Roulette I've seen a new absurd claim that the gambler's fallacy isn't.....

And you are apparently too senile to read.

What annoys me so much is the fact that you guys attack other people - mostly with one liners or silly pictures - without showing ANY proof of your "theories" yourself. TG might not be winning as much as he says or not at all but he at least proofs that there is a bell curve of nos appearing, he proofs that the probability of a string of independent events is different from the one of the event itself and he proofs that the so called law of the thirds exists. Actually he doesn't proof, he simply states scientifically proven facts but that's another thing that is denied by the likes of you.

Why you behave like this escapes me. Do you gain anything by that? Or is it just attention you seek? Or the applause of your like minded peers? For me it's just kindergarten.

 

They only here to seek attention, because they have nothing better to do, oh wait, they can test things for themselfs but they wanna play with their bias wheels and computers before dinner.

 

A wise man once said; When you know what's impossible, you can take advantage of all the things that ARE possible!

START READING
START TESTING

STOP JUDGING

 

All fiction I know...
Not enough spins, flatbet can't possible work!

 

Can you copy - paste where he that proofs ? Charts which he post is simply pictures, they nothing proofs...

 

I do appreciate IF their naysaying has quality. Now it's simply kindergarten personal attacks.

These veteran members naysaying personal attacks is to distract readers from the discussion proper.

 

Exactly. And right there you've made my argument for me; bet selection doesn't matter. No matter how you pick your bets, whether you wait for certain events, bet on hot numbers or cold numbers, the distribution will be perfectly described by the binomial distribution - guaranteed by the law of large numbers. That being the case, and taking into account that the payouts are unfair, how can bet selection make any difference? The fact that Turbo and his fan boys have cheered on your posts just shows that they are clueless. Merely that you're attacking Dr Sir is good enough for them, never mind the logic and arguments.

Turbo talks about ignorance. Yes, there's a lot of IGNORance going on here. I see it time and time again when the mathboyz present proofs or show that assertions are false, such as when Ka2 showed DutchCrown that actually there are times when you don't see at least one sleeper from the first 37 spins in the second 37. DutchCrown just IGNORED it. Or when I explained to Turbo WHY random doesn't have limits, again, ignored. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously? Of course we're wasting our time with you and the fanboys, but like I said, there are lot of lurkers on these forums, and they deserve to at least hear the facts before deciding whether to dance to your tune.

 

I absolutely respect that position, you’re not obliged to reveal anything but from my point of view as a casual observer, any graphs or screenshots that can’t be scrutinised are of little or no value - I can’t tell if you are the real deal or a decent photo shopper.

Look, my original question was - this all sounds great, can I see it in action? The answer is no so that’s fine. My motivation of asking is to look for things to supplement my own method so it’s up to me to determine if I want to spend the time piecing things together to see for myself.
Cheers

 

START READING
START TESTING

STOP JUDGING

ok Dutch-crown

just an example from Wiesbaden August-16-2019

first 37 spins:

23
13
17
32
14
17
12
3
1
1
6
28
19
20
22
13
36
7
20
26
18
25
15
17
36
22
5
21
30
33
29
8
22
23
35
8
17

/////

singles and repeaters

1
3
5
6
7
8
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
28
29
30
32
33
35
36

the colds (non-hitted)

0
2
4
9
10
11
16
24
27
31
34

 

Oh goodie goodie, an egg hunt for the children. Why don't you stop being a twat and just post the link to where it was allegedly revealed and stop this childish self help advancement crap? Less than 1% of people who could be bothered to look will get it anyway.

Why are people so covetous? Honestly it's sickening.

 

Next 37 spins :

34 hit 1
25
20
20
5
29
20
28
7
29
20
11 hit 11
25
25
15
19
22
32
20
18
21
28
10 hit 11
28
32
28
5
26
20
4 hit 7
12
31 hit 2
8
1
0 hit 3
21
24 hit 2

 

Dutchie,

How do you make Profit ?

Even with a progression ?

 

The proof that roulette systems can't win is simple : −1 × 36⁄37 + 35 × 1⁄37 = −0.0270

And the empirical proof is overwhelming. Many systems have been created but none have been proved to work. Anyone with a basic education in statistics and probability knows that you can't win at roulette using systems, which have been around for over 100 years. From Wikipedia:

And actually, most of the personal attacks are coming from your side. I admit that Turbo does make an effort to explain and justify his systems to some extent, but he makes a lot of elementary mistakes. Isn't it a little arrogant that you think you know better than college professors who spend their whole lives studying this stuff?

"I don't want it to be true, therefore it isn't" is a terrible argument and very lazy.

 

I can show where is difference, between play what talk Turbo and what play AP. Here in picture are shown 16 spins results in distances from reference point till rest in pocket.

So if before play I will select interval 250-273 so 24 pockets interval on which I play - from 16 spins I will hit 13 times . So 16*24=384 I bet and after that have 13*36=468 what gaves me about 22% advantage.

I think is very clear for everybody to understand when I will win , when I will lost and that depends on how good I will select my betting interval.
If we will increase number of spins we will see how density somewhere between 250 and 270 increase and increase.
So my result depends not from which numbers fall, but from that how good , how exact i will detect possible ball distributtion and how accurate will detect positive zone.

Shortly depends on how good I something can to do...
The same if somebody other will play this table if somebody other will select to play zone 278-290 easy to see that he will lost...

This distributtion is natural distribution and such is on real roulette...

And such it was 200 years back and such it will be at least several years in front .

 

@DutchCrown

I just wanna ask u something. If this really flat bet ?

Dont say you're liar just i am confused. Because your example from screenshot RS from spin 1 to spin 490 i think thats not a flat bet.

I wanna know perception the flat bet you say. So far i know flat bet is bet with the same unit size all the time.

Example 1 unit from 3000 balance unit in RS.

Thanks before

 

Well there it is guys. Or should I say, it there well guys is.

 

thas whats so greats abouts gamblin forums. Iffen a man payz attenshun to peoples likes TurboGenie and Gumbotron he cans shure learn hisself a great deal

he can shure get hisself a good and real educayshun

an do you knows what the bess thing about it is?



ITS ALL TOATULLY FREEE



.

 

yes all flatbet 1 unit all the way!
And the nice thing is, i can do it all day long if i want.

 

lol

 

Right. Because when we post that systems don't work, everyone hangs on our every word; they can't get enough of it. Whereas good folks like yourself who promise riches from roulette? Nah, nobody cares. And have you checked your post count recently?