Step In To My Game

[luckyfella]

It's not really a math problem. Math is just an expression of the problem.

You wrote this multiple times now.

I repeat, it is a math problem.

Solve it.

[luckyfella]

The problem of beating roulette is actually quite simple: increase the accuracy of predictions.

I have written many times I agree with this. No arguments.

But you insist that your cheating rc device and precog is the only way.

I disagree.

[Steve]

I repeat, it is a math problem.

You have 2 apples but need 3. How is this a math problem? How do you solve it with math?

You should understand the problem first. Then saying "solve it" doesn't actually help.

But you insist that your cheating rc device and precog is the only way.

No, I have not said that. I'll make it clear, again.

RC and AP are MY preferred way. There are likely other methods not yet thought of. It is stupid to consider ways that are already proven to fail. So try something NEW, whatever it may be. I gave my suggestions for starting points in the "outside the box" area.

[luckyfella]

You have 2 apples but need 3. How is this a math problem? How do you solve it with math?

Do you expect me to show you the solution ?

Too bad you are just not smart.

[luckyfella]

It is stupid to consider ways that are already proven to fail.

Did you read my post that says the entire systems board is all trash ?

And you insist again that I am stupid to follow those rubbish systems.

The math quality on this forum and all forums is not up to the level required to solve this math problem.

To solve this math problem you need to educate yourself is statistics. Arm yourself with knowledge and understanding.

Else you have zero chance to find the solution.

Remember, I am an ordinary layman. I educated myself in math. I am not perfect in my knowledge of math due to self education.

This can be done by anyone who is serious to find the solution. No guarantees though.

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

[luckyfella]

RC and AP are MY preferred way.

Your RC and AP has little physics content.

The mainstay of your rc is statistics.

I don't dislike rc or ap.
(That's your assumption.)

Why use rc and ap based on statistics when I can go direct to statistics itself ?

Make sense to you ?

[luckyfella]

 You can win the argument of words.

That's what you do on forums.

If you make proper intelligent post I respond. Else no response from me. Enjoy yourself

[luckyfella]

Your RC and AP has little physics content.

The mainstay of your rc is statistics.

I don't dislike rc or ap.
(That's your assumption.)

Why use rc and ap based on statistics when I can go direct to statistics itself ?

Make sense to you ?

IF pure statistics by itself provides the solution to this math problem, it means the small physics content of rc and ap is not required.

I leave the readers to comprehend the implication.

[Steve]

Your RC and AP has little physics content.

To develop a RC, first you must understand the physics involved - what actually happens and why. The math and statistical analysis is all based on the physics. So what you've said is nonsense.

Why use rc and ap based on statistics when I can go direct to statistics itself ?

Because;

1. The statistics you're looking at has no relation to cause and effect. It's like saying after RRRRRR, B will probably spin next. The run of R's has no effect on the next spin, unless there is bias (although its not actually an effect - more like a clue, but the difference is legitimate cause and effect). This is one example. But repeaters is equally bad.

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.

You can win the argument of words.

It's not about words. The words are how I'm trying to convey logic and verifiable proof.

Every time I try and discuss basic logic with typical system players, it gets nowhere.  Very few people learn, then go back to the same crap like repeaters, progression etc etc.

If pure statistics by itself provides the solution to this math problem, the physics content is not required.

Yes that's correct. It helps to understand what you're trying to mode first. But sure, it can be blindly done with math. It's like doing bias analysis by looking at data, without any observation of the wheel. Sure it can be done, but very inefficiently.

But you're forgetting your statistics and math is INCORRECT. If it was correct, it would validate what I'm saying, and invalidate what you're saying.

[luckyfella]

To develop a RC, first you must understand the physics involved - what actually happens and why. The math and statistical analysis is all based on the physics. So what you've said is nonsense.

Because;

1. The statistics you're looking at has no relation to cause and effect. It's like saying after RRRRRR, B will probably spin next. The run of R's has no effect on the next spin, unless there is bias. This is one example. But repeaters is equally bad.

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.

It's not about words. The words are how I'm trying to convey logic and verifiable proof.

Every time I try and discuss basic logic with typical system players, it gets nowhere.  Very few people learn, then go back to the same crap like repeaters, progression etc etc.

Yes that's correct. It helps to understand what you're trying to mode first. But sure, it can be blindly done with math. It's like doing bias analysis by looking at data, without any observation of the wheel.

But you're forgetting your statistics and math is INCORRECT. If it was correct, it would validate what I'm saying, and invalidate what you're saying.

I repeat, you are not smart.

Your statistics knowledge and understanding is shallow. Educate yourself.

No more response on this low level conversation.

[Steve]

You statistics knowledge and understanding is shallow. Educate yourself.

Fascinating. You've done better at roulette than me, right?

You know better than all the educated professionals in the world, who agree with me, and not with you. Right?

Your math, which is clearly wrong, is actually correct?

Come on Lucky. Put it all together. Even when I spell your mistakes out to you very clearly, you're still not getting it. But if it makes you feel better, you know best.

[luckyfella]

One last comment for clarity.

Steve has no idea what statistics to apply.

His conclusions are based on his assumptions.

He invoke the math experts to validate his arguments.

[luckyfella]

I made all my recent posts for those serious to design a winning bet.

Especially targetted at those who seek to find the winning bet in math. Read them.

That's my only purpose. I'm out of here.

[Steve]

Steve has no idea what statistics to apply.

Lucky, every opportunity we've had to discuss precise principles and math, you made mistakes. So my assumption is if you can't get basic math right, you probably wont get more complex math right.

He invoke the math experts to validate his arguments.

I'm not a math expert. But I am a roulette expert. The math for roulette is actually very basic. You dont need math experts to validate it. It's basically primary school math. The problem is the gambler's mind is full of fallacies, like streaks, hot numbers, cold numbers etc.

I made all my recent posts for those serious to design a winning bet.

Great. And I explained why what you've said is incorrect. You took it personally.

[MoneyT101]

Lucky thanks for the variance comment.  I worded it a little different but I mentioned the same thing a few post back