Why Probability Does Not Matter

[Noble Savage]

Typical MathBoy, overthink everything.

Is that all you got? It's going to take me some time to process so much insight from the master of educated guessing.

Is having a bet selection process "overthinking" to you? Or is it that I didn't use any set of static blind rules? It was a simple discretionary approach. I recall you once mentioned that you need about 30 seconds (I think) to "think" about the next bet.

[Spike!]

 I recall you once mentioned that you need about 30 seconds (I think) to "think" about the next bet.>>>

Never said it. The airball only gives me 30sec to write down the last outcome, decide, and bet. I'd be screwed it it took 30 just to decide.

[gizmotron]

I didn't want to bet that the next spins will be black, or red; I simply wanted to bet that they will be random.

That's remarkably insightful. You really did get far. I watch for randomness to occur in states of continuing or not continuing. Of guesses cooperating or not cooperating. When something is trending that it won't continue it might do that for a few more spins. The same goes for when the guessing is cooperating or continuing. For a few more spins or even one spin. It only takes a few wins to create a whopper of a system. The person that tries to win 55 out of 100 spins risks far more than the person that tries to win 3 wins and quits. Technically, one win is the simplest of all systems.

[Herb6]

Gambler's Fallacy.

[Spike!]

 Technically, one win is the simplest of all systems>>>

I used to mention that on GG and it was like the floodgates of Hades had opened, I stopped doing it..

[Kelly]

So according to the sine wave theory i can just wait until i have 3 imaginary losses in the strategy and then start betting and freely pick up the 3 real wins ?

Been there done that and all that, the ball don`t know about your losses.   You can program that option into any system without any effect. I can document that if you don`t believe me.

[gizmotron]

So according to the sine wave theory I can just wait until I have 3 imaginary losses in the strategy and then start betting and freely pick up the 3 real wins ?

Well yes, of course you can. And I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you after your big win. You should go skinny dipping too. There are no alligators there that will feed on you. That's the ticket.

You must be the dumbest retard that ever got into the Special Olympics. You could win first place for dropping your brains all over the track meet. Why you are so stupid that they would have to set dumb animals next to you so you wouldn't have to feel so self conscious about it.

[Spike!]

You must be the dumbest retard that ever got into the Special Olympics.>>

There is no Special Olympics for roulette. Oh wait, yes there is. Its every casino in the world. And they're no longer called retarded, they're called average players..

[Jakkalsdraai]

YYYAAAAAAWWWWNNNN!

[Bayes]

I love the way Herb cuts through all the long-winded discussions with two words - 'Gambler's Fallacy'  

He's right. You can take two routes, both will lead to the same conclusion. Either spend years searching and 'practising'   or 'believe' what others have found before you, what all the textbooks and encyclopaedias say, and what is, after all, only logical - that past spins give no clues to future spins because <drum roll>

Roulette is a game of independent trials!

But, I don't blame anyone for having a crack at EG. The notion that you can walk up to any roulette wheel in the wheel and have an advantage is very appealing (it's also ludicrous). For some reason, everyone rejects physics as a viable alternative, maybe because they believe there are no opportunities any more (that's certainly what I thought) or because it seems 'messy'. Not every wheel is going to be playable, you have to find them first - what a drag! No gambler wants to work that hard. Also, you need to have an understanding of statistics, and be able to think critically. It helps if you're a bit of a nerd.

[Spike!]

I love the way Herb cuts through all the long-winded discussions with two words - 'Gambler's Fallacy' >>

Yes, its very profound. Especially since thats his comment about everyhthing, as I frequently point out.

>>The notion that you can walk up to any roulette wheel in the wheel and have an advantage is very appealing (it's also ludicrous). <<<

Especially ludicrous for a MathBoy. Laughably ludicrous. I chuckle about it daily, I really do..

>>For some reason, everyone rejects physics as a viable alternative>>

No mystery. Too much work for not enough money. Roulette is beatable in too many other ways.

<<Not every wheel is going to be playable, you have to find them first>>

LOL, now theres an understatement if there ever was one.....

[Bayes]

Yes, its very profound. Especially since thats his comment about everyhthing, as I frequently point out.

No, it isn't. It's very obvious. That's what makes all these discussions a theatre of the absurd.

[Bayes]

LOL, now theres an understatement if there ever was one.....

Never wise up a dummy. Isn't that what you always say? 

And it's odd, when you think about it. Why not keep quiet about EG (splutter)? If everyone can get to the point of winning 72% of their bets within a couple of years, why even mention it?

[Spike!]

Never wise up a dummy. Isn't that what you always say? 

And it's odd, when you think about it. Why not keep quiet about EG (splutter)? If everyone can get to the point of winning 72% of their bets within a couple of years, why even mention it?

Are you joking? Everyone? None of you will ever put in the time, don't make me laugh. If someone is smart enough to master EG, he's certainly smart enough to keep the details to himself. You don't even believe its possible, who are you kidding..

[Spike!]

No, it isn't. It's very obvious. That's what makes all these discussions a theatre of the absurd.

Only absurd to the losers, my friend. Its never absurd when you're winning.

[Spike!]

-