Why not like AP players in forums ?

[Steve]

Negative expectation doesn´t depend on the odds. The reason is the negative pay out.

No, its the discrepancy between odds and payout. Its both.

as we can´t change that we have to deal with it, don´t we!

Dealing with it is not changing it? You are making contradictory statements.

With Roulette there are limited possibilities 37^37

And like i said, the payout is always below the odds, unless you change the odds. Your approach cannot possibly change odds. I'd still like you to show otherwise.

AP´s started and made the rules of discussion not me

Your logic was being questioned, not you. Dont be so offended.

[winkel]

...
Im still trying to make sense of it. Specifically im trying to understand why you think this approach would work. What am i missing?

Sorry, this is not personal but what is missing is fantasy.
Instead of following the idea you keep repeating old truths.

As long as the question remains: How do you change odds? (Even if I say I don´t do, and I don´t need) What kind of logic shall I oppose to it?
Same with the statement: You are bound to negative expectation.

I only can answer: BlaBla. Ic ould give millions of answers and explanation at the end: You don´t change odds so you can´t win.
That is no discussion with open mind and open end.

If you would look what e.g. Nottophammer has created from the main idea of "following the trot", could make you think. but as always:
What number hits in the next spin and are you able to predict. If you don´t change odds ..., You are bound to negative expectation..., Math is against you... math tells 1+1=2 and you can´t change and so on.


That is AP-BlaBla and no constructive discussion. And nobody seems to read what I said: I don´t chage, I don´t need to, I know the neg. expectation. Every now and then someone tells me to learn the math: 1+1=2. Study probability. You know nothing. You are a systemseller.
I´m so bored of this primary school grade of debate.

But back to the basics:
In lets say 50 spins there will be several crossings.
What is the expectation to lose all these crossings (which means none of them crosses)?
Can you answer that, then YOU know about probability.
If there is no crossing we don´t bet.
If we meet a crossing at a certain spin we can bet it or we don´t bet it, depending on appearance at an early spin or on a late spin.

There are some other hints or the ability of "reading what is going on" which raise our odds to win. And of course statistics and empiric

[winkel]

No, its the discrepancy between odds and payout. Its both.

Dealing with it is not changing it? You are making contradictory statements.

And like i said, the payout is always below the odds, unless you change the odds. Your approach cannot possibly change odds. I'd still like you to show otherwise.


Your logic was being questioned, not you. Dont be so offended.

Again you are starting this roundabout.
You don´t refer to my logic you keep repeating your old prayers and sermons

thanks I can´t discuss with someone who is not discussing and arguing, but repeating the first sentence of the debate.

[Steve]

Winkel you still havent shown any valid information to support your claims. Now youre getting upset because im questioning what appears to be obvious mistakes.

I want to be proven wrong.

Sorry, this is not personal but what is missing is fantasy.

Missing fantasy is a GOOD thing.

Instead of following the idea you keep repeating old truths.

When did your truths replace the old truths?

As long as the question remains: How do you change odds? (Even if I say I don´t do, and I don´t need) What kind of logic shall I oppose to it?

Forgive my ignorance. If you win 1 in 37 times but get paid 35-1, how are you supposed to profit?

I see you can ignore that. I find it difficult to ignore. It's basic math.

I only can answer: BlaBla. Ic ould give millions of answers and explanation at the end: You don´t change odds so you can´t win.
That is no discussion with open mind and open end.

Yes so I'm asking you, show me my mistake. I have an open mind. The problem is you aren't making sense, or I'm rather slow.

If you would look what e.g. Nottophammer has created from the main idea of "following the trot", could make you think. but as always:

You understand it so I'm asking for a simple example.

That is AP-BlaBla and no constructive discussion.

Perhaps it's blabla if you don't understand it.

But back to the basics:
In lets say 50 spins there will be several crossings.
What is the expectation to lose all these crossings (which means none of them crosses)?
Can you answer that, then YOU know about probability.
If there is no crossing we don´t bet.
If we meet a crossing at a certain spin we can bet it or we don´t bet it, depending on appearance at an early spin or on a late spin.

Please give an example with coin tosses. Explain how GUT would apply.

There are some other hints or the ability of "reading what is going on" which raise our odds to win.

You said you didn't change the odds. Now you do. Which is it?

[Nimo]

I want to be proven wrong.

You tell everyone to test, why don't you test it yourself and see what Winkel is talking about.  Some people learn better first hand rather than have something explained to them.  Prove yourself right or wrong.  You can't say that you already know its wrong if you say you don't know it.

[RouletteGhost]

You don’t need to change the odds or the math to win if you use statistics in your favor.

It won’t work EVERYTIME but enough to stay ahead.

Steve and General are stuck

Steve likes to say test test test

But even when you test test test and show the sheets it isn’t good enough

Steve why tell people to test test test if the odds aren’t being changed? That’s the end game of what you will say.

If on average we have X number hit why can’t we use that? Sure it won’t work everytime but so what

You do NOT need to change the odds or payout to be successful playing roulette

[The General]

If on average we have X number hit why can’t we use that? Sure it won’t work everytime but so what

You do NOT need to change the odds or payout to be successful playing roulette

You can use it but you will of course lose.  For example, we know that a number will on average hit once every 38 spins on the double zero wheel. In the short term it will sometimes hit less frequently, and sometimes more frequently.  There will also be extended periods where it doesn't hit. But in the long run, we can rely on it to hit at that frequency and to be paid out at only 35 to 1.  Meaning, you will lose at exactly the house edge because the payout is short.   

Knowing the averages doesn't enable you to bet when you think the numbers are due to hit, as that's part of the gambler's fallacy.

The Martingale has fooled many players into believing that they can exploit the so called "law of averages" and win once they believe the red or black has a 50% chance of winning. 

[RouletteGhost]

You can use it but you will of course lose. 

[The General]

Perhaps you can provide an example?

[RouletteGhost]

You and Steve aren’t so different

You say provide an example, when you and I both know that no example would be good enough

And Steve says properly test but then says nothing will work if you don’t change the odds. So what’s the point in testing by his logic?

So I’ll just leave this here

[Steve]

You tell everyone to test, why don't you test it yourself and see what Winkel is talking about.

Ive explained my understanding of his approach, which is betting based on a balance. It doesn't work. I tested this for years.

So in case the was something more to it, I've asked winkel to correct any misunderstanding i have. If my understanding is wrong and it's a new principle, I'll do more testing.

You don’t need to change the odds or the math to win if you use statistics in your favor.

You don't understand what you just said.

Steve and General are stuck

And the entire professional community who understand statistics are stuck too, or it's you who is stuck?

Steve likes to say test test test But even when you test test test and show the sheets it isn’t good enough

Ive done a lot more tests than anything I've seen anyone here post. Most tests i see here are extremely short term.

Steve why tell people to test test test if the odds aren’t being changed? That’s the end game of what you will say.

I'm saying test, so they see the odds arent being changed. Yes that is the end game because if you don't change the odds, your wins still occur as often as random, payouts are still short,  and you still eventually lose. Thats how the whole gambling industry works.

If on average we have X number hit why can’t we use that? Sure it won’t work everytime but so what

If 36 is always lower than 37, why can't it be the other way around? Thats your question.

You do NOT need to change the odds or payout to be successful playing roulette

36 can be basically be greater than 37, for no reason. Thats basically what you said.

Its not me,  caleb, and the whole professional world who are stuck.

Almost every system is a combination of the same bad principles, repackaged. And the player isn't aware it has been tested since gambling existed.

[RouletteGhost]

Steve I understand

payouts and odds dont change with betting systems

however using averages can help a player win more than lose.....

[Steve]

however using averages can help a player win more than lose.....

HOW?

The typical talk of "averages" are things like "after 37 spins, on average, there will be 24 unique numbers". It doesn't work for reasons explained many times.

It's no different to saying after 100 spins, there will be around half red, half black. People are forgetting fundamental facts already explained at :.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/

When I say test, it is so people can see for themselves.

Then there's the debacle with Turbo's approach, which attempts to use the fact that repeaters is more probable than no repeaters. We know that. It's basic statistics and probability. But it does not and cannot change the 1 in 37 accuracy. And with unfair payouts you're still stuck at -2.7% house edge. So really you changed nothing. You arent predicting which numbers will become hot. You are randomly betting, based on what you think are predictable patterns, when they're just basic probability.

It isnt being understood, which is why we go in circles.

[RouletteGhost]

because if 90% of the time there is a 3 peater in a 37 spin cycle this is information a gambler can use

this is common sense....

i understand the math doesnt change spin to spin

[Steve]

because if 90% of the time there is a 3 peater in a 37 spin cycle this is information a gambler can use

Sure you can use it, but it doesn't help, at all.

i understand the math doesnt change spin to spin

So you basically said "you can use it, but it doesn't help at all".

You aren't changing the math either for the next spin, or any amount of future spins. Your hit rate is still lower than the payout.

This is not being understood, which is why we keep going in circles.