Golden Peak

[MrJ]

Here is my biggest issue.....what can happen vs. what won't happen and FINDING a middle ground. Meaning, that 23 hits after not hitting for 300 spins.

Could that 23 now go unhit again for the next 900 spins? Come on now. Lets drop the..."but it could happen" routine. I mean, anything CAN HAPPEN if we get super technical. Red might hit for 700 straight spins....but it could happen (lol). You cant BUILD a decent method based off that, its ludicrous.

Ken

[Blue_Angel]

The probability of 1,1,1 is exactly the same as 1,2,3 or 1,1,2 or 2,2,2, or 3,2,1.

So according to you this:
18
6
8
6
23
17
10
33
18
19
4
1
8
29
28
14
0
35
10
4
12
25
7
23
2
27
25
3
6
28
26
5
18
10
0
8
13
Has the same probability with that:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Your probability is perfectly reasonable!
Who could argue with that!

The probability is not what makes roulette negative expectation - it's the unfair payouts for the odds.

What it matters is to win, a minor profit because of the unfair payouts is still better than losing.
What makes us lose is the variance and not less profit.
It's like you are claiming that a business could be terminated because of the taxes!

I suggest you do the following experiment, place two bets simultaneously, one on red and the other on black, find out how long it would take to lose your bankroll.
While one who is doubling up continuously will lose his bankroll in just a few spins.

I'm not sure what you mean by "results are altering". And your reference to "flow"

Perhaps you should buy a dictionary.

I assume means past spins like 1,1,1,1,1, but they have no influence on future spins, so no influence on the odds.

They don't have to, everything is a cycle and history repeats again and again like a deja vous.

[Steve]

So according to you this:
18, 6 ....

Has the same probability with that:
1, 1.....

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

How often will you see 1,1,1? How often will you see 1,2,3? Or 3,2,1? They each have the same probability, and on average will occur the same amount of times.

I think where most people dont get it is they have never seen 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, so they assume they can make a system based on it. But have they ever seen 32,14,4,1,8,12,17?

What it matters is to win, a minor profit because of the unfair payouts is still better than losing.

Any profit, over the long term, is only assured if you overcome the unfair payouts. And this is only possibly by increasing accuracy of predictions.

What makes us lose is the variance and not less profit.

No, what makes us lose is unfair payouts for the odds. Variance is nothing but plain statistics. Variance basically means "things wont be exactly as expected".

It's like you are claiming that a business could be terminated because of the taxes!

No it's nothing like that.

I suggest you do the following experiment, place two bets simultaneously, one on red and the other on black, find out how long it would take to lose your bankroll. While one who is doubling up continuously will lose his bankroll in just a few spins.

All that would prove is larger bets means larger losses. It's a simple concept.

Perhaps you should buy a dictionary.

I have one, but prefer dictionary.com. Your wording "results are altering", depending on the context, could mean a few things like:

a. Results are always changing
b. Results are "due" eventually

You did not give clear context, so I dont really know what you were saying.

They don't have to, everything is a cycle and history repeats again and again like a deja vous.

Actually history is a never-ending unfolding of events, with ever-changing variables. To some degree, history does repeat. That's because the variables that determine the winning number are similar enough. But if you mean RRBBRRBB means B will spin after RRBBRRB, then no history doesn't repeat with any greater probability than R spinning next.

I'm all up for rational debate, but what you are saying so far isn't correct. It isnt my opinion. It is clear fact anyone can see with proper testing.

[Turner]

I think where most people dont get it is they have never seen 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, so they assume they can make a system based on it. But have they ever seen 32,14,4,1,8,12,17?

1,1,1,1,1,1,1         = 1-((1/36^7)) = 78 Billion:1

32,14,4,1,8,12,17 = 1-((1/36^7)) = 78 Billion:1

[RouletteGhost]

Turner n steve r correct

But i understand where hes coming from

Some things just wont happen

[Steve]

Rg that's where the illusion is. Everything will happen eventually. And theres no difference between one number and another. What matters is odds vs payout. This is actually very old news. As old as gambling.  It's just that most gamblers don't understand it. That's why casinos exist.

[Turner]

Some things just wont happen

but think this way, all things that "wont happen", as you say, happen every spin.

Somethings got to happen

[RouletteGhost]

but think this way, all things that "wont happen", as you say, happen every spin.

Somethings got to happen

Yes. But some things wont happen

[Blue_Angel]

1,1,1,1,1,1,1         = 1-((1/36^7)) = 78 Billion:1

32,14,4,1,8,12,17 = 1-((1/36^7)) = 78 Billion:1

If these 2 sequences have equal possibility, then number 1 is 6 times more probable to hit than 32, 14, 4, 8, 12 and 17

[Blue_Angel]

Actually history is a never-ending unfolding of events, with ever-changing variables. To some degree, history does repeat. That's because the variables that determine the winning number are similar enough.

At least we agree on this one.

[Blue_Angel]

a. Results are always changing
b. Results are "due" eventually

There's not "black" or "white" but shades of grey...

[Blue_Angel]

All that would prove is larger bets means larger losses. It's a simple concept.

Larger bets could also mean larger profit, the "coin" has 2 sides...

[Blue_Angel]

It's like you are claiming that a business could be terminated because of the taxes! BA

No it's nothing like that. Steve

Now you are contradicting yourself, when you say that 2.7% is the reason for everyone who loses, it is like you are claiming that every business wouldn't be viable because of the taxation, of course it's far from truth because there are more important factors which could harm financially a business!

[Blue_Angel]

No, what makes us lose is unfair payouts for the odds. Variance is nothing but plain statistics. Variance basically means "things wont be exactly as expected".

I don't agree with the first part, but I agree with the second part.

In order to lose because of the house edge (unfair payouts) all events have to balance (this is your first assumption) at some point (this is very vague).

But let's assume that all events will balance out at some point in time, one has to bet 5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 times (wherever your vague point is) black and if he is ahead to keep betting another  5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 times the same in order all outcomes to even out and eventually lose by 2.7%.

Don't you think that this theory involves too many assumptions, too many ifs?
1) results have to balance out (really?)
2) at some point (too vague, when??)
3) the player must stick to the same bet selection for all the time (unless there is rule which obliges you to do so nobody has to do it this way)

[Blue_Angel]

How often will you see 1,1,1? How often will you see 1,2,3? Or 3,2,1? They each have the same probability, and on average will occur the same amount of times.

I think where most people dont get it is they have never seen 1,1,1,1,1,1,1, so they assume they can make a system based on it. But have they ever seen 32,14,4,1,8,12,17?

If what you claim was true then number 1 would be 2 times more possible than numbers 2 and 3 and on your second sequence 1 would be 6 times more probable than 32,14,4,8,12 and 17!

You have been misguided for years, don't blame yourself, you just represent the mainstream theory.