Reading Randomness ( The Real Way ) @ Roulette Simulator

[Mean]

Stop avoiding my question.

Stop asking dumb questions and acting like you have some authority. It "proves" your ignorance, grandiosity, and schizophrenic type behavior.

[cht]

They can go to the casinos themselves and lose. The beef comes when they spread their false information, delusions, lies, etc. to others.

It means nothing to none of us.

It means everything to you(naysayers), your continuous vigilant naysaying forum activity can't fool us.

Stop lying, answer my simple question,

what's your beef?

[cht]

Steve, members of this forum, reader public

Don't be fooled by this naysaying activity who claim a noble crusade of math against system bettors.

We all know what the math says.

Excessive naysaying activity under the cover of fraudulent noble crusade has a sinister motive behind it. Don't be fooled.

â€"-----------end of discussion--------------

[cht]

For the record I respect Joe's posts.

He is not a naysayer.

His math posts are educational in nature. Include Bayes, Firefox, and Jerome in this group.

The rest posters who claim math are bullshit posters who know nothing about math. Bullshit

[winforus]

Looks like CHT is spamming once again. His attention dose is running low, the craving has kicked in and he is looking to get some attention.

He is the guy who claimed to have HG and that he will leave this forum not so long ago - should say everything that you need to know about him.

Another big mouth who claims to have positive edge, but is not making any money, nor has shown any proof.

[cht]

I will report excessive naysaying post to Steve.

If Steve doesn't take action the same way with excessive claims, I'm done with this forum.

[cht]

Looks like CHT is spamming once again. His attention dose is running low, the craving has kicked in and he is looking to get some attention.

He is the guy who claimed to have HG and that he will leave this forum not so long ago - should say everything that you need to know about him.

Another big mouth who claims to have positive edge, but is not making any money, nor has shown any proof.

I reported your post.

Excessive naysaying...... Confrontational that has nothing to do with roulette.

Let's see if Steve will take action.

[winforus]

I'm not trying to get first place. I'm just validating 4.66 to 1 which will equate to 2 to 1 win to loss ratio in a game that can't be beaten or even tied at 1 to 1.

So what will it take to validate that at least I did it? I'm flat betting at 350 to 450 depending on the number of bet locations I try with an average of 20 units per number selected. 18 numbers = 360. I often cover the zero for 10 units and add an extra 10 units on any outside bets if they apply.  This is almost dead on flat betting.  I'm not supposed to be able to do that, right? Like nobody is. 

Just think. You know for sure that I'm going to fail. You can't wait. But you sure want to make sure what you think will happen is documented. So it is.

So how long will it take to change your minds if I go ahead and do it.  I call 4.66 wins to 1 loss at 4.66 times 3 and 1 times 7 net losses a full cycle. This represents my long term average. How many cycles would it take to impress you math wizards with this flat betting method? Don't give me that millions of spins crap either. I should not be able to have a lucky streak of 100 cycles flat betting. Or should I ?

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.

Gizmotron, my point stands. Reading Randomness is unable to win by flat betting. If you can't win by flat betting, this means that it's a losing system. Why is this? Because the bet selections that you are making have the accuracy of no better than random.

Reading Randomness would work, only if you were able to predict the winning steaks which you are targeting. If you are unable to know when high/low/red/even comes, then you are making random -EV bets. Progression will only mask it, until you lose.

[winforus]

I reported your post.

Excessive naysaying...... Confrontational that has nothing to do with roulette.

Let's see if Steve will take action.

I reported your posts as well, for excessive spamming.  Your game plan: spam the shit out of the forum, and when a person who can see through your bullshit calls you out, you run to the admin.

[Mean]

what's your beef?

What are they putting in your food?

Excessive naysaying activity under the cover of fraudulent noble crusade has a sinister motive behind it. Don't be fooled.

Oh god, they caught me. Now what am I going to do?

who know nothing about math. Bullshit

You don't need to know a lot about math to know 1+1=2. It's not rocket science. I could waste time and get into the math, like Joe if I wanted to.

I'm done with this forum.

Good. Leave. Bye. Have a great life.

Confrontational that has nothing to do with roulette.

Kind of like all your posts.

[stranger90]

Cht you need professional help.

[Mean]

Cht you need professional help.

Perhaps he can ask for money from Gizmotron, who must be a trillionaire by now, to seek help.

[Mean]

@Gizmotron
What's your excuse for not being a trillionaire? Do you feel too much empathy for the casinos? 

[gizmotron2]

Gizmotron, my point stands. Reading Randomness is unable to win by flat betting.

But does your stand on this actually consider that winning is more important than making restrictive qualifications? I'm glad that you are consistent on this, not in any mean way. You think it must be by a conditional rule in order to ever be valid. But what if it wins by targeting opportunities with an increased sized bet and mitigates losses by a lower priced bet? This would be multi level type flat betting. You can't allow that to exist? OK, I get that. So if I just go ahead and put up better numbers now what will be your conclusion? I did the first 50 games flat just for you. I did it flat because people like to call me a liar. What I just did is proof enough. I'm sure I'll have to do thousands of games in order to show the difference with multi level flat betting.  You know I'm going to show improvement. But it looks like it will still go as nothing impressive. That's just the nature of people and their beliefs.

It looks like people will just have to make up their own minds despite all this cheerleading.

[gizmotron2]

Why is this? Because the bet selections that you are making have the accuracy of no better than random.

I guess you have never seen me say that you will lose the correct number of bets that math says you should lose. So we are in full agreement on these numbers.  I'm clearly saying that you can make unfunded bet selections that lose at the mathematical rate. I'm saying that this is a form of math known as "variable change."  In other words I have math on my side.