Precognition - PROOF! results from MPR - the real holy grail

[Moxy]

That's not gambler's fallacy. It's a form of confirmation bias used as a positive thing. In confirmation bias you see what you want to see.  Gambler's fallacy is a basic premise that something is due because of cause and effect.  If there is a streak of reds then more blacks are due. That is a fallacy.  The difference, the way that I see it, is that a thing is in a current state of happening and that It might happen some more.  But also an added layer is running on top of all that. There is a trend for when these guesses go into a very effective state.

Here is proof of this concept where trends are completely left out of the selection process. All bet selections are placed on Red and Red only for the next 300 spins, about 10 hours of live play at a busy casino. You bet $90 on each bet that is in a state of working very good in stretches or streaks. You bet $5 on all other conditions for each spin.  So it goes from observing trends to actual telemetry of real effectiveness and the recognition or awareness of these conditional states. Nothing is believed to be due. It just comes and goes all on it's own and without any expectation or magical belief.

I think people need things defined as gambler's fallacy in order to confirm the rational for dismissing things that they have not clearly thought out. In other words it's a defense mechanism or a control mechanism for misunderstanding disagreement. It's comforting to not have to think. It's a relief from that burden. Many people give themselves the permission to dismiss ideas that require extra work to understand because the group thinkers give them that permission & out.  It's OK now, and later they will have group think remorse. Pack mentality is for easy passage and an uneventful life. Those that find out last will get what they set out to get.

The calvary rides on.

[gizmotron2]

The calvary rides on.

Says the prolific and pondering pragmatical road apple in contemplating movement as it passes by.

[winforus]

No, none of the systems he uses can be classed as AP because they're all based on past events and numbers. As I said, there are multiple systems, ranging from a few straight-up numbers to outside bets, although nothing of lower odds than EC. The bet selections are based on patterns, trends or hot/cold events or numbers - classic gambler's fallacy stuff! And the money-management is flat-betting most of the time; the pattern is to start with higher odds bets (like a street) and then, if needed, losses are recovered using a lower odds bet (like a dozen or EC). It's kind of like a 'parachute' system only in reverse.

Didn't Steve say, that back in the days, when he was a system player, he thought that he found a winner - only after years of winning with it, actually losing and realizing that it was a losing system?

Prior to using this system - did he tell you how much he tested it? On how many spins did he test it?

And do you have any other information? How frequently does he use it, how many spins per session on average does he play?

I also have a hard time believing that he didn't get banned from online casinos, or has not encountered that problem, as casinos ban any consistent winners - no matter how you win.

[pepper]

as casinos ban any consistent winners - no matter how you win.

People always say this, but has anyone really been banned from beating roulette. This information is no where to be found. Perhaps casinos hide it to protect themselves. Exclude using roulette computers or cheating.

The wizard from the wizard of odds website said that nobody has ever been banned from beating roulette. Again, I would obviously not include cheaters in this, but possibly no one has even been banned from cheating at roulette either, maybe just arrested and/or convicted of crime/s.

Also, I am not counting online casinos, but maybe no one has ever been banned from beating roulette online either. If they were banned from winning online, they were probably exploiting the rng or doing some type of hacking.

[winforus]

Also, I am not counting online casinos, but maybe no one has ever been banned from beating roulette online either. If they were banned from winning online, they were probably exploiting the rng or doing some type of hacking.

I was referring to online casinos - as that person who programmed the program, is using at online casinos, according to Joe. In real casinos - you can get away with a lot more than at online casinos - as the winnings in online casinos are tracked much more easily.

Many people have been banned from playing online, you really have no clue. Which is why Steve says, once you got a winning method, it's all about how much you can get away with.

[Moxy]

Says the prolific and pondering pragmatical road apple in contemplating movement as it passes by.

Nice alliteration. 

I anxiously await another axiomatic anecdote in the annals of Giz..Mo..Tron.

[Moxy]

People always say this, but has anyone really been banned from beating roulette. This information is no where to be found. Perhaps casinos hide it to protect themselves. Exclude using roulette computers or cheating.

The wizard from the wizard of odds website said that nobody has ever been banned from beating roulette. Again, I would obviously not include cheaters in this, but possibly no one has even been banned from cheating at roulette either, maybe just arrested and/or convicted of crime/s.

Also, I am not counting online casinos, but maybe no one has ever been banned from beating roulette online either. If they were banned from winning online, they were probably exploiting the rng or doing some type of hacking.

Go out there and prove us wrong Cayenne!

[pepper]

I have good news concerning getting banned. There is no worldwide ban. If you ever find a winning method, go big, really big, because even if you get banned, you can just avoid the area where you were banned. Then, you know to be more careful in the future. Blackjack players just get banned from here and there. Also, if you get banned you can just pass on your knowledge to someone and split profits with them.

Moreover, it looks like wearing masks in public will remain acceptable. You can just tell others where to bet without revealing your identity. The other people cash in the chips and split profits with you. The worst thing that could happen in this scenario is that they could kick you out of the casino, and you can just go back after so much time passes.

The casino can ask for identification if YOU are cashing in the chips. Legally, you don't even have to show it, even if you are cashing in the chips, if it is under $10,000 (unless you're obviously avoiding a CTR, so just limit it to $9,000). The casino will hold your chips hostage if you don't show an ID. So, you just contact gaming and/or an attorney to straighten it out to get your money.

The casino will ask for identification on any big win; sometimes this is just $900. So, if you don't want to show your identification, then don't.

Go out there and prove us wrong Cayenne!

Do you want me to prove that you can get banned or that you can't?

[Moxy]

I have good news concerning getting banned. There is no worldwide ban. If you ever find a winning method, go big, really big, because even if you get banned, you can just avoid the area where you were banned. Then, you know to be more careful in the future. Blackjack players just get banned from here and there. Also, if you get banned you can just pass on your knowledge to someone and split profits with them.

Moreover, it looks like wearing masks in public will remain acceptable. You can just tell others where to bet without revealing your identity. The other people cash in the chips and split profits with you. The worst thing that could happen in this scenario is that they could kick you out of the casino, and you can just go back after so much time passes.

The casino can ask for identification if YOU are cashing in the chips. Legally, you don't even have to show it, even if you are cashing in the chips, if it is under $10,000 (unless you're obviously avoiding a CTR, so just limit it to $9,000). The casino will hold your chips hostage if you don't show an ID. So, you just contact gaming and/or an attorney to straighten it out to get your money.

The casino will ask for identification on any big win; sometimes this isn just $900. So, if you don't want to show your identification, then don't.
Do you want me to prove that you can get banned or that you can't?

You did well Kimosabe.  A field assignment is in order.

[pepper]

Meaningless phrases, meaningless phrases, pointless words, pointless words...

Prophecy: Isaiah 44:18,
They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand.

[Moxy]

Meaningless phrases, meaningless phrases, pointless words, pointless words...

Prophecy: Isaiah 44:18,
They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand.

Bocce balls!

[pepper]

Just an idea: find a way to consistently lose more than expected, then reverse it.

[Steve]

Thought of that. Doesn't work.

[cht]

Just an idea: find a way to consistently lose more than expected, then reverse it.

Joe should be able to provide the math explanation.

[pepper]

He's/She's got a point.   Most every online casino (real live tables mainly) will ban you at some point in time in an effort to not allow you to use them as a source of income if you take them hard and often.

So he would have to essentially win little here and there and lose even less here and there as to not trigger any alarm bells to thrive for years.  And maybe do that stealthily with multiple online casino accounts for a more substantial take. 

Years ago, I won 6k from 1k in one night.  The very next day, hastily as I was, thinking that I was on the fast track to you know what, the RNG almost seemed to dynamically "play" against me regardless what I did.

At the time I didn't know any legit AP play so it was very likely the casino odds finally catching up to me.  But, I am certain to this day the consecutive amount of losses it gave me went past the statistical norm of common variance because I most likely triggered their alarm bell on the huge win the night prior, which I also may have won past the statistical norm of common variance. 

In other words, the RNG was rigged to let you win first, only to take all of your money in the end and hope you didn't learn your lesson the first time around.  I sure did though. I got it back up to 5k and withdrew.  Never played again.But if your in law is thriving then good for him.

Maxipad, r u sum fake news liberal tearing down his own abolutionist statue?