Roulette I've seen a new absurd claim that the gambler's fallacy isn't.....

Well I would prefer to use you like a punching bag. ...a real punching bag with all the blood and guts.

 

at least i payed attention.

 

oh well.

 

No he is perfectly able to answer those findings but he doesn't like them because he knows those examples are wrong and doesnt give an edge. An guru never tells he is wrong...

 

Post the telemetry. If you look at your own telemetry and were willing to have it tested by a real sim builder then you would see that you are fooling yourself. There is a word for all this baloney, it's "sophistry."

 

Ok here is the proof. I programmed it in excel. Here are the results for 3450 cycles.


13.43391 The average nonhit. And the times it went from 0 hits to 12. As you can see it went 2 times without a hit!

0 2
1 68
2 172
3 508
4 729
5 762
6 606
7 339
8 188
9 55
10 19
11 2
12 0

ALSO Do me and more important youself a BIG favor.

PICK 14 random numbers play them for 37 spins . And see if you get DIFFERENT results as picking from the 14 non hits!

P.S. You're welcome to the excel file ofcourse to test things yourself...

 

Lol.
First try. Would you like to know how easy it really is ?
It's a trick question.
If you say yes you look like a fool who was wrong.
If you say no then you can keep pretending you are right.
The cherry picking comments are absurd.
Like it took 500,000 tries to do something that works every time you do it. Don't admit being wrong though.

 

@Ka2: This is too funny. You used facts. Now some people are very uncomfortable with the truth, being that all truth is subjective to them.

 

0 9 6000
1 106
2 315
3 860
4 1258
5 1387
6 1039
7 598
8 296
9 95
10 32
11 4
12 1
13 0

6000 cycles. 9 0 hits..

 

Oh, this looks bad for those in LaLa Land.

 

It does not make sense or progress ...........but it is alive .

 

Why are you here? Theoretical Philosopher? You should be able to wreck gambling faster than my work will. Your sycophant here says that you will never post spin by spin full telemetry. Why not just wreck everything and get a Nobel prize? This tease, taste, and trigger technique is very old and tired. So let's look at it from a standpoint of success only. How many contraptions have you presented in the past two decades? Where is the overwhelming throng of gamblers that have invaded casinos around the world and reeked havoc? There is a missing link here. All of your contraptions are fantastic on paper and yet, nobody can duplicate your amazing prowess. Something is not right. Look at the picture and leap for the brass ring. It's funny. You have trained animals for your own circus.

 

yes .. I've been doing that for years .. since I began studying roulette a year ago - you really know your stuff

yes .. I am a part of some 'you guys'.. since, there's nothing bigger than me - using that word alone implies a great inferiority complex quasi mended with a need of 'fitting in' & suddenly 'feeling' complete as a solution

yes .. regurgitate .. since of you lack imagination, you always seems to pick a word, turn it around .. & add some bull to it trying to sound smart .. or it seems at least it sounds smart to you; rather than deal with what's in front of you - since of that lack of information, I am not surprised after a lifetime learning & adopting a way of solving problems
by filling the gaps .. rather than say & make something anew

MJ -- quit you jibber jabber

 

Shows the type of person that he is. Why bother.

 

What's more likely? that you are lying and cherry-picking or that you win every time picking numbers using the law of the third? And it doesn't take many tries to get a nice-looking chart.

Sad.

 

There's no type for me .. & true can't get to me, there's nothing there - a vacuum.
Might as well go spearing a fire & see how far you can do that.
If you are persistent enough even the spear will melt.


Even though you are obviously confirming what MJ says 'in essence' being true (I ain't taking, nor interest in any sides); at least you not only say its possible to win, but furthermore claim you do (consistently?), moreover flatbet; which in a sense invalidates (a whole lot of) what he says by taking it essentially to a next level, transcending.


Rather than opting to invest that bit of spent energy into forming an intelligent answer to my question, you opt for categorizing me for who or what you 'think' I am .. Thereof, true, why bother..


& most importantly, doesn't bother me & couldn't care less if you or anyone 'likes' me or not .. I've destroyed everything that I was or has been put in me, self-determining myself anew being pure, untainted, untaimed & congruent through-&-throughout .. being completely fine with my existence.

Even monsters have a right to exist, you liking it or not.

 

In other words, there might be (some) math consistency within what he says; but he can't see it or put it the the correct context enriching (at least sufficiently enough) to win consistently, progression or flatbet.

In a sense some of it, as you somewhat pointed out, has its place & purpose .. but most is derived from his incapacity, inability &or unwillingness to do so (rather surrender & add much of baloney dressed around the 'math').


Speaking straightforward, as always.

 

Woohoo, congratz to you my friend for nailing it down in excell!
Whole 2 cycles out of 3450, man all the money o would have made in the other 3448 cycles lol.
Now let's try the same with real live spins, shall we?

 

Again 9 out of 6000 cycles!!!! Man that hurts, big time
Again, Excell isn't the right tool to test this, google it. Again, live proof it with live spins, and no selfmade sheets please, but proof with pictures from wiesbaden, i will bet 100 bucks, you won't get the same results, and what if you do. I made so much money that 2-9 cycles in 6000 won't hurt my bankroll one bit. And if for some strange reason a cycle went on without 1 unhit showing up, i win the next one with multiple hits. Again i can't loose. But hey, play with those barbiedoll guys, maybe they teach you how to calculate reading randomness

 

I don’t understand all this bickering. If someone has a winning method or system or whatever then they should easily be able to get to the top of RSim or some other independent website and that would be that. No?