Step In To My Game

[Joe]

2,500 * 127/128 ~ 2,480 wins and 20 busts. That's a net of 2,480 - 20 * 127 = -60 units

The expectation should be break even assuming no zero; the error is due to rounding.

Another thing to keep in mind is that nobody posts a system which they know loses, but often members will post something which looks promising. How many times have you seen those systems crash and burn after subsequent testing?  Every time, that's how many times.

Now what happens if someone thinks a system is so great (maybe it's a 3 standard deviation job) that they don't want to post it; they would prefer to just drop hints and bask in the warm glow of attention. As a consequence, that system never gets tested to destruction.

[MoneyT101]

You didnt answer it.

And you arent the first person to be convinced their system "works", but they havent made significant profit with it.

You arent the only one. You'll just need to learn for yourself. I didnt listen either when I was in a similar situation, except i was winning for a year over about 10,000 spins. Not that anyone was telling me I had no idea. Its more I ignored critical basics.

I’m not the changing the odds cause that can’t be changed.

Am I picking at better odds then what the game offers.....YES!

If I find a way to post math behind it without revealing.  I’ll post it.

Kav, I still don’t understand why you are commenting on a topic that is BS.  Why you still in here 

[Kav]

Since you touch on progression, my bet is FLATBET. No progression required.

No progression required?
I hate to ask this, but do you claim that you win by flat betting?
So not only are you waiting for Maney to show how he changed the math of roulette, you have changed the math too.



Did you change the math by connecting to the cosmic energy or by deconstructing randomness?
No, I know how you do it: you read the patterns, right? With just a bit of quantum physics thrown in for good measure.
Or maybe it;s the law of attraction, psi kind of stuff.

[Kav]

Kav, I still don’t understand why you are commenting on a topic that is BS.  Why you still in here 

I comment on this topic because it is over the edge on vagueness, contradiction and pretention.
I would never go and criticise on a simple topic about a system, where the system is clearly explained, because:
1) the guy is sharing something
2) makes it available for anyone to test
3) doesn't make crazy claims
4) it is something specific

Your topic fails on all these 4 criteria.
I would not post if none cared about what you write. But this "suspicious" interest about someone who says:

I’m not the changing the odds cause that can’t be changed.
Am I picking at better odds then what the game offers.....YES!

and doesn't get called out is teasing me.

[MoneyT101]

I comment on this topic because it is over the edge on vagueness, contradiction and pretention.
I would never go to a simple topic about a system, where the system is clearly explained and tell them it doesn't work, because:
1) the guy is sharing something
2) makes it available for anyone to test
3) doesn't make crazy claims
4) it is something specific

Your topic fails on all these 4 criteria.
I would not post if none cared about what you write. But this "suspicious" interest about someone who says:and doesn't get called out is teasing me.

***As I add more steps I will put them in order of importance.  I had no intention of doing this topic and sort of just happened so this isn’t planned.  But we will be exploring beating the game of roulette

Let’s go back to my first post.  Because no where did I say i am sharing a system!

Now joe you made a comment about me saying I shared a system and they didn’t attempt it.  That was to some people in private and those people gave me information when I first started investigating cycles.

I did post direct ideas to how to play the system from which I posted results using dozen!  You can call it cryptic or whatever but it’s there.

But the original topic goal was to speak about exploring ideas on having a different approach to beat the game. 

So all those looking for me to give you a step by step on what to bet and what not to bet.  Keep waiting!

Kav, also I’m not contradicting anything.  Don’t take one post where I was speaking of one thing and use it for another!  Grow the F*ck up...

I don’t need to prove anything to anyone.  Tell me one good thing that comes out of me proving it?!

I’ll do things my way... anyone tired of the topic can ignore and not participate!

[Kav]

I’m not the changing the odds cause that can’t be changed.
Am I picking at better odds then what the game offers.....YES!

See? I don't have to take two different posts of yours to point out a contradiction. You contradict yourself perfectly in the same post!

[MoneyT101]

See? I don't have to take two different posts of yours to point out a contradiction. You contradict yourself perfectly in the same post!

If you call that contradicting...  You’ve proven that I am 👏

Hope that made your day 

[Steve]

With forums you never know you're conversing with a kid, a poser, a troll or whatever.... until they say boneheaded things and show how thick they are. Then you understand you wasted your time. I hope at least someone learned something here. Ive got time to help people who want it. But not to help people who are off the rails.

[luckyfella]

The expectation should be break even assuming no zero; the error is due to rounding.

Another thing to keep in mind is that nobody posts a system which they know loses, but often members will post something which looks promising. How many times have you seen those systems crash and burn after subsequent testing?  Every time, that's how many times.

Now what happens if someone thinks a system is so great (maybe it's a 3 standard deviation job) that they don't want to post it; they would prefer to just drop hints and bask in the warm glow of attention. As a consequence, that system never gets tested to destruction.

This is a another good post.

I said many times that roulette is a game that's based on math. Serious members should educate themselves. It's ok to be ignorant and make mistakes. But you have to make the effort in education to end the ignorance. Occasional mistakes is acceptable since we layman are self educated.

Joe, you should keep your posts related to the math of roulette.
And you are a good teacher in forum medium.

Forget about your loser systems bet.
That's waste of time luck stuff.

For your info, my flatbet register a 3.185 stddev. 

[luckyfella]

And, like Joe, if you do use negative progression betsizing,

My question is, How do you know the depth of the negative variance ?  x stddev, what is x ?

Remember, theoretically random spins has unbounded stddev.

[luckyfella]

The expectation should be break even assuming no zero; the error is due to rounding.

Another thing to keep in mind is that nobody posts a system which they know loses, but often members will post something which looks promising. How many times have you seen those systems crash and burn after subsequent testing?  Every time, that's how many times.

Now what happens if someone thinks a system is so great (maybe it's a 3 standard deviation job) that they don't want to post it; they would prefer to just drop hints and bask in the warm glow of attention. As a consequence, that system never gets tested to destruction.

Joe, the solution has to be based on a skewed distribution. It is the same requirement for AP, RC or systems or precog or whatever voodoo. Wrote that in 2014 VLS. My claim is that this exist naturally in random spins.

Ridiculous ? Nonsense ? Trash ? Delusional ? Stupid ? Uneducated ?

I happily accept whatever you throw at me. I won't ever reveal it.

I have given you where the solution lies mathwise, Joe.

[luckyfella]

Joe, I enjoy our math-based conversation. 3.185 stddev tested to destruction is not a ridiculous number.

Steve claims he has a 150% edge over some wheels. He killed the casino ! Just by watching videos in his pyjamas in his own words.
Might as well take over the ownership of the casino instead of playing this roulette game.

Joe, this is the kind of shit you should point out. Harping on ridiculous sensational numbers. Clear marketing intent. Do your job as self-appointed scammer policeman, Joe.

Steve, Nothing against you and your marketing. Nothing personal. Just that I am not stupid. And voicing my opinion. Who knows you might be doing what you say. I might be dead wrong about your rc. But I chose to err on the side of sensible logic.

[luckyfella]

Ignorant guy posing as math/roulette expert ask me what new math have I invented ? What math have I change ? Posting the payout table.

Joe, do you expect me to reply to this level of gibberish ?

I'm out of here. Right thing to do.

[Steve]

this is the kind of shit you should point out. Harping on ridiculous sensational numbers

Have you actually seen the videos in which I demonstrate such edges? How many mistakes can you make?

Just that I am not stupid.

Are you sure?

[luckyfella]

Have you actually seen the videos in which I demonstrate such edges? How many mistakes can you make?

Are you sure?

Yes, you are correct. I am a big idiot to make this gross stupid uneducated mistake not to watch your videos.

Thank you for enlightening idiot me. Yes sir, I will watch it right now.

Where's the video link steve ?
Can you be so kind to post it here pls. TQ