DO YOU HAVE A SAY

[Steve]

Luckyfella, perhaps you misunderstood my question. I was just asking what testing you have done.

Now I see you posted RS results over 272 spins.

And the links with your post has many mistakes and misunderstandings.

But I'm not going to argue further. Happy winnings.

[luckyfella]

Luckyfella, perhaps you misunderstood my question. I was just asking what testing you have done.

Now I see you posted RS results over 272 spins.

I agree 272 spins is too small a sample size to draw any meaningful conclusion. The graph is a sample reference of what is possible. It is never meant to be the empirical evidence to substantiate the design.

And the links with your post has many mistakes and misunderstandings.

This is the trolling insinuation  activity I strongly disagree to.

Since you make such a claim the onus is upon you to prove it.

Until and unless you have provided proof to substantiate your OPINION it means nothing - I don't have to respond.

It is only your status as owner of this forum that I respond to your useless OPINION.

But I'm not going to argue further.

We should stop this argument.
It is up to you and Caleb.

Happy winnings.

[Steve]

This is the trolling insinuation  activity I strongly disagree to.

It is not trolling to tell you there are mistakes.

Since you make such a claim the onus is upon you to prove it.

I've lost count of the number of times I clearly explained:

a. Why approaches like you described dont work.
b. How everyone can properly test it for themselves. So they know its not opinion.

Until and unless you have provided proof to substantiate your OPINION it means nothing - I don't have to respond.

As above. I guess you either missed or didn't understand it.

It is only your status as owner of this forum that I respond to your useless OPINION.

My responses wouldn't be any different on another forum. Truth doesn't change between forums. You don't have to treat me any differently to any other member. If you were around for the past 10 or so years, you'd know I don't shy away from criticism even on my own forum.  I have nothing to hide. Last time I posted on another forum though, all I did was tell the truth and the admin added the banner "compulsive liar" to my name - because it revealed his deception and misconduct. Then he removed my posts from the thread, on an "uncensored" forum.

We should stop this argument.
It is up to you and Caleb.

You see it as an argument. I see it as me trying to explain what you clearly don't understand.

But I've been where you are before. I am no better. I'm just at a different stage. The difference between perhaps me and the typical system player is that, in less time, I wanted the truth no matter how brutal. It took me years to wake up and properly understand, and that was with very intense studying and testing. It really shouldn't have taken me that long, but I was stubborn and willfully ignorant.

You see my responses as trolling. But really, Im trying to help. Not necessarily you - just everyone who wants to learn.

[luckyfella]

 Steve, don't waste your time posting a wall of text stating your OPINION.

Post the relevant MATH to substantiate your claim of "mistakes and misunderstanding".

I will respond if you do that.

MATH is all I want to read.

You and Caleb can continue your 'trolling help' activity on systems threads.
I had my say. I 'm done, spent too much time on nonsensical stuff already.
Thank you for allowing that.

[Steve]

Post the relevant MATH to substantiate your claim of "mistakes and misunderstanding".
I will respond if you do that.
MATH is all I want to read.

Your problem is not just with math, but also with logic. Examples:

Ofc it shows variance is a huge monster that kills your br

Variance is not what kills your BR. It's that the payouts are unfair.

Reconfigure your understanding of LIMIT
Example
If you are betting opposite red=black, don't think of how many total consecutive reds
Instead think of how many consecutive blacks

The odds of red or black spinning next are 18/37. It's irrelevant how many consecutive reds or blacks there are.

If you want proof, just test lots of spins where there are lots of consecutive blacks (or reds), and see the frequency red or black spins next or anytime soon.

This has been tested exhaustively. It's a very old fallacy.

(minimum gap is one example, google to read up on TGs work)

Gaps don't change the odds. And there are no limits to random. It's like a bell curve, where you can look at a group of spins and see the distribution. Then you might conclude there's a limit.



But test a larger sample, and the amount of possibilities just move with the sample size.

Saying "random has limits" is like a dog chasing it's tail, but the tail is just too short no matter how quick he turns.



But if you want it expressed as math, then it's simple: on the european wheel there are 37 numbers. Only 1 wins per spin. There's a 1 in 37 chance of winning.

On the second spin, there's a 1 in 37 chance again. If a different number spins, then on the 3rd spin, there are 2 numbers that recently won. Then there's a 2/37 chance that one of those numbers will repeat, and so on. The math is really simple. But people make big elaborate systems around what are really simple things, mostly because they think they see patterns that arent really there.

For example... the law of third. That's not a pattern. It's like saying in 100 spins, there are around half-half reds/blacks. They think it's "predictable". And sure it is. But the predictability is because there are the same amount of red/black pockets. You cant use that to change the frequency of wins. And because the payouts are short, you still lose.

It has been explained many times. In terms of math and logic. How it is not understood by ow is beyond me. And now that I've explained it, again, you'll go back to what you were doing before as if it was never explained.

[luckyfella]

Your problem is not just with math, but also with logic. Examples:

Variance is not what kills your BR. It's that the payouts are unfair.

The odds of red or black spinning next are 18/37. It's irrelevant how many consecutive reds or blacks there are.

If you want proof, just test lots of spins where there are lots of consecutive blacks (or reds), and see the frequency red or black spins next or anytime soon.

This has been tested exhaustively. It's a very old fallacy.

Gaps don't change the odds. And there are no limits to random. It's like a bell curve, where you can look at a group of spins and see the distribution. Then you might conclude there's a limit.



But test a larger sample, and the amount of possibilities just move with the sample size.

Saying "random has limits" is like a dog chasing it's tail, but the tail is just too short no matter how quick he turns.



But if you want it expressed as math, then it's simple: on the european wheel there are 37 numbers. Only 1 wins per spin. There's a 1 in 37 chance of winning.

On the second spin, there's a 1 in 37 chance again. If a different number spins, then on the 3rd spin, there are 2 numbers that recently won. Then there's a 2/37 chance that one of those numbers will repeat, and so on. The math is really simple. But people make big elaborate systems around what are really simple things, mostly because they think they see patterns that arent really there.

For example... the law of third. That's not a pattern. It's like saying in 100 spins, there are around half-half reds/blacks. They think it's "predictable". And sure it is. But the predictability is because there are the same amount of red/black pockets. You cant use that to change the frequency of wins. And because the payouts are short, you still lose.

It has been explained many times. In terms of math and logic. How it is not understood by ow is beyond me. And now that I've explained it, again, you'll go back to what you were doing before as if it was never explained.

I agree with what you posted above.
Nothing new.

I do not use any of the usual stuff you posted above.
It's silly of me if I did.

I repeat - post the relevant MATH, besides those that's widely known, to substantiate your claim.

[Steve]

I agree with what you posted above.
Nothing new.

Yet that contradicts with what you said earlier.

I do not use any of the usual stuff you posted above.
It's silly of me if I did.

Again a contradiction.

I repeat - post the relevant MATH, besides those that's widely known, to substantiate your claim.

I already posted the math. It being widely known doesn't change its validity. If anything it should make it more pertinent.

[luckyfella]

Yet that contradicts with what you said earlier.

Again a contradiction.

I already posted the math. It being widely known doesn't change its validity. If anything it should make it more pertinent.

I am done with your useless opinion.

No further response required.

Have a good day sir.

[Steve]

I only hope others can follow the conversation and learn from it.

Earth is flat.... no it's not..... prove it..... here you go...... I never said it was flat...... yes you did, here's exactly what you said..... that's your useless opinion, conversation over.

[The General]

Steve, don't waste your time posting a wall of text stating your OPINION.

Post the relevant MATH to substantiate your claim of "mistakes and misunderstanding".

I will respond if you do that.

MATH is all I want to read.

You and Caleb can continue your 'trolling help' activity on systems threads.
I had my say. I 'm done, spent too much time on nonsensical stuff already.
Thank you for allowing that.

Lucky,

We're not your enemy.  You're kind of missing the point.   We're just trying to show you the math and facts.  We did our best.  Contrary to popular believe, I'm not the international sales rep for "It doesn't work."   Sometimes I speak up, sometimes I don't.

Regardless,  there are plenty of people that would love to tell you that you're wrong on the wizardofvegas forum too.  Lots of unbiased mathematicians are waiting for you there.  See if you can convince them that they're all wrong as well, or perhaps listen to their point of view and learn something.

[The General]

Why does Luckyfella remind me a bit of Albalaha?

[luckyfella]

For the record, it silly to suggest that I disagree with what math says.
It's plain silly and stupid to argue about math.

Math is fact based.

Not an opinion.

[Steve]

We're not your enemy.

Yes. Also Lucky don't take it personally. Sincerely I don't want to appear like I think I'm better than you or anyone, because its not what I think. I do however have reason to believe I know more about the topic. Remember we all started much the same way. But seriously its not genius complicated stuff.

And it's not about opinion (said that countless times now). The math is not an opinion. Really Im just trying to help. The discussion only goes wayward when you start saying crap like "ah you're just selling stuff".

[The General]

For the record, it silly to suggest that I disagree with what math says.
It's plain silly and stupid to argue about math.

Math is fact based.

Not an opinion.

Is there something in particular that I've said that you disagree with?  The reason I ask is because I don't recall discussing much with you in the past.

[Madi]

General

I got a question for you. Some of the member at GF play different system and they  do upload their system. But i have never seen to raise a single word?
Why r u so scared to critisize them?