Are the encyclopedias and mathematicians correct?

[gizmotron]

What makes them correct? Where are the answers to the very tough questions. My question is somewhat similar to Spikes question. He says that the math must have changed because the accomplishment supersedes the older beliefs. Now that's not a question but it does imply that a questions still remains.

I've presented the idea that getting guesses right or wrong is a pure 50/50 situation. If I'm betting on EC's then the results are 50/50 in the payoff too. Now we all know that the house has the chance of getting any bet wrong slightly skewed in its favor. Those greens change the payoff balance. So the only way to beat that is to make bets that are correctly selected more than when they are wrong. Can that be done? That is the only question. Herb insists that it is not.

I say it's possible because you don't have to place bets so that you must experience everything that randomness produces. You are not under some commandment to continually bet the exact same amount and every time a spin happens. By changing the current situation you change the math. Herb says that all you are doing is delaying what must happen. In fact if you were to have a good stretch of good luck he says that you must have bad luck that supersedes the good luck. I say it's possible to avoid the bad luck. I say it's possible to delay the bad luck forever. At least from a standpoint that you wish to delay as long as you play, whenever you play. Now if that does in fact happen then Herb is still correct. He has acknowledged that delaying the inevitable is a possibility.

So the question is, can anyone deliberately delay bad stretches while making temporary advances in good stretches? It comes down to each specific instance of the situation. According to Herb there must be a loss expectation that must be experienced. In fact he is saying that it is due. It's also possible that counting on that expectation is a form of Gambler's Fallacy. This situational conditioning is the only question. Now Herb says he is willing to help with the math. What is the math for delaying bad stretches? Is there math that explains delaying bad stretches? Why can't a savvy player just simply not participate in bad stretches?

[TwoCatSam]

A very interesting read that created a paradox in my mind.

I've always said the "run from hell" is out there.   I never really thought of it as being "due".  Nothing can be "due", but if it is true that the run from hell is "out there", then logic would lead me to believe that each spin of the wheel brings it closer.

So, is it "due" but we just don't know when OR is it not due since nothing can be due?  I better wheelbarrow some more soil!

Sam

[Herb6]

Sorry Gizmo,

But none of us believe either you or Spike when it comes to your baseless claims.

Neither of you offer a shread of proof that you can walk on water or guess better than probability would dictate on the outside ECs.

When pressed most people will believe the history of the wheel according to encyclopedias and not the gospel of Spike and Gizmo.

-Herb

[gizmotron]

Sorry Gizmo,

But none of us believe either you or Spike when it comes to your baseless claims.

Neither of you offer a shread of proof that you can walk on water or guess better than probability would dictate on the outside ECs.

When pressed most people will believe the history of the wheel according to encyclopedias and not the gospel of Spike and Gizmo.

-Herb

I'm sorry but your disbelief only gives me a mild case of heartburn. It in no way forces me to experience a "run from hell" as Sam just put it. Not only can I get out on the beginning of any bad runs I can just chose to ignore Herb's monotonous droning with his pathetic mantra. Herb, you are almost a "run from hell" yourself, with all do respect.

So my conclusion must be that Herb won't help us with the math. All he ever has is unconfirmed illusions of his opinion's importance to him. Here is the forever solution to this endless dilemma. The math must be in error. It confirms nothing about anything. Herb can't make an argument regarding this thread. If he ever tried to he could no longer demonstrate his religious belief in his theory. He'd be shut down forever. First as a pathetic VB player then as a math wimp in a goose stepping Nazi costume. The guy is batting a 1000, in baseball parlance.

[winkel]

Herb´s statements are like:

man can´t fly under any circumstances, because he is heavier than air.

some day a way will be found.

(btw.: I did, but nobody believes  )

[Herb6]

Sorry Winkel, but the proof is solid, even if you don't understand it.

[gizmotron]

Is there proof that you can't avoid a strong down turn? That you must bet through it? That you must lose all that adds up mathematically for you to lose at a time like that? Where's that proof. If you can't prove that then you are just another scammer full of hot air. HERB? Where's your proof?

[Spike!]

Is there math that explains delaying bad stretches? Why can't a savvy player just simply not participate in bad stretches?>>>

Thats another way of saying 'can the random be read well enough to know when to bet and when not to bet'.

Herb says <<'Sorry Winkel, but the proof is solid'>>>

Herb is explaining he is still math constipated and will have none of it.

[gizmotron]

Herb is explaining he is still math constipated and will have none of it.

Is that a way of saying that the Zen of Herbism is unapproachable? Until you brown nose him in prostrations of temperance he will not plop down a splash of moral wisdom from atop his high perch. The guy has a porcelain pony installed on top of Mt Everest, and there he sits.

[Spike!]

Is there proof that you can't avoid a strong down turn? That you must bet through it?>>>

The 'proof' Herb has is that there is no bet selection other than betting random choices against random outcomes and therefore just because you avoid, by luck, a down turn today, you for sure will hit one tomorrow. He will never acknowledge anything different because he wants 'proof' first, in the form of a test, so he can reverse engineer it and make it his own. Then he'll disappear, never to be heard from again.. POOF!

[winkel]

Sorry Winkel, but the proof is solid, even if you don't understand it.

everytime I read your posts I get sick.

"Herbism" is a nice word and marks stupidity by endless repeating nonsense

[Steve]

In my opinion from all I know, it would be possible to beat ECs, just not with the methods that just about everyone attempts to use. No I havent figured it out yet, and may never will, but I do believe it's possible. At this stage I believe the best road to take for this is either precognition or predicting waves like in nolinks.genuinewinner.com/waves.pdf - You cant beat the mathematics of the game, but you can overcome it if you predictions are accurate enough. So the focus should be on accuracy - anyone that thinks otherwise doesnt know yet. Thing is it doesnt appear people in general are trying NEW things. They just use the old fallacies just repackaged in a different way.

[Spike!]

You cant beat the mathematics of the game, but you can overcome it if you predictions are accurate enough. >>>

If you have enough accurate guesses, the math changes from being in favor of the casino, to being in your favor. All the math that previously applied to the casino, now applies to you. Thats a good thing, by the way. You now become the casino. The more you play, the more insulated you become from ever being behind. Even if you have an occasional bad session, the good sessions you have behind you completely overwhelm the losses.

[gizmotron]

So the focus should be on accuracy ...

I agree completely. I've noticed that my effectiveness goes through changes. It's caused by the nature of randomness. At times it comes down to streaks of it working or it not working. I like to act on those streaks.

[Steve]

Gizmo/Spike, in 99.999999% of cases I've seen with players acting on streaks, there are no legitimate streaks they are acting on, or perhaps their understanding of streaks is incorrect - ie gamblers fallacy.

In any event, streaks can and do occur, but the questions are:

1. is it just plain probability, or
2. is there more to it, to the point where streaks can be predicted and utilized to increase the accuracy of predictions.

I believe it's a bit of both, being that yes of course streaks are going to occur in any event. That's what's probable, or perhaps inevitable. I'm telling you what you are looking is enormously part of energy research, being that there is no such thing as random, and everything has a structure. For this one publication I suggest is "Living Energies" by Callum Coats - it explains part of the order and natural flow of energy.

Herb with all due respect, I believe you are for the most part correct about how roulette can and cannot be beaten, albeit perhaps not enlightened to other things. It is all science. It is legitimate, but not yet fully understood. Principles of it are applied in my system, and now recently even in my computers so I know first hand it is real, but still my research has a long way to go. No, I cannot beat EC bets, but the potential is there.The patterns my system look at are still ballistic in nature that you would identify with, but everything is done on a much deeper level. It is not hocus pocus - it is real and legitimate science that in the simplest terms possible is about defining patterns through self-referencing.

Anyway spike/gizmo, you really need to have a good look at nolinks.genuinewinner.com/waves.pdf - I believe this should be the focus of your efforts. Everything is part of a cycle, and cycles do repeat. Another way of saying it is everything affects everything. Another way is saying every planet's gravity affects every planet to varying degrees - cycles will repeat but not in the exact way, at least in any perceivable time frame. The same principles and truths that apply to one part of the universe applies to all others because the rules that affect everything are universal.

Ultimately beating roulette is about increasing accuracy of predictions. It cant be done with methods just about every rng player uses. To achieve it, and I do believe it is possible, will be a result of understanding that everything, whether it be events or whatever, is a result of energy interaction - and understanding how to correlate the energy interactions to a practical format to predict so-called random events. Nothing is random, and there is always order - always cause and effect - to state otherwise is saying things happen without reason or cause.

Consider the stock market though. What factors determine market movements? Ultimately human CHOICE. What affects that? Trace it back, and you will understand the market is actual BIOLOGICAL in nature. The ups affect the downs and downs affect the ups, then factor in countless other things, but focus on what the most significant variables are. Every day the market repeats history in a zillion ways, and yes I do trade and have for 15-20 years, but it is not my passion. Trace "randomness" back, and at it's primordial level, it is also energy interactions and thus in theory at least is predictable. In a practical sense, I have managed to figure out legitimate long term patterns on so-called random wheels, but it cannot be applied to RNG as there is no real wheel/ball. Every method I've ever developed for roulette is ultimately ballistic in nature - just parts of it are on a very different level.

[Steve]

-