Roulette Einstein and roulette - quotation marks don't make it true.

I see this quote on every roulette forum, usually posted by people who
don't believe in systems.

Not that it's the end of the world, but to clear it up and give the nay-sayers one less thing
to put out there every time they want to convince people that it's not possible....
There's nothing in history that proves the man every said this.
As a matter of fact - the evidence points in the complete opposite direction, that he
never said it. But in the internet world, you can say that anyone said something and put
quotes around it with a name.

I won't bore everyone with the history of it - because "I" researched it, "YOU" don't have to.
The quote came from a man who said that Einstein said this.
That man (Ted Thackrey Jr) was well known for completely making up quotes and then
publishing them, even when they were known lies and the so-called person quoted never said
them.

Princeton University has the best collection of Einstein's actual quotes in a collection.
This quote is not among them. It does however appear in a collection of quotes that
they are almost certain that he never said but is quoted as saying.

Don't believe everything that you read, even if it's re-printed a million times - this doesn't
make it fact.
I also won't go into how Einstein's IQ was so amazingly high - because it wasn't.
He had areas of expertise - like many incredibly smart people. Casino games were not
one of them, despite what other authors have put in their work.
His IQ is estimated to be around 160-190 while others such as William Sidis tip the scale
between 250-300 easily. Einstein was smart, he was a genius - but he wasn't anywhere
near the smartest person on the planet. For scale, mine is 148 - not that far behind yet
there's a mountain of things that I know nothing about. Einstein's knowledge of roulette
and how it works if anything at all was minimal at best.
"Genius" ranges from 140-145 and is roughly 1 in 400 people alive today.
Don't think for a minute that Einstein's 160-190 suddenly makes him the go to person
when it comes to roulette. And using a quote that is almost certain that he never
said just shows ignorance to research and willingness to believe whatever someone
says - as long as it contains quotation marks.

 

For example - I never said "I can win because I'm guaranteed to lose"

That is nonsense - yet it's quoted that I said it. Feel free to google that, every other
quote I've ever said is searchable.
But one person in one places says someone said it - and it's just assumed it's legit, which
is my point.
Now lets see quotes from actual geniuses who studied math and games of chance.
Frank Nash Jr...anyone ? Did he say to anyone that roulette can't be beaten ? Or did he
create amazing ways to deal with games, random and balance that won him the Nobel Prize
and people still use to this day in economics and virtually every aspect of business. Hmm

 

If you're IQ is that high then perhaps we can carry on a real conversation for change???

Perhaps some math.

By the way, please don't confuse the random game with the wheel.

 

Perhaps you can provide some kind of proof other than what's essentially four oxymorons.

 

Uh, genius, Frank Nash was a bank robber. John Nash was a schizophrenic genius just like me. Although the fact that I was tested several times by real official testing throughout my lifetime at 126, I have proved to have peaked in the world of computer programming at around 165. I guess I'm just a bozo at 135 when it comes to Roulette on the bullshit scale. I hated reading and graduated from high school without ever having read a single book all 12 years of that education. Only a dumbshit would believe that I don't read now. I can't vouch for TG's claims but I can confirm that the baloney around the Einstein statement never made sense.

 

I would find it entertaining if one of you two could carry on just one conversation that involved logic, common sense, and basic probability.

 

That is so easy Snowfake. You only see your way as the only way. You have spent a full decade or more only seeing your own way. You have never been interested in anything other than your great moment in a past period of gambling history. Are you entertained yet? You are like the cosmic noise left over from the big bang. There will always be the drone effect of a past great achievement in the background ever prancing in a continuous pirouette over the triumphs and escapade of internet gambling forums. Keep on dancing dude. That's your purpose here, to research the effect of a has been bore on actual discussions online.

 

Ahh....the new thread.

 

Perfect statement
Believe what you saw...and if you didnt see it your self.... file it as "worth further investigation"
Why are people so opinionated on things they never saw?

 

Sadly no one is here to entertain you. I'm here to push people in the right directions when it comes to
finding ways to win. I actually spend time helping people and motivating them by showing my own experiences
and results.
You on the other hand have done nothing of the sort - but you are entertaining.

LOL. I just noticed that. I went to school with a Frank Nash, it's burned into my head. Is it too late to edit my post ? yep.

Proof has been provided - you fail to see it. If you want calculations and the detailed math as proof - you're not going to see me post that on a forum unless I have a incredibly good reason to. I'm sure you can figure it out.

We could and we do. You want specifics, you won't even try to understand it though.
Why would I waste my time on it ?
I picture you in a room with a blindfold on and I"m sitting there telling you what color a ball is that I have in my hand.
You won't believe me if I tell you the color - you won't even believe there's a ball in my hand.
It's a complete waste of my time, and as I said - my results will be proof enough (for most). Not for you.
Regardless of my balance it will be "not enough spins". You aren't even open in the slightest to be able
to see and understand what is right in front of your face - so it's a wasted conversation to have.

 

Come on!! Turbo, Gizmo & Dr Sir.....having a cold one together!!!!

 

By proof do you mean your Parx results? That's not proof TG. If you DO have a mathematical proof would posting it reveal your system? I can't see that it would, but if you're convinced it's correct you should have it checked by a professional mathematician.

 

No, it is merely a display of it working vs random. Any site or game or casino will do - rng or real wheel spins, so long as the results are random

Yes, it clearly would reveal it.

That's been done - but further info on that will have to wait for the appropriate time and place.

 

Turbo,

I can't see anything original in what you're doing (betting hot numbers) and running an up as you lose progression.
I don't understand why you feel that's the holy grail for the random game. I've already proven via sims that it won't beat the random game.

Up as you lose progressions merely borrow from the future to pay for the past and they don't work for long in real world play.

 

Addressing the bet selection. The biggest problem is that you're not trying to beat the wheel, you're trying to beat the RANDOM game.

Your method relies on hot numbers having hit X number of times above expectation within a horizon Y, as well as an up as you lose progression to cover the losses. In order for this to be effective, a number that has already hit once has to be more likely to hit a second time....and... a number that has not hit at all has to be less likely to hit. Unfortunately in the random game there's no logic to support this line of thinking. Perhaps you can put forth a logic argument for it?

 

The wheel is irrelevant - that's your department. I don't need a faulty wheel to win. I need anything that produces a random result. A bias wheel won't produce a random result but since I'm playing hot numbers - it's all good - the bias wheel will just be a benefit to me.

That's a smart comment with the "likely" parts anyway - you're completely right !
A number that hits won't have been one of the numbers that won't show up during my session, hence I never
lose a single bet on it - true. A number that hasn't hit is definitely in the pool of possible numbers that will sleep and sleep for as long as random likes... and I'll never have bet on them and never have lost a dime on them.
Up as you lose ? Who's losing ?

Sure - again..
Will all 37 or 38 numbers appear in 37 or 38 spins ? (no, not the .000001% chance that it could happen)
Will there be repeaters....ever.... ?
Will a number that hasn't shown yet be a potential long term sleeper ?
Do I lose money if I don't bet on a number that never shows up while I'm playing ?
Can a number that appears be a number that never appears during my session ?

Yes this is tough brainwork - I'll let you use paper and a pencil but no calculator yet lol.
This logic test should take 1 minute to complete.

Spoiler: answer key - please no cheating !

(answer key: No, Yes, Yes, No, No) please don't cheat.

 

As usual, your method is as intriguing as ever. I didn't know that you were using a progression. I wrote my software based on excellent choices and flat betting. I mean, if you just get good at identifying the sleepers that keep sleeping, you could probably beat the randomness.

 

Not playing sleepers = playing hot numbers
Sleepers make themselves more and more obvious every spin.
I'm not sure why that concept isn't obvious to Sir Anyone though.
I guess "one-spin-at-a-time = the entire game of roulette" mentality keeps people from
seeing how a long session plays out.. where numbers repeat and others don't show.
Flat betting is great - but why flat bet when you have a math advantage ? It's just logical
to bet more as the bankroll permits it. Then you make a snowball that ends whenever
you decide to stop. (no pun intended)

 

I guess I went for flat betting just to see if I could beat the math. That is the best way to reveal an advantage, if there is one. But your statement that as you keep playing, the more the real weakest sleepers become crystal clear. That's true.

 

Turbo, I don't know if you said that you use a computer to sort and organize your bets or not. Did you create a charting method for doing searches? Did you ever show that?