Random Thoughts

[thelaw]

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.

It doesn't matter..........Steve has fully embraced the abrasive quality of the General.........and is happy to let him run wild.

The General will continue to take jabs at other members..........and Steve will allow it.

If you go back and read his previous posts.......the General is given a wide birth here...........not sure why, but I guess Steve has his reasons.

[rrbb]

...
What I can do is give you and everyone else the basic Van de Waerden Theorem in excel format so that you can test it yourself to see how it works, every time.

This is how we play, spin by spin we look for an AP to be formed.  This is a Non Random way to play roulette.

...


Nick

Dear Nick,

Really nice demonstration of VdW principle. I would say, a must see for everyone interested 

When I played with it I just wondered: "what other bet selections would encompass a certain win within 9 spins while just playing either red or black?"

grts rrbb

[rrbb]

Dear Nick,

Really nice demonstration of VdW principle. I would say, a must see for everyone interested 

When I played with it I just wondered: "what other bet selections would encompass a certain win within 9 spins while just playing either red or black?"

grts rrbb

Of course to be complete: "what other bet selections would encompass a certain win within 9 spins while just playing either red or black for on average ±2.3 times per cycle"

sorry, still sleepy: I followed Priyanka's advice and drank for world peace

[winkel]

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.

This tells how incorrect your arguments are:

Only looking to the next spin, you might be right. But looking to development of the maths of probability you need to have more than one spin.

Pls tell me then: If the next spin always could be wrong, how long will this situation 19vs18 last unchanged? Forever?

[denzie]

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

Did you try it ?
I did for over 3000 sessions.
Never try , never know!

[denzie]

Pls tell me then: If the next spin always could be wrong, how long will this situation 19vs18 last unchanged? Forever?

As I wasn't a fan in the start...I can only say one thing now. THANK YOU WINKEL. 

[Steve]

The General will continue to take jabs at other members..........and Steve will allow it.

No. Really its simple. He is giving accurate advice, and for that some think he's just being "negative". It is anyones best interest to listen to reason. For the vast majority of what he has said, he has been factual and direct for everyones benefit, but not rude or abrasive. He is preaching what? Basic fact, not opinion, that the whole professional gaming community knows. The same facts casinos use to make billions. The same elemental facts you will find on wikipedia or any credible site.

Everything we both say is ignored by most people. There is no conspiracy between me and Caleb. Its just that we understand grade 3 math. Really thats what it is. And when we see people preaching utter nonsense, we try to help, but are seen as negative nancies with a hidden agenda.

So Ive added most contributors to this thread to the systems only group. Im also moving this thread to the system only area where I wont post, and Caleb cant post there. Anyone who doesnt want help, or to be told why something wont work, can post there in peace. If anyone wants the ability to post, let me know. If anyone in that area tells you why your idea wont work, let me know and Ill remove them from the group.

[rrbb]

No. Really its simple. He is giving accurate advice, and for that some think he's just being "negative". It is anyones best interest to listen to reason. For the vast majority of what he has said, he has been factual and direct for everyones benefit, but not rude or abrasive. He is preaching what? Basic fact, not opinion, that the whole professional gaming community knows. The same facts casinos use to make billions. The same elemental facts you will find on wikipedia or any credible site.

Everything we both say is ignored by most people. There is no conspiracy between me and Caleb. Its just that we understand grade 3 math. Really thats what it is. And when we see people preaching utter nonsense, we try to help, but are seen as negative nancies with a hidden agenda.

So Ive added most contributors to this thread to the systems only group. Im also moving this thread to the system only area where I wont post, and Caleb cant post there. Anyone who doesnt want help, or to be told why something wont work, can post there in peace. If anyone in that area tells you why your idea wont work, let me know and Ill remove them from the group.

Hi Steve,

Here are my 2 cents.

I'm a little bit in doubt about your proposal (sorry couldn't find the right word, english is not my first language). On the other hand I do think it is good to have all viewpoints put on the table. And yes, both you, General and (most everyone) had very good things to add: it is really clear that there is a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience from which everyone could benefit: it would be a shame if critical voices are not allowed anymore. On the other hand, the discussion as it went last day made me a little bit sad: the critical voices were not there to challenge, but to dictate. As far as I know roulette is not a religion but a game.

Everyone is allowed to his or her own opinion, everyone is allowed to err in his or her ways (and you know, maybe, while erring, stumble upon a golden nugget): couldn't we just be a little bit more civilized about it?

As a side note: you are being uncivilized again in this post. I would advise you to read up on the latest MIT research that was based on Max Plancks statement: "science progresses one funeral at a time":  link:://blog.alphaarchitect.com/2016/01/13/does-science-advance-one-funeral-at-a-time/#gs.UOhppYg . Supposedly that is the downside to being "knowledgable" (I do have to admit that I fall into that trap also quite a lot so it is not meant as personal criticism, it is just how things work)

grts rrbb

[winkel]

No. Really its simple. He is giving accurate advice, and for that some think he's just being "negative".  If anyone in that area tells you why your idea wont work, let me know and Ill remove them from the group.

You really think your customers are dump stupid people. Belive me all the creators of strategies know they will fight the house edge.
But they do it as a hobby to prove something that might be unprovable.

And his accurate advice is ... what? There´s a House Edge? Wow, nobody ever heard of that.
He never ever did prove something not working, he just went in and said: It won´t work, I don´t read it.  Thats just being nasty and hidden aggressive.

Imagine all your customers would say: Oh, yes caleb is right, there is no need to search or even spill a second on this.

You could burry this Forum immidiately.

[Steve]

rrbb, you are missing the point. The solutions to mathematical equations wont change in the next billion years. Its not a matter of opinion. Its not people like me and caleb in the way of progress.

Winkel, yes I understand for many people it is a hobby, and they dont care about reality. And many times he's provided proof of claims. It is just usually not understood.

You dont understand what Im saying. Im all for trying NEW ways to beat roulette. Im all for progress. Thats why when I see a repackaged martingale or system using the same nonsense, Ill usually say something. Why? To help. Not because Im a pest. Not because I believe in AP. But because I understand fundamental facts. Believe me it would be easier to just ignore rubbish. I have a weakness for helping people avoid obvious mistakes.

Am I biased towards AP? No. Traditional AP is just one way of increasing odds. Im sure one day better methods will be found, and they will replace traditional AP. I really dont give a crap if people dont like the idea of vb, computers etc. I do give a crap when people go in circles with no idea, and think facts are just negative talk. What actually happens is people are not understanding the facts.

Anyway, I need to leave this alone now. Ive said all I can.

[Priyanka]

The solutions to mathematical equations wont change in the next billion years

Steve - I will never say no when we are having a mathematical equation and a solution.  Rrbb simply asked about a mathematical equation and no one was able to provide one.  I am a mathematician. Rrbb is a mathematician. We can talk Mathematic language.  But where is the equation you are talking about which proves the theory or truth you are explaining.  Then we can try disprove that equation and why it doesn't work and take it forward.  When caleb posted it fails because of the law of large numbers I showed him why law of large numbers is not the correct application or correct proof.  I think if we all have that mathematic equation that proves this fact we will be ending the discussion. But where is it?

[Priyanka]

cant get past the fact that you need to change odds to win

Steve - just a question for you.  Improving the odds. Increasing the accuracy of prediction.  Are they two different things? Can they be considered as two different things?

[thelaw]

Steve - I will never say no when we are having a mathematical equation and a solution.  Rrbb simply asked about a mathematical equation and no one was able to provide one.  I am a mathematician. Rrbb is a mathematician. We can talk Mathematic language.  But where is the equation you are talking about which proves the theory or truth you are explaining.  Then we can try disprove that equation and why it doesn't work and take it forward.  When caleb posted it fails because of the law of large numbers I showed him why law of large numbers is not the correct application or correct proof.  I think if we all have that mathematic equation that proves this fact we will be ending the discussion. But where is it?

Hey Priyanka,

To your point.......I find it odd that we are now 45 pages into a thread about a game revolving around mathematics, and yet we don't have an actual metric to measure success.

Over and over again, members are using the phrase "beat the game".......but provide no metrics by which to quantify results. This is like saying your searching for a "healthy" diet..........without precise goals.........it means nothing.

So how many spins must a system survive  to "beat" the game?

Thanks! 

[falkor2k15]

I am currently compiling a document to share in a new topic "Random Thoughts - A concise reference", and I seem to have made a few breakthroughs a long the way! 

Priyanka would you like to proof-read it first? 

[falkor2k15]

See here for my new topic: RANDOM THOUGHTS BY PRIYANKA â€" A CONCISE REFERENCE (VERSION 1)
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16975