Basics - that no one wants to hear

[Foolwise]

>>>>>>I have never told people how to play. I have told everyone to go read what Winkel has had to say.
I have nothing against you Azim and people like Steve who exactly tell what to do. I get frustrated with a few characters in the forum who does nothing but post either what people are trying to explain are wrong or just post things that one should not do in roulette. Those characters never care to say what has to be done. This is not a go at you Turbo. You have published lots of methods in the past, you had a website with lot of methods, you owned a forum. When you have guided so many people by openly publishing things, why hold information now. It is your personal preference and I respect that, but my point still remains valid that there are people who always say not to do that, not to do this. Very easy. Why not those people tell what to do?

>>>>>How ever, what most people are looking for is an easy get rich method. That method does not exist.
No doubts.

[The General]

Sorry Foowise,

But the facts can be a tough pill to swallow.

[MrJ]

@General sir...your pic is gonna make me have an accident.

Ken

[Foolwise]

>>>>>>>>>>>>As I said - past spins mean nothing to the next spin.
You have understood me completely wrong. I do not have anything against the above.

>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
I also do not have anything against this.

>>>>>>>>>>>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.
Completely agree with you.

>>>>>>>>>>>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.
This is the part I disagree. If you start from spin 1 and chose a bet selection that says I will play against next 4 spins being 21 spins, my probability of seeing that 4 21s in a row increases with every 21 that is turning up on the board. What started as a future spin when i started in the first spin, has become past spin when I have come to spin number 3. So I did not have to wait until this has happened, I started with that bet selection. All what I have written above are facts. This is how things are. Or am I saying and thinking something that is completely wrong.

>>>>>>>>>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.
When one says the accuracy prediction is 80% it can mean 1 selection going wrong in 5 spins, 2 going wrong in 10 spins or 20 going wrong in 80 spins. 20 going wrong in 80 spins can mean that the 20 losses can happen anywhere. All 20 can happen at the start of the sequence as well. If all 20 happens at the start is it 0% accuracy, yes for the first 20 spins, but the definition depends on what one meant 80% accuracy. I was trying to drive a point that there is a tipping point. Beyond the tipping point, if one uses a progression, why should i call i progression. It is similar to card counting and making a bigger stake when the count is favourable.

[The General]

Foolwise,

Do you understand how the quote function works?  If you can use it in the future then it will help your posts.

[MrJ]

My God, thats the way I use to do it.

Ken

[Foolwise]

Foolwise,
Do you understand how the quote function works?  If you can use it in the future then it will help your posts.

It is easier to use the quote function for this reply. Not so easier for the earlier one with multiple references.

[Foolwise]

>>>>>>>>But the facts can be a tough pill to swallow.
That is my argument as well.

[KTFPissa]

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).

Looking forward to this. I am a very big fan of yours and lost interest in forums when you left us in limbo after starting math beat math thread. I think you were busy counting your winnings with math beat math game that you forgot us poor souls. I am glad you are back and now you are igniting my interests in the game with your posts. Keep it coming genius. We are all ears.

[Steve]

The end conclusion is not complicated. Its simple.

You need to increase accuracy of predictions. You need better than random accuracy bet selection. You need to improve your odds of winning.

It is done by correlating real and tangible variables and the spin outcomes. Also known as using common sense, to understand why the ball may land in one area instead of another.

[KTFPissa]

to understand why the ball may land in one area instead of another.

I think genius is talking about math beat math game and not why ball will land in one area. I think Steve you both are talking two different paths to get to the same goal of increasing accuracy. I am more interested in the math part.

[Steve]

And there are numerous ways to increase accuracy of predictions. Visual ballistics, roulette computers and bias are the most obvious. All the roulette AP methods are based on these same basic principles. What makes one better than another is more accurate modelling, which leads to faster adaption to changing conditions, and ultimately more accurate predictions.

But the problem, for most players, is that they dont even understand basic fundamental facts about roulette. Like what the house edge is, and how 10 reds in a row or changing bet size doesnt change odds. If you dont understand it yet, you need to start with the basics.

KTFP, there is no difference between maths and physics. They are the same thing. Its like saying "harmonic sound and music are different".

when people say you can beat roulette with math, they usually mean with statistics. if statistical calculations are done right, then you eventually come to the same conclusions i stated above.

[Steve]

There is no physics without math and vice versa. Physics is more the understanding, and math is more the proof. Without physics, you just have meaningless sums. You cannot separate the two though.

[KTFPissa]

I stand corrected. My reference was to either identifying bias/VB and seeing roulette as a physical entity, as opposed to seeing the outcomes as a stream of numbers. Your comments were directed towards the former and I was looking from the genius on the latter. 

KTFP, there is no difference between maths and physics. They are the same thing.

Anyone who would like to comment on this. That is quite a big thing to say.

[Bliss]

Nice to see TG still active on the forums. One thing bothers me though (actually, more than one, but for now, let's call it one): how can "math beat a math game" when the math of the game says the game can't be beat?

Math is math. And a theorem, once proved, can't be unproved. Turbo said so himself, so it must be true 

Unless we're talking about "hidden math". Where's Wendell when you need him?