Like To Have Your Mind Blown?

[cheese]

- I don't understand why some one would use two wheels

To get random spins from completely separate sources, duh. Why do I care about 2 streams from one wheel, it proves nothing. When you use two wheels, it shows that you're not betting against the wheel at all, you're betting against random outcomes. It shows that if you see 10 reds in a row on one wheel, its meaningless. It shows there are no rules governing the outcomes, so how on earth can a rule based system of any kind predict the next spin? People will say, 'oh, we already know this', and then proceed to show you their rule based system, proving they know nothing at all..

[cheese]

This is the part I really don't understand:

Its the string of random numbers
that you're playing that counts, NOT where they came from.

Thats it in a nutshell. It makes no difference where they came from. You can't force rules on something thats no governed by rules. Look what Gizmo did yesterday. He says oh, that was a 'rare event', that should have won. Thats a rule he tried to foist on outcomes that obey no rules. I hate to sound trite, but in roulette rule number 1 is: There Are No Rules.

[ll l ll l lll ll]

This proves that true random numbers aren't connected. If you can get them from two different sources and the results are the same, systems are useless against them. A system depends on whats come before, and this proves whats come before is meaningless.

If what has come before is meaningless, then why do you focus on past spins and record them with a pencil and paper while playing your E/C method?

[cheese]

If what has come before is meaningless, then why do you focus on past spins and record them with a pencil and paper while playing your E/C method?

I use a pen, not a pencil. I use a non-rule based method to play roulette. I use past spins as a guideline in determining the next bet. I have invented a game that I play within the game of roulette. It totally dependent on the spins being truly random.

[ll l ll l lll ll]

I use a pen, not a pencil. I use a non-rule based method to play roulette. I use past spins as a guideline in determining the next bet. I have invented a game that I play within the game of roulette. It totally dependent on the spins being truly random.

Interesting.  A game you invented to be played within the game of roulette.  Since roulette itself is a random game your game must be random as well.  Random vs. Random.

[cheese]

Interesting.  A game you invented to be played within the game of roulette.  Since roulette itself is a random game your game must be random as well.  Random vs. Random.

When you're dealing with true random outcomes, there's no 'game' there. The whole set up is a fraud. The inventor fashioned a game for suckers. The only way to beat it is to invent your own game. Not random against random, that never works.

[ll l ll l lll ll]

The only way to beat it is to invent your own game. Not random against random, that never works.

I understand the concept, but where is your advantage?  You are playing your own game against previous random outcomes where the result is still random.  If anything can happen at anytime, then there is no advantage to be had.

[cheese]

I understand the concept, but where is your advantage?  You are playing your own game against previous random outcomes where the result is still random.  If anything can happen at anytime, then there is no advantage to be had.

I'm not playing 'against' anything. I use past spins to play my own game and I use the roulette board to make the bets. The advantage is, the edge in my game is in my favor, not the houses. But the point is, the game is rigged, the way its set up. You have to look beyond the game as you see it laid out on the felt.

[reddwarf]

Hi Cheese,

It somehow makes sense, but what do you mean with a rule? Something like: wait till 1-2 appears, than bet 12?

If so, you say you have a non-rule based system, now let's assume you play your system a couple of times (say 3), and 3 times, the first two spins are 1 and 2: does your non-rule based system now give 3 different 3rd bets? Or is it reproducible?

If so, than of course your non-rule based system has rules (albeit different in nature from the "I-can-predict-the-next spin-because-it-worked-for-1000-spin-so-roulette-is-not-random-so-statistics-and-thus-math-is-flawed"  rules)

Please note: I'm not trying to play a word game here, I'm merely looking for a way to escape the gravity field of standard roulette approach.

reddwarf

[cheese]

of course your non-rule based system has rules

Nope, no rules at all. Every bet is independent of the last bet, they are never connected, just like the spins are not connected.  I play from experience and practice, nothing else works as well. Mostly, nothing else works at all..

[reddwarf]

Hmmm interesting,

So this means that spins 1-2-3 on day1 will result in a different bet decision that 1-2-3 on day2? But does this also hold true for the betting amounts?

reddwarf

[Zindrod]

Nope, no rules at all. Every bet is independent of the last bet, they are never connected, just like the spins are not connected.  I play from experience and practice, nothing else works as well. Mostly, nothing else works at all..

You do not have an advantage.

[cheese]

You do not have an advantage.

Thanks for the input. You're wrong, of course.

[Zindrod]

Thanks for the input. You're wrong, of course.

ok then, proove your advantage. You cannot because you haven't got one. 

[cheese]

ok then, proove your advantage.

I prove it to the casino every time I play. Why on earth would I prove it to anyone else?

[cheese]

-