Reading Randomness ( The Real Way ) @ Roulette Simulator

[gizmotron2]

And had the luck continued to go your way, and instead of losing the 100k, you would of ended up winning 100k more, you would have continued to claim it was due to "reading randomness", "attacking at the right time", and long paragraphs swimming in your glory.

I can now see why multiple people told me that you use con man tactics.

No I wouldn't. It's clear to me that you don't know what the RR is. You can clearly see me making dumb wild progression bets heading up to the top. I was just mimicking what the others have done to get there. But you didn't see that and now you can't take it back. And the con man bit. I have conned you. I told you what it takes to really win and then I masked it. And that conned you. Perfect. You guys always say that nobody would give away a working method. So you were conned as soon as you looked at it. Ha ha. This was all meant for the mathBoyz. But I got you too. Glad you are now giving yourself permission to pass it up. I do get a kick out of human nature. Control freaks manipulate people because they need so badly to do that to protect their illusion of themselves. But I have controlled this so that I could share it and fuk with the mathZombies heads all at the same time.  In other words there is a good way to manipulate people. I told people a way to beat Roulette and then made it look fake. It's still sitting there , easy to learn, and nothing is stopping you other than the fear that you might be getting played.  Don't want to be anyone's fool now do we? That is the con job. You are conning you. Ha ha. This si my way of sharing it and protecting it. You are my cop on the beat. Thank you for your service.

[winforus]

No I wouldn't. It's clear to me that you don't know what the RR is. You can clearly see me making dumb wild progression bets heading up to the top. I was just mimicking what the others have done to get there. But you didn't see that and now you can't take it back. And the con man bit. I have conned you. I told you what it takes to really win and then I masked it. And that conned you. Perfect. You guys always say that nobody would give away a working method. So you were conned as soon as you looked at it. Ha ha. This was all meant for the mathBoyz. But I got you too. Glad you are now giving yourself permission to pass it up. I do get a kick out of human nature. Control freaks manipulate people because they need so badly to do that to protect their illusion of themselves. But I have controlled this so that I could share it and fuk with the mathZombies heads all at the same time.  In other words there is a good way to manipulate people. I told people a way to beat Roulette and then made it look fake. It's still sitting there , easy to learn, and nothing is stopping you other than the fear that you might be getting played.  Don't want to be anyone's fool now do we? That is the con job. You are conning you. Ha ha. This si my way of sharing it and protecting it. You are my cop on the beat. Thank you for your service.

LOL, so now you claim that you lost on purpose? Before you claimed that it was due to "boredom and laziness".

For anyone who has been following your threads from the beginning, your lies, contradictions, and excuses are all very easy to see.

Like I said, you have lost all the credibility, you ain't fooling anyone here.

[gizmotron2]

LOL, so now you claim that you lost on purpose?

Try to keep up. I claimed it a long time ago.

[gizmotron2]

Before you claimed that it was due to "boredom and laziness".

For anyone who has been following your threads from the beginning, your lies, contradictions, and excuses are all very easy to see.

Like I said, you have lost all the credibility, you ain't fooling anyone here.

Good, I think I'll go dark.

[winforus]

Doesn't sound here that you lost on purpose or had it planned. Who do you think you are fooling?

Thank you for exposing yourself - anyone can go through your threads and see all the countless lies and contradictions.

"Been having a blast self destructing on R-sim. Have had huge wins streaks only to hit the self destruct flat betting on long shots.

Might try flat betting only, combined with a minimum bet. In other words no double down on attacks. Let's see if I can win every time with that method."

This will eliminate fatigue and laziness. I already have 3 sessions at 540 or thereabouts.

You are right. I can't win without the attacking bet.  I had three easy sessions and then just an outright war that had tons of doubling down bets that I did not make. I guess I have to stick to my style. Interesting though.  Each session has its own features.  Other sessions don't matter. You fight the one you are in. I just want to beat the math.

[winforus]

To add, here are the graphs:

link:s://prnt.sc/t58nqu - current graph
link:s://prnt.sc/t58t46 - 100k losing session

You lost your 100k in 162 spins, not in 1 or 10 spins. Yet you claim it was due to "boredom and laziness". If you lost it in 10 spins, then your claim would be far more credible. You realized that it wasn't credible, so then you changed to saying that you lost on purpose.

link:s://prnt.sc/t58ubv

After your initial 100k loss, you were still up 1.6k. Yet you went from being up 1.6k to being down -14k. These remaining losses came in ~700 spins. What excuse would you have for those losses after the 100k? More boredom or that you have so much time on your hands, to play for 700 spins and lose on purpose?

[winforus]

So now after exposing you, you decided to change it up, and start to actually "lose on purpose" - by betting 1k per unit, instead of 20 or 30, and you no longer "read randomness", as you bet on the 1st spin, without waiting for 10 spins.

Screenshot of previous session up to that point and link:

link:s://prnt.sc/t58y0o
link:s://roulette-simulator.info/en/game/26a5695b14287e47b8bc8855148876ca

Screenshot+link after exposing you:
link:s://prnt.sc/t58xe8
link:s://roulette-simulator.info/en/game/419321ce222384c9c01ae1940da76bdb

Initially after your 100k loss, by losing 3k per session and betting 20/30 per bet, you were losing around between 100-150 units per session.

Trying to changing the unit bet to 1k now and losing on purpose, won't fool anyone, the history is right there, it is all documented.

[Moxy]

No I wouldn't. It's clear to me that you don't know what the RR is. You can clearly see me making dumb wild progression bets heading up to the top. I was just mimicking what the others have done to get there. But you didn't see that and now you can't take it back. And the con man bit. I have conned you. I told you what it takes to really win and then I masked it. And that conned you. Perfect. You guys always say that nobody would give away a working method. So you were conned as soon as you looked at it. Ha ha. This was all meant for the mathBoyz. But I got you too. Glad you are now giving yourself permission to pass it up. I do get a kick out of human nature. Control freaks manipulate people because they need so badly to do that to protect their illusion of themselves. But I have controlled this so that I could share it and fuk with the mathZombies heads all at the same time.  In other words there is a good way to manipulate people. I told people a way to beat Roulette and then made it look fake. It's still sitting there , easy to learn, and nothing is stopping you other than the fear that you might be getting played.  Don't want to be anyone's fool now do we? That is the con job. You are conning you. Ha ha. This si my way of sharing it and protecting it. You are my cop on the beat. Thank you for your service.

You seriously need to get laid.  Vegas it up.  Go out.  Slumming around on here with those Precog Elitists is not my idea of fun.  But I think you prob get a kick out of it.

[winforus]

At first he claimed he was bored, then he was asked, why did he lose, and initially this was his answer:

can't help myself, it's boring....

So you got bored and you lost on purpose?

No, not exactly. I just picked a long shot bet and would ride it down and up and down like a jackass. It was pure dummy-dick tactics. It could have gone on a wild win streak. I didn't care anymore. I had already made my point.  If people look at how I started out with those games at 54 then they will see what to do.

After realizing that his BS was seen through, he changed his answer and claimed it was done on purpose and it was his plan all along:

No I wouldn't. It's clear to me that you don't know what the RR is. You can clearly see me making dumb wild progression bets heading up to the top. I was just mimicking what the others have done to get there. But you didn't see that and now you can't take it back. And the con man bit. I have conned you. I told you what it takes to really win and then I masked it. And that conned you. Perfect. You guys always say that nobody would give away a working method. So you were conned as soon as you looked at it. Ha ha. This was all meant for the mathBoyz. But I got you too. Glad you are now giving yourself permission to pass it up. I do get a kick out of human nature. Control freaks manipulate people because they need so badly to do that to protect their illusion of themselves. But I have controlled this so that I could share it and fuk with the mathZombies heads all at the same time.  In other words there is a good way to manipulate people. I told people a way to beat Roulette and then made it look fake. It's still sitting there , easy to learn, and nothing is stopping you other than the fear that you might be getting played.  Don't want to be anyone's fool now do we? That is the con job. You are conning you. Ha ha. This si my way of sharing it and protecting it. You are my cop on the beat. Thank you for your service.

Yet, if you look at his losing session, you will see that it was not due to boredom, nor it was done on purpose. Simply the variance caught up to him, and his RR was exposed for it was - this method's accuracy is no better than random bets. This is why he also wasn't able to win on MPR. As Steve says, anyone can with progression for sometime, but eventually they will lose. This thread is a great case study for all the newbies out there - don't be fooled by progression, and always look at the numbers - the numbers don't lie. Also, do your research and don't be fooled by con man tactics.

[Moxy]

At first he claimed he was bored, then he was asked, why did he lose, and initially this was his answer:

After realizing that his BS was seen through, he changed his answer and claimed it was done on purpose and it was his plan all along:

Yet, if you look at his losing session, you will see that it was not due to boredom, nor it was done on purpose. Simply the variance caught up to him, and his RR was exposed for it was - this method's accuracy is no better than random bets. This is why he also wasn't able to win on MPR. As Steve says, anyone can with progression for sometime, but eventually they will lose. This thread is a great case study for all the newbies out there - don't be fooled by progression, and always look at the numbers - the numbers don't lie. Also, do your research and don't be fooled by con man tactics.

You, also need to get laid.  But methinks you get a kick out of this as well.
















Note to self:  Holy mackerel, I need to get laid!

[pepper]

I don't give a shit about your first 50

If Gizmotron2 was flat betting on even chances for about 100-150 spins per session (assuming a bet on every spin), and won 50 sessions in a row at +3 units, this virtually proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he has a massive edge.

[precogmiles]

If Gizmotron2 was flat betting on even chances for about 100-150 spins per session (assuming a bet on every spin), and won 50 sessions in a row at +3 units, this virtually proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he has a massive edge.

Winning a session does not prove anything.

What was his overall Winrate?

Winrate is amount won / amount bet

[pepper]

Winning a session does not prove anything.

What was his overall Winrate?

Winrate is amount won / amount bet

You're right, winning a session doesn't prove anything, 50, 150 spin sessions in a row DOES. This is assuming he placed about 150 bets per session. Even if he only placed 50 bets per session, this is huge.

I don't know the exact math; you can just simulate and try to win +3 for 50 sessions (about 150spins per session) in a row, and it is damn near impossible to even pass 4 sessions doing this. All what I'm saying only applies to flat betting; I don't know about progression. Progression can pass tons of more spins, but losses a lot more when it fails.

[precogmiles]

You're right, winning a session doesn't prove anything, but 50, 150 spin sessions in a row DOES.

I don't know the exact math; you can just simulate and try to win +3 for 50 sessions (about 150spins per session) in a row, and it is damn near impossible to even pass 4 sessions doing this. All what I'm saying only applies to flat betting; I don't know about progression. Progression can pass tons of more spins, but losses a lot more when it fails.

Ok if you think he completed 50 sessions win straight without progression after reading this thread and looking at his game play on RS then I can't help you.


I guess people like to see what they want.

[pepper]

Ok if you think he completed 50 sessions win straight without progression after reading this thread and looking at his game play on RS then I can't help you.


I guess people like to see what they want.

Please don't imply that I only see what I want. I said "if gizmotron ..." Note, I said IF.

I don't have conclusive evidence that Gizmotron2 did or didn't win 50 sessions in a row by flat betting on mpr.

I don't like when take my maybes, ifs, etc out of what I am saying. Thank you.