It works - RNG

[Joe]

YAWN!

So, no proof of dependence then?

[cht]

YAWN!

So, no proof of dependence then?

@NutcaseWaitingForProofJoe, do you read English?

No one will post the proof on public forum.

The real work is done outside forums.

Serious nutcase. *facepalm*

[gizmotron2]

You agree with me that past results do not influence future results, but seem to be saying that nevertheless there is a 'loophole' somewhere and that sometimes past results DO influence future results. Where to go from this contradiction?

What a loser you are Joe. You admit what people are trying to tell you and in the same sentence deny it. Just go back to the first part, " ...past results do not influence future results."  Now accept that much.  You are not some Spandex clad savior.   We all get that much. Past spins have NO influence on the results of future spins.  You are not a revelation to anyone.  Now keep the earwax out of your ears one more time. In randomness more than one spin at a time can appear as figure formations caused by nothing more than coincidence and without any chance of cause or effect.  Your ears still open Joe Blow the math boy?  You think that a gambler must play independent of each spin because the odds are configured one spin at a time yet you depend on that same long term math from multiple spins to give validation to your reasoning. You get to use multiple spins to make your notions real. Yet anyone coming along that uses multiple spins to target figure formations is somehow beyond the rights granted to arithmetic fanatics. You are a math bigot.  This is not your command post and you don't control everything used to effectively beat a casino.  You are just a self important big mouth with less than normal common sense. I expose you. You are nothing but a typical control freak with a messiah complex. Take your " past results do not influence future results," mantra and throw yourself under the bus.

[Joe]

You think that a gambler must play independent of each spin because the odds are configured one spin at a time yet you depend on that same long term math from multiple spins to give validation to your reasoning.

No, idiot. The proof of independence doesn't depend on multiple spins, it comes from the fact that the number of pockets on the wheel doesn't change between spins.

Charlatans like you and cht can bluff and bluster all you like. If you could come up with a plausible, or at least more sophisticated theory for why you believe spins are dependent, that at least would be worth reading, but you don't even have that. All you have left is attacking the messenger; the classic response for those who have run out of arguments! 

[Blueprint]

I see nothing has changed here.  My goodness.

[Joe]

Serious nutcase. *facepalm*

lol, but I'm not the one claiming that outcomes are determined by some mysterious magical force.

[Joe]

I see nothing has changed here.  My goodness.

No, nothing. Still the same voodoo merchants peddling their crappy wares.

[cht]

No, nothing. Still the same voodoo merchants peddling their crappy wares.

Why didn't you call out the other Joe on Roulettelive forum ?

You even did some statistical count on clearcut shitty system.
What different result were you expecting @NutcaseJoeMathGenius ? 

You didn't even recognise that poster has multiple monickers always making the same kind of threads.
You got conned big time. What a joke.

You are big time nutcase beyond help.

[Joe]

You don't get it, do you? What irritates me about forums is not people who post systems which can be tested, but lowlife scumbags like you and gizmo who make claims without any substance, and then turn nasty when they're challenged. Why do you do it? One can only assume it's because you're narcissists who need the attention or are trying to sell something by PM. In fact gizmo has been quite open about it, selling his 'skills' to the gullible and desperate. Some of you even pretend to be helping others by giving them hope that a winning system is possible. What a stinking pile of disingenuous bullshit that is.

[cht]

You don't get it, do you? What irritates me about forums is not people who post systems which can be tested, but lowlife scumbags like you and gizmo who make claims without any substance, and then turn nasty when they're challenged. Why do you do it? One can only assume it's because you're narcissists who need the attention or are trying to sell something by PM. In fact gizmo has been quite open about it, selling his 'skills' to the gullible and desperate. Some of you even pretend to be helping others by giving them hope that a winning system is possible. What a stinking pile of disingenuous bullshit that is.

What you did on roulettelive forum is clear proof of bullshit math, you are either a NUTCASE. Or STUPID.
Your choice.

Sell on forums is your problem?

Show proof I sold anything on forum.
Where's your proof?
@NutcaseproofJoe

Steve, forum owner is your biggest target.

Why don't you call him out ?

@NutcaseNoballsJoe

I did that's why I'm on watched and targetted for ban.

@NutcasePoliceBallsLickerJoe.

[gizmotron2]

...or at least more sophisticated theory for why you believe spins are dependent,

There you go again. You have a clear fallacy in attempting to define what you clearly don't understand. I can't prove dependence because I don't believe there can be dependence.  But that is the argument that you want to be right in having. You are a stupid retard. You are so blinded by your opinion's and assumptions that you can't see your own ignorance.  Talking with you is like talking with a child that says he will hold his breath until he turns blue if you don't give him what he wants. You called me a "Charlatan."  You don't know how to reason objectively. All you have are platitudes and straw man objectives. You are clearly the poster child for mathZombies. I'm done with you. You are not worth discussion.

[gizmotron2]

lol, but I'm not the one claiming that outcomes are determined by some mysterious magical force.

That is not an argument. That is deflection and transference.

How many times must you be told that coincidence is not magic?  Do believe I think that coincidence is a magical force? Get real.

[gizmotron2]

What irritates me about forums is not people who post systems which can be tested, but lowlife scumbags like you and gizmo who make claims without any substance,

Juts look what people have to put up with when I clearly ex[lain everything and give people practice tools to prove everything for themselves if they just apply themselves. But they must apply themselves. Unfortunately for you Joe, many have. They are my proof. You are just shit left at the side of the road that fades into dust.

[gizmotron2]

In fact gizmo has been quite open about it, selling his 'skills' to the gullible and desperate.

Lies.

I offer to teach one on one for several thousands of dollars or they can go get it all for free at the teaching thread. Not one person has asked me for one on one instructions once I show them where they can get it all for free. You are a liar. I taught two people two years before I gave it all away for free.  One of them is validation. There other may have given up.  But all the rest are all free.  I'm not really selling anything you crackpot. Nobody wants to pay for something they can get for free.  So that clearly makes you a fabricator of fake news.

[ati]

I see nothing has changed here.  My goodness.

Hehe, it won't ever change.  A few weeks ago I was reading old forums from 10+ years ago, and the same thing was going on. 

Someone posts a claim or a statement on the forum. Other people don't agree with him, and they make logical arguments against the claims. And usually this is where the problem starts and people very quickly turn everything into personal attacks and name calling.

If something is winning, it must have a very good and explainable reason how it can avoid the basic proofs, like the independence of spins, the negative EV of each bet, and the problem of the constant bet, so that the law of large numbers doesn't apply.
A real proof is never a simulation. I posted the charts yesterday to shown that random bets can win thousands of units for thousands of spins, but they can also lose.
If someone doesn't want to share the secret, that's fine. I wouldn't. But the responses should be better than "you're an idiot, blinded by your math facts".
I strongly believe that it's possible to win with a system, but not if that system claims to bend mathematical proofs, tries to predict individual spin outcomes, or change the odds. It should be a system with a very special betting plan that can cover every possibility, so no matter what happens, the winner side always covers the losers.