Winning at Roulette with a system is very possible.

[Jean-Claud]

yes yes...

is it in pofit after 5.000 placed bets?

[RouletteFanatic]

yes yes...

is it in pofit after 5.000 placed bets?

So after 5000 placed bets the system is a winner? I can tell you it is easily done.

[RouletteFanatic]

And why are you so silly to sidestep my response that you were wrong by saying all negative expectation games lead to negative value? I just proved to you Parrando's Paradox shows that it can be won in long term. You are stubborn even with proof in your eyes.

[RouletteFanatic]

Look at our previous conversation below. Just because you didn't know something exist (parrando's paradox), doesn't mean you conventional thinking is correct 100% all the time. Same as Roulette, because you don't know a winning system exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I even purposely phrased the question to include "ALL negative expectation games" and "do you believe 100%".

both of which you answered yes, but I have undeniably proven you wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
Why do you feel that a game with such complexity can't be beat? Let me ask you, according to maths do you 100% believe EVERY negative expectation game produces negative profit in the long run?
 



Quote from: Jean-Claud on July 12, 2010, 06:19:40 AM
Y              E                 S

Me:
nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrondo's_paradox

I just proved you wrong, read up on this.

Of course this does not apply to Roulette, but there are ways to win it just haven't been found or is obscured. Like before how the parrondo's paradox is discovered every guy like you would believe all negative expectation games would ALWAYS lead to negative value, but this Parrando's paradox proves you wrong.



Its like how pit bosses were stumped when edward thorp was constantly winning in blackjack. They can't in their mind think how is it possible to win because their mind was closed to the possibility that blackjack can be won that they were 100% convinced he was cheating when technically he was not

[elmo]

I laugh when people mention that Einstein said you can't beat roulette.
Tony Blair got told that Saddam had WMD. He sent a country to war.
My point is that it seems apparent that some people are very easily convinced and will believe what most people tell them without thinking things through for themself. Could you imagine if everyone was like this. What sort of state would we all be in. Everything that is created started of as an idea in someones mind and was then brought to life.
People who say you can't do this and you can't do that live in a very blinkered world and will likely never discover anything truly great. People need to think for themself and ignore the negative people. Don't accept other peoples failure as proof that you cannot achieve the "so-called" impossible.

[RouletteFanatic]

well said elmo

[Jean-Claud]

Showing arount the parrando's paradox Doen t prove anything!
Its only U that say that u showed proof.

[RouletteFanatic]

Showing arount the parrando's paradox Doen t prove anything!
Its only U that say that u showed proof.

I just showed you that what you said previously was incorrect about believing all negative value games cannot be won in long term. Do you agree on that part?

[Bayes]

Parrondo's paradox isn't quite what it seems. Unlike casino games, there has to be a winning game (at least some of the time) for the 'paradox' to work:

The catch here is that, in order for the paradox to occur, all three games A, B1, and B2 can't be losing. A typical assignment of probabilities would be p = .495, p1 = .095, and p2 = .745, which makes B2 a winning game. For M = 2 or 3, B still comes out a losing game, although it is winning for M > 3.

Source.

[Bayes]

People who say you can't do this and you can't do that live in a very blinkered world and will likely never discover anything truly great. People need to think for themself and ignore the negative people. Don't accept other peoples failure as proof that you cannot achieve the "so-called" impossible.

I agree that people need to think for themselves, and this is what they don't do in regards to looking for a winning method. There are ways to win, but if you're thinking clearly it's hard to come up with any good reason why you can do better than expectation without taking into account the initial conditions of the system (ball and wheel).

In any case, thinking isn't enough, you need to put your theories to the test. If after having tried various methods which failed, and knowing that many others have tried and failed for hundreds of years, and knowing that what you're attempting is logically and mathematically flawed, then it seems unreasonable to call someone 'negative'  if they assert that such a winning method doesn't exist.

I'm not saying that roulette can't be beaten, only that you can't do better than expectation in terms of wins vs losses without using AP methods. If you only care about making money, then smart money-management can take you long way.

[Spike!]

d >>knowing that many others have tried and failed for hundreds of years, and knowing that what you're attempting is logically and mathematically flawed, then it seems unreasonable to call someone 'negative'>>>

You tell em, Bayes. Quote that scripture chapter and verse, and cross yourself when you're done like a good little religious zealot.. LOL

[Bayes]

You tell em, Bayes. Quote that scripture chapter and verse, and cross yourself when you're done like a good little religious zealot.. LOL

um.. there is plenty of evidence for what I claim, NONE for what you claim. I think that makes YOU the zealot. 

[Mr J]

"there is plenty of evidence for what I claim" >>> ? lol. For what you claim? Any 'evidence' that you actually win or any of the other cronies winning? Ken

[Bayes]

Maybe 'claim' was the wrong word. What I meant was, the only 'evidence' Spike has for his claim is his word, nothing else.

As to AP, I don't make any SPECIFIC claims in that dept. only that the laws of physics tell you where the ball will land, not  past spins  <snigger>.

[Herb6]

"there is plenty of evidence for what I claim" >>> ? lol. For what you claim? Any 'evidence' that you actually win or any of the other cronies winning? Ken

Welcome to The Theater of The Absurd.  

[Herb6]

-