VIDEO 4: Roulette Strategy Secrets | Mistakes to AVOID

[Steve]

I'm just looking for one simple example that can be tested, to see if accuracy is better than random. Even if it's just one particular situation or repeating pattern.

[gizmotron2]

I'm just looking for one simple example that can be tested, to see if accuracy is better than random. Even if it's just one particular situation or repeating pattern.

Then go for it. I gave you singles on the weak side combined with effectiveness conditions. To me is is very simple.

[Steve]

You gave a bunch of undefined variables that nobody can use. And when I asked you to define them, you didnt.

Also your claimed you'll be #1 on the leaderboard. Then later you lost, and appear to have said you deliberately lost to mess with people. I find that hard to believe.

This is going nowhere.

[Steeefan2014]

Gizmo, unless you use a roulette computer, anything else is useless and as long as it can't be exactly defined in the smallest details it will not be good!

One question to you Steve and I hope you will not get it as an insult: if you're so set on the exactly dedined things - please, explain precognition (@Precogmiles - nothing agains you or your method - just proving a point).

I also hope that this will not be considered trolling.

[Steve]

Gizmo, unless you use a roulette computer, anything else is useless and as long as it can't be exactly defined in the smallest details it will not be good!

That's a useless bullshit comment people make WHEN THEY HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO SAY.

If you really think Gizmo has provided anything verifiable and effective, then go win money. If you really think he said he'd be #1 on the RS leaderboard, and then deliberately lost just to mess with people, then pay Gizmo to become his student.

Gizmo has made some big claims. Like Turbo has. And I'm asking for anything that substantiates his claims.

Fair?

Or should we just believe everyone's claims without verification?

It's not personal. At all.

One question to you Steve and I hope you will not get it as an insult: if you're so set on the exactly dedined things - please, explain precognition (@Precogmiles - nothing agains you or your method - just proving a point).

Genuine questions wont insult me. I've answered this many times now. Basically, precog has scientific merit, and substantiating data (to what is possible with short term data). It's sure a LOT better than 1+1=3.

You're making the classic mistake of thinking MY way or the highway. I dont give a shit if you or anyone doesn't like MY way. But I AM saying you cant make 35 greater than 37. You dont appear to have learned from the videos.

[Steeefan2014]

Steve, I told you countless times that you probably have the best winning method at the roulette table and nobody can deny that.

But you really are loosing it. One day you say you want facts/specific details to program it or to track or to... whatever else. Another day... you say you see precognition better than any other system here. Precognition that not even science can explain it exactly! (also, I never said it's not ok)

What's the conclusion here??? No offence but you sound like a person with a double personality! And there are other examples on the forum that holds this up. I don't have time now to state them

[Steve]

But you really are loosing it

It's "losing".

One day you say you want facts/specific details to program it or to track or to.

Actually that's every day, whenever I want to verify something.

Another day... you say you see precognition better than any other system here.

I knew you'd say that.

Does Precog have more potential than the Martingale, or 1+1=3? You can answer that.

No offence but you sound like a person with a double personality

Really?

No offence but you sound like a person with a double personality

No way.

No offence but you sound like a person with a double personality

Maybe.

Or maybe it's that you're not understanding me.

[Steeefan2014]

It's "losing". - sorry, English is not my mother language. My mistake

Actually that's every day, whenever I want to verify something.

I knew you'd say that.

Does Precog have more potential than the Martingale, or 1+1=3? You can answer that. - No, I can't! But I guess you - the man of the exact science can!

Really?

No way.

Maybe.

Or maybe it's that you're not understanding me. - Or maybe you don't know how to make yourself understood! Saying one thing today and a contradiction to that tomorrow.....

[Steve]

Does Precog have more potential than the Martingale, or 1+1=3? You can answer that. - No, I can't! But I guess you - the man of the exact science can!

I'll reword it. Which is a greater number:
1 or 0?

Or maybe you don't know how to make yourself understood! Saying one thing today and a contradiction to that tomorrow.....

Maybe it's an English problem. I haven't contradicted myself.

[gizmotron2]

1.) You gave a bunch of undefined variables that nobody can use. And when I asked you to define them, you didnt.

2.) Also your claimed you'll be #1 on the leaderboard. Then later you lost, and appear to have said you deliberately lost to mess with people. I find that hard to believe.

3.) This is going nowhere.

1.) Try not to see this too. When you recognize singles on the weak side you want to look at characteristics on the strong side also. Many times there is a condition where there is a total absence of singles on the strong side while the singles on the weak side remains. If this happens you can eliminate the losses that occur during the betting strategy. You take two in a row and then wait for the single on the weak side.  You can get to your three net win session stop point faster and easier by avoiding the losses that exist in the pattern.  Or you can remain un-programmable out of ignorance or deliberate lack of cooperation. I must include motivation as a condition for discussion here. My motive is to pass on information for free. I can't teach a person that acts as a full cup. You want to establish it as fact that I failed to teach you. I accuse you of failing to learn. It's a standoff. All I get from you are excuses. You accuse me of the same. I must ask you. Did you ever get as far as seeing singles on the weak side?  If it comes down to that then I can see your point.

2.) Have you looked at how long it would take to get to #1 at a beginning bankroll of 3,000? Forget it. It would be like watching a glacier move. But just see it as an excuse to forget it.  If I made it to #1 I realize that it would have just conjured up another excuse for you to proclaim your logical dismissal of the topic. I accuse you of being unteachable for motivations of personal interest. 50 wins in a row has never been seen for RR. It went way beyond anything taught in the original RR thread. It was long before boring set in and I went for 50 just to establish a milestone.

3.) this is going nowhere. I don't fault myself for failing to communicate.

[gizmotron2]

then pay Gizmo to become his student.

Yes, you can pay me. I will charge you up the wing-wang for privately holding your hand. Or you can have it all for free at your own pace. So far everyone having been given this offer has chosen the free path. Funny how I made it all available with the practicing and discussion software too, all for free. That should put an end to any of my motivations regarding money. The first student took 30 days to learn it, 2 hours per day, and 30 more days to validate the learning at the same daily rate.  I'd charge at least $50 per hour to baby sit you and change your diapers. Or you can bottle feed yourself and start at the bottom at no charge. That should deal with the accusation that I'm scamming people out of their money.

[Steve]

I will charge you up the wing-wang for privately holding your hand.

My toes?

Either way you still didn't give required definitions. To me it looks like Falkortalk - his very own language.

Nevermind the goose chase following vague clues. I've done that too many times like with turbo. It got nowhere. I dont have time for that, especially when there's absolutely no substantiating information to encourage investigation. That's what i was asking for.

Anyway if you don't intend to get #1 spot, dont tell people you will, then deliberately lose.. just to mess with people. It doesn't make sense. And it gives the wrong impression.

[gizmotron2]

Either way you still didn't give required definitions. To me it looks like Falkortalk - his very own language.

Did you ever see singles on the weak side? When I hold a students hand I don't continue until I make sure that the student can see, demonstrate, and prove to me that they see singles on the weak side in the chart. Now take that fKing bottle and shove it in your mouth. Do you see singles on the weak side in a chart of spin results?

[gizmotron2]

It got nowhere. I dont have time for that, especially when there's absolutely no substantiating information to encourage investigation.

BS. You asked for an example of something that you could program.  And now you don't have time. Too boring for you Steve? PKB

[gizmotron2]

Steve, I will make it easy for you. Do you see singles on the weak side in the chart below?

Code Select Expand


| B  R |    #
|    X | -- 01
|------| -- 02
|    X | -- 03
|    X | -- 04
|    X | -- 05
| X    | -- 06
|    X | -- 07
|    X | -- 08
| X    | -- 09
|    X | -- 10
|    X | -- 11
|    X | -- 12
| X    | -- 13
|    X | -- 14
| X    | -- 15
|    X | -- 16
|    X | -- 17
|    X | -- 18
| X    | -- 19
|    X | -- 20
| X    | -- 21
|    X | -- 22
|    X | -- 23
| X    | -- 24
|    X | -- 25
| X    | -- 26
| X    | -- 27
| X    | -- 28
|    X | -- 29
| X    | -- 30
|    X | -- 31
|    X | -- 32
| X    | -- 33
| X    | -- 34
| X    | -- 35
|    X | -- 36
|    X | -- 37
| X    | -- 38
|    X | -- 39
|-----| -- 40
| X    | -- 41
| X    | -- 42
| X    | -- 43
|    X | -- 44
| X    | -- 45
|    X | -- 46
|    X | -- 47
| X    | -- 48
| X    | -- 49
|    X | -- 50
|    X | -- 51
| X    | -- 52
| X    | -- 53
|    X | -- 54
| X    | -- 55
|    X | -- 56
| X    | -- 57
| X    | -- 58
| X    | -- 59
|    X | -- 60
| X    | -- 61
|    X | -- 62
|    X | -- 63
|    X | -- 64
| X    | -- 65
| X    | -- 66
| X    | -- 67
| X    | -- 68
| X    | -- 69
|    X | -- 70
| X    | -- 71
| X    | -- 72
| X    | -- 73
| X    | -- 74
| X    | -- 75
| X    | -- 76
| X    | -- 77
|    X | -- 78
| X    | -- 79
| X    | -- 80
| X    | -- 81
| X    | -- 82
| X    | -- 83
| X    | -- 84
|    X | -- 85
| X    | -- 86
| X    | -- 87
|    X | -- 88
|    X | -- 89
|    X | -- 90
| X    | -- 91
|    X | -- 92
|    X | -- 93
| X    | -- 94
| X    | -- 95
|    X | -- 96
| X    | -- 97
| X    | -- 98
| X    | -- 99