@ turbo

[The General]

General

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

I don't require a broken or wobbly wheel now.

But I must admit, I enjoy wobbly ones too.

[Taotie]

Yes 36*1,5,25,50

Unlike Taotie's piece of crap idea

LOL

[Joe]

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

That's a misrepresentation and is not at all what I mean. Obviously you can't win long term betting randomly.

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

Correction : statistical results have proven that certain particular roulette systems posted on this forum and tested over many spins, don't work. That's a far cry from your sweeping statement that no system based on repeaters, hot numbers etc can ever work.

Steve, I get it. You have vested interests and so aren't really motivated to be pro-system. Obviously you've decided to abandon all hope in that department, but plenty of people haven't. AP is indeed a viable way, but I don't agree that it's the only way. Is it too much to ask that on a roulette forum both can co-exist peacefully? Apparently so.

[The General]

no system based on repeaters, hot numbers etc can ever work.

In the random game no system based on repeats, repeaters, hot numbers or cold number can win in the long run because the house payout is short.  In short, there are one or two too many pockets for it to work. 

[Joe]

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.

Nimo, what unit size were you using?

[Joe]

In the random game no system based on repeats, repeaters, hot numbers or cold number can ever work in the long run because the house payout is short.

General, if you choose to believe that, fine. It certainly lets you off the hook for doing the necessary work. But don't burden us with your limitations; just stick to your chi-square and wobbly wheels. ;-)

[The General]

It's reiterated by mathematicians all around the world.

Can you possibly provide even one logical reason as to why they are wrong???

It all comes down to negative long term expectation. 

[Steve]

More like preaching than teaching
Thats my whole point

It's much the same. I'll give one example:

In the random game no system based on repeats, repeaters, hot numbers or cold number can win in the long run because the house payout is short.  In short, there are one or two too many pockets for it to work. 

It's very clear. He spelled it out, as he has many times. Sometimes he'll be briefer, which is probably what you consider "preaching". How many times must he or I repeat the same thing and get NO tangible evidence contrary to our statements?

I just dont get it. It's abundantly clear. What we say is backed up by clear mathematical evidence, extensive testing, and the whole damn professional gaming community and world of mathematicians, educated individuals etc. The entire gaming industry is based on the fundamental truths. And there is not a shred of tangible evidence of the contrary.

That's a far cry from your sweeping statement that no system based on repeaters, hot numbers etc can ever work.

Can you show me evidence to the contrary?

BESIDES FACTORS LIKE BIAS, ALL THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE CLEARLY POINTS THAT HOT NUMBERS OR REPEATERS CLEARLY SHOWS THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT. THE ACCURACY IS NO DIFFERENT TO RANDOM. THAT'S WHY CASINOS LURE PLAYERS INTO THINGS LIKE HOT NUMBER SYSTEMS, BY DISPLAYING "HOT NUMBERS".

Until I find ANYTHING tangible that indicates the opposite, I'll keep believing what I believe. Sound reasonable?

Steve, I get it. You have vested interests and so aren't really motivated to be pro-system.

No, that's a cheap cop-out comment, often used when there's no valid argument. I couldn't give two poops if anyone doesn't like the idea of my methods.

I've been through this many times before. I encourage other methods, which at least show potential of giving the player an edge. I am not saying the HG definitely doesn't exist. I'm saying stop with the bullshit approaches that have been tried by countless generations, and show to fail. Stop with the bullshit that we already know doesn't work.

AP is indeed a viable way, but I don't agree that it's the only way.

Do you understand that "advantage play" basically means "increasing your odds of winning"? 37 numbers on the wheel but the payout it 35-1. The payout is short. Unless you win more than 1 in 35 times, you wont profit. So you must, MUST increase the accuracy of predictions.

You cant do it with progression alone because if the odds dont change (1 in 37), then all progression does is vary the amount you risk. You can get lucky and win back losses, or be unlucky and lose even more.

FOR f*** SAKE GUYS. THIS IS REALLY SIMPLE STUFF. YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING THAT AFTER ALL THE EXPLANATIONS, SOME OF YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

Is it too much to ask that on a roulette forum both can co-exist peacefully? Apparently so.

Sure, but there is only one solution to a mathematical equation. A solution is not debatable.

[Steve]

I'll tell you why i get irritated. Because it is no different to explaining to flat Earthers:

* Why their arguments are backwards and incorrect
* The information that indicates Earth is round

Except the information concerning nonsense like hot numbers is EVEN MORE CLEAR.

You know 20+ years ago, I didn't get it either. I was one of the thick ones. But once I got my head of out of ass, and put truth and verifiable information before what I expected or wanted to be true, that's when the learning started. And from that point, I very quickly learned what does and doesn't work, and WHY.

My interest in enlightening people about the round Earth has nothing to do with what you or anyone perceives to be my business interests. I just have a serious problem with seeing flat Earthers ranting about not being able to see Earth's curve. I cannot fathom how they don't understand it. Yes I was ignorant once too. But things rapidly changed when my head was removed from my ass. So I can only assume either some people are really unintelligent, OR they still have their head up their asses.

Dont get me wrong. I have patience for players who initially dont know, but want to learn. I'm happy to help. But I tend to get annoyed when it is explained again and again and again and again to people who argue with no information to back up their claims, really bad logic, and they even think your explanations and attempts to help them are because of some conspiracy.

[Joe]

Can you show me evidence to the contrary?

BESIDES FACTORS LIKE BIAS, ALL THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE CLEARLY POINTS THAT HOT NUMBERS OR REPEATERS CLEARLY SHOWS THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT. THE ACCURACY IS NO DIFFERENT TO RANDOM. THAT'S WHY CASINOS LURE PLAYERS INTO THINGS LIKE HOT NUMBER SYSTEMS, BY DISPLAYING "HOT NUMBERS".

Steve, no, I'm not going to lay out step by step the exact process I use when playing, just as you wouldn't give away your computers or systems and the general wouldn't reveal his "secrets" on a public forum. It has nothing to do with waiting for specific conditions or events, it's a continuous process (or to be more specific, multiple processes which use multiple variables). It's a holistic approach based on pure statistics and doesn't depend on exploiting vulnerabilities in the wheel. And yes it does increase the accuracy of predictions.

Simplistic systems such as those posted on this forum have no chance of winning consistently, I agree, but why tar all systems with the same brush? 

It's the double standards which irritate me. Gaming experts like the Wizard of Odds say roulette is unbeatable except for perhaps the possibility of finding biased wheels. There's no mention of ballistics, dealer signature, or finding patterns. These approaches, along with systems, are not suggested as viable ways to win by mathematicians, but you and the general insist that in spite of no tangible evidence, it's the only true way. The only evidence is anecdotal, just as it is with systems.

Sure, but there is only one solution to a mathematical equation. A solution is not debatable.

Not so, most equations have multiple solutions, it's only linear equations which have one solution. And I don't know why you and the general think that equations carry so much weight. Maths is just a system of notation to express complex ideas, it doesn't have any monopoly on truth and always carries assumptions. Why should anyone feel limited and constrained by it?

[Nimo]

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

Luck has nothing to do with it. 

As someone who has done millions of simulations, you should know with some approximation what every roulette chart reveals.  Not the exact method but a generalization. 

It's as I thought.  I was hoping your mind was more open to things.  Sometimes a different perspective from someone that perhaps has a different synergy with numbers may provide insight that makes other ideas click that are already inside your head.

Yes its me against the casino, not me against anyone on the forum. From the scorecard, it looks like in Nimo vs Casino, Nimo is winning.

[Nimo]

Nimo, what unit size were you using?

$10 units.  There are three sessions in those 70 spins.   

[Nimo]

It's reiterated by mathematicians all around the world.

Can you possibly provide even one logical reason as to why they are wrong???

It all comes down to negative long term expectation.

Yes negative long term expectations are there for every system imaginable including AP and computers.  Payout is unfair 35-1.

But, and here is where the key lies to this. 

Every system if tested in long term million spin tests will fail.  This is the general math expert consensus that you guys keep spouting. 

We have all seen enough systems tested short term that win.  We have all even tried them. 

Now let's say we take 37 systems and put them on a wheel. 

We spin the wheel and it lands on system 12.  For simplicity sake let's say its a simple martingale red black three spin system.  We play it, it loses, so we spin our system wheel again , it lands on system 26 a repeater method.  We play that system and it wins.  It goes on like this until you hit your target profit.  You are now playing random systems on random numbers.  No long term expectations on your systems.  Wins on some systems cancel out losses in others.  It keeps the win percentages higher than the negative expectations.

[Joe]

$10 units.  There are three sessions in those 70 spins.   

Thanks, I was trying to estimate the drawdown in your chart.

We spin the wheel and it lands on system 12.  For simplicity sake let's say its a simple martingale red black three spin system.  We play it, it loses, so we spin our system wheel again , it lands on system 26 a repeater method.  We play that system and it wins.  It goes on like this until you hit your target profit.  You are now playing random systems on random numbers.  No long term expectations on your systems.  Wins on some systems cancel out losses in others.  It keeps the win percentages higher than the negative expectations.

Nice reply. No doubt Steve & General will come back with "all bets have the same negative expectation so it makes no difference". 
Not saying it's the solution, but it's certainly part of it. My "system" makes use of multiple systems. Not played randomly in quite the same way as you describe because there is a certain structure to the randomness.

[Bebediktus3]

don't burden us with your limitations; just stick to your chi-square and wobbly wheels. ;-)

Your chi-square .... All is super simple - if something you not understand, or not able to learn - much easier to name that as stupidity, that all that not works, than to recognize, that problem are in you...