Latest discussion on repeaters(GF)

[Steve]

System players look at spins collectively, as data obeying rules (probability) and try to work through them statistically

No matter how many times you beat a dead horse's ass, it's not coming back to life.

they only care about physical causality

Not exactly. We look at data collectively - we look well beyond one spin. We look at statistics. We look at statistical relevance - ie is an event happening outside what would be expected if results were random?

An AP player looks at far more data than typical system players. That's why we're always saying "test more spins", and system players respond with "but we'll never play that many spins".

One example: statistics does not guarantee a wheel is biased, or that something is legit. Simply the more data you have, the more sure you can be.

There is not a chance they would talk about the bank and understand each other,

APs do understand system players. The problem is system players are wrong. Need proof? Never once have I ever known a system player, on this on any other forum, to give one valid point about "statistics" that can be exploited. There's plenty of talk like "there must be repeats", which is as useful as saying "eventually every number will spin".

Nobody is saying you cant win with a system. Like nobody is saying you can't win with random bets. A legitimate advantage is something very different.

APs do not have the misunderstanding. We can make statements, and back them up with verifiable proof. System players say "look, there are always repeats and we can prove it", but they are not understanding it's just basic statistics.

The day I find one tangible shred of information that indicates an edge is possible with nonsense like repeats, is the day I swap AP for it.

[Blueprint]

123 - can numbers increase without the first or second elements?  Can a decrease from 2 to 1 or 3 to 2 occur without the first element defining it?

Dependence creates a bias.  Accept that fact or move on.

[Steve]

Blueprint, your example is unclear. Please be more clear and elaborate.

What elements? 123 what? Whats decreasing? Whats defining what?

[Kav]

Steve,

I believe Blueprint refers to the known "argument" that to become a 3-times repeater a number has first to be a 2-times repeater etc.
I would agree with you on this one. It is stating the obvious and does not offer a clue on how to use this fact to our advantage.

[Steve]

How is it different to: for there to be two winning numbers, first there must be one.

Its equally useless.

[luckyfella]

Dependence creates a bias.  Accept that fact or move on.

Blueprint statement is correct.

But it does not explain things properly.

I started a new thread specially to discuss this aspect.
This thread is a discussion for people who wish to know more about this topic, the facts. No some shit. I dont care about your forum status - both forum owners means zero in my discussion, no disrespect intended. So dont write shit in my thread.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=26299.msg230945;topicseen#msg230945

For those who want to know real stuff, do yourself a favour read this thread.

I will write more when I have the time.

[Steve]

But there is no such dependence.

Can someone show otherwise?

When "proof" is provided so far, its an error or misundersranding.

If people are going to make claims, back them up.

[Steve]

I dont care about your forum status - both forum owners means zero in my discussion, no disrespect intended. So dont write shit in my thread.

Nobody gives a shit who owns the forum. Why would you even make a point like that?

What matters is verifiable fact, not fairytales.  It looks like you use my position as admin to discount what ive said.

Focus on the message, not the messenger.

[luckyfella]

Steve, pls delete this post, I posted on wrong thread. Thanks

[redhot]

Blueprint, your example is unclear. Please be more clear and elaborate.

What elements? 123 what? Whats decreasing? Whats defining what?

I assume he's referring to the results being higher or lower than the previous result.

The result (higher or lower) has a dependence on the previous number.

[Blueprint]

link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Szekeres_theorem

[Joe]

Dependence creates a bias.  Accept that fact or move on.

No it doesn't. Spins can be dependent/independent with or without there also being a bias. Bias and independence are not related, and certainly not by cause and effect.

[luckyfella]

No it doesn't. Spins can be dependent/independent with or without there also being a bias. Bias and independence are not related, and certainly not by cause and effect.

You are correct again. My earlier comment is wrong and I admit it. I am here to make post that's correct. Not spread wrong fact.

Lets be fair to blueprint who, like me, don't have a major in math. But I do read up on the facts to know what's right or wrong. In this case you are correct and we are wrong. I am wrong twice. But I correct myself when you point it out, so thank you again.

[Blueprint]

...and certainly not by cause and effect.

Perhaps you’re finally on to something there 

[Blueprint]

Ordinal sample-
What is the 3rd thing?

Cardinal sample â€"
Create a set or classification, what are 2 things..?

Now what?