Roulette New Thread

TwoUp post above, read carefully. He has written that twice already.

 

Point what is wrong with my post, if there is any. I'm not guessing, I'm sharing the results of my tests. You seem to be aware of every single strategy ever claimed out there, including yours, Vaddi's, TwoUp's, Raf's, TG's, and the list goes on. I'm fine with that. It happens when you start to understand things that others don't see yet, but if TwoUp has written that twice already, point to it, quote it, contribute, talk, share, or simply don't do anything. I have read his posts more than you and anyone here, If the idea has not sparked for me yet, saying that he has already written that twice doesn't help. Be kind and refer to the concept, or don't. You are protecting things from people who don't care about and believe in whatever you say, at the cost of confusing those who are actually interested.

I have tested the idea of waiting for 18 singles and betting unhits, and it doesn't work. I don't know why it doesn't work for me and it works for you. The only thing that might differ is how long it can miss. Maybe a martingale works on it better than a random EC. I don't know. Otherwise, it doesn't provide any better hit rate.

 

You talk about scoring a very high edge with your bet selection. The above method doesn't provide any better performance than any selection of 18 numbers. So it's either a different method or something that everyone else is missing.

 

I made a short post to remind readers to read TwoUp post carefully. That's all I wrote to help you guys.

And you respond with 2 posts to bash me.

I understand your frustration. You are not alone. I have received plenty such similar scolding.
Perhaps stop posting, is the right thing to do.

 

And I reminded you that many people have already asked you for more help and details. Do you feel bashed by my posts? That's being emotionally involved with anything you receive as a comment, no matter if it's a comment from people who mock you or people who admire your work.

Anyways, you are obviously free to do whatever you like. It has never been personal for me. Peace out.

 

@Luckyfella , I simply replied Mako that the method posted by CHT doesn't work. It's probably an undertested method, or some element is missing. If you disagree, talk up!

 

For my tests I used actual wheel spins instead of RNG-based results, not because I felt it was one of the parameters cht had laid out but because I always do.

Not sure if the entropy principal or thermodynamic law is applicable to RNG testing, cht or Lucky would need to advise in that area.

 

CHT gave that example to stir thinking. Not give that as a winning bet.

To stir thinking.
To challenge presumption.

Details are given.
But ignored, gloss over, filtered.

That's why I reminded to read carefully.
To help you guys.

You wrote, nobody cares what I wrote.
So

All these posts are YOUR frustration.
Which is understandable.

 

Everything that exists is subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, RNG included. In fact, it's either RNG is subject to physics law or it's simply exploitable by a 10-year-old kid. I don't understand this fuss about RNG vs real wheel. The best thing that a wheel can do is to be as random as possible, and that's what RNG does too. If a real wheel is "less crazy" and a system is based on this property of a physical wheel, it's a physical AP method, not a method against random.

 

There's a difference between actual wheel and rng.

I prefer not to go into the details. There's bound to be another argument. Not going to start one here.

Just stick with real wheel.

 

Did you give that example to stir thinking? In what direction? How many people did deep testing when you posted that? Only a few had the needed tools to find out it's a losing bet and doesn't provide any better performance. Think about that poor guy still trying to catch another 18-unique sequence to test your idea. The post clearly indicates that over time the wins are more than losses. The tests indicate the opposite.

What presumption did it challenge? The current assumption was that no matter how many uniques you have received, betting on 18 numbers results in 18/37 hit rate. You just confused many people, maybe deliberately.

 

So it's about exploiting a physical wheel, not random numbers. Are we on the same page?

 

Btw Dutchy is not eddy.

 

You are beginning to think.

Think deeper.

Why can't AP converge with systems betting?

If both bets converge does that invalidate systems betting?

TurboGenius wrote about that few times.

 

Let's wrap up this first. So RNG is not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy principle, behaviors of an isolated system, etc? People like @Raf (who you share beliefs with) seem to be using RNG to test their methods. and generate graphs.

Can you tell a sequence of real spins from a sequence of RNG numbers? What's the difference?

 

Keep the conversation on TwoUp post above. Read carefully.

I propose to the rest to ignore this RNG vs Real wheel argument.

I won't respond, not going to clutter this thread.

 

Let me add another thing: Graphs you have shared so far are all on RSIM, which is obviously a RNG.

 

Just to close this convo with a tangible result, rest assured everyone reads every post here carefully and in detail. Next time ask yourself "Am I adding anything to the already said?" before posting. Go back in time, review your activities on all forums, you have never added anything to anything. Just vague hints and brags. Opposite to many, I think you might have a winner system, that's fine and cool. But to be honest, with all due respect, you are awful at communicating.

Now, let's get back to @TwoUp 's post and this: https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/new-thread.22742/page-2#post-126895

 

My last reply to you and all those who scolded me.

I know the facts so well that I'm extra careful what I post on forum. You just just confirmed that.

I do tell the complete details to whom I wish to. It's not you.

That bolded statement is inaccurate.
Else I won't make my first post today.

 

I'm out of fucks to give.