Discussion in 'Roulette Forum' started by mr j, May 25, 2017.
A man of few words.
A new generation of prospective " winners " have joined the forum . Let them first learn how NOT to lose One thousand Dollars before winning
that amount .
The real winner is always the casino no matter which way one slices the mustard .
Happy Winnings just the same .
It is wise not to reply to certain topics and in time they shall fade away . Good tactic ,
Best not to get involved with that gamblers fallacy "Merde" one of the most unproductive threads .
Funny. Those 37 people going to a casino reminds me of 99 bottles of beer on the wall . l o l .
From member Sparks at RF >> "i always forget about 0 whenever setting up outside bets"
If that zero phobia is not silliness I am wondering what it is .
There IS a darn good 23 number system out there which includes the 0 and 00 and it is John Patrick`s second choice to his original action number system .
He meant in Excel formulas, not actual play. As in, when he creates sheets for testing he often forgets to code in a zero result in the formula.
Good guy, does nice work.
There are no winners among spread sheet artists. A ridiculous bunch of dreamers .
Geeeez, come on man.
I may agree with you Nathan, but remember, if you're not using VB/AP, then you're playing a fallacy system.
Now there are different degrees of depth and accuracy obviously, like say Ken winning over time playing however he's playing versus the guy martingaling an EC...those two players shouldn't be lumped together in my mind.
But if you revealed how either of you actually play, Caleb would piss on it as hard as he pisses on any other fallacy player, he WOULD lump you all together because you can't prove the mathematical reasons why you win just as say Ignatus can't.
That's not an insult, it's just an example that we may not want to piss in the wind that hard...I don't like when it comes back and sprays me.
and this I agree with 100%.
Where is Gizmotron .
To whom it may concern .
If you are the gentleman interested in Baccarat I recommend John Patrick
" So you wanna be a Gambler".
Baccarat one of my alternate casino games .
You don't get it right, i don't think Caleb has anything against a player that just want to gamble for FUN... But as soon as it comes to "ok i 'm going to make easy money like this, ok i can live from my system, ok i can quit my job and pick up my 100 bucks, it can't lose" then this is wrong., and whatever gamblers can say... there's only a little step to this stupid thinking.
My advice to those fallacy system players: Positive progression. If you can win on short term then take as much as you can... With negative progression you risk big to take peanuts, with flat bet you are only struggling... Positive progression brothers... that's how you can get a nice coat<<<<
Ken routinely says 4 of the 5 statements you mentioned, in more humble ways, which is appropriate as he wins more often than he loses over time. He never uses terms like "grails" or "can't lose" of course, but it's clear how he feels his approach to the game is strong.
And yes, Caleb would call any fallacy system a complete waste of time, regardless of how it's packaged verbally, and regardless if the player playing it has won for years.
You can nitpick Turbo's bravado and hubris as if that somehow makes a difference regarding how their methods should be perceived, but at the end of the day none of that matters to those with mathematical minds.
Fallacy is fallacy, math is immutable, and to an AP player or mathematician the guy martingaling an EC will have the same overall success rate that a guy betting only 4 max numbers using what the wheel is producing at that session as an indicator to bet. The only difference in their judgement may be that the player betting on fewer numbers will last longer, and with some luck, much longer.
Are those players the same skill wise? No, obviously not, the player martingaling an EC is going to demolish their BR almost immediately, but in a mathmetician's mind the other example of a sharper player like Nathan or Ken is ALSO going to demolish their bankroll, but it's just going to take a lot longer.
Mako, it is simply about variance. Please use the soft that Jerome has gently provided. As he said, all bets are equals, and according to the range of numbers you're playing, you can hope last more longer than x players...
It's obvious that if you're playing 18 numbers you cannot hope to last as long as a player playing one number... The soft tells everything about it.
But whatever Ken thinks, he's not smarter than my grandma if they're playing the same range of numbers... They'll have both a place on a gauss curve that they cannot decide about...that's how it is...
Agree, that's my point basically Sharp, we have fallacy players pissing on other fallacy players, simply because they can last longer thanks to a good deal of experience with the game. It's all the same to the other side, Jerome would dismiss any non-AP approach as impossible, it would be splitting hairs to him saying you're playing 18 numbers or 1 number.
For me personally, I've spoken to and seen too many long time players who are earning well from the game for 12 months+, using extremely sharp low-number plays that are in the fallacy category.
In my mind, fallacy is a spectrum, with say Marty EC being at 0 and the guy watching the wheel, reacting to favorable pre-set conditions on the fly, and betting fewer than 4 numbers at the other end, call it a 10.
I really don't feel that as an example Ken, or even Turbo for that matter, are just "lucky +STD players while others who walk into the casino and use their exact systems will lose as -STD players".
I believe their approaches, fallacy or not, are creating an edge they can exploit over time.
Jerome and Caleb would never agree with that as there's just no mathematical foundation anywhere that supports it being possible.
Separate names with a comma.