Theories, Myths, Facts And Ideas

[Joe]

However you look at this, it comes down to being able to 'rule out' certain options.

Yes exactly. But the mistake people make is thinking that ruling out certain options for a sequence of spins gives them an edge. Thus you see arguments in threads like priyanka's 'Random thoughts' for using VDW and cycles, the suggestion is that you should investigate events which must happen (such as after 3 spins you must get a dozen repeating). Turbo says the same thing: that 'random has limits' and you should start with things which either must happen or cannot happen.

But all of these certain and impossible events apply to sequences of spins. Turbo always says forget about the next spin and focus on multiple spins. But as I keeping saying, you cannot bet directly on a sequence of spins playing out a particular way! you can only bet on one spin at a time! And nothing can be ruled out with regards to the next spin. So all these systems and ideas based on what must and can't happen in a sequence are completely irrelevant to the actual game of roulette.

[MoneyT101]

You may want to be able to answer your own questions before you riddle others with them.

I showed proof in my example that I can do something similar!   Questions help others think different.

You keep insinuating that I’m looking for information from ppl in this forum.

I want one person to come forward and say I asked for them to share info with me.  And each person that has attempted something and it seems to work I’ve told them congrats and never even asked what they did.

So please stfu with your dumb comments and accusations.

[MoneyT101]

Yes exactly. But the mistake people make is thinking that ruling out certain options for a sequence of spins gives them an edge. Thus you see arguments in threads like priyanka's 'Random thoughts' for using VDW and cycles, the suggestion is that you should investigate events which must happen (such as after 3 spins you must get a dozen repeating). Turbo says the same thing: that 'random has limits' and you should start with things which either must happen or cannot happen.

But all of these certain and impossible events apply to sequences of spins. Turbo always says forget about the next spin and focus on multiple spins. But as I keeping saying, you cannot bet directly on a sequence of spins playing out a particular way! you can only bet on one spin at a time! And nothing can be ruled out with regards to the next spin. So all these systems and ideas based on what must and can't happen in a sequence are completely irrelevant to the actual game of roulette.

Get your facts correct.  A cycle will happen.  That is a fact.....

You can’t change it!  Believing or not believing, it’s a fact.

I can’t apply cycles= it doesn’t work

Now finding a way to use this information is another story.  If you haven’t found it, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist!  Just means you haven’t found the application.

[Blueprint]

Ok, tough guy.

This game of yours is sickening and it’s been going on for years. 

The funny thing is the people you are seeking help from are right here in this thread. 

Enjoy the chase! 

[Joe]

Get your facts correct.  A cycle will happen.  That is a fact.....

You can’t change it!  Believing or not believing, it’s a fact.

Apparently my post went right over your head. I didn't say that cycles don't happen, or other events - they do. The point is that you can't exploit them because they all involve sequences (multiple spins), and you can't bet directly on a sequence of   spins, you can only bet on the next spin. So all the systems based on these ideas say that IF I could bet in advance on a sequence turning out a certain way, then I would have an edge.

And betting on a partially formed sequence doesn't work, because spins are independent, so the partially formed sequence doesn't tell you how the sequence will complete (there are usually a large number of ways it could complete, each of them being equally likely).

[MoneyT101]

Ok, tough guy.

This game of yours is sickening and it’s been going on for years. 

The funny thing is the people you are seeking help from are right here in this thread. 

Enjoy the chase!

I’m not seeking help from anyone.  And no one in here can help if I did need any.

Makes no sense for me to look for help from people I know don’t have it.

[MoneyT101]

Apparently my post went right over your head. I didn't say that cycles don't happen, or other events - they do. The point is that you can't exploit them because they all involve sequences (multiple spins), and you can't bet directly on a sequence of   spins, you can only bet on the next spin. So all the systems based on these ideas say that IF I could bet in advance on a sequence turning out a certain way, then I would have an edge.

And betting on a partially formed sequence doesn't work, because spins are independent, so the partially formed sequence doesn't tell you how the sequence will complete (there are usually a large number of ways it could complete, each of them being equally likely).

Again.....

If YOU can’t do something it doesn’t mean SOMEONE else can’t do it also.

You’re still talking 🍎 and I’m still talking 🍊.  Yet you continue to think we are having the same conversation. After I consistently tell you.  You keep going back to the same thing.

Yes I know each spin is independent.  Yes I know the game is random.

If I’m still sticking to my point. It’s not that I am wrong.  It’s just you don’t know the application.

So once again...

If you don’t know the application, it doesn’t mean the application doesn’t exist.

[Tinsoldiers]

But as I keeping saying, you cannot bet directly on a sequence of spins playing out a particular way!

Well said Joe.

This is the point most of the people forget and leave it for others to figure out when coming out with these concepts and let people go in a wild goose chase. While the search and journey is exciting, go on it knowing this element that is missing. Without that, it is a lost cause to start with. This goes to the example that Money was using as well. If there is a way to limit one of the streams and improve accuracy of predictions, that’s the recipe for a grail. But Unfortnately roulette doesn’t have such a selection process that anyone here is aware of.

[Tinsoldiers]

If you don’t know the application, it doesn’t mean the application doesn’t exist.

Money, I can keep claiming that I know how to go to space without telling how I will do it. I can keep claiming that I can become a billionaire in two days without telling how to do it. And I can say just because you don’t know don’t think I can. You see the point here.

So far, none of your examples or your explanations how alluded to the applicability of this. If you have such an example or explanation please provide it. Else in a world where we are don’t even trust god, how do you think people are going to trust your claims. You may say let them not, but that is not evident from the way you are defending your claims. I understand that you don’t want to give away your life’s work and it is a difficult line you are treading. But unless your approach to explain change, this is not going anywhere as your explanations doesn’t really suggest anything different to what common mathematics suggest. 

Also, may I kindly recommend that you do some empirical testing as your maths is not as sound as I would expect to be and may be, may be if you play with real casino spins even for a couple of thousand spins, you may understand what people are trying to explain here.

[Joe]

If YOU can’t do something it doesn’t mean SOMEONE else can’t do it also.

It's not a question of ability or knowledge, but logic. You agree that spins are independent, and I assume you agree that systems based on cycles and events are predicated on multiple spins, not the next spin. So in order for the cycle-based systems to work, either you should be able to bet directly on a sequence of spins having a particular pattern (impossible), or you must bet one spin at a time on the pattern forming the way you want it to in order to get an edge. The pattern could be either not formed at all when you start betting, or it could be partially formed. Either way, because spins are independent (which you admit) and past spins do not influence future spins, you cannot predict any better than random that the desired pattern will form, and therefore will have no edge.

No particular 'application' will change that irrefutable logic. But continue to play the mystery card if you like; some people who haven't grasped the above logic will fall for it.

[MoneyT101]

Joe I will agree to disagree with you

Tinsoldiers I did share applicability directly and indirectly.  I know for a fact that some ppl understood.

I know 4 members that understood.  And attempted to try this new angle. 

This new angle will lead them to understand more and even win.  But there is another step after that to shortened the spin success, which I talked about.  But atleast they got to the step where they can win even if the edge is slightly small.

So I put the ideas out there and I used facts and theories as well. 

The question is... why some are picking it up and others aren’t?

Like herby basically said.. you just have to much knowledge about math and it doesn’t allow you to learn more.

I used the ec and lines example and you can’t see that winning lines in 3 spins will negate the LLN.  Because of the example my math isn’t correct.

So I will agree and say my math isn’t sound and makes no sense.

I’ll agree to disagree with you also

[Tinsoldiers]

It's not a question of ability or knowledge, but logic.

I think thats the premise under which this whole thread was started. But i dont know why some people in this thread take things personally when we are having a good discussion. Well said Joe.

because spins are independent (which you admit) and past spins do not influence future spins, you cannot predict any better than random that the desired pattern will form, and therefore will have no edge.

To be fair to Money, he has established already that he is not betting on a pattern. He also established the fact that he is actually not betting on spins but something around the order of spins. He is still playign the mystery card, and i am guessing he will continue to play it either intentionally or unintentionally as he feels his way of playing is very precious and cannot be shared to save global economy from crashing.

Coming back to what we were discussing.

Tin, no 'proof' is needed because it's self-evident. Obviously you have to bet before the next spin, but if the dependency exists only with regard to one and the same spin - for example, probability of the first dozen given red - what is given here (namely, red), is no more predictable than the first dozen itself. Yes you can calculate the probability, but the given isn't really 'given' until you know the result. 

I agree that the given is not a given until you know the result. But this isnt a proof that this cannot be used. As you rightly said, roulette is a dynamic game with multiple event streams to look at.  May be there is an event stream hiding somewhere there, unless there is a proof that it doesnt exist, which can help us in using this dependency within the same spin.

I don't understand what you mean. What's the difference between the 'order' of the spin stream and the actual spin stream?

For a primer I was talking about this topic that people are commonly discussing here, which can help you define order of spin stream and actual spin stream - link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17115.0    In simple terms, it is nothing but a stream containing the order in which the roulette spins appear in reference to a starting order in which spins are ordered. It could be whichever way you want - 0-36, 36-0, odd spins first followed by even spins etc.

I used the ec and lines example and you can’t see that winning lines in 3 spins will negate the LLN.  Because of the example my math isn’t correct.

Agree to disagree is not a way to break the deadlock in my terms Let me reiterate, i see your example, your example is winning lines in 3 spins will negate the LLN. But there is no LLN to be applied in your example. Going back to what LLN is,  "the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.". In your case you are expecting the line to win in 3 spins - so even in your scenario LLN applies as you are using a magic selection method from first stream into the second stream which is helpign you change the expectation. LLN still applies but you have changed the expectation, so you end up in positive. All good here, get me now?

So it is not any more about LLN, but about your bet selection process which can change expectation. Unforutnately this is the bit which you have kept mum about and have not explained any further. Thats what i have been saying.

[MoneyT101]

Agree to disagree is not a way to break the deadlock in my terms

😳😱

[MoneyT101]

Let me reiterate, i see your example, your example is winning lines in 3 spins will negate the LLN. But there is no LLN to be applied in your example. Going back to what LLN is,  "the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.". In your case you are expecting the line to win in 3 spins - so even in your scenario LLN applies as you are using a magic selection method from first stream into the second stream which is helpign you change the expectation. LLN still applies but you have changed the expectation, so you end up in positive. All good here, get me now?

So it is not any more about LLN, but about your bet selection process which can change expectation. Unforutnately this is the bit which you have kept mum about and have not explained any further. Thats what i have been saying.

But the point was to show LLN if avoided would result positive. Also the example is an idea that can lead to this avoidance.  But I didn’t say I will share exactly how.

We spoke of the affect of LLN.  I said If we can negate this then we can win.

I said if we can negate Any of the assumptions around roulette we can win.

Assumptions
1. Unpredictable
2. Random
3. Law of large numbers

[Tinsoldiers]

We spoke of the affect of LLN.  I said If we can negate this then we can win.

Read my post again. I have explained how you have not negated LLN, but all you have done (if true) is found a way to improve the expectation. Because you have improved expectation from your bets ( loosely put improved the accuracy of your prediction) and BECAUSE LLN IS TRUE on larger number of trials you will win.  Not because you have proved LLN to be wrong in your case. Hope you understand this?

So out of the three assumptions you have put in, you have not shaken the LLN part but the unpredictable part - you have made it more predictable and found a way to win in 3 spins. You agree on my observation of what you are doing?