WHY IS THIS FORUM DEAD?

[gizmotron]

Anyone who claims to be a roulette "professional" is either a dreamer or a scammer.  I admit the possibility there may be a few Advantage Players but no one can win long-term using math and statistics. If you are the person who left that comment Gizmotron it's not surprising you haven't had a reply, the real physics guys have obviously dismissed you as an idiot.

I wonder if that is the reason why they have not replied. The concept of Bayesian probability directly relates to temporary states of statistics.

"Frequentist inference is one of a number of possible ways of formulating generally applicable schemes for making statistical inferences: that is, for drawing conclusions from statistical samples. An alternative name is frequentist statistics. This is the inference framework in which the well-established methodologies of statistical hypothesis testing and confidence intervals are based. The main alternative approach to statistical inference is Bayesian inference,..."

Let's use your model for discussion: You are obviously an idiot for being a Frequentist.

[Mike]

Nowadays there is as much disinformation floating about the net just to muddy the waters. Why would some people deem that necessary if there was nothing to worry about.

Why do you assume that it's deliberate disinformation? in that case you must already believe that there are winning methods, but there is no evidence that any such thing exists. None, nada, zip, diddlysquat, not one iota of solid proof can be found, only what people claim. Where money is involved, rational thinking and common sense disappear, so you get people swearing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4. Maybe I misunderstood you, did you mean that the misinformation is that winning methods do exist, or that they don't?

[Kelly]

nolinks://nolinks.information-management.com/news/7484-1.html

You need priors for Bayesian probabilitys to have any substance.  If  you have a sack of 50 red and 50 green apples and you after having taken 10 red apples out of the sack but at the same time a helper had added 10 red apples into the sack, your chance of picking a red or a green apple after 10 picks is still the same.  The same goes for Roulette, hence Bayesian probabilitys  shouldn`t even be mentioned except in situations discribed in the debate link, where you as a fact can rule out some numbers and that way change the probabilitys.

[Mike]

Gizmotron you are completely wrong. Whatever interpretation of probability you choose doesn't change the facts. Work through the math of any system and the results come out negative. All empirical data will confirm the theory. It doesn't matter what weird and wonderful criteria you use to select your bets. You fail to see the principle but are blinded by the endless possibilities which roulette seems to offer. Too bad.

[Mike]

Spot on, Kelly.

Bayesian probability is about using history to inform your next move. This doesn't apply to roulette because each spin is independent of the last. Are you trying to tell us that spins aren't independent?

[Mr J]

NOT STARTING TROUBLE....but I have said it before. It seems that JUST BECAUSE 'John Doe' does not or can not win, that means NO ONE can win. Thats quite arrogant to think like that. These days, if you do 'well' playing (like myself) its almost embarrassing or I should be quiet about it or something. That is wrong and odd.  Ken

[gizmotron]

... but there is no evidence that any such thing exists. None, nada, zip, diddlysquat, not one iota of solid proof can be found, ...

Mike, not to worry. I fully intend at some point to completely provide you with that proof. Only you will get what you want right after it's too late to use it. BTW, it's exactly as it should be too. You will get treated exactly like you should have been.   

[Kelly]

No i am trying hard to tell people they ARE independent   

[Mike]

Sorry, Kelly. I know what you meant. That last question was to Gizmotron.

[Kelly]

No one disputes that someone can win for a long time, i have a friend who was successfully flatbetting with a profit on the even chances for 2 years before he wasn`t able to win anymore. The problems only starts when the claims of pros and holy grails (without backup and proof) comes on the table.  If my friend had only been playing for 2 times a month instead of 6 times, he might still have been in profit. Instead he stopped being down 10K.

[Mike]

NOT STARTING TROUBLE....but I have said it before. It seems that JUST BECAUSE 'John Doe' does not or can not win, that means NO ONE can win. Thats quite arrogant to think like that.

What can I say? Math isn't arrogant. It is what it is. And I didn't just 'believe' the math, I did a huge amount of testing before I realised it was the truth, methods which I thought couldn't possibly lose given a big enough bankroll all tanked. Like I said before, you don't realise how random behaves until you look at it in the long-term, and you just don't see that by testing manually.

If you don't play very often, it's quite possible to be doing very well especially if you use an aggressive progression, because the sequences which kill you don't happen that often. And by the way, I found that it's better to be aggressive rather than use a very slow progression. If you have a 'hit and run' type of approach you might stay ahead your whole life, but it's still down to luck.

[Mr J]

My point/question has always been the same. Putting all methods in the SAME grouping is nuts. I have a CAP per method. Not an overall CAP for roulette. Big difference. If a method is doing well for months and months (or years), why stop playing it? Yes, I agree it might tank but QUIT playing 'that' method before it tanks so you at least have some profit left over for all the time that person put into it.  Ken

[Mr J]

I have more 'real time' playing compared to other guys who only test. LISTEN GUYS....this is not as difficult a game to do 'well' as some make it out to be. I find it so easy sometimes, my way of thinking has been changing lately. How you ask? I'm actually getting too lazy to go to the casino, I have lost the 'challenge' instinct in me. These days, I find it too damn easy to win. Laugh if you want but I get BORED winning.  Ken

[Kelly]

If you play, you know very well that things go up and down.  The question is always, why should I quit when im down ?  Which I at some point WILL be if I keep playing.  Once you get a little down, you promise yourself to quit next time you are up. After a while the "ups" are not bringing you back to break even because the house edge has nibbled the foundation in the up swings.

If that should be transferred to your play and you are up for 4 years, why don`t you quit now ? Since you don`t wanna quit when you are down.

PS: LOL, if you are getting bored winning, you might wanna up the stakes a bit. That should take the boredom out, trust me on that one.

[gizmotron]

For Mike and Kelly,

This is how it will go down in the near future. I will have provided enough people with a working application of reading randomness and using it to exploit obvious weaknesses and opportunities in any game of chance. That will then be explained with Bayesian and not Frequentist forms of statistical mathematics. You will be seen forever as having been wrong. This will also be a fact. The practical application of the concept will have been discovered before the mathematical solution for it. That will change the textbooks a little.

[gizmotron]

-