Roulette More on that so called Fallacy.

I'm sure he could. In fact I'll mess with all of your minds just for that.

Take any network marketing company that has purchasable products from month to month with a minimum sold products to customers requirement. Say it's $100 minimum sales each month in order to qualify to get paid. Now find 6 people that will go out and duplicate what you will now do. You get them to get 6 people of their own and all those that do the same after that from their 6 people each. I give 5 individuals that are not in your network chain $40 each to spend at least $20 of that money on your products. Say that it is all internet sales. So those 5 people can keep the rest of the money or spend it on better products that cost more than $20. So you don't have to go out and bang on doors or bother friends to buy your products. All sales are legitimate. So you pay out $200 per month to qualify to get $5,000 per month from your Network Marketing, (Ponzi Scheme) business. Just by taking the hassle about retail sales out of the equation you get a network that grows like a real Ponzi Scheme.

That's my original idea. I tried to run it with Amway and experts shot it down. It takes about two seconds to get customers and willing distributors when all products are purchased and delivered by the internet and the company. You get 6 willing and you send out $40 to 5 people over PayPal each month, after the 6 people you spend about 15 minutes per month to process your network. So let me know if anyone here can find a good MLM business to try this with. I'll sign up if you have a good company to try it with.

 

What are we waiting for.....Let`s f*ck the Duck .

 

So there is an MLM that caters to men or women that want to (do what?) to a duck?

 

Mark ,


That`s an expression : F*ck the Duck meaning go after the Fat ( the big money )

 

I heard it first back in the 50's as go f*ck a duck.

 

I replayed this very strange session.
I got a total of 50 hits on my numbers in these 200 spins.
i was on them for 46/50 hits and would have made my daily profit of +€100 before spin 185.
that's all i will say about this session.
everything else will give away exactly how i play and what MM i use. i won't go into that direction.
but with a bank of €1000 i would have done just fine.
last note i would like to add, is that everything worked out just like i knew it would.
cheers,
j.e.

 

If you can supposedly beat these games at will, why the f*** to do you people bet so small?

Answer: because NONE OF YOU ARE BEATING ANYTHING!!

 

Can I ask why only €100 target when you sound so completely sure of your method. Surely you could simply double your stakes at the very least and in so doing, double your entire weekly salary? Or are you still in testing mode, because it seems you are beyond that phase ?

 

the awnser to this is very simple, well to me anyway. let's just say that i have my reasons to play only for €100-€200 a day and never more and i'm happy about it.but i won't explain in detail why.

 

Ok thanks. Says a lot. You have an iron discipline like no other. You have the golden goose but are not committed to raping it. I respect that .

 

Why is it so hard for the forumtards to grasp that a number hitting at it's expected hit rate isn't enough to win, because the house payout is still shorting the player?

The longer the random game is played the farther and farther the player will drift away from break even.

 

This is where I'm at as well, did a test on 469 consecutive spins from a single table (actual spins from Spielbank Duisburg), they represent that specific table's entire full day of numbers output, roughly 12 hours.

I tried all carpet locations aside from single numbers (splits, streets, quads, lines) on that batch of 469 spins, and waited for the last unhit on each location to appear before beginning.

What I found is that the majority of the time, (say 75%) you win, with just a basic +1/reset-to-base-at-new-BR-high money management system.

You have to endure the larger gaps, and occasionally you'll get time-consuming chop that forces you to stay on that location for ages (like say on a quad getting gaps of 1-12-3-18-4-22-2-20, etc), but then exactly as Turbo and Eddy are demonstrating, you get that "1,5,3,8" sequence to appear that allows you to catch up.

25% of the time though the 1-5-3-8 sequence never appeared in the 469 spin set, basically those locations didn't have a possible recovery that allowed the bettor to make up what had been lost on the previous gaps.

It's making me think there's more to what Eddy is doing, perhaps as you're guessing the right way is to wait until a location is REALLY behind, as Turbo mentioned, your street hit -2.71 STD before it encountered the 1-5-3-8.

We're missing something, but I personally don't believe Eddy is lying. His system might just be lucky for the span that he's been playing it (roughly 10.000-15.000 spins I'm guessing based on him playing 150 spins per day for 3 months?) but there must be another qualifier to begin playing a location that we're not seeing.

 

Because Eddy isn't playing his numbers at the expected hit rate...he's playing them for much higher than expected hit rates, nearly double, i.e., the recovery back to 0 STD that we've all seen occur countless times during play.

My "greens" example for instance...no greens for 100+ spins, then 10x greens in 30 spins. We've all encountered that right? Many many many times.

TG/Eddy are claiming there's a predictable pattern to that recovery phase, the nay-sayers are saying there isn't. So we test, can't hurt.

 

Numbers simply don't catch back up because they're due. More gambler's fallacy nonsense.

Again, just count the number of pockets on the wheel and the player will find that the same number of pockets are present at each spin.

"The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlofallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future (or vice versa)."-Wiki

 

Now I get that. Not bad. It's true. Most of the times active numbers tend to hit within double the cycle of 37 spins after they have had a cold spot. It's all about speculating on when hottest numbers go cold. Or, I should say when they don't. Most of the times they act a certain way.

That's easy enough to simulate and power test.

 

Ok, then show to me, that numbers don't return to their average point. again, if you can proof that i'm wrong, i won't ever say a word about this subject ever again. but don't come with made up spin samples. show me the proof that i'm wrong..... this is you're change.

 

i can sit here all day talking about this and that you can make real good money out of this, but you guys are only telling me that i'm wrong, without propper test it. Bago can insult as much as he like, but i bet he's dying under his table telling to himself, shit, shit, shit eddy's right, no way i tell him that, ever

 

jekhb,

As you say, the "average point" isn't enough to break even. Understand? The longer you play... even at expectation, the farther you'll drift behind break even. Meaning you'll lose more and more and more and more as you play.

 

there are two things i'm 100% certain about in roulette.

1. A number or any location will return to it's average point given enough spins to make this happen. Random is making sure of this.
2. I can't loose.

what do i need to make this possible?

1. A good bankroll
2. Patience
3. The best betselection / Right progression
4. Random
5. Dicipline
6. Time
7. Avoiding "Greed"
8. Making sure to stay under the radar.
9. Enough sleep
10. My own confidence.

 

What you don't understand sir, is that once a number has reached it's average point, there is no reason to play this number further because of the simple fact is that it will return to jump up and down again.
This is a fact, not a hocus pocus act.