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

To sum it up. The Spike and Jizzatron method uses phases. What we know:

Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!​

 

I thought so, but given opportunity after opportunity Spike says there are no rules, but yet he says he has a method.

Method:

a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one.
​

So no it's not that he doesn't want to share, he actually has nothing in principle to share by his own words aside from FIGJAM (Fuck I'm Good, Just Ask Me)

 

I said it again and I'll say it before, the subjective make it up as you go along style of play are worths-less, hey hey!

 

Not really, sometimes red odd or black even runs in packs but I never really tried to do anything with it. There are 20 red odd black even numbers and 16 that are not. Not that much of a variation to make much difference in the outcomes. I remember screwing around with it a long time ago and never got anywhere with it.

 

You really need to ask a Santa for a thesaurus for Christmas. Find some substitute words for 'handwaving' because first of all it's a stupid term and nobody knows what it means. I swear every time you use it I think about the Queen waving at people. Maybe it's a huge word Down Under but to everyone else it's just a nothing burger.

 

What rules, how can you have rules with random outcomes that do not obey rules. What good would a betting rule be if the outcomes are never going to obey it. Why is it so hard for everybody to understand. Look at Mister Millionaire Martingale he's got nothing but rules and it takes him sometimes six or seven guesses to get it right. His rules suck.

 

I like it and I'm stealing it. FigJam will be my go-to answer for lots of things from now on.

 

This explains everything:

 

Eventhough you bet based on real time discretionary decision, you still have rules that you tick the boxes why you place the bet. You might not do the same everytime but each time you bet it must qualify certain rules you set.

 

No you are being ignorant don't know what it means despite being provided the description and link previously.

The scientific and academic community understands what handwaving means.

Here it is again because it seems you don't like to read and learn:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving

Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial. It is most often applied to debate techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the glossing over of details. It is also used academically to indicate unproven claims and skipped steps in proofs (sometimes intentionally, as in lectures and instructional materials), with some specific meanings in particular fields, including literary criticism, speculative fiction, mathematics, logic, science and engineering.​

Can you read?

 

It is all you have ever said, hence why you like it.

If the glove fits, wear it.

 

Look, it's really simple. Having studied outcomes for years I am super familiar with different scenarios where this is doing that and that is doing this and how many times have I seen this before and how many times did it play out a certain way. So I make an educated guess that it might play out that way this time and I'm right 80% of the time. There's no rule I follow, it's situational awareness and I'm comparing what I've seen with what's happening now and that's how I make a decision. Quite often nothing is happening so I have nothing to bet on. Find me a rule in all that, there isn't one. I'm not talking about you see red red black red red black so you bet red. It's far more complicated than that. It is a fact but the outcomes in roulette produce different scenarios and they go in phases, they come and go in and out. Are they 100% reliable? Obviously not because I don't have a one hundred percent hit rate. But 80% is good enough for me. I'm never surprised when I'm wrong but I'm never surprised when I'm right either. What pisses me off is when it fools me, what is suddenly veers off in a totally different direction. But that's usually my fault because I'm not paying close enough attention and assuming too much. FitJam..

 

Don't waste your time. He will argue a nonsense that is self conflicting.

Hence we have the Spike "method" without rules being a perfectly reasonable concept for him. Just like random is not random and cannot be predicted, but "guessing" and actually placing a bet is not having an opinion about a future event (it is not predicting according to spike logic), yet his "guess" he predicts will be right 80% or more of the time.

The mind boggles, but at this point Spike has shown he doesn't have a shred of rationality in his thinking process and what he says basically is only explainable with self delusion.

 

Yep it's based on patterns and observations, but it's not based on past events at the same time. Only the Spike can say this and keep a straight face.

Because all events are independent and cannot be predicted, but then the past observations is what you use to "guess", actually place a bet with the strongest opinion possible about a future event. You predict 80% of the time you will be right.

So "guessing" is not prediction, whatever, keep playing word games.

What is a "Fitjam" is that a Spike interpretation of FIGJAM?

 

I do not give a shit if you have 25 definitions. I am a voracious reader and have been reading books my entire life. I have over a thousand books in my private library. Right now I'm reading 4 books at once which is what I usually do. In my entire life of reading I have never seen anybody use the word hand-waving in any way other than somebody waving goodbye. In the thousands of newscasts that I've listened to in the my lifetime I've never heard anybody use the word hand-waving. In the thousands of movies I've seen never heard anyone use the phrase hand waving .It's a stupid phrase and if you think it's terribly popular you're wrong. My wife is an even bigger reader than I am and I just asked her and she never heard of it. When you use it it just makes you look like an idiot so by all means keep using it.

 

Everything I do is based on past events, how many times do I have to say that. What's wrong with you.
FigJam..

 

Yeah that's why it is in common use in academia.

Only you would prove your ignorance and celebrate it.

 

So how do past events help you guess future events better than 50/50 when the future results are random and independent?

If you can repeatedly "guess" better than 50% and you repeatedly claim you can "guess" better than 80% then you are saying the possible outcomes of the wheel are constrained to less than a 50/50 outcome when you bet.

You are implying that the degrees of freedom the wheel has must be less, therefore the information rate must also be less during these 80% success betting "phases".

If you argue the above then one is left with precognition or magic. Take your pick.

 

https://www.gamblingforums.com/thre...e-ecs-even-chances.22969/page-132#post-147891