No, I'm not causing trouble. I thought of this due to Spikes interesting thread. Question for the AP guys....can you name one or two styles of roulette betting NOT related to AP *and* is also not GF? Ken
Off the top of my head:
- Betting randomly, for entertainment (knowing that you can't beat the random game)
- Betting on something specific like birthday numbers or a system knowing that it doesn't work, merely for entertainment (knowing that you can't beat the random game)
- Past posting or any similar cheating methods.
This is where you either imply that didn't understand the question, or laugh and call me a mathboy, etc. :boredom:
I know, you are gonna say I "dont like your answer" but its NOT the case. I need to ask in more detail, my FAULT. I'm talking about a thought out METHOD, a style of play. Not just goofing around like betting birthdays etc. I also dont mean cheating, come on. lol Ken
As far as I know, GF applies to any method that uses past spins believing to have gained some sort of advantage over the random game. That about covers all systems I guess. lol
"That about covers all systems I guess" >>> BINGO. We'll see what other AP guys have to say. Ken
"GF applies to any method that uses past spins" >>> but as discussed, GF is NOT only for past spins so there should be quite a few examples of other forms of betting not related to AP or GF. I assume. Ken
GF is nothing more than a common misconception. ie something that is believed to be true when it isnt true. There are countless forms of GF - not just thinking after 10 reds that black is more likely to spin next.
Quotecan you name one or two styles of roulette betting NOT related to AP *and* is also not GF?
Advantage Play is a very broad term. For roulette, AP is basically any legitimate method to beat roulette. If you had something entirely new that was not VB or bias analysis, if it legitimately wins in the long term, then it can be considered AP. You can basically say AP = legitimate method. Ken, if your method legitimately beats roulette in the long term, you would be an Advantage Player.
A style of betting that is not related to AP and not GF... there is no such thing. If a method loses, it is based on GF... assuming the player actually expects to win in the long term. If a method legitimately wins in the long term, then it is AP.
It also depends on the context in which a term such as AP is used though. Typically AP refers to finding flaws in a game that make game outcomes more predictable. A perfect example is finding wheels with a good dominant diamond, then using VB.
I've said it before, if you have an advantage and play with it, you're an advantage player, i.e. an AP.
if your method legitimately beats roulette in the long term, you would be an Advantage Player.>>
Don't lump me in with Kelly and Laurance and Herbie. What I do is EAP, Exceptional Advantage Play. What they do is ready for the Special Olympics of Roulette.. :lol:
QuoteGF applies to any method that uses past spins believing to have gained some sort of advantage over the random game.
Any advantage play requires past results. Without past results, there is no analysis. Without analysis, there are no patterns. Without patterns to follow, you dont know where to bet for an advantage.
Do past spins affect future spins? YES, but not in the way you may immediately think. I mean that the previous winning number in part determines when/where the ball will be picked up and respun. But that's the limit of it. For something like bias analysis, past spins still affect future spins in this way, but the typical bias player only uses the past spins to find a bias and exploit it.
The typical situation where a "GF player" attempts to use past spins to predict the future is by saying something like after 10 reds, black is more likely to spin next. So they go about it all wrong.
Ken, the girl in your avatar has great tits.. just thought I'd point that out, pun intended.
Quote from: Steve on July 06, 2010, 01:56:26 AM
Do past spins affect future spins? YES
Well yes, but when we say that past spins don't affect future ones, we're obviously doing so within the context of the random/mathematical game (which these guys claim to beat), not the physical device.
"if your method legitimately beats roulette in the long term, you would be an Advantage Player" >>> So to re-word it a little, AP (long term) is the ONLY winning way to beat roulette. Ken
There are not countless forms of GF, GF is this:
QuoteThe gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (due to its significance in a Monte Carlo casino in 1913)[1] or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.
Source: wikipedia.
So if you use any of the 'standard' patterns of bet selection, e.g. DBL, OLD, FTL etc, plus any form of mechanical 'template' betting, is not GF. Just because you won't win with them doesn't mean they're gambler's fallacy. GF is not a 'catch-all' for any non-AP method, it's something quite specific.
Also any kind of money-management or progression is not gambler's fallacy. For example, you're quite justified in using an 8 step martingale because the chance of hitting an 8 spin losing sequence is relatively low. The odds are always stacked against you, but it's not GF, it's just
gambling.
There are not countless forms of GF, GF is this:>>
Thats one version, there are many others. Thats just the one you like. I understand that. None of them are correct, however.
"Thats one version, there are many others" >>> Very correct. As I understand it (but dont agree) EVERY method played other than AP, is gamblers fallacy. WOW, I really dont even know what to say. Rarely am I at a loss for words but 'these guys' truely believe it. You know the saying....its not a lie if you believe it. Ken
Gambler's Fallacy is a very broad term - as far as I know there is no Oxford dictionary definition. There are countless misconceptions about gambling. Sure you have the most common one about something being "due", but it certainly isnt the only misconception/fallacy around.
QuoteSo to re-word it a little, AP (long term) is the ONLY winning way to beat roulette. Ken
That's like asking "so the only way to beat roulette is by beating roulette?"
As for "long term", this is thousands of spins and more. Sure you can win over 20-30 spins, with either luck or AP, but to know if your winnings are due to luck or AP, you realistically need to test over the long term. Can you realistically determine the effectiveness of any method over 20-30 spins? Even if you win over 10,000 spins, there is still the potential for winning with mere luck. Simply the more spins you win over, the less likely the success is due to luck.
Ken if I asked you:
"Is there any way to beat roulette other than a method that works?"
This is the same as asking:
"Is there any way to beat roulette other than AP?"
Again, AP = method that works. If your method legitimately wins, then it is AP.
You appear to be set on thinking AP is something else. Sure though, the typical context in which AP is referred to is something like VB / bias analysis. Just remember, in a broad context, AP = any method that works.
Gambler's Fallacy is a very broad term - as far as I know there is no Oxford dictionary definition. There are countless misconceptions about gambling.>>>
Exactly the point I've been making. And many take the misconceptions as law, thats the goofy part..
@Spike: What a retarded avatar, as usual.>>
So retarded that the US Supreme court has upheld gun rights for the states and says its legal to own a handgun in every state. Nothing retarded about it, its called the right to bear arms and protect yourself and what you own.
I agree Spike but not real thrilled of the law in Chicago. Ken
LOL, is this some kind of advertisement of your country guys? There has been a wide campaign recently about the mighty USA. No offense but it's not the pensions queue here, fellas. Can you continue with your political debates/propaghanda in private, please?
Spike,
Generally I consider you to be somone of low moral fiber, but I must say...
I LIKE YOUR AVATAR SHOWING, FREE PEOPLE OWN GUNS, SLAVES DON'T.
Me's gonna shoot me some pigs and rape some nuns ands rob de liquor store and roll me truck ................ a nice quiet evening in Kentucky........
I'm saying, I DON'T agree with the NEW law in Chicago. No one allowed to own a firearm (in broad terms). Ken
Quote from: Steve link=topic=16618. msg114604#msg114604 date=1278391464
Advantage Play is a very broad term. For roulette, AP is basically any legitimate method to beat roulette. If you had something entirely new that was not VB or bias analysis, if it legitimately wins in the long term, then it can be considered AP. You can basically say AP = legitimate method. Ken, if your method legitimately beats roulette in the long term, you would be an Advantage Player.
A style of betting that is not related to AP and not GF. . . there is no such thing. If a method loses, it is based on GF. . . assuming the player actually expects to win in the long term. If a method legitimately wins in the long term, then it is AP.
It also depends on the context in which a term such as AP is used though. Typically AP refers to finding flaws in a game that make game outcomes more predictable. A perfect example is finding wheels with a good dominant diamond, then using VB.
The physical players using ballistics are close, but they are missing such a huge part of the picture by focusing more on the physical Energy. Why focus on just on the steering wheel when the drive shaft, engine, tires, etc. all work together to put the car in its appropriate direction. Concentration on one energy source while ignoring all others is the biggest fallacy of them all. You will never learn to win this way.
Concentration on one energy source while ignoring all others is the biggest fallacy of them all. You will never learn to win this way. >>
So how do you determine where to place the next bet?
The next bet is placed where it SHOULD be placed.