Building systems around RARE EVENTS that never happen in your lifetime

[The General]

Turner,

You're messing up the thread with politics.  Make way for the Turbo debate.

Start a different thread for the other stuff.

[Turner]

Turner,

You're messing up the thread with politics.  Make way for the Turbo debate.

Start a different thread for the other stuff.

Messing threads up? LMAO. Pot calling the Kettle black or what?

sorry, and I know your opinion is important to you, but I may just want to hear what turbo has to say without scrolling through gifs of unicorns, spiraling roulette wheels and a bald man nodding.
 

[Steve]

Steve you are ruining your own forum. Just so ya know.

I assume you're referring to Caleb.

1. He understands trolling wont be tolerated.

2. At the moment you are even more abrasive than he is. For example, starting the thread against bias players purely to spite Caleb.

3. Actually the forum is very heavily biased (no pun intended) towards "system play". Having myself and Caleb provide another point of view (aka the truth) better balances the forum. It makes the forum a more productive place.

I'm sure you don't agree with that. Don't confuse conflict with unpopular truth. Is ignorance more productive than unpopular but verifiable truth?

You are giving General what he wants. An old bitter man who can’t find biased wheels in this day and age. Why are you doing this? You are making me laugh lately

This is what I explained to Turner:

My position is what he says needs to be understood. Lately it has almost entirely been just me having to beat the truth into people. It has nothing to do with sales of anything. I'm genuinely trying to steer people in the right direction. Some dont want that help, but everyone still needs to see the other side instead of letting useless theories and holy grails dominate discussions.

Caleb helps with that balance. If people want to avoid discussions with him, they can use the system players section.

I reminded him today to be careful.

Why even have a system forum if you are going to say this everyday. LOL. Having something that you hate? Doesn’t make sense.

It's a ROULETTE forum, not just a system forum. Or should we ignore verifiable facts that every professional in the industry knows?

It's really not complicated RG. I'm a roulette enthusiast too. Even if I retired from play or didnt sell anything, I would still maintain the forum. And I would still ensure it is a BALANCED forum where people are still free to explain unpopular truth.

Have a roulette system forum and then bash it. Makes sense!

Am i bashing systems, or explaining the truth about what does and doesn't work, and why?

Should I tell everyone they can make a fortune with systems?

I made this observation after only 1month I joined this forum. Owner of systems forum actively bashing systems. Isn't hard to figure it out that's to cordon the crowd.

It's simpler. Most of the time I let people stay ignorant. Every now and then, I have enough of shutting my mouth and decide to help people. It is a simplistic and shallow view to think my responses are about selling something.

To bet selection i go

... where the truth is shunned, and ignorance is ignored. You know we have the system player's only section for that.

Show me 37 UNIQUE numbers in 37 spins. 
Prove it.   I'll wait. 

You haven't understood. Re-read the explanation. Or make a system that relies on rare events never happening. Go win millions.

You can work a system
around rare events, and even patterns and they work incredibly well.

Turbo, say you were betting on individual numbers. After your rare event trigger, the odds of the next number spinning are...... still 1 in 37.

The rare events are just normal probability. Betting on or against rare events is fallacy.

Turbo,

Do you want me to argue for or against your theory?  If arguing for I can create some good arguments and throw some math around in a vein attempt to help you with your debate with Steve.  If you want me to argue against your theories...then I can do the same.   In the meantime I'll just watch.   Let me know if you'd like to hire me as your counselor.

Its very difficult to have any structured debate or discussion, because many people take it personally. And as I've found many times, carefully presenting the truth gets nowhere, because most people dont care or understand.

What Steve and Caleb do makes people ignorant for longer. Their mistake is forgetting human nature.

For people who put pride before truth, yes it lengthens their learning curve. They are more concerned with being right than finding the truth. Such people don't concern me.

For people who put truth before pride, the unpopular facts (with explanations to verify it) are very helpful, and shorten learning curves. Just as any well-written explanations do. These are the people I'm interested in helping.

[cht]

I have no allegiance to Steve. I wouldnt say we were friends but there seems to be zero friction between us.

I have said on many occasions that I moderate here as a payback to Steve for my being able to be here for the last 8 years totally free.

I tend to be a very loyal person, and I do have a modicum of loyalty to him.

Never look a gift horse in the mouth.....as they say.

This is Steves forum. He pays for it and admins it gratis.

What I will say is this.....

Steve tends to get peoples back up who dont want to hear the truth. He is quite open to new ideas, and encourages them.

No one learned a thing without failing....or even better, failing badly. Steve or Caleb or anyone can not accelerate that learning

If anything, it makes the ignorant more determined to prove they are right, and their path to the truth is bit longer.

What Steve and Caleb do makes people ignorant for longer. Their mistake is forgetting human nature.

I tend to agree with what they say though

See my post link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20180.msg196356#msg196356

The center to what is known as the "truth" is what's our personal believe about random in roulette.

Ofc it's easier to adopt the assumption that the real roulette game is random which means spins are equally likely and independent - end of story.

Bayes post here perfectly describes another valid view where my inquisitive mind stands exactly with him.

My position is we can't be completely sure since there are undeniable evidence to the contrary, and that permits the open mind that allows for Bayes standpoint.

Priyanka,

Your question poses a bit of a dilemma for me, because on the one hand, I'm a "math guy". That means I respect the maths and "believe" it. On the other hand, I'm also a system junkie, and without boasting I claim to have done rather well out of roulette playing my systems.

I absolute get what the General is saying. The random game of roulette cannot be beaten because IF spins are equally likely and independent, no winning system is possible - that's one definition of what random MEANS - equally likely and independent. Simple logic.

However, how do I explain the fact that the house edge hasn't caught up with me? The general will say it's because I've essentially been lucky (riding a temporary positive variance), but I know enough about probability and statistics to know that it can't be so, because "luck" runs out eventually. I also know a few others who have been similarly "lucky".

So I propose the following hypothesis which may account for my success. The random game of roulette really only exists in some Platonic realm where mathematical equations are real (not just models of the world) and *dictate* outcomes, which is absurd. There is the random game of roulette and there's the real game which the general exploits because real wheels are not Platonic wheels.

So in the real world we can strike out one of the twin pillars of randomness - that outcomes are equally likely - at least sometimes and for some wheels it is not the case. Is it so absurd, then, to suggest that the remaining pillar of randomness - independence - also exists only in a Platonic realm?

After all, you can't *prove* independence. You can test for it, and of course outcomes really are independent in the sense that each pocket remains on the wheel between spins, but independence can be violated in other ways, and the tests for independence such as Chi-Square etc are just that - tests. And there are any number of ways of testing. Do you know how many statistical tests are out there? literally hundreds, and more being invented all the time.

Testing a simple scenario like "after 10 reds in a row black is more likely" will always return the apparently obvious and common sense result that these events are independent when using the simple tests which everyone knows about (well, all statisticians anyway). No argument from me there, but is that sufficient to put an end to the matter? I don't believe so.

You may argue that non-bias and independence are fundamentally different beasts and that no-one has ever found a wheel which generates dependent outcomes, but plenty of wheels have been found to be biased. But that just begs the question - it *assumes* the very thing to be proved.

All that debate aside, since we know there exist this divide of absolute truth about the random game of roulette on one hand, and this possibility of not completely random.

To declare someone who is open minded enough to not simply accept this absolute believe as ignorant, stupid, shallow, naive and whatnot snide remarks is name-calling exercise that do not add one iota to the argument.

It comes across as the owner of the forum do not accept and is intolerant to contrarian views when the response is the standard "equally likely" and "independent", "odds remain unchanged" template is regurgitated in all posts offering nothing more plus the usual so-called justified name-calling. That action certainly do not reflect the open mind, reveals a mind that lacks imagination. It only manage to stifle contributions.

Why then have a systems forum if the believe is there is only one "truth" ? An obvious question in everybody's mind.

[Steve]

The center to what is known as the "truth" is what's our personal believe about random in roulette.

Does your opinion change reality?

Ofc it's easier to adopt the assumption that the real roulette game is random which means spins are equally likely and independent - end of story.

Nothing is ever "random". As Turner also said, I actively encourage NEW approaches. My problem is only with OLD approaches that we already know and can prove they don't work. One example is repeaters. but even when I explain how everyone can verify this, few properly understand or even bother to properly test. So they stay clueless.

Bayes post here perfectly describes another valid view where my inquisitive mind stands exactly with him.

Again I support NEW approaches. Stay inquisitive. That's the best way. But do not also neglect simple logic and clear tests.

To declare someone who is open minded enough to not simply accept this absolute believe as ignorant, stupid, shallow, naive and whatnot snide remarks is name-calling exercise that do not add one iota to the argument.

But what happens when clear explanations and proof is ignored?

It comes across as the owner of the forum do not accept and is intolerant to contrarian views when the response is the standard "equally likely" and "independent", "odds remain unchanged" template is regurgitated in all posts offering nothing more plus the usual so-called justified name-calling. That action certainly do not reflect the open mind, reveals a mind that lacks imagination. It only manage to stifle contributions.

So when I see people declaring 1+1=42, I dare not say anything because it will seem narrow-minded? It would mean I lack imagination?

Please dont tell me about regurgitation. Take a look at the HG talk, compare verifiable information I explain, and tell me what's more like regurgitation.

Why then have a systems forum if that's the case ? An obvious question in everybody's mind.

It's a roulette forum before being a system forum. I'm not against "systems". I'm against approaches that are guaranteed to eventually lose.

And RG, dont give me that crap that people are just dabbling as a hobby. Most people here are serious about making money from roulette. So why should verifiable fact be stifled in favor of re-invented losing approaches that make casinos billions? If you just want to tinker, try the system players only forum where Caleb cant post, and I sure wont post.

[Blueprint]

You haven't understood. Re-read the explanation. Or make a system that relies on rare events never happening. Go win millions.

I understand, Steve.  Do you?  What I'm stating is a FACT.  If you weren't so wrapped up in your sales offers you may actually learn something new. 

It's already been spelled out for you many times by people who know way more than I do.  But I do know this is a FACT, not my opinion.

[Steve]

I understand, Steve.  Do you?  What I'm stating is a FACT.  If you weren't so wrapped up in your sales offers you may actually learn something new. 

You know every professional in the gaming industry shares my views. So forget the sales talk bullshit. It's not my motivation. It's more a convenient thing for people to say when they have nothing else.

But ok, you claim i'm the ignorant one. So teach me.

What I'd like is ONE EXAMPLE of how using rare events will improve your chances of winning. Just ONE clear example please.

It's already been spelled out for you many times by people who know way more than I do.

Maybe, but you understand it, right? That's why you're saying it's FACT, right?
So then you can explain it to me, right?

But I do know this is a FACT, not my opinion.

Ok, so then explain it to my dumb head, please.

[cht]

Actually, alrelax being a moderator over at betselection is a minor worry for you.

A bigger -- much bigger -- worry for you is this:

link:://global.espn.com/football/manchester-city/story/3459197/pep-guardiola-near-one-year-manchester-city-extension-sources

Pep will be at City for at least two more years.

Which means your gang of mercenaries will be watching the league -- helplessly and hopelessly -- from the sidelines for at least two more years.

     

IF city wins CL then you earn the bragging rights to hail Pep. Short of that the gazillion oil funded project is a failure. So complete the failure to lose both legs. *facepalm* Until then, SIT DOWN.

[Blueprint]

You know every professional in the gaming industry shares my views. So forget the sales talk bullshit. It's not my motivation. It's more a convenient thing for people to say when they have nothing else.

But ok, you claim i'm the ignorant one. So teach me.

What I'd like is ONE EXAMPLE of how using rare events will improve your chances of winning. Just ONE clear example please.

Maybe, but you understand it, right? That's why you're saying it's FACT, right?
So then you can explain it to me, right?

Ok, so then explain it to my dumb head, please.

The problem is that we're not talking about a rare event.  We're talking about it NEVER happening.  See the difference?

[RouletteGhost]

I may just want to hear what turbo has to say without scrolling through gifs of unicorns, spiraling roulette wheels and a bald man nodding.

LMAO

[RouletteGhost]

i see passive aggressiveness from the general to turner.

clear to see general is jealous.

listen, turner is a better moderator than you EVER will be or would have been...he doesn't let emotion play into his moderating decisions, like you used to....not easy being unbiased....

[Steve]

The problem is that we're not talking about a rare event.  We're talking about it NEVER happening.  See the difference?

There is a difference in principle. But it actually will happen, given enough spins.

But let's talk just in your lifetime. ANY specific sequence of 37 spins will PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN in your lifetime. So why not choose any random sequence of 37 spins to bet will never happen??

Just try it. Try to make a system around an event that will never happen in your lifetime. It doesn't work. It's classic fallacy, like seeing 10 reds in a row and expecting 11 reds will never happen. But the odds of red/black are the same.

None of this is opinion. It is absolute fact. It is incredibly well tested and established. It seems only on gambling forums is this fundamental and universally proven truth absent.

listen, turner is a better moderator than you EVER will be or would have been...he doesn't let emotion play into his moderating decisions, like you used to....not easy being unbiased....

Are you talking to me or Caleb? Turner's moderating policy is based on rules I set. The rules are fair and balanced. Generally we don't moderate anything besides the obvious bullshit. If you are talking to Caleb, actually I agree he was biased and unfair as a mod. But it's quite irrelevant to the discussion.

[RouletteGhost]

i was addressing caleb

obviously without him there is peace

people discuss their strategies in peace and noone argues....

[RouletteGhost]

the everlasting need to condescend people is healthy for no forum

id rather read stupid systems

[Blueprint]

There is a difference in principle. But it actually will happen, given enough spins.

But let's talk just in your lifetime. ANY specific sequence of 37 spins will PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN in your lifetime. So why not choose any random sequence of 37 spins to bet will never happen??

Just try it. Try to make a system around an event that will never happen in your lifetime. It doesn't work. It's classic fallacy, like seeing 10 reds in a row and expecting 11 reds will never happen. But the odds of red/black are the same.

None of this is opinion. It is absolute fact. It is incredibly well tested and established. It seems only on gambling forums is this fundamental and universally proven truth absent.

Are you talking to me or Caleb? Turner's moderating policy is based on rules I set. The rules are fair and balanced. Generally we don't moderate anything besides the obvious bullshit. If you are talking to Caleb, actually I agree he was biased and unfair as a mod. But it's quite irrelevant to the discussion.

Whatever you say, Steve.  Got it.  It’s a shame you’re unwilling to SEE differently.  The difference is coming up with another 37 spin sequence will contain repeats.  Won’t it?   If not, then you would have 37 unique numbers.