I'm going to start removing nuisance members that:
1. Just criticize people without offering anything constructive
2. Waffle on in circles to lead people on (people like wendel, who is now gone)
3. Repeatedly disregard the rules, in particularly pertaining to language and offensive behavior
If you believe a particular member meets any of the above criteria, please let me know via PM. The forum was clean of such people for a while, and now they seem to have crept back on and productivity was reduced. Probably the same people under different names. This all leads to vls being just a mess, and it loses good and productive members.
To the members who just want to kick of crap and argue with people they dont like, GG is more what you want as it is less moderated.
negatory party for instance they set it all off>>>
Saying why something won't work is not being negative. In fact, its very positive. If a person has a valid argument as to why something is doomed, and all you have for an answer is 'quit being a hater', then you have no agument at all. Thats why we don't have to rediscover how to build cars and airplanes every few years, the people who know how to do it show the people who don't know how.
Listen very carefully: The only way to beat roulette is by having the edge. The only way to have the edge is thru VB play, or a roulette computer, or by reading the random well enough to make an accurate guess. Anything else is flying too close to the sun with wings of wax.. :suicide: :suicide_fool: :girl_werewolf:
What you want is control over who says what in a thread you're in. You'd be the first one to squeal like a banchee if anybody told you to be quiet. :hysteric: :hysteric: :hysteric:
QuoteI guess im down for number 3 but I will stop if I dont get prevoked by number 1's
negatory party for instance they set it all off
Understand I dont distinguish between who started it, who provoked who etc etc. I dont have time to read all the details - who does. If someone provokes you and breaks the basic rules, REPORT THEM. If you retaliate, or act negatively from being provoked, all I will see is your post - not the reasons behind it which are irrelevant.
This might mean I may ban some people but neglect to ban others who actually are more of a problem, but those bigger problems wont last either if their behavior continues.
If someone provokes you and breaks the basic rules>>>
This is what Stack is talking about. If he's in a thread and somebody posts and says this or that won't work and here are the reasons, he resents it and thinks they shouldn't be allowed to do it. He thinks any kind of input except positive 'you can do it, rah rah rah' is negative and the person should be banned for just expressing their informed opinion. I know this because he's said as much.
People of course arent always going to agree on forums. But when it comes to something like mathematics, there is only one truth. It is not open to interpretation - it is black or white. When people tend to disagree about things like maths, there is someone right and someone wrong. The wrong person just doesnt see it yet.
With #1 I'm talking only about people who unjustly attack, bully or whatever. When someone states rubbish, the perfect thing to do is present facts, without emotion. But many people "get off" on sticking it to people - that's plain bullying which is essentially "offensive" behavior, and it should not be tolerated. In the end, the members know who they do or dont like and why. If a member is generally not liked, and members dont want them around, we remove them.
In simplest terms, I posted this thread to ask members to let me know who brings the forum down - who the dickheads are - so we can ban them.
I posted this thread to ask members to let me know who brings the forum down>>>
The people who are disliked the most here are me, Herb, Gizmo, Six, Danger Man and a few others. We throw the cold water of facts on things and are called negative because of it. Its not being negative, its being realistic. Also, the ones who complain the most are young and were brought up in the environment of PCism and they were rewarded for losing in school. They were never critisized or told anything was wrong. Every thought they had was rewarded and so when they got out in the real world, and discovered some things they said would meet opposition, they call those people 'haters' and 'negative'. Welcome, as they say, to the real world. The Force has two sides, you know.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatures%2F100greatestcharacters%2Fphotos%2F2.jpg&hash=aa1ee39bea29a603a095b25cc84b04630c642ffb)
Quote from: Spike! on May 14, 2010, 12:11:45 AM
If he's in a thread and somebody posts and says this or that won't work and here are the reasons, he resents it and thinks they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
The problem is that the naysayers never give any reason. They just monotonously keep repeating something everyone knows: that there is a house edge. As if it were impossible to win at th stock market just because there are trading fees.
This is negativity. Furthermore it is boring. And non-constructive. It is like being in a discussion where people try to create a airplane and some people keep repeating again an again that it is impossible to create one, because it would be heavier than the air, and physics say that anything heavier than the air will fall down.
But the negative people, due to the fact that they repeat themselves,, do not have to think something original in order to post. So they are heavy posters. And the admin is afraid to ban them, because the posting activity of the forum will drop. Though the quality will increase. But who cares for quality? Quality cannot be measured while activity can. Bu in the long run quality is the only way to make a forum stand out.
They just monotonously keep repeating something everyone knows: that there is a house edge.>>>
Be fair, there is a heck of lot more said then 'there is a house edge'.
>>where people try to create a airplane and some people keep repeating again an again that it is impossible to create one>>
If you're trying to build it out of concrete, yup, people will tell you it won't work.
>But the negative people>>the admin is afraid to ban them>>
So it should be all people here who know nothing about roulette or how its played, just people who are 'positive', whatever the heck that means. If it there were just you guys, then The Zone would be the Grail? It only loses because of the 'negative' people? You really believe that?
Steve
I refer you to #2 and to Fender1000. All this person has done is waffle! He was challenged to prove his system on Dublin and he refused. (Had he tried and lost, I would have been the first to say it was no test as it was too small a sample. Same if he won.) At least he could have taken the challenge!
Telling me that Dublin is a rigged wheel or (whatever he believes) is a cop-out, to use an old Hippie phrase.
A semi-proper test of Fender would be for someone to suggest an advance date and time to begin at Dublin (or anywhere) and have a couple of guys monitor the spins. Better yet, Fender could spend a few bucks and buy into Motion Box and WM Capture and make us a two-hour video.
The test itself would prove nothing, but the taking of the test would prove Fender's resolve!
I sure wouldn't want the guy banned, but don't you agree that he sells more waffles than The Waffle House?
Sam
QuoteThe problem is that the naysayers never give any reason. They just monotonously keep repeating something everyone knows: that there is a house edge. As if it were impossible to win at th stock market just because there are trading fees.
Kav,
It's not merely that there's a house edge which makes roulette hard to beat, it's the randomness of the game.
randomness + house edge = one hell of a hard nut to crack!
You can't really compare trading with roulette, because there are elements of non-randomness in trading which enable you to get an edge. Trends in markets can actually mean something, because they're based on psychology. The game of roulette is synonymous with randomness and unpredictability, however, the
wheel is not necessarily a perfect RNG 100% of the time. That's why Herb says you can beat the wheel, but not the game.
It's a well established fact that the
game cannot be beaten. Not only that, but there is cast-iron proof that this is the case. If anyone claims that they can beat the
game, and I keep saying this,
they are the ones who need to provide some evidence. Do you realise what an extraordinary claim it is?
If any of the claimants could provide even a single reason, why,
in principle, the game can be beaten, I'd love to hear it. And I'm not talking about meaningless gibberish like "random can be read", I mean a real, testable principle.
The APs have Physics - the wheel is a physical device and as such is subject to wear and tear, imperfections.
Traders have psychology, as do poker players and to some extent sports bettors.
Apart from luck, what does a player of the
RANDOM GAME of roulette have?
Quote from: Bayes on May 14, 2010, 11:36:25 AM
It's not merely that there's a house edge which makes roulette hard to beat, it's the randomness of the game.
randomness + house edge = one hell of a hard nut to crack!
I'm living proof that that assumption is incorrect.
QuoteYou can't really compare trading with roulette, because there are elements of non-randomness in trading which enable you to get an edge. Trends in markets can actually mean something, because they're based on psychology. The game of roulette is synonymous with randomness and unpredictability, however, the wheel is not necessarily a perfect RNG 100% of the time. That's why Herb says you can beat the wheel, but not the game.
Actually you can apply your own meaning to stretches of continuous spins and form your own predictability psychology on your own. And, you can do this without the hoard mentality component that effects the stock market.
QuoteIt's a well established fact that the game cannot be beaten. Not only that, but there is cast-iron proof that this is the case. If anyone claims that they can beat the game, and I keep saying this, they are the ones who need to provide some evidence. Do you realise what an extraordinary claim it is?
There is cast iron proof that letting a well known advantage out to the general public causes the casinos to take direct action against players attempting to use that advantage too. Therefore it is essential not to prove it publicly. Otherwise it will be lost forever. Perhaps the person that blows it should be forced to eat a cast iron frying pan. You can't trust people to keep their mouths shut.
QuoteIf any of the claimants could provide even a single reason, why, in principle, the game can be beaten, I'd love to hear it. And I'm not talking about meaningless gibberish like "random can be read", I mean a real, testable principle.
The science of clustering analysis through pattern recognition has a proven track record in establishing a known advantage in other fields using random data. To date no scientist has published a correlation of that to gambling. Perhaps there are a few scientists that amuse themselves by winning. The argument here is the subject of proof. You suggest that you hold the right to have a temper tantrum if this advantage is not in effect destroyed, just for your pleasure.
QuoteThe APs have Physics - the wheel is a physical device and as such is subject to wear and tear, imperfections.
Traders have psychology, as do poker players and to some extent sports bettors.
What does the RANDOM GAME of roulette have?
It has patterns, dominances, global effects, and effectiveness statistics. It's advantage comes from using implied experience psychologically. It concerns itself completely with the now state in placing bets at the most effective time of the now state, now.
So what can a player do?
- He can choose when to stop playing
- He can choose when to start playing
- He can choose what to bet on
- He can choose how much he stakes
None of these affect the randomness of the
game.
If you don't know what's random and what isn't, you're going to have a hard time winning consistently. That's why you need maths. It can help you to determine when you're dealing with random outcomes, and when you're not. If you're playing against random outcomes, you can still win - for a while. The maths will tell you that too. It would be remarkable if you never won, even playing against random outcomes. If you're using some kind of progression and don't have terrible luck, you could even win for long periods, perhaps even your lifetime if you don't play very often.
QuoteThe science of clustering analysis through pattern recognition has a proven track record in establishing a known advantage in other fields using random data.
Name one field in which this track record has been proved. If it exists, I think you'll find there are other, non-random factors involved.
Quote from: Bayes on May 14, 2010, 12:02:17 PM
So what can a player do?
- He can choose when to stop playing
- He can choose when to start playing
- He can choose what to bet on
- He can choose how much he stakes
None of these affect the randomness of the game.
Once again your misconceptions are incorrect. I'm coming to the conclusion that it's a quality of mentality that many math oriented researchers are stuck on this exact point. You are implying that I do something that attempts to affect randomness. I don't. I just use the current data stream to draw conclusions that help me to make decisions like the ones found in your list above. It's fare to say that you are stuck at the same assumption point that Herb is stuck at. You have one quality that he lacks though. You don't have a monotonous phrase to brow beat others with.
Quote from: Bayes on May 14, 2010, 12:08:24 PM
Name one field in which this track record has been proved. If it exists, I think you'll find there are other, non-random factors involved.
No, you find it. You are the one demanding proof. You won't be satisfied until the research is about Roulette anyway. Just cherry pick the science that supports your opinion. The topic is Bayesian probability versus the frequentist view. You will find plenty of scientists to support your view. There are plenty that support mine too. Now go try to be honest to yourself. You depend on far too many assumptions. Your opinions don't pass the peer review process.
QuoteBayesian probability interprets the concept of probability as "a measure of a state of knowledge", in contrast to interpreting it as a frequency or a physical property of a system. Its name is derived from the 18th century statistician Thomas Bayes, who pioneered some of the concepts. Broadly speaking, there are two views on Bayesian probability that interpret the state of knowledge concept in different ways. According to the objectivist view, the rules of Bayesian statistics can be justified by requirements of rationality and consistency and interpreted as an extension of logic. According to the subjectivist view, the state of knowledge measures a "personal belief". Many modern machine learning methods are based on objectivist Bayesian principles. One of the crucial features of the Bayesian view is that a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under the frequentist view, a hypothesis is typically rejected or not rejected without directly assigning a probability.
Are you a relative of Thomas Bayes?
Quote from: Jordan27 on May 14, 2010, 12:54:17 PM
Gizmotron
Do you actually have a method of play that you are winning in the long term?
If yes...is it on inside or outside bets?
Are you playing flat or not?
Thank you :)
Yes, I win in the long run because my expectation goal is so low compared to my risk that I usually leave the casino a winner every time. I flat bet a grinding method against the EC's, and the 2/1 ratio bets, be that combinations created from the inside layout or the outside bets. But I have an attack mode too. I attack the unusual pattern and/or dominances. I raise my flat bet to an attack level. Then I attack the current continuing state that is currently very effective. I end all attacks on the first loss. Or, I adjust to the pattern of the effect and play a combination of high and minimal bets that fits the pattern. It's so easy it's like riding a bike. I don't even think about it. I just use my energy to perceive things that are continuing. Odds never have an effect on the randomness. I mean that things happen irregardless of the probability suggested by scientists. The idea that something is due almost always leads to a time when it should have happened but it didn't. Set the goal very low, leave when you reach it.
Bayes,
Quote from: Bayes on May 14, 2010, 11:36:25 AM
Kav,
It's not merely that there's a house edge which makes roulette hard to beat, it's the randomness of the game.
randomness + house edge = one hell of a hard nut to crack!
Partly agree on that.
The main problem is not the house edge that's for sure.
Also please refer to an older post of mine where I explain that the word "randomness" causes more misunderstandings that it helps explain concepts.
The main problem in roulette is the deviation from the expectation, that is, from the theoretical normal distribution of outcomes.
Quote
You can't really compare trading with roulette, because there are elements of non-randomness in trading which enable you to get an edge. Trends in markets can actually mean something, because they're based on psychology. The game of roulette is synonymous with randomness and unpredictability, however, the wheel is not necessarily a perfect RNG 100% of the time. That's why Herb says you can beat the wheel, but not the game.
Yes I can compare trading with roulette. There are too many similarities to ignore. I don't know how familiar you are with the stock market. Three words: Efficient Market Hypothesis.
Quote
It's a well established fact that the game cannot be beaten. Not only that, but there is cast-iron proof that this is the case. If anyone claims that they can beat the game, and I keep saying this, they are the ones who need to provide some evidence. Do you realise what an extraordinary claim it is?
Pease decide. Is there "cast iron proof" of the contrary or do the system players have to provide theirs?
No there is not ANY proof that roulette cannot provide profits to th player. This cannot be mathematically proved.
Quote
If any of the claimants could provide even a single reason, why, in principle, the game can be beaten, I'd love to hear it. And I'm not talking about meaningless gibberish like "random can be read", I mean a real, testable principle.
The APs have Physics - the wheel is a physical device and as such is subject to wear and tear, imperfections.
Traders have psychology, as do poker players and to some extent sports bettors.
Apart from luck, what does a player of the RANDOM GAME of roulette have?
Without any disrespect, I have to tell you that you are not ready to understand the concept of "winning system" as I see it.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them alredy; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."Leo Tolstoy, 1897
It's funny, but just yesterday I wrote a piece in my roulette blog (nolinks://roulette8.blogspot.com/p/is-it-possible-to-beat-roulette.html (nolinks://roulette8.blogspot.com/p/is-it-possible-to-beat-roulette.html)) relating to this issue. Its title is:
Is there a Winning System? (and how to win without one)(I may repost it here when I find the time)
Good lord Gizmotron,
You're just like James Wendell. You talk in circles spewing so much BS in an effort to try and solicit offers for your system.
To date, you haven't offered a bit of proof, math, or even a sane explanation about your system.
Why should we let you get away with it, when we don't let James get away with it? :nono:
Quote from: Herb6 on May 14, 2010, 02:34:05 PM
Good lord Gizmotron,
You're just like James Wendell. You talk in circles spewing so much BS in an effort to try and solicit offers for your system.
To date, you haven't offered a bit of proof, math, or even a sane explanation about your system.
Why should we let you get away with it, when we don't let James get away with it? :nono:
Once again your misconceptions are incorrect. You are just like James Wendell. You can't see trends. You can't conceive of an advantage do to tracking past spins. From your blind perspective you expect others to take your view seriously. You are an obnoxious, interruptive, and disruptive individual that thinks only his opinions are constructive. You want proof, prove it to yourself, do your own hard work. I've never attempted to actually sell anything regarding randomness. I've only jokingly offered it for two million dollars, tax free. If you leave me alone I'll leave you alone.
Gizmo just continually talks in circles without providing any examples. It's pathetic.
Quote from: Jordan27 on May 14, 2010, 03:00:39 PM
Come on Gizmotron get sirious man!
You are just a person that don t play roulette...and you just need attention...
All the post with your kind of play is a complite gamblers fallacy!
Only if a member knows Roulette for 1-2 months can belive you.
If I were stuck with the limitations you call constructive advise, with your intellect and limited experience I wouldn't gamble either. I'm as smart as you can get regarding trends and playing experience. You are clueless to these techniques, yet you want to give everyone advice regarding me. You can go straight to hades. I'm doing fine and you are moaning and groaning that I exist in your little fiefdom of a imagined reality. I'm here because you people are the ones dragging others to losing. You are a loser.
Quote from: Herb6 on May 14, 2010, 03:04:39 PM
Gizmo just continually talks in circles without providing any examples. It's pathetic.
Where's your example of contributions to this forum, Pot Kettle Black?
At least I offer constructive advise regarding trending. You offer nothing. You have not contributed jack s**t in years.
In fact you are demonstrating that you are disliked for not contributing anything but hateful distractions. Funny, this is the one thread where you should have been useful to this forum. Perhaps Steve will reward you for your activity.
Gizmo and James both just talk and talk about how great they are. They never provide examples or proof of what they are doing, yet they expect us to worship them and buy their systems.
Gizmo,
Do you ever read what you've written from the readers view point? Most of what you write is just jibberish. Half of the time people can't even tell if you're talking about roulette.
Quote from: Herb6 on May 14, 2010, 03:17:08 PM
Gizmo and James both just talk and talk about how great they are. They never provide examples or proof of what they are doing, yet they expect us to worship them and buy their systems.
Gizmo,
Do you ever read what you've written from the readers view point? Most of what you write is just jibberish. Half of the time people can't even tell if you're talking about roulette.
Herb/snowman I see that others here are considering what I suggest as a tactically advisable approach to obtaining a real advantage. I'm suggesting that as Visual Ballistics tends to become more impractical an understanding of coincidental circumstances might offer times when it is far more effective. I know that that statement is like a dagger to your heart, but that's just too bad Herb. You will have to live with it. It's just too bad that there are people in this world that can see that you were once great but now you are just a bitter and tormented soul that expects others to suffer with you. Visual Ballistics in nearly dead and buried. So what's your big gripe? You demand a demonstration. I've never promised anyone that I would give one. What part of your expectation is really important? None of it. I never suggested a demonstration was a productive idea. That's your tormented contrivance. You live with it and your depleting investigation of life on earth.
Quote from: kav on May 14, 2010, 01:28:05 PM
Yes I can compare trading with roulette. There are too many similarities to ignore. I don't know how familiar you are with the stock market. Three words: Efficient Market Hypothesis.
EMH is not the absolute truth of the markets.
Red/Black results are driven by randomness. Market prices are driven by supply & demand.
QuotePease decide. Is there "cast iron proof" of the contrary or do the system players have to provide theirs?
No there is not ANY proof that roulette cannot provide profits to th player. This cannot be mathematically proved.
Kav,
The simple mathematical proof of expectation covers all systems and methods of selecting bets. Herb has posted it many times. It basically says that any positive number multiplied by a negative number (the expectation) must result in a negative number (your return).
If there is mathematical proof that roulette can't be beaten, then is it unreasonable to require that someone claiming the contrary be asked to provide some evidence? In the same way, if someone claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine (which would defy the laws of physics) would they not be required to demonstrate it?
It's possible to write a mathematical proof for every system you can dream up which shows that it cannot possibly win. However this would be extremely tedious and would only be understood by a few people, but as I said, the "generic" proof is very simple and covers all cases. There are plenty of sources on the net where you can find the proof. I think there's a book online by Thorp which gives the details. Here is a general proof that no progression can work for the even chances:
nolinks://nolinks.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htm (nolinks://nolinks.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htm)
QuoteWithout any disrespect, I have to tell you that you are not ready to understand the concept of "winning system" as I see it.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them alredy; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Rather patronising, if you don't mind me saying so. What's necessary is not for me (or anyone else) to understand a concept, but to see some hard evidence that there is such a thing as a "winning system". Does it matter if I'm not "ready to understand" anyway? what does that even mean?
There seems to be an assumption that all the so-called "math heads" and naysayers have never even tried using systems - an assumption that they need to overcome their closed-mindedness before they can enter the glittering world which lies beyond. I can assure you that this isn't the case. Members like Number Six, Noble Savage, Kelly, Laurance at GG and others have all worked on systems and various approaches, sometimes for years. They came to the conclusion they don't work.
Feel free to share your concept anyway. I repeat what I said to gizmo - can you give me a principle by which it is, even theoretically, possible to gain an edge in the random game?
For example, gizmo said the key is clustering analysis. It's true that numbers tend to "clump" together. A number doesn't hit regularly every 37 spins. You tend to get clusters followed by long gaps. But the fact that a number has occurred a few times in short interval doesn't mean it will continue to. Cluster analysis is used for classification purposes, or to find related groups, it can't be used to predict the outcome of random events.
Incidentally, this approach is recommended by Louis G. Holloway in his book full-time gambler. I'll post some "gems" from the book later in another post - you can then draw your own conclusions as to whether they work.
The only other so called "principle" on which roulette systems are based is the gambler's fallacy.
Quote from: Noble Savage on May 14, 2010, 03:50:50 PM
EMH is not the absolute truth of the markets.
Red/Black results are driven by randomness. Market prices are driven by supply & demand.
Of course it isn't. It is disproved every day. It is like the normal distribution in roulette. It tells us how things should be but never are exactly... see the analogy?
Markets are driven by too many things to mention
Quote from: Bayes on May 14, 2010, 03:56:13 PM
For example, gizmo said the key is clustering analysis. It's true that numbers tend to "clump" together. A number doesn't hit regularly every 37 spins. You tend to get clusters followed by long gaps. But the fact that a number has occurred a few times in short interval doesn't mean it will continue to. Cluster analysis is used for classification purposes, or to find related groups, it can't be used to predict the outcome of random events.
I never said it was the key. I suggested that it was an example of the concept.
"it can't be used to predict the outcome of random events." Once again I'm forced to correct an assumption that concludes that I use randomness to "predict" outcomes. I never do that. I use randomness to detect circumstances of continuing phenomenons. Prediction is never considered. The observance of coincidence is about detecting circumstances that currently exist and that might continue to exist. At no time will it be a consideration of prediction or expectation.
NOW GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS!
Taking me out of context is becoming so common that your intelligence has become suspect. I'll bet you think that man made Global Warming is about social justice.
Quote from: kav on May 14, 2010, 03:56:51 PM
Of course it isn't. It is disproved every day. It is like the normal distribution in roulette. It tells us how things should be but never are exactly... see the analogy?
Markets are driven by too many things to mention
There are things I see in a price chart that I wouldn't see on a random-generated chart. Example (without going into details): Price reaction to pivot zones in certain situations.
I really don't care to analyze any 'fundamentals' driving the price, it's all reflected in the charts already. But I digress. I know for a fact that a random generated chart and a price chart are two different things. Besides, let me ask you this:
If the markets where random number generators (in the way roulette is), do you think there would be such things as hedge funds?
Quote from: Noble Savage on May 14, 2010, 04:32:54 PM
There are things I see in a price chart that I wouldn't see on a random-generated chart. Example (without going into details): Price reaction to pivot zones in certain situations.
I really don't care to analyze any 'fundamentals' driving the price, it's all reflected in the charts already. But I digress. I know for a fact that a random generated chart and a price chart are two different things. Besides, let me ask you this:
If the markets where random number generators (in the way roulette is), do you think there would be such things as hedge funds?
Yes they are different things. I just happen to notice some interesting -less obvious- analogies. That's all.
Quote from: kav on May 14, 2010, 04:38:43 PM
Yes they are different things. I just happen to notice some interesting -less obvious- analogies. That's all.
"The overlap of interest between gambling and the stock market is very high.
It's an amazing phenomenon," says Ed. Thorp. "But there are so many similarities
and so much one can teach you about the other. Actually, gambling can teach
you more about the stock market than the other way around. Gambling provides
an analytically simpler world, and you can see principles and test theories."
:)
>>All the post with your kind of play is a complite gamblers fallacy!>>>
I'm realizing most of what I do is pure gamblers fallacy. It has to be if you wat to win.
>>You're just like James Wendell. You talk in circles spewing so much BS in an effort to try and solicit offers for your system.>>
First I was Wendel to Herb, spewing BS and selling a system, now its Gizmo. C'mon Herb, you're baseless accusations are wearing a little thin if you have to recycle them, try for something original.
Looking at the past resaults is just a fallacy.>>
Speak for yourself. I find it interesting the me, Gizmo, and Ellison all arrived at the same conclusion independently. Why is that, do you suppose? Does Gizmo sound like an idiot? Does Ellison? I don't think so..
Quote from: Jordan27 on May 14, 2010, 06:32:05 PM
Spike and Gizmo you are just 2 ppl tha you are leaving a fantasy throwgh the forums :D
All the things that you claim that you DO are the things that you WOULD like to do but when it comes to real play you are coming back in reality and you just do not play.... ;D
So you are just posting here what your dream/fantasy is...
Patterns are happening because they are patterns in a complitly RANDOM game...
Noone can folow patterns,simply because they do not know WHEN thay are going to happen!
Looking at the past resaults is just a fallacy.
But in the forums you are leaving your ambitious dream...its good!...you are dreamers! :haha:
OK I won't tell others that you play with dolls. Your fallacy is disgraceful. Talking with you about Roulette is like trying to have a conversation with a wooden door. You are nearly worthless to the conversation. What is this. You just rub the plastic in that secret place and now you are full of valued information. Stop playing with yourself. You'll go blind.
Quote from: Jordan27 on May 14, 2010, 07:33:00 PM
hahhhhahahha!
so all the members in here that we have common sence we are wooden doors....LOL
man wake up!!! its time to go to ur morning work...hahhahahha
You are in no way near the quality of many members here. You don't hold a candle to the usual suspects. The best you will ever do is to gain the charity of some traveling holy grail wagon passing by. You don't even have a monotonous mantra. What's your bag anyway, suck up boy of the month?
>The best you will ever do is to gain the charity of some traveling holy grail wagon passing by.>>
They still have those, don't they? Where the peddler will give you a new Grail in exchange for your old worn out one?
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.corbisimages.com%2Fimages%2F67%2FD87C70E5-C5E9-4E0F-A42E-C9D2D5FEA315%2FIH023538.jpg&hash=c18fc97a75e2c6f673a90deb1c66df259c20061b)
That's not Gizmo who once thought that the "General Board" was Greatest Soldier in history ?
Quote from: potatochips on May 15, 2010, 09:06:03 PM
That's not Gizmo who once thought that the "General Board" was Greatest Soldier in history ?
Potatochips is a prime example of a person to ban. He just returned to troll the forum. He never adds anything constructive and never stops pestering contributors. Now watch him run his mouth.
This PotatoHead person has a real thing for Gizmo. Look at his past posts in the last year, half of them are about Gizmo. "I find Gizmo has no understanding of random and what he writes most of the time is pure stuff" is one of his usual jabs. How boring.
Come on guys, where's your sense of humour? We are just talking about a little ball that turns around a circle. I can read the ball and the circle, can you?
QuoteThis PotatoHead person has a real thing for Gizmo
It may take expert assessment to distinguish mild mental retardation from learning disability. I am just trying to help as my reading retardation skills are quite good.
Damn I cant keep up here. Clearly there are both unproductive members and members that arent well-liked, but at this stage I'm not 100% sure who has to go. I have a reasonable idea though thanks to the input of members. I'll just start a poll and see where that takes us.
Stackbundles has been banned. That's another idiot off the forum. And btw, stackbundles, there was ample proof charles is fender. I wont reveal details because I dont want such idiots to know how I know.
Thank you Steve! Ken