Theories, Myths, Facts And Ideas

[ati]

The problem I’ve had with everything we learned is that we had to many things and concepts everywhere.

That's true. For so long I was trying to include all the concepts into one system, but it never worked. There were contradictions, and of course I didn't understand many of the concepts. Some I still don't. Now I'm trying a selective approach to see which one would fit into the system I'm trying to create.

You don’t have to follow cycles based on what you learned.

I often think about this, and doing tests to see what if I re-track every time a cycle ends with a repeat. Unfortunately I can only do this manually, so don't have enough data to be certain. The cycle length repeats seem favorable, but the connection between the start and the end doesn't seem to be there.

Rules aren’t written in stone.  You can make your own rules

I'm trying, but I'm far less intelligent and creative than Pri and rrbb, so I'm stuck with using their ideas and examples. 

[Blood Angel]

I'm trying, but I'm far less intelligent and creative than Pri and rrbb, so I'm stuck with using their ideas and examples. 

I feel your pain Ati!

[mickavelli]

Maybe my problem is related to the bet sizes.

For some reason i can't quote posts from Random Thoughts...
Not sure if this one can help but something to think about......

"Can you predict the next dozen? If I bet on the negative, the odds will be better than what i will get from playing roulette. However, what we can say for sure is there will be at least 1 repeat of a dozen in 4 spins. "

[ati]

That quote just explains that the odds of the next spin never changes, but the game is much more than the next spin. If you can tell with better than random accuracy what will happen or will not happen in the next 5 or 10 spins, then the odds of the next spin and the unfair payout don't matter.

[Proofreaders2000]

I still believe in Law of the Third.

Atlantis had this idea.  If you have four separate
unique doublestreets hit in a row to bet those four once.

I don't know the hit-rate, but it sounds good imo.

[ati]

Unfortunately that is no different from random betting. I have just tested 95K spins, there were 26493 triggers, 17561 bets won 2 units the rest lost 4 units.
We need constants to work with and rely on, and only number cycles can provide us with more or less constant statistics.

[mickavelli]

That quote just explains that the odds of the next spin never changes

Does it though??
I know everyones interpretations are different...
But Pry also said things like "without getting into the complexities of MM"
What does that tell you?
I don't know.... Maybe even start with checking out what it means to take negative odds

[mickavelli]

..

[The General]

I still believe in Law of the Third.

Atlantis had this idea.  If you have four separate
unique doublestreets hit in a row to bet those four once.

I don't know the hit-rate, but it sounds good imo.

The law of the third is about as useful at predicting future spins as the law of even chances is at predicting future spins.  In other words, it can't predict anything.  As a matter of fact, if you add up the results of the law of the third distribution you will still find that the total amount bet still comes up short what's needed to just break even.  The distribution demonstrates that the house payout is short!

The law of the third doesn't tell you what is more likely to hit over the next series of spins.  Binomial distribution merely demonstrate the most likely way a random group of numbers will be distributed over a series of spins.  A better use of the law of third would be to use it as a "goodness of fit" test. For example if you know the what the normal distribution of a group of numbers is over a series of spins you could measure how much future samples deviate from the expectation.  It would be a crude kind of chi square test.  (A chi square test is still better).  Unfortunately everyone here on this forum is using it the wrong way.    It all reminds me of a scene from "Zoolander" where they're trying to smash the monitor to get information from inside the computer.   

[Steve]

Careful not to offend anyone caleb. People take it personally when you say earth is not flat.

[Proofreaders2000]

Lesson learned General, Steve. 
(The Earth is getting rounder everyday)

Ok, another grand proposition:

According to TurboGenius, this pattern:
E, O, O, O, O *E* should be a "Even-chances Grail"

When there are four consecutive even-chances, more
often than not, the opposite will appear in the next outcome.

[Steve]

When there are four consecutive even-chances, more
often than not, the opposite will appear in the next outcome.

Turbo is utterly full of shit.

Whenever he makes a claim that's defined with enough clarity, testing easily debunks his crap.

Very rarely does he make sufficiently clear statements. He's almost always deliberately vague, leaving many parts open ended. So you need to test multiple interpretations. However, every interpretation and version of his nonsense is dead wrong.

I gave turbo ample opportunities to prove his theories and claims. In the end he was evasive to clear questions, and dead wrong about even the basics.

I said it from the beginning. Turbo is like a cancer. Just an attention seeking troll. An increasing amount of people are understanding what more experienced members knew earlier.

[Elite]

Agree ,Steve, probability based or  number based system cannot defeat roulette in long term, valid ways are dealer signature or  physics based system..Maths cannot defeat