Reading Randomness ( The Real Way ) @ Roulette Simulator

[precogmiles]

That's not true at all. I personally trained the first student one on one and he proved that it could be taught. The RR teaching thread is a simplified version of that original training. Everyone there has succeeded except you. You showed your telemetry of your progress. I watched you break the basic strategy. I wanted you to feel free to work it out or not on your own. I stayed silent when you gave up. I have my own opinion on how you failed. But I'm not going there. You came to it with your precognition interests more concerning to you. You went back to your primary interests. Your progress is there to see. You can't take it down.

If I get validated then they will be able to see if they can tell why you failed at something that works.  Nobody else there has failed. All their work on it confirms that it works. I did the arithmetic. Almost all of them reached 4.66 won sessions at 3 net wins to each lost session at 7 net losses. That equates to a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio. Go back and do the math on all your own examples. You quit while you were above 1 to 1 win to loss ratio. You also admitted that you tried to apply precognition to it. I'm happy with all the results, even yours. I want to thank you again for trying it in the public view.

I was being too nice to you it seems. I previously took your word on good faith that you had students that RR worked for, but since reviewing your threads it was obvious everyone who tried it gave up because it is nonsense and does not work.

Add to this the fact you have failed to win on MPR and roulette simulator it just proves what utter bullshit RR is.

If you can't even get it right how do you expect others to learn it?

[gizmotron2]

I was being too nice to you it seems. I previously took your word on good faith that you had students that RR worked for, but since reviewing your threads it was obvious everyone who tried it gave up because it is nonsense and does not work.

Add to this the fact you have failed to win on MPR and roulette simulator it just proves what utter bullshit RR is.

If you can't even get it right how do you expect others to learn it?

Your effort there, your own try, clearly shows you barging right through losing streaks. I have no doubt that you see the other people that tried it publicly as quitters. How are you doing convincing people with precognition? I don't care about your opinion. It's not a validated opinion. I wonder if you could handle some of the people that have it working for them. One guy thinks it's the most important thread at the entire forum. Has anyone said anything like that about your ESP stuff?

This is how it works. I put it all there. You are the only representation of failure. It's a great honor. Now you are pretending to know things that are not there. I havn't been keeping up with your magic act. How is it going for you?

[gizmotron2]

You got anything like this?

Xytras said: â†'
And good on you! I truly think your RR thread is a most important thread on this entire board! And thank you for that! Our way of thinking a game of Baccarat is in a complete alignment. Before I even joined here, I was playing the same way that you preach on RR for a couple of years and it just confirmed that I was doing something right! Good job!

[precogmiles]

Your effort there, your own try, clearly shows you barging right through losing streaks.

What the hell are you talking about?

How are you doing convincing people with precognition?

I demonstrate I don't need to convince.

I wonder if you could handle some of the people that have it working for them

Who are these invisible people you speak off?

Has anyone said anything like that about your ESP stuff?

Yes and I didn't invent any of this precognition stuff. It was already on the forum before me.

This is how it works. I put it all there. You are the only representation of failure. It's a great honor. Now you are pretending to know things that are not there. I havn't been keeping up with your magic act. How is it going for you?

You just need to shut up and demonstrate it. I am first place on MPR where are you?

Nobody cares about RR because you can't prove it works. Sorry to burst your fragile ego, but there are multiple people on this forum not impressed by your lies and bullshit.

I was naively being too nice to you.

Precognition = demonstrated to work
RR = failed demonstrations

Prove RR works, or shut up about it. We don't care about your imaginary students.

[gizmotron2]

Prove RR works, or shut up about it.

I'll shut up.

[Moxy]

Practice? You claimed to have been winning and teaching this for over 10 years. And you can't put up a winning record on Roulette Simulator?

Who do you think you are fooling? There is too many contradictions and lies in all of your statements.

It's so funny you (I think) said they take turns in the spot light or something of that order.  It's kind of true.  I just noticed it.  Now that CHT has taken a breather.  It's a "pattern".  Ha.

[winforus]

Stay cool. Please stop misrepresenting my claims. I have been talking about RR for 15 years. Three years ago I changed by learning something better. I applied RR to it and set out to prove that I could teach this new stuff. I waited one year and in July 2019 I shared it all openly. I provided free practice software and answered all the questions openly without just dropping hints. That thread is done. Those skills are there for anyone to work on it if they want it. You are just about over the top with your illusions of it. I hope you gamble like that too.

Misrepresent your claims? You claimed that:
1) You been teaching this for over 10 years.
2) You have students who you turned into winning Roulette players
3) You will prove and demonstrate it by winning on MPR and Roulette Simulator.

So far, you have lost many times on Roulette Simulator and you also lost on MPR. There is not a SINGLE student of yours who came in here and vouched for you.

At this point, you have lost any credibility that you had left. 

[winforus]

It's so funny you (I think) said they take turns in the spot light or something of that order.  It's kind of true.  I just noticed it.  Now that CHT has taken a breather.  It's a "pattern".  Ha.

Which one of them is on the strong side and which one is on the weak side? 

[winforus]

That's not true at all. I personally trained the first student one on one and he proved that it could be taught. The RR teaching thread is a simplified version of that original training. Everyone there has succeeded except you. You showed your telemetry of your progress. I watched you break the basic strategy. I wanted you to feel free to work it out or not on your own. I stayed silent when you gave up. I have my own opinion on how you failed. But I'm not going there. You came to it with your precognition interests more concerning to you. You went back to your primary interests. Your progress is there to see. You can't take it down.

If I get validated then they will be able to see if they can tell why you failed at something that works.  Nobody else there has failed. All their work on it confirms that it works. I did the arithmetic. Almost all of them reached 4.66 won sessions at 3 net wins to each lost session at 7 net losses. That equates to a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio. Go back and do the math on all your own examples. You quit while you were above 1 to 1 win to loss ratio. You also admitted that you tried to apply precognition to it. I'm happy with all the results, even yours. I want to thank you again for trying it in the public view.

So what we have so far, is proof of two people failing (you are one of them) at using this method. You lost on RS, and so did precogmiles with this. You really have dug your own grave here.

The rest are imaginary students. If they are not imaginary, bring them up and let's see their results.

[Moxy]

So what we have so far, is proof of two people failing (you are one of them) at using this method. You lost on RS, and so did precogmiles with this. You really have dug your own grave here.

The rest are imaginary students. If they are not imaginary, bring them up and let's see their results.

I challenge you to a psych off.

[gizmotron2]

Just wanted to make sure that all of you mathZombies are all fully grounded and dyed in the wool regarding your math fallacies.  You really need this ammunition when you come up against anything that you want to look smart at.

link:s://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2010/video-lectures/lecture-25-random-walks/

[Moxy]

Just wanted to make sure that all of you mathZombies are all fully grounded and dyed in the wool regarding your math fallacies.  You really need this ammunition when you come up against anything that you want to look smart at.

link:s://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2010/video-lectures/lecture-25-random-walks/

Pfff...  You couldn't even challenge me.

[Kairomancer]

So what we have so far, is proof of two people failing (you are one of them) at using this method. You lost on RS, and so did precogmiles with this. You really have dug your own grave here.

The rest are imaginary students. If they are not imaginary, bring them up and let's see their results.

Add me and Denzie (afaik he even paid money for RR coaching) to the list of failed attempts at RR.

I believe Gizmo mistakenly thinks that I am precogmiles based on his replies.

[gizmotron2]

Add me and Denzie (afaik he even paid money for RR coaching) to the list of failed attempts at RR.

You did not pay for this version of RR based on Even Chance play. You paid for Double Dozens. Back then I taught going for the super win streak and descending deep into the bankroll. Someone suggested watching a video on trading stocks like a casino. Everything changed after that. Denzie and I worked at length on attempting to crack TurboGenius' hot number theories too. Did you learn visual dexterity?  I think that it's very important that you failed. I need lots of proof that it does not work.

[gizmotron2]

Even if you tried the newest version at the Reading Randomness thread I need people like you that failed. I'm letting you all know that you ran me off.  I like that it's a lost cause here. I'll use a better method for validation. Don't hold your breath.