@ turbo

[Steve]

Ignore the "Fallacy" talk and do testing, you'll see there is NO fallacy and this is created to stop people from looking into ways that work.

After 5 reds in a row, black is more due to spin. Or maybe red is hot and should be bet on. Which is the fallacy?

If either pattern fails, turbo wins. Repeaters is no different.

And yes, do testing. It shows youre full of shit.

Turbo you say some really dumb things.

[The General]

Well, I must admit that this time I agree with Turbo

It's absurd.  Here's why, the probability of winning is still short of what you should be paid for the probability of the pattern not appearing or appearing.
You can't side step or avoid this by betting against rare patterns.  It's just plain stupid to argue otherwise.

In short, there's still one or two too many numbers on the wheel.

Turbo you say some really dumb things.

Agreed.

[Madi]

And yes, do testing. It shows youre full of shit.

Camon steve. U r getting hot. Cool down

[Ricky]

Think about "potential" outcomes in a random game.
Any number that hasn't appeared since you began playing (not past spins) is
potentially a long term sleeper.
Any number that has appeared since you began playing is potentially a hot number.

I hear what your saying and I agree with most of your logic around ignoring numbers that do not seem to be appearing. You can't lose on them until they appear as you did not have a bet on them. So if they sleep 200 spins that's 200 spins you did not lose on them. That's logical. The same goes with hot numbers. If they keep appearing you will win from them as you covered these numbers and were fortunate to get more wins than losses. And with a positive progression you are using casino money to cover them with a higher stake so next time if you are "fortunate" to get another hit on them your wins are amplified. with a 35:1 payout it makes perfect sense the more you bet the higher your return. You cannot do the same with even chances paying 1:1.

The contention with your claim and the dispute others are having is the word "potentially". You do not know with a high degree of accuracy that a number will continue to be a sleeper. And you argue that you do not need to know and use progressions to make up for this unknown. You are right about not knowing ,as without knowing the cause you cannot know the effect of why a number will be more likely to hit or not.

So what you are basically doing is the same betting on a horse race. Given 37 horses in the race, you need to start eliminating the potential losers from the potential winners. You look at all the odds and see 100:1 horses with next to no chance of winning and 2:1 favourites with every chance of winning. In the middle you have some potential winners at 5:1 and 8:1. So how do you weed out the poterntial winners from the potential losers. There are thee ways -
1. knowledge of the previous horses' results and race times at similar distances and deducing which ones will outperform which on the day.  Also this includes knowledge of the track conditions, when the horse ran last etc. The more information you have the more accurate you will be. This is equivalent at looking at the cause to determine the effect as Steve describes.
2. Count how many wins each horse had in the recent past. The one that has won 20 races straight without a loss has got to be the favourite. You would be silly not to cover this horse. The odds are he will do it again. But you don't research why he won 20 in a row you just look at the win/loss stats. Now the donkey that lost the last 20 races and hasn't won a single race you wouldn't cover this horse even though its paying 1000:1. You then look at the other horses. Some have won a few races in recent starts. You would consider these as possible winners or at least for a place. But you still don't know what conditions they won, what were their times, what sort of track. You can't compare these conditions to the current race conditions.
3. And the last way to make your choice is by randomly selecting a winner. Having a flutter. No real idea who will win. Maybe because you like the name of the horse.

So which gambler is going to have the best chance at choosing the winner? Which one is going to take the prize?

Well, in my opinion, the 1st one is going to be right most of the time. The 2nd won has a good chance of getting some wins using that method but may not win as often. Or he may be lucky and outperform the 1st one. we don't really know. There is no proof either two are any better. Now the 3rd punter is relying totally on luck to choose the winning horse. He may or may not choose the right horse more often than the other two punters. But the chances are he will lose more than he wins.

Cheers,
Ricky

[TurboGenius]

Camon steve. U r getting hot. Cool down

The only reason he and "General" get worked up is because they know I'm right.
But that's how it is.
If I say "Random has limits" they can laugh.
If I say "Math beats a math game" they can laugh.
It's irrelevant though, they can laugh and post pictures but they can't
show any example of me being wrong. (the number of pockets on the wheel don't matter)
So that's all they have, I'm full of shit and post funny pictures - meanwhile....
the people they call "sheep" are listening and learning.
Like I said, they aren't on my level anymore - and it's a waste of time replying to them.
And neither will ever say or admit on any open forum that anything I say is right.
But my results..... it has a way of completely destroying their arguments given enough time... the last excuse will be "It's not enough spins" and that's all they'll have left once I'm done proving everything I've ever said is 100% accurate. I'll take that "last laugh" for sure.

[TurboGenius]

So what you are basically doing is the same betting on a horse race. Given 37 horses in the race, you need to start eliminating the potential losers from the potential winners. You look at all the odds and see 100:1 horses with next to no chance of winning and 2:1 favourites with every chance of winning. In the middle you have some potential winners at 5:1 and 8:1. So how do you weed out the poterntial winners from the potential losers. There are thee ways -
1. knowledge of the previous horses' results and race times at similar distances and deducing which ones will outperform which on the day.  Also this includes knowledge of the track conditions, when the horse ran last etc. The more information you have the more accurate you will be. This is equivalent at looking at the cause to determine the effect as Steve describes.
2. Count how many wins each horse had in the recent past. The one that has won 20 races straight without a loss has got to be the favourite. You would be silly not to cover this horse. The odds are he will do it again. But you don't research why he won 20 in a row you just look at the win/loss stats. Now the donkey that lost the last 20 races and hasn't won a single race you wouldn't cover this horse even though its paying 1000:1. You then look at the other horses. Some have won a few races in recent starts. You would consider these as possible winners or at least for a place. But you still don't know what conditions they won, what were their times, what sort of track. You can't compare these conditions to the current race conditions.
3. And the last way to make your choice is by randomly selecting a winner. Having a flutter. No real idea who will win. Maybe because you like the name of the horse.

your #1 doesn't count. No past spins in this game give a clue as to future ones.
A horse that won 100 times in a row is no likely to win over any other horse when it
comes to "random" and how it works. Luckily, like I said in the horse race analogy a while ago - in roulette.. you can change your horse(s) at ANY time, right up until the finish line.
It sort of makes it impossible to lose when you factor in this variable.
Even if the horses run "randomly" as I described - the winner will still win, the 2nd place horse will be a calculated and predictable position back on the track, and the 3rd place horse will also be in a predictable position.
Now if you see a horse past those point, you can surely bet on it to win the race......
even if it's running randomly... and you'll win more than you'll lose.

#2 is the same, past results don't matter to roulette. Now the current session you are playing (the current horse race)... contains ALL of the info you need. The past races don't matter. The naysayers even agree that past spins don't matter - but hell, if i said it it's probably misleading now lol.

#3 is fine but yes that person will lose/win end around the house edge eventually of course.

"Potentially" is one of the most important words when working with random.
You can never have 100% accuracy because the future spins can't be predicted in such a way. Hell, not even 70% - or worse at times.... the house edge is 5.26% or 2.7% (along with some others depending on the rules where you play with the 0/00 and even money bets)....
I don't need to be 100%, 70%, or even 50% or 30% accurate in order to overcome this.
Can you devise a way to win say 30% of the time over multiple spins when you can pick your own odds of winning based on how many locations you play ? Of course.
I even have a way to play where the win/loss ratio is 50/50 but the casino pays 1.25 units on a win and takes 1 unit on a loss.... not even the General with his calculator can dispute that my win rate being 50/50.. with a payout of +1.25 win vs -1.00 loss clearly shows the edge isn't the casino's anymore. But then I'm misleading of course, it goes against everything people have been told since forever. Wobbling wheels and computers are the only way to go ! Pay no attention to the other guy who doesn't need them to win lol.
Everyone is sheep and I'm the guru of lies according to them - full of shit.   *sighs.

[The General]

If I say "Random has limits" they can laugh.
If I say "Math beats a math game" they can laugh.

Yes, that's correct.  We laugh and for a good reason. 

but they can't
show any example of me being wrong. (the number of pockets on the wheel don't matter)

Oh really?  If the number of pockets doesn't matter, then what exactly do you feel determines the probability of winning?  Is it the last series of numbers to have hit?     Perhaps you can provide some proof that the number of pockets doesn't matter, rather than posting some oxymorons?

the people they call "sheep" are listening and learning.

Not learning, but rather being infected by ignorance.

But my results..... it has a way of completely destroying their arguments given enough time... the last excuse will be "It's not enough spins" and that's all they'll have left once I'm done proving everything I've ever said is 100% accurate. I'll take that "last laugh" for sure.

If you're sooo sure that you can win, then why don't you accept my challenge? 

[Ricky]

Patterns are everywhere - a pattern also doesn't repeat (in 3 places at once for example).

Turbo,
I am going to have to call this out because I was of the same opinion a year ago and followed an idea I thought was the Holy Grail. It used this exact idea and is called "Permutation Theory". I thought it was the Holy Grail. Start betting Martingale using the EC pattern of last 7 spins. I bet AGAINST the pattern repeating. Its a rare event for a 7 spin pattern to repeat immediately right? Let alone repeat 3 times in a row. That's 21 spins of a 7 spin pattern. Well I started playing this and even waited for the first 2 spins to start to repeat after the pattern formed. I lost the next 5 spins. The pattern repeated. Well that's a rare event you say. I bet it could not repeat a 3rd time. So started betting it again with another Martingale. Another 7 spins. I stopped half way after losing my whole bankroll and continued observing the results. Well that rare event happened 3 times in a row a 7 spin black/red pattern repeated.

This may be a rare event. I seem to have no luck following these systems. But you cannot rely on this method to find your HG. It will eventually bite you.

Cheers,
Ricky

[TurboGenius]

I thought it was the Holy Grail. Start betting Martingale using the EC pattern of last 7 spins. I bet AGAINST the pattern repeating. Its a rare event for a 7 spin pattern to repeat immediately right?

You need(ed) a more rare event.
So any time a even money bet repeats 14 times you would lose (for example, the math is exactly the same in your example vs 14 repeats of a even money bet).
Now it's not common no, but 14 in a  row surely happens and most people see it at least once during a casino trip - the reader board all reds for example, or all odds, etc.
Your "rare" event wasn't a rare event and that's why it didn't work.

[Steve]

Turbo your horse analogy is wrong. If you change your horse selection in the middle of the race, as it relates to roulette, the only odds that count are whether the horse gains or loses ground. Its current position doesn't change the odds, and its previous speed doesn't change future speed.

Add it to the list of dumb things you say but don't even understand.

There's also not a single rare event that changes odds.

You may have been around for a while but its clear now you're still very inexperienced. Its good the reasonable members are seeing it.

[jekhb76]

 
Steve, General and Co Wake up!
When i Always bet on the 5 numbers that Have hit the Most at all time (playing the 5 hottest) and switching numbers when needed, how on earth would i lose on All the other numbers?
You really should be back in school and start playing attention.
I don't Have to be 100% Right anymore about wich would Have the Most hits of those 5 numbers in the End, because, wich one it would be, i would Have bet on it. Agreed, flatbet, this won't work. But if you through in a possitive agressive progression, you would never lose at the House Edge again. Because you are not playing at the House Edge to begin with.
And it doesn't matter if my wheel has 37 38 or 51 pockets.....as Long the game produces Random outcomes you can't lose. It's allbout bein' Right a few times only. But hey, i'm Just a sheep 

[Steve]

Jek you'll get it one day

[Steve]

But if you through in a possitive agressive progression, you would never lose at the House Edge again. Because you are not playing at the House Edge to begin with.

Why arent you out winning millions? I wonder.

[jekhb76]

 

Why arent you out winning millions? I wonder.

Well quite simple Steve,
You May know how to Drive a car, but that doesn't Mean you can drive, before you take lessons.
I know how i can win at roulette, but i don't know the Right way to play it.
Everything Turbo says Make alot of sense. But i'm still a Long way off aplying it. He doesn't say nonsense things, it's All logic, bit i still don't know to put All the puzzle pieces together to do the same.

[Steve]

So you know how to win, but not yet. That makes a lot of sense. 

If you actually understood, you'd know turbo doesn't make sense at all.