Roulette Winkel's G.U.T. - 1000 units challenge

It means that that specific person (yes, the individual) can possibly do very well playing a terrible system.
He then posts "his" specific winning sessions and then others try to play the same way.
Others have a very good chance of losing from spin #1 and not recovering from a bad session that puts them in the hole.
Some others still will do good for a while, then eventually lose and be in the hole.
So unless you have enough data to show that something works - posting small sessions of a few spins
that look good means nothing (to anyone else).
That person is happy of course - but it can lead others to try to duplicate the same thing and they will lose.
If you made a thread with a martingale progression and showed it winning 100 sessions in a row -
that would mean you managed to pull it off.
The others who read it will try and lose terribly. How is it then a good idea to post results without
posting the "whole picture".
Whatever the method is - can be coded and people can then decide to use/risk it or not. But making videos of a few spins at a time and making appear that something has merit (that truly doesn't) is misleading.
While it is relative to the individual - like you say.. then the individual has no reason to post their accomplishments on a public forum where it means nothing to anyone other than the individual.

 

Turbo,

Although i may disagree with some of what you said at least you speak like a man

A discussion

I respect that

Thanks for the response

 

Turbo,

Your statements are quite contradictory. If the math doesn't change (and I agree), how can "math beat a math game"? How can you defend any "system" when the math says it won't work?

You can't have it both ways.

 

Why so much effort behind a losing method like GUT? Or is it Winkel`s scamming operation preparing for a big haul ?



If it waddles like a duck, if it quacks like a duck then it is a duck .

 

No scam, no haul. Just a try to gain 1000 units profit with a system that I like to play. One that I know well with all its ups and downs. One that allows an educated guess if you know the system, the trot and the limits of both.

I do not care much about the long run because I will be dead for a long time before it could strike.

Do you really think you are doomed to lose in a game where good and bad spots for bets can be discriminated and you can vary the wager?

Gambler don't have to overcome the house edge. They have to overcome their beliefs.

My 8th session is online. Half way there. 522 units up.

 

Good job

522 units up is an accomplishment

Ignore the negative remarks

Why? People have their own styles of playing roulette

If you enjoy playong GUT, go for it, it is your own money

Take criticism with a grain of salt

Keep the updates coming

 

SystemGambler,

I accept your explanation as stated.

Happy Winnings !!!

 

Well done.

 

Nowun,

You remind me of RouletteGhost. I wonder why.

 

Why?

 

Easy answer=he is stupid.

 

The GUT was tested to death by KonFuSed years back. At first Winkel helped him, and said the rules were fixed. Then after it became clear that it didn't work and that it didn't change the odds, Winkel claimed that "gambler's intelligence" was needed and was something that could not be programmed into the simulation. In the end, it was obvious that the system wouldn't work unless someone was curve fitting the test results.

Curve fitting is often a consequence of hand testing small samples. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not. In Winkel's case I believe that it just happened along the way, unintentionally, as he and others would play the "if" game. "If we would have quit here, or if we would bet this crossing instead of this crossing..." (At the time, the GUT testers, including Winkel simply didn't have the experience or knowledge required to remain objective.) Too many degrees of freedom were introduced into the hand testing. This is why you should careful define the rules of a test and code it.

The GUT fallacy persisted for quite a while, until people like KonFuSed, Bayes, and myself exposed some of the obvious flaws with the system.


"Kon-Fu-Sed wrote a program which showed that GUT did no better than any other system, but Winkel 'refuted' it by saying that you have to use 'gambler's intelligence', which sounds suspiciously like 'Educated Guessing'.

It seems that Educated Guessing is the key, pity it doesn't work." -Bayes

 

When something doesn't work - it's always because someone did something wrong lol.

 

The usual blame game. . Someone else`s fault.

 

Thanks for your comments on my thread.
What I still miss here are posts of player who actually know GUT and the bet strategies.

Just to amend:
KonFuSed tested one single crossing over 10 Mio spins. That was the 0x versus 1x if I remember correctly. And that resulted in a loss of 2.7% of the bet volume.
Nothing new and no surprise.

Those who have read my eBook on GUT know that the average of all possible developments of trots will approximate quickly to what is expected according to the binominal distribution. I did a demonstration with actual roulette spins. 100 trots compensate already pretty perfectly every possible deviation.

So with GUT it is the same as with any other good system. The player needs to know it, needs to know what it's limits are and when to skip not favorable spots.

My 9th session is ready on youtube. This time I was hungry for a win and used the to top level of my level bets. Some may call it a progression. I apply it to spots that I assess as favorable.

 

ie.. when it fails and someone loses their money - it's their own fault for not knowing when to "skip a non-favorable spot".
Nonsense.
When something fails and someone says that it's the player's fault that it failed - it is simply a excuse to avoid the truth. (which is that something doesn't work).

 

Everything needs rules.
Rules mean that it can be tested properly.
Testing shows it fails.
Changing the rules later - makes no sense.
Test again with the "new" rules. It fails.
Then it's the player's fault for not playing it right - or some variable is left up to the player.... so in reality
they are fault and not the method since it doesn't have specific rules.

 

That is absolutely true. Winkel's master stroke (or who ever did it, but he posted it) was to look at roulette categorizing the spins by their number of appearances. That is what he called GUT or in a German forum RNF. That is one thing. An other thing is the system of play he created with GUT.
The bet strategies based on what he saw when tracking that way he tried to describe with his hints and guidelines. In some statements according his bet strategy I do not agree with him and neither follow them.

TG from a man like you I expected more understanding of the complexity of GUT. It is not like wait for 5 red and bet black. I have played hundreds of trots and after every spin I assess the graph my tracker draws (I'm a visual guy, not a numbers guy) and after every spin the facts that I focus on or that are important at that situation may change.

To me it is like watching the sea. Waves come in, can grow high or low or break. Does a surfer watch the sea? Or does he say: I read a book on surfing, and if I follow the 5 step rules I will succeed. If I does not work I will play soccer.

 

100% perfect !!

Ken

 

My big issue with GUT.....any method I ever play must MEET a certain criteria. B&M only and be able to calculate and place chips within SECONDS. So even if GUT is decent...but not playable according to my criteria...I label it as a failure.

Some won't agree with that but I dont care. There is no re-bet button at an actual table. Any method I use or create, I center it around playing few numbers and a QUICK calculation !!! If these dealers here dont like you/me, they make my playing experience damn difficult so I MUST adjust accordingly. Too many system/method creators are only interested in what looks good on PAPER and screw real world situations (Ignatus & RG to name only a couple). Thats the difference between the rookies and guys with the experience.

Ken