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

You mathboyz are the true problem gamblers.

It’s you guys out there testing millions spins at a time. That’s what you call “you can’t beat roulette” in the term.
SPIKE said it a millions times already. “We’re in it for short term.”

 

Start your own thread

If it’s a dead forum why ARE YOU here?

Start your own thread ,
you are just a problem degen gambler that’s on a let’swintogeather esk sook.

You don’t have anything of value,
You don’t have a viable method,
You are just another disgruntled degen hiding behind the interverse
You are just venting your lonely disruptive life here

Start your own thread

You are off topic
You are hijacking the thread

Start your own argumentative thread

Start your own thread to discuss your non event point of view.

I think you have a typo on your avatar surely you meant “princess”

Start your own thread of nothingness, you have nothing to offer here

You got nothing

 

You are the second person to ask why Im here? Do yourself a favour and read threads on this forum. This post of yours is visibly depressing; you’ve committed to your straw man about starting my own thread. You’re the guy projecting and venting about a lonely life, frustrated in your attempt to derail the argument to about my avatar. Get a grip on your keyboard.

 

When I took my original test for my driver's license there was not a single math question on there about driving a car. Yet in order to design a car you need a ton of math training to make it work. You can be totally math illiterate and still drive a car just fine. How is that possible. It's possible because one is not connected to the other. Whoever designed roulette was a math genius. This does not mean you have to be a math genius to beat it. Quite the opposite in fact, in beating roulette math is a great hindrance. It has you looking in all the wrong places.

 

The En Prison rule doesn't mean jack shite, all it does is reduce the house edge. Big deal. In order to win you need to have a sizable edge of your own that makes the house edge look ridiculous. La Partage is meaningless that's why nobody talks about it. Who cares.

 

How’s that possible? frankly speaking that’s mental gymnastics you perform to confirm some ridiculous bias. You’ve played your nonsense argument on the internet. math is being utilized both in a general understanding, and in actual use; to make calculations, measurements and adjustments as you drive the environment is changing around you. When you took your original test did you drive automatic. you need to understand basic math to know how your vehicle operates. anybody can Google how the brain rapidly and subconsciously calculates likelihoods and remains flexible enough to account for new information.

So nobody here can refute EC with La Partage being the most optimal bet in roulette.

 

Sizeable edge? You mean your inflated ego. You’re embarrassing you’ll deny the lowest house edge in roulette for your ego to play. You’ve been playing for over a decade and none the wealthier because you’ve lived a life by biases. La Partage is worthless he says, again go fact checking that on Google.

 

For me, the lower hanging fruit has always been the double zero wheel. I've found it easier to get a sizable edge on them for a few different reasons here in the US.

 

The only way to consistently win at roulette is to have a larger edge then the house has. Duh. And your LoL Partridge bet has nothing to do with you getting a bigger edge over the house, it's just reduces the house edge over you. It's not the optimal bet it's a who cares bet. It doesn't help you beat the game it just lets the house take your money more slowly.

 

No you don't, what are you talking about. You think that dumbass little blonde 16 year old girl knows anything more then put the car in drive and step on the gas pedal to make it go? She knows no math, she flunked math class. A car is designed so you don't need to know any math. Hell, I learned how to drive on a manual transmission and I had no idea how it worked. Let alone the math of it. You math people just can't stand that we think you are worthless outside of your tiny little field. That once you design something and make it work we don't need you anymore. Your job is done, bye-bye. Roulette was designed by a math genius and it takes no understanding of math at all to beat it. Math just gets in the way of beating it.

 

No in a person driven car , as in not an AI driving system ,it’s situational awareness = no maths. I’m not thinking angle in degree, distance vs speed ratio to stopping power on a wet road in a inside sweeping bend as a mathematical equation.No one is , if that is your claim your more the fool than you first appeared, If it was math, every “accident” could and should be blamed on your math teacher .

your argument may hold water when AI become the ONLY driving system worldwide, then yes the system is requiring data input to get full use of its algorithms for vehicle safety etc.

This thread is ec roulette , it’s a discussion thread instigated by a member to allow others to enquire about his take on HIS approach to ec roulette. He did this, I assume, to keep everything in one thread so as to not constantly repeat himself across various threads .

You have no idea regarding the statement “ start your own thread”

You have your own thread as a discussion point to promote your bent of your self perceived prowess at whatever it is your on about. You will gain more of a wider spread discussion in your own dedicated thread. If your aim is to be disruptive and antagonist then continue with your posts this thread and become that “ blow through” that I picked you for earlier. Honestly ring holes like you and your opinion are a dime a dozen.

 

69, ≈all are aware of those probabilities ..
yes, you are correct on that, that's the most favorable bet for/on one-spin basis
& not, as well, if you wanna win, & consistently at that.

math point, your point & my point is the point that you cannot rely on math to win, not in the most basic sense, math has proven that
you have no assurance or reassurance on what will happen on the next spin

so, if you cannot win with that 'basic' tools/view .. math has to offer
what can you do to .. to win consistently?


first, you have to extend & broaden your horizons
how else can you win, what else can you rely on to win, consistently

one interesting perspective is eg. Turbo's use of math itself
which shows that basic & a bit more advanced or unconventional use of math are a bit paradoxical ..
that one level it tells you you absolutely have no chance to win in a prolonged play
& with an improved paradigm, how exactly because of that you absolutely can!


ofc, there are other more strategical & also in more statistical nature tools & derivations thereof,
& as well the use of a whole roulette's repertoire ..
that also show you that you can


but first, you must challenge your adopted & reinforced beliefs,
to remove everything unnecessary, everything that holds you & keeps you away from winning consistently
if you don't know where to start .. best to challenge them all, one by one
the whole mind-set, mind that has been at one point 'set' in itself (limits are mindset)
then you just might have a chance

& the re-set the whole thing congruently again
based on your research, the null hypothesis(es), & irrefutable findings

if I can make an analogy, using physics
seems that Newtonian & Chaos physics contradict themselves
or do not support each other, are incompatible at first glance
but then .. you might just find how they actually naturally intersect & correlate

then again, best if you forget analogies at all,
& start from the first principles forward/onward

 

very true! but also what's very true is that it uses a completely different way of representing of the abstracts & actuals, that the mathematicians superfluously invented & use to communicate the context to & with each other .. a way more speedy, quick & scalable design per se

 

Will any one listen ? What he said so well ?

 

Turbo's "math" does no such thing. To say that there is one kind of math which proves you can't win and another kind which says you can, is absurd, and shows that you and the other mythboyz are utterly clueless.

ok, where is it? where's the math which says you can win? LOL!

Yes, in order to win you must believe that it's possible that 1 + 1 = 3. Otherwise, you're just a narrow-minded pig-headed dumb 'ol mathboy, who's no good for anything or anyone!

You must believe at least 6 impossible things before breakfast!

 

Median Joe,

Great post!

 

No, its one & the same math .. but more to it.
Just like being stuck in 2D then moving to 3D,
same math .. more to it, innit.

Get your head around that.
The rest I won't even read,
coz you are just reinforcing your own 'belief!'.

 

That 1+1=3 just jump in my face .. no you don't have to & that's a fact.
Not interested in your own derivations of my words,
neither associating some slimy words with my mouth,
nor interested in conversing with decided losers either.

But 1+1=2 & 1&1 is 11, that's a fact also.

 

& @Joe - copycat. At least DSSR is somewhat original.

 

Yes, I'm a fan of his. The forum needs more members like DSAA to stem the flow of ignorance.