Roulette Reading Randomness

Still positive about the method because wins are outnumbering losses. You do feel exposed when the trend changes....

 

But but but but don't the cosmic energy of the global effect prevent ya from being exposed to the trends changing, hey hey??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

Jono1167 it looks real good. Easy to follow what you did. So this should show you that three lost bets in a row with bets at the 2 level can get you real fast. And then you got a fourth loss at 1. It takes time to assimilate many many sessions and learn from it.

 

It takes losing to really teach you. The best lessons come from knowing what it was that made you lose.

 

Gizmo,

Your claims are pretty absurd. The best lesson you could learn would come from studying a little basic probability.

 

Agreed. Only my third day practicing the method, a loss was definitely due. I will post an update again tomorrow morning.

Cheers Mark

 

I learned from reading when I lose I bet the wrong way thank you.

 

Here is where I want you to get eventually. Some people learn faster if they know where the teacher wants them to end up. They might miss out on learning the why and the hard learned reasons but they will still get there. If you get two losses, that are funded, in a row then go to virtual bets. If you lose virtual bets after your two losses then the non funded guesses in the chart show that you have averted many losses in a row. For every virtual bet that you lose, that's a guess that you lose, you have kept yourself from digging a deeper hole. It is like getting a win too. Because you don't have to have a win later to balance each loss. So two losses in a row is a sign to stop betting big, small, or anything funded.

It's common to learn to play along and get a flat response for a while where you are getting mixed wins and losses and are basically staying close to even.

 

This is the longest running trend in the history of gambling. You might call this the very best elegant pattern ever to exist. Snowman here, as I first encountered him, has the same MO, modus operandi. He trashes anything and everything that is not bias wheel oriented. He always says to look at the wisdom of probability. He has an agenda though. He starts up conversations with anyone that will follow him, mostly new members. He talks them into tracking wheels that he does not have data on that are near these new recruits. He is just like any good salesman. He knows that he will get 20 or 30 no responses for each yes. It's just simple 1,2,3 and I get what I want. He does not care a whit about leading anyone to an understanding of probability. He just wants to impress the gullible enough to get them to do his bidding. It's a perfect trend. He is one mean ass son of a bitch once he has worked on someone and they say no. He is their instant forum enemy. He wants everyone to know what they will get if you cross him. He has a goal for success and he is going to get it, everyone else be damned.

The more you get to know this guy, the more you realize that this picture is really like the picture of Dorian Gray, a movie reference.

 

Here, this is what I mean:

 

Another lesson:

This time I'm suggesting only getting one win from a bigger trend and then going back to waiting. The example is 100 spins and only has one group.

Code:

|    X | -- 1
| X    | -- 2
|    X | -- 3
| X    | -- 4
| X    | -- 5
|    X | -- 6
|    X | -- 7
| X    | -- 8
| X    | -- 9
| X    | -- 10
|    X | -- 11
|    X | -- 12
|    X | -- 13
| X    | -- 14
|    X | -- 15
|    X | -- 16
| X    | -- 17
|    X | -- 18
|    X | -- 19
|    X | -- 20
| X    | -- 21
|    X | -- 22
| X    | -- 23
| X    | -- 24
|    X | -- 25
|    X | -- 26
| X    | -- 27
| X    | -- 28
| X    | -- 29
|    X | -- 30
| X    | -- 31
|------| -- 32
|    X | -- 33
|    X | -- 34
|    X | -- 35
|    X | -- 36
|    X | -- 37
|    X | -- 38
|    X | -- 39
|    X | -- 40
|    X | -- 41
|    X | -- 42
| X    | -- 43
|------| -- 44
|    X | -- 45
|    X | -- 46
| X    | -- 47
| X    | -- 48
|    X | -- 49
| X    | -- 50
|    X | -- 51
|    X | -- 52
| X    | -- 53
| X    | -- 54
|    X | -- 55
|    X | -- 56
|    X | -- 57
| X    | -- 58
|    X | -- 59
|------| -- 60
|    X | -- 61
|    X | -- 62
|    X | -- 63
|------| -- 64
| X    | -- 65
|    X | -- 66
|    X | -- 67
|    X | -- 68
| X    | -- 69
|    X | -- 70
|    X | -- 71
| X    | -- 72
| X    | -- 73
| X    | -- 74
| X    | -- 75
| X    | -- 76
| X    | -- 77
| X    | -- 78
| X    | -- 79
| X    | -- 80
|    X | -- 81
| X    | -- 82
| X    | -- 83
| X    | -- 84
|    X | -- 85
| X    | -- 86
|------| -- 87
| X    | -- 88
|    X | -- 89
|    X | -- 90
|    X | -- 91
|------| -- 92
|    X | -- 93
| X    | -- 94
|    X | -- 95
| X    | -- 96
|    X | -- 97
|    X | -- 98
| X    | -- 99
|    X | -- 100

Beginning at pin 11 I see a single on the weak side that hits just three times where the very next spin would pay off on the third occurrence. This ends at spin 22.

Then lower down at spin 33 you get a 10 in a row. After that you get another singles on the weak side starting at spin 55 down to 71.

At spin 72 you get 9 in a row.

After that you get a few singles.

If you only take just one net win out of the stronger trends you can get your three net wins, often times with no losses. 100 spins takes about 3 hours at a busy table. If you use $25 chips then each bet is $450. Get three of those and you have $1,350 for three hours work.

It's really fun to try to get three net wins and no losses on funded bets. You might have a lot of virtual bets.

I can't bet nothing at a live table. They will ask me to bet or give up the seat. So I bet a minimum bet of some kind just to save the seat. Most of the times it's either $5 or $10 on an outside bet. These throw a way bets usually balance out and so they are just nothing to put much concentration into.

Just at $5 chips you can make three $90 bets and get $270 in three hours or under. $5 chips at $90 means a session bankroll of $630.

 

Giz,

FYI, I have never asked forum members to track wheels for me. I'm not sure as to why you think I need anyone to track anything for me. I do hunt opportunities and I do seek intel from time to time to keep tabs on which wheel brands are in various locations, but that's it.

 

Yeah, that's it.

 

Gizmo,

If the number of pockets on the wheel determines the probability of winning and the number of pockets remains the same from one spin to the next, then how could your "reading randomness" possibly change the odds?

 

It doesn't. It is my hope that for the millionth time you will clean out some of that shit between your ears and listen for once. You can't change the odds on what will happen on the next spin. I hope that this simple statement somehow registers in your head, I know that It won't. You never asked the question really expecting an answer. You are just asking it in hopes that it will impress one of those recruits that you don't really want. Only you really want them.

I have said all along that you can't beat Roulette with math. I have said that to win you can't try to change the odds. You must use something else. In Blackjack card counting they call it "Variable Change." See the Monty Hall problem explained. So in the spirit of not trying to change any odds I use what I call Coincidental Change. Perhaps one day mathematicians will call it that too.

No matter what happens in the future you will still be in search of a physical advantage. I think it is very funny. You remind me of those old prospectors that trek around the old desert southwest with a trusty mule and dig little holes in the ground looking for that mother load.

 

Gizmo,

The way I see it, you've got a pocket problem. There's just one or two too many of them on the wheel in order for your "variable change" and "reading randomness" to work.

 

That's the problem. You are blind.

Try to keep up. New people are working on finding out for themselves while you try smarmy cute little picture insults. You are the same old and tired attention whore.

 

Yeah make an effort DR Anyone, Gizmo the rebel is revisiting the math... he's from a planet where 1+1=3!

 

It's a swarm of assholes.

 

it's a swarm of mathematic 's rebels/ignorant as well, don't you think?