Step In To My Game

[MoneyT101]

2. The statistics you and most other system players explain is incorrect or misunderstood. For example, saying there MUST be repeaters is equally useless as saying eventually there must be some reds and blacks.

This isn’t true....

Chance of you getting RR is not the same as you getting a repeat on the SAME red number twice.

Also the chance of getting RBR then RBR again

Is not the same as getting 7 20 30 then 7 20 30 again

So the information isn’t useless.  You just don’t know how to use it!  Which is a very different subject altogether.

You're saying to learn new ways.  Well that’s exactly it.  A new approach. 

Your stuck on 1/37 number per spin.  We are talking about 1/37 numbers in more then one spin!  So we aren’t even on the same topic!

Forget about winning at roulette for now. This is an extreme example just to get the point across.

If we spin the wheel 37 times and every number comes up.  On spin 38, the only option left is to have repeat of any of the previous 37 numbers!

That’s a fact.... Now the application is what you’re having trouble with...

So you can’t bash other people and say they are speaking lies and fallacy cause they found a way to apply a strategy or take advantage of something that sounds impossible.

[Joe]

Joe, educated in math, can't find the solution. So

Well it would be nice if I knew what the problem is to which I can't find the solution, lol.

I will say this though : if your maths results in a positive expectation, then you've either made a mistake or have made an unjustified assumption.

The only assumptions you should be be making are that 1) the payouts are unfair, and 2) each pattern of numbers is equally likely to occur (randomness). Given these, it's impossible to get a positive expectation.

[luckyfella]

Well it would be nice if I knew what the problem is to which I can't find the solution, lol.

I wish I could help you with that. Lol

Try MoneyT101 or blueprint, they might give you pointers.

[Steve]

Chance of you getting RR is not the same as you getting a repeat on the SAME red number twice.

The chance of hitting say #9 twice is 1 in (37^2) = 1 in 1,369.
The chance of hitting #9 then #2 is the same.
The chance of hitting RBR is exactly the same as BBB, RRR, RRB, BBR etc.

Also the chance of getting RBR then RBR again
Is not the same as getting 7 20 30 then 7 20 30 again

R or B has 18/37 chance.
Any number has 1/37 chance.
The odds are different.

So the information isn’t useless

It IS useless information.

You just don’t know how to use it! 

Can you give me even one clear example?

You're saying to learn new ways.  Well that’s exactly it.  A new approach. 

But it's not new, at all. You're just not recognizing it's the same old stuff, and not even with new packaging.

Your stuck on 1/37 number per spin.  We are talking about 1/37 numbers in more then one spin!  So we aren’t even on the same topic!

Whether I look at 1 in 37 for one spin, or the odds over millions of spins, the result is the same. The math doesn't change. Really, I'm looking beyond the odds of one spin.

If we spin the wheel 37 times and every number comes up.  On spin 38, the only option left is to have repeat of any of the previous 37 numbers!

That's just like saying if we look at 37 numbers, we know one of those 37 numbers will spin next. It's a fact!... But so what? It doesn't help, at all.

So you can’t bash other people and say they are speaking lies and fallacy cause they found a way to apply a strategy or take advantage of something that sounds impossible.

What many of you arent understanding is it IS classic fallacy. It is no less fallacy than thinking after RRRRR that B is "due". And no less fallacy than thinking 0 is an extra way to win, because it's an extra pocket.

I'm not saying winning with a system is impossible. I believe one day someone will find something better than AP or computers, aka the holy grail. But what I'm pretty sure about is it wont be an approach that uses proven losing approaches.

Almost all losing approaches have the same things in common . . . the use triggers based on data that has no correlation to what will happen in the future with better than random accuracy.

If I'm mistaken, I WANT someone to prove it to me. I WANT someone to show me a better way to win, because then I'll use it.

I'm not against systems. I'm against fallacy and old approaches that dont work. Again if I'm wrong, show me. What you showed above has no relation to what will happen in future spins.

[luckyfella]

Can you give me even one clear example?

If I'm mistaken, I WANT someone to prove it to me. I WANT someone to show me a better way to win, because then I'll use it.

Steve, read Joe's response

Of course not, because if it exists it would be tantamount to posting the HG.

I'm not asking for any such thing...

Like I said, he is educated in mathematics.

[luckyfella]

That’s a fact.... Now the application is what you’re having trouble with...

This is not a pure math problem.

The roulette spins solution lies in application of the math. So, it might be a applied math problem.

I'm not 100% sure about this applied statistics part but I think I might be correct.

[Steve]

Lucky, I read Joe's response. I didn't see anything amounting to proof of concept, so I'm not sure why you referred to it. Perhaps you're referring to his claim that nobody would post proof because it would be giving the HG away. And maybe that's true. But you seem convinced people here have the HG, and that it relates to principles you're referring to.

So basically you're assuming, without proof of anything. Your only proof is misunderstood principles.

If you have something more, I'd like to have a look. If you have something more and don't want to share it, that's fine too.

[luckyfella]

Perhaps you're referring to his claim that nobody would post proof because it would be giving the HG away. And maybe that's true.

You can ask a million times in a million ways, enjoy yourself (same response)

[luckyfella]

But you seem convinced people here have the HG....

I don't know if people here have the HG.

How would I know that ?

[MoneyT101]

Whether I look at 1 in 37 for one spin, or the odds over millions of spins, the result is the same. The math doesn't change. Really, I'm looking beyond the odds of one spin.

That's just like saying if we look at 37 numbers, we know one of those 37 numbers will spin next. It's a fact!... But so what? It doesn't help, at all.

I agree 100% the odds are the same and nothing you do will control what happens to the wheel! So please read this many times in case YOU believe I am saying anything else.

Now that we got that over with.  What changes is the distribution in your statistics.  So all we are doing is looking at things in a different angle. If each time a repeat comes up it creates different cycles!  Each cycle has a distribution based on the amount of numbers for the group that you are using.

Each cycle has its own group category. All this is consistent with your math of looking at random numbers.  All the information is the same just a different view.  Nothing has changed!! No one is saying anything different. 

In the purest simplest form...Within cycles there are constants happening which we have proven and anyone that understand cycles can prove.   It’s all over this topic where we showed statistics!

The next step and what has everyone confused is that these constants can be exploited.  The exploitation has been shared in riddles and cryptic messages all over the forum by different members.

In this topic I’ve shared ideas which helped me better understand things and lucky has shared ways as well.

I don’t believe in triggers!
Odds can’t be changed!

So drop the fallacy BS.  I’m not saying anything different then you, just looking at a different angle and changed the way I approach the game.

[Steve]

Lucky, your response is a "cop out".

You make a claim, then provide so-called proof of your claim (which is incorrect), then finally say "well if someone made use of my theory, they have the HG, but we just dont know".

You could have just said you made a mistake.

[Steve]

MONEYT101, unfortunately your understanding is too bad for me to bother. Just go win.

[MoneyT101]

MONEYT101, unfortunately your understanding is too bad for me to bother. Just go win.

What exactly is bad understanding?

When I said the odds can’t be changed?
When I said I don’t believe in triggers?

I think you mean tracking cycles

Please explain what’s bad understanding...

[Joe]

The next step and what has everyone confused is that these constants can be exploited.

Exploited to get an edge? But you agree that the odds can't be changed, so it seems like a contradiction.

[MoneyT101]

Exploited to get an edge? But you agree that the odds can't be changed, so it seems like a contradiction.

Very difficult to explain this but let me see if I can use an example.

This is hypothetical just to get my point across.

Let’s say your playing alternating color each spin.  So you play R then B each spin that’s your method.

You get this pattern below...

R B RR B RRR B RRRR B RRRRR B

If you notice each time R hits it’s just +1 on R from the previous red cycle then B breaks it.  So let’s say this pattern is the constant but since you don’t know you continue playing R then B

After this set your profit is +2 units

But now let’s say you start R then B and after three losses you adjust and play follow the last

You profit +4

If you continue playing you will only get -2 on each switch of pattern you will continue to profit cause the R pattern is increasing.

Now roulette doesn’t work this way it’s just an example to make this point.

The constants are happening, going with the flow of the constant you will continue to go with the odds.  But if you have a different approach where you do one thing and then do another and the go back and do same thing. 

The reality of your game isn’t following all the rules of the constant so it’s not being governed by it exactly.  If I’m playing the same the whole way through then it will fall under the constant rules.

So no it’s not a contradiction.  The odds don’t change.  I’m not changing anything but my approach.