VIDEO 4: Roulette Strategy Secrets | Mistakes to AVOID

[Steve]

[winforus]

Thank you Steve, 95% of the players on this forum really need to watch this and contemplate it. If people would have understood these fundamentals, they wouldn't be losing and wasting their time on developing methods that don't work.

[Steeefan2014]

Thank you Steve, 95% of the players on this forum really need to watch this and contemplate it. If people would have understood these fundamentals, they wouldn't be losing and wasting their time on developing methods that don't work.

You just won the contest!

The prize is in the attachment

[Herby]

Steeefan2014

You nailed it 

[Steeefan2014]

  

[winforus]

You just won the contest!

The prize is in the attachment

You can laugh all you want, but that's the truth. If you are not willing to learn and accept the truth, then you got a lot bigger problems to deal with that go far beyond Roulette. The video was well done in my opinion, it's not a typical boring video where a person just breaks down the numbers.

[Herby]

The video was well done

Not the quality of the video is questioned...

[ati]

Yeah, there are many truths and facts in the video. From my own experience and by reading the forum for many years, I can tell that most people are unable to accept some provable facts, they need to see the data themselves and study randomness. Just learning to use 4 or 5 of the most basic excel functions and filters can help with that.

One thing I don't agree with is that you need to run a test for millions of spins. Especially if the system only flat bets.
If a flat bet system is able beat the game(that is winning consistently), then it must have a very good reason why and how it can do it. As we know that each spin is independent and each bet has negative expected value. If it cannot be explained, it doesn't even need to be tested.
As I said not so long ago, the possible number combinations are so large that maybe we don't even have a word for that number. So a million spins consists only a tiny amount of all possible spin sequences. So a system in theory could win five times 1 million spins tests, and fail every time after the next five times 1 million spins.

Let's say your progression system can survive 10 consecutive losses before losing all your bankroll or hitting the table limits. You only need a pen and paper. After each spin check what numbers can make you lose on the next spin. Can any of those numbers come up? The answer is always yes!
You can always choose one number that make you lose and write it down. After the 10 spins look at the sequence. Is it random? It is! Can it happen? It can! Will it happen? Eventually it will! So a 1 million spins test does not prove much, when there are like a quintillion different possibilities in just 10 spins.

[Steeefan2014]

Not the quality of the video is questioned...

Exactly! I never said that it wasn't a good video! 

[gizmotron2]

So Steve's conclusion is that you must increase the accuracy of your predictions in order to have an edge.

Reading Randomness deliberately targets the wave forms caused by random guessing. These waves have a typical range of motion characteristic to them that can be speculated on, just like stock market moving averages. To deny their existence is nonsensical. In fact it's borderline manipulation and control thinking.  (insert a chicks body here) Flash Flash Sex sex... Don't see my point, see the polka dotted unicorn.

By playing these uptick and moving averages in your bet selections you can ride these moving averages waves to micro wins. A full year of micro wins has the tendency to suggest a winning strategy.  (insert a chicks body here) Flash Flash Sex sex...   Don't see my point. It's just mind control. I increase the accuracy of my monetized bet selections by targeting them in their uptick performance cycles. Therefore Reading Randomness has an edge and is in fact advantage player tactics. Now prove that it is a mistake. Your videos are there to do that now aren't they.

[pepper]

If it cannot be explained, it doesn't even need to be tested

If you really think that is the case, then there is no need to test anything, other than things like outside of the box methods, because you can explain your reasoning as precognition. Using this reasoning thinking, there would be no reason to test anything, because the math already proves it wrong. You contradict yourself, because in a previous post, you say something along the line of, "no one knows if there's a winning system because they haven't tested everything." At least I think it was you who said that. On the other hand, people can always claim there is some delusional reason or reason that their method works. So, all in all, reasons seem unimportant; testing is.

[winforus]

Not the quality of the video is questioned...

I didn't say that you questioned the quality. You simply are too stubborn to accept the facts and the truth. Instead of learning what works, and what doesn't, from a person who is a winner in Roulette and who's teams make a living from it, you instead choose to remain ignorant.

If at any point you will realize it, you will be kicking yourself for being so dumb and wasting so much time. Like I said, the joke is on you and you don't even know it.

[ati]

You contradict yourself, because in a previous post

I know it sounds contradicting, but in this post I was only talking about the traditional approaches that 99.99% of the players are using. I did not want to go into different possibilities. Even though it might appears to be in contradiction to my previous statements, I do believe that it's possible to win with a mechanical system. But it's impossible to beat the odds. 
I could spend hours writing essays of why I believe this, but all the information is already on the forum. In short, traditional systems are only looking at spins, and trying to guess what comes in the next spin, or hoping to hit a winner before losing the bankroll. Every spin event is always equally likely and independent. A less used alternative is looking at certain events that are not equally likely to happen and statistically dependent. These two things won't change the odds of the game, but in theory can avoid the law of large numbers, therefore the house edge catching up. But only if you find the right combinations and betting plan. This is extremely hard, and not many people can get there. I've been trying to do it for years.
Now this is something I think should be tested. But not for a million spins. If this approach works, the chart should show a more or less linear line in only 1000 or less spins, every time. And a logical explanation should be able to back the results.

[winforus]

herefore Reading Randomness has an edge and is in fact advantage player tactics. Now prove that it is a mistake. Your videos are there to do that now aren't they.

I see that RR has worked out very well for you: link:s://prnt.sc/t8qhi7  -94k on Roulette Simulator. Not to mention, tons of excuses as to why you lost, which you changed as the time went on. Same thing as with on MPR - couldn't beat it either.

The proof that it doesn't work is right in your games. Using progression and eventually crashing, just like majority of systems.

[gizmotron2]

I see that RR has worked out very well for you: link:s://prnt.sc/t8qhi7  -94k on Roulette Simulator. Not to mention, tons of excuses as to why you lost, which you changed as the time went on. Same thing as with on MPR - couldn't beat it either.

The proof that it doesn't work is right in your games. Using progression and eventually crashing, just like majority of systems.

Thank you tool. Why should just the democrats get a kick out of manipulating people.