Basics - that no one wants to hear

[NextYear]

Thanks Wiggy, didn't connect that you watch numbers on scoreboard.

Thought that you got enlightened and understand secret code of the wheel.

Well, too bad...

[wiggy]

Thought that you got enlightened and understand secret code of the wheel.

Well, too bad...

Yeah, it's a real shame. 

[Foolwise]

I am all ears for your advice Turbo. Your advice is

1. Not to wait for triggers
2. Not to do virtual bets
3. Not having specific triggers for win or stop loss in interest of long term.

Again, you see my problem is I know what not to do. But I dont know what to do. Any help will be taken very seriously.

[Foolwise]

The problem is that an event seems to be rare when it isn't. It's only how you see it.
If the spins come out #21, #21, #21, #21 - you could post the math showing this is a rare event.
BUT - it's exactly the same odds as seeing #21, #0, #13, #2 - which in your mind looks random and
not a rare event at all. So if you wait for #21, #21, #21 - the odds of the next spin being #21 is exactly the same as the next spin being #2 (from both examples). I hope this helps.
I understand that it takes a while to get to this point lol.
The hard thing to take in is that there is no such thing as a rare event in a game where each spin is independent from the last.

As i have been reading this post, I am getting questions in my mind and I hope you do not mind me asking them.

21, 21, 21, 21 - This is a number repeating 4 times.    a=b=c=d. Not many would have even seen this in their playing time.
21, 0, 13, 2 - This is first spin different from second, second different from third and third different from fourth. This event you see every day.  a<>B<>c<>d. How is then the first event not rare?

Why do you say there are no rare events when the above mentioned itself is a rare event in itself.

[Steve]

See :.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ which is my attempt to make it simple.

[Foolwise]

I would suggest (if you're interested in following through with this) that you pick
numbers to play when you sit down (not based on what the last spin was) and then
use a positive progression (extremely limited of course) on any winning number that you
have being played in future spins. Also you'll have to remove numbers from your list
of played numbers if they fail to show at least once during a specific amount of time.
(Ken might like this type of bet selection as it changes due to what's happening 'now' and
doesn't break my rules on using past spins for reference)
In the other forum I showed how 13 people out of 38 (American wheel) all flat bet and won
over 1,000 spins (many more spins are possible of course) by just flat betting.
How many numbers should you start with to ensure that at least one of your played numbers
will be one of those 13 that show above standard deviation hence you win ?

Ok, far too many hints in the post lol.
Enjoy your tests if you pursue this.

This is really making me think. I am not able to get past this post. I know you mentioned there are far too many hints in the post. Do you think you will be able to explain this reply further. I have a starting point, but not sure where to go. I will be more than happy if you explain explicitly rather than throwing up another enigma.

[TurboGenius]

A wise man once said (whoah, it was today even.. grins)
"the experienced players say the key points all the time and usually its ignored."

When people say - "if you know so much, why don't you post it" - all you have to do is look
at this (somewhat) popular thread.

I laid out just 3 of the very basic 'truths' - things to avoid when building a method.
Some agreed, some disagree - it doesn't matter much - the truth is the truth.
After the 4th, 5th page of the thread it wanders off into something else.
The people that agreed with what I said understand it - the others who don't agree
are still on their journey that some of us have already taken and you can't tell them that
they are wrong.
So there isn't much else to say - aside from posting the facts, and trying to aim people in
the right direction(s) of course. But trying to help people who don't agree is mostly a waste
of time. They have to learn on their own.
So I stepped back from the thread and let it drop down the list.
(and ironically as I'm typing this I see that there are new posts in it so I'll answer them once I post this).
My point being - even pointing people in the right direction won't help everyone, just the few.
The hot topics will always be how red/low hit so now bet 0,10-12 street and put a bet on high also.
Or wait for a trigger and then jump in because this is some signal of what is about to happen in a game based on "random". It is frustrating. It doesn't mean that those types of posts aren't worth anything, but people spending their time working on things like that just prolongs the time until they figure out how to win.
And it was mentioned that if anyone believed my 3 (then 4) basics as being true, then all there is left is "luck" and why bother. There's more left than luck. Luck doesn't exist. Math does though. Making random become predictable isn't 100% impossible either.

[Foolwise]

>>>>>>>See :.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ which is my attempt to make it simple.
many thanks Steve. As you chose to post this here, I hope you dont mind a few discussions on this.

FACT: Previous spins do not affect future spins
Do you think it will be better reworded previous spins do no affect the next spin. Otherwise in some form or the other previous spins do have an impact on the future spins. I agree that previous spins do not change the odds of the next spin. However, if you are having 20 unique spins, then in the next 20 spins you will definitely see repeaters. Also, if you have seen 21 spinning 4 times, it is highly unlikely that you will see 21 spinning another 4 times. Lets not talk hypothetically. The spins have to adher to the statistical principles and for doing that you cannot separate previous spins from future spins.

FACT: You cannot use a “long term balance” - Good point. Agree.

FICTION: Changing Bet Size Helps You Win
Mindlessly changing bet size might not help. But let me take your roulette computer. You have an accuracy prediction of 80%. You are making 10 spins and none of those 10 spins has resulted in a win. If I trust the accuracy prediction, does it not make sense to make larger bets on the next 30 spins, so that i can take advantage of this situation?

FICTION: Bankroll Management Helps You Win - Absolutely agree.

FICTION: An eventual win helps you profit- Very nicely said.

FICTION: You Only Need a Short-Term Winning Strategy - Very nice right.

FICTION: Roulette has streaks you can use for advantage. - Again in the context of only next spin, yes this is a fiction. But if one thinks beyond that, then there is a deep rooted meaning there. It looks like something that is not completely true.

FICTION: A strategy that “lasts” for 20,000 spins is better than most systems - Understand. Very typical of the graphs from my testing. Even over 1 million spins, the next million may or may not win.

FICTION: A Strategy That Mostly Wins Is All You Need - haha.

FICTION: Waiting for a trigger to bet increases your chances of winning. This is where I disagree completely. However, I dont have a proof to show. So unless, I am able to formally write a proof, I will stay silent.

After this is where as I mentioned, I appreciate and comment for your clear cut ways and thinking around what should be done. I specifically like the idea of Cross-reference roulette system. How and where can I find more on this.

[icashbot]

I am all ears for your advice Turbo. Your advice is

1. Not to wait for triggers
2. Not to do virtual bets
3. Not having specific triggers for win or stop loss

well said turbogenius i agree on these defo

follow these rules your on your way to a good method of play

[TurboGenius]

I think that my next thread will be about how no one is looking in the right direction when it comes to testing and "those pretty charts" that make a system great or make it a failure.
I have bad news - Laughs. There is more coming that people won't believe is true.
One step closer though for others who want the answer to winning (always winning).

[Turner]

One thing that changed my direction was after a few chats with Number Six and with Iggiv.

The subject was that of personal permanence

Its very hard to imagine, but when you imagine it correctly, it makes a difference to how you play.

With personal permanence, you can only consider numbers that show when you have wagered on the carpet. So, you cant use marque numbers, or numbers that occurred when you take a break or are not at a roulette wheel ("a" roulette wheel, not THE roulette wheel)

People tend to think that normal distribution is in groups of numbers serially touching each other....like on a marque. But random numbers dont touch each other. They are totally independent and any 37 numbers from 37 roulette wheels will follow normal distribution.

Thinking that a group of sequential numbers from 1 wheel is what displays ND, and that way only, leads to illusions.

Illusions like tracking back to get a set of numbers, virtual spins, using past spins from the marque.

Betting ideas apart, this way of looking at random numbers frees you from illusions.

IMO 

[vladir]

I think that my next thread will be about how no one is looking in the right direction when it comes to testing and "those pretty charts" that make a system great or make it a failure.
I have bad news - Laughs. There is more coming that people won't believe is true.
One step closer though for others who want the answer to winning (always winning).

Always winning? I can only imagine that as seing the future... how you do that?

[Foolwise]

I am assuming no one wants to answer those questions. Very much expected, as either people dont want to tell how to play or people dont have anything to say on how to play. It is always easy to tell one how not to play, the difficult part is telling how to play I guess.

And by the way Turner, you have contradicted yourselves in the essay you have written. It is a complex world out there. One side you are talking about personal permeance and how the distribution between the spins are connected on the spins you wager and on the other side you are saying random numbers do not touch each other. If they do not touch each other how does it matter whether you wager them or you do not wager them. They will remain random and will not touch each other. Personal permeance is an illusion, just like the illusion of people who think numbers on the marquee or numbers they observe.
IMO

[TurboGenius]

FACT: Previous spins do not affect future spins
Do you think it will be better reworded previous spins do no affect the next spin. Otherwise in some form or the other previous spins do have an impact on the future spins. I agree that previous spins do not change the odds of the next spin. However, if you are having 20 unique spins, then in the next 20 spins you will definitely see repeaters. Also, if you have seen 21 spinning 4 times, it is highly unlikely that you will see 21 spinning another 4 times. Lets not talk hypothetically. The spins have to adher to the statistical principles and for doing that you cannot separate previous spins from future spins.

I pretty much stopped reading after this
As I said - past spins mean nothing to the next spin.
21 showing up 4 times in a row means.... the next spun number has a 1/37 or 1/38 chance of being another 21. This is fact. Regardless of how many 21's you see - the next spin still has the exact same odds of being 21 or any other number.
8 times in a row ? That would be incredibly rare to see - but it doesn't mean that after 4 in a row, the next spin has anything other than the normal chance of it being another 21. Or 5 in a row, or 7 in a row.
The only way to know is to wait until it's happened and then look back at it (useless) to know how many times in a row it showed. This has no value because it's the past.
So right from the beginning I see a problem with how you 'see things' - compared to fact and how things are.

If I go on -
"You have an accuracy prediction of 80%. You are making 10 spins and none of those 10 spins has resulted in a win. If I trust the accuracy prediction, does it not make sense to make larger bets on the next 30 spins, so that i can take advantage of this situation?"
That makes no sense. If you lose 10 in a row then I would say whatever device or strategy that you're using isn't very reliable. 10 losses in 10 spins isn't 80%, it's 0% accuracy so there is nothing to take advantage of. Why increase the bet size ?
The "holy grail" uses flat bets - or a progression that increases as you win (since you are going to continue to win) and therefore you can incrementally increase your bankroll.
Adding more to what you bet when you lose is terrible - you're losing for a reason... why keep adding to the bet as if something that doesn't work will somehow stop losing and end up working ?
Flat bet is the key - and a progression (positive) that lets you bet more and more as you win so there is a minimum bankroll to start with, and unlimited as you play on and win.

But anyway.

"Again, you see my problem is I know what not to do. But I dont know what to do."

All you have to do is know where you're going. The answers will come to you of their own accord. Earl Nightingale

[Azim]

I am assuming no one wants to answer those questions. Very much expected, as either people dont want to tell how to play or people dont have anything to say on how to play. It is always easy to tell one how not to play, the difficult part is telling how to play I guess.

And by the way Turner, you have contradicted yourselves in the essay you have written. It is a complex world out there. One side you are talking about personal permeance and how the distribution between the spins are connected on the spins you wager and on the other side you are saying random numbers do not touch each other. If they do not touch each other how does it matter whether you wager them or you do not wager them. They will remain random and will not touch each other. Personal permeance is an illusion, just like the illusion of people who think numbers on the marquee or numbers they observe.
IMO

I have never told people how to play. I have told everyone to go read what Winkel has had to say.
Some will dis-agree to what he had to say.

How ever, what most people are looking for is an easy get rich method. That method does not exist.