Is proper bet selection really necessary?

[Steve]

Why Winkel?

Until recently, I knew nothing about his strategies. Of course I knew of him though.

Why are you both NEVER in Proofreaders posts.

Is he claiming to have a HG? Not that I'm aware of. What I see from proofreaders is he posts a lot of systems and results. And yes his systems all make the same fundamental mistakes. But at least when he finds the system doesn't work, he says so.

Unfortunately proofreaders goes in circles and needs to understand why his approaches arent working. Or they "appear" to work for a while, then reality hits. If you chose 10 random systems, perhaps one of them will perform significantly better. That doesn't mean this system is better. It just means over whatever spins you played, the spins worked well for the system. But continue testing and you find the truth.

i believe methods like KTF and GUT help a player win by having more wins than losses...without changing the odds or math

Winning more than losing IS changing the odds. That's exactly what makes "winning more than losing" possible, excluding lucky and short-term wins especially with progression. But Winkel is talking about flat betting.

Consider this....

You bet on a coin toss, with a 50% probability of winning. You bet $1 on each toss.
When you lose, you lose your $1.
When you win, you are paid $0.90 + your original $1 bet.

Even when you win, you are paid short. So how can you ever stay ahead?

You could try progression, but all that does is vary the amount you risk on each toss. You could get lucky and win big, OR you could lose even more. There is no escaping the unfair payout (house edge)... UNLESS you win significantly more than 50% of the time. And that's what "increasing the accuracy of predictions" is.

I just wasted more time explaining fundamentals again. Time I should have spent addressing winkels post.

[The General]

"Odds are 1/37, there are 37 pockets and the ball can only land in one, the odds of the ball landing in a pocket are 1/37"

We agree!  The probability that the ball will land in one of the pockets is 99.99999999999%, you could get a croupier that is pissed off that you show up at the table, and fires off the ball so hard that it slingshots around the wheel and takes off into the cleavage of the blonde that I'm standing beside.  So it can't be a perfect 100%

Ha!  We agree!

[The General]

Why Winkel?

Why not?  I don't care who writes bad info.  I'll point it out from time to time as I see it. 
Again, I don't have anything against Winkel.    I'm not attacking the poster.   

[Turner]

I'm not attacking the poster.

Dont you mean "forumtards"

[Steve]

Caleb isnt allowed to use that term here. He understands the rules. What he does on other forums is not my concern. We are wasting time here.

[Steve]

I watch a trot and after spin 10 there is 27 unhit 10 hit once and no repeater.

Ok we start with a sequence of 10 spins, with 10 unique numbers like:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

In the past I watched this situation several times.
the results for spin 11 :
bet 10 numbers odds 10/37 wins 3 losses 7
statistical results should be 6 wins 4 losses

How many spins are you betting? 10 numbers per spin? Your explanations are really as clear as mud. Please be more specific.

If I lose this bet in spin 11 I do the same calculation for spin 12.

What same calculations? All you've done so far is observed 10 spins, but you havent explained what you bet and why. You explained what results you got, a few times. How is that proof of anything except what might happen?

bet 10 numbers odds 10/37 wins 3 losses 7
statistical results should be 6 wins 4 losses

Please give thought to your grammar, so it makes sense. I understand english may not be your first language, but you are speaking Chinese to me. Without me fully understanding what you are saying before you say what you're saying, your explanations are ambiguous and not specific.

additional example:
17-10
16-11
15-12
14-13
I don´t bet this crossing

Why not?

additional example:
14-17
14-16
14-15
14-14
I do bet this crossing

Why? And exactly how would you bet the crossing?

additionally I watch in which spin this happens
It makes a difference if it appears in spin 25 or in spin 44

Why does it make a difference?

Winkel, I'm reading explanations from other people which make a lot more sense. The problem with that is they are not directly from you. Your explanations would be a nightmare to a coder because they are vague and not specific. But could you please address my questions. And please be very careful and clear with your explanations.

[TheMind]

@Winkel

Are you able to develop algorithms? All crossing fail. Even if you use permutations and combinatorics on them. So I wonder how you do your magic?

[TheMind]

You always try to find something which proofs I am lying or evasive or contradictionary.
What you don´t see is that GUT is a very elaborated strategy which can´t be explained on single sheet of paper.
Coding would need definitely more than 500$.
You can´t imagine what is in it. But I don´t explain more than the basic rules in public.
As you proofed it is hard to understand the basic crossing definition. 

I do it free for you. If you refuse, just learn to code, simulate millions of spins and then it's time to retire, after finding yourself in minus.

[TheMind]

No, that's not what I'm saying, take this sample for GUT 18/19

Spin 1 probability of a hit is 48.6486%
Spin 2 probability of a hit is 73.6303%
Spin 3 probability of a hit is 86.4588%
Spin 4 probability of a hit is 93.0464%
Spin 5 probability of a hit is 96.4292%
Spin 6 probability of a hit is 98.1663%
Spin 7 probability of a hit is 99.0584%
Spin 8 probability of a hit is 99.5164%
Spin 9 probability of a hit is 99.7517%
Spin 10 probability of a hit is 99.8724%
Spin 11 probability of a hit is 99.9345%
Spin 12 probability of a hit is  99.9663%
Spin 13 probability of a hit is 99.9827%
Spin 14 probability of a hit is 99.9911%
Spin 15 probability of a hit is 99.9954%
Spin 16 probability of a hit is 99.9976%
Spin 17 probability of a hit is 99.9987%
Spin 18 probability of a hit is 99.9993%
Spin 19 probability of a hit is 99.9996%
Spin 20 probability of a hit is 99.9998%
Spin 21 probability of a hit is 99.9999%
Spin 22 probability of a hit is 99.9999%

You know the meaning of these probabilities?

Spin 3 probability of a hit is 86.4588%
After betting 3!!! x 18 units on 18 numbers, you have a chance of 86,4588% that one of them hits >= 1

And for playing this GUT crossing probability (18/19 only)
0,4864 * 18 - 0,5135 * 18 = -0,4878$ EV

2nd spin is lower than 50% for a single show up. Not 73.63%.

And each crossing bet has a negative EV. Why bother?

[winkel]

The payout will always be short of the probability of winning for your 10 numbers, regardless of how long they go with or without hitting.  If your 10 numbers have not hit after 30 spins, then the probability of them winning on the next spin is still the same as it would be if they had hit.  Again, just count the number of pockets that remain on the wheel at each spin if you don't believe me.

What is the logical solution of this?

Don´t play roulette, don´t talk about it, don´t read about it, don´t run a forum about it.

[winkel]

... Your explanations are really as clear as mud. ...

Steve, you did understand what I wrote.
And I´m sure my English is good enough that people can follow my explanations. Even if my English is not 100% perfect.

But this quality of "argument" and answering is not what I understand under a "proper discussion"

[winkel]

Nope, its fact vs fiction. You dont understand, its simple. Caleb and I get a little itchy when we see people spreading what is essentially "harmful bullshit", which to any reasonably educated and logical person is obvious.

Really, really bad logic. According to you, any questioning of logic means there is likely merit. Pay attention, you might learn what motivates caleb and I to waste our time is distaste for complete hogwash, and making the truth clear.  Please stop distracting the conversation.

Still opinion no proof at all.

I should have stayed out of this forum like I did for many months.

[Steve]

What is the logical solution of this?

Don´t play roulette, don´t talk about it, don´t read about it, don´t run a forum about it.

No. Simply try new approaches focusing on increasing accuracy, instead of approaches that are literally no more effective than random bets.

Have you ever seen me criticize a genuinely new approach, whether it works or not?

[Steve]

Steve, you did understand what I wrote.
An I´m sure my English is good enough that people can follow my explanations.

But this quality of "argument" and answering is not what I understand under a "proper discussion"

If your explanations were clear, why did i ask questions? Geez winkel i even explained what was unclear. Please stop dragging this on whinging about everything. Can you please just clarify your explanations?

[Steve]

I should have stayed out of this forum like I did for many months.

Was that because you liked to make claims but couldn't substantiate them or answer simple questions?

You know if you make bold claims like you can know for sure which 12 numbers won't spin next, but you don't change odds, you should expect people to question you. Instead you whinge about it and play the victim.

... or should everyone just take your word?