Let's get this correct

[Elite]

Hi Cht, good to know you have edge in gameplay, to test continous spins of data   can only make proof,  roulette is random game, history will not give edge or maths.  I coded almost every theory in  program and tested on  thousands of spins, it failes, some time after 500 spins or 1k spins, etc,
may be you also face this if you test your theory on number of spins from different tables.  Roulette is based on maths, in that case also, there is so called law of third, will not allow you to get advantage of either hits or no hits.  Dependent or indepent spins not matter , unless dealr has biased, or table, but good luck for your findings, enjoy winning

[cht]

Just want to clear up this misunderstanding.

Genuine roulette wheels, dealer and ball can't fail to spit out roulette spins. There's no such thing as fail with roulette spins.

If roulette spins are independent then there is no possibility for winning or losing betselection vv.

This means creative, fancy, unique bet design is no different from a betselection by a monkey. If you take this as an insult it means you don't understand the math.

If you claim you understand the math, then design the next fancy betselection, or test another betselection with no basis, it clearly shows a contradiction - you don't understand the math.

Lastly, whether I wrote this stuff or not doesn't change a thing. This is the math. I didn't make this up. So no point you vent your frustration at me.

You should appreciate that I brought this up, that's the purpose of this thread. Now you know. Whether you accept or not doesn't change anything.

[Azim]

CHT,  Just to make you understand something.

Just because you can't become a doctor, a lawyer, or a judge doesn't mean no one else can not become one.
Just clarifying your misunderstanding.

[cht]

CHT,  Just to make you understand something.

Just because you can't become a doctor, a lawyer, or a judge doesn't mean no one else can not become one.
Just clarifying your misunderstanding.

This post clearly demonstrate misunderstanding. There are so many posts that make the same mistake. The reason for this thread.

The topic is about the math of roulette.

The specific matter is independent spins. This is universal for everyone, both the casino and player.

IF the spins are independent no one can do magic to predict future spins.

Your post claims you can with independent spins.

Sir, you have not properly understand the math. It is impossible. I have to call out your claim as nonsense because it is.

[Azim]

Just want to clear up this misunderstanding.

Genuine roulette wheels, dealer and ball can't fail to spit out roulette spins. There's no such thing as fail with roulette spins.

If roulette spins are independent then there is no possibility for winning or losing betselection vv.

This means creative, fancy, unique bet design is no different from a betselection by a monkey. If you take this as an insult it means you don't understand the math.

If you claim you understand the math, then design the next fancy betselection, or test another betselection with no basis, it clearly shows a contradiction - you don't understand the math.

Lastly, whether I wrote this stuff or not doesn't change a thing. This is the math. I didn't make this up. So no point you vent your frustration at me.

You should appreciate that I brought this up, that's the purpose of this thread. Now you know. Whether you accept or not doesn't change anything.

The only reason why I said what I said, the Winning system or people winning at roulette have put in their time to win. Which for some is putting time in to become a lawyer, doctor, or judge!!  If you can't become one which means you have a losing system. You haven't put in enough time to become a doctor, lawyer, or judge.

Look at any professional sports player. they have put in their time to get where they are.

House edge as I have said before is like paying taxes. You either work around it or just shy of and let the MATH guys throw you off.

[cht]

The only reason why I said what I said, the Winning system or people winning at roulette have put in their time to win. Which for some is putting time in to become a lawyer, doctor, or judge!!  If you can't become one which means you have a losing system. You haven't put in enough time to become a doctor, lawyer, or judge.

Look at any professional sports player. they have put in their time to get where they are.

House edge as I have said before is like paying taxes. You either work around it or just shy of and let the MATH guys throw you off.

I agree with what you wrote.

BUT we cannot assume independent spins and claim we can design winning systems.

Independent spins means prediction is not possible.

So, if anyone says he plays a winning systems bet, he must assume that spins are not independent.

That's why when anyone claims winning system mathboyz point to this independent nature of random spins.

That's what this thread is all about.

I repeat the core contention about roulette spins,

1. Random is unlimited vs random has limits, and

2. Independent spins vs not independent spins

Systems players should feel privileged that the industry experts see winning systems bet is not possible with independent spins.

[Elite]

Hi Cht,  so you  mean  spins  are dependent on math,,  so it  can be  predicted?

[cht]

Hi Cht,  so you  mean  spins  are dependent on math,,  so it  can be  predicted?

The moment the player refers to history spins to place his bet, he is assuming that roulette spins are not independent.

If he assumes roulette spins are independent, then he makes no reference to history spins.

It does not matter if he plays wheel 1 or 2 or3 or whatever wheel.
Whatever history spins make no difference to his betselection.

Example of such a bet is favourite numbers.

If any player believe future spins are predictable, then he must assume that roulette spins are not independent.

[Azim]

The moment the player refers to history spins to place his bet, he is assuming that roulette spins are not independent.

If he assumes roulette spins are independent, then he makes no reference to history spins.

It does not matter if he plays wheel 1 or 2 or3 or whatever wheel.
Whatever history spins make no difference to his betselection.

Example of such a bet is favourite numbers.

If any player believe future spins are predictable, then he must assume that roulette spins are not independent.

If the above was true we would have had no statisticians in the world. There would be no reason to look at history if we aren't going to learn from it.

[cht]

While it's true that you can't prove independence, there are lots of cases where it's intuitively obvious. I would argue that roulette is one such case because there is clearly no connection between one spin and the next, assuming normal conditions. But if it isn't intuitively obvious, there are statistical tests such as the Chi-square test for independence which you can use for any events A and B. If you can find a dependence between them and it's strong enough, you have your holy grail.

Again, this is a poor understanding of 'independent'. An event cannot be independent on its own. You must always specify another event with respect to which the event is independent from, otherwise it has no meaning.

Joe, I agree with everything you wrote.

Except this one small part about the existence of this tiny incidence of dependence.

Which is necessary for prediction to be possible.

I am 100% certain. I can't explain it.
It baffles me why dependence exist in independent spins.
A clear contradiction.

I am not saying that roulette spins are completely not independent.
I'm not stretching this interpretation that far.
Don't misinterpret what I wrote to mean something I don't mean to say.
It's a tiny form of non-independent nature.

So, Joe you read my posts with this small exception.

[Moxy]

Joe, I agree with everything you wrote.

Except this one small part about the existence of this tiny incidence of dependence.

Which is necessary for prediction to be possible.

I am 100% certain. I can't explain it.
It baffles me why dependence exist in independent spins.
A clear contradiction.

I am not saying that roulette spins are completely not independent.
I'm not stretching this interpretation that far.
Don't misinterpret what I wrote to mean something I don't mean to say.
It's a tiny form of non-independent nature.

So, Joe you read my posts with this small exception.

No field work yet?

[winforus]

Cht, what is the point of this thread?

Steve and few others who understand this game have been saying this for many years. There is nothing new here.

[cht]

Cht, what is the point of this thread?

Steve and few others who understand this game have been saying this for many years. There is nothing new here.

First off if you read Steve and the few others posts you will know they didn't get it right.
If you can't see that then you didn't get it right either.
This thread is not about Steve or the few others anyway.
Lets not get into that line of discussion.

The thread title is,
"Let's get this correct"

Perhaps, on hindsight, I should have included this word "together" at the end.

If anyone has anything to contribute to this topic which I spelled out clearly he is welcome to post his views.

If anyone spot any factual mistake he is welcome to point it out.

If anyone disagree he is welcome to post his point of view.

There have been significant changes in the points of views of the absolute "truths" about roulette spins.

If you read members posts you will see that happen.

It all comes down to "seeing is believing" and "I believe whom I chose to believe" certainly not a internet stranger.

I have summarised the points of contention about roulette spins where the disagreement and quarrels are centered upon.

At the minimum we know why all the quarrels that go on in forums.

If anyone can't say "I got it right now." with this thread, then YOU are beyond redemption sir.

This is the point of this thread.

***I have written everything possible, nothing more to add.

The discourse between Joe and Ares is relevant to this thread.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244421#msg244421

[Moxy]

First off if you read Steve and the few others posts you will know they didn't get it right.
If you can't see that then you didn't get it right either.
This thread is not about Steve or the few others anyway.
Lets not get into that line of discussion.

The thread title is,
"Let's get this correct"

Perhaps, on hindsight, I should have included this word "together" at the end.

If anyone has anything to contribute to this topic which I spelled out clearly he is welcome to post his views.

If anyone spot any factual mistake he is welcome to point it out.

If anyone disagree he is welcome to post his point of view.

There have been significant changes in the points of views of the absolute "truths" about roulette spins.

If you read members posts you will see that happen.

It all comes down to "seeing is believing" and "I believe whom I chose to believe" certainly not a internet stranger.

I have summarised the points of contention about roulette spins where the disagreement and quarrels are centered upon.

At the minimum we know why all the quarrels that go on in forums.

If anyone can't say "I got it right now." with this thread, then YOU are beyond redemption sir.

This is the point of this thread.

***I have written everything possible, nothing more to add.

The discourse between Joe and Ares is relevant to this thread.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244421#msg244421

One foot in... 

Nice.

[Clf7]

Cht i thought you gonna help us a little more than vaddi, dyks etc did, but again riddles and riddles + the same statements....I dont know whats your goal finally is, i think its more to play the guru here and to disappear than to help because i can guarantee you that nobody will find a solution with this general statements. You will go in "forum history" as another one who claimed to have a positive edge, actually said some interesting things but finally again absolute nothing to help the members here.The  same game over and over again in this forum and its "gurus", history repeats itself...