TurboGenius Turbo, do you remember the discussion on how to select the repeat?

Thank you for providing your expected definition of proof. That's very good. Now that we have some expressed expectations.

I repeat what many members have posted a zillion times.

No one who has a positive edge systems betting strategy will ever post it on forum.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

 

Here is talk about no zero :

But here is talk about extra zeros ! :

You think that for me is easy to understand what you ask ?

I think that gambler will lost in both games and with zero and without it. By the way are, or was in some online casinos such games where are no zero and they had perfect winings against players...

I know few who long times worked as casino pitbosses. Not know they counted or not, but all say the same , that for them looks like players losts much more than these 2.7% !
Joe said why that is...

 

So it's clear it's your opinion that gamblers will certainly lose in this modified (no extra zero pocket with unfair payout) roulette game.

 

But then I am right that there has been no demonstration of these holy grails?

If it is just a matter of belief then why are we even debating any of this?

 

Basicaly - yes. But Gambler not= another gambler . Peoples are different
I think that I will beat and this and this game, again basically. Because we play not against game , but against roulette and one roulette is stronger , another weeker. I think that are in the world such wheels, on which can be even 5 zeros and I still will win.
So if somebody keep me gambler then what ?

 

There can't be a debate where the claimant is at severe disadvantage to disclose supporting evidence.

It's ok to express our opinion and belief, thats the purpose of forum.

What went grossly wrong is naysayers like SirAnyone, Benas and MJ demanding crystal clear explanation and indisputable proof. They went overboard trolling threads under altruistic guise for the past decade on multiple forums.

This claim,

Systems betting strategy is a sure loser remains unproven.

 

It's the system players who are claiming they win consistently in the face of already existing proof and overwhelming evidence that systems can't win. Therefore the onus is on them to provide the proof. It they won't or can't do it, we just have to assume that the existing math is correct, otherwise all sorts of nonsensical claims may be given some credence. That's not how progress is made.

If the mathboyz prove that some system X doesn't work, the Alices will just reply "so what? that doesn't prove that MY system doesn't work". It doesn't matter how many systems are proved not to work, they can always give the same answer. On the other hand, if they prove that even one system DOES work as they claim, they have overturned the accepted math and proof that no system can win.

But that's never going to happen is it? Actually, you don't need to show that a particular system works by giving step-by-step details, you just need to show proof of concept. But all your concepts which supposedly show that systems CAN work are fallacies, and because you don't understand that they ARE fallacies, we are stuck in an endless loop.

Proof of concept doesn't mean vague hints (reading randomness, educated guessing, lol), charts, tables, analogies or claims. There has to be some underlying principle by which a potential winning system can be realized and that it's feasible and practical. And it should be possible to create many systems using the principle. Ideas which also don't qualify are the Law of the Third, birthday problem, repeaters, tending towards 1/37, Pigeonhole principle, the VDW theorem and entropy. All these, if understood correctly, show the opposite of what system players think they do. The root of all misunderstandings is the failure to grasp that outcomes are independent and what that implies. And you don't need any math to understand that, just basic logic. You haven't even got to the point yet where the math becomes relevant!

 

You can write all you want.

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

If you believe in science you have to accept this.

 

Care to express your opinion about Benas comment. Be clear.

 

lol. But there is no absence of evidence that systems don't work. The proof that they don't work is simple. And even if there were no proof, it wouldn't prove that systems can work. That's an argument from ignorance.

Regarding Benas's comment about losing with or without the zero, he already mentioned my post about the gambler's ruin. Look it up.

 

Do you have anything else to offer other than gamblers ruin?

That's my specific question that's relevant to Benas sure to lose comment. You agree with his comment completely or there are any qualification? Be clear.

Benas, do you have any reason other than gamblers ruin why you wrote the gambler is sure to lose?

 

It won't help you but here it is again. I was told this at the door of Harvey's Lake Tahoe back around 1993: "Bet big when you are doing well, bet small any other times."

Now Lungye comes along in my life and suggested betting 20 times the small bet for the big bets. Some players can use the virtual bet that is zero value or is defined as an unfunded bet selection vs a funded bet selection. Either way for a person to do this they must pull the abacus out of their asses and use their heads for something useful like assessing the actual live running condition of the active session as it goes along. To this date there is a missing probability study for getting mathBoyz to use their heads in that way. But anyone that knows what it is like to play in a B&M casino knows that the pit boss has this skill down pat. They never miss a win streak. That is feasible and practical. If you math geniuses can't see it that does not make it go away. Now do what you guys always do, deflect, muddy the waters, pose as smart, pretend that being answered does not count. You guys need to prove mathematically that betting bigger during wins streaks does not work. Prove it. Why refuse to prove it? Why try to avoid this at all costs. It makes you look scared of it. You guys won't discuss this in terms of it being useful other than attacking others as if they are stupid. All I have ever heard form you guys as an excuse is that you can't know when you are doing well. So how about everyone make the mathBoyz, mathNazism and mathZombies tell us mathematically how it can't work. Where is their proof.

 

Let's see if simple arithmetic can help. You bet $5 on 140 bets, win or lose. For the sake of math you only win 47% of those ending up with a minus value of -$50. You play 60 bets at $100 per bet and you win 66% of those bets. You win $3,300 in the aggregate result. That's the simple arithmetic of it. The only missing math is the 66% win rate during win streaks. You can't prove that it must be 47% / 53% during a win streak. It makes no sense that it would be. It would not be a win streak. It must be higher than 50% in winnings. Even if only one of those bets of the 60 were to net you 31 wins to 29 losses you would make up for the 140 bets played at the lower price of $5 per bet, (-$50).

Now show us the math where during a winning streak you must lose at 47% vs 53% approximately. Why are you guys afraid of being shown to be idiots? That would be betting everything during a losing streak, that's for sure. Dazzle us all with your brilliance. LOL.

 

Just nibble on the cheese don`t get caught in the trap . (

 

All reasons are related and ruin is like place where all cames. But main reason is that gamblers simply play wrong ! And that "wrong" is reason why they lost more than 2.7% from all theirs bets.
So reason - gamblers play wrong...

 

Benas what is the rihjt way ?

 

I think it is not correct question...simply think , by which reason some bet, can be better, than another... maybe will come minde...
Turbo also not say what is his system ?

 

typo : right way.

 

Stupid question ---- stupid answer .

 

Question - not stupid , but it is not correct - you want that I will say what I cant in any case. But you know that are some bets, which are worse than some others ?