How many here feel that it is possible to win consistently, over the long term at dice, bac, or roulette?
it is possible. but very unlikely.
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.
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.
"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
"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.
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 :yahoo:
Quote from: TwoCatSam on September 16, 2009, 02:08:02 PM
"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
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?
Quote from: TwoCatSam on September 16, 2009, 02:08:02 PM
"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?
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.
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.
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..
"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
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
Quote from: TwoCatSam on September 18, 2009, 04:26:18 PM
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
I think Ken means dropping a method that is losing at THIS table and starting up with a different method. I also think he means selecting the method to be used based on what is actually going on.
Perhaps Ken will clarify this.
"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?" >>> Curious is correct more or less. I was a bit vague. sorry.
I have QUIT around 17 methods that I actually played. The reason? It started tanking or never even showed a small profit. I have quit around 50 methods that I only played at home (no money). I currently play around 3-5 methods at the casino. Why won't these fail? Of course they might BUT I brought up a point a while back that MOST here probably dont remember.
Why is it, that alot (not all) of my newer ideas LAST LONGER? Meaning, method after method after method are lasting LONGER before failing? Coincidence? I say no. A method of mine 8 years ago should be no better or no worse than today? Thats what the MATH (cough) says! Ken
Quote from: Spike on September 17, 2009, 05:53:09 PMI 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?
5000 hours of testing?! Maybe you should've learned programming. ???
Spike does not work on a fixed system I think. He studies patterns, but each decision he makes is unique. It would probably be too time consuming to program. It it could be programmed at all.
Correct, it cant be, its based on a FEELING. Thats the beauty of HIS method and AP (cough), they cant be RXed/tested so they are off the hook. Ken
If someones approach cannot be tested it drives the mathboyzz up the wall while screaming foul. >:(
any outcome is equally probable after any pattern
From now on, every time I read the BS about roulette prediction I will keep posting this. Until someone can prove the contrary.
Everything alright today Kav? Ken
5000 hours of testing?! Maybe you should've learned programming.>>>
What I do can't be programmed, its been tried.
any outcome is equally probable after any pattern>>>
Actually, the patterns don't exixt, they're in your head. Any outcome is equally probably after any other outcome, thats what makes it beatable.
Quote from: Spike on September 25, 2009, 06:38:49 PM
any outcome is equally probable after any pattern>>>
Actually, the patterns don't exixt, they're in your head. Any outcome is equally probably after any other outcome, thats what makes it beatable.
That's nonsense, what would make it beatable would be to define that specific outcomes are followed by specific outcomes. only then would we be able to predict something.
If everything is equally possible there is no way for any bet selection to have any advantage, so cut the crap.
If everything is equally possible there is no way for any bet selection to have any advantage, so cut the stuff.>>>
That the outcomes are unconnected is the ONLY totally dependable fact in the game of roulette. And because its 100% true on every spin, its also its exploitable weak spot. But you keep looking for other facts about roulette that happen on every spin, maybe there are others, who knows.
Quote from: Spike on September 17, 2009, 05:53:09 PM
The past spins give clues to POSSIBLE future spins...
Amazing.
Quote from: Spike on September 25, 2009, 06:38:49 PM
Any outcome is equally probably after any other outcome...
Truly amazing.
------------------------
I'm off to the casino to play this now!
I'll report back my results.
Just the truth. Past spins give clues to possible outcomes BECAUSE they are unconnected. Because its dependable. What more can I say, I just handed it to you on a plate..
Quote from: bombus on September 25, 2009, 07:47:15 PM
Truly amazing.
Go play your own system called truly amazing.
OK, we've all been trying to get this guy to say something for years and he says he just said it. I'll burn a few brain cells over it.
Sam
Um, I've said the same on GG for years, its nothing new.
Quote from: Spike on September 25, 2009, 06:53:52 PMThat the outcomes are unconnected is the ONLY totally dependable fact... .
Yes! And by the far the best in the long-run.