Gizmontron(Crackers) virtual play

[crackers]

I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it. Yes, Mathematics proves that Roulette can't be beat. That was Eintiens' mistake. He used mathematics. I don't. I never will. Anyone that sets out to beat Roulette with mathematics will fail also. There are no individuals on this forum smarter than Einstein. So they will all fail if they attempt to use mathematics.

[seykid29]

By mathematics,you talking of probability also??

[Carpanta]

By mathematics,you talking of probability also??

Hi Seykid29,

Once one knows the odds are against the punter because of unfair payout then it is easy to assume roulette can't be beaten with maths. Roulette players pay a 2.7 (single 0) or 5.4 (00 wheel) tax everytime they put a bet on the table.

What's left to deal with in order to beat the game?
Well, trying to put up with the true nature of randomess is the answer. 

Dominances, tendencies, outcomes rythms and cycles. What's flowing with the outcomes, what's missing?.
How randomness is disposing the outcomes: series? chops?
How long  series or  chops are tending to?

Those and others should be questions to be asked to produce more accurate bet selections.
Recent statistics should show you which is at the present time the most or less profitable stake.
A seasoned player with the proper tracking tools and willful character will take profit  from random nature.

That's my belief.

Cheers,
Carlos.

[albertojonas]

I am the living proof that Roulette can be beat every time I set out to beat it. Yes, Mathematics proves that Roulette can't be beat. That was Eintiens' mistake. He used mathematics. I don't. I never will. Anyone that sets out to beat Roulette with mathematics will fail also. There are no individuals on this forum smarter than Einstein. So they will all fail if they attempt to use mathematics.

Almost all of Einstein Theories were created by his wife.

[iggiv]

Almost all of Einstein Theories were created by his wife.

and kids as well. Also some  neighborhood drunks participated.

[crackers]

Thanks to a bit of well executed logic by Ken, over at the cc forum, I've found
the obvious answer for two very obnoxious pests. One guy goes on endlessly
displaying his agnostic pontifications of fundamentalism. (Look it up)

Over this next year you will have enough evidence to consider Einstein's
claims regarding Roulette. Perhaps some of you will need to look that up too.
It will make your participation far more interesting than your stereotypical
genuflecting.

[ReDsQuaD]

Hi Seykid29,

Once one knows the odds are against the punter because of unfair payout then it is easy to assume roulette can't be beaten with maths. Roulette players pay a 2.7 (single 0) or 5.4 (00 wheel) tax everytime they put a bet on the table.

What's left to deal with in order to beat the game?
Well, trying to put up with the true nature of randomess is the answer. 

Dominances, tendencies, outcomes rythms and cycles. What's flowing with the outcomes, what's missing?.
How randomness is disposing the outcomes: series? chops?
How long  series or  chops are tending to?

Those and others should be questions to be asked to produce more accurate bet selections.
Recent statistics should show you which is at the present time the most or less profitable stake.
A seasoned player with the proper tracking tools and willful character will take profit  from random nature.

That's my belief.

Cheers,
Carlos.

That does not make any sense. How can you exploit something that is random lol? Its the other way round, you exploit predictable behaviour in order to beat roulette. The only way to do this is watch the WHEEL and nothing else. People can spend there entire life on this forum and NEVER understand this fact.

[crackers]

That does not make any sense. How can you exploit something that is random lol?

Common randomness can't prevent itself from coincidentally having sequences
that can only be seen as opportunistic in the hands of a qualified expert. Please
don't try to tell me that I'm not an expert and that you are of your craft.

[ReDsQuaD]

Common randomness can't prevent itself from coincidentally having sequences
that can only be seen as opportunistic in the hands of a qualified expert. Please
don't try to tell me that I'm not an expert and that you are of your craft.

Well then its not random then if the same thing happens again.  . I am not here to insult your intelligence, but I simply go by the truth. I know how this game can and cannot be beaten and I really don't care what any one has to say about that because I know myself.

Reading randomness? I never heard such nonsense. Its all about increasing the accuracy of a prediction (establishing how far the ball is landing from your prediction on different rotor speeds) Then of course you have wheel bias and Dealer signature analysis. Advantage players LOOK AT THE WHEEL, not the marque number history.. lol

[crackers]

Well then its not random then if the same thing happens again.  . I am not here to insult your intelligence, but I simply go by the truth. I know how this game can and cannot be beaten and I really don't care what any one has to say about that because I know myself.

Reading randomness? I never heard such nonsense. Its all about increasing the accuracy of a prediction (establishing how far the ball is landing from your prediction on different rotor speeds) Then of course you have wheel bias and Dealer signature analysis. Advantage players LOOK AT THE WHEEL, not the marque number history.. lol

save for when the fools parade is in full participation.

[iggiv]

guys, I will ask u to stay in a frame of a normal discussion. I feel like it is coming to something which may end up by banning some users for a few days or even weeks(!!!). Too much heat here recently with name calling.  So stay put and enjoy safe friendly discussion please.

muchas gracias

p.s. Repeat abusers will be granted more time off and nice rest from the forum battles.  Thanx for understanding

[iggiv]

as my 2 c, then yes, both sides have some reasoning. Physical prediction is possible (though I don't believe it is that easy), but trends in roulette are  a well known thing, so it is  not a fact that it is impossible to be used for roulette prediction. Actually some use it with success, though not too many of course. As not too many use physical prediction.

but these things were said here more than one time, and it is quite boring to repeat all this over and over again. Every side made its points long ago.

[HansHuckebein]

hi guys,

I found this one on the nolinks.

nolinks://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/

last comment by mark brownell is what I'm especially refering to. sounds a lot like gizmo. 

cheers

hans

[crackers]

Dang - that worked perfectly. If I wanted to set people up that were annoyingly
sceptical I would tell them the truth. They couldn't see it. The reason doesn't
really matter much. They would see it as the rantings of a crazy person. So I
would hide the truth in plain sight. History it self would serve the purpose of
sorting out what actually took place. I've managed to place a revolutionary
example of forward thinking right under the noses of varying types of
informed skeptics without their knowledge of it. That was my goal. I have
succeeded in doing it. This will kill all table games of chance. But here it is,
flying under the radar as rantings. I could not be more pleased. So keep up the
great work. These are the days of ultimate irony, no matter whoever is right.

[Carpanta]

Ive read the information from the link mentioned formerly.

Perhaps im a bit lost here.

According to what is claimed there a frequentist expects past results, namely dominances, trends, patterns, to repeat now and then.

Then, Bayesians say:no, past results dont account for present outcome. Runing statistics is not valid method to predict next outcome to show. Look at what is happening now and see how it affects at your decision.
If you are doing very well, then you are on the right track. If you are doing so so, not well not bad, then you are in a kind of limbo. While, if you are doing very bad then you are in hell, change to opposite of what you are doing in order to go to limbo at least, or (much better) have heavenly results.
It looks fine and sound.

I ask myself: but arent bayesians, all the same, being frequentists since they rely next decision to the new born randomn situation?
I believe they are. In a way they are tracking win/lose situations in relation to their randomnly picked decision in order to decide what to do next.

In my case I consider myself a frequentist. I try to compare how the present outcome characteristics
are doing in comparison to past ones. While a certain randomn state tend to continue I go with it (producing wins). When that state changes I suffer the consecuence. I get a loss.

In other words, being a frequentist enable me to produce a bet selection based on past results.  While the results of that action tells me objectively how accuratly or not I'm aiming at the target.
In this process I'm always struggling along an error and trial situation.

[Carpanta]

-