@ turbo

[Steve]

He thinks no one can make a living off this game unless they are using some computer to cheat.

Actually it's that I understand primary school math. You cant win long term if payouts are always lower than the odds (unless they have extreme luck, but that's not "making a living" is it?). Are you saying otherwise? That would be like saying 35 can be greater than 37, for no reason at all.

Anyone paying attention would know I explain many different ways its possible to beat roulette, without a computer.

[Madi]

Can u show ur method that u used to play as a winner for years then down?

[wiggy]

I take it you are in second place Turbo! I am in hot pursuit in 3rd! 

[Steve]

Madi, if you mean my method, it was just a basic dozens progression. And sometimes I would extend progression using inside bets. It was as good as random bets of different size but I didnt know that back then.

[Madi]

Thats ok thanks. Just wanted to know what u used to play in ur early days

[Steve]

can I ask you what do you mean when you say “odds”. 

Odds are basically expected frequency. For example, there are 37 pockets so if you bet 1 number, the ODDS are you'll win 1 in 37 spins.

All I am saying is odds of a repeater are different from odds of a number

No, they are exactly the same. Many people say what you said, but it's completely wrong. The odds of 1,2,3 or 1,1,1 or 13,13,13 or 23,14,15 or 14,9,0 are all exactly the same.

If there are three spins and the first spin is 31.  Odds of next spin being 31 is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 5 is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 31 as a repeater is 37:1. Odds of next spin being 5 as a repeater is 0

Regarding the red part, WHY have the odds changed?

If you or anyone used the free software i published, you could plainly see the odds dont change after any sequence.

For example, check a billion spins for a sequence of 1,1,1,1 and see how often 1, 13, 14,17, etc spins next. You will find roulette couldnt care less about what you expect will spin more frequently, or happen less, or more.

What good is publishing free software, and spending lots of time to help players if they dont actually listen to reason and test? Players who don't test tend to throw stupid comments like "you're just trying to sell computers" or "you dont have an open mind".

[cht]

Why bother study statistics if random is unpredictable ?

Causal statistics is only one branch of statistics.
It's not the be all and end all.

[Steve]

You cant beat roulette with statistics alone.

Trying to do so shows you don't understand what statistics represent. Mostly it's just history and expectation.

An example of where statistics can be used is wheel bias. You could see which numbers won most. You could also see if those numbers were in the same sector. And you could determine the statistical relevance of the data, which may suggest with high probability that:

1. Specific numbers won more (with greater occurrences than normal variance)
2. These numbers were very close together on the wheel (unlikely to be coincidence)
3. The combination of the above, which makes it even more abnormally high chance that it's not a coincidence

One way to not use statistics is:

After 1000 spins, most are red, so we should bet black because we expect there will eventually be an even number of reds and blacks. There are many problems with this way of thinking. for one thing, where does your sample start and end? Maybe the previous 10,000 spins have a heavy affinity towards red. And why on earth would this affinity continue? Is it just plain variance? You know even with RNG, you still get much the same variance.

But often what people call "statistics" is just their own misunderstanding of statistics. Opinion and misunderstanding doesnt change reality.

So there are valid ways of using statistics to help win roulette. The valid ways use statistics to calculate the probability of events being "not random". They do NOT directly use statistics as a way to change the odds.

[cht]

Why bother study statistics if random is unpredictable ?

Causal statistics is only one branch of statistics.
It's not the be all and end all.

Causal statistics does not naturally inherit higher priority in accuracy. It's as accurate or inaccurate as any branch of statistics.

The biggest fallacy promoted on this forum

[Steve]

What is "casual statistics"? How is it different from "statistics"?

In the end it's all just math. Math is one expression of reality. But math is not what makes things happen. What makes things happen are the real physical variables and interactions of energy.

[cht]

But math is not what makes things happen.

The purpose of math is never to make things happen.

What makes things happen are the real physical variables and interactions of energy.

You have to prove that,
not by some youtube videos.

Probably over a million bets played over a million roulette wheels spun by a million dealers.

Btw it's only a million.

[Madi]

Regarding the red part, WHY have the odds changed?

U know better why the odd have changed. His statement is very clear i believe.

[Madi]

Cht

Dont bet on red and black at a time . If u do so we cant blame u.

[cht]

What makes things happen are the real physical variables and interactions of energy.

The required proof is to -

Put up an academic paper for peer review in the physics math fraternity.

There's none at the moment.

[Steve]

You have to prove that, not by some youtube videos.

Proof of cause and effect? Ok, here's proof..

Go to the nearest brick wall, then punch into it as hard as you can with your bare fist. It will hurt. That's cause and effect.

Cause and effect, beyond any reasonable doubt, is very easy to determine. For more complex matters, you need more extensive tests and observation. But you know here we arent talking about anything complicated. Actually it's really simple. The dynamics of why most players lose is simply they dont win enough to overcome the unfair payouts.

On the note about proof, where's your proof we arent living in a computer simulation? You cant prove this. We might be. And really we cant 100% prove anything. But we can at the very least make observations, and do testing, and come to a reasonable conclusion. And that's what "proof" is. It's as good as proof can get.

Probably over a million bets played over a million roulette wheels spun by a million dealers. Btw it's only a million.

No you dont need that many if you already have backup data. For example, with a roulette computer, you can have a beep when the ball is predicted to hit a specific diamond. You can plainly see and hear the beep is very accurate. It's certainly not random. And then you can see the ball bounce a predictable distance after it falls. You only need to see it a few times to know realistically where the accuracy comes from, and that its not coincidence.

Also you can see a ball hit a specific diamond again and again, for just 10-20 spins, and you'll have a very good idea that a diamond is dominant.

But where you need much more data is when testing systems that are nothing but numbers and numbers. For example, to test if the sequence of 1,2,3 will spin more frequently than 34,2,8 or 32,0,14 will need much more than 100 or so spins. You need hundreds of thousands or more spins.

I mean you are unlikely to get the sequence you want (1,2,3 or any other sequence you're checking) in just a few spins. And then you need to test the next number after 1,2,3 for many times. Otherwise your results could very easily be common variance.

Regarding the red part, WHY have the odds changed? U know better why the odd have changed. His statement is very clear i believe

What are you talking about? His statement is blatantly false. The sequence he said that has 0 chance is 31, 31, 5, 31, 5. But this will happen as often as any other sequence of 5 numbers. So 31,4,15,18,0 is just as rare. This stuff is FUNDAMENTAL. Don't argue about it. Just test with the free software I provided, or get a coder to create your own program. The more spins you test, the clearer the truth is. Or are you going to not test and just state what you believe is the truth?

Really I spend a lot of time here repeating the same thing. And people still dont get it. This is not about me being a math or roulette whiz. This is really basic stuff and people are still getting it wrong. JUST TEST FOR YOURSELF AND SEE.