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

That is an 80% win rate, 24 W and 6 L 24/(24+6) = 0.8.

So if you get that consistently a 6 level marty will bust out (7 straight losses) once every 1/(0.2^7) = 78,125 attempts.

Based in your prior results that W/L ratio is nowhere close to typical as you have already said you bust out far more frequently than 1 in 78,125.

This is why Spike cannot be believed. Anyone with that kind of hit rate can quickly compund thier winnings even flat betting and increase their unit size to table max.

Then visit Asian casinos clean them out. But spike is an amoeba compared to the betting levels there and "thinks" they will be on to him with his peanut betting.

Players on non-negotiable chip programs keep getting invited back even when winning hundreds of thousands or millions.

It's the same here, our casinos attract big Asian bettors and the casinos want and need the action. It's far more efficient to get it from high rollers than the overheads to extract from the public gaming area betting spike peanuts.

The equation is simple:

action × house-edge - overheads = profit.​

Let the math do it's thing.

Being Asian players it's more about the non negotiable rebate level they get than comps, although comps to some degree are still an element.

 

It's not from math that his conclusion that cooperation leads to universal results was an original idea. He saw the results of cooperation first. It was math that validated his concepts and discoveries. Reading Randomness is the process for validating a result that is unexplained in math so far. In this case I chose to validate it before the math is known. If the Lick observatory discovered curving space through photographs taken during a full solar eclipse then the validation would have been known before the math was known. There is no math police that say that all discoveries must come from math first. There is a notion that math must be able to explain it. Einstein got his idea by riding up and down in a tall building's elevator. Here is something to chew on. RR came along before any idea in math exists. I know this because so many math experts here consider it mathematical heresy. It's apocalyptic to consider that probability statistics are not absolute in the hands of a determined and skilled player. It's unthinkable for casinos to admit that their small advantage can be ignored by any expert in these skills. When their bottom line earnings shift away from what they enjoy now they will look for the reason why. Then one math oriented piss-ant will wise up and knab a Nobel Prize for what he or she will claim as their own discovery. That is how the world works.

 

So that is your proof. If you don't go wipe out the casinos and make millions then you must be lying. I've been waiting for someone to do just that. If what I have shared is real then that must happen just as a giant asteroid must strike the earth again. Here is a far better implication. Why doesn't a qualified and peer respected mathematician learn to read randomness, follow my rigid stop points all spelled out, and validate the discovery for himself? Once armed with the real data this lucky mathBoyz can create the equation or algorithm that states the new discovery.

 

You say a 6 level Marty will bust out (7 straight losses) once every 78,125 attempts. Is that sesions or outcomes? Why does that equal ruin if the busts are never a complete loss? I usualy have aquired more than half of my goal before a bust. Following is one of the rules included in my strategy. I have not even come close to applying it.

Game Over: Once a total of 252 units (starting Bankroll) are lost at any point, the game is over and considered it has reached its short-term life span. It could be the winnings accumulated are higher than the 252-unit loss, however, this would still be considered a smart stopping point. But then again, if you are ahead with a substantial number of units, you might continue if you are willing to take the risk.

 

Fantasize this. You get to be a movie star. You get gang raped in prison because you are a mathematical dweeb. They break your glasses but still have the ability to guide you where to start giving head. You become a natural fuck boy. For what it is worth they step on your crack when ever they want to. Still your show business name is two up the crack.

Don't you think that being a jerk is somehow obtuse with also being a renowned person of interest in the math community? Don't I sort of make you out to be slumming with commoners? You don't add up.

 

LOL, whatever you say mister millionaire. They're one and the same, duh. You do not want to see it fail because it will cost you money when it fails. There's no way I believe you're a millionaire, a 100,000aire maybe, but who isn't these days. That's the great thing about the internet everybody can be rich and famous in their own mind.

 

Ditto that..

 

We cannot use math to prove you're a goddamn idiot but that doesn't mean you aren't one.

 

It would be worth the study and confirming if that is the case (or not).

 

[QUOTE=

 

Oh my dear God, you do not even understand the basic elements of random outcomes. No number no pattern has better odds of appearing than any other number or pattern. It's all equal, everything has an equal chance of appearing on the next spin. You are not doing what you think you are doing and this will be your downfall. You make it more and more obvious that you have no idea how any of this works. It's no wonder that you think the Martingale is so wonderful, you are floundering around with a head full of blue mud.

 

TwoUp, do you know why these math illiterates come down so hard on you? Because you scare them with the facts. You scare them because they know you can prove what they are saying is nothing but bs. You have seen it many times during your life-time, those who are caught in a lie are the ones that rant and rave the loudest, throw insults, cuss and fight the hardest to make it look like you're the liar instead of them. Spike is just another one of those. He doesn't phase me in the least. I don't even read his posts anymore. I would suggest you do the same. Don't give these brain-dead morons another minute of your time. Just deal with those who ask legitimate questions and treat you with respect. The saying goes, "To argue with a fool is to become one." DG

 

The exact opposite is true. They absolutely cannot prove that my method is BS. If they could they would but they can't. Show me one post where anybody proved that I cannot make a correct call of the next outcome by making an educated guess. You won't find one because there isn't one. This is why they always resort to using words like magic and clairvoyant and voodoo and precognition because they cannot prove with math that I don't do it. They just wrongly assume because they can't do it nobody can do it.

 

So thinking proceeds the existing formal logic and mathematical descriptions are extended, with formal proofs and validation through repeatable and independent experiments.

You have no existing models to extend because your claims are not anchored to anything but handwaving.

If any of the greats waved their hands about and didn't commit the idea to paper with some formalism and logic and then share it with the scientific community for scrutiny no one would have ever heard of them.

And because of that you have no formal description. It is not possible to fallsify as your nonsense is not even defined or open to enquiry or scrutiny.

The realm of science deals with falsifiable theories, meaning, they can be tested and in principle can be proven false (but never ever an absolute fact).

To do that one needs a precise description exists to test against, not handwaving RR nonsense.

You might claim fairies are responsible, science will use ocams razor to eliminate explanations that are unnecessarily elaborate and where there is no evidence, logic or reason to support the claim.

The fact you can't produce a scientific paper for peer review is proof that you a what is known as a crank.

So basically you're being a clown again and attempting to bestow nobility on your work of turdology, and suggesting that the world is just not ready for it yet.

How does fuck off sound.

 

It is true that it is in principle IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE to prove or have any confidence that any claim of yours is true.

In fact if you understand science you cannot prove a theory is true, but you can prove it false.

Because you say you guess better than random, you claim to beat random by some margin, exceeding 80% and have not provided a single valid reason how that can be when the outcome is 50/50 and independent.

You expect everyone to believe in Spike the magic roulette Easter Bunny who leaves golden eggs around for those "who believe".

 

Well you're plainly ignorant then, I've clearly shown that patterns do not all have the same waiting time to appear.

Because of this you can skew the outcomes that you face by starting your matching over after each succesful match.The patterns with the shorter waiting time will dominate those with the longer waiting time.

Morpheus: "Take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up and believe whatever you want to believe. Take the red pill and"

Spike: Snatches the blue pill and swallows without water

 

Which you have not done which was my point. You cannot prove my claims are false, and it drives you insane. It makes you say stupid things. You can't do it so you think nobody can do it.

50/50 is when you bet randomly against random outcomes which I never do. 50/50 is the starting point, you gradually move up from there if you understand random outcomes more and more. Let me ask you a legitimate question if you're capable of dealing with that. Why do you think 50/50 is the best you can ever do with random outcomes. Where did you learn to think that with random outcomes 50/50 is the absolute best you can ever do. Where did you learn to think that you can only bet randomly against random outcomes. If you study the limited number of outcomes that are produced by a roulette wheel for a long enough time they start to make a convoluted kind of sense and you can exploit them at times. Why is this so hard to understand for some people.

 

The only way that could be true is if the outcomes were not independent of each other which they obviously are. So now you're saying that the roulette outcomes are not independent. What the hell is wrong with you. Every pattern has the same chance of occurring as any other pattern. Duh.

Pure gobbledygook nonsense because you never know when a pattern is going to end

 

You misunderstood. You cannot prove a theory 100% but you certainly find evidence in support of one, like we have being doing with Einstein's theories of relativity.

What we can do with great confidence is falsify a bogus theory (prove it false). That is why we don't have junk theories surviving in science, once experiment confirms the theory is false, in the trash it goes.

You forget that absense of facts, logic or description is not any closer to proving your theory for something you haven't described.

Already we can falsify it based on evidence that random outcomes are unpredictable and 50/50 expectation for an EC.

Case closed, in the trash it goes.

 

You call the science nonsense and then say your handwaving is gold. You really are a first class ignorant moron.

Google: Penney's game research

Literally pages of published papers
​

Google: Spikes winning method

.. tumbleweeds ..​