Facts about Non-Random in 2019 and the cost of winning

[falkor2k15]

Sounds like you need to eliminate some questions then, yes?

That question would have been eliminated 4 years ago, but I tried to keep an open mind and see the bigger picture without dismissing individual parts. However since the big picture doesn't stand up to scrutiny then that question can now be eliminated, I think?

[Blueprint]

That question would have been eliminated 4 years ago, but I tried to keep an open mind and see the bigger picture without dismissing individual parts. However since the big picture doesn't stand up to scrutiny then that question can now be eliminated, I think?

which one

[falkor2k15]

which one

"the waiting game and predicting are exactly why you and others lose"
"we cannot predict = losing proposition"

vs.

"Predicting is a special case of capturing more wins"
"Don't want pears; want apples"
"increase accuracy of predictions"

= CONTRADICTION! 

[Blueprint]

"the waiting game and predicting are exactly why you and others lose"
"we cannot predict = losing proposition"

vs.

"Predicting is a special case of capturing more wins"
"Don't want pears; want apples"
"increase accuracy of predictions"

= CONTRADICTION! 

Don’t forget context.   Even my reply was specific to the questions you wrote.  Now you add more confusion for yourself.

[falkor2k15]

Don’t forget context.   Even my reply was specific to the questions you wrote.  Now you add more confusion for yourself.

Just replying for the sake of replying... Blueprint you are now on ignore! Haven't got time for meaningless circular conversations with you that could drag on all day.

[Blueprint]

Just replying for the sake of replying... Blueprint you are now on ignore! Haven't got time for meaningless circular conversations with you that could drag on all day.

Good to see some things never change.  You’re too blind to even realize I’ve tried to help.  Good luck.  You’ll need it.

[Steve]

Good luck proving that!

You didn't know it's easy to prove and has been proven extensively?
It's not like proving 1+1=42, like many members would need to do to prove their theories work.

Or maybe you're being sarcastic.

[Firefox]

Yes it's actually relatively easy to prove empirically.

If the prediction fall off point error plus the error from average estimated bounce and scatter for that wheel and rotor speed, results in a prediction whose mean distance from actual resting point is less than that which would be achieved by chance alone (RMS error about 9 pockets) then an advantage over random prediction can be claimed.

[Steve]

He wasnt being sarcastic?
Well on some level, about some things, we are all completely clueless.

[Firefox]

Very difficult to say with Mr Blueprint. He speaks in riddles and questions most of the time, so who knows what he means!

However, I will post a topic at some stage with a You Tube vid including results, my predictions, and  RMS error calculated.

[Steve]

I'm not sure there would be a point to it. If someone is into roulette for a long time, and thinks AP is all a bunch of nonsense that cant be proven, let them think that. I'd be interested in teaching someone who's genuinely interested in the truth, but not someone who just wants to argue.

[Maui13]

I'm not sure there would be a point to it. If someone is into roulette for a long time, and thinks AP is all a bunch of nonsense that cant be proven, let them think that. I'd be interested in teaching someone who's genuinely interested in the truth, but not someone who just wants to argue.

Steve, you know what I've come to learn from you - people dont want to believe in the truth. The truth is too hard to swallow.

Sometimes it's fun to dream, and believe that you might have discovered something so awesome, that you have a chance against roulette. But TRUTH is, I'll most probably just dump some of my hard earned cash into the casino's lap.

Anyway...

[Firefox]

I wasn't thinking of doing it to prove anything to Blueprint. More for the very few wheel watchers here who are interested.

I did have a go on the Huxley 7 from roulettephysics (was it yours?) the other evening. Just anecdotally I think I did quite well over the hour probably  6 or so pockets av error and quite a few hits. I'd certainly be well up on that session. That was a 3 pin game with Teflon ball but rotor speeds I like from 3.5 to 5 secs.

I could do it on my wheel but my ball spinning is as crap as my video camera, and my wheel is very difficult to beat, so it wouldn't be a very useful vid.

[falkor2k15]

I was thinking how we might beat the EC Cycle based on what I learnt playing 144 Number Roulette. Priyanka used to refer to "same" and "different" a lot as well as creating dependency, but the "dependency" part was never explained in terms of the "magical relationship" - only that different groups are dependent on the same spin, i.e. a unique on the lines is also a unique on the dozens.

RBR
RR = same
RBB = diff
BBR = diff
RBB = diff
BB = same
BRB = same
BB = same

We could construct an outer cycle like this based on the above results using pairs - could be described as being dependent on the last outcome:
SD
DD
DD
DS
SS
SS

=

SD D... here SD cannot repeat
SD DD DD
DD DS S... here DD and DS cannot repeat
DD DS SS SS.

The stats should be the same as independent SD Quads, and the key to gaining edge might be where the outer cycle becomes "locked out" from a repeat. Needs to be tested.

[RouletteGhost]

The good news is that 144 number roulette can be found in 0% of casinos