Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

What a depressing book that was, I'm glad I've forgotten most of it.

 

What do you think how many people are driving home from the casino and feel rotten due to their losses .

 

No one will wonder if you're correct. Was that one of your educated guesses?

 

EC are 100% Luck and 0 % strategy then why not an educated guess ? Or a calculated risk ?

 

If you are not an unwashed pull out some millions from your factories in the Far East .

Simple as that .

 

They will know I'm correct but never admit it. It took me awhile to figure it out because I always thought it was something I was doing wrong. I slowly came to realize that outcomes from RNG's and outcomes from real wheels are not the same. That's when I started using nothing but actuals and practice from then on was fine. Testing junkies will never admit it because they don't want to give up they're endless testing with millions of spins so they've convinced themselves there's no differences. And in the long-term there isn't a difference. But when you go into a casino and you look at the board and you see the last 12 outcomes are they from the long-term or from the extreme short-term. Let's say all you see is 12 red numbers. In the long term that's absolutely meaningless. But right now in the extreme short-term where you will be betting it could have a great deal of meaning.

 

That is why I have said most RNGs in use are flawed and are not actually random. This is why they are different to a real random process.

Very very few RNGs actually cut the mustard. That has been my point all along. The pseudo-random generators are not random, their outputs provide a superficial facade of random and when you subject them to the well established statistical tests they fall apart like a cheap pseduo-Rolex.

The only RNGs worth using are cryptographically secure ones. They don't fail statistical tests and are indistinguishable from random. You cannot predict the future outputs by observing past outputs like you can with PRNGs.

Cryptographically strong random generators have to be indistinguishable from random. If they are not then trillions of dollars worth of transactions and national security is at risk. That is how much it actually matters that random really is random, not mostly random, sorta random but actually random and able to pass all known statistical tests.

That last part should be taken note of. Statistical tests are important because randomness must behave a certain way and exhibit certain statistical characteristics, existing within defined bounds.

This is how the wobbly wheelers like Caleb/SirAnyone/Snowman detect bias for their advantage play. They detect anamolies in the distribution of outputs and attack the game using statistical methods.

 

Obviously you were not paying attention. I have shown a number of examples where it is not luck.

 

All EC like roulette ,Baccarat , Craps , Sic Bo are 100 % LUCK . Not of strategy .

 

So you disagree with the math and science that not all circumstances are equally probable?

THH beats HHH 7 to 1.
RBB beats BBB 7 to 1.
HLL beats LLL 7 to 1.

There are many other examples where one series beats another series.

 

They are not true random but they are random enough for use in the casino. There are many different shades of true random. The outcomes of Baccarat and roulette are 'random', but they are not the same kind of random. I can develop strategies for beating roulette that don't work on baccarat very well at all. Or somebody hand flipping a coin is yet another form of random. They all have things in common and they all have differences.

 

The baccarat outcomes are based on card order and results are not as uniform as roulette. The basic probability difference of player and banker reflects this dependence at a broad level.

I will tell you now if an RNG has any statistical flaws they can be exploited. Casinos rely on entropy to ensure results are truely random.

Again there is no such thing as sorta random. There is random and there is not random. The "not random" category covers everything that is not random, which includes pseudo-random.

Like the number 1 is not 0. We don't say 25398754 is just another case of zero. It is either zero or it is not zero.

 

It goes right over some people's head!

 

Yeah, no. If you had a method that wins more often than it loses you would know immediately how wrong you are.

 

RNG discussion YAWN .Math bet selections Yawn.

 

Good I'm glad you're bored. You never contribute anything of value

 

baccarou no one asked for you to chime in .

 

Same would go for you, am me too I suppose..

 

You math guys are very pushy. You are not the center of the universe.

 

Are you taking the piss?