Let's get this correct

[Clf7]

Cht you tell us basically that we are completly fucked up and we wont ever find a method to beat Roulette (except advanced stuff like steve's computer etc) ....i think we got that 

[Joe]

cht, I don't see where you're going with this. A while ago you hinted strongly that by using markov chains and LOTT a winning system is possible, but they contradict the principle that spins are independent, and that there are no winning bet selections due to this fact. So what avenues remain for the HG hunter?

1. Precognition
2. AP

That's it, right?

[cht]

cht, I don't see where you're going with this. A while ago you hinted strongly that by using markov chains and LOTT a winning system is possible, but they contradict the principle that spins are independent, and that there are no winning bet selections due to this fact. So what avenues remain for the HG hunter?

1. Precognition
2. AP

That's it, right?

I had to create this thread to delve into the details of what the math says.

We can't presume that everyone properly understands the math involved. This thread puts it in the way that everyone gets it. I believe some of them understand it properly for the first time.

I expect many systems players hate me for doing this, like rubbing dung in their face. But that's not my intention.

Here's my purpose of this thread, to state the facts as it is. And the controversy about this subject at the core of roulette heats up from now on. I expect some to feel more dung in their faces, more people gets riled up, some brighten up, more people start to shuffle their feet to place themselves on their chosen side of this great divide, all reflecting their individual motive towards this game. What anyone write from hereon tells lots about the writer. YOU.

Let's plod on.

I shall start by declaring that my sole purpose is to make coins from this game. Period.

[cht]

So what avenues remain for the HG hunter?

1. Precognition
2. AP

That's it, right?

The list of avenues that players explore are broadly categorised under,

1. AP - roulette computer,

2. AP - without RC,

3. Precognition,

4. Systems bet - negative progression,

5. Systems bet - dependent spins

I try to explore each one of them as best I can. Anyone can post their points of view.

[cht]

Although AP - RC is attractive backed by physics and math, acknowledged by industry experts as a scourge, their illegal status in some jurisdictions and not allowed in the rest jurisdictions is a major turn off.

What comes immediately to mind is the thousands upon thousands of physicists and ME who should be onto this. But the industry are not threatened, its business as usual. Why has the pot of gold not attracted the best talent into this field? 🤔

Testimonies from physicists and ME about this subject carry more weight and relevance than gamblers' opinion on forums.

The same with AP - no RC. Their methods are crude.

Until I read academic papers specific on this application, I am not convinced one bit that I should spend any time, effort, money on this.

[cht]

Precognition, a subject I have no idea. I prefer to stay out. Period. No comments, comments won't be relevant anyway.

[cht]

Like all these systems players, after the elimination process it left me with systems betting.

Personally, I am bias math where I studied A-level math which covered statistics and am a CA by profession which has certain content on statistics. So its only natural that I explore this game from the angle of math.

The problem was I was not competent enough in math. I clearly lack the required math understanding to comprehend what the math of roulette means in its basic form. Without this base there's no starting point. So I educated myself, reading Bayes, Jerome, Firefox and your posts.

[cht]

Ofc I was a systems junkie jumping from one guru to the next for many years. From one pattern to the next.

For those of us who put in the time, we know all those ideas fail.

Systems betting comes down to 2 points of contention,

1. Negative progression - when TurboG wrote random has limits it caused an uproar. Blasphemy!

I am not into negative progression. Idk. I am on the side of random is unlimited UNTIL there's proof. I am not convinced that it can be otherwise. But I am open minded enough it may exist.

2. Independent spins - I have been "arm twisted" to publicly declare clearly my stance on this very contentious point. Contradiction is thrown at my face several times and more expected, not going to stop as this is another blasphemous statement.

I am sure we all understand what it means when future spins are dependent on history spins. Holy grail.

I point you guys to read Joe and Ares discourse on the other thread. You make up your own mind about whether it's possible with dependent spins. The next step is EVIDENCE to seal it for YOU. No one can do it for you except YOU.

No math professor, Einstein, Bayes, Jerome, Firefox or Joe can change your mind what the EVIDENCE speak to YOU.

[cht]

This thread is NOT about how to win in roulette, NOT a systems betting thread definitely.

What this thread hope to achieve for systems bettors is,

If you chose negative progression aka money management you must know that from a math standpoint you must possess proof that random has limits.

If random has limits then your negative progression is a winner vv.
My point is the problem don't lie with the progression BUT,

it lies with this assumption that random has limits.

â€"-------------â€"--------------------------------

Next, if you flatbet with no progression then the premise of your bet is that future spins are dependent on history spins. Again you must have PROOF. Its that simple.


People say they understand this basics, yet they go hunting the next fancy pattern, design the next fancy betselection with no basis.

The point that needs to be driven home is without dependent spins everything else thereon is a waste of time.

Which bring us to the crux of this contentious issue.

Do you understand what dependent spins mean?
In what manner, shape and form?
If you don't know what you're looking for, how are you suppose to find it?
It is naturally and spontaneously occurring with real spins.

In this context, those who stand by the side of math theory has very little to contribute.

I believe you are smart enough to know that nobody provides this proof to you. Ofc you reserve the right to assume that no proof means the theory remains unchanged.

----------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION

If you hope to find or design a systems bet with positive edge you have to prove one of the following,

1. Random has limits, for negative progression, or

2. Dependent spins for flatbet betselection.

[precogmiles]

This thread is very confusing, Cht I thought you had a positive edge?

Have you manages to do either of the following points?

1. Random has limits, for negative progression, or

2. Dependent spins for flatbet betselection.

[Clf7]

This thread is very confusing, Cht I thought you had a positive edge?

Precog is right, we all thought that

[cht]

This thread is very confusing, Cht I thought you had a positive edge?

Have you manages to do either of the following points?

I don't want this thread to be about me.

If I openly declare that yes I have the proof, complete DNA of dependent spins.

You will still not believe. I must have made a mistake somewhere. The test data is too small to draw any meaningful conclusion. I am lying. Why am I not making my millions instead of posting on forums. Bla, bla, bla......
Predictable personal attack that benefit no one. More important no one cares dafuq.

All everyone is interested with this thread is how to find this dependent spins?

What I have done is to write down on this thread the path I took to reach where you want to be.

Problem is you want it be handed to you on a silver platter that says bet here and here........

If anyone is serious enough, desire enough to want this, then first he has to educate himself about the math, read this thread and my posts the last few months. Some things are not difficult to figure out. Piece them together. They are there if you care to find them.

I am confident one or two of you will find it eventually. So

This is my one and only response to this question. That has no bearing on your own journey.

[precogmiles]

I don't want this thread to be about me.

If I openly declare that yes I have the proof, complete DNA of dependent spins.

You will still not believe. I must have made a mistake somewhere. The test data is too small to draw any meaningful conclusion. I am lying. Why am I not making my millions instead of posting on forums. Bla, bla, bla......
Predictable personal attack that benefit no one. More important no one cares dafuq.

All everyone is interested with this thread is how to find this dependent spins?

What I have done is to write down on this thread the path I took to reach where you want to be.

Problem is you want it be handed to you on a silver platter that says bet here and here........

If anyone is serious enough, desire enough to want this, then first he has to educate himself about the math, read this thread and my posts the last few months. Some things are not difficult to figure out. Piece them together. They are there if you care to find them.

I am confident one or two of you will find it eventually. So

This is my one and only response to this question. That has no bearing on your own journey.

Interesting. So you have the holy grail = positive edge.

Can you demonstrate this for us on MPR or roulette simulator?

[pepper]

Interesting. So you have the holy grail = positive edge.

Can you demonstrate this for us on MPR or roulette simulator?

Stop making me lose brain cells

[winforus]

CHT, have you been playing and winning real money with these findings? If so, for how long and what is roughly your edge or EV (%) ?