you have time we can start then.
My first bet 1 unit on Red
Bankroll: 6764 units
just open a new thread in Testarea
br
winkel
You didn´t read this obviously lol
Obviously :)
I see ... i tought your state of mind was the same as Spike and Gizmo ...
Cheers
If you use a progression, 50.000 spins is not the number to beat. Personally i had one system positive over 240.000 spins i think it was. Its for download on David Coopers board. 999 units bankroll.
Gotta go.
I don't think it matters. They will test around 500, maybe 1k spins and get bored with it and quit.