Just wondering if someone have been playing/testing G.U.T ( the Great Universal Theory by Winkel) recently?
It's a shame if such great discovery had just died :-\
Afonso
Usually when systems disappear it is because they tanked for everyone who played it.
There was nothing unique or great about it.
It was nothing more than the gambler's fallacy.
Quote from: Davey-Jones on June 28, 2010, 04:04:00 PM
Usually when systems disappear it is because they tanked for everyone who played it.
You are a global Mod?
Disregarding the most read thread?
BTW: I´m still playing and winning. I also transferred the idea to Lotto and win now 11 of 14 bets
I received a lot of PM´s and always answered that I only reply to questions which are asked publically. But nearly nobody did ask publically.
If you, Davey Jones like people like Herb Nr. 1 to ?? more than a contributor of the most read thread than I will leave if you want and I ask you to delete all my posts. then this folrum will definetly be like GG or RF.
so Good bye to all
pls delete all my posts and my account.
br
winkel
Quote from: Herb6 on June 28, 2010, 04:22:29 PM
There was nothing unique or great about it.
It was nothing more than the gambler's fallacy.
When Herb has car trouble, he blames it on gamblers fallacy. The term is meaningless.
Quote from: Winkel on June 28, 2010, 07:05:21 PM
BTW:... I also transferred the idea to Lotto and win now 11 of 14 bets
Well done Winkel. I hope you can make some serious money with that.
Quote from: Winkel on June 28, 2010, 07:05:21 PM
so Good bye to all
pls delete all my posts and my account.
br
winkel
Please Winkel, it wasn't my intention to receive such kind of comments from such people like Davey Jones and Herb6.
Don't take then too serious and please reconsider staying here ...
You have made a Master Piece, you shouldn't pay attention to such rude comments :thumbsup:
Afonso
Winkel... Glad to see your tear ducts still work.
Steve, can you take away my mod powers? That way I can tell Winkel to go F*ck himself.
QuoteSteve, can you take away my mod powers? That way I can tell Winkel to go F*ck himself.
Done. But if you want to tell anyone to go f**k themselves, please do it to them directly - not via the forum.
Quote from: Steve on June 29, 2010, 10:39:50 PM
Done. But if you want to tell anyone to go f**k themselves, please do it to them directly - not via the forum.
And it's all said ! :thumbsup:
Thanks Winkle for all of ur productive work and sharing G.U.T. to the world of roulette players.It's easy to come to the opinion that ur proof of crossovers has caused a lot of jealousy to low ranking pet shop players.Maybe because they can never devote the intellect of using math to win? or even use ur principles to avoid sleepers.I'll take Stochastic Math over gambler fallacy any day.
Quote from: poxet pool on June 30, 2010, 01:29:23 AM
Thanks Winkle for all of ur productive work and sharing G.U.T. to the world of roulette players.It's easy to come to the opinion that ur proof of crossovers has caused a lot of jealousy to low ranking pet shop players.Maybe because they can never devote the intellect of using math to win? or even use ur principles to avoid sleepers.I'll take Stochastic Math over gambler fallacy any day.
First of all there is no such thing as "Stochastic Math". (don't start quoting Winkel without some proper research in the very fields he claims to master :))
"Stochastic" simply means "random". There are "Stochastic processes (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process)" (sometimes called "random processes") studied under Probability Theory (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory). Probability Theory is
"a branch of mathematics concerned with analysis of random phenomena".
There is nothing in these scientific fields (or any) that says you can predict true random outcomes better than expectancy. There is no theory/system/algorithm that accomplishes that, or even come close (otherwise, there would be no casinos, no games of chance such as the lottery, no financial markets, and we would witness huge radical advancement in many fields).
Winkel's "Great Universal Godly Holy Grail Theory" (or whatever) has nothing "great" about it. It is utter nonsense and doesn't yield any true verifiable edge to the player whatsoever. If it weren't nonsense, he'd certainly be famous by now.
that says you can predict true random outcomes better than expectancy.>>
There's no math law that says you can't, there's only theory and opinion.
Quote from: Spike! on June 30, 2010, 02:15:11 AM
There's no math law that says you can't
Yes there is, actually.
But you're an "educated guesser", of course you'll say there isn't simply because it suits your case better, even though you are completely ignorant in those fields (and actually brag about such ignorance).
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 30, 2010, 02:27:00 AM
Yes there is, actually.
But you're an "educated guesser", of course you'll say there isn't simply because it suits your case better, even though you are completely ignorant in those fields (and actually brag about such ignorance).
Name the law. You can't.
of course you'll say there isn't>>
LOL, thats because I do this day in and day out, there CAN'T be a law! This just cracks me up, you people have no idea what you're talking about yet you think you're the experts. Its hilarious.
To read a 22yr old brag about gambling is pretty much a bad bet as well.whats the matter u still need a allowance?I got alot of good methods and ideals from this forum,and they didn't come from posters who say u can't win.
Quote from: poxet pool on June 30, 2010, 02:51:20 AM
To read a 22yr old brag about gambling is pretty much a bad bet as well.whats the matter u still need a allowance
Its not that, its that these guys haunt every gambling forum and act like they're the final authority. I use past outcomes to accurately guess the next outcome hundreds of times a day in practice and in the casino and they tell me it can't be done. They obviously can't prove it can't be done or I couldn't do it. Its nuts.
Quote from: Spike! on June 30, 2010, 03:08:37 AM
I use past outcomes to accurately guess the next outcome hundreds of times a day in practice and in the casino and they tell me it can't be done. They obviously can't prove it can't be done or I couldn't do it. Its nuts.
Yes, it can't be done and I know what I'm talking about. :)
The title of the thread is "G.U.T the Great Universal Theory". What's hilarious is how every thread has to somehow become about you.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 30, 2010, 03:13:49 AM
Yes, it can't be done and I know what I'm talking about. :)
The title of the thread is "G.U.T the Great Universal Theory". What's hilarious is how every thread has to somehow become about you.
Nooooooooooo, you just lectured somebody about what they can and can't do and I'm telling you you're full of it, as usual. There is a squad of you MathBoyz on every forum who think you're actually helping people by lying to them. Its verry funny that you think everybody should take you seriously.
Quote from: Spike! on June 30, 2010, 03:17:48 AM
Nooooooooooo, you just lectured somebody about what they can and can't do and I'm telling you you're full of it, as usual. There is a squad of you MathBoyz on every forum who think you're actually helping people by lying to them. Its verry funny that you think everybody should take you seriously.
So you believe the G.U.T. works and is based on something that yields an edge to the player.
Proof?
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 30, 2010, 03:19:55 AM
So you believe the G.U.T. works and is based on something that yields an edge to the player.
Proof?
Its not about GUT, its about you saying "There is nothing in these scientific fields (or any) that says you can predict true random outcomes better than expectancy."
If you're going to constantly preach that, you must also include that theres nothing that proves you CAN'T guess better than expectancy. Theres only theories and speculation.
Quote from: Spike! on June 30, 2010, 03:24:45 AM
Its not about GUT
Ah, so it's about you feeling threatened that someone might somehow read what I said regarding this so called G.U.T. and think "gee, Spike must not be making money then".
Truth be told, you hardly seem like someone who does actually have the key to millions of dollars. If you did, you wouldn't care about all of this for starters. ::)
------------------
Enough of Spike and back to the topic.
I've done all my homework. There is nothing in modern mathematics and probability theory (more specifically, stochastic processes) that suggests that true random outcomes can be predicted using the principles that the G.U.T. is based on (e.g. the "crossings").
Anyone who has accessible proof of otherwise is more than welcome to share it.
Proof? Winkle has done it over and over times 10 with test yeilds.Why don't U prove it dosen't work.My guess it's too hard for u to figure out. Maybe just a small batch of 300 spins?But that maybe too much on u schoolboy.
that suggests that true random outcomes can be predicted using the principles that the G.U.T. is based on>>
And nothing that proves it can't. You make the fatal error of making the assumption that if a theory might be true, its conclusion must be true.
Quote from: poxet pool on June 30, 2010, 03:48:05 AM
Proof? Winkle has done it over and over times 10 with test yeilds.Why don't U prove it dosen't work.My guess it's too hard for u to figure out. Maybe just a small batch of 300 spins?But that maybe too much on u schoolboy.
Links to the published verifiable tests?
I know of KonFuSed's test showing the G.U.T (as initially posted and claimed as a mechanical holy grail by Winkel) fail in the long run, after which Winkel started saying how it shouldn't be played mechanically etc. etc.
As for the other "proof", it was a bunch of mathematical formulas written in German that Winkel threw at us which, once translated, barely make any sense.
Once again, if he could mathematically prove this "theory"
he would be famous by now. I'm not kidding.
Quote from: poxet pool on June 30, 2010, 03:48:05 AM
Proof? Winkle has done it over and over times 10 with test yeilds.Why don't U prove it dosen't work.My guess it's too hard for u to figure out. Maybe just a small batch of 300 spins?But that maybe too much on u schoolboy.
Kon-Fu-Sed wrote a program which showed that GUT did no better than any other system, but Winkel 'refuted' it by saying that you have to use 'gambler's intelligence', which sounds suspiciously like 'Educated Guessing'.
It seems that Educated Guessing is the key, pity it doesn't work. :no:
BTW, attacking the individual and not the message means you have run out of arguments and/or have no evidence. :ok:
he would be famous by now.>>>
Thats always the MathBoyz mantra. If we were right, we'd be famous, we'd be on Jay Leno, we'd be millionaires, blah blah. More faulty logic to go along with their faulty theories.
you have to use 'gambler's intelligence', which sounds suspiciously like 'Educated Guessing'.>>
Oh oh, can't have that. Our theories we can't prove wth math against your theories you THINK you can prove but can't. A real conundrum, huh.. :lol:
Since u don't know what "gamblers intelligence" means, hints u never played with real money and probably no experience with backing off in a real game.All ur research is just based from what u read of others post.That's much easier than to prove it doesn't work huh?My educated guess that ur not serious about disproving it was right.Damn I good.....
Quote from: poxet pool on June 30, 2010, 04:21:10 AM
Damn I good.....
That actually made me laugh!
No offense. :)
'proud to be ignorant' :lol:
Quote from: Bayes on June 30, 2010, 04:35:53 AM
'proud to be ignorant' :lol:
Honest to god, Bayes thats exactly how I think about you. You wear your ignorance like its a medal, you even strut around, showing it off. If you only knew.... :lol:
Coming from you, that's a good thing!
Bayes is a most respectable poster.
QuoteYou wear your ignorance like its a medal, you even strut around, showing it off. If you only knew....
Apparently all the encyclopaedias, textbooks, and casinos do to. :lol:
Not to mention the small matter that every system ever created has failed. But YOU know different. Wow. :haha:
It is indeed a theatre of the absurd.
small matter that every system ever created has failed. But YOU know different. >>>
Sigh. Good god, you don't pay attention. Systems don't work, how could they. The only thing that works is having the ability to change your strategy after every spin. This takes much practice. Duh...
Bayeby with that kind of attitude u should never be playing..and again no proof u do.
Quote from: Spike! on June 30, 2010, 04:52:28 AM
The only thing that works is having the ability to change your strategy after every spin. This takes much practice. Duh...
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi36.tinypic.com%2F2qkosub.jpg&hash=03c6feade4900d7dd632060b6b3385f2f09e4197)
Once again, all the two of you have is theory, speculation, and insults. How original. You can't prove that past spins can't be used to guess the next result, all you have is assumptions based on faulty probabitilty theory. Nuff said.
I don't care that 99.9% of of the losers in the casino fall within the parameters of your theories. Whats that got to do with me.
QuoteSystems don't work, how could they. The only thing that works is having the ability to change your strategy after every spin. This takes much practice. Duh...
Changing your strategy after every spin changes nothing. YAWN.
QuoteYou can't prove that past spins can't be used to guess the next result, all you have is assumptions based on faulty probabitilty theory. Nuff said.
Show me some evidence that probability theory is faulty. You can't. And yes, it can be proved that past spins don't change the odds.
Quote from: Bayes on June 30, 2010, 04:59:15 AM
Changing your strategy after every spin changes nothing.
Actually, it changes everything. You keep up with the random outcomes the wheel is producing, something you will never do with a mechanical system.
Show me some evidence that probability theory is faulty.>>
Show me the mathematicl proof that says I can't use past spins. There isn't any, just speculation.
>>it can be proved that past spins don't change the odds.>>
If I guess better than expctancy, the odds are now in my favor, and I changed nothing.
I challenged Globall and bayeby to produce test yields to disprove G.U.T. but just got a typical lazy argument that pretty much sums up another educated guess..u two are total no yields.
I challenged Globall and bayeby to produce test yields to disprove G.U.T. but just got a typical lazy argument>>
Thats all you'll ever get. When you know everything and have others that wink and nod and agree with you and back you up, you never have to prove anything. When their argument comes down to, hey, the casinos always make money, don't they, you know they're grasping at straws. A bunch of idiots throwing their money down the drain on games they don't know how to play proves nothing.
Quote from: poxet pool on June 30, 2010, 05:12:24 AM
I challenged Globall and bayeby to produce test yields to disprove G.U.T. but just got a typical lazy argument that pretty much sums up another educated guess..u two are total no yields.
And I told you Kon-Fu-Sed has already done it, are you too lazy to read? What makes you think it will win the second time around? :lol: