"VdW"

[The General]

 Tomla,

Van Der Waerden Theorem.  It has no application to roulette.  The Excel sheet that shows the different AP patterns is jibberish. 

Here's a link to help you out.  Wizardofodds.com  Here you'll find some basic information on the game.  Once you learn more about it, you can build better methods.   

Best of luck.

[Tomla021]

the point being we all know the wizard of odds stats...........if you want to go look please do --it will keep you out of your boredom and give you something to do.......

[The General]

There's a reason that other gambling game forums make fun of the roulette forums.  Let's work to change that by providing links to factual information, basic probability, and the history of the game.  This will help members build better systems/methods, and will help them avoid absurd scams.  Keeping people stupid serves nobody.  The "safe zone" just keeps the prey in a box for the predators.

[Tomla021]

Super idea General start a Thread on that.....Might be smarter than posting in a topic about Vdm.....Not saying your stupid or anything.....but your topic definatly deserves it's own thread!!!!

[The General]

Tomla,

I'm sorry if you think I'm condescending to you, but when something like the vdw or the Enigmista/Numerista comes along, I just shake my head in disbelief.  The moderators here, like Turner, have done you guys a terrible disservice in order to remain politically correct and liked. 

Turner,

Now that Bayes is here, I feel that you should step down as a moderator.  You're serving nobody by keeping people naive.  Bayes will help propagate factual information, basic probability, and will help suppress the scammers.

[RouletteGhost]

Tomla,

I'm sorry if you think I'm condescending to you, but when something like the vdw or the Enigmista/Numerista comes along, I just shake my head in disbelief.  The moderators here, like Turner, have done you guys a terrible disservice in order to remain politically correct and liked. 

Turner,

Now that Bayes is here, I feel that you should step down as a moderator.  You're serving nobody by keeping people naive.  Bayes will help propagate factual information, basic probability, and will help suppress the scammers.

How dare you

Turner is great

[Tomla021]

General we know the true odds of the game you lose at the prescribed rate,,,,,,, ok are we done with that yet!!!!!!!! one line and we understand what you have been talking about----please go start your own  thread and you can talk and talk about bias etc  over here Im curious about others opinions.

you must have been one pain in the ass as a kid

[RouletteGhost]

as a kid

U mean now?

[Tomla021]

link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=54.0
New here and not sure where to start? Introduce yourself and ask newbie questions.


Heres a section for the General---if you look thru you will find help on how to start your own thread

[Turner]

Turner,

Now that Bayes is here, I feel that you should step down as a moderator. 

Ok, I'll do that straight away....NOT !   lol

I have a new smite I see...lmao

[RouletteGhost]

It just gets to a certain point

[Steve]

The forum desperately needs an area where people can learn some basic facts and probability about the game.

There's already a professional systems and advice section.

Everyone please refrain from anything that is not vb

You still arent getting it. Nobody is telling you that you must use vb. But there are people telling whoever is listening, that you can only overcome the unfair payouts by increasing your odds of winning. And again, nobody cares if you just want to play roulette recreationally.

[RouletteGhost]

ok

so why CAN'T VDW be used for roulette?

[vladir]

ok

so why CAN'T VDW be used for roulette?

Of course it can be used... But the only thing it does if you follow it is that you will be playing less spins. The probability of wining in any of the spins you actually play according to the theorem will still be 50%(if playing withouth zero). I have looked at this in many ways, I'm still to understand where is the edge here...

[Drazen]

I have looked at this in many ways, I'm still to understand where is the edge here...

Tomla - there will not be any predictive advantage. The advantage there is knowing that in random everything is defined not in "equal to" but "at least".  Vdw says there will be at least one AP, which just means there will definitely be one and there could be more.  There is no direct applicability that am aware of. Falkor and money claim that there is one. I urge you to use your own predicament.