VIDEO 4: Roulette Strategy Secrets | Mistakes to AVOID

[Steve]

What's a single?
What's a weak side?

[gizmotron2]

What's a single?
What's a weak side?

If you ignore the zeros, just for the sake of communication, you have side A the Reds for instance. Side B is the Blacks. The two sides make up a group. Each group in this version of an "even chance" bet selection method consists of two sets of numbers. The 1, 3, 5 etc... are all red numbers as well as odd numbers and low 18 numbers. They are also just slots if you take the paint off of them and just see them as individual slots on the Roulette Wheel. But once they become identifiable as belonging to a set of a group they take on a quality of identification. That process occurs in the player's brain as well as the casino dealer's brain. This is so validated that the casino will give you chips that can be changed for money if your set hits when you have chips on the section on the table layout that corresponds to the slot identified by painted markings in the wheel and your bet selection. If you notice that a single is occurring you are noticing that it is hitting once on one set of a specific group and then hitting the opposite set from that same group. This notion of singles comes from the idea of noticing a series in a sequence. If I say doubles or triples I mean that two or three reds in a series of a sequence has occurred. Here is an example of singles combined with doubles from one set to the opposite set of the same group. Red, Black, Black, Red, Black, Black, Red, Black, Black. The red hit once so that is a single. The black hit twice so that is a double. If the Black hit three times that would be a triple in series. So Singles are ones, Doubles are twos, Threes are triples, etc... 

The weak side is the set that is hitting less than the opposite set in any group during any sequence. 

None of these observations implies an ability to predict the future. All it does is allow a person to confirm with real data that a condition is still in a state of continuing. Math has no power over the next outcome. It does however reveal to us an average of occurrences over thousands of trials. But math has no power over the next spin. The zero has an ability to change the payout on sets that don't contain the zero.  So for an example I could have a set that contains the zero and the opposite set for that group that does not contain the zero. I could have 18 numbers in the set with the zero and 19 numbers in the set that does not. On a win I either win or lose 17, 18, or 19  units of equal value if betting equal valued chips.

[Moxy]

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 .

But why male models?

[Steve]

Gizmo, it looks like your approach relies on a kind of balance. I don't see how that's any different to other such approaches.

Whether you get RRBRB or BBBBR or whatever doesn't matter. There's no correlation to future spins.

You cant not use past spins to determine where to bet next, and say you aren't predicting something. It's like saying drink the dry water.

Its not that math has any power. Math is just the expression of probability and reality.

[winforus]

Gizmo, it looks like your approach relies on a kind of balance. I don't see how that's any different to other such approaches.

Whether you get RRBRB or BBBBR or whatever doesn't matter. There's no correlation to future spins.

You cant not use past spins to determine where to bet next, and say you aren't predicting something. It's like saying drink the dry water.

Its not that math has any power. Math is just the expression of probability and reality.

Boom, you nailed it. I also couldn’t understand his language, but after he explained what does a “single” and “weak side” mean, it’s very clear that’s exactly what he is doing. Like I said before, it’s no different from other progression systems.

[Moxy]

Boom, you nailed it. I also couldn’t understand his language, but after he explained what does a “single” and “weak side” mean, it’s very clear that’s exactly what he is doing. Like I said before, it’s no different from other progression systems.

If you don't understand "singles" on the "weak side" then...  I don't know what to say.

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo, it looks like your approach relies on a kind of balance. I don't see how that's any different to other such approaches.

There are no other approaches like this. It does not depend on balance and I need a definition for that from you. What is balance?

I'm just trying to see if you understand what singles are and what the weak side means. There is no equilibrium with regards to patterns. They come and they go. There is no signal that they are coming. They don't signal how long that will last or when they will end. One day they are monstrous and other days they are pussy cats. You get what you get and it's you that must adjust to what you are getting. Balance is for those looking for an instance of normally to be expected averages. I don't look for average conditions. I look for identifiable characteristics of patterns. They occur. I seek them out. They have a nature to them how long they last. The length that they last occur in swarms some times. I guess you will need long winded definitions for all those terms and concepts? You are very difficult to talk to. You want to teach when it is you that needs to listen and figure out what I mean. I'm trying.

[gizmotron2]

Boom, you nailed it. I also couldn’t understand his language, but after he explained what does a “single” and “weak side” mean, it’s very clear that’s exactly what he is doing. Like I said before, it’s no different from other progression systems.

You don't know crap. First you must go all the way back to dumb. But you are too cool to start at the bottom. So you are a Spandex boy. You are nothing but a mathZombie. You are the reason that I'm teaching people willing to learn. You are not willing to learn. Did you get that message?

[gizmotron2]

If you don't understand "singles" on the "weak side" then...  I don't know what to say.

"You buy the boy books and send him to school and all he wants to do is fuk the teacher."

[Moxy]

"You buy the boy books and send him to school and all he wants to do is fuk the teacher."

Hence why I asked if your were a masochist the other day which I know now apparently.

[gizmotron2]

Hence why I asked if your were a masochist the other day which I know now apparently.

Do you think that trying to have a conversation with Steve is a waste of time?

[Moxy]

Do you think that trying to have a conversation with Steve is a waste of time?

Putting me on the spot here, huh.  I kid.

In general overall, I mean.  But it's defensiveness and jabs on both sides so I'm staying out of it.

[Steve]

I'm actually really easy to have a conversation with. Unless you're saying something that's not true.

Again I think it's going nowhere. You're saying many things that contradict, don't make sense, I know to be false, appear to be fallacy etc. Anyway Gizmo if you're winning, just keep doing it. But again I suggest if you tell people you'll be #1 on RS, MPR or whatever, if you lose and say you deliberately lost to mess with people, expect people to be skeptical.

[Azim]

I'm actually really easy to have a conversation with. Unless you're saying something that's not true.

Again I think it's going nowhere. You're saying many things that contradict, don't make sense, I know to be false, appear to be fallacy etc. Anyway Gizmo if you're winning, just keep doing it. But again I suggest if you tell people you'll be #1 on RS, MPR or whatever, if you lose and say you deliberately lost to mess with people, expect people to be skeptical.

Here, instead of going back and forth with wasting time and frustration, let's do what Gizmotron2 wants to do:

This is what his ground work is:


Someone needs to get their hands on say 100 spins, single zero wheel. I would list them as comma delimited with no empty space, example: 1,34,5,23, Don't include any carriage returns or line breaks. The last character should be a comma. Copy the list to be used in the session and hash convert it telling everyone the link where you did the hash function. Post the hash before the session starts. Give me the first 10 spins in order to save time. I always chart the first 7 to 10 spins with no bets just to get a grasp of the current trends. I will then make a guess as to what the next winner will be and from what group of 18 to 19 numbers will be in the winning group. All chip values will be in $5 chips where 18 numbers bet on to win will be $90. I will end all sessions once I reach 3 net wins, around $260 to $270. I will end all sessions that reach -$630 or around that number. In that way I can do what I say I can but not teach why I select what I do. For some reason people need proof first or they won't consider this. I feel the same way about global warming. Prove it first, then I will consider it. That's just the way people are. So the basic groundwork is established if any of you consider this a fair test.


I am sure we all should agree to it.

Anyone against it?

[Steve]

100 spins

You dont see a problem with that?

I will then make a guess as to what the next winner will be

Then why does he say he doesnt PREDICT numbers?

Anyone against it?

Me. It's ridiculous. Im wasting time on it.