Is proper bet selection really necessary?

[Tinsoldiers]

A crossing will happen. It’s a guarantee

I read through the whole GUT thread. I have one question to ask though. We are waiting for 19 : 18 as a crossing and then bet on 19 numbers. Now why not 20:17 or 21:16.  20:17 will become 19:18, 21:16 has to become 20:17.  Why is 19:18 different from others. I am not able to get my head around this and any clarification would be appreciated.

[Madi]

I read through the whole GUT thread. I have one question to ask though. We are waiting for 19 : 18 as a crossing and then bet on 19 numbers. Now why not 20:17 or 21:16.  20:17 will become 19:18, 21:16 has to become 20:17.  Why is 19:18 different from others. I am not able to get my head around this and any clarification would be appreciated.

Its not different . U can use ur way. This is authors way. Normally 19vs 18 not recommended to play. U can start 17vs 16. U can have second chance within the range of payout in that way. The author has made his own observation and statistical calculation from these point. I mean wht if and but things

[Bebediktus3]

A crossing will happen. It’s a guarantee

GUT gives you a tool/place to bet and what to bet

Will happen - nobody says that not, but when?

I here not see the difference between waiting XX spins where hit red and then bet on black... Simply are created two groups - one hit many (18) times and betting are on the opposite.
But all these waiting do not give any advantage. In situation 19-18 we can bet on 19 with chances to be hit 19/37 or bet on 18 with chances 18/37, but still, payment is less than our chances...

[Madi]

Can anyone show me this 1/37 chance meets with reality. Or a coin flip 50:50 in reality

[TheMind]

I read through the whole GUT thread. I have one question to ask though. We are waiting for 19 : 18 as a crossing and then bet on 19 numbers. Now why not 20:17 or 21:16.  20:17 will become 19:18, 21:16 has to become 20:17.  Why is 19:18 different from others. I am not able to get my head around this and any clarification would be appreciated.

Crossing or not, all situations have a negative EV. I bet that Winkel won't answer you in this case, because he refers to bet crossings only. Makes no difference, all -EV.

[TheMind]

Is there a way to distingish one from the other? You answer will be: No there are Odds!

19/18 crossing = odds of 19/37? Leads, like other crossings, to a negative EV.

[Steve]

No magic in there. Just simple logic.

The logic is simple. The problem is its incorrect.

Odd changing? When someone win it must be a changed odd to ur favour either done by u or random itself changed the odd

Here's an example. Wins can and do occur without changing odds. You appear to be saying wins occur because of a change in odds.

You say the change is done either by the player, or "random itself".

The player could change the odds with proper bet selection. But "random" doesn't change odds. Its like saying "statistics changes statistics".

bcz in ur language random is unpredictable

Well, yes. My language is English, and the definition includes "a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen"

These people are tring to use that point where random gives a favour while using their system.

I understand what they're trying to do. What you meant to say "they are trying to use a trigger to improve their odds".

Since when did "odds" become such a taboo word? I thought it was kinda relevant and important. Now if you dare say it (odds), the response is "blabla". That's because when odds are considered, we find a particular strategy is no better than random bets. That upsets some people.

There might be better explanation for their winning but at the moment we dont know that.

I already explained it at link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/#the-illusion-of-a-winning-system

Winning doesnt happen without any reason when random means unpredictable.

There isnt no reason. The reason is the occasional win is probable. It doesnt matter considering the payouts are below the odds.

GUT gives you a tool/place to bet and what to bet I don’t think Steve understands it

Actually I do understand it.

No odds changing
Just helping the bettor make decisions

And I understand GUTs is being used to help the player decide where to bet. I get it RG.

What I don't understand is why the player thinks GUTs method of bet selection is any better than random.

I mean you may as well just choose 18 random numbers, and not bet on any of those - just bet the 19 other numbers. The accuracy is no different.

I check how it was created. (pls look former answers you made just a joke out of)
I check at which spin this crossing appears
I check how often I have lost/won this crossing at this spin (no matter if really bet or just watched)
I make an educated guess.

Yes I understand. But you didnt answer my question. Why is the crossing point so magical?

Fact is it is not. You will get the same accuracy of predictions whether you waited for 18 non-hits, or just chose 18 random numbers.

You have said many times you dont care about the odds. So you dont care about winning more than you would than with random bets.

[Steve]

No odds changing
Just helping the bettor make decisions

You said it here RG. Do you even know what "no odds changing" means?

It means your bet selection is as bad as random. That means nothing has changed.

I could use whatever incredibly complex "system to help me make decisions", but it's useless if it changes nothing. Im not sure why you think otherwise.

[Steve]

Is there a way to distingish one from the other?

Different colored lines?

[Steve]

GUT is flat betting.

If I flat bet starting with the 19 numbers, I get much the same result as flat betting 19 random numbers. Then if i continue, at any point I get much the same result as more flat betting random numbers.

Now, it surprises me how Steve seems like the most logical person here in terms of roulette lies/facts - yet he's not quite smart enough to understand the psychology behind global deceptions for some reason. If Steve could truly understand deceptions then he could understand the globe earth lie, so I think it's a problem with understanding the bigger picture that's holding him back

This is not the place for flat earth crap. I wasted lots of time on it, and found the flat earther's arguments were just bad understanding.

I agree. From that point of 19vs 18 next spin will it cross or not ? No one knows. But wht if i give u next 5 spin to be correct. Winkle has his own observation to be correct 2 times out of 3.

Could you or someone explain the secret that makes all the difference? Because in my tests I get results no better than random.

Can anyone show me this 1/37 chance meets with reality

How about centuries of roulette in casinos? Is that enough proof for you? If one number is bet, players average wins 1 in 37 spins. But the casino pays only 35-1. Its kind of old news. If you need verification of roulette's odds and probabilities, verification is not hard to find.

Crossing or not, all situations have a negative EV.

That kind of talk is too technical for them.

I bet that Winkel won't answer you in this case, because he refers to bet crossings only. Makes no difference, all

Yes when I queried him about odds vs payouts, and how he overcomes the discrepancy, he said he doesn't need to.

[Steve]

Summary so far:

1. Winkel says GUT doesnt change the odds, and doesn't need to. So his bets are as bad as random, but that's ok because he still wins.

2. Winkel says GUT tells the player when to bet with the best chance of winning. But it doesn't change the probability of winning (the odds).

3. Winkel says he doesn't hold secrets. Only some of them.


The conclusion so far:

a. Winkel doesnt understand what odds are, or their relevance.

b. My testing of his method shows results no better than random bets.

c. As he hasn't disclosed his secrets, a full test of his system is not possible. It will probably never be possible. Perhaps that's the point.


Winkel, its not a conspiracy. I dont think anybody cares about attacking your reputation. If ANYONE came to a forum with claims like "I have random accuracy bet selection, but still win", they are going to be rightfully questioned. Don't take it personally.

I dont believe after all this time you could have a "winning system" and not know what odds are. I also dont believe after all this time you, or people who have been using GUT, wouldn't have profited substantially from it. At most we hear about the occasional win, which is no different to the average system that wins for a while, then tanks.

With some research, you find GUT has been sufficiently tested. Any serious testing found it to fail. There's much more, but here's one example from another forum:

Hello,

Although I read this board quite often this is my first post here.

I find the subject of GUT interesting.
Because others still think it is an interesting subject.

I have analyzed and tried GUT.


The BASICS for the method:

Separate the spin-results into groups - for EXAMPLE:
"=1" - all numbers that have exactly one hit
">1" - all numbers that have more than one hit

All numbers will eventually hit once and be in the "=1" group.
All numbers will eventually also hit AGAIN and then be MOVED to the ">1" group.
And eventually the ">1" group will be larger than the "=1" group.

What Winkel does is to tally the groups.
He looks for the "=1" group to contain ONE LESS number or IS EQUAL to the ">1" group.

When this happens the bet is on the "=1" group.
The theory is that a number in the "=1" group hits and is moved to the ">1" group.
Because this will always happen eventually.

And that theory is CORRECT.


You can use other groups as well:
"=0" (No hits at all)
"=2" (Exactly 2 hits)
">2" (More than 2 hits)
etc etc

Winkel makes recommendations for which groups to use and compare.


He started his GUT-thread saying he had two versions:
One version with static rules and one version that is "advanced".
He claimed that BOTH version will win in long-term tests.
He "proved" the "static" version by doing a 3-months(?) test.
I think it was later shown to be incorrect.
(Not following his own static rules)


The "static" version was tested real long-term testing by another member and found to be a loser.

After that test Winkel claims that "gambler's intelligence" is needed in order to win.
That is also his "advanced" version.

"Gambler's intelligence": Being able to predict what is going to happen.


I also tested the "static" method and found it ... well ... at least not winning consistently.
But no real long-term testing.


The method is like many others:
"Wait for some predefined situation and then bet that something predefined will happen"
(It is called "gambler's fallacy" I think.)

...Wait for "=1" to be one less or equal to ">1" and then bet that "=1" will hit

Because it will, eventually.
The problem is "eventually" - how far into the future is it?

It is not "gambler's intelligence" that is needed.
It is "gambler's fallacy" that is built into the method.


And: If you actually have such "gambler's intelligence" that is needed to win...
Why do you need a method?


Johnny

BTW, I haven't been following that VLS GUT-thread for a while now.
Maybe something new there?
I think the GUT-discussion is dead on "Roulette-board"...

I think this part sums it up:

The "static" version was tested real long-term testing by another member and found to be a loser.

After that test Winkel claims that "gambler's intelligence" is needed in order to win.
That is also his "advanced" version.

"Gambler's intelligence": Being able to predict what is going to happen.

In order to win, you need to guess right.

[Madi]

Could you or someone explain the secret that makes all the difference? Because in my tests I get results no better than random.


What i understand is after 18 hit the wave of appearing number is preety predictable lets say

After 18 hit 3 unhit , then 2 number 1s to 2s again 2 unhit  , 1 2s to 3s. Fluctuation is not much.

14vs 13 bet
15vs 13 lose . No bet
16vs 13 no bet
15vs 14 bet .win . As the fluctuation is less it might help. But exactly its not possible  to predict that ,this crossing must cross next spin

[Steve]

Madi then what you are doing is chasing a stream of "maybes". It makes manual testing extremely laborious and in my tests I have not found anything special about the bet selection. Just same accuracy as random.

Although I've done lots of testing of similar principles, others have done more testing of this specific strategy, and with much the same results others have found. I'm guessing I lack the "gamblers intelligence" Winkel says you need.

[Steve]

Here's another one:

I'm not defending or lambasting the G.U.T. as I have spent some time trying to figure out whether it was solid.  The fact is, I have to agree that it is just another theory based on betting unhit numbers.  I know about unhit numbers as I have based several systems around the idea myself.  One of the systems I came up which is an offspring of Diodoro's Ludomeccanica(MySystem1 on the freeadult website), outperforms the G.U.T. through and through, and is much simpler to apply.  I did not bring this up though, for fear of a scathing reply from Winkel, who seems to honestly believe that his G.U.T. is actually the Holy Grail.  While I agree that it is ingenious, it is not something that should have taken 5 years to develop as its premise is quite simplistic in nature.  I developed a similiar system recently with inspiration from the G.U.T.  It is a take on the G.U.T., but instead of number crossings, you bet on sector crossings using Kimo Li's matrix idea.  Unfortunately, the same thing tends to happen that happens a lot when I test the G.U.T.; numbers continuously repeat for spin after spin and deplete your bankroll to the point that it would take hours of successful play to recover it.  I'm not saying that couldn't happen, but the chances are you will have at least one more bad run before you stop playing.  In a nutshell, the losses will outweigh the wins in the long run, making it a losing system.  I think Winkel is a talented system designer, but I think he needs to keep looking, because the G.U.T. is not the Holy Grail.

[Madi]

U can call it gambler intelligence or gamblers experience. But in the field it needed. We cant tie a game of roulette with exact hard and fist rule, need to be bit flexiable.

I have read somewhere he is one of the top ranked player . He is not a teen. As he is saying he is winning for 14 years . There may be something that we r missing