@ turbo

[Madi]

Yes, I've got a gazillion of them with dates etc.

I dont need the spin . I need the generator which uses live data as input and let the player play

[Madi]

I wonder why it is that you, well really none of you, can beat the MPR?

Why do you suppose that is,?

Dont you see that there are gazillion of complain about MPR coming every minute?

[Madi]

General

You better directly tell the people to you agenda. Rather than using this silly technique to convince people to your favour and working for you.

[Kairomancer]

I wonder why it is that you, well really none of you, can beat the MPR?

Why do you suppose that is,?

I have not played there yet.
Yet I see a few players performing well on the leaderboard. The best results are based usually on precognition or intuition.

[RouletteGhost]

I wonder why it is that you, well really none of you, can beat the MPR?

Why do you suppose that is,?

Show us how it’s done master General. Beat that MPR

[Steve]

Do worry too much about Steve and Caleb, while I have no doubt about their successes with roulette, they think they are helping and for the most part they are, they just need attitude adjustments.

Our attitude comes in response to answers like "I use multiple systems at the time, which is better than just one system. It makes me win more than I lose". Clearly you don't understand how backwards that is. I can't speak for Caleb, but I end up tearing my hair out at the stupidity. If you or anyone can demonstrate how this principle in any way helps, I'll eat my words. Instead of viable proof of concept, we'll just get more empty words and wild theories about how reality works.

After years of the same nonsense, and the truth being spelled out in clear English (which is either not understood, or ignored), and tests like 22 spins being considered "proof", are we supposed to not roll our eyes?

Each system doesnt have a negative expectation.  I know exactly how much each system will win

More of the same.

You worry about your playing.  I'll take care of mine.

That's an awesome idea. But as long as you reveal incorrect, ignorant and potentially harmful theories on a public forum, expect people to correct you - for the benefit of others.

your responses are so standard and predictable that I'm beginning to wonder whether you're some kind of chat bot

How many different ways is there to explain the same thing?

When people just arent getting it, and you're trying to help, all one can do is re-explain it.

its our duty to point out those posters that have become obsolete

And perhaps it's other people's duty to call bullshit when they see it, then explain WHY it's bullshit - backed by clear evidence. Otherwise the bullshit grows perpetually.

Look, if you are winning real money, keep doing it. Good on you. But nobody should rely alone on anyone's word that they're winning, especially when their logic is so incredibly bad. I respond to the nonsense because it is nonsense, and I'd rather help people than let them believe things like random is random unless you split random into random, among the countless other ridiculous and unsubstantiated theories.

[The General]

And perhaps it's other people's duty to call bullshit when they see it, then explain WHY it's bullshit - backed by clear evidence. Otherwise the bullshit grows perpetually.

Exactly!!!

[Joe]

Look, if you are winning real money, keep doing it. Good on you. But nobody should rely alone on anyone's word that they're winning, especially when their logic is so incredibly bad.

At least we agree on that. But since you keep mentioning bad logic, even if AP (I'm talking about traditional AP methods like bias & VB) is theoretically superior to systems, as a practical matter in today's casinos it doesn't follow that it's a viable approach. It's rather easy to find quite detailed descriptions of how to play these methods online. Here are two articles on bias and VB published by casinonewsdaily.com:

link:://:.casinonewsdaily.com/roulette-guide/visual-tracking-roulette/
link:://:.casinonewsdaily.com/roulette-guide/identifying-biased-roulette-wheels/

Now a cynic would probably say that this website is owned by a casino, but even if it isn't, casinos certainly endorse it because there are affiliate links everywhere. Every casino's primary objective is to get you to visit them and play as long as possible. And given that this information is freely available online, and supposing the methods actually work (under the right conditions), isn't it in the casino's best interests to make sure that those conditions never actualize? It's just common sense.
Ironically, you make the argument we should believe AP is better because the casinos are afraid of it, and so they take steps to prevent it. Where's the logic in that?

Now I expect you'll come back with all sorts of objections such as there are many other more sophisticated techniques the casinos don't know about, etc etc, and the "real" APers aren't going to make this available on a public website or forum. But a system player can make the same argument. You conclude that no systems can work because the only systems you've seen don't work.

And for anyone who wants to push the AP agenda, it has another advantage compared to systems : you can't prove that AP methods don't work in the way that you can prove systems don't work, because they use physical variables which have to be tracked and monitored under real casino conditions. If you want to show that a system doesn't work, all you need is enough spins to write a simulation, but you can't do this for AP methods based on physics, so  they are insulated against criticism. We just have to take your word for it that they do work, and part with our money before we can test for ourselves.

[Tinsoldiers]

Fantastic note there. Very logical and very true. End of the day casino gains. Anything else is just words and only that. 

[Bebediktus3]

If you want to show that a system doesn't work, all you need is enough spins to write a simulation, but you can't do this for AP methods based on physics, so  they are insulated against criticism. We just have to take your word for it that they do work, and part with our money before we can test for ourselves.

All matter is in comparison and that to do is super easy, simply the same wheel must play two persons AP and system player. Both they predict one number or two numbers ( sometimes is necessary for AP cover two zones ) Which prediction is more near to the final result that gets more points, who collect more point in xx spins - that is the winner and accordingly that his method is better.
I have done such a test, not one time...
If you want the same test you can do even alone - simply take any video, write results as your prediction accordingly your system and calculate distance till winning number.
If average distance will be very similar to 9 - you play with negative expectation and to win in long run you cant. If average distance is smaller, for example, something like 7-6, or less - your bets are with positive expectation and to win you can.

[Nimo]

Our attitude comes in response to answers like "I use multiple systems at the time, which is better than just one system. It makes me win more than I lose". Clearly you don't understand how backwards that is. I can't speak for Caleb, but I end up tearing my hair out at the stupidity. If you or anyone can demonstrate how this principle in any way helps, I'll eat my words. Instead of viable proof of concept, we'll just get more empty words and wild theories about how reality works.

Here is something you said in the mpr thread


There's also the potential of bias, which can appear as a slight data anomaly. Then if you cross reference it with anomalies related to dealer signature, the two pattern types can back each other up, which can be used to tell a player when a pattern is more likely to be legitimate, rather than coincidence.

How is that different from using two systems to corelate a play.  Its the exact same thing I do, but for AP play its different? 




After years of the same nonsense, and the truth being spelled out in clear English (which is either not understood, or ignored), and tests like 22 spins being considered "proof", are we supposed to not roll our eyes?


System stops at 22 spins, over 10,000 spins played.  Read what I posted, not what your mind thought you saw.


But as long as you reveal incorrect, ignorant and potentially harmful theories on a public forum, expect people to correct you - for the benefit of others.


I post what works for me.  Everyone is free to try what I do, or whatever anyone else posts.  I'm not selling anything.  I don't need to sell anything to make money.  If I can help I will. 






Look, if you are winning real money, keep doing it. Good on you. But nobody should rely alone on anyone's word that they're winning, especially when their logic is so incredibly bad. I respond to the nonsense because it is nonsense, and I'd rather help people than let them believe things like random is random unless you split random into random, among the countless other ridiculous and unsubstantiated theories.

I agree no one should rely on word of mouth. You say your teams are winning with your computers, yet you don't provide any proof.  I've only heard one thing about your computers and it wasn't a good thing.

[Nimo]

Here is something you said in the mpr thread


There's also the potential of bias, which can appear as a slight data anomaly. Then if you cross reference it with anomalies related to dealer signature, the two pattern types can back each other up, which can be used to tell a player when a pattern is more likely to be legitimate, rather than coincidence.

How is that different from using two systems to corelate a play.  Its the exact same thing I do, but for AP play its different? 

[Nimo]

Sorry for the possible duplicate posts, I quoted from my phone.

[The General]

Ironically, you make the argument we should believe AP is better because the casinos are afraid of it, and so they take steps to prevent it. Where's the logic in that?

Have you ever in history found a news story or risk consultant talking about a system that was beating the game of roulette and reporting or warning the casinos about it?   
However such information is out there about proven AP methods, visual ballistics and wheel bias.

. You conclude that no systems can work because the only systems you've seen don't work.

It's called common sense, logic, and math.  It's very easy to handily prove most systems won't work without testing them.  By the way, the earth isn't flat either, but we can save that argument for later.

And for anyone who wants to push the AP agenda, it has another advantage compared to systems : you can't prove that AP methods don't work in the way that you can prove systems don't work, because they use physical variables which have to be tracked and monitored under real casino conditions. If you want to show that a system doesn't work, all you need is enough spins to write a simulation, but you can't do this for AP methods based on physics, so  they are insulated against criticism. We just have to take your word for it that they do work, and part with our money before we can test for ourselves.

Yes you can.  For example you can run simulations on wheel bias.  You can also run simulations on the data points for VB.  There's also prove of concept.  To disprove most systems we don't even need to run simulations.  We can just use common sense.  We encourage you to run simulations for your benefit, not ours. 

[The General]

Here is something you said in the mpr thread


There's also the potential of bias, which can appear as a slight data anomaly. Then if you cross reference it with anomalies related to dealer signature, the two pattern types can back each other up, which can be used to tell a player when a pattern is more likely to be legitimate, rather than coincidence.

How is that different from using two systems to corelate a play.  Its the exact same thing I do, but for AP play its different?

Dealer's signature falls under ballistics.  It's not really a system.  Yes, the player can theoretically get a very small edge with it at times.  It's not in anyway the same as other roulette systems because it's not designed to beat the game, but rather the wheel.  Systems designed to beat the wheel/dealer make sense and should be encouraged.  However systems designed to try and beat the game are a fool's folly.