1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play section.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by SPIKE, Dec 9, 2021.

  1. SPIKE

    SPIKE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Likes:
    865
    Location:
    midwest
    It doesn't..
     
  2. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    Why does this work for you and not for me? That's why I like to think of you math wizards using magical math. If I say I use it then it's baloney. But you get to use it to give advice to others, to use the odds to better your chances.

    I use the possibility that all patterns will appear equally in that the hard ones will appear as they should mathematically speaking in long term results and easy common ones will appear in their own typical intervals of repetition. That's just common sense. What matters is observation of coincidental and not predictable opportunistic timing. That's because statistical averages are not local occurring predictions either. There is no magical math to predict that what you want will occur. That advice of yours is baloney. You can't play for a thousand days 24 hours per day. You must get it done in around 300 spins or less. That changes everything. Magical expectations just become "gambler's fallacy."

    I look for when the guesses are in a phase of a win streak. You can wait for when the most common trends or patterns are in a phase that if you were to bet on them that they would be in a strong phase of winning. The same is for those same bet selections to be in a strong phase of losing. These are temporary conditions that you can know if you are not so focused on just hoping that the more common traits tend to dominate in 3,000 spins.

    Now I don't expect you to see this. I expect you to troll like a mathZombie. So far that's been a perfect win streak. You will find a way to disagree. I used your own words to show you what happens. But you will not be able to see it. What's more you will avoid dealing with it and move on to attack as if you were never shown this. You are stuck with your odds. You can't see past them to see a deeper layer of information. I know this because you never tell us how smart you are when it comes to coincidental opportunity. You can't even admit that it can exist. So we all get to watch you regurgitate the claim of prediction. Name calling and condescension don't make you right. It just makes you look less intelligent.
     
    Keyser Soze and SPIKE like this.
  3. TwoUp

    TwoUp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2020
    Likes:
    328
    Occupation:
    Unknown
    Location:
    Nowhere
    What a lot of dross. I don't guess or look for patterns and meaning in randomness, my brain is not confused like yours is.
     
  4. TwoUp

    TwoUp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2020
    Likes:
    328
    Occupation:
    Unknown
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Unfortunately you are another hand waving ignoramus.

    And unfortunately John Conway is now deceased but his contributions were many, an expert in combinatorial game theory. I'm happy to be lumped in with him.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Horton_Conway


    What I present is backed by math, not handwaving.



    So easy for you to shit all over great mathematicians when you're just a cretin, a Jizzatron no less.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
    David Gregory likes this.
  5. TwoUp

    TwoUp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2020
    Likes:
    328
    Occupation:
    Unknown
    Location:
    Nowhere
    • Violation of Rule #1: Be Respectful

    And more hand waving nonsense. You and the Jizzatron are the king's of nonsense.

    You are saying you are betting on patterns that are not really there, betting on shadows..

    For fucks sake you are a first class moron.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
    David Gregory likes this.
  6. David Gregory

    David Gregory Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2019
    Likes:
    172
    Location:
    Ocala, Florida
    From all that I have heard from everbody on this thread, it comes down to this, you either us mathematics and science to determine what you do, or you throw random at random and get lucky sometimes. Any approach that doesn't include mathematical probibilities is simply guess work and nothing else. As far as what the next outncome is going to be, only God knows. But never the less, it's fun guessing as long as a lot of money isn't at stake.
     
    gizmotron likes this.
  7. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    Predictable without magical math.
     

  8. TwoUp

    TwoUp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2020
    Likes:
    328
    Occupation:
    Unknown
    Location:
    Nowhere
    I was wondering if he ever looked at the Italian Masaneillo betting plan. It's quite interesting and originated in sports betting, I understand many successful sports bettors in Italy use it and it was developed by two mathematicians.

    I have seen it can be applied to EC games like roulette but have not explored it myself.

    Compared to a martingale it can generate a lot more profit for lower risk so may be something to look at.
     
  9. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    3,040
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    Red Herring. You did exactly what I said you would do. You avoided everything and went on the attack. The only thing you are lumped in with are those brown things floating around in a porcelain water closet. In that celestial galactic nebulas you are common among the stars. Name dropping poser in Spandex.....
     
  10. thereddiamanthe

    thereddiamanthe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2019
    Likes:
    276
    Occupation:
    apicem rapax DNME
    Location:
    Empfire
    OK Joe, thanks, for the reply.
    Since you are paying attention, I am gonna make another attempt at clarification.

    .

    Yes, correct
    • I've run my progression 620 times, all won.
    • As you can see either on the screenshot images on the links or in the zip file provided to be renamed, one of those games exceeded 150u (-240 max exposition, 255 spins -- till completion in profit)
    • q is always q>1 -- I've used q inapproprieatly, meanwhile, we are talking about a 'q event' .. now derived q, on a higher lever of perception' (session to session)

    .

    Let's now clarify further, point by point
    • Yes, I've run progression 620 times = conversely with +100u session goal, 13x sessions
    • Number of games (the number of instances the progression is run individually) = number of events
    • So, I am not interested in about what happens 'within' one progression instance run, or any spins
    • At this point, we are above that already; where an event is a game won .. irregardless of how it came to that
    • (In the 4x.zip.file -- columns H-Y represent all games = events that exceeded exposition -10, while column D all games = events within that session till +100)
    • As you can see in column D -- the range of games events it takes to constitute one completed session ranges somewhere from ≈ 25-70 games = events, & on average ≈50.
    • So, when an instance of a progression run, on a very rare occasion, meets higher than usual exposition & amount of spins = I determined that as namely, an 'extreme game' or 'extreme event'.

    • In this stats case, with format (exposition, spins) .. (-240,266)
    • All other games =events were better than (-150,xxx).
    • Which gives us with the bankroll of at least 250u, perhapd more to remain on the safe side ..
    • A 100% reliability or p=1, & q=0.
    To deal with the extreme games = events in a manner that
    a) still maintains a great session profit:bankroll ratio for the purposes of
    maximized base unit compounding effect at the ratio of 1:1 = (+100u:100u bankroll)
    nearly maximized .. at 1:1.5 = (+100u,150u bankroll)
    b) terminates such extreme games = events early
    so cutting them short, meanwhile operating at the/ smaller bankroll ..

    .

    I've made a hypothetical case of the ratio being 1.5:1 = (150u bankroll : +100u session goal;
    which gives us according to this newly generated, updated stats

    • where 150u bankroll gives us 1 game = event in 620, that is not addressed with the bankroll amount sufficiently, thus terminated early, as soon as meeting exposition of (-150)
    • (this is what I've defined as namely 'q event' .. & is most likely the source of all confusion -- rename it appropriately if necessary)
    • where .. reliability p=0.998387 or 99.9387% & q=0.001613 or 0.1613%
    • so the reliability of "an instance the progression is run as a whole" = one event
    • (again, forget about spins .. & what happens within the even itself = we are at the event level now, as the smallest building block in our stats calculation)
    .

    @Median Joe .. is thus far all clear?
    If yes, what wants to be known is now how close together are this 'q events' expected to be MAX,
    where the AVERAGE is 1 in 620, or q=0.001613, 0.1613%.

    .

    To put this in the context of a session (constituted as completed successfully at +100u), it takes at the high end of the spectrum range about ≈70 games = events = instances the progression is run.

    To apply the 'base unit Marti' session over session, on a null-hypothesis of "my method/progression is so great that I can afford to run Marti on it" -- the density, burst, or max frequency of such terminated event should not exceed
    • 'q event' <2 .. in 140 spins -- if equal or more than that 2-step Marti doesn't cut it
      • [base unit 1x→on terminated game, base unit 2x .. all next 25-70 events have to win]
    • 'q event' <3 .. in 210 spins -- if equal or more than that 3-step Marti doesn't cut it
      • in case the three sessions in a row till +100u happen to be on top of the range, so 70 consecutive games or progression instances run = events in each of them
    .

    Is there anything else I can say, or expand on, to make it absolutely clear?
     
  11. thereddiamanthe

    thereddiamanthe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2019
    Likes:
    276
    Occupation:
    apicem rapax DNME
    Location:
    Empfire
    One event = can be ..
    • one spin only 3EC (+3,+1)
    • or any number of spins till eg. exposition meets exposition unit mark of
      • (-100) for 1:1 bankroll: session profit ratio
      • (-150) for 1.5:1 ratio √
      • (-120) for 1.2:1 ratio
      • .. obviously, each generates different reliability p,q values (we are going with √ in this hypothetical case)
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
  12. Nathan Detroit

    Nathan Detroit Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Likes:
    2,080
    Where are players with real money and experience facing a game ?
     
  13. thereddiamanthe

    thereddiamanthe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2019
    Likes:
    276
    Occupation:
    apicem rapax DNME
    Location:
    Empfire
    God damn it .. typo!

    'q event' = being a terminated game
    .. on average 1 in 520 total evetns
    .

    As you have most likely perceived by now, there are two progression schemes:
    • base progression scheme (within the instances the method is run = within game = within event)
    • potential base unit scheme, on top of that (on the event level), on top of the ↑ above)
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
  14. SPIKE

    SPIKE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Likes:
    865
    Location:
    midwest
    And the physicist I quoted or any physicist will tell you the patterns do not exist in random outcomes. They do tend to exist however in pseudo-random or so I have read. This is a big problem if you're using pseudo-random to test with. But it doesn't matter if the patterns are real or not they can still be exploited. Gizmo just said that you would not get this and you probably never will. It's hilarious that what is right in front of you is something you cannot see. I love it.
     

  15. David Gregory

    David Gregory Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2019
    Likes:
    172
    Location:
    Ocala, Florida
    Joe, I truley am grateful for all the suggestions you and TwoUp are giving me, however, it is all becoming overwhelming. It is one thing to work out a bet selection for every possible pattern that can form if you are going to code it. But to duplicate actual play is a whole different thing. I posted a list earlier in regards to the only Combo Patterns that concern me. Go with those 24 because I have no other strategy beyond that.

    I will say this about the suggestions you and TwoUp make, if I had that kind of knowledge, I would produce a hand held calculator where in you continually feed in the outcomes and it mathematically figures the best probibility for the next bet placement according to the patterns being formed. Much better than a book because it's not a gimmick. It's all based on math and true probibilities. Now, whether or not you win or lose using it, you cannot blame the math. Maybe an item something like this already exists, but is it based on patterns that form?
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
  16. SPIKE

    SPIKE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Likes:
    865
    Location:
    midwest
    Total waste of time, as I keep pointing out the patterns are not real to begin with you're dealing with something imaginary that your brain is making up and that's how they have to be treated. Making up rules for imaginary patterns is a colossal waste of time. But it's your time to waste so go ahead and do it.
     
  17. Keyser Soze

    Keyser Soze Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2021
    Likes:
    135
    Location:
    Canada
    Lol
     
    Nathan Detroit likes this.
  18. TwoUp

    TwoUp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2020
    Likes:
    328
    Occupation:
    Unknown
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Hardly. If you read my post properly you would understand the significance of Conway leading numbers.

    But you're a clown.
     
  19. TwoUp

    TwoUp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2020
    Likes:
    328
    Occupation:
    Unknown
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Well if we consider 3 outcomes there are 8 real patterns.

    XXX, XXO, XOX, XOO, OXX, OXO, OOX, OOO

    Those are not imaginary patterns, they occur equally likely. What you failed to understand is the WAITING TIME for certain patterns IS different. That can be determined using Conway leading numbers.

    I am not using psedo random to test anything. I have already explained why I never use PRNG.

    So like always, you can't comprehend the written word and you are just a head of nonsense. A foolish old man at the end of his rope.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2022
    David Gregory likes this.
  20. SPIKE

    SPIKE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Likes:
    865
    Location:
    midwest
    Here is why it is so important to fully realize that this is what's happening. It took me years and years to totally grasp it because it doesn't seem right because it seems like I'm seeing real patterns. And you should be able to apply rules to real patterns. When you fully realize they don't exist you start treating them like they are very delicate, like they are made out of gossamer, which they actually are. It's your brain playing a trick on you. So I became very very careful about how I chose where to place my bet. By the way, I've seen the word gossamer all my life and I know it means something delicate but I finally looked it up and gossamer is the extremely thin spider webs that are spun by very small spiders in the forest. They are so delicate even a wind can tear them up. That's why I can have no rules for making my bet in roulette.
     

Share This Page