Random Thoughts

[psimoes]

Nickmsi, I have to thank you for the sanest advice I have ever read here, at my Even Odds thread: whatever "pattern" you see forming, bet that it continues, not that it will end. I could start a HG thread with hints on how Inertia rules the Universe and is ever present in physical objects and non-physical objects as well. Problem is, it was never a HG to begin with, no matter how much thought you´d put into it.

[The General]

Nicksmi,

Progressions can't turn a negative expectation game into a positive one.

The real problem that most of you have when it comes to beating the wheel is that most of you don't trust mathematicians, and recorded history.  Which in to be frank is kind of weird. 

At what point did most of you stop trusting mathematicians?

@Winkel,

Can you reword it?  I'm not really sure what the point is that you're trying to make.

Best of luck,

The General

[Steve]

The theory doesn't at all increase accuracy of predictions. The odds don't change. Excluding 0, the odds are still 50/50.

Can anyone show an example how it does change the odds? we all want the same thing here.  But I'm not seeing any evidence. Merely saying theres more to it doesn't help, because the initial theory isn't valid to begin.

It's like the law of a third. It doesn't change anything.

[Tacwell]

@Winkel,

Can you reword it?  I'm not really sure what the point is that you're trying to make.

Just a simple question to the General:

If we start watching a wheel and we make an 0 for every unhit number (37 0s) and we cross that 0 when a number has hit 0:
Will there be a situation where we have 19 unhits ( means 0s) and 18 hits (means 0)?


Could we say that the count from 37 to 19 could go on and end at 0?

Could we say that the count of hits will go from 0 to 37?
If we only watch the situation 19 0 vs 180, could we say IT MUST CROSS TO 18 0 vs 19 0?
Is this forced by nature of the game to happen or is it a such rare event, that we couldn´t bet on this to happen?
Is that a math-fact or is it a lie or a trick?

If we have this proven, could we transfer our knowledge to other situations than 0 vs 0?

I think his point is obvious, except 19/36 > 18/37 so no edge, I could be wrong.

[The General]

I'm not sure what it is that he's trying to say.  I will simply state that past spins don't have any influence on future spins.

[Nickmsi]

Turner, Tacwell, Psimoes, Falkor, Steve et al.

Yes, you are correct.

The VDW by itself does not change the odds, does not give an edge.

Again, the point of this thread and the VDW is to get you to think about playing roulette with a Non Random system.

Do you all see that you can play roulette by using APs?

If you see that, then you are playing a Non Random system.

As I said before, the VDW does not give you an edge.

There is more, but first you need to understand how to play roulette this new way.

The VDW is a way to play roulette in a Non Random manner.

How do we make this Non Random method give us an edge? Well, you need to read the thread and add another Non Random theorem or Statistic.  It is as simple as that.

Cheers
Nick

[Tacwell]

I'm not sure what it is that he's trying to say.  I will simply state that past spins don't have any influence on future spins.

He's saying that after waiting until 18 out of 37 numbers have hit, and 19 remain unhit, at some point that must change to 19 hit, and 18 unhit, that's what he's betting on. Odds of hitting any of those 19 are 19/37, payout 19/36.

[The General]

As a professional player, I will tell this...If you really want to win, with the least amount of effort and as efficiently as possible, then you need to learn how to think about the wheel/gaming device like an engineer.  Until you can free your mind and completely forget about the layout and the game, you have no chance of becoming a long term winner.

[The General]

He's saying that after waiting until 18 out of 37 numbers have hit, and 19 remain unhit, at some point that must change to 19 hit, and 18 unhit, that's what he's betting on. Odds of hitting any of those 19 are 19/37, payout 19/36.

The odds of any number hitting remains unchanged, regardless of what has hit in the past.  It appears as though he doesn't fully understand basic probability.

[Steve]

nick you are saying its a non random theorem, but it is random, like the law of a third. again i want to believe you but am not seeing any logic that alludes to anything that can work. and i cant get past the fact that you need to change odds to win. i see no way around it. really its basic math. i cant see how 1+1=3.

[Tacwell]

As a professional player, I will tell this...If you really want to win, with the least amount of effort and as efficiently as possible, then you need to learn how to think about the wheel/gaming device like an engineer.  Until you can free your mind and completely forget about the layout and the game, you have no chance of becoming a long term winner.

Uh no, you need to be able to think with a logical mindset. No other BS. Logically with a fair wheel, you won't win long term, if there is some wheel bias, it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to exploit it. When computers can measure every variable regarding a spin, incl. the amount of sweat/chicken fat transferred onto the ball from your croupiers hand, rotor gear friction, lubrication viscosity, air pressure, plus a million other variables, only then will we be able to get seriously accurate predictions of which pocket will capture the ball, on non bias wheels, and then spins will no longer be random.

[Steve]

Also your bet selection wouldn't be random, but your accuracy in predicting winning color is still no better than random because u have random in the equation.

Like if you have 0 anywhere in any equation like 4×5×64×7×0×53×5 you still end up with 0.

[RMore]

Really, Mr General, you're not helping. We get that you believe the only way is the AP way. You tell us this all the time. We get it - really we do. You can get down off your soapbox now and go away confident in the knowledge that we have heard you and that we get it.

Now, can we PLEASE get back on topic. I WAS having fun trying to figure all this out - the subject here that is. I was enjoying meaningful dialogue, the to and fro of intelligent and meaningful discussion with like-minded and intelligent people. But for the last several days and countless pages all I have seen is the negative put-downing going on of those who are not interested. Well, if you are not interested then DON'T PARTICIPATE.

You won't convert us to your way of thinking - at least, not in this thread. We may go and follow you up in others if we want, but you can stop preaching in here now. It is getting tiresome.

A question - can the OP moderate their own thread? Can he/she delete unwanted posts? If not then I believe they should be able to. This thread is being bombed out of existence by the diehard haters of anything systematic or that is different to their own view.

[The General]

Unfortunately the facts will seem negative to some people.

Regardless, best of luck.   

[RMore]

Thank you sir! This is just one of many avenues that people investigate. We should be permitted to do so. Appreciate your advice. We choose to continue investigating this approach, along with others in their respective threads. All the best to you too.