Reality check

[Mr Chips]

you can show me any system and I will show you a run of numbers that will beat it

What does one run of numbers prove? Produce 10 and say where they came from and you will be proved wrong.
 
 
Mr Chips

[Tangram]

Maths is about certainty, and 2+2 = 4 for eternity whatever universe you're in. But obviously we're not dealing with certainty or "pure" maths in the context of gambling. Probability theory is applied maths, and there are assumptions and simplifications in the interpretation of gambling situations which makes the theory easier to use (just as there is in any mathematical model of the real world). If it were just about the maths, then casinos would make 2.7% of all bets on roulette tables, but they don't.

Of course if you have a winning system you can prove it with math. Do you think winning systems are freaks of nature and outside the boundries of simple math?

Not if you use the assumptions that are in the "standard" model. All possible bets will result in a negative expectation. It doesn't matter how many spins you skip, how many "rare" patterns you use, etc. Trying to prove that a winning system exists really is like trying to prove that 2+2 is not 4.  

It's very easy to prove this with a computer simulation. Suppose you are playing the ECs and base your next bet or series of bets on what has happened in the last 10 spins. There are 2¹⁰ = 1024 possible permutations (patterns) that are possible. You have a theory that when you see some pattern or another and bet a certain way that this gives you an advantage (based on your results so far). If you cycle through each of the possible last 10 spin outcomes you will find that there is no such advantage in the long run, because each pattern has exactly the same chance of showing up. If you deny this and insist that there are favourable opportunities (depending on past results), then why does the computer simulation not reveal them?

[lucky_strike]

Well i have to agree with you again Tangram...

Cheers

[Mr Chips]

Tangram,
 
The Signum system often shows repetitive patterns, which will determine whether to place a bet on Red or Black.
 
In the example I gave in the chips section 'Advanced Roulette- a constructive debate', it's not necessary to understand the system
to see a repetitive pattern OOO, which will lead to an excellent win. This occurrence happens quite often and when I see the first OOO,
I have a high expectation of this continuing during a session.
 
Mr Chips

[Gotrek]

Tangram,
 
The Signum system often shows repetitive patterns, which will determine whether to place a bet on Red or Black.
 
In the example I gave in the chips section 'Advanced Roulette- a constructive debate', it's not necessary to understand the system
to see a repetitive pattern OOO, which will lead to an excellent win. This occurrence happens quite often and when I see the first OOO,
I have a high expectation of this continuing during a session.
 
Mr Chips

And yet, it is as likely as anything else...

But yes, I once also played systems based on repeaters and patterns. So please continue (is that better, LS? ).

[Spike]

All possible bets will result in a negative expectation.>>>

If you don't have the edge, this is true. But if you have the edge, very very quickly a string of bets produces a positive result and it just keeps climbing up. Actually, it resembles hills and valleys, but the next hill is always higher than the previous hill and the end of the session always increases the BR.

[Spike]

-