Reading Randomness ( The Real Way ) @ Roulette Simulator

[Mean]

I am. It's not a perfect range. Some of my sets have 19 numbers instead of 18, (outside bets). Sometimes I also cover the single zero. Some times, very few I target the sleeping dozen of the swarm of singles in double dozens. But each chip value is 20 unless I'm also backing a bet with a few at 10 as insurance bets.

Your only hope is to convince everyone that this is not flat betting. But you wont see 700 to 900 used. That would be doubling the base rate between 350 and 450. I'm not doubling down. I'm not self destructing.

More gibberish to cover up his previous gibberish.

[Mean]

When I succeed you do the same.

You wouldn't be able to be successful if it (success) came crashing through your window and sat on your lap.

[gizmotron2]

You wouldn't be able to be successful if it (success) came crashing through your window and sat on your lap.

troll

[Mean]

troll

The weakling Gizmotron calls me a troll. I am so .......... This is boring; come up with some more roulette nonsense.

[Mean]

 

[Mean]

I think I get it. Gizmo just gets bored and gets off by acting like he has something special. He is as special as a bag of rocks. I would rather be a math person and grounded in truth than a deluded idiot.

[Richard Meisel]

You had better be right or you are going to look real stupid. Imagine you being outfoxed by me.

So how many cycles will it take to validate 4.66 to 1, or a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio?

Hey Giz, I know you're having fun with all these dissenters. I forgive them for they know not what they're doing. It took a long, long, time for me to be a nice guy. I win around a little under 80% with your Reading Randomness method. I don't have to prove it. I just tell others to please try it before downgrading it. Try the system, then if you lose, tell all the roulette gamblers how you lost using this method. Try it before you criticize.    About your 4.66 (x3) to 1 (x7) =  (14 to 7) method of betting, I do like my method of 4.66 (x2) to 1 (x5) = (9.3 to 5) better, because after 2 wins sometimes there's a grind getting that 3rd win. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

[Mean]

I forgive them for they know not what they're doing.

We don't need forgiveness from people who are deluded.

I win around a little under 80% with your Reading Randomness method.

This doesn't mean anything. You lose more in the long run from progression.

I don't have to prove it.

I can fly to the moon by flapping my arms, but I don't have to prove it.

I just tell others to please try it before downgrading it

I tried it. It's a bunch of vague nonsense of typical stuff that doesn't work.

tell all the roulette gamblers how you lost using this method.

I lost, because it's as good as guessing.

because after 2 wins sometimes there's a grind getting that 3rd win.

With that kind of logic, there's also a grind getting your 2nd win after your 1st and from going from zero units to one unit, etc.

Have fun at the casinos; they love you.

[gizmotron2]

MEAN is irrelevant attempting to obtain relevance.

I just completed 50 games at R-Sim. I did it flat betting at the 2 level of ( 1, 2 ) or ( 2, 1, ) of my own style of John Patrick's published method of "Up & Pull." Those bet location amounts are at from 350 to 450 for each bet placed. I cover the zero when I think it might be active. My "1" level bets will be around 170 to 210.

I had explained that I can't win flat betting in the long run with Reading Randomness. This 50 games pretty much confirms that. I will leave those first 50 up and go back to what works for me. From the beginning, going back decades, I attack the best opportunities. Some people here need to see that as using a mindless progression.  I have been attacking the super win streaks for more than 25 years. Reading Randomness is really about that. It's not a mindless, rule based, progression. You don't just bet bigger after a loss for no reason. You only bet bigger when you can see a strong likelihood that a win streak is in phase.  If you don't know what that means then you are in no position to criticize what you clearly don't understand. What you mathZombies understand is something that you are convinced is the only possibility that can exist. So you act out as if it is gospel.

But go ahead trolls. You need what you need.

[Mean]

MEAN is irrelevant attempting to obtain relevance.

Randomness is chaos; you attempt to find order.

I had explained that I can't win flat betting in the long run with Reading Randomness.

Classic misdirection move from Gizmotron, i.e., changing his story

I attack the best opportunities

There are no opportunities; you said so yourself.

I have been attacking the super win streaks for more than 25 years. Reading Randomness is really about that.

Another contradiction. You just recently said you don't attack "super win streaks" because they only come infrequently.

You only bet bigger when you can see a strong likelihood that a win streak is in phase.

Congratulations. You are the only person in the universe that has ever been able to predict a win streak. Now, go make your trillions.

If you don't know what that means then you are in no position to criticize what you clearly don't understand.

You, a confirmed liar, are in no position to place rules on other people.

What you mathZombies understand is something that you are convinced is the only possibility that can exist.

This makes no sense. Please rephrase.

So you act out as if it is gospel.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that each spin is independent, and each bet has the same probability of winning/losing each spin.

But go ahead trolls

Who are you?

Well that was lame. Anyone up for some poker?

[gizmotron2]

Classic misdirection move from Gizmotron, i.e., changing his story

Look it up. I know it's talked about somewhere. It's one of the things used to dismiss RR. It's called telling the truth. The fact that you see it as misdirection makes you some kind of user of a hysterical red herring or a new smarmy form of erecting a strawman argument. You are one of those guys that needs to win a "fake" argument. When will the parade come down the street with you as the queen of the float arrive?

[gizmotron2]

You are the only person in the universe that has ever been able to predict a win streak.

I don't need to predict what will happen in order to see what is currently happening. That's the crap between your ears helping you to be the very best that you can be. Join the Army. You are clearly no good at this.

[gizmotron2]

You, a confirmed liar, are in no position to place rules on other people.

I actually I am in a position to place rules on people that I want to make an impression on. I doubt that you are in a position to make anyone even remotely happy other than your grandmother when she wants her oatmeal and applesauce. Such is life in the basement when you reach 40.

[gizmotron2]

Well that was lame. Anyone up for some poker?

Anyone up for stepping on the dickheads face?

Good, now the thread is trolled again.

[Mean]

It's one of the things used to dismiss RR. It's called telling the truth.

You actually told the truth for once. I agree, telling the truth does dismiss "reading randomness" fallacies.

You are one of those guys that needs to win a "fake" argument.

This argument is real. You keep make up lies about being able to predict random outcomes better than random.

When will the parade come down the street with you as the queen of the float arrive?

You suffer from grandiosity. No one cares about this stuff, because everyone already knows the truth, i.e., that you cannot predict future roulette spins.

I don't need to predict what will happen in order to see what is currently happening.

You cannot make money on things that are currently happening when it comes to roulette. It's unpredictable. Trends, patterns, streaks, etc. are just things your brain creates out of randomness.

Join the Army

I have it much better than a soldier.

You are clearly no good at this

No one on the face of our planet is good at doing things that are impossible.