Roulette The system juny blunder

SirNoOne,

"Experts like us" who proudly tell you can't win except cheating. Lol

I feel it's my job to call out your scam.

Oh yeah, AP scammers are fighting their own kind too. Lol

 

You intentionally forget that I am the expert in systems betting, flatbet with one chip. No one can do that.

Now, I know the secret sauce to rtm betting strategy.

You are reading the expert's post. Lol

 

Luckyfella,

Our big brains and superior intellect may seem like a cheating devices, but I assure you, they most certainly are not.

 

Good grief, cheat to win means expert to your silly brains.

Real experts don't need to cheat. Just one chip is all that's required to win. Lol


SirNoOne,
Open your online casino,

Fulfil these conditions,

1. No cheat spins - I know when you're cheating Lol,

2. Allow for waiting,

3. Allow autobot betting,

4. You pay

I take you to the cleaners. Lmao!!!

 

@Luckyfella let me see if I got this properly ..

Those 18 numbers definitely TEND to converge to ≈50/50, or 47.3/47.3 to be precise not disregarding the single Zero, or 44.6/44.6 with double Zero.

Since the EC position, of grouped 18 numbers, tends to hit on ≈every 2nd spin, that would be 1/2 spins - cycle is shorter due to grouping, [37/18= 2.05555556] → so 1/2.05555556 spins to be precise.

But if you played 18 SU positions at each spin, took each number separately tending to 1/37 spins & calculate their cumulative avg, it would tend to 1/37 over time - cycle is 37 spins.

The same way -- if you've calculated the exact same 18 numbers now grouped within one position, their cumulative hit rate is still 1/37; although its cycle as the grouped position is 1/2.0555556.


So why is DSSA's point 2. wrong, what am I missing?

 

Following the same logic for EC above would seem that
6ST -- 37/6/3= 2.05555556 expected hit rate in spins

3DS -- 37/3/6= 2.05555556 expected hit rate in spins
37/2.05555556 = 18 numbers played

The question comes here .. since different number/amount of positions played due to being grouped
6ST -- the payout is 6:1
3DS -- the payout is 3:1
seemingly, the only difference being more units played per spin.



Thereof, there's more to it - HE comes into the equation. Its amount is no different playing either SU or any other type of positions ≈2.7% or 5.4%, meaning the house tax, obviously, amounts to being higher in units due to more more positions being played (SU>6ST>3DS>EC). Does this imply that it cost more playing more positions overall .. seems no, its still 2.7 or 5.4% respectively.



But then again .. playing 'more positions' means that at hit the house edge is payed for its position that includes the loss of however extra positions [=effectively single numbers grouped] are played at that particular spin.

We know that if hit does not result in overall positive =restart → HE cumulative amount reset, [=zeroe the clock]; the house edge amount accumulates, which has to be overcome in addition to the losses, & since its accumulating many hits not resulting in the overall positive =reset+restart, can act as an increasing looming burden the further the individual game extends, further notching the clock as the time passes with its atomic unit being one spin.

Progression, vertical -- this has a double effect; it correlatively adds more notches to the clock proportionally to the vertical progression at each spin =congests time [in other words more absolute atomic units pass through in real-time of one spin .. or more timelines congest into a converged one or real-time].

Its other effect, being inverse relation, due to congesting [=converging more timelines] is that its up to a certain point overtaking the previously less congested fewer-converged timelines; higher-speed absolute-time inflow compensates for the previous lost time (due to losses &or he tax).

So here we have two parameters -- seemingly the same since in the same category =outflow -- or exposition of which amount as two distinct parameters -- losses + HE (quantified & measured by the notches on clock)

Regarding the INFLECTION POINT -- @2up wrote about this but I don't know how to present it mathematically? .. so I am writing this abstractly/intuitively -- if the HE accumulated amount passes this threshold its vector direction turns, with inverse relation becoming correlated. What's the exact ratio or percentage .. between the HE clock & losses I can't pinpoint to just yet ..

But, to keep the game in control at all times =system's perfect 'risk : reward ratio' means staying within the inflection.


May I remind you that the same effect as raising progression vertically .. or all possible progression types used in a unified concept, so in its vertical dimension ..

.. can be achieved by progressing in risk instead -- using only progress in risk dimension without activating the vertical one =playing flat bet, or even adding regression in horizontal dimension.
https://www.roulettelife.com/index.php/topic,3470.msg66221.html#msg66221


If a number, or group of them played as grouped positions, tends to 1/37
&
a number, is statistically imbalanced = statistically advantageous; with one of the possibilities being late + bet at its first appearance, now TENDING to 1/37 with potentially increased appearance frequency gaining in hit ratio [with the probability of the latter being raised with each additional played as a cumulative hit ratio avg, but not over clogging due to 'risk : return ratio vs exposition amount'] ..

.. it makes sense to get the resulting hits of its next appearances with a (slightly higher) better payout .. by either playing fewer numbers or 'either or both' reducing the number of positions (horizontal dimension) + utilizing deeper district positions (progress in risk dimension).

 

Such an excellent post.
Completely agree, treat all tests as

ACTUAL game day scenario
This is one of the keys.

Any monkey can run a sim , go outside smoke cigarettes hump the dog next door then come in and check the results after the sun is finished,and have the opinion that it’s a winner. Then go play live and lose everything, not taking into account that they actually ran 27 life spans of play at 42 hour days by 19 day weeks in that sim. Most people don’t get to play 500000 hands max in their gaming career.

Good advice. Cheers

 

regression to the mean my arse...
No such thing in roulette, the ball needs to be released from the same spot in order for that to happen.

 

my answer is yes , and the difference is in the time to get there, 18 spins.
Cheers,

Rinad

 

What's the purpose of calculating the hit rate???

It's the house edge, not a "tax."

"Atomic unit?" WTF?

"Congests time?" WTF is that? And we have "atomic units" again??? Why on earth are you throwing around these bullshit terms out of context like that?

Seriously, this is getting really weird. It's obvious that you're cutting and posting sentences from other texts and then just shoving them into these posts. Sorry, but it's just plain retarded. Please stop.

It's hypnotically stupid, yet I can't stop reading it because it is soooo absurd!

Ermm...why don't you simply say, if you're losing, then you're betting on too many numbers?

Now I see that we're dealing with "risk dimension without activating the vertical one" and "regression to the horizontal dimension." So do you exist in flat land, or do you live in a three dimensional world?

Now you're implying that numbers become due to hit...which is of course, the gambler's fallacy.


This is one of the most insane posts I've ever read. Would you mind if I shared it on another forum?

 

Too bad you can't comprehend it as it is .. I for sure do not intend to translate it in the voculbary which you are used to use .. which btw ain't the standard & the measure of everything as you like to assume. ... or in short

Stop pretending you're ruling the world.

 

BS is BS regardless of the translation, and your BS is the silliest I've ever read.

 

My answer is indeterminate and thats from experience

 

Again, since you're unable to comprehend it .. you're labelling the resulting conundrum in your own mind BS .. whatever that means.

Besides, I've never asked for your assessment nor opinion, particularly not on this subject; & your judgement call was disrespectfully declined.

Cease with your referee & rule the word pretence.


Furthermore, I am fine with where I am & getting even better; from you, I have never received anything of value & except in one post found nothing of the value either; & besides your 'exposing' activity which has an inherent value ain't really resulting in efficiency since your based on your improper comprehension of certain facts you fail to discriminate amongst properly.

Moreover, I see that you are getting worked up since your bars are falling void; rightfully so.


& finally, tell me where in your so-called history has you observed progress, evolution, invention or innovation -- without at the same time the language, terms & vocabulary evolving as an effect & prerequisite at the same time, paving a new & extending the reality onwards? Play catch up .. coz ↑ is definitely beyond you & nothing that you have done &or offered entices me to honor, yes honor, you with a clarification.

 

LLN is not reliable short term at all and by short term I mean 500-1000 spins, an EC can dominate for such long periods, it is quite something.
You never see the whole picture really because they show you max 500 spins history on online casinos. Always play the dominant side, my advice.

 

well made video Bro, thanks for sharing.
R.