Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in Roulette

[warrior]

wow....what are the odds of that?. Must be billions to one

[Chris555p]

Casino is probably also a big hoax......lol lol

[RouletteGhost]

Falkor, egos method of 1-18 and 3rd dozen is the answer to winning if you can wait for 2 virtual losses

[Chris555p]

Better still, to be safe wait for 3 virtual loss....

[falkor]

You guys obviously know nothing about how government and media operates. They have been using psychological warfare and propaganda since time immemorial; a firm understanding of history is paramount. You need to look more at evidence and not be deceived by the authorities. So maybe check out links like this one for example:
link:://nodisinfo.com/fake-tears-malaysian-airlines-hoax/

By assuming the Malaysian jet claims were real without looking at any evidence is a sign of delusion. It's the same with the arguments against my system. Unlike winkel and his system I have posted test results over 100K spins - but still people are deluded into making assumptions without looking at my evidence, hence none of the above replies are about my test results and some are even personal attacks of ridicule towards me. So maybe have a think about how arrogant, gullible and delusional that comes across as?

I had a very hard time at the casino tonight, including getting the hang of noting down the numbers and ECs on card, but eventually I got comfortable with the routine of the whole real casino experience and using this system. Black caused me a lot of problems from the outset. I was tempted to change my betting scheme, but decided to stick with the system. I guess anyone inexperienced with offline casinos might have a frustrating time during their first session. I planned to play for 200 spins, but in the end I decided to stop at £6 profit after 66 spins. Tonight was not about making profit though, but was about testing the system with the cheapest possible bankroll and at the lowest "level".

Although the reds always remained far from the blacks the system proved quite strong in the long run, as it made profit without the gap closing beyond its initial distance. Should that gap have closed, however, this system was clearly ready to capitalise. The Star System would have already been in recovery near the end of that session.

One good thing about my local casino is that you only lose half the bet when a zero lands.

[Turner]

Falkor, Im confused

You choose to believe a ridiculous hoax theory which in its self (based on statistics of who would believe it against who doesnt) it billions to one, but you refuse to believe a mathematical probability that you could see 22 reds in a row.

Forget flight 370.....are all plane crashes hoaxes? Did any of the dead passengers previously take 18 million flights?

[falkor]

Falkor, Im confused

You choose to believe a ridiculous hoax theory which in its self (based on statistics of who would believe it against who doesnt) it billions to one, but you refuse to believe a mathematical probability that you could see 22 reds in a row.

Forget flight 370.....are all plane crashes hoaxes? Did any of the dead passengers previously take 14 million flights?

Which part of my theory is ridiculous? It's derived from experiments in the form of test results. You say I could see 22 reds in a row, but when I run a test on the number of reds in a row I always see that figure gradually increment based on the length of the run - the 22 is always near the end of the 4 million run (never at the beginning or in the middle).

Most plane crashes are probably real unless the media need to distract us with several Malaysian jets, including 1 that mysteriously disappears! However, unless you look at the evidence yourself on a case-by-case basis you cannot be sure, otherwise you are simply relaying official stories (mostly propaganda).

[Turner]

I'm pulling out of this conversation. "Never the twain"and all that.
Just be careful. There is no conspiracy in random numbers.
That's my last piece of advice.

[falkor]

No worries. All truth seekers, including Galileo, were ridiculed at first before people began to accept their conspiracies.

link:://:.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

I can not only provide evidence but can *prove* several conspiracies myself:
1) Christianity was created by Titus Flavius, Josephus, Tiberius Julius Alexander, Bernice (those guys did the 3 synoptic Gospels), Domitian, Suetonius (those two did John, Revelation and the rest of the New Testament books), Trajan and Pliny (final NT contributions).
2) The Old Testament patriarchs were Hyksos kings of northern Egypt.
3) Hitler was a puppet to the Vatican.

This is no laughing matter! World governments are run by psychopaths who continually brainwash their subjects, so that things like Gambler's Fallacy filters down to the masses through scholars, mathematicians and other authority figures. A lot of people visit this forum and say their roulette systems win a lot of money over several short term sessions even though they fail over 100,000+ spins on graphs. John Legend and many other members here claim that short sessions win them money. I don't think they are all lying, so that's why I tested it.

And finally don't forget: money is created out of thin air - banks do not need to labour for it in the first place!

[RouletteGhost]

The proper way to test is 100 to 300 spins. Because if you have a streak of 10 one time in 5000 spins that wont mean much.

That means youd have to be at that wheel at that very particular time to catch that streak

Test with a few hundred spins

[falkor]

I agree - maybe 800 to be on the safe side in case you decide to stay for most of the day! But then you know a system is even more stronger/fool proof if it survives 100K, 1 mill or more spins. It's already known that many systems will work in the short run - but the real fallacy is that something like 22 reds could strike you at the beginning of a new session!

[falkor]

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are both stranger than fiction - indeed reality is not what you think it is - but you never hear people ridiculing the slit experiment or link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

[Proofreaders2000]

At least you came out ahead at the casino tonight Falkor.  Kudos. 

[Bigbroben]

Did not read it yet but I see it exists...

[psimoes]

Which part of my theory is ridiculous? It's derived from experiments in the form of test results. You say I could see 22 reds in a row, but when I run a test on the number of reds in a row I always see that figure gradually increment based on the length of the run - the 22 is always near the end of the 4 million run (never at the beginning or in the middle).

This is interesting. Provided is true.
Like the process of generating random numbers is just that, a process. Which evolves. Unlike an abstract idea of a stream without beginning or end. This being true would sort of defeat the independence of outcomes.
Has anyone had similar findings in their simulations?