Roulette Reading Randomness

Not entirely sure anyone cares. I’d suggest starting your own thread

 

I have a question for you too. Why are you such an obnoxious ass?

This: "Again, how many spins are in each session?"

Each session is unique and ends at 3 net wins or 7 net losses. This is based on flat rates of 1 unit even if the mini up & pull or the two step Marti are utilized. So nobody knows how many spins are in a successful or failed session. Go ahead and tell us dork. Why is it so important? I'm sure that you have a pathetic binomial distribution answer.

As far as comprehension goes you are in no way capable of that capacity with your head planted all the way up your ass.

 

why people here so mad at each other?

i learn from all already and won money apply it.

to much wish or school teach is confuse to apply.

 

So let's do some small-sample arithmetic just for the fun of it.

You had 18 won sessions and 2 lost sessions.

Lost: 2 X 7 = 14

Won: 18 X 3 = 54

I want to see the win to loss ratio. So I want 1 on the losing side. Like saying 2 to 1 as an example. So I will divide 54 by 14, ( 54 / 14 = 3.857)

Hmm? I know I made this simple and added virtual bets to the charts, and it's way early yet, but almost double the first student in just a few days of this suggested strategy.

My first student that is also from Australia, coincidence there, didn't reach 2 to 1 until after 30 days or 60 hours of training from me. You are at 3.85 to 1 in a very short time. But this time I only taught two very powerful characteristics. I call them powerful because you can see them real easy in the charts. They are also common enough that you don't have to wait all day for them. That first student flat bet every spin, no virtual bets. He achieved a 2 to 1 long run average. This is an even chance game where if you leave out the house's advantage you would get 1 to 1. So 2 to 1 is mathematically unthinkable to all gamblers up to this point. So everyone is waiting for this to crash. At least they should be if they want probability to rule the universe. Perhaps spandex savior suits will go on sale soon.

This time, in this forum thread, I went right to the most advanced strategy first. I also included the virtual bet concept where choices are made even if bets are not funded. So a correct or mathematical number of losses will still be encountered but they won't all be funded. The implication that it's possible to mitigate the effect of losses becomes real. So the stop loss and stop win strategy also accounts for moving average swings. Only the super streak of first try swarms being the primary losing factor in this advanced stage of learning. This thread is different than teaching my first student. It looks like we have three people that are working on this, that will admit it, and that the results are so far good.

Everyone naturally is expecting a swarm of losses in order to make up for the win to loss ratio. One person just jumped right into a casino with both feet first here. So we don't have any data to build a ratio from. I'm only mostly enjoying the one that is documenting the learning process. So the two from Australia are both well documented in the fact that I have all 120 hours of instructions in email from the first student. I won't share those because of privacy. But anyone looking at how I taught the first student could see that this time I have gone right to a simple to see trend and pattern that is common enough. I had to go with the quick start plan because typically forums try very hard to debunk cornball ideas. So I have come up with this many successful people approach.

So far it's working. But many of us know the funny story about the falling man from the 100th floor of a sky scraper. As he falls he keeps saying "so far so good." My plan is to get more people to try this and to share their findings. It's simple to do if you just keep track of all net wins and all nets losses at the end of each session in the aggregate. Like session 31 ended at 3 net wins, or session 100 ended at 7 net losses. The dollar amount is irrelevant. It's the wins or losses amount considered as an equivalence that matters. I'm looking for win to loss ratios where 1 to 1 is expected. If enough people show signs of better than 1 to 1 then the mathBoyz will have to go back to the drawing board. Fun for me because I threatened to do this 14 years ago. ... H, H , H, my diabolical plan is here now.

 

So you're placing only 3 to 10 spins per session??? Why bother? Why don't you just play one spin? It would be just as absurd.

Over 20 sessions he's played only 60 to maybe 200 spins! That's statistically irrelevant and just plain silly!

 

According to you grand poobah. Your conceptions of what is real is starting to dominate the rest of the crap in the toilette. Stop talking to me and asking me questions. You don't know shit from shinola.

 

What’s so silly about limiting exposure? What a fucking idiot. And he’s now on ignore for being so absurd.

 

So let's do some small-sample arithmetic just for the fun of it.

You had 18 won sessions and 2 lost sessions.

Lost: 2 X 7 = 14

Won: 18 X 3 = 54

I want to see the win to loss ratio. So I want 1 on the losing side. Like saying 2 to 1 as an example. So I will divide 54 by 14, ( 54 / 14 = 3.857)

Hmm? I know I made this simple and added virtual bets to the charts, and it's way early yet, but almost double the first student in just a few days of this suggested strategy.

My first student that is also from Australia, coincidence there, didn't reach 2 to 1 until after 30 days or 60 hours of training from me. You are at 3.85 to 1 in a very short time. But this time I only taught two very powerful characteristics. I call them powerful because you can see them real easy in the charts. They are also common enough that you don't have to wait all day for them. That first student flat bet every spin, no virtual bets. He achieved a 2 to 1 long run average. This is an even chance game where if you leave out the house's advantage you would get 1 to 1. So 2 to 1 is mathematically unthinkable to all gamblers up to this point. So everyone is waiting for this to crash. At least they should be if they want probability to rule the universe. Perhaps spandex savior suits will go on sale soon.

This time, in this forum thread, I went right to the most advanced strategy first. I also included the virtual bet concept where choices are made even if bets are not funded. So a correct or mathematical number of losses will still be encountered but they won't all be funded. The implication that it's possible to mitigate the effect of losses becomes real. So the stop loss and stop win strategy also accounts for moving average swings. Only the super streak of first try swarms being the primary losing factor in this advanced stage of learning. This thread is different than teaching my first student. It looks like we have three people that are working on this, that will admit it, and that the results are so far good.

Everyone naturally is expecting a swarm of losses in order to make up for the win to loss ratio. One person just jumped right into a casino with both feet first here. So we don't have any data to build a ratio from. I'm only mostly enjoying the one that is documenting the learning process. So the two from Australia are both well documented in the fact that I have all 120 hours of instructions in email from the first student. I won't share those because of privacy. But anyone looking at how I taught the first student could see that this time I have gone right to a simple to see trend and pattern that is common enough. I had to go with the quick start plan because typically forums try very hard to debunk cornball ideas. So I have come up with this many successful people approach.

So far it's working. But many of us know the funny story about the falling man from the 100th floor of a sky scraper. As he falls he keeps saying "so far so good." My plan is to get more people to try this and to share their findings. It's simple to do if you just keep track of all net wins and all nets losses at the end of each session in the aggregate. Like session 31 ended at 3 net wins, or session 100 ended at 7 net losses. The dollar amount is irrelevant. It's the wins or losses amount considered as an equivalence that matters. I'm looking for win to loss ratios where 1 to 1 is expected. If enough people show signs of better than 1 to 1 then the mathBoyz will have to go back to the drawing board. Fun for me because I threatened to do this 14 years ago. ... H, H , H, my diabolical plan is here now.

 

why people here so mad at each other?

i learn from all already and won money apply it.

to much wish or school teach is confuse to apply.

good luck to the ones teach us

 

That is round with good things and lines of edges.

 

how should keep score at the roulette table?

please tell me and thank you

 

When your money is all gone then leave. When you think you have taken enough then leave.

 

So let's do some small-sample arithmetic just for the fun of it.

You had 18 won sessions and 2 lost sessions.

Lost: 2 X 7 = 14

Won: 18 X 3 = 54

I want to see the win to loss ratio. So I want 1 on the losing side. Like saying 2 to 1 as an example. So I will divide 54 by 14, ( 54 / 14 = 3.857)

Hmm? I know I made this simple and added virtual bets to the charts, and it's way early yet, but almost double the first student in just a few days of this suggested strategy.

My first student that is also from Australia, coincidence there, didn't reach 2 to 1 until after 30 days or 60 hours of training from me. You are at 3.85 to 1 in a very short time. But this time I only taught two very powerful characteristics. I call them powerful because you can see them real easy in the charts. They are also common enough that you don't have to wait all day for them. That first student flat bet every spin, no virtual bets. He achieved a 2 to 1 long run average. This is an even chance game where if you leave out the house's advantage you would get 1 to 1. So 2 to 1 is mathematically unthinkable to all gamblers up to this point. So everyone is waiting for this to crash. At least they should be if they want probability to rule the universe. Perhaps spandex savior suits will go on sale soon.

This time, in this forum thread, I went right to the most advanced strategy first. I also included the virtual bet concept where choices are made even if bets are not funded. So a correct or mathematical number of losses will still be encountered but they won't all be funded. The implication that it's possible to mitigate the effect of losses becomes real. So the stop loss and stop win strategy also accounts for moving average swings. Only the super streak of first try swarms being the primary losing factor in this advanced stage of learning. This thread is different than teaching my first student. It looks like we have three people that are working on this, that will admit it, and that the results are so far good.

Everyone naturally is expecting a swarm of losses in order to make up for the win to loss ratio. One person just jumped right into a casino with both feet first here. So we don't have any data to build a ratio from. I'm only mostly enjoying the one that is documenting the learning process. So the two from Australia are both well documented in the fact that I have all 120 hours of instructions in email from the first student. I won't share those because of privacy. But anyone looking at how I taught the first student could see that this time I have gone right to a simple to see trend and pattern that is common enough. I had to go with the quick start plan because typically forums try very hard to debunk cornball ideas. So I have come up with this many successful people approach.

So far it's working. But many of us know the funny story about the falling man from the 100th floor of a sky scraper. As he falls he keeps saying "so far so good." My plan is to get more people to try this and to share their findings. It's simple to do if you just keep track of all net wins and all nets losses at the end of each session in the aggregate. Like session 31 ended at 3 net wins, or session 100 ended at 7 net losses. The dollar amount is irrelevant. It's the wins or losses amount considered as an equivalence that matters. I'm looking for win to loss ratios where 1 to 1 is expected. If enough people show signs of better than 1 to 1 then the mathBoyz will have to go back to the drawing board. Fun for me because I threatened to do this 14 years ago. ... H, H , H, my diabolical plan is here now.

 

Amazing day at MGM I won but I must admit out of pure luck. I will be back to basics next week playing roulette at mohegan.

 

Biased wheel is pure luck? Good to know. as I suspected .

 

Loosers are always jealous

 

So let's do some small-sample arithmetic just for the fun of it.

You had 18 won sessions and 2 lost sessions.

Lost: 2 X 7 = 14

Won: 18 X 3 = 54

I want to see the win to loss ratio. So I want 1 on the losing side. Like saying 2 to 1 as an example. So I will divide 54 by 14, ( 54 / 14 = 3.857)

Hmm? I know I made this simple and added virtual bets to the charts, and it's way early yet, but almost double the first student in just a few days of this suggested strategy.

My first student that is also from Australia, coincidence there, didn't reach 2 to 1 until after 30 days or 60 hours of training from me. You are at 3.85 to 1 in a very short time. But this time I only taught two very powerful characteristics. I call them powerful because you can see them real easy in the charts. They are also common enough that you don't have to wait all day for them. That first student flat bet every spin, no virtual bets. He achieved a 2 to 1 long run average. This is an even chance game where if you leave out the house's advantage you would get 1 to 1. So 2 to 1 is mathematically unthinkable to all gamblers up to this point. So everyone is waiting for this to crash. At least they should be if they want probability to rule the universe. Perhaps spandex savior suits will go on sale soon.

This time, in this forum thread, I went right to the most advanced strategy first. I also included the virtual bet concept where choices are made even if bets are not funded. So a correct or mathematical number of losses will still be encountered but they won't all be funded. The implication that it's possible to mitigate the effect of losses becomes real. So the stop loss and stop win strategy also accounts for moving average swings. Only the super streak of first try swarms being the primary losing factor in this advanced stage of learning. This thread is different than teaching my first student. It looks like we have three people that are working on this, that will admit it, and that the results are so far good.

Everyone naturally is expecting a swarm of losses in order to make up for the win to loss ratio. One person just jumped right into a casino with both feet first here. So we don't have any data to build a ratio from. I'm only mostly enjoying the one that is documenting the learning process. So the two from Australia are both well documented in the fact that I have all 120 hours of instructions in email from the first student. I won't share those because of privacy. But anyone looking at how I taught the first student could see that this time I have gone right to a simple to see trend and pattern that is common enough. I had to go with the quick start plan because typically forums try very hard to debunk cornball ideas. So I have come up with this many successful people approach.

So far it's working. But many of us know the funny story about the falling man from the 100th floor of a sky scraper. As he falls he keeps saying "so far so good." My plan is to get more people to try this and to share their findings. It's simple to do if you just keep track of all net wins and all nets losses at the end of each session in the aggregate. Like session 31 ended at 3 net wins, or session 100 ended at 7 net losses. The dollar amount is irrelevant. It's the wins or losses amount considered as an equivalence that matters. I'm looking for win to loss ratios where 1 to 1 is expected. If enough people show signs of better than 1 to 1 then the mathBoyz will have to go back to the drawing board. Fun for me because I threatened to do this 14 years ago. ... H, H , H, my diabolical plan is here now.

 

For Gizmo and Ghost,

Gambler's fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy 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). In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random and consists of independent trials of a random process, this belief is false. The fallacy can arise in many situations, but is most strongly associated with gambling, where it is common among players.

The term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example of the phenomenon, which occurred in the Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

 

Amazing you have resolved the mystery of roulette.LOL

 

Bravo doc you are doing good.Showing mirror to falsehood