do present spins have any influence on the probability of past spins?

[MrJ]

I agree Gizmo. This is a post of mine from earlier >>

I don't mind the person who posts his/her view, no problem. However, when it turns into CONSTANTLY JAMMING YOUR VIEW DOWN EVERYBODYS THROAT, that's something different.


MauiSunset gave his OPINION, he should be done giving his OPINION.

Ken

[MrJ]

@MauiSunset >> Ok, I briefly read over your goofy site. You sound like another ex-member from here that went rogue a couple months ago (lol). In my view, you really painted yourself into a corner. You slammed AP (we actually agree on that), you said your method (may I call it that?) is due to come out soon? FREE of charge? When it does come out, is it open just like any other method to be tested, perhaps 800,000 trials? Same rule for everyone. Using *ONE* past number is gamblers fallacy, same rule for everyone. 

Is it gonna be something like....just bet what you feel should hit, garbage like that? You see folks, 'they' like to use certain language SOOOOO, it cant be tested. That way, they're in the clear, not accountable. Any which way you spin your trash, I've seen it all before and have read EVERY excuse in the book as to why "it can't be tested". The AP crew also use this TACTIC. Come February 1st, I guess we'll see.

Ken

[MrJ]

Your signature says >> "It's all about statistics and luck".

Ok fine but dont 'statistics' come from PAST results (gamblers fallacy)?

Ken

[MauiSunset]

Your signature says >> "It's all about statistics and luck".

Ok fine but don't 'statistics' come from PAST results (gamblers fallacy)?

Ken

You seem to be confused as to what gamblers fallacy is - I gave the definition and I'll give it again:

Gambler's Fallacy is the insane idea that the fixed odds change for magical reasons.

The odds for Roulette are well known and don't change - ever.

If you believe that they magically change you have fallen for Gambler's Fallacy.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

[MauiSunset]

@MauiSunset >> Ok, I briefly read over your goofy site. You sound like another ex-member from here that went rogue a couple months ago (LoL). In my view, you really painted yourself into a corner. You slammed Advantage-play (we actually agree on that), you said your method (may I call it that?) is due to come out soon? FREE of charge? When it does come out, is it open just like any other method to be tested, perhaps 800,000 trials? Same rule for everyone. Using *ONE* past number is gamblers fallacy, same rule for everyone. 

Is it gonna be something like....just bet what you feel should hit, garbage like that? You see folks, 'they' like to use certain language SOOOOO, it can't be tested. That way, they're in the clear, not accountable. Any which way you spin your trash, I've seen it all before and have read EVERY excuse in the book as to why "it can't be tested". The Advantage-play crew also use this TACTIC. Come February 1st, I guess we'll see.

Ken

I'm going to categorize 300 - 500 Roulette systems that I've found.  The totally worthless ones, 90% of them, are free and available to anyone.  The 3 I use and the other marginal ones will be made available to members who contribute to the site.


The site is really for me to summarize ALL known Roulette systems and a place where serious studying of Roulette systems takes place.


Then there are the monthly contests I will be holding.....

[MrJ]

You seem to be confused as to what gamblers fallacy is - I gave the definition and I'll give it again:

Gambler's Fallacy is the insane idea that the fixed odds change for magical reasons.

The odds for Roulette are well known and don't change - ever.

If you believe that they magically change you have fallen for Gambler's Fallacy.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

(LMFAO).....So I am correct, you do use PAST RESULTS. There are alot of people (myself included) that use a few past numbers *BUT* I have NEVER heard of someone thinking that the ODDS WILL CHANGE. Here where I play (00 wheel, 5.26%)......so when I'm playing my method, do you think that I'm thinking......YES!!!! The H.A. is now down to 1.4%.

I've done threads on this before, its AMAZING how many different definitions there are for gamblers fallacy. So let me ask you this. >>> Lets say I use the last 10 numbers for a method but I do NOT think in anyway shape or form, the odds will change for me. Am I using gamblers fallacy?

Ken

[MrJ]

I'm going to categorize 300 - 500 Roulette systems that I've found.  The totally worthless ones, 90% of them, are free and available to anyone.  The 3 I use and the other marginal ones will be made available to members who contribute to the site.


The site is really for me to summarize ALL known Roulette systems and a place where serious studying of Roulette systems takes place.


Then there are the monthly contests I will be holding.....

So the 3 methods you use, will pass a test of 800,000 trials and if it fails (and it will), your response will be what?

"made available to members who contribute to the site" >>> Contribute how and how often?


"The totally worthless ones" >>> That'll be your OPINION, nothing more.

"The site is really for me to summarize ALL known Roulette systems" >>> Again, its your OPINION.

Ken

[MauiSunset]

So the 3 methods you use, will pass a test of 800,000 trials and if it fails (and it will), your response will be what?

"made available to members who contribute to the site" >>> Contribute how and how often?


"The totally worthless ones" >>> That'll be your OPINION, nothing more.

"The site is really for me to summarize ALL known Roulette systems" >>> Again, its your OPINION.

Ken

Hey it's my website - I built it for research - some folks may like it and some won't.


That's life.

[MauiSunset]

(LMFAO).....So I am correct, you do use PAST RESULTS. There are a lot of people (myself included) that use a few past numbers *BUT* I have NEVER heard of someone thinking that the ODDS WILL CHANGE. Here where I play (00 wheel, 5.26%)......so when I'm playing my method, do you think that I'm thinking......YES!!!! The H.A. is now down to 1.4%.

I've done threads on this before, its AMAZING how many different definitions there are for gamblers fallacy. So let me ask you this. >>> Lets say I use the last 10 numbers for a method but I do NOT think in anyway shape or form, the odds will change for me. Am I using gamblers fallacy?

Ken

I now understand why you believe in Gambler's Fallacy.


I have no desire to change your mind 

[MrJ]

Your last two posts, I love how you dont like to answer questions. Hmmm....

Ken

[MrJ]

A)  So the 3 methods you use, will pass a test of 800,000 trials and if it fails (and it will), your response will be what?

B)  "made available to members who contribute to the site" >>> Contribute how and how often?

C) Lets say I use the last 10 numbers for a method but I do NOT think in anyway shape or form, the "odds will change for me" (those are YOUR words). Am I using gamblers fallacy?


Ken

[MrJ]

I'll put $500 on it.......He's one of these guys that uses past numbers (gamblers fallacy) and at the SAME TIME, will insult others that use past numbers. I am 10000000% correct on this.

Ken

[MauiSunset]

A)  So the 3 methods you use, will pass a test of 800,000 trials and if it fails (and it will), your response will be what?

B)  "made available to members who contribute to the site" >>> Contribute how and how often?

C) So let me ask you this >>> Lets say I use the last 10 numbers for a method but I do NOT think in anyway shape or form, the "odds will change for me" (those are YOUR words). Am I using gamblers fallacy?


Ken

You sound like a typical American with their hand out - I'm not feeding freeloaders I'm going to work with folks who reciprocate and I learn something from them too; kind of like backscratching.


As to your total confusion of Gambler's Fallacy - I have no desire to help you out of your predicament; it's your problem and not mine....

[MauiSunset]

I'll put $500 on it.......He's one of these guys that uses past numbers (gamblers fallacy) and at the SAME TIME, will insult others that use past numbers. I am 10000000% correct on this.

Ken

No need to put up $500, just $100 is sufficient.


Sign up for my May $1,000 give away contest if you are so certain of your prowess at Roulette - enrollment starts mid-May; the instructions are on my website.

[MrJ]

I'm GLAD you won't answer. It exposes you and guess what? That's my JOB to expose you... SCAMMER.

If the guy will not answer SIMPLE questions folks, don't follow him down a path of broken promises.

Ken