Before anyone blows chunks from their mouth, this question was not originally mine. Another poster brought it up and I was thinking about this all day.
If your method is somehow based on probability (back to definitions again), would that be the same as gamblers fallacy/due?
Ken
Ok I will reply to this Topic with respeact.
Yes a method based on probability is ALSO the same as gamblers fallacy.
The word "Gamblers Fallacy" WAS BORN from the consept of winning with the help of the probability!
PROBABILITY GF examples:
1)After X reds we expect a black to hit
2)In 37 spins cycle "this" will happen
3)after X misses in a Dozen then more luckily in the next spins this Dozen will hit
ETC...........
As you all know all the systems that are based on probability are losers.
And I will say this once again :
The word "Gamblers Fallacy" WAS BORN from the consept of winning with the help of the probability!
Ok, very good reply. Thanks!
Ken
QuoteIs a method based on probability ALSO the same as gamblers fallacy?
Here's my 2 cents:
Frequentist View of Probability, then yes, it counts on something being due. (Frequentist Statistical Theory)
Bayesian View of Probability, then no, it does not factor in anything being due.
Let say to a play roulette without zero: probability to hit a black is 50:50.
So that what probability have nothing to do with previus results, its just calculating odds with strict mathematical equation.
So that is NOT extension to some advantage and then is not GF.
I am speaking about probability on one independad spin which have nothing to do with past or future spins. Of course that if some collaretation is made bettwen past results and due that past results is applayed some wrongly probability calculation then that is GF.
As long as probability has nothing to do with previous spins it isn't GF.
Gogocro is right. If every spins is seen as a new event (which it is) then in 100 spins time the probability is still 50/50 on an EC (Bar the 0)
Quote from: Psolaras on March 23, 2011, 09:08:43 PM
Ok I will reply to this Topic with respeact.
Yes a method based on probability is ALSO the same as gamblers fallacy.
The word "Gamblers Fallacy" WAS BORN from the consept of winning with the help of the probability!
PROBABILITY GF examples:
1)After X reds we expect a black to hit
2)In 37 spins cycle "this" will happen
3)after X misses in a Dozen then more luckily in the next spins this Dozen will hit
ETC...........
As you all know all the systems that are based on probability are losers.
And I will say this once again :
The word "Gamblers Fallacy" WAS BORN from the consept of winning with the help of the probability!
It's more a case of GF being born from a MISUNDERSTANDING of probability. People tend to think that outcomes in a sequence of spins should be the same as the AVERAGE result given in the long term, no matter how long the sequence. They don't take into account variability. The law of large numbers says that in the long run the average outcome is the same as the expected outcome, meaning that in many thousands of coin flips the ratio of heads/tails will be 50%. People think there is a "law of small numbers" (they call it the law of averages), but there isn't.
All kinds of PROBABILITY have been tested through the years (400 years) from all the best mathimaticians .
Noone could ever win this game with any kind of probability.
the proof is that the game still stands in the Casinos as a money maker machine from them.
Having hopes is a completely defferent thing than what is happening in reality.
If someone will claim that Roulette can indeed been beaten with a certain way ,then he has to proove it...he must have proofs!
If He just say that he can beat Roulette but he doesn t say the way....then he is just an other lier of a roulette forum.
All the old members that are in roulette forums for more than 4 years ,they have all seen that every single person that claimed to be a long run winner was either a lier (for entertaintment or pride) or a scam that wanted to make money from selling his scamming system.
And the last thing that I have to say is that :
If there were indeed a way to beat this game and a person had found it....the last thing that he would ever do is registering in a Roulette forum and brag that he can win Roulette !
He would have been so exited ,happy and busy from making money all over the word ,fu...ing the best women all around that he wouldn t have the mind to go in a roulette forum and start posting UNNESSESARY posts that can even harm his JOB!
A successful player does not wager on the outcome of the next spin but on the next spinS.My expectation is based on the statistic results of the past spins.How will you call my strategy.I know I have a very few fans.
The 1 next spin or 5 next spins or 10 next spins doesn t change anything.
The -2.7 is hunting us no matter what the method is based on....
Roulette has a MATHEMATICAL advantage....nothing can beat a MATHEMATICAL ADVANTAGE because it is ABSOLUT....
It is not an opinion or a way of life to be changed-altered and been beaten....
Mathematics are steady....they are not a mood that can be change....
The only way to win is by increase the accuracy of predictions based on phisics....
But as you know even that in now days is very hard because casinos know and are affraid of those AP ways so they are making the conditions as much as unbeatable as they can.
Winning with Maths-possibilities = NO WAY!
Winning with Ap = YES way ...BUT very hard these days.
Ps.. I don t claim that I am an Aper....I just know everything about AP. I simply don t use it because I don t have the patience to search wheels and collect datas.....only because I know that I can search 30 wheels and there is a chance that none of them have the right conditions.
Aslo if you will observe the Topics of a Roulette forum, the maths based systems are having the less replyes...
this is because everyone by now have understood that roulette can t be beaten with maths-probability.
BUT if a member is posting a Topic about OUT OF THE BOX thinking, like a Winning flat bet ,ALL the members will open the RX and will be start testing like hell......LoL
Its because they wish that an out of the box (out of maths and probability) maybe can win
And of cource this is also an other form of GF
I do not agree with you.You are right, I have few fans. I know verywell the house edge cannot be beaten with a system.I do not play a system but a strategy .On the forum I am the only one who offer public demonstations.My theory of strategies can used on live wheels and RNG.With a edge of +/- 2 % I am very satisfied.Because the house edge of an American wheel is 5,4% I never play double zero roulettesystems.
Quote from: schoenpoetser on March 24, 2011, 11:33:32 AM
On the forum I am the only one who offer public demonstations.
I would like to see a demonstration, can I book a ticket? :)
What does it mean : beat roulette ? There are systems that has beat roulette. The main reason why they are useless are their drawdowns. Winkel has a system based on probability and this system can beat roulette. I made a test on 1 mil. spins coded. There were few big drawdowns and thats the reason why i wont use this strategy. In my opinion there are options how to beat roulette with moneymanagement.
If You are asking for a system that can beat roulette with flat betting based on the trends or something like that then I think there is no way. Just probability can help us to gain profits from this "game".
I do not play a system but a strategy
its exactly the same thing...u are just playing with the words.
Its like telling SEX or F..CK ...they both end with the same thing....in-out,in-out -----orgasm LoL
Any one that can gain at least +1 unit and it overcomes the attempt doing so can make the house edge vanish - simple.
But as there is no positive expectation using roulette systems so will you get stuck with the house edge LOL
Quote from: I have cookies on March 24, 2011, 12:50:13 PM
Any one that can gain at least +1 unit and it overcomes the attempt doing so can make the house edge vanish - simple.
But as there is no positive expectation using roulette systems so will you get stuck with the house edge LOL
Wait, wait, wait......I'm being told I cant even get to +1 on the EC's. ( :girl_wacko:) Sorry, I had to throw that in.
Ken
Quote from: Mr J on March 24, 2011, 01:05:36 PM
Wait, wait, wait......I'm being told I cant even get to +1 on the EC's. ( :girl_wacko:) Sorry, I had to throw that in.
Ken
As they all say - every selection is the same :whistle:
Mike it is not necessary to buy a ticket.It is free.A Private demonstration is the best on SKYPE.I can do it also on MIKOGO ,then more participants can watch the demonstration.What is the best day and time and I organize a demonstration.
Wait, wait, wait......I'm being told I cant even get to +1 on the EC's. ( ) Sorry, I had to throw that in.
why Mr J? didn t u know that this CAN NOT happen in the Long Run??? :o
It is really simple eg..
2+2=4
But..
If somebody think result is 5 and then hole system is based on that wrong result - its false belifs - sort of fallacy!
Quote from: schoenpoetser on March 24, 2011, 01:58:22 PM
Mike it is not necessary to buy a ticket.It is free.A Private demonstration is the best on SKYPE.I can do it also on MIKOGO ,then more participants can watch the demonstration.What is the best day and time and I organize a demonstration.
Ok, I'll pm you with my skype name. This Sunday would be good for me, but let me know if you prefer some other time.
Ridiculous :lol: if you two speak of a live test - i apologies but a live test proves nothing.
Clear rules and 100% random files prove everything with amount of placed bets and total net gain - then some one can code it and run it for a billions time :girl_wacko:
@ IHC,
I agree it proves very little, but it doesn't prove NOTHING. It's a start, and we both know that EVERY system will fail over a billion spins. I just want to see ONE person here put their money where their mouth is, it's just a bit of fun - you're doing the same thing - why do you bother if it proves nothing?
I have seen some interesting points. I just do not know why we complicate things so much..
Need to prove something, GF, probability, method/system etc etc. All is wraped is some theory and off topic issues.
Its very simple: nobody can win long term - house edge does not allow it.
Does some play method wich does not follow the rules win? Yes, like bank robbery its against the rules/laws and unfair.
3 dozens
1-12
13-24
25-36
in 7 spins wont 3 of 1 dozen spin out 3 times
is that probability ?
Quote from: GogoCro on March 24, 2011, 04:59:00 PM
Its very simple: nobody can win long term - house edge does not allow it.
Sorry, the house edge is not a Stop Sign.
Quote from: Psolaras on March 24, 2011, 07:57:53 AM
All kinds of PROBABILITY have been tested through the years (400 years) from all the best mathimaticians .
Noone could ever win this game with any kind of probability.
the proof is that the game still stands in the Casinos as a money maker machine from them.
Having hopes is a completely defferent thing than what is happening in reality.
If someone will claim that Roulette can indeed been beaten with a certain way ,then he has to proove it...he must have proofs!
If He just say that he can beat Roulette but he doesn t say the way....then he is just an other lier of a roulette forum.
All the old members that are in roulette forums for more than 4 years ,they have all seen that every single person that claimed to be a long run winner was either a lier (for entertaintment or pride) or a scam that wanted to make money from selling his scamming system.
And the last thing that I have to say is that :
If there were indeed a way to beat this game and a person had found it....the last thing that he would ever do is registering in a Roulette forum and brag that he can win Roulette !
He would have been so exited ,happy and busy from making money all over the word ,fu...ing the best women all around that he wouldn t have the mind to go in a roulette forum and start posting UNNESSESARY posts that can even harm his JOB!
Completely asinine statement. I'm supposed to get so excited about making $40 an hour on average at roulette. I make almost that at my day job without the risk (or the crowds).
Ron.
Quote from: cheese on March 24, 2011, 09:51:33 PM
Sorry, the house edge is not a Stop Sign.
Sorry, did I claim it that it is..?