Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers

[Firefox]

You must be a roulette millionaire by now, Blueprint.

Do you play the $1000 tables!

[The General]

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?

Yes there most certainly is proof.  Lol!


You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

[Blueprint]

RTFT

[Blueprint]

The only thing that's being validated here for both of you (the shitty, outdated browser Firefox and TG) are your own personal beliefs. 

Sad, really. 

I'll go with experience every time over your personal BELIEFS.

[The General]

The only thing that's being validated here for both of you (the shitty, outdated browser Firefox and TG) are your own personal beliefs. 

Sad, really. 

I'll go with experience every time over your personal BELIEFS.

Where's your proof that all of the experts, mathematicians, and history are wrong?

By the way, there's also proof that the earth is round.

[Firefox]

RTFT

There's no proof in the thread. Only claims.

I think this thread should be relegated to the system players only forum... or maybe the Fantasia forum ... Falkor could supply you a Luck Dragon if you ask him nicely 

[Blueprint]

I'm so happy you both have it all figured out!!   Enjoy your RESULTS. 

[Anastasius]

Which method  is better. Passion roulete or this method in here that i have no idea what it is

[Firefox]

....or this method in here that i have no idea what it is

It's quite simple. First take the DERIVED  sequence and form a parallel stream.

THINK about dependency. Form cycles in the real streams and THINK about the FACTS about the closure of those cycles. THINK how the cycles are DEFINED. THINK of innovative ways in which parallel but DEPENDENT universes might be DERIVED.

Do not WAIT and do not PREDICT. What DEPENDENCIES are there between real and imaginary streams?

How can you focus on more than 37 numbers by PARACHUTING onto virtual numbers and get a certain PROFIT because of DEPENDENCY on a parallel real stream? THINK and work it out for hours with a PENCIL AND PAPER and you will see the way.

You can view it as different UNIVERSES. Maybe not with numbers but with apples and pears. Do you want apples or pears? Maybe you want apples but you only get pears. Can you THINK of a way to catch more apples? What are the FACTS? What are the distances between the objects in the derived stream and the real stream? Are they friends, or are they strangers?

Once again do not PREDICT. Do not WAIT. Do not HEDGE. THINK of a way that DEPENDENCY must give you the fruit that you want.

Only by THINKING about the FACTS  will you EARN the answer.

If I said any more I'd be giving it away. So when you find it, be sure to GUARD it closely.

Good luck in your QUEST!

[MoneyT101]

It's quite simple. First take the DERIVED  sequence and form a parallel stream.

THINK about dependency. Form cycles in the real streams and THINK about the FACTS about the closure of those cycles. THINK how the cycles are DEFINED. THINK of innovative ways in which parallel but DEPENDENT universes might be DERIVED.

Do not WAIT and do not PREDICT. What DEPENDENCIES are there between real and imaginary streams?

How can you focus on more than 37 numbers by PARACHUTING onto virtual numbers and get a certain PROFIT because of DEPENDENCY on a parallel real stream? THINK and work it out for hours with a PENCIL AND PAPER and you will see the way.

You can view it as different UNIVERSES. Maybe not with numbers but with apples and pears. Do you want apples or pears? Maybe you want apples but you only get pears. Can you THINK of a way to catch more apples? What are the FACTS? What are the distances between the objects in the derived stream and the real stream? Are they friends, or are they strangers?

Once again do not PREDICT. Do not WAIT. Do not HEDGE. THINK of a way that DEPENDENCY must give you the fruit that you want.

Only by THINKING about the FACTS  will you EARN the answer.

If I said any more I'd be giving it away. So when you find it, be sure to GUARD it closely.

Good luck in your QUEST!

Nice wrap up, I couldn’t have done it any better 👏👏👏👏👏

Any questions or concerns regarding this topic feel free to ask Firefox.  He has just graduated to mentor status

[-Katalyst-]

Which method  is better. Passion roulete or this method in here that i have no idea what it is

Hi Anastasius - what chance have you got to understand this if the AP/VB pros don't seem to grasp it or are well and truly over it in their attempts to entertain the possible notion that there are other ways 

**learned scholars usually aren't the ones that have the break through because of their conditioned way of thinking - therein lies the problem!
""science progresses one funeral at a time"

What Money & Bluey are reigniting/resharing is more than adequate for members to go, investigate and find their own way - unfortunately peeps have to let go of the old way of thinking to even cross those boundaries of ‘assumptions’ or so called reality
- for majority on here - it ain’t going to happen!

No dramas - each to their own   

-Best-

[The General]

Hi Anastasius - what chance have you got to understand this if the AP/VB pros don't seem to grasp it or are well and truly over it in their attempts to entertain the possible notion that there are other ways 

**learned scholars usually aren't the ones that have the break through because of their conditioned way of thinking - therein lies the problem!
""science progresses one funeral at a time"

What Money & Bluey are reigniting/resharing is more than adequate for members to go, investigate and find their own way - unfortunately peeps have to let go of the old way of thinking to even cross those boundaries of ‘assumptions’ or so called reality
- for majority on here - it ain’t going to happen!

No dramas - each to their own   

-Best-

[redhot]

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....

Thanks MoneyT,

You mentioned moving around the stats and applying them differently, can you give an example of this?

The problem with the stats is that when you break them down and look at them, they're really just the expected values based on probability, no matter how appealing they may sound (defining dozen will be the repeat 60% etc...)

Expected = break even = no edge.

I'm struggling to see a way around this

[ati]

The problem with the stats is that when you break them down and look at them, they're really just the expected values based on probability, no matter how appealing they may sound (defining dozen will be the repeat 60% etc...)

I think the defining element being the same as the previous is a bit misunderstood. It is the same more than 50% because of cycle length 1's. Every time you remove CL1's, the statistic turn the opposite and the defining element will be more likely to be different from the previous. Even Priyanka asked someone long time ago to try and remove CL1's, and notice the difference.

[-Katalyst-]

Too right! - something like that! 

Rich Fool - Rich Idiot 
-Best-