Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers

[Firefox]

I belive she also altered server logs on multi player roulette, or at least changed data in the link: communication between her client and the server. You'll have to ask Steve exactly what was done, but she did freely admit she was capable of doing so, and did so.

At the same time her personal account was winning massively. Her justification for altering logs or tampering with communication was apparently nothing to do with her account winning(!) but in actual fact an academic exercise to test on behalf of "a friend"  whether the system could snoop on details of a player's method.

The whole explanation has so many holes and inconsistencies, she'd be convicted on the spot in any court, beyond reasonable doubt. For example, why would Steve want to know details of maths based staking systems when he is continually denouncing such methods and promoting alternatives?

Anyone who would indulge in such activity such as tampering with the communication with a game server has to be viewed with suspicion. Examination of her posts reveal other such inconsistency which point to a less than honest motive.

This is not to say she had considerable mathematical talent and a good way with words too, but I'm very wary of anything she's said given some of the evidence presented.

[MoneyT101]

You seem hung up on proof so you may want to spend some time here > link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16972.0

Very good topic for everyone to read.

You can say what you want about Pri but she attempted to have a discussion that might have been able to show you things beyond the table.

[MoneyT101]

One can quite easily unpick Priyanka when she said that the method gained "increased accuracy in prediction due to statistical anomoly".  She then quoted an example where 75% of closure of a line cycle came from results in the previous 3 lines. This may very well be true but it is useless. The same way as knowing 67% of closure to an EC cycle will come from the first EC in the cycle is useless.

So, certain stuff quoted may be fact, but crucially it does not lead to an exploitable increase in prediction ability.

It is simply fallacy content presented in a slightly different manner.

Again because you can’t find the correct application to this information.  It doesn’t mean it can’t be done or that it don’t exist.

[Firefox]

Smoke and mirrors, I'm afraid. She couldn't find an application either, and she alluded to this too, though in somewhat oblique fashion as was her wont. The only good thing appears to be she wasn't directly scamming anyone, the only benefit for her being the intellectual nature of the discussion, and her position within it.

There's nothing wrong with having a discussion about new ideas. However, one should be totally honest about one's own motives and findings. If one isn't then, don't have the discussion, or at least be prepared for the roof to fall in at some point, because you will be exposed.

[MoneyT101]

I’ve been trying to think of how I can show proof.  But the only way is to show what I would bet.

If I did that you can reverse engineer it

So it’s really a tough spot 🤷‍â™,️

Then we have ppl like falkor if anything revealed he would post it all over the place and talk about it in the open.

Thought of selling it in a form of a spreadsheet but again can be reverse engineered.

Even had ppl telling me to reveal to them and we can share their winning each time they play.

I’m not in a comfortable position where I can say I’ve made enough money from this to give it up! Honestly!

But i have no reason to lead anyone in a search for something that isn’t real.

So Firefox you can chill with your accusations and ramblings about not having anything solid.  Just no way for me to comfortably prove it without revealing it.

What do I get from that?  Proving to someone behind a computer

[MoneyT101]

So next best thing is to give hints and for those that really want it.  They can put things together and maybe even find something better

And mathematically I don’t even know how to explain why it works.  Which is why pri also mentioned she didn’t want to get into that

It makes almost no sense of why it works.

Things have to be moved around for you to see it.  But again that’s revealing what to do

[Person S]

While I was writing here I already showed up a bit of a new ...
Guys, I can develop your paranoia further.
Imagine Pri, RRBB is a secret casino service.
Which, trying to mislead the players, is trying to attract more customers.
Someday you will believe it. Mind game ...
Even now I believed it, but how about the graphics of authoritative users who have gone this way and saw what it all means. I also try to find him, but I do not forget that I just live.
Do not walk on the leash of gambling.
Regarding trust - for example, personal messages on the forum can be easily viewed by its owner, so the level of confidentiality is also an issue.

[falkor2k15]

I’ve been trying to think of how I can show proof.  But the only way is to show what I would bet.

If I did that you can reverse engineer it

So it’s really a tough spot 🤷‍â™,️

Then we have ppl like falkor if anything revealed he would post it all over the place and talk about it in the open.

Thought of selling it in a form of a spreadsheet but again can be reverse engineered.

Even had ppl telling me to reveal to them and we can share their winning each time they play.

I’m not in a comfortable position where I can say I’ve made enough money from this to give it up! Honestly!

But i have no reason to lead anyone in a search for something that isn’t real.

So Firefox you can chill with your accusations and ramblings about not having anything solid.  Just no way for me to comfortably prove it without revealing it.

What do I get from that?  Proving to someone behind a computer

Just answer this - does you system either:
1) "Predict" every spin in the short term
2) "Predict" *most* of the spins during the long term
3) Does not predict at all and uses a "process"

If it's (3) then can you explain how a "process" differs to prediction without revealing the HG?

[MoneyT101]

Just answer this - does you system either:
1) "Predict" every spin in the short term
2) "Predict" *most* of the spins during the long term
3) Does not predict at all and uses a "process"

If it's (3) then can you explain how a "process" differs to prediction without revealing the HG?

A process is just the way the method is done

FTL - follow the last can be seen as a process

Each spin your doing the same thing whether you win or lose but it’s just the template your following

Now within the process you have youre decisions whether you bet this or that or no bet

But based on youre process all youre decisions are already set in stone.

No thinking of what to do or play next.

Pri showed a process in her example around page 12 or 13 not sure   

Process is just going with the flow

[falkor2k15]

A process is just the way the method is done

FTL - follow the last can be seen as a process

Each spin your doing the same thing whether you win or lose but it’s just the template your following

Now within the process you have youre decisions whether you bet this or that or no bet

But based on youre process all youre decisions are already set in stone.

No thinking of what to do or play next.

Pri showed a process in her example around page 12 or 13 not sure   

Process is just going with the flow

Your decisions must be based on a trigger, right? So they are predictions based on a bias that you expect to manifest in the long term?

If you look at Priyanka's examples there's no way she's doing the same thing continuously. Her games usually stopped after losing a cycle and appeared to involve virtual wins/losses. There were elements of FTL, and she did once mention "glorified FTL". Again, the decisions must represent prediction, as you have to choose the right road. Her bets were structured around the cycle event despite looking quite alien at times, so trying to describe that as anything other than prediction might be a way of trying to throw us off if we are getting close to finding out a winning method?

Was your first system ECs + Numbers? Priyanka and Red seemed to describe the easiest system as betting ECs and then switching (or indeed stitching) to numbers. This came up again in terms of positions discussion. Red said not to abuse that system because it's easily spotted. And I think I might have just found a way to break out of the EC cycle to successfully parachute in the direction of individual numbers with a bias, and it's indeed prediction related so why not come completely clean? I won't hold you to ransom, Mel!    Only j/k, but it's certainly a positive change to be communicating with you in a down to earth manner for once.

[MoneyT101]

Your decisions must be based on a trigger, right? So they are predictions based on a bias that you expect to manifest in the long term?

If you look at Priyanka's examples there's no way she's doing the same thing continuously. Her games usually stopped after losing a cycle and appeared to involve virtual wins/losses. There were elements of FTL, and she did once mention "glorified FTL". Again, the decisions must represent prediction, as you have to choose the right road. Her bets were structured around the cycle event despite looking quite alien at times, so trying to describe that as anything other than prediction might be a way of trying to throw us off if we are getting close to finding out a winning method?

Was your first system ECs + Numbers? Priyanka and Red seemed to describe the easiest system as betting ECs and then switching (or indeed stitching) to numbers. This came up again in terms of positions discussion. Red said not to abuse that system because it's easily spotted. And I think I might have just found a way to break out of the EC cycle to successfully parachute in the direction of individual numbers with a bias, and it's indeed prediction related so why not come completely clean? I won't hold you to ransom, Mel!    Only j/k, but it's certainly a positive change to be communicating with you in a down to earth manner for once.

No triggers!  And I won’t answer that question

The method red mentioned was ec + lines not on numbers

[poobear]

But based on youre process all youre decisions are already set in stone.

No thinking of what to do or play next.

Red and Pri both claim they start betting straight away. This makes sense if the betting decisions are already set in stone. So betting can start at any time using our predetermined template?

[redhot]

And mathematically I don’t even know how to explain why it works.  Which is why pri also mentioned she didn’t want to get into that

It makes almost no sense of why it works.

Hi MoneyT,

This seems to be a contradiction to what you've said previously:

If I gave you the answer you would think it’s logical..... that’s how simple it is

How can the bet be logical if you have no idea why it works?

You also mentioned that the advantage is math based:

The advantage is math based and holds.  It’s hard to spot it because of how big and how stacked the odds are against you in this game.

Are you saying that it can be proven mathematically but you don't understand how?

[MoneyT101]

Hi MoneyT,

This seems to be a contradiction to what you've said previously:

How can the bet be logical if you have no idea why it works?

You also mentioned that the advantage is math based:

Are you saying that it can be proven mathematically but you don't understand how?

Yes sounds like a contradiction

Simple cause the solution you’ve done it before.  The steps have been done in the learning process.  So it’s nothing new to you!

It can be proven once you understand it. But you have to move around the stats and apply them differently to see it.  But you won’t get this part unless you already know what to do.

So maybe the way I said it sounds like a contradiction because of spoke of both before and after....

[Blueprint]

I see it a little different.

There is a certain point where there is not a formal, mathematical PROOF for it.  No one has that - and I mean no one.  If they did, it would be published.

The funny thing is there is also no formal proof that the game cannot be beaten as demonstrated by the thread I shared earlier. 

It's all rather surreal, isn't it?