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

No. This is why we train soldiers to kill the enemy using combat tactics based on methods that are quantifiable, repeatable, describable, teachable and proven to be effective.

We don't tell them to "guess", "there are no rules", "it is indescribable magic". That's your approach.

 

And neither, it seems, can anyone else.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions...ntense-points-in-the-fluctuation-of-frequency

Not a single reply, not even a comment. There are some very smart people on stackoverflow and to get no response at all is unusual. I suggest the reason for that is because nobody has a clue what you're talking about.

 

Experience and observation you say; observation of outcomes which you acknowledge are independent and so cannot be indicators of future outcomes (and yet, mysteriously they somehow ARE), and experience that these outcomes repeat in a predictably way, enough for you to win 80% of your bets when the expected win rate is less than 50%.

Any more dumb analogies which completely miss the mark? LOL!

 

Tell me how there can be rules in random outcomes Einstein. Every bet in a game involving random outcomes involves guessing. Mine just happens to be an elevated form of educated guessing. Very elevated.

 

The rules in that conversation are about that - you have to bet according to certain rules...
In hunting there are some rules or laws - for example, if you want to shoot an animal, the bullet halfway through must coincide with the line between the gun and the animal...

 

Do you?

& if not, as every rational person or individual (can't say really which, but tilting towards first) .. rather than lowering your standards emotionally bashing, if the language & terminology used does not resonate with you understanding & how your mind operates, you would inquire first into the details, do your due diligence to bring the thing closer to & clearer .. in other words, spend or better invest your precious energy that way;

but, on contrary, you decided not to .. & the result is your above posts.

.

Very predictable.

.

As far as the 'smart people' & 'educated' goes .. many simply getting a notion that its about roulette, that fact alone either clouds their judgment.. or they simply get short-circuited in the mind to their foregone conclusion about it .. "not to waste their time" on something that's supposed -EV.

Also predictable.

.

Not that I expect anything from you either.

 

That's workable.

An example .. of how is here.
https://www.gamblingforums.com/thre...gression-for-these-results.23957/#post-146603

.. but you need to be using sense -- more of guidelines than rules. Keep the game in control!

Even when the rocket is about to be shot & or shot, with all the hard-coded rules in place, there's protocol in place accounting for discretionary manual decisions = overrides. Purpose, to keep the game in control.

.

Besides, in the case of EC .. there are three of them of them to source your track on.

You may switch ti the 'currently' more favorable one .. or go with all three simultaneously.
Even with the latter you have two options, to run a separate, individual balance for each,
or combine both & restart defaulting vertically at a nominal plus.

.

Again, that's workable.

 

Besides, we all know that 'template' progressions do not work .. & have to be altered, adjusted to a specific case, scenario .. fundamental system setting.

David already accepted or set stop-loss as one of his system settings, the suggestion to look into is intended to remedy the weakest point of his system = the number of capped unsuccessful Marti steps encountered, thus possibly improving on the major downward source on his total balance sheet.

 

Spike plays the game by the rules : HIS RULES .

 

Joe, I sent you a message I think you need to see. However, the address has been cancled.

 

Multiple EC streams is one of the advantages of roulette.

 

I guess you are addressing me with your comments in regards to my strategy, because as far as I know I am the only David on this thread. If so, explain what you are saying. Give me an example. I am all ears. Thanks

 

The fact is Spike doesn't understand random, random processes and probability distributions and other characteristics that random obeys.

Some characteristics of random are very predictable, yet the SPIKE says you can't have rules.

This is from a man who is ignorant and which is why his position defies basic logic and reason. He is so patently ignorant that he simply cannot grasp the logical impossibility of his claims, "guessing is not predicting", "random has no rules", "the past outcomes don't influence the future outcomes", "but I Spike can still guess it right 80% or better by observing the past".

Spike is simply a handwaving moron. His claims are false, his statements are a nonsense.

 

The longest run or streak is predictable to within ±2 regardless if you consider 50 spins or trillions.

For the math inclined I would suggest reading Mark F Schilling (not Einstein): https://www.maa.org/sites/default/f...brary/22/Polya/07468342.di020742.02p0021g.pdf

Don't bother reading SPIKE it's math and beyond your grasp or comprehension.

 

He takes the vacant Walter Mitty crown as far as I can see!
Tens of thousands of posts on forums and the crowning achievement is to claim you can guess at 80%.
I thought he was trolling us but reading some of his posts again, I think he somehow believes that he can do it or that it's possible.
The bad news is that he can't and it's not. I suppose the good news is that it helps him get to sleep at night.

 

I think most of us who have half a brain have drawn the conclusion Spike is full of it. So full of it, it is coming out of his eyes and he can't see straight. All the claims he makes are backed by absolutley no proof. He might as well say he has been to Mars and back and the only proof he needs is from the Martians. Well then, I make the claim my strategy is a thousand times better than his and the only proof I need is me. Let him prove otherwise. The same difference. If he cannot, then I am just as justified with my claim as he is. At least I have presented a little bit of proof through pictures of my win/loss documentation. If you do not believe what I have shown, what can I say. I have no reason to fake my results because that would make me a worse liar than him.

 

His method is being used on a daily basis by the sharp Baccarat players .


I know the system . A childs play .


I shall refrain posting it .

 

@David Gregory, only if you wish, why don't you familiarize yourself with [±1,top] template, & download the example files .. see what steps have been taken to refine it further, tab by tab.

In a similar fashion, you can then plug your Marti in at a certain step/point or vice versa.

The links have been already posted in the previous posts. Just take some time to explore .. & then, if still necessary, ask questions .. any questions.

 

You know no more about his system than anybody else does. How can you know about something that doesn't exist?

 

I thought being an honest person is what helps to get to sleep at night.