1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Join our $5,000 Cash Giveaway!

    Win Cash by Posting and Inviting New Members!
  3. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play sub-forum.
    Dismiss Notice

Roulette BEWARE - visitors to this forum

Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by Half Smoke, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:02 PM.

  1. Half Smoke

    Half Smoke Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Likes:
    22
    Location:
    Rockville, MD
    this forum has lots who are posting bogus, phony winning systems all of which are based on patterns from the past or betting progressions (varying the bet size to get the desired result) or both

    assuming an unbiased wheel the past is irrelevant because the wheel has no memory and their systems are worthless

    they also make phony, bogus, unverified claims about experiencing large winnings from their laughable systems



    without exception they are all charlatans and fakes desperate to be seen as trusted, groundbreaking pros




    their main appeal is to desperate gamblers willing to believe the unbelievable

    their secondary appeal is to naive newbies who they hope to sucker into becoming their followers



    proceed at your own risk
     
    Nathan Detroit, Bago and Jerome like this.
  2. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    105
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    But even if the wheel IS biased the past is still irrelevant. Bias and independent outcomes are not mutually exclusive, so if the numbers 5, 13, and 21 are more likely to hit because of bias, it's still gambler's fallacy to bet on them when they haven't hit for a while, believing that they're "due".

    A lot of gambler's don't understand this. They think that outcomes can't be independent because you never see a number hit 10 times in a row, or you never see 50 reds in a row. They don't understand the meaning of statistical independence.
     
    Bago likes this.
  3. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    292
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    "the past is still irrelevant." It's not irrelevant if it is used to create another data stream that is real. The past will never predict the future because it can't. But the past can be used to check the current conditions of effectiveness. You could just bet on Red only and do the very same thing. Favorable conditions are just fewer and farther between with Red only bets. By including the results of Blacks as well you bring the favorable conditions more into view. None of that depends on prediction and can never guarantee success. But claiming that following trends is all about prediction is just the debating point because it is much easier to defend that point as apposed to seeing favorable conditions that need not depend on prediction. This is where the mathBoyz always chicken out. Is it possible to see favorable positions or conditions and exploit them? Let's hear a poultry (paltry) answer for that.
     
  4. Half Smoke

    Half Smoke Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Likes:
    22
    Location:
    Rockville, MD



    meaningless, nonsensical, babbling gibberish
     
  5. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    292
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    I'll do the same for you. Taking what I say out of context is poor at best. If you are going to quote me then do it right. I was not answering you in the first place. Just consider yourself insulted because of the obvious.
     
  6. Nathan Detroit

    Nathan Detroit Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2014
    Likes:
    313
    Keep the faith some topics shall whither on the vine .




    ND
     
  7. delectus

    delectus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    uk
    The past is very relevant otherwise for example leading sets wouldn't continue for hundreds of spins/integers
    as I have shown in the 'using 90 sets thread'.

    As I have said to you before quoting such theories as 'gamblers fallacy' etc is a nonsense when I have
    produced sets showing a number of hits.
     

  8. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    105
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    delectus,

    The fact that there are "leading sets" which continue to lead doesn't depend on what happened in previous spins. That's just randomness; there will always be groups which perform better or worse than other groups. But this is only evident AFTER the event; you can't look at a group which is leading (or falling behind) and predict that it will continue to lead (or stay behind) with any accuracy better than random. And there's an obvious reason for that : every number has the same chance of hitting as any another. The patterns are in no way predictable based on what you've already seen.

    If you don't believe me, try doing the following. When it's time to bet on your favoured sets, place another bet on a completely random set, and compare results. You'll find that your leading sets (or however you choose them) don't do any better than the random picks in the long run. And this proves that your bet selections are worthless, which must be the case in a random game.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019 at 11:11 AM
  9. Sharptracker

    Sharptracker Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2018
    Likes:
    149
    Location:
    Belgium
    Actually it seems too easy to find winning systems in this forum so here it is: Try to find a system that lose more than -2.7%. This way i'll play the opposite.
     
  10. Half Smoke

    Half Smoke Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Likes:
    22
    Location:
    Rockville, MD

    instead of house game with a built in house edge let's think of a coin toss - theoretically 50/50
    in the long run if you just bet heads you should come very close to breaking even given enough trials


    but if you did a reverse martingale until you lost - i.e. - 10, 20, 40, 80, 160..........etc. you would always lose

    and you would always be pretty far away from breaking even - except when you had a very long run of wins - in the above example if you lost on 160 you would have bet a total of 310 and you would have lost 10 - an ROI of about -3.22%

    if you lost on 40 you would have bet a total of 70 and you would have lost 10 - an ROI of about -14%

    if you lost on 80 you would have bet a total of 150 and you would have lost 10 - an ROI of about -6.6%

    if you lost on 20 you would have bet a total of 30 and you would have lost 10 - an ROI of about -33%





    kind of interesting and paradoxical to me
     
  11. Half Smoke

    Half Smoke Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2018
    Likes:
    22
    Location:
    Rockville, MD

    of course, if you looked at it a different way - calculating all your wins and losses when you bet 10, and all you wins and losses when you bet 20, etc, then you would come close to breaking even on your bets of just those particular amounts - assuming a great no. of trials
     
  12. delectus

    delectus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    uk
    In the real world sets are very profitable and one of the advantages is when the sets are equal
    there is either a minimum bet say on one number or no bet thus reducing losses. If sets were
    to continue to fail I certainly wouldn't use them.

    Fortunately I don't share your gold fish bowl of randomness.
     
  13. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    292
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    This is absolutely wonderful. I have already proved to myself that trend bet selections, done the way I see how to do it, outperform blind random selection. The random choices tend to fall at the mathematical expectation. But the selections based on conditions do way better.

    Consider just this one fact. You will win more from starting to bet on a continuing or existing characteristic than you will from blind guessing when a trend will start to continue and betting blindly on the absence of a characteristic. You could bet that a continuation will not occur. It all just coincidental conditions. Nothing causes it to form up into a noticeable characteristic. Nobody knows how long it will continue. But one thing is for sure. You will win more from a continuation that already exists than betting for the absence of one to start just as you bet for it.
     
    delectus and Nathan Detroit like this.
  14. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    105
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    You guys have only rhetoric and vague assertions, with no evidence or data at all to back them up. Show me the math, or at least some data. I could easily prove using simulations that none of your absurd systems work, except that you don't give enough detail for me to write them. I wonder why that is?:D

    But even if I did prove that it's all nonsense there would still be believers because the roulette system world is like religion, built on hope, wishful thinking, ignorance and fallacies.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019 at 1:04 PM
    Sharptracker likes this.

  15. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    105
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    So which is it? do you bet on a continuation or a non-continuation? And why one rather than the other? There is no answer and they can't both be right.

    Logic. It's always in the way.
     
  16. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    292
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    Well good. We get to the meat and potatoes of trend betting. It always ends up here. But this time it does not end here. I use betting on existing and hoped for middles of trends. It's always a blind guess. It's never from a prediction capacity or any fallacy. It's just a test to see if my effectiveness state is in the phase of availability to succeed. The guess is subjective but the effectiveness state result is objective in critical thinking capacities. By making bet selections on specific occurring and hoped for middles of continuations I have a constant form of a construct. I use it to stabilize the effectiveness tracking function. I make money by feeding the winning phase and starving the other two phases. I tend to get a higher than mathematical expectation result from this tactic. I play to win based on being in winning phases. You can know when you are in winning phases and all it takes is discipline and self control to execute the method. So now you could try to show me the mathematical equation and belief for coincidences inside of current conditions.

    You admit that people can be lucky at times. But you dismiss the possibility of anyone being able to deliberately target luck. Unfortunately for you there are people that can do that. I am one of them and have explained how to do it. I have produced for you a graph that shows a lucky session based on only betting on red for each spin for 200 consecutive spins. The win streak is clear as a bell to see in the graph. The data is real based on the lame bet selection method of only placing a bet on red for each spin. It's not the process or decision of making bet selections that matters. It's the conditions caused by the result of making those bets. The only trend that matters is the effectiveness trend. Most people just blaze right on through the losing streaks at full valued bets hoping it will change soon. To me that is a stupid tactic and almost always leads to depleting the bankroll. Don't feed the losing phases.
     
  17. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    292
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    Thank you for your policing of the world. We need people like you to keep people away from things that actually work for them. Thank you again. And thanks to the world for being just dumb enough and scared enough to figure things out. Yes, it is just entertainment money being spent on having a fun evening out. "these are not the droids you are looking for." Ha Ha.
     
  18. Sharptracker

    Sharptracker Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2018
    Likes:
    149
    Location:
    Belgium
    Maybe you cannot realize it because you can forget easily a loss when it was with another guy's money, huh?
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019 at 4:06 PM
  19. gizmotron

    gizmotron Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Likes:
    292
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    The West Coast of USA, RV'ing
    So now we get Barney Fife and his single bullet in the shirt pocket.

    I ran a school for learning how to make bet selections and told them to look closely at the effectiveness trend data and why. I charged for this training and spent hundreds of hours for each time I ran a school. These were all people that wanted to learn. I taught them all how to identify trends in an extensive way. I ran two group training classes and one person in an individual training. I managed to make less than $10 per hour for all that work. It was worth it too. I provided train and practicing software for them to use. The one on one training earned me about $8 per hour. But that was my greatest achievement. He outperformed the math at a win rate of 2 to 1. That is mathematically impossible according to the wiz-kids around here. So It was very important for me to get real proof.

    Anyone that knows me knows that I tried to beat Roulette with double dozen bets for more than a decade. Both group schools where based on that and on winning the big win streaks huge in order to get a winning session. I was offered, at no risk to me if I lost it all, about $3500 to bet bigger amounts on the recommendations that 20 times the base bet be used during win streaks. It was a great idea and it works with EC's like Baccarat but not on Roulette with double dozen bets. It's too easy to get killed off if you play through the down turns as I was doing back then. It is because of that knowledge learned by this opportunity to place bigger bets at times that I went back to EC's. You people that know me know clearly that I dropped double dozen betting more than two years ago.

    I got caught up in TurboGenius's depletion of uranium concept and wrote a sim that I thought proved his theories. I talked that millionaire out of $1500 and told him it absolutely worked. I expected it to work too and boldly played it to work in a real casino. It blew up in my face and I lost the $1500 in less than four hours. I had to tell the guy that it didn't work. I discovered a misplaced line of code in my sim that belonged before an event and not after it. The sim failed to win as I should have known once I placed the line of code in the proper place. I screwed up and lost his $1500. He was so ticked off that he gave personal contact information to a malignant narcissist that we all love and adore. It is because of this act of sharing my information with a real validated stalker that sheep dip here thinks he has anything up on me. So other than this single $1500 screw up all I ever did was charge to teach several people how to see way more than they were seeing before they went to my school. And the price was frankly way cheaper than it should have been. But I had so much fun discussing things without a single argument from the contrary crowd. I only taught one person all my secrets on randomness and effectiveness. I was blown away by this result. That convinced me that I could teach anyone to beat the casinos. That video on trading like a casino was the missing part of the method. I used the stop losses and stop win points only about a year ago and started getting what I wanted from my time gambling. I used them with that one student. I did it. I found the HG. I proved to myself that others could do it too. All it takes is knowing how.

    So they don't milk sheep for food, they eat them. But before they do that they skin them alive for the wool. I only owe an apology to one person and he let it go already. But some of you want me to pay back a guy that was looking for confirmation of his own good ideas. That discussion was not disclosed to that ubiquitous jerk. I have kept that information secret.
     
  20. Jerome

    Jerome Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Likes:
    105
    Occupation:
    Self-Employed
    Location:
    England
    Gizmo,

    If your idea worked you wouldn't need to train yourself or anyone else how to "read randomness". A person can only track a tiny fraction of a fraction of what a computer could keep track of. All you need to do is generate an "effectiveness" database linked to each of the tracked outcomes and sort it by performance, updating every spin. You would code it to switch to the next highest ranked selection when a loss or two occurs. If your method worked that would be the most straightforward and efficient way of implementing it. So why haven't you done it? It would be a pretty easy task for any competent programmer.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019 at 8:30 PM
    gizmotron likes this.

Share This Page