Why do people claim Roulette is unbeatable, when it definetly is?

[Noble Savage]

I liked that excerpt Bayes.

Of course not, truly I cannot understand how you can be a self-proclaimed expert on randomness when simple things, the fundamentals, completely escape your comprehension.

The Gizmotron fundamentals.

[Spike!]

>>Or it may even take the form of private incantations and/or propitiatory rituals as the wheel is spinning, in which case his system is essentially based on magic.>

This is how most people play. They have no idea how random works, so they cross their fingers, bet their birthdays and anniversaries, their lucky fortune cookie numbers, and hope for the best. Wising themselves up is too much work, they'd rather be ignorant.

Number Six Proclaimed:

"Variance isn't a one-dimensional occurrence, it moulds itself around what you are doing, thus, when considering past spins, there is no way to avoid it, nor can you use it to your advantage. I could explain why, but I really don't think you'd understand."

C'mon, take a chance. I feel really smart today, please share...


Number Six also said:

>None of it matters when the expectancy is always negative. >

The whole point is to find a way where your expectation is positive. Thats the game changer.

[gizmotron]

Of course not, truly I cannot understand how you can be a self-proclaimed expert on randomness when simple things, the fundamentals, completely escape your comprehension. Only in the Blubber World does probability apply to "virtual" bets and the parameters of the game can be changed without physically changing the gaming device. Variance isn't a one-dimensional occurrence, it moulds itself around what you are doing, thus, when considering past spins, there is no way to avoid it, nor can you use it to your advantage. I could explain why, but I really don't think you'd understand.

You idiot. You need the simulated bets to see if you have entered a time that is a win streak. You get out the first moment that it breaks.

[Herb6]

Gizmotron,

Do you also believe in ESP?

[Spike!]

Gizmotron,

Do you also believe in ESP?

This is why the egghead MathBoyz types never get anywhere. They only see black and white. If its not in the books they always quote as their Bibles, then its at the complete other end of the spectrum, fairy tale land. For them there is no middle ground. Either you buy their MathBoyz buloney hook, line, and sinker, or you're rubber room material that believes in the Tooth Fairy and Santa. Its the same with every religion on the planet, its their way or the highway. And math IS a religion.

[Number Six]

You idiot. You need the simulated bets to see if you have entered a time that is a win streak. You get out the first moment that it breaks.

Probability and fluctuation do not apply to "simulated bets" or virtual tracking or whatever you want to call it, therefore any tracking without betting and any data you derive from it has absolutely no bearing on reality...ie, the only spins that matter are the ones you wager cash on. There is no advantage in simulating bets, nor do they ever change the dynamics of upswings and drawdowns of real cash investment - that only comes from the volatility of any progression you use and the returns gained from your bet selection through x amount of time, and that only comes from real money wagers. Your argument is faulty and has no credence. In fact, you have no argument because you have nothing remotely plausible with which to support it. The simple fact is, you can't physically change the game device from spin to spin, nor can you change the payouts. The last time I checked, these were pretty ICBM-proof facts.

[Spike!]

>Probability and fluctuation do not apply to "simulated bets" or virtual tracking or whatever you want to call it>

 And here we have the bedrock of the MathBoys belief system. You can't practice, you can't track, you can't simulate, because absolutely NOTHING we do can EVER improve our bet selection one iota. Its written in stone, nothing can change it. Praise be to the MathGodz...

[Jish]

what a funny thread

[Bayes]

Its the same with every religion on the planet, its their way or the highway. And math IS a religion.

You do come out with a lot of nonsense Spike. You are the one claiming miracles.  

And anyway, maths doesn't dictate anything, it only describes what actually happens. First reality, then maths, not the other way around.

[gizmotron]

You do come out with a lot of nonsense Spike. You are the one claiming miracles.  

And anyway, maths doesn't dictate anything, it only describes what actually happens. First reality, then maths, not the other way around.

Math doesn't explain how anyone can take advantage of coincidence. In fact, you guys always run away from discussions that involve it. You always try to redefine it and then declare yourselves the victors. In a way, the real discussion has broken down on a fallacy know as a straw man. Deal with circumstantial coincidence recognized in the current state. It's a fallacy to broad brush stroke it with "long term statistics deal with it." If it does then explain it.

[Noble Savage]

Deal with circumstantial coincidence recognized in the current state.

There is no "current state".

Past lottery results do not give clues to future lottery result.

Next..

[gizmotron]

There is no "current state".

Past lottery results do not give clues to future lottery result.

Next..

Then there is no such thing as statistical variance.

You people have no idea what is happening in Roulette. The table is always doing something somewhere, even if it gets chaotic. You can't read randomness, you can't read what the table is doing, and there is no current state. It is impossible to discuss Roulette with you.

[Number Six]

The truth is pretty simple really, and it renders everything like trend-betting and randomness reading physically impossible, like trying to fit your head through a keyhole. There is a discrepancy between the true odds of the game and the odds the casinos offer relative to the payout. On any spin, is there always 37 or 38 available pockets on the wheel the ball can fall in to? If the answer is yes, then the house advantage remains true on every single spin and the player can never win in the long term because the maths that holds the game together can't be superseded by something phony and illusory like the "odds for a short term elegent pattern". Unlike the arguments of Spike and Gizmo, these facts aren't supposedly flawed or obsolete or erroneous.

[gizmotron]

The truth is pretty simple really, and it renders everything like trend-betting and randomness reading physically impossible, like trying to fit your head through a keyhole. There is a discrepancy between the true odds of the game and the odds the casinos offer relative to the payout. On any spin, is there always 37 or 38 available pockets on the wheel the ball can fall in to? If the answer is yes, then the house advantage remains true on every single spin and the player can never win in the long term because the maths that holds the game together can't be superseded by something phony and illusory like the "odds for a short term elegent pattern". Unlike the arguments of Spike and Gizmo, these facts aren't supposedly flawed or obsolete or erroneous.

Big deal. The odds don't change. But what the table is currently doing is constantly changing. Get over it. You are stuck on the odds. The way you attempt to describe things every even chance flat bet must lose. You at least believe that it must lose 19 out of every 37 spins. Now try to imagine that everyone knew that you would lose 19 out of every 37 spins on red or black. That knowledge would shut down every casino that kept letting people play Roulette.

[winkel]

There is no "current state".

Past lottery results do not give clues to future lottery result.

Next..

You are worng.

I transferred my strategy to Lotto and predicted in the last 7 games 5 times at minimum five out of six numbers.

br
winkel

[winkel]

-