TurboGenius Turbo, do you remember the discussion on how to select the repeat?

Nice proverb !!!
But to which side you put yourself ?

 

We want proof of concept, not the gambler's fallacy nonsense, horses, the Wright Brothers, or pics of graphs.

 

I listen. I see myself as the student

 

Wise men remain silent . Let the fools speak .

 

1.2 ?

1.2 what .. coconuts?

 

The whole law system is based on that premise.
What's more even & no evidence → case dismissed.

 

Strategies within strategies, many many strategies. I just recently discovered a new one that was there all the time and I never saw it.

 

@Luckyfella can you unequivocally explain that?

 

@gizmotron why don't you do your calculation on a worst case scenario; 5<>100, 60/200 (hits/spins obviously).
bring that in positive & that'll shut some mouths crashed.

 

I was going to reply to some of the nonsense but then I remembered - it's not worth it.

 

I already suggested that. If I win only one net win off of all 60 spins in the winning phases I still wreck the notion of math being the all encompassing universal force of mathematical dogmatism. I'll be happy enough just being a heretic and keeping the money.

 

Math is what accountants, actuaries, and physicists use, and we all know they're full of shit, right?

 

No, just you are full of shit. Right!

 

The casino, by their prudent risk management, have restricted their financial risk exposure to a small fraction for each table by the max table limit rule. This restriction prevents a case of outlier variance from a single table to materially affect their balance sheet.

By this max table rule, both the gambler and casino play with a defined finite bank.

Given the game is fair bet, a defined finite bank and gamblers don't play the game of one winner to take the entire pot when one player loses his bank to end the game, therefore without these required conditions the Gambler's ruin does not apply in this case.

 

SirAnyone,

You are full of copy and paste shit.

Else you declare your accreditation.

Before you call someone full of shit, make sure you're properly accredited first.

Ofc anyone has the right to express his opinion.

 

SirAnyone, you don't reserve the right to demand proof of concept. You are a nobody trolling gambling forums. You do make the same unsubstantiated claims that you accuse systems players of.

Benas and you commit this same crime repeatedly.
Why does MJ and Nathan Detroit don't call you out?

 

So just because those mathboyz found a useful application for their math skills you want us to think that everything they apply those math skills to is worthwhile. It's not. They can use those skills to tell a casino almost exactly how much they're going to make on the random games if those games are played by people making random decisions on where they bet. That math does not apply to anybody who is using a winning method or system. Now you will say there is no such thing as a winning method or system because that's what you have to say in order to justify your mathematical position. Just like a Christian has to defend his ridiculous position no matter what crap is thrown at him. Not to do so would make him a heretic. For you to admit there are people in a casino who can beat your math would make you a mathematical heretic. It would get you thrown out of the MathBoyz Club.

 

Good Post.

The casino set the rules of the game that fix the odds and payout of the game which for business purpose do include the house edge in the casinos favour.

There is nothing to debate about random spins, extra zero(s) pocket and unfair payout. That's the roulette game offered by the casinos.

When someone claim he plays with a systems betting strategy to win, he must mean his decision making rules, whether it's discretionary does not matter, have somehow changed the probability. Whether he is aware of it or whether he can or not explain how he changed it, the probability must somehow be changed to that which gives him advantage over the odds. That's a fact.

From a science point of view, we should be curious how this is possible. These claims are experiential observations that must not be simply dismissed as false. Instead be points of investigation to determine if they were true.