VIDEO 4: Roulette Strategy Secrets | Mistakes to AVOID

[Herby]

that is your problem

The first true part of a sentence from you.

[Herby]

I like to look at the possibility of it being flat.

In a first approximation the earth is flat. Hundreds of thousends of years people thought like that.
In the second step of approximation the earth is a sphere.
In the third step of approximation the earth is a rotational ellipsoid.

and so on
last step: the earth is the earth: every approximation is only an approximation .

Mankind is not able to know the truth. ( some slimeheads just think they are )

The only thing we can talk of is the quality of our approximation .

[Steve]

Pepper, you're not understanding what im saying.

35 will NEVER be greater than 37.

Its not an opinion. Its not a theory. Its not debatable.

Like i said, don't think you're different. Almost everyone on forums makes the same mistakes, because they still don't understand BASICS.

Yes, basics are boring. But if you don't even understand basics, youve got no hope for anything else.

We're in orbit, im pointing out the window saying "look, its round". And you're still thinking it might be flat.

It shows again, you can lead a horse to water. But you can't make it drink.

[Steve]

Gizmo, can you post here just one testable principle?

I don't mean theory like there will be some reds and some blacks. I mean something of substance.

[Steve]

And peper, im fully aware many people won't like what i say. But like i said, id rather just tell the truth than make people feel warm amd fuzzy.

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo, can you post here just one testable principle?

I don't mean theory like there will be some reds and some blacks. I mean something of substance.

Here is an example of a common characteristic. It's "singles on the weak side." It's found in the Low / High section at spin 29 and goes on for 30 spins.  I have taught people to win their session with just this sequence. That's not a theory.

Code Select Expand


-----------------------------------------
W | B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |  --  SN  --  SP
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  01  --  05 ( $ 90 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  02  --  13 ( $ 0 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  03  --  09 ( $ 90 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04  --  18 ( $ 180 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  05  --  34 ( $ 270 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  06  --  25 ( $ 360 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  07  --  05 ( $ 450 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  08  --  02 ( $ 360 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  09  --  04 ( $ 270 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  10  --  35 ( $ 180 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  11  --  20 ( $ 90 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  12  --  03 ( $ 180 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  13  --  11 ( $ 90 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  14  --  05 ( $ 180 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15  --  15 ( $ 90 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  16  --  07 ( $ 180 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17  --  17 ( $ 90 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  18  --  02 ( $ 0 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  19  --  35 ( $ -90 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20  --  20 ( $ -180 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  21  --  18 ( $ -90 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  22  --  09 ( $ 0 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  23  --  22 ( $ -90 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  24  --  10 ( $ -180 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  25  --  22 ( $ -270 ) Red
   |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  26  --  37 ( $ -360 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  27  --  35 ( $ -450 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  28  --  32 ( $ -360 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  29  --  15 ( $ -450 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  30  --  05 ( $ -360 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  31  --  16 ( $ -270 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  32  --  23 ( $ -180 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  33  --  06 ( $ -270 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  34  --  01 ( $ -180 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  35  --  24 ( $ -270 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  36  --  16 ( $ -180 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  37  --  30 ( $ -90 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  38  --  12 ( $ 0 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  39  --  06 ( $ -90 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  40  --  14 ( $ 0 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  41  --  24 ( $ -90 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  42  --  02 ( $ -180 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  43  --  15 ( $ -270 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  44  --  09 ( $ -180 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  45  --  22 ( $ -270 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  46  --  18 ( $ -180 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  47  --  11 ( $ -270 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  48  --  16 ( $ -180 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  49  --  18 ( $ -90 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  50  --  08 ( $ -180 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  51  --  01 ( $ -90 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  52  --  08 ( $ -180 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  53  --  24 ( $ -270 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  54  --  06 ( $ -360 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  55  --  16 ( $ -270 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  56  --  04 ( $ -360 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  57  --  11 ( $ -450 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  58  --  36 ( $ -360 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  59  --  16 ( $ -270 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  60  --  35 ( $ -360 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  61  --  31 ( $ -450 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  62  --  19 ( $ -360 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  63  --  08 ( $ -450 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  64  --  18 ( $ -360 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  65  --  09 ( $ -270 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  66  --  31 ( $ -360 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  67  --  04 ( $ -450 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  68  --  16 ( $ -360 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  69  --  15 ( $ -450 ) Red
   |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  70  --  37 ( $ -540 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  71  --  10 ( $ -630 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  72  --  18 ( $ -540 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  73  --  17 ( $ -630 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  74  --  21 ( $ -540 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  75  --  24 ( $ -630 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  76  --  36 ( $ -540 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  77  --  36 ( $ -450 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  78  --  17 ( $ -540 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  79  --  30 ( $ -450 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  80  --  33 ( $ -540 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  81  --  06 ( $ -630 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   |   |  --  82  --  29 ( $ -720 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  83  --  32 ( $ -630 ) Red
   |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  84  --  37 ( $ -720 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  85  --  15 ( $ -810 ) Red
X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  86  --  16 ( $ -720 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  87  --  34 ( $ -630 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  88  --  26 ( $ -720 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  89  --  33 ( $ -810 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  90  --  03 ( $ -720 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  91  --  04 ( $ -810 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  92  --  35 ( $ -900 ) Red
X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  93  --  21 ( $ -810 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   |   |  --  94  --  29 ( $ -900 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  95  --  22 ( $ -990 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  96  --  28 ( $ -1080 ) Red
X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  97  --  36 ( $ -990 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  98  --  01 ( $ -900 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  99  --  35 ( $ -990 ) Red
X |    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  100  --  09 ( $ -900 ) Red


If you need it to be a computer algorithm and millions of spins then you write the software. I have found that it is much easier to program people. It's all there for you. You can or you can't see the singles on the weak side in this chart. It would be a simple thing to target that sequence with a computer and to develop a strategy to take advantage of it.

[gizmotron2]

Steve, I'll even give up the most important feature of a computer based strategy for attacking that sequence. Your computer app must stop on any loss of two in a row.  If a swarm of two in a row losses occur the software must have the capacity to not try for a while. In fact it must test the waters for a change from that swarm. It must find a way to get into a swarm of wins configuration. The human brain can do this easily. Not so easy to write all that code in software. But it is doable. There is your testable principle. It's just specifically and strategically targeting the effectiveness conditions for singles on the weak side.

[winforus]

Steve, Gizmontron2 is clearly lying and not telling the truth. Very convenient of him to accuse me of trolling, after I was supportive from the very beginning, told him about Roulette Simulator, but ended up calling him out on the BS.  You can see his games, and see that he won with progression, only to crash after the variance has caught up. He refused to answer to you in this thread - weather he lost deliberately.

Here are his posts in chronological order, where he changed the reasons/explanations for him losing, the latest one that it was done on purpose:

Just bored to death with grinding out the wins. My real play is to take small amounts from the casinos. I forced it up there pretty quick though. I have other things I want to do and this was a distraction. I just use small earnings to offset travel costs. If you go online and grind out just $15 per session you can get $450 in 30 sessions. This lock down looks like it will need to go for another year for me, if I live that long. Casinos are out for now, even though they are opening.  It's stay put. I'm stuck and bored.

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.

Back to Roulette :
Quote
"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."

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.

Where the heck were you when I won the first 50 in a row? I got bored winning. It all shows my doubling down at times to recover. Was 50 in a row luck?  Hey, I hope you pass it up. You need to find that hot repeater and chase Turbo's banana on a stick. OOPs, you aren't one of the Turbo freaks. Sorry. I can mask my work if I want to. Masking works best if it is not believed.

Just look at the first 50. I did the same thing at MPR. I didn't start winning until I stopped going after the double dozens and added the 7 / 3 method to the sessions. I no longer chase the monster sized win streaks that I clearly talked about for years. I also carry three bankrolls of 7 net losses. I have never lost three 7 net losses in a row. I average 5 wins at 3 net wins to each lost session at 7 net losses. That's more than 2 to 1 or 66% to 33% in net valued bets. But deliberate attempting to win all those 50 sessions with a 3,000 bankroll against 54 for each session win was not supposed to be possible. Yet you guys were as quite as a mouse fart. Now you are all fired up after I fired you up.

Have you looked at how people have taken 1's place. It's all wild ass't play.

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]

He uses progression in all of his games. When he is losing, he increases the bet size, and when he gets even or is up, he goes back to the same bet size.

Here is the 100k losing session, where the variance finally caught up:
link:s://roulette-simulator.info/en/game/0654c8ad69d924edaefd68e892affcf4

Here is the winning session right before this losing one:
link:s://roulette-simulator.info/en/game/d9a524af46c1fb508b5b39ead10b5e2e

You can go through all of his sessions and you will find the same thing. To me, this shows that the accuracy of his predictions are no better than random bets and the same as all systems that use progression. This is also the reason why he couldn't win on MPR (he said the same thing then, that he was bored LOL)

[Richard Meisel]

Wow, Giz must have hurt you very deeply for you to look up his past posts and post them. You sound like the people on CNN talking about President Trump. Playing games can be quite boring. Go see Giz play at a casino. By the way, what is your Losing System?

[pepper]

We're in orbit, im pointing out the window saying "look, its round". And you're still thinking it might be flat.

You're exactly right Steve. I can see a ball and still think it might be flat. I don't like characterizing things like this, because you never really know. I have been through things that nobody else has that clearly defy reality beyond explanation, e.g., I went forward in time before. My thinking is probably classified by most people as illogical, but God/Satan/spirits have shown me otherwise. Perhaps my own paranormal experiences have shaped my mind to think like it does.

At first glance, I agree with you, 35 can never be greater than 37. Are we so sure? What if God changed the rules for a while to mess with us? What if he only changes the rules for certain people and not others, allowing only certain people to see things that others can't? There are many other possibilities that are equal or complete different than these that may occur.

What if the earth really used to be neither flat nor round, maybe it was just what you thought it to be, BUT once further human consciousness reacted to it, it changed or developed into being round?

I'm sure you or many have seen signs of certain numbers and/or things happening in their lives, BUT once you measure these things, they occur no better than random. So, was it a sign or just our brains being delusional and processing it incorrectly? Perhaps, the answer is both, neither, one of those, or something else entirely.

Btw, I do hope people get positive/useful information from your videos. I only want the best for everyone. I'm just sharing some of my thoughts and perhaps experiences.

[pepper]

Mankind is not able to know the truth. ( some slimeheads just think they are )

The only thing we can talk of is the quality of our approximation

I agree. I like to be humble in knowing that I never really know anything with 100% accuracy.

[gizmotron2]

Steve, Gizmontron2 is clearly lying and not telling the truth.

Funny. So the power of recruitment is your best hope.  I might try it out on you. Winforus is obviously unskilled in singles on the weak side. That qualifies him to criticize. He does nothing and then excuses himself. Should he be allowed to declare what the truth is?

Here is a clue for your next few decades. If you don't like it then leave it. When it gets validated you can tell everyone that you  were always against it.

[winforus]

Funny. So the power of recruitment is your best hope.  I might try it out on you. Winforus is obviously unskilled in singles on the weak side. That qualifies him to criticize. He does nothing and then excuses himself. Should he be allowed to declare what the truth is?

Here is a clue for your next few decades. If you don't like it then leave it. When it gets validated you can tell everyone that you  were always against it.

I am saying that you were lying as to why you lost on Roulette Simulator. You kept making up and changing the reasons back and forth as to why you lost.

Couple of posts above, I provided many of your quotes - where there were clear contradictions and lies - as all of them cannot be true.

It looks very shady and like I said - you lost because you were using progression, and eventually variance caught up to you.

If your RR was an advantage play, winning method, you would win, without having to lie and create excuses for losing.

[gizmotron2]

If your RR was an advantage play, winning method, you would win, without having to lie and create excuses for losing.

Please explain the direct change in tactics right after the 50 wins. What's that bloodhound nose of yours tell you?