The MathBoyz say things like:
"No one can make a stupid bet any more than they can make a wise bet when dealing with random outcomes"
and
"Any bet selection is a complete joke in a game of chance."
and
"There's not a thing anybody can do to worsen or improve their win rate."
In other words, no matter how hard you try, no matter what you do, its mathmatically impossible to do better than 50/50 on the EC's, (or anywhere else) if you remove the zeros. You can be the worlds best trend player, but you can never do better than 50/50. You can't win on purpose, you can't lose on purpose, every bet you make, no matter how you arrived at it, is totally worthless.
Does anybody here actually buy this load of baloney?
If anyone can prove otherwise to me, i will change my mind right away.
Not really a good answer, Kelly. You should be saying "Nobody can prove otherwise, so I will never change my opinion. The math is rock solid."
Isn't it?
Not really, i don`t give a rats ass what kind of play it is as long as it has an edge. All i need is a logical reason for it to work or in absence of that, statistical proof that it works.
So you think proof is possible then, you think the math is just a suggestion, that its not written in stone?
Quote from: Spike! on May 28, 2010, 11:05:11 PM
Does anybody here actually buy this load of baloney?
Does anybody actually buy YOUR load of baloney?
If you:
1) do have this magic way to beat the game with flat bets
2) are not willing to prove it or show it to anyone
3) don't care about people believing you or not, you prove it to the casino everyday, blah blah blah
Then why keep posting about it? It's like you indirectly insist that people believe you, whether you provide real/verifiable/reproducible proof or not.
Do you have something to sell Spike?
If not then move on. You made a claim, we didn't believe it, the world keeps on spinning.
Im happy if the hit rate, flat betting, keeps breaking the boundarys of 3, 4, 5 standard deviations as the hits pile up. Thats all the proof i need. A random game doesn`t do that.
Does anybody actually buy YOUR load of baloney?>>
Its an important question. If you truly believe the math, that its written in stone, then the subject of anybody proving otherwise should never come up. No proof, no tests, nothing is required of anybody. Its a closed case.
The math is the law, there is no wiggle room whatsoever.
Right?
3, 4, 5 standard deviations as the hits pile up. Thats all the proof I need. >>>
But if the math is correct, and you all say it is, that kind of proof is impossible. Is the math iron clad or isn't it? If it is, then asking for proof is ridiculous. Anybody claiming to beat it is either lying or insane. How can there be a middle ground.
Im not the one asking for acceptance/believing, you are. (Constantly i might add) and as you say, the question shouldn`t theoreticly even come up, but there you go.
All i need to jump on the circus is either a logical reason or statistical proof.
"statistical proof that it works" <<< And there it is folks. :haha: Ken
My point is, I don't think most of the people who say the math is the law of roulette, really believe it. They want to believe it, but have nagging doubts. There is no point of being on a forum like this if you 100% believed roulette can't be beaten. You have to have faith that the math is just a suggestion based on whats known about the game. Once you get your foot in the door, even a toe in the door, the math goes out the window.
Don't forget that math and logic can be applied in more than one way...
"They want to believe it" >>> They want to believe it because they LOSE, period. Its like comfort food. 'They' now have an EXCUSE for losing......the math says they can't/shouldn't win so that makes everything better in the world. :thumbsup: Ken
Great topic. Very useful, Spike. Well done.
We definitely got your point!
:girl_wacko:
Spike, here's the hard truth:
You have nothing of substance to offer anyone in these message boards. (please, if anyone benefited from Spike's posts to reach a consistently winning method step in and just let us know you exist. Anyone?... That's what I thought. ;D)
Everything you say about science/math/statistics is utterly ludicrous and shows what an ignorant person you are.
Anybody with commensense and a BS-detecting brain is called a "mathboy" in your books.
You're an old roulette wannabe. I'm sure you heard this a lot but... Get a life mate. :diablo:
Like Kelly said: 5 minutes wasted. ;D
Bye.
I have said this many times....Quality of posts means different things to different people. Spike has ALOT of real life casino experience. Not 50 years worth but the guy DOES play and knows the ins and outs, whether anyone likes it or not. There are quite a few posters that dont agree with my style of play but RESPECT what I 'have to offer'. Let me ask this....aside from the way Spike plays, does he not offer good, quality posts/threads? Yes, sometimes a bit over the top but still, a damn good poster. He is not as 'crazy' as he was two or so years ago. Ken
My opinion on this matter is: it is POSSIBLE to beat ECs, but I dont believe anyone has legitimately done it, yet. In my experience, anything that doesnt contradict basic principles that govern everything is possible. But actualy making it reality is a different story.
You have nothing of substance to offer anyone in these message boards.>>>
Since you seem to have appointed yourself the expert on what posts have substance, please give some examples of what you consider substance. This should be easy for you as you know immediately when they don't have substance. Right?
>>Everything you say about science/math/statistics is utterly ludicrous>>
To whom? Certainly not to the few of us who are actually living them. Try not to include everybody into your limited view of science/math/statistics. It just makes you look kinda prejudiced..
>>You're an old roulette wannabe...
Actually, I'm an old blackjack has been. I've only been playing roulette for 5 years, I'm still an up and comer.. :lol:
Not 50 years worth but the guy DOES play and knows the ins and outs, whether anyone likes it or not. >>>
I started playing BJ in Vegas in 1975. There were no casinos in my state till 1996. Now there are 30 here, with another opening this summer. A lot of people here weren't alive when the only place to legally gamble in the States was Nevada.
as a regular player. the maths will always win in the long run. a player who can win more in the long run then he loses, i have yet to meet.if you could see the players records in the casinos .nobody wins in the long run. its like horse racing. william hill said he never knew anybody who won two seasons in a row. to make a educated guess. you need some information. in roulette every spin is a separate event.
>>to make a educated guess. you need some information. in roulette every spin is a separate event.>>>
On the EC's there are only two events possible, discounting the zero. On R/B, theres only red and theres only black. Not exactly a daunting task.
There are 37 numbers on the wheel. Random can mix them up as much as it likes, but it is obliged to fit them all into only 6 table layout EC possibilities (excluding zero). So if you are going to try and guess your way to winning then it does make some sense to guess the EC's.
There are also only 6 Doz/Col possibilities on the carpet, but these pay 2/1 and so would probably be even more lucrative for a good guesser.
There are also only 6 Doz/Col possibilities on the carpet>>>
Add just one outcome to the 2 outcomes of the EC's and its a whole different game.
Quote from: Spike! on May 31, 2010, 02:00:22 AM
On the EC's there are only two events possible, discounting the zero. On R/B, theres only red and theres only black.
No s**t.
Quote from: Spike! on May 31, 2010, 02:00:22 AM
Not exactly a daunting task.
So guessing right, over and over again, is not a daunting task.
Interesting and most revealing post, Spike.
Now that's the typical Spike post. Nothing of useful substance to this community, just an "I can do what you can't do". To pose and posture as though we were below him and his "reading random" ability.
Quote from: Spike! on May 30, 2010, 11:48:30 PM
It just makes you look kinda prejudiced..
Suppose there is a man in your town who claims he can walk on water and constantly implies such an ability of his in nearly every discussion he starts or participates in (with a refusal to prove or back it up). On the other hand you've studied the laws of physics and are pretty familiar with what's possible and what's not, yet investigated the subject and attempted to find ways to walk on water too for nearly one year but eventually failed and came to the conclusion that it can't be done. Does expressing your disbelief in this man's claims then make you "prejudiced"?
Have a nice BS-free week everybody.
I have to agree here with Noble.
So spike, do you try and guess which EC will hit next, or which EC will miss next?
It's a serious question... I'm leaning toward the doz/col bets and I'm thinking it might be better to try and guess which one will miss and bet the other two, as opposed to trying to guess the winner.
So guessing right, over and over again, is not a daunting task.>>>
Pretty much. How's that for pointing somebody in the right direction. Beats the heck out of 'wait for 8 dozens to sleep and then bet on whatever'. Or maybe a post like that has 'substance' in your world.
>>You have nothing of substance to offer anyone in these message boards.>>>
Since you seem to have appointed yourself the expert on what posts have substance, please give some examples of what you consider substance.
>>do you try and guess which EC will hit next, or which EC will miss next?>>
Makes no difference as there are only 2 outcomes.
Quote from: Spike! on May 31, 2010, 03:42:12 AM
Since you seem to have appointed yourself the expert on what posts have substance, please give some examples of what you consider substance.
example (nolinks://rouletteplace.com/index.php/topic,945.msg8557.html#msg8557)
Spike, just two questions. Do you bet every spin, and do you flat bet?
LOL! Good ol VB or bias, can't lose with that. Why don't you get somebody like Snowman to actually demonstrtae that for you in a casino. He won't do it, VB playersNEVER give live demo's because they know what hit and miss way of playing it is. You would be convinced in an hour that he was full of it.
So to have substance, a post has to walk you thru every aspect of a system or method, do all the work for you. Right?
Do you bet every spin, and do you flat bet?>>>
I bet every single spin unless I get distracted and I always flat bet. Waiting for spins is meaningless and a complete waste of time unless you're event betting, like Ken does.
Quote from: Spike! on May 31, 2010, 03:57:41 AM
He won't do it, VB players NEVER give live demo's
Now that's a prejudice.
Quote from: Spike! on May 31, 2010, 03:57:41 AM
LOL! Good ol VB
It's not VB. ::)
Now that's a prejudice.>>
Yeah? Get one of them to show you, go ahead. They won't do it.
Its not VB>>
Yawn. Bias, VB, who cares. You go ahead and play that way and let us know how you do. Believe me, if it was a big winner Snowman would never post it. Try and find a wheel like he describes that has a sharp angle decay and not the flat decay modern low profile wheels have.
This is the wheel Snowman wants you to look for. Let us know when you find one.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_G4WW7SFy0AI%2FSX_1sZiJaZI%2FAAAAAAAABEo%2FHUwO2LgcP3Q%2Fs400%2Fold%2Bbc%2Bwilla%2Bwheel.jpg&hash=beece14b8fece47bd4d9f73948d316ef20f78d65)
Quote from: Noble Savage on May 30, 2010, 10:20:23 PM
Spike, here's the hard truth:
You have nothing of substance to offer anyone in these message boards. (please, if anyone benefited from Spike's posts to reach a consistently winning method step in and just let us know you exist. Anyone?... That's what I thought. ;D)
Everything you say about science/math/statistics is utterly ludicrous and shows what an ignorant person you are.
Anybody with commensense and a BS-detecting brain is called a "mathboy" in your books.
You're an old roulette wannabe. I'm sure you heard this a lot but... Get a life mate. :diablo:
OMG, I tghought Noble Savage was just a unpleasant dirty low-down empty-talking non-constructive smart-ass.... and I wasn't wrong. Discrediting people's work around the forum is quite annoying. My vote for ban. :wild:
Quote from: husky on May 31, 2010, 06:56:07 AM
I tghought Noble Savage was just a unpleasant dirty low-down empty-talking non-constructive smart-ass.... and I wasn't wrong.
Personal name-calling. Very mature.
Your thread (in the bias section) is pure bragging + advertising for the sake of generating more sales. All I did was point that out.
Obviously it annoyed you so much. I wonder why. ::)