VIDEO 4: Roulette Strategy Secrets | Mistakes to AVOID

[gizmotron2]

lol

Gizmo do you understand you have not provided any evidence so far?

You attempted to prove it on MPR but failed.

You attempted to prove it on roulette simulator but failed.

If all you want is recognition then that is your own personal psychological issue. It has nothing to do with a winning method.

Funny. The thread teaches a 3 / 7 stop win and stop loss strategy where I tell how at least two people have reached a confirmed by me 4.66 sessions won at 3 net wins to each lost session at 7 net losses. I then go on to win two times at 50 wins in a row. Explain those 50 wins in a row without a loss. I did it twice. Then I laid the groundwork for people to use their own human nature to reject it. If you look at the telemetry you can see the tactical changes. Or, don't look. You have all the evidence that you need to conclude what you have. There's something there for everyone. That's 50 wins in a row showing every bet placed. That's far more than I ever gave any student, ever.

[precogmiles]

Funny. The thread teaches a 3 / 7 stop win and stop loss strategy where I tell how at least two people have reached a confirmed by me 4.66 sessions won at 3 net wins to each lost session at 7 net losses. I then go on to win two times at 50 wins in a row. Explain those 50 wins in a row without a loss. I did it twice. Then I laid the groundwork for people to use their own human nature to reject it. If you look at the telemetry you can see the tactical changes. Or, don't look. You have all the evidence that you need to conclude what you have. There's something there for everyone. That's 50 wins in a row showing every bet placed. That's far more than I ever gave any student, ever.

Ok I see, so any wins in the telemetry means RR works and any losses also mean RR works.

I can't argue with that sort of logic. Imagine if everyone claimed the same thing then all systems are the same as RR?

Or are you saying RR never losses?

[precogmiles]

Actually I give up on this conversation.

Good luck gizmo I hope you get well soon and get recognition for whatever you want. 

[gizmotron2]

Ok I see, so any wins in the telemetry means RR works and any losses also mean RR works.

I can't argue with that sort of logic. Imagine if everyone claimed the same thing then all systems are the same as RR?

Or are you saying RR never losses?

Don't worry about it. It all comes down to it becoming too late. Funny things about casinos. They get with it every time. They will signal the end or defeat of RR.

[Moxy]

Don't worry about it. It all comes down to it becoming too late. Funny things about casinos. They get with it every time. They will signal the end or defeat of RR.

Are you still married Giz?

[Steve]

Gizmo, what you're not understanding is:

1. I do understand what you're saying about singles etc. I just know better and that your theories dont hold water.

You constantly provide "proof" like really short term charts showing loss, then recovery. I mean whats the point? It's meaningless, and you lost on rs anyway.

2. Nothing you've provided in any way substantiates your claims. I mean literally you provided nothing valid. Evem with RS, all you provided was a claim you'd be #1, then you lost and said it was deliberate to mess with people.

So literally you've provided nothing valid to back your claims. Don't get shitty at me for that. I'm not being difficult about it either.

[winforus]

That does not make sense, unless he behaves in a self-sabotaging manner to maintain his trying too hard to convince others of his worth frame. It is a sick mind-game in that case, or could be unintentional.

He acts like in his posts that he wants to get attention, and someone who do cares about recognition of his work and himself by extension. He regularly bumps his own threads and relentlessly promotes his ideas and achievements.
I hope he see this as tough love.

It is challanging task as most people reject him. This must be his life template of being unrecognized and lonesome, so he had to find his own meaning and prove his worth to himself.

I can partially relate, he may refute this and accuse me of projecting though.

One of the best posts written in this thread, bravo. This is why I think he uses such weird language and concepts to describe what he is doing - “attacking”, “doubling”, “weak side”, “swarms”, etc - it makes him feel special and powerful, while nobody else has any idea of what he is saying.

[gizmotron2]

One of the best posts written in this thread, bravo. This is why I think he uses such weird language and concepts to describe what he is doing - “attacking”, “doubling”, “weak side”, “swarms”, etc - it makes him feel special and powerful, while nobody else has any idea of what he is saying.

Sorry, no baby sitting. Read it, learn from it, or don't. I do not care. Every one of those concepts is either explained or answered by questions in the thread. You are not special enough or important enough to rate. So hug your excuses. They are enough to keep you.

[winforus]

Gizmo, what you're not understanding is:

1. I do understand what you're saying about singles etc. I just know better and that your theories dont hold water.

You constantly provide "proof" like really short term charts showing loss, then recovery. I mean whats the point? It's meaningless, and you lost on rs anyway.

2. Nothing you've provided in any way substantiates your claims. I mean literally you provided nothing valid. Evem with RS, all you provided was a claim you'd be #1, then you lost and said it was deliberate to mess with people.

So literally you've provided nothing valid to back your claims. Don't get shitty at me for that. I'm not being difficult about it either.

Gizmontron - you can’t escape these points. I told you a week ago that you lost any credibility that you had, after you claimed you will reach #1 on RS, then lost and then said that you did it on purpose.

Nobody is stopping you from winning on RS now.

Your method uses a progression, with bet selection accuracy no better than random. No thanks - I don’t want to learn that, they are plenty of systems that use progression that do the same.

[Moxy]

Gizmontron - you can’t escape these points. I told you a week ago that you lost any credibility that you had, after you claimed you will reach #1 on RS, then lost and then said that you did it on purpose.

Nobody is stopping you from winning on RS now.

Your method uses a progression, with bet selection accuracy no better than random. No thanks - I don’t want to learn that, they are plenty of systems that use progression that do the same.

Quit being such a jerk.

[Ross]

One of the best posts written in this thread, bravo. This is why I think he uses such weird language and concepts to describe what he is doing - “attacking”, “doubling”, “weak side”, “swarms”, etc - it makes him feel special and powerful, while nobody else has any idea of what he is saying.

Many years ago on VLS I described Gizmo's posts as being written in "Gizlish", a language known only to one person in the universe and for which there is no dictionary.

So no change there.

[gizmotron2]

Let's play more Gizlish:

I'm still waiting for the advocate of the trendings/guessings style to show me that they can guess/trend at at a clipm of better than 50 percents, hey hey.

Let's actually put that to a test. Let's see if you can listen.

This thread is about MM and not so much about bet selections, right?

So if I just make blind bet selections I'm going to get waves of win streaks and waves of losing streaks say 25% of the time. Are you with me so far or does that mess with your ability to listen?

Just for the sake of making an example here let's say that a win streak or a losing streak lasts 5 to 7 spins in a row or hands in a row. That makes these little streaks smaller than any super streaks and larger than micro streaks like 3 or 4 in a row. Never the less you can see these win streaks and losing streaks all over the place while you play. I'm saying you can see both types about 25% of the time and that's all. Just for the sake of an example.

Now these streaks came from blind random guesses with no notion that a trend or a pattern was used to find them. No trends were used to see these mini or micro streaks. Are you with me so far? Yet these streaks are all win streaks interspersed with losing streaks. You want proof that using these streaks of wins are expected to do better than using streaks of losing. I'm listening to what you want here.

When I look in my multi group play chart that has six groups made from 12 unique sets I see trends and patterns. If I can make bet selections while a trend or pattern is continuing in a single section of the playing chart then that coincidence is a win streak phase so far . So I can read the chart and see phases of wins and phases of losses.

What you want is proof that I can fund the win streaks and not fund the losing streaks that should at best even things out. That would be my money management over this bet selection process. I chose to fund only the coincidences that are in a win phase. If it is not in a win phase it does not get funded. If I lose at any time after starting to bet a streak I stop funding that win phase. Now you can do the math and say that I must lose half of all first attempted bets on any trend / win phase condition. But that is not true. You must allow for variable change. The math for all spins or hands works out for all the spins or hands. It does not work at all if I don't fund the losing streaks or the chaos streaks.

So I take one net win off of all the win streaks that I bet on, money management. I only want three net wins at the funded price to win a session that then is done, more money management. For you to be right I must lose half of all attempts to take a one net win off of each win phase in a current state of continuing.

I have people that have worked on this at length and are producing a 2 to 1 win to loss averages over many many session tests, that's all of them but one person that prefers ESP. That guy did better than 1 to 1 before he gave up on it.

So I think you must prove to me and everyone that these people getting 2 to 1 win to loss ratios are fooling themselves. There is more evidence that my notion of variable change applies to only funding win streaks while they occur.

I know what I'm suggesting is mathematical. But why does it apply to the game show host problem and not to when all active losing streaks are eliminated from the full possibility.

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=cXqDIFUB7YU

[Moxy]

Let's play more Gizlish:

Let's actually put that to a test. Let's see if you can listen.

This thread is about MM and not so much about bet selections, right?

So if I just make blind bet selections I'm going to get waves of win streaks and waves of losing streaks say 25% of the time. Are you with me so far or does that mess with your ability to listen?

Just for the sake of making an example here let's say that a win streak or a losing streak lasts 5 to 7 spins in a row or hands in a row. That makes these little streaks smaller than any super streaks and larger than micro streaks like 3 or 4 in a row. Never the less you can see these win streaks and losing streaks all over the place while you play. I'm saying you can see both types about 25% of the time and that's all. Just for the sake of an example.

Now these streaks came from blind random guesses with no notion that a trend or a pattern was used to find them. No trends were used to see these mini or micro streaks. Are you with me so far? Yet these streaks are all win streaks interspersed with losing streaks. You want proof that using these streaks of wins are expected to do better than using streaks of losing. I'm listening to what you want here.

When I look in my multi group play chart that has six groups made from 12 unique sets I see trends and patterns. If I can make bet selections while a trend or pattern is continuing in a single section of the playing chart then that coincidence is a win streak phase so far . So I can read the chart and see phases of wins and phases of losses.

What you want is proof that I can fund the win streaks and not fund the losing streaks that should at best even things out. That would be my money management over this bet selection process. I chose to fund only the coincidences that are in a win phase. If it is not in a win phase it does not get funded. If I lose at any time after starting to bet a streak I stop funding that win phase. Now you can do the math and say that I must lose half of all first attempted bets on any trend / win phase condition. But that is not true. You must allow for variable change. The math for all spins or hands works out for all the spins or hands. It does not work at all if I don't fund the losing streaks or the chaos streaks.

So I take one net win off of all the win streaks that I bet on, money management. I only want three net wins at the funded price to win a session that then is done, more money management. For you to be right I must lose half of all attempts to take a one net win off of each win phase in a current state of continuing.

I have people that have worked on this at length and are producing a 2 to 1 win to loss averages over many many session tests, that's all of them but one person that prefers ESP. That guy did better than 1 to 1 before he gave up on it.

So I think you must prove to me and everyone that these people getting 2 to 1 win to loss ratios are fooling themselves. There is more evidence that my notion of variable change applies to only funding win streaks while they occur.

I know what I'm suggesting is mathematical. But why does it apply to the game show host problem and not to when all active losing streaks are eliminated from the full possibility.

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=cXqDIFUB7YU

Still spinning numbers, 👀 see.

[winforus]

Gizmo, what you're not understanding is:

1. I do understand what you're saying about singles etc. I just know better and that your theories dont hold water.

You constantly provide "proof" like really short term charts showing loss, then recovery. I mean whats the point? It's meaningless, and you lost on rs anyway.

2. Nothing you've provided in any way substantiates your claims. I mean literally you provided nothing valid. Evem with RS, all you provided was a claim you'd be #1, then you lost and said it was deliberate to mess with people.

So literally you've provided nothing valid to back your claims. Don't get shitty at me for that. I'm not being difficult about it either.

Gizmo, nothing has really changed. There is still no proof, and you still have not addressed this post. Nobody is stopping you from showing a winning record over a large sample size, or inviting one of your students showing proof that they win consistently using RR.

Since you have been doing and teaching this for over 10 years - you should easily be able to do that.

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo, nothing has really changed. There is still no proof, and you still have not addressed this post. Nobody is stopping you from showing a winning record over a large sample size, or inviting one of your students showing proof that they win consistently using RR.

Since you have been doing and teaching this for over 10 years - you should easily be able to do that.

Nothing is stopping you from finding out for yourself. Please don't. Stay stuck on stupid like the general in New Orleans once said. You don't need me to prove anything. But if I can encourage you to be last in line and too late then I already have what I want in all this.  You are one of the mathZombies that I have decided to torture. That's fun for me. You are my kicking toy. And you are acting perfectly miserable for me. Thank you. Keep it up. Complain all you want. Hahahaha!