@ turbo

[Steve]

Also understand im not supporting caleb personally. Im supporting his unpopular messages because it's the truth.

There's a whole other world of professionals in the gaming industry that take the facts for granted. They find it bemusing how most players really have no clues. But hey, why look a gift horse in the mouth.. the clueless gamblers pay the bills. It's their money to lose.

If i wanted a busy forum full of shit, i would shut up. But I prefer to be honest and direct, even if it pisses a few people off. Real men or mature adults don't get pissed off by information that conflicts with their beliefs. They check facts for themselves, see their mistakes, and progress.

[Steve]

... and if everyone properly tested, the truth wouldnt be debatable.

A simple problem is most tests are short term nonsense.

And when we explain why it's nonsense, it isn't understood. We just get responses like.....

"Why should i test 1m spins if i never play that many??"

"I only need to win in the short term"

Often the understanding is so poor it's intolerable. Its even worse that it has been explained so many times and so many ways, and its still not sinking in.

Sure, make fun of flat earthers. You may be one of them.

[Joe]

Steve, you say don't shoot the messenger, but as I've said before, there's no contradiction in each number hitting 1/37 in the long run and the possibility of picking numbers higher than expectation in the short run. One of the general's favourite lines is "count the number of pockets on the wheel" lol, as though we are all too dumb to notice that they don't change between spins.

And in fact there's no connection at all between his crappy message and reality. Whether the number of pockets changes between spins or not has nothing to do with the potential to win, which only relies on your bet selection, backed up by money management. There is no maths which says no system can win, and even if there was, who cares? Mathematics depends on assumptions, it isn't the truth and is no predictor of what is possible in reality.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."  Einstein.

I don't mind people taking the piss now and again, but his posts are nothing else. If that's not trolling I don't know what is.

[Steve]

there's no contradiction in each number hitting 1/37 in the long run and the possibility of picking numbers higher than expectation in the short run.

This doesn't appear to make sense. It's easily achievable to consistently achieve better than 1 in 37.

One of the general's favourite lines is "count the number of pockets on the wheel" lol, as though we are all too dumb to notice that they don't change between spins.

Perhaps he's just saying understands odds vs payouts, because many people don't appear to understand such a simple but critical concept.

And in fact there's no connection at all between his crappy message and reality

If his message is as above, he's explaining fundamental fact. Reality.

the potential to win, which only relies on your bet selection, backed up by money management.

Bet selection is the key. But money management has no effect on your edge or long term winnings, with exceptions like larger bets increase the rate of winning or losing.

There is no maths which says no system can win, and even if there was, who cares?

It's not so easy to prove something doesnt exist. But it's easy to prove something like typical repeater systems being no different to random betting.

Mathematics depends on assumptions, it isn't the truth and is no predictor of what is possible in reality.

That depends. Everything is an assumption to some degree, including reality and existence. But keep it reasonable. If it quacks and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Math is an indicator of what's possible, within reason.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."  Einstein.

Makes no difference who said it. Nothing is 100% certain. But we can get pretty darn close to 100% and at some point,  it's reasonable to accept our understanding mirrors our observations well enough to replicate results from our model of reality. Sure, be philosphical and say anything is possible. But also keep in mind it doesn't appear to be probable, considering it doesn't appear to have been observed.

I don't mind people taking the piss now again, but his posts are nothing else. If that's not trolling I don't know what is.

He borderline trolls here. I allow it because overall i feel some people need a dose of reality, even if it's sometimes annoying. Idf it gives clearly into more negative than positive contributions, then i will ask him to relax a bit. If he follows members around being a nuisance, then that's trolling. But he doesn't appear to follow anyone any more than any other member would.

I get it. He can be cunty at immature at times. So can others.  But the other side needs to be considered. He is also attacked more than his fair share,  even when being polite about it all. It has all been said before.

[Steve]

Also if people get so riled up so easily, perhaps they need some backbone. It's a public forum. Nobody is stalking or harassing anyone. There are a variety of viewpoints and people. We wont all see eye to eye. It's not life shattering.

If someone feels they're being trolled, they can let me know privately. You'll find im quite reasonable, and so are most people here because they understand the possibility of moderation if they don't agree with my decision.

Trolling does not include opposing views, that may reveal your claims are inaccurate. Trolling is following you everywhere including your threads, being a nuisance. There's a difference.

[Turner]

More like "Earth is not flat."

More like preaching than teaching
Thats my whole point

[Joe]

there's no contradiction in each number hitting 1/37 in the long run and the possibility of picking numbers higher than expectation in the short run.


This doesn't appear to make sense. It's easily achievable to consistently achieve better than 1 in 37.

The point is that the 1/37 is irrelevant. A number may hit at its exact expectation over many spins but my win rate on that number is what matters, not its expectation.

it's reasonable to accept our understanding mirrors our observations well enough to replicate results from our model of reality. Sure, be philosphical and say anything is possible. But also keep in mind it doesn't appear to be probable, considering it doesn't appear to have been observed.

If I can quote part of another post you made in another thread; it was in response to my scepticism about precognition :

If statistical results dont support the viability of precognition, it probably doesnt have merit. But data and my own experiences do support it. So its not just a theory alone to me. It's more like likely fact, although the mechanics of it all are not understood yet. I'm a reasonable person and dont believe in hocus pocus. Again I believe there's clearly enough evidence to support it being viable. There are countless things we dont know about the universe.

You could replace the word "precognition" with "roulette systems" and it would be true for a lot of members of this forum, including me. I personally think that precognition is bunk, based on what the scientific community believes, logic, lack of any hard data, etc, but I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and I certainly wouldn't spend any of my time ridiculing and mocking those who do believe it, in post after post after post.

The general says he's here for networking purposes. Well if that's true he's got a pretty funny way of going about it. It's not how to win friends and influence people.

[Nimo]

It's ok,  Steve and Caleb, I know you don't hate any of us.  You are just the mediocre equivalent of this quote 

"Haters don't hate you. They hate themselves because you are a reflection of what they want to be."


Thanks guys,  We all take that as a compliment.

[The General]

More like preaching than teaching
Thats my whole point

Turner,

Correcting fallacies, and myths, while discussing the importance of basic probability is teaching. 

[The General]

It's ok,  Steve and Caleb, I know you don't hate any of us.  You are just the mediocre equivalent of this quote 

"Haters don't hate you. They hate themselves because you are a reflection of what they want to be."


Thanks guys,  We all take that as a compliment.

Nimo,

I'm not your enemy and neither are statistics, basic probability, and math.  The house edge is your foe.  Attack the wheel instead of the game. 

I see you've had some success in sports betting.  If you focus on the wheel then you could probably do well in roulette too.

[Turner]

Turner,

Correcting fallacies, and myths, while discussing the importance of basic probability is teaching. 

Discussing? lmao
Get over yourself. You wouldnt know a discussion if you tripped over it.

[Nimo]

Nimo,

I'm not your enemy and neither are statistics, basic probability, and math.  The house edge is your foe.  Attack the wheel instead of the game. 

I see you've had some success in sports betting.  If you focus on the wheel then you could probably do well in roulette too.

Here is an actual played session that I did on Friday morning. Eastern Standard time.  Playtech RNG, William Hill Casino.   Played from 9:08am until 9:32am.  70 spins.  Tell me the method I used and I will see if you actually know what you are talking about.  Take all the time you want to analyze the chart.  If you can't tell me what I am doing then stick to AP play because this is probably  beyond your reasoning.  It's way more out of the box than you may think.

[The General]

Here is an actual played session that I did on Friday morning. Eastern Standard time.  Playtech RNG, William Hill Casino.   Played from 9:08am until 9:32am.  70 spins.  Tell me the method I used and I will see if you actually know what you are talking about.  Take all the time you want to analyze the chart.  If you can't tell me what I am doing then stick to AP play because this is probably  beyond your reasoning.  It's way more out of the box than you may think.

Nimo,

It's not you against other APs and me.  It's just you against the casino. 

I get it, you probably think you're smarter than all of the experts and mathematicians.  I'm glad you've experienced some good luck.  In the meantime, perhaps consider revisiting some history on the game so you don't give it all back.

"Over the years, many people have tried to beat the casino..."link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roulette


Best of luck. 

-The General

[Steve]

The point is that the 1/37 is irrelevant. A number may hit at its exact expectation over many spins but my win rate on that number is what matters, not its expectation.

Do you count wins from lucky spins as an edge, or variance?

What you're saying is the same as "I bet random numbers and won. That's what matters."

Sure winning is what matters. But eventually your luck runs out if your system has no edge.

You could replace the word "precognition" with "roulette systems" and it would be true for a lot of members of this forum, including me. I personally think that precognition is bunk, based on what the scientific community believes, logic, lack of any hard data, etc, but I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and I certainly wouldn't spend any of my time ridiculing and mocking those who do believe it, in post after post after post.

But statistical results prove the various approaches like repeaters, hot numbers etc DONT have merit (unless there's real cause and effect like bias).

There's no doubt about it because we can easily, and have, tested many billions of spins. It is not realistically possible to test this volume of spins with precognition, because you cant simply run automated tests for billions of spins.

You are trying to compare something that's easily proven, to something that's much more difficult to prove. Overall it appears realistic there is enough information and controlled experiments that precog and related science appear to be real. But the edge so far is only very small. And because the edge is very small, most results are still inconclusive because there isnt enough data, for reasons I explained. So at this stage, the jury is still out. I believe what I believe though from information I've gathered, including controlled test results, and my own experiences.

You could argue its the same for system players who have won over say a year of play. But keep in mind what I said about the bigger picture and larger tests. I myself won for about a year with a crap system, and was convinced it was the master HG system.

[Madi]

Nimo,

It's not you against other APs and me.  It's just you against the casino. 

I get it, you probably think you're smarter than all of the experts and mathematicians.  I'm glad you've experienced some good luck.  In the meantime, perhaps consider revisiting some history on the game so you don't give it all back.

"Over the years, many people have tried to beat the casino..."link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roulette


Best of luck. 

-The General

General

You should admit yourself to GIZMO’s school. Currently 10% discount is going on. No need any broken wheel.