Turbo Denzie or is it Denzie Turbo

[nottophammer]

Maestro, just me counting how many possible repeats could come as the 19th is well early, you see i bet he 18 to repeat but it put the 19th in, so bet the 19 at 2 units, win, then bet at 1 unit, win, now stop,as 20th avg to hit in 3 spins and it did,and you see i bet the 20 to repeat, and as up i left with the money, but the 21st 0x has an avg of 3 spins to hit, max of 12 on FOBT and 10 on airball.

Any more just ask.
At least it we'rnt BLA,BLA,BLA, like some idiot

[nottophammer]

Maestro
the last 2games 10/10 then 9,+4 game below 8/10 then 9,+4 see fast, now if your observant game 1 spin reg is 2,1,7  below showing 1,1,1,7 i said to the player who's playing reels, look #26 spin 29, 6 repeats so bet the 17 non-hit, not hard is it, 

[Turner]

Im sorry did you expect truth to  constantly change?

Just my view....but

Some people dont take advice, and some dont listen to the truth.

Generally, those not listening to the truth are doing really well with an idea, and getting great success.
The truth only gets in the way, and hey, its not the truth anyhow because I am winning

Thats great...and I wish them all the luck in the world, but there lies a big problem.

when the truth arrives, they wont believe it and soldier on and lose a lot of money.

Runs from hell are just the truth all coming at once, and you have already had warning signs because it hasnt been coming all at once, just in dribs and drabs. They already have an explanation for this and it is "I win more than I lose"

Thats my understanding

[Steve]

That's basically it. If we look at MPR leader board we see exactly what happens in a real casino: :.rouletteplayers.org/leaderboard

There are winners and losers. Most are losers. The players who start out winning are convinced their system "works", but really it's just normal probability. Eventually the winners lose their winnings and more.

Casinos need the temporary winners to convince other players they can win. The casino doesn't care who wins or loses, or what players think they know, as long as most are losers.

[Turner]

Eventually the winners lose their winnings and more.

Of course, and as some know, it is called the "hold"
The "hold" is where the casinos make their money.

They couldnt survive on the HE.
Its quite simple, and in my view, makes a mockery of the well worn phrase that is " playing with the casinos money"

Man, they really want you to do that because each time they pay you, they pay short (HE), so they pay you short twice, and 3 times, depending how much winnings you plough back in.

The average is somewhere near 25%, and we can see this as punters recycling their winnings, on average, 5 times.

So, forget the HE as their income as being 2.7% or 5.26% per se, but think of multiple HE's added up averaging 25%.

This is indeed hopeful to players. People slate Hit and Run, and to some extent, it is avoiding the hold.

If you try to play in a fashion of avoiding being a player who contributes to the hold, and is only exposed to the HE as 2.7 and 5.3%, and you get some luck....you may actually do rather well.

The upshot is that if you know all this, you should then know you are doing well due to luck alone.

If you dont know all this (you do now), then you will believe you have some edge over the casino with your "System", or as some puts it, "Method".

I cant see where I havnt portrayed the truth here.

[maestro]

sounds like...<give a man a mask and he will tell you the truth>..

[RouletteGhost]

Firstly, I play a method, not a strategy!

Secondly, I play a game within a game within a game within a game within a game using PhP (pigeon hole principle)

Thirdly, I have gained an edge this way (although mathematically impossible)

Fourthly, I will only share with a small group of people! On my forum! Oh and I play on Christmas instead of seeing my family.

[Steve]

How much do you want for your "method"?

[RouletteGhost]

Only way to find out is to join my exclusive forum!

[cht]

Turner puts it pretty accurate and is the truth. I browse through this forum a bit and I go wtf, you mean you don't know ? The comments and response clearly shows those guys don't know, period.

Here're examples -

Hey notto,

thought I may need a magnifying glass, until I clicked it to enlarge

I tested the 1st 100 spins there

I bet every trigger not just once every 10 spin sequence

in the 1st 100 spins i had:

-16 triggers
-all wins

luck? perhaps

more i test this thing, more i like it....just curious if the wins outweigh the losses. time will tell

i expect losses, in a negative expectation game

the question is does the strategy produce enough wins to battle a loss

up 16 units there. a loss sets me back 26 units. so risky, yes

Thanatos posted this link, 121 pages about nothing ?

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?PHPSESSID=f07f8a548f64b5e4c5238496fe3d95fb&topic=19315.msg180898;topicseen#msg180898

I'm not putting RG and Thanatos on the spot by calling both out. Nope I'm not, these are recent examples and normal happenings. But that's the forum full of it, people don't know they really really don't know. Mainly because they don't have the means to know, by means I refer to the tools to enable one to know. Nickmsi said that somewhere and I agree. So Turner is absolutely spot on with his detailed comments.

Now, I have 2 questions for those of you who know that the punter will eventually lose no matter what the method or strategy or system used because of the math - the house always win.

Assume this scenario, that the roulette wheel does not have the green zero - 36# and payout remains the same. Now this means there's no edge for both the punter and the house. Will the punter now have a chance to win and the house lose ?

British gamblers lost a record £13.8bn in the year ending September 2016, including an all-time high of £1.82bn on controversial fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs). ----- The Guardian

Without the house edge the house might lose this equivalent sum just the same, or no ?

2nd question, since the house have the house edge, wtf do they place so many restrictions onto punters, like online log punters out for inactivitity over a fews spins, betting window that's under 30secs, sudden reduced betting window and the like that we all know about ?

Why disallow the use of handphones aka roulette computers ? I can appreciate those that measure the parameters of the wheel are banned BUT why disallow on a blanket basis in some jurisdiction that I read about ? These computers will lose eventually right ? So why not let the gambler's fallacy modeled computers be used, the house will still win since the math told us so ?

Why show winning punters the door since their winnings are merely on hold ? Hey, if the house refuse to continue do business with them then the house has acknowledged to take a loss. Hey the house take a loss, that's unthinkable with roulette right ?

And there's the refusal to pay winnings and in some cases the deposit as well, I'm referring to so-called reputable online casino ? Why do that when eventually this 'hold' winnings/profits will return to the fold and much more, right ?

Hey pitboss, why do you guys do all that for ?

[RouletteGhost]

Turner puts it pretty accurate and is the truth. I browse through this forum a bit and I go wtf, you mean you don't know ? The comments and response clearly shows those guys don't know, period.

Here're examples -

Thanatos posted this link, 121 pages about nothing ?

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?PHPSESSID=f07f8a548f64b5e4c5238496fe3d95fb&topic=19315.msg180898;topicseen#msg180898

I'm not putting RG and Thanatos on the spot by calling both out. Nope I'm not, these are recent examples and normal happenings. But that's the forum full of it, people don't know they really really don't know. Mainly because they don't have the means to know, by means I refer to the tools to enable one to know. Nickmsi said that somewhere and I agree. So Turner is absolutely spot on with his detailed comments.

Now, I have 2 questions for those of you who know that the punter will eventually lose no matter what the method or strategy or system used because of the math - the house always win.

Assume this scenario, that the roulette wheel does not have the green zero - 36# and payout remains the same. Now this means there's no edge for both the punter and the house. Will the punter now have a chance to win and the house lose ?

British gamblers lost a record £13.8bn in the year ending September 2016, including an all-time high of £1.82bn on controversial fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs). ----- The Guardian

Without the house edge the house might lose this equivalent sum just the same, or no ?

2nd question, since the house have the house edge, wtf do they place so many restrictions onto punters, like online log punters out for inactivitity over a fews spins, betting window that's under 30secs, sudden reduced betting window and the like that we all know about ?

Why disallow the use of handphones aka roulette computers ? I can appreciate those that measure the parameters of the wheel are banned BUT why disallow on a blanket basis in some jurisdiction that I read about ? These computers will lose eventually right ? So why not let the gambler's fallacy modeled computers be used, the house will still win since the math told us so ?

Why show winning punters the door since their winnings are merely on hold ? Hey, if the house refuse to continue do business with them then the house has acknowledged to take a loss. Hey the house take a loss, that's unthinkable with roulette right ?

And there's the refusal to pay winnings and in some cases the deposit as well, I'm referring to so-called reputable online casino ? Why do that when eventually this 'hold' winnings/profits will return to the fold and much more, right ?

Hey pitboss, why do you guys do all that for ?

Elaborate on exactly what I "don't know"

I openly state I expect losses, it is a negative expectation game, and I cannot change the house edge

I also state I try to play methods that are ahead after a loss

So what exactly don't I know

[cht]

Elaborate on exactly what I "don't know"

I openly state I expect losses, it is a negative expectation game, and I cannot change the house edge

I also state I try to play methods that are ahead after a loss

So what exactly don't I know

If you truly understand that bolded part, you should know no matter what fancy betting pattern/scheme the punter will lose eventually. Not just lose eventually but the variance could be monstrous, the punter don't know neither do the house(are you surprise?) - only time travellers and for the religious God only knows the future +- variance in what form or shape.

Again, I'm not picking on you or anybody on this forum nothing personal. Just taking both cases as EXAMPLES for discussion purposes, that's all.

And I have to say this which may get me a lot of flak, a lot of you openly declare you understand the gambler's fallacy then go on threads to show that you don't exactly understand the gambler's fallacy. Again I'm not putting YOU(rhetorical) in the spotlight. You need to examine your understanding and mindset about gambler's fallacy. Else YOU're in the rabbit hole yourself while YOU're looking at others stumbling around the rabbit hole. Not putting anybody down, nor elevating myself but this might help YOU.

[cht]

On betselection forum, Nickmsi asked the question and Bayes replied and he's spot on.

Quote from: Nickmsi on June 05, 2016, 02:12:32 am

What criteria could we use to verify the claim?

If in profit after 100,000 spins? Probably not as any good 50/50 system could be ahead.

The Van Keelen test?

What would an edge look like?

What would a test look like?

Hi Nick,

I assume you're talking about raw bet selection here and not any kind of MM/Progression. According to the "long run" a series of EC bets will only make a profit  in roughly 1 in 20 sessions of 5000 placed bets, so that would be a good starting point. If it's in profit after this you could get the z-score which is :

z = (w - n*p) / sqrt(n*p*(1-p))

If this is steadily increasing then there's a good chance you may have something. A score of +3 would only occur about 0.3% of the time, and anything higher even less, so for example if you have placed 5000 actual bets (not just spins) and have 2600 wins and 2400 losses, the score would be

z = (2600 - 5000 * 0.4865) / sqrt (5000 * 0.4865 * 0.5135) = 4.74 standard deviations above the mean, which would be pretty impressive.

I'm not picky but there're plenty cases where people freely use statistics, probability and odds interchangeably. They're not the same. I can't get a better video that explains the difference between statistics and probability. Get your understanding correct.

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu4x2DKn12g

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=4r_EWA3FXfM

[Steve]

Why disallow the use of handphones aka roulette computers ? I can appreciate those that measure the parameters of the wheel are banned BUT why disallow on a blanket basis in some jurisdiction that I read about ? These computers will lose eventually right ? So why not let the gambler's fallacy modeled computers be used, the house will still win since the math told us so ?

I heard those computer things are scams. There's no way on Earth you can predict where the ball will bounce. All random.

[Steve]

Regarding the probability vs odds videos, it's a long way of explaining a simple concept. The payouts never change.

The odds of a ball landing on a specific number are actually 100%, not 1 in 37. That's because the ball landed where it did because of the variables like rotor speed and many other variables.

If you had all the variables you could correctly predict the winning number 100% of the time. In reality there are too many variables for us to calculate, at least to be 100% accurate. So instead we take some shortcuts and consider the major variables. And this is all we need to have enough accuracy to overcome a slight -2.7% house edge.  A 5% edge is very easy with roulette computers. 30-80% is common. Sometimes you get over 120%.

Beating roulette is not impossible. Many people say it's totally impossible. But actually it's ridiculously easy once you know what you're doing. The problem isnt beating wheels. It's avoiding detection.

There are more than one ways of beating roulette. You don't need a roulette computer. I've suggested numerous ways to explore. The typical systems don't work because they don't at all change the odds. The odds of winning on the next spin are the same for the player. For 1 number, always 1 in 37 (Eu wheel). Use progression, fancy bet selection like repeaters.... but still you wont change the odds.

Progression is no different to a bunch of different sized bets from different people. Overall the group of players still lose. And you think one player doing the same bets makes a difference?

You can lay on your back with your legs in the air and run your arse off. You wont get anywhere despite your effort. Put your feet on the ground and the result is different. Most system players have their feet in the air, clueless to why their systems eventually fail. and they are convinced with their new system they finally "got it", until they do more testing. And you can be sure millions of others have tested almost an identical system, with varied results. Varied because the result just depends on what spins you get at the time - not the actual effectiveness of the system.

I'm not trying to push advantage play like computers or VB. I'm just saying focus on bet selection and actually changing the odds. Unless you change your odds, they stay at 1 in 37, and you wont beat the unfair payout. It's impossible. It's like transferring water between two cups of equal size, in extreme heat while the water evaporates....  while you wait for one cup to overflow. It wont happen unless you actually add more water. Its a dumb analogy but there have been even clearer ones, which arent understood anyway.

I dont agree that players dont have the means to find out the truth. They often have it rammed down their throats. It is willfully ignored. I think they are often lazy or are just looking for some magical way that requires no thought or effort at the table. I was like that before too.

I'm all for an easier way. But at least try something NEW. That's why I created the "outside the box" area: link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=104.0

And my suggestions for new things are at link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19212.0