It works - RNG

[ati]

Anyway, it's good to have any kind of discussion going. Most members check the forum several times a day, hoping to see new posts. So even personal attacks have entertainment value. 

[cht]

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.

"You wouldn't" is normal.

2nd bolded sentence.

Win more than lose.

Have to bet every spin.
No way to predict when the betselection shall win spin by spin.
That's impossible.

All we know is some pockets will hit more than others and better than payout.
We know this happens in 37spins cycle.
We don't know when it happens.

Triggers is based on prediction.

[Blueprint]

No one will post a mathematical "proof" bc there isn't one - which is very different from whether or not something works.

<a href="link:s://imgbb.com/"><img src="link:s://i.ibb.co/DDQ7NQ0/Screen-Shot-2.png" alt="Screen-Shot-2" border="0" /></a>

[Joe]

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

Don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean Joe Ferguson's FIVE system? what about it? I proved it was all bullshit and he was making up the stats.

[Joe]

No one will post a mathematical "proof" bc there isn't one - which is very different from whether or not something works.

It depends what kind of 'system' you're talking about. For the kind of systems which are generally posted on forums (meaning non-AP) there must be a mathematical proof if the method really does win consistently long term, because you're talking about a closed system, namely, the GAME of roulette which has fixed probabilities and payout rules etc.

But it's hard to see how such a proof could be found, because there is already a proof that no such system is possible, and it's a simple proof too, so it's not as though there could have been a mistake which only some genius mathematician could track down. 

[cht]

It depends what kind of 'system' you're talking about. For the kind of systems which are generally posted on forums (meaning non-AP) there must be a mathematical and or science law proof  if the method really does win consistently long term, because you're talking about a closed system, namely, the GAME of roulette which has fixed probabilities and payout rules etc.

But it's hard to see how such a proof could be found, because there is already a proof that no such system is possible, and it's a simple proof too, so it's not as though there could have been a mistake which only some genius mathematician could track down.

I agree with your bolded sentence.
I have said it repeatedly.
The bet design must be based on some math and or science law.

Your 2nd para I disagree.

It's not easy to explain the how and why math and science part.
That's at a much different level.

This is about just designing a winning systems bet making money from the casino.
The math science part is way over everyone's heads to put up a intellectual paper for peer review.

We're interested only on the MONEY.

[cht]

I received many PMs that made offers to code my system into betting bot.

This is my answer.

I live in a country where online gambling is illegal.
No access to online gambling sites.
I only bet in b&m casino.

So I won't have any use of this online betting bot.

Thank you for your offer.

[cht]

All of you are cheated by the casino.

Let's say instead of 1,2,3,4,5,6......

We have a, b, c, d, e, f.........

As pockets.

There will be no high low, red black, odd even and so on........

Just pockets with whatever identifier you want to attach to it.

Analysing pockets based on red black, odd even and so on is plain nonsense.

How is 9red connected to 21red?

It's connected just because the casino colored both pockets red.
Nonsensical connection.

What if the casino colored 9red and 21 violet, I'm sure you will do analysis on red and violet.

You have been fooled by the casino.
Wake up people.

There are 37pockets which you can label whatever you wish.

Look at that 37numbers spun, place your bets. That's all to it.
And no fancy computer calculations, tracker, bot........ If it works all the coders here would have made money.
Use your brains.
And register for precogman's course, it works. 😍

[nichedelico]

Seems like Dyksexlic's way

[winkel]

One final very important point to understand correctly to properly understand LOTT.

The relationship between independent spins and LOTT, ie frequency distribution.

Mathboys assume future spins are independent that has no memory of past spins.

If future spins are truly independent, can there be a LOTT frequency distribution for every 37spins cycle with the numbers posted by Winkel?
...
Thank you for reading.
Cheers

refer to  Markov:
result N is independent from result n-1
result N+1 is independent from result N

N-1 movementx N movementy N+1

but it is possible that the movementx that formed result N out of result N-1 is familiar to movementy

[Blueprint]

There are 37pockets which you can label whatever you wish.

Might as well label them like this:
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$

[cht]

I learnt about Markov chain from Winkel's post many years ago.

Watch this video.
Think about the 2 challenges at the end.
I designed the betselection based on this theory keeping 2LoTD and LOTT in mind.

link:s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=63HHmjlh794

[cht]

What happened in the last 37spins history is useless to predict the next 37spins.

Unhits, hits, peaters happened in the past. Past statistics contribute nothing to future spins.

The only important thing is where the last spin is. The last spin will not tell you the next 37spins. It only tells you about the next spin. And the next spin about the next next spin and so on.....

That's why you look at the updated to last spin history to know where you are now that tells you about where you more likely will be the next spin. That's the connection of markov chain.

You won't be correct for all spins. You should be correct 40+% of the time, wrong 20+% and the rest you don't know. And you don't know which spin you are correct. Your balance will go up and down with a slight tilt towards correct. End session when it hits your set take profit target.

Watch this video.
link:s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i5oND7rHtFs

[nichedelico]

Ok so only positions.

[leoncino74]

Unhits, hit, peaters accaduti in passato. Le statistiche passate non contribuiscono in alcun modo ai giri futuri.

L'unica cosa importante è dove si trova l'ultimo giro. L'ultimo giro non ti dirà i prossimi 37 giri. Ti dice solo del prossimo giro. E il prossimo giro sul prossimo giro successivo e così via .....

E allora a che serve LOTT ?  Perchè avere 37 spin e poi iniziare a puntare?