Roulette Repost of 1961 video for those who asked for it

Shit, there are those damn progressions again
Funny, that when you're betselection is solid, you just stop losing. mmmm wonder what the Bago Company and their employes have to say about this.

 

Maybe not, I'll even make it again.
In another thread I posted a thought experiment.
3 horses - running randomly down a stretch.
(yes Bago - I KNOW horses don't run randomly, use your imagination please)
Each horse might step forward, might stay in one spot, it's random !

So here we are almost at the end of the race.
Horse 1 (hot) is a few feet from the finish line !
Horse 2 (expected) is 3/4 of the way down the track
Horse 3 (cold) is way back at the beginning of the track but hell, there he is.
==============================================

Since this is my racetrack (and just like roulette) I'm going to let you
place your bet at any time you want, even now !..
Please tell me your betting on Horse 1 (if you don't say horse 1 then there's
a problem with your reality lol).

So the naysayers crew will say this :
Horse 1 is almost ready to win, but it's random - any of the 3 can win !
What happened up to this point is meaningless. (ooo.kkk.)
Sir No One will say Horse 1 is a bias horse and after 200 more races he might
bet on it to win (lol - analogy of the year !!)
Yes, you can argue all day that any of the 3 horses at the start of the race
can win and none has a predictable race.
No, you can't argue that right here near the end Horse 3 has the
same chance of winning that Horse 1 does. You really can't say that...
I bet on Horse 1 - Now you tell me I don't know what random is and that Horse 3
could come from the back and win ? lol. Please.

To beat roulette you have to know what's possible, what's likely and what's not
likely to happen
At the beginning I have no idea, the results of the last 2,000 races with these
horses DON'T MATTER. I can't use that information on this race.
Each horse before the start can win, it's not predictable.
As the race goes on, Horse 1 pulls away (positive deviation)
and Horse 2 does what everyone expects his to do. This is the ONLY
horse that the HOUSE is allowed to bet on. Nice right ?

Now near the end I'm putting money on Horse 1 because I know
A) there WILL be a winner
B) Horse 1 is almost at the end, the other two are far back
C) I'm not 100% sure about this, but each step he takes closer
to the line - you're damn right I'm increasing my bet (progression
based on what I'm seeing play out)

You'll say "It's ALL fallacy !" There is NO fallacy.
I'm not using past races, I'm not looking for a bias horse either.
It's not voodoo, it's not magic, there's no time machine.
I'll win more times than I lose
(MUCH BETTER THAN 1 in 3 which is what I'm being told by the
"logic" people are my chances at all times and it never changes)
So sorry, I'll win - you'll call me a liar and ignorant to the math,
I don't care. I just explained to you exactly how to win - now if you
can see past 1 spin and think combined spins (session) have no
benefit and show no predictable pattern(s)... then there's no hope
in typing analogies and examples and results.

 

AND likewise....

Horse 3 way in the back is expected to be closer to Horse 2 (average)
So... NO - I don't need him to be the hottest horse and beat Horse 1 who's
already there going to win.
So Horse 1 wins and now I'm looking at Horse 3 - the cold one.
The more down the track these 2 go - I can (yes) expect.. that
he's going to pull up closer to Horse 2 (the expected).
Every time he gets closer I win at better than the payout, I win.
If he keeps dropping back and back I wouldn't have bet on him.
Random has limits.
Regardless - you guys will repeat and repeat that it doesn't matter
at any time what horse I bet on - somehow my results will always be
whatever horse 2 is doing and I'm destined to lose at this house ege
no matter what I do.
Well, no.
I bet on horse 1 and won - I bet on horse 3 when he did better than
he was doing previously and won.. positive progression all the way.
That's how it is, no easier way to explain it.

 

But nobody will let you bet just before race finish When you bet you still not know which will be ordered before the finish.
So Your example is not correct.

 

If my first bet wins then I'm at no risk of losing anything further in the speculation if I continue. On the other hand it might lose on that first bet. So I would be 1 unit down, and I would quit on it. But if it wins and keeps on winning I could be more than 1 unit up.

Very smart...

 

Yes - In roulette at the table I can bet on any spin in the session as it plays out.
I don't need to make a accurate prediction on spin 1 trying to know what spin 30 is going
to produce. I can bet each and every spin right to the close of my (winning) session.

 

No spin is a race. So you bet on a horse which never won

 

Fine, but if the horses are really running "randomly", there doesn't have to be a problem with my reality to not have any preference at all.

As you said:

So horse 1 might suddenly stop and horse 3 might suddenly overtake horse 2. This is the reality we have to deal with in the random game of roulette.

 

There's no difference between this and the rookie player who finds out that there is a 99% chance of at least one red in 6 spins then waits until he sees 5 blacks in a row and bets red, thinking that the chance of a red has increased (he may not think that there is a 99% chance of a red in the next spin, but surely it has to be higher than 50%).

Your example is more "sophisticated", but the principle is the same, and it's a fallacy. All bet selections are a variation on this theme and none of them work better than randomly picking numbers. There's no real harm in them, because they don't perform any WORSE than random, but the danger lies in believing that you actually have increased the probability of a win, and increase your stakes accordingly.

 

And what's even more beautiful is that you can even create you're own finish line! (MULTIPLE) times, yet no one sees it and for as long as everyone don't look past 1 spin at a time, they will never find the awnser, wich ia so simple.

 

Sorry jek, but you're utterly deluded. Try testing your system with the random numbers, and you'll see the light.

 

I can give you a much more exact example - in some circle stand 37 basketball players. Somebody another throw ball to basket and ball randomly jumps to players who every try to catch the ball. The same like pockets on roulette. They also fight which will catch the ball.
Ball jumps randomly, players change the place where they stand also randomly - which player will catch more balls?
Naturally who are stronger taller, who jumps higher.

But not which in past caught fewer balls

 

Didn't Turbo do this...and is #1 on RS. Oh let me guess it's rigged or he got lucky for a year straight with no resets. And to think they only give you 3000 max each time regardless of your ranking. And if it is rigged then I don't see it because I've gone busto more times than I haven't, because I'm still learning how to play the smart way it's not easy.

 

Why am i deluded jerome? because i see things happening over and over angain and you don't? Doesn't that mean that i see the light very clearly and that you are still in the dark searching for the exit?

 

If you play few numbers and use a progression judiciously, and don't have a run of really bad luck, you can do very well for thousands of spins. So yes, there is some skill in that I guess. But my point is that the bet selection makes no difference. Ditch all the law of the third stuff, hot numbers, cold numbers, it makes no difference. Picking numbers randomly will do just as well.

 

After the game when knowing which numbers fell most time, every player want that his bets were here.
So think, when you have better chance to be placed on the number which fell - when you bet on cold or on hot numbers
Remember talk is about real roulettes...not about RNG.

 

Sure, there's never any justification for picking cold numbers, but if you assume that outcomes are RANDOM (as Turbo does) then there really is no difference.

 

On real wheel always are chance for bias or something other

 

I have been specific on a number of occasions and this is the 4th time of asking
why some numbers have a more favourable parameter than others (sleeper
project)

According to everything you have written the 'Strength Index' would be
impossible. I should not be able to predict, that certain numbers have a high
probability of being in an Index, while others have an unlikely prospect of
entering the index.

According to you past spins can't influence future spins and yet when a number
with a favourable parameter enters its parameter, it has shown on a number of
occasions to hit within that parameter.

I have a realistic and practical understanding of probability and what you have
written, as I have said is theoretical nonsense and I would advise everyone
to ignore it.

 

Because you're looking at trivial short term samples.

The logical question is in the long run why should they be different? ( A question which you will of course avoid answering.)