Roulette What if I told you...

Exactly it would.

============

There is even a specific math calculation that can be used to "prove" that what I said is correct. (As I said, it can be proven with math). The fact that no one has done this before doesn't mean anything really - as it turns out lots of things haven't been done before that were long since written off as impossible or useless... probably just as many things are used and believed to be good which aren't.

Gizmo - C'mon.
I can understand if I were selling some product (which I'm obviously not, and never have)
or got some joy out of fooling people (obviously I don't - I've made available tons of ideas and specifics in the past)
or I have some issue with ego - which I don't (ok, maybe a little).
If something you typed got moved to it's own thread - that's a good thing ! That's how a forum works - it can have it's own thread to explore and share your idea. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

 

The context of my post was to show how easy it is to openly give a good progression away and to show all the steps so that it could be discussed. Your claim is mathematical and therefore con only be discussed if the parameters are fully known. Everything at my online school is for the convenience of those that asked for everything to be easily explained and spelled out. Everything has been published in the wide open and has been available for several years. People wanted to be tutored through it. So I did that. It started out at $200 and dropped to $34.95, the price of a book. I still maintain a presence at the school to answer questions. I have openly shared what I believe is the only way to beat a negative expectation game. History will tell in the end. That is why it is published and everyone knows what I believe.

I'm not the one hiding. There is no progression that can beat Roulette unless it has a consideration for making selections based on past spins. Bayes Inference is a validation of this hypothesis.

"Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics."

 

Bayes Inference has absolutely nothing to do with roulette.

Unless you mean Russian Roulette - in which case - yes, it applies lol

 

OK, fine. To each their own.

 

If anyone's method relies on playing only one spin per session, then the method doesn't really work.

When you have a winning method, your goal is to play for as many spins as possible, not as few as possible.
A winning method doesn't rely on winning just one or two units per session, it wins hundreds or even thousands.
If a method works, then the longer you play, the more you should win.

 

If a method can't win while flat betting, then the method doesn't work.

 

'eh I can't "like" that one lol.
Since we have the 38:1 chance of winning and 35:1 payout - you have to compensate for that.
Flat betting won't achieve that as it's mathematically impossible.

 

Sorry, but the facts are the facts.

Flat betting can't turn a losing method into a winning one for the same reason that you can't multiply a negative number times a positive number and produce a positive outcome. The math is solid.

 

Ive always said this man

Shit

A slight progression to battle the unfair payout will work if the method makes sense

This is why i base methods around patterns

Im not there yet. You seem to be

Its mathematically impossible to overcome the unfair payout and house edge flat betting

Cheesesteaks on me

 

"For any individual spin" - then I would agree.

Yep. It is pretty damn near impossible without some magical powers lol

 

You can only wager on one spin at a time. Furthermore the next spin is all that matters.

 

Correct

Actually there are numerous viable methods that change the odds of winning, to better than 1 in 35.

The reason progression doesn't work is because a progression like 1,2,4,8,16 (or ANY other progression) is nothing more than a bunch of independent bets, each with exactly the same odds. There is no connection to each spin.

Sure you could "get lucky" and win back losses. OR you could "get unlucky" and lose even more. There is always this balance. There's no escaping it . . . unless you change the odds by increasing accuracy of predictions.

Unless you change the odds, the progression will make absolutely no difference except change the rate of winning or losing - depending on what the edge is (normally -2.7%). It is not "opinion". If you ever had a progression method that worked, then it would still need to somehow be changing the odds for each spin.

 

There is no "balance" in roulette.
If there were - we could expect to see 38 different numbers in 38 spins, or 1 number repeating 38 times.
There is never balance.
I can certainly increase my accuracy given there is no balance - as I've said - Roulette is only beatable because it is random. It isn't "random" that makes the game seem so impossible to beat.
The term "progressions" really got a bad rap over the years because people now assume it means "bet more and more as my balance drops to try to win it back" - there is so much more to it than that.

 

Not correct.

 

I know you are but what am I?

Please show me one tangible and verifiable fact that proves us wrong.

 

How does the variation of bet size change a player's wins or losses?
(besides controlling how much you risk)

The odds are the same. The table doesn't care how much you bet. Your bets wont influence the wheel. I'm just after ONE valid and verifiable fact.

 

This is bollocks..

This is not bollocks..

 

You can start here : taking note of the sections where they take readings from the Gieger counter and then chart them.

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/flashback-to-the-60s.5775/

 

It is possible for there to be 38 different numbers in 38 spins. It's just a very rare event, because there far more ways in which there can be a mix of numbers.

 

Not really, the "mix" of numbers ends up forming very predictable results. I'm sure you know this already though.