Building systems around RARE EVENTS that never happen in your lifetime

[Winner]

Well I don't think your a circus .your a good guy Ido t no you personally 
But I think everyone here  is good were all trying to make a buck  .

[The General]

I'll commit serious time to a book that will actually help people win without
the clutter of naysayers throwing in completely unrelated arguments while they
never even read what I wrote.

Good luck on your book Turbo! 

[The General]

Since Turbo isn't willing to debate Steve or me on the issue any further, I'm going to switch sides and argue for the other side in place of Turbo.

This should be fun.

[cht]

Who's "running away" ?
I said I'm done posting. It's a waste of time.
That's not "running away" - that's your lame attempt to make me look wrong
when I'm not. Maybe read what I wrote again, or not - I don't care.

My example was using two players - one bet from the start and the other
waited for the "rare event" and then began betting.
I also said it was a temporary effect because given enough time and spins,
the "rare event" loses it's status and both players will lose in the long run
without a change happening. Given enough time - YES lightning can hit in the
same place twice. But you can bet and win that when it hits, it won't hit that spot
again and win for a very very long time. I know, it's nonsense.

Of course on the other forum Bago tries to point out that long term both players lose.
I never said long term - I said during the session both players are playing...
Player 2 has the clear advantage no matter how many times you test it -
and it's only because he/she waited for a rare event before betting -
and then he/she benefits because a "rare event" won't repeat itself in the
amount of time they are both playing.
If you believe that the last 3 number to appear - will repeat again as the last 3 numbers
to appear within the next 100 tries for example, then there's no point in explaining
Random has limits, either understand how this works or not.

It's useless to keep posting - both here and there.
If it's here then I'm jumped when posting results and told it's not accurate
when it indeed is. And there I have Bago up my ass 24/7 taking what I say
and making it into a losing argument by changing what I said into what suits
his idiotic side. So I'm done posting.
My live play will show my results - then it's just "not enough spins" and fine,
like I said I could care less.
I'll commit serious time to a book that will actually help people win without
the clutter of naysayers throwing in completely unrelated arguments while they
never even read what I wrote.
Every topic gets derailed to computers or bias wheels, but I'm being misleading.
So enjoy. If anyone duplicates my #1 climb at that "fixed" parx online for weeks
upon weeks (months actually) then I'm glad, but no one will. If anyone makes a chart
at Simulator that goes for months without a single loss to #2 (soon to be #1) then
I'm glad as well. But don't expect any credit other than rigged and fixed comments.
It's so easy to do yet the naysayers can't do it. Then the one person who could
show them is just hit with bats every time I post lol.. Nice. So you either don't want
to win, or you don't want others to win for some reason.
My casino results in PA and AC are "not enough spins".
I get it. Computers and Bias Wheels are the only way to go. Sure, that's
all you could post and not have your intelligence insulted on these forums
now - the forums are certainly "rigged" for those who profit from it.

General - did you re-send that PM to the right person instead of me ?
I get it now, it's all a joke and whatever I post will be met with attempts
to get me to run in circles and entertain you two. I'm wasting my time.
I get it.
Or I get the troll at the other forum - who takes anything I say and turns it
around making me sound like I'm wrong. Fair enough.
You guys decided to push away one person who could help everyone
and it's only because of other motives, certainly not to help members of
the forums.
But hey - it's over. My time I dedicate to posting will be replaced with putting
as much information as I can into a legitimate way to help everyone..
and when it comes out - you can post and complain about how it makes no
sense... you still won't bring yourself to admit when someone else is right.
It will help plenty of people though, I'll be satisfied with that.
I'm not happy about not posting anymore - but this circus where I'm
supposed to be the entertainment is over.
Cheers.

All that steve and general has offered is to cite the standard template of the random game that the spins are equally likely and independent. Ofc we all know the math.

As I have posted earlier, the relevance of Bayes comment about random in the real casino game.

Your horse analogy was excellent that got me thinking about variable start and finish lines, and where those runners are during the race. I found front runners could be winners of multiple races within the race that sets up the kurtosis spike that can be exploited.

Your "wait" for "rare events" example and the worse 3numbers street. That line of thought deserve test. I am not surprise what the test might reveal.

I was hoping that someone might address directly the points you made instead of cite broad brush common math that the debate might move the knowledge needle. Too bad didn't happen which is not a surprise since there's nothing offered beyond what's commonly known. It's still open for anyone to put forth their case.

Thank you for your excellent contributions TG. Be looking out for your book. The very best wishes.

[RouletteGhost]

Dear General,

please stop tormenting people on forums

A plethora of threads on multiple forums aimed at turbo (and others)

it is childish and pointless

these people are not forcing their ideas on others

you are hell bent on being a shithead

enough already, seriously

noone cares anymore, go away

steve allows it here because it helps his cause

you like to say "slots is a better option"

well for you, GF is a better option, or was the audience not BIG enough you attention whore

[Andre Chass]

The General is great!

I like him...lol

[The General]

I was hoping that someone might address directly the points you made instead of cite broad brush common math that the debate might move the knowledge needle. Too bad didn't happen which is not a surprise since there's nothing offered beyond what's commonly known. It's still open for anyone to put forth their case.

The problem is that nobody can dispute the math.  Did it occur to you that perhaps all of the history, and math books aren't wrong, and that's why they're commonly cited in the first place?  I'm just saying, there is some logic as to why it's common in the first place.   

[RouletteGhost]

The General is great!

I like him...lol

he is a forum troll that really has not contributed much over the years

picture a grown man in his elderly mothers basement who claims to win but doesnt

[cht]

The problem is that nobody can dispute the math.  Did it occur to you that perhaps all of the history, and math books aren't wrong, and that's why they're commonly cited in the first place?  I'm just saying, there is some logic as to why it's common in the first place.

Math is not logic. It is fact.

In case you did not follow, no one is disputing math.

[The General]

Ghost,

I get it, you like me.    However regarding the contributions...look a bit closer and you'll find that they're indeed there, and if you compare yours verses mine, well...I'm just a sayin...

Best of luck.

[RouletteGhost]

Ghost,

I get it, you like me.    However regarding the contributions...look a bit closer and you'll find that they're indeed there. 

Best of luck.

ill take silly systems any day over your repetitive condescending shit attitude day in and day out.

you don't think i see EXACTLY what you are doing?

I did not know you could be such a brown noser

GF just was not enough, haha

[Steve]

Who's "running away" ?
I said I'm done posting. It's a waste of time.

And playing on rigged Parx was not a waste of time?

Here we are getting to the meat of discussion. You have given specific examples to test, although I find them unclear, and now you don't want to continue discussion.

I also said it was a temporary effect because given enough time and spins, the "rare event" loses it's status and both players will lose in the long run without a change happening.

So the approach only temporarily works? The "rare event loses status"? This doesn't even make sense. If I'm reading this right, you're basically saying your example was pointless because it works for a bit then doesn't. If that was the case, then it never worked at all.

Of course on the other forum Bago tries to point out that long term both players lose.

Tony is just a childish troll trying to make himself feel superior and isn't interested in helping anyone.

You, me and Caleb know each other fairly well. For myself personally, my interest is just the truth. But still so far I haven't seen anything to merit your claims. Again you don't have to provide proof of anything. But you started publishing Parx results and claiming to have the HG. Anyone who does that is going to be put under the microscope. It's not personal.

Player 2 has the clear advantage no matter how many times you test it - and it's only because he/she waited for a rare event before betting - and then he/she benefits because a "rare event" won't repeat itself in the amount of time they are both playing.

This contradicts your earlier statement. By your logic, waiting for BBBBBBB then betting R gives an advantage. But it doesn't.

Random has limits, either understand how this works or not.

There are no limits. There is expectation, but not limits. Every spin combination will occur given enough spins. Simulations clearly show this. The math clearly shows this.

like I said I could care less.

Sorry but this is bugging me. The phrase is "couldn't care less". See link:s://:.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20could%20care%20less

I'll commit serious time to a book that will actually help people win without the clutter of naysayers throwing in completely unrelated arguments while they never even read what I wrote.

I'd like to have a read when done, but please give very clear examples so proper testing can be done.

Every topic gets derailed to computers or bias wheels, but I'm being misleading.

That's not my fault, I was just answering questions.

If anyone duplicates my #1 climb at that "fixed" parx online for weeks upon weeks (months actually) then I'm glad, but no one will. If anyone makes a chart at Simulator that goes for months without a single loss to #2 (soon to be #1) then I'm glad as well.

It wouldn't be hard. It just takes time. Like I said if someone provides the bot I'll happily do the challenge.

Alternatively, anyone can follow my instructions and use the free software and see repeaters don't change the odds at all. So why bet on a repeater? It's the same as a repeater, cold number, random number or whatever.

It's so easy to do yet the naysayers can't do it.

I'm not a "naysayer" or "negative Nancy". I'm asking valid questions because I think you're misleading people, although mostly unintentionally.

Computers and Bias Wheels are the only way to go.

I never said that. Most people don't have the mindset for any kind of professional play. And I actively encourage members to pursue NEW approaches. I only discourage the same old repackaged approaches that are guaranteed to lose.

You guys decided to push away one person who could help everyone and it's only because of other motives, certainly not to help members of the forums.

Nobody should just accept you have the HG. Rightfully your claims should be scrutinized. You should have expected that when you promoted Parx rankings and claimed you never lose.

I expect to be scrutinized for my claims too. I welcome it. It's very easy for me to prove my claims. For example, aim your webcam at a wheel and my computers can predict the winning number, then elaborate lies about me count for nothing.

I have "other motives"? No. What motives do other gaming professionals have for explaining your contradictions and mistakes?

I'm long at the point where I dont give a fuck if someone doesn't believe my computers are what I say. If people aren't smart enough to find out for themselves without risking anything, they aren't smart enough for any form of advantage play. My interests in refuting bullshit is mostly a matter of clarifying personal integrity, not for sales or business. My forums are for both advertising and a personal interest in roulette. But I do not censor anything within the rules, including HG talk. It's as if you are using my alleged "other motives" as an excuse to avoid scrutiny. Anyone who claims to have the HG will draw attention.

And your method is not a threat to me in any way. If I found something better than what I already have, I would be using it instead. Specifically I would seek to both use it myself and license it simultaneously in a secure way, as I do with my computers. Why? Because there are far more casinos that my teams can play in. So licensing maximizes revenue. Although it may not be possible to license securely if your system is so easily reverse engineered. Maybe it's time I do another public demo so make a few things clear. I have no doubt nothing comes close to what I have. But I am open to the possibility. And if you have something better, I have the integrity to congratulate you and give credit where is due. But so far you have only shown fundamental misunderstandings and made contradictions. It is nothing at all personal. Really I think you're a nice guy, but find you incorrect.

IF you or anyone had the HG, and could prove it, I would seek to purchase it from you. Or lease it from you, or look at some form of profit split. Then I would use my network of players to profit from it. But we're a long way from that considering all the proof suggests your claims aren't accurate.

My time I dedicate to posting will be replaced with putting as much information as I can into a legitimate way to help everyone..

It wont stop the scrutiny. Avoiding the head-on questions will make it worse.

you still won't bring yourself to admit when someone else is right.

You don't know me well. I pride myself on saying I'm wrong, when I'm wrong. Because I am comfortable with myself. And if ever I was not comfortable, then that is my problem to deal with. I've had many people direct their personal problems at me despite doing nothing wrong, and I don't ever want to me such a weak person to do the same thing to others. We all have our beliefs about reality. And often we find we are wrong. So while I of course have my beliefs, I am open to the possibility I may be completely wrong.

One example is the flat earth bullshit. When Falkor brought it up, I expected it to be a joke with no evidence at all. But I hate when people are ignorant and unwilling to listen to reason. So I took it seriously and properly investigated. And in the end, I found not a single piece of evidence to support the theory. I had an open mind with it. And I have an open mind with your claims. I have spent more time than I should have on it. And still so far, I have not seen one piece of correct and credible information to support your claims. In fact, everything points the other way. So I remain skeptical, but open-minded. Please don't accuse me of being ignorant or unwilling to admit being wrong. Again the fact is I'm very open to the possibility of being wrong, very open-minded, and will proudly admit when I'm wrong.

[Steve]

RG we know your opinion of Caleb. You dont have to constantly repeat it. We are trying to achieve something here, and constant Caleb bashing isnt helping.

Again he knows the line and so far isnt crossing it.

[cht]

The counter-arguments are incongruous and disjointed like we see in the past. Moving on.

[Steve]

You're not seeing the whole picture.