• Roulette Forum
  • Craps Forum
  • TwentyOne Forum
Welcome to RouletteForum.com
Notice: 5/8/2017 -- RouletteForum.com is closed to new posting and will remain in read-only mode for 30 days. If you wish to preserve any of your posts, do so soon.
   
1 of 3
1
The Question!
Posted: 05 June 2013 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]
Chingy711
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  847
Joined  2012-05-18
RankRankRankRank




“Are all spins and all appearances independent?”
 
  This must be answered with: “No, neither the spins
  nor the appearances can be independent, because
  each is a part of the whole!”

  In reality, each spin and each appearance has it’s
  necessary and obligatory function in the totality of
  a permanency.

  Chance doesn’t exist there because all effects have
  their visable or hidden cause. In fact there is no secret,
  it is quite obvious there must be a connection. Other-
  wise the wheel could not produce steady statistics.
 
  You can analyze any section of any consecutive spins
  of any permanency and you will find similar results,
  however with very small normal deviations.

  It is therefore, allowed to say, that the independence
  of every spin is not a real one. Every spin of the wheel
  is a part and has a function in a permanency of a certain
  length.

 Signature 

“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it!”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 07:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
scepticus
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  941
Joined  2012-10-02
RankRankRankRank




Chingy711 - 05 June 2013 11:59 AM

“Are all spins and all appearances independent?”
 
  This must be answered with: “No, neither the spins
  nor the appearances can be independent, because
  each is a part of the whole!”

  In reality, each spin and each appearance has it’s
  necessary and obligatory function in the totality of
  a permanency.

  Chance doesn’t exist there because all effects have
  their visable or hidden cause. In fact there is no secret,
  it is quite obvious there must be a connection. Other-
  wise the wheel could not produce steady statistics.
 
  You can analyze any section of any consecutive spins
  of any permanency and you will find similar results,
  however with very small normal deviations.

  It is therefore, allowed to say, that the independence
  of every spin is not a real one. Every spin of the wheel
  is a part and has a function in a permanency of a certain
  length.

Hi Chingy
I understand the point you are making but isn’t the real question ” How long is the Long Run ” ?
I would argue that Chance does exist in the “Short Run” the   Short Run being our lifetime .
Even in the indeterminable Long Run it is not the numbers themselves which “equalise” but their ” proportion “.
What we Bettors should concentrate upon is Bet Selection which is the key to profitable betting - in any sphere of gambling.
Happy punting.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2013 11:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Chingy711
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  847
Joined  2012-05-18
RankRankRankRank




[quote/]
Hi Chingy
I understand the point you are making but isn’t the real question ” How long is the Long Run ” ?
I would argue that Chance does exist in the “Short Run” the   Short Run being our lifetime .
Even in the indeterminable Long Run it is not the numbers themselves which “equalise” but their ” proportion “.
What we Bettors should concentrate upon is Bet Selection which is the key to profitable betting - in any sphere of gambling.
Happy punting.

  Hello Scepticus,

    I was shocked to see someone reply to “The Question.”
  I figured it would have been one of the math gurus, then
  saw it was you. I understand your point of proportion, but
  that’s the whole theory in relation how statistics always
  seem to balance no matter the size of trials. That’s what
  has always amazed me, if truly random this should never
  happen. We have been down that road of what is the “long
  run” many times and we aren’t alone, mathematicians have
  argued that point for ages. Bet selection can only be valid
  if there is a possible pattern, if truly random it wouldn’t make
  any difference. It would just be a guess then! Even the Chaos
  Theory, some scientists believe there is purpose and reason.
  The so called “Butterfly Effect”, who really knows! Thanks

 Signature 

“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it!”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2013 08:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
scepticus
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  941
Joined  2012-10-02
RankRankRankRank




Hi Chingy
” Probably ” the reason the maths gurus have not replied is because they agree with you ! Actually it is the reason they claim that we must expect to lose over a long period .
But you are right .People have been arguing about this for ages .I claim that this is because no one can tell how long the  
long run is .They pick a figure from thin air and even qualify that by adding “about “.And that is why I think the real question is “How long is the Long Run ? ” If that could be answered then it would be possible to devise a winning strategy .
I also think that all gambling must necessarilly involve guesswork because all gambling involves uncertainty.
Bet Selection only means - what you select to bet .You can use a method for selection or choose haphazardly .
How is your progressions going ? Are you ” progressing “?
Regards
scepticus ( as in Sceptic or sKeptic )

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
roulettedealer
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2011-08-05
RankRankRankRank




The wheel is not random, but each spin is not determined or affected by the one before it. Is each spin a new and seperate event? Yes. Are the results of the wheel random? No….however, in terms of betting red or black, or the dozens, or anything other than numbers…....yes, it is. The things which effect the results of each spin are wheel and ball speed, wheel design, the dealers paticular spin signature, the depth of the frets, and wheel bias…just to name a few. These are the things which can be analyzed and used to predict ball drop. Red and black and dozens, and progressions using these bets, are not effective ways of utilizing these determining factors, and I should mention that previous spin results are not included on the list….anywhere. Previous results have no bearing on future ones..thats just the way it is. You can track zone progressions to a degree using recent results for a paticular dealer, and that is assuming they display a strong signature, but this is merely where the ball came to rest, and not where it actually is dropping..which is key. You have to also take into account the ball scatter. Sorry, but the only way to beat the wheel is AP…..get used to it.——Brian

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
harryj
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  516
Joined  2012-12-07
RankRankRankRank




Brian I largely agree with what you say except the last sentence. For Probability to be Probable there has to be some connection with the elements of the whole. This CAN be used to predict a result. Perhaps not as accurately as AP but accurately enough to show a profit.
      Learn to live with it Brian you don’t have an exclusive right to winning.
      Regards       Harry

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Chingy711
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  847
Joined  2012-05-18
RankRankRankRank




Let’s put AP to the side just for a minute here.
  I often wonder does anyone really read all of
  the post. I would like to ask one simple question
  Brain, is this paragraph true, that’s all!

  “You can analyze any section of any consecutive spins
    of any permanency and you will find similar results,
    however with very small normal deviations.”

    Is the mathematican, who wrote this incorrect?
    All statistics is based on this one simple
    paragraph! Thus if something is truly random,
    how can this paragraph be true, if similar results
    will always fall in place no matter how many
    trials are done?

    Brain, you seem to sing the same song over and over
    and over. That’s fine and I’m certain you no longer
    work for a casino being under paid with only $8 to $10
    an hour and are probably now making thousands a
    week from the other side of the table with the skill
    to predict where the ball will land to some advantage.
    I’m happy for you and I really wish I had that skill, but
    that doesn’t mean I can’t have a little fun with my
    strategy and possibly get “lucky” and pick up a few
    bucks once in a while.

    Tell me Brain, please, how it is you can figure the ‘scatter”
    on any wheel with such success. For I truly would like to
    try and understand and maybe learn something. I’m always
    open to learning something new.

 Signature 

“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it!”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2013 02:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
VB Meister
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  1072
Joined  2010-04-08
RankRankRankRank




You say 25% are single events ie chopping. You say 75% are series two or more. So 100 spins there should be 25 choppers and 75 two or more. The question is how many on average are sets of two out of a hundred an did you allow for 0/00? So what I am saying is that if you have 25 results of double sets (no profit flat betting) and losses on the chops, then how many are series of 3 out of a 100? What happens with various scenarios combined with zeroes inbetween? Do you have the stats for the above?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2013 04:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Chingy711
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  847
Joined  2012-05-18
RankRankRankRank




VB Meister - 16 June 2013 02:58 AM

You say 25% are single events ie chopping. You say 75% are series two or more. So 100 spins there should be 25 choppers and 75 two or more. The question is how many on average are sets of two out of a hundred an did you allow for 0/00? So what I am saying is that if you have 25 results of double sets (no profit flat betting) and losses on the chops, then how many are series of 3 out of a 100? What happens with various scenarios combined with zeroes inbetween? Do you have the stats for the above?

  Here is a table that shows the ideal appearance of single and series
  in 64 consecutive spins for Red/Black. The zero/zeros has not been
  added in but if it were it would account for approximately for 2 spins.

      Figure               Number of
      Singles               16
      Series                 16
      Series of 2             8
      Series of 3             4
      Series of 4             2
      Series of 5             1
      Series of 7             1
      _______________________________

  Here is the link where you will find all the
  tables for the distribution and appearance
  of series and single even money chance
  events.
   
    http://www.win-maxx.com/statistics.html

    The appearance of the zeros in my strategy are
      a lost and the next bet is increased based on
      the starting base unit. If it were a $10 base
      unit and the first spin result was a green zero,
      the next bet would increase by $6 and the bet
      would be $16 and again if green zero were the
      outcome, the next bet would be $22.

      There’s a great table on the appearance of higher
      series using 1024 consecutive spins
     
      http://www.win-maxx.com/basics/basics08.html

      By the way, in the matter of double sets ( 2 Reds
      or 2 Blacks) I do make a profit for my strategy
      is not based on flat betting!

 Signature 

“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it!”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
scepticus
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  941
Joined  2012-10-02
RankRankRankRank




harryj - 15 June 2013 10:08 AM

Brian I largely agree with what you say except the last sentence. For Probability to be Probable there has to be some connection with the elements of the whole. This CAN be used to predict a result. Perhaps not as accurately as AP but accurately enough to show a profit.
      Learn to live with it Brian you don’t have an exclusive right to winning.
      Regards       Harry

Harry
I think you give too much credence to these AP guys. Early on I said that they could not do as they claimed.If I read one of VBs recent posts correctly he admitted he did not use “skill ” but analysed past results.You know, those past results that we mere mortals were told we could not use
because each spin was “a new event “. 
So it seems that VB, at least , does use a method and does use maths which he deemed to be idiotic . Perhaps we should welcome VB into the Method Bettors community ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 04:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Houston
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  725
Joined  2013-06-21
RankRankRankRank




Harry
I think you give too much credence to these AP guys. Early on I said that they could not do as they claimed.If I read one of VBs recent posts correctly he admitted he did not use “skill ” but analysed past results.You know, those past results that we mere mortals were told we could not use
because each spin was “a new event “. 
So it seems that VB, at least , does use a method and does use maths which he deemed to be idiotic . Perhaps we should welcome VB into the Method Bettors community ?

Harry,

The information that system players collect is worthless because it’s not related to the mechanics of the wheel.  You’re simply looking at random strings of numbers, and completely overlooking the fact that each spin of the wheel is an independent trial.

However, as an AP, the information that we collect and use from the past is relevant because it is information that pertains to the health and mechanics of the gaming device.

For example:

By collecting ball lap times we can build a model of the ball decay and then develop formulas that use linear regression to calculate how much farther the ball will travel on the track

By tracking the drop distribution (deflector smacks) we can find wheels that are off level

By tracking deflector strikes and scatter, we can build histograms that help us determine what the most common ball bounce distance is likely to be, etc…

Other examples would be collecting large samples of numbers from a specific wheel, and then running ‘goodness of fit tests’ such as ‘chi square’.  In this example, the past information is of value because it’s being used to measure the ‘fitness’ or ‘randomness’ of the wheel (again, the mechanical device).

 


Now regarding your naive comment about the VB players:


There have been a number of high profile cases of ‘advantage play’, whereby players using various methods to track the position of the ball, the ball decay, the position of the rotor, and rotor speeds to predict either the winning or losing sectors of a roulette wheel, and thus obtaining a significant advantage over the house.  Several cases have been documented on various wheel manufacturer websites, by casino risk consultants, and by roulette wheel mechanics.  You will also find some case history in some encyclopedias.  Such AP players win because they are not attempting to beat the random game of roulette, but are exploiting inefficiencies in the gaming device and the mechanics of the wheel. 

Furthermore, it’s well documented that it is impossible to devise a system to beat the ‘random game’ of roulette.  Such documentation comes from Dr. Thorp, Every encyclopedia out there, every mathematician,  and even Einstein.

Now, would you like to explain to us why you feel that you’re right, and everyone listed above is wrong?

Sorry Scepticus and Harry, but If you really want to win, then you need to think mechanically. I am not your enemy. I’m just stating the facts.  I should probably avoid this thread for a while, since I seem to be upsetting you.

-Houston

 Signature 

“Like a fool, a system player and his money are easily separated!”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 08:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
scepticus
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  941
Joined  2012-10-02
RankRankRankRank




harryj - 15 June 2013 10:08 AM

Brian I largely agree with what you say except the last sentence. For Probability to be Probable there has to be some connection with the elements of the whole. This CAN be used to predict a result. Perhaps not as accurately as AP but accurately enough to show a profit.
      Learn to live with it Brian you don’t have an exclusive right to winning.
      Regards       Harry

Harry,
Houston seems to believe that we are not aware of the writings of others.
Ed. Thorp does believe that no system can be devised to beat roulette but qualifies that by saying” any system that I am aware of “. So Thorp ,unlike the AP guys does not dismiss out of hand the possibility that a system could be devised.
In an earlier post I showed that Ed Thorp also believes that Visual Ballistics does not give the bettor sufficient advantage to make VB a worthwhile venture.So our AP players know better than Ed Thorp,Shannon and others who have actually studied the problem from a scientific standpoint. Thousands of spins would be needed to ascertain if a wheel was biased but these AP guys claim that they can do so every day.
When I speak about roulette wheels I am talking about wheels in regulated casinos in the UK which are calibrated on a daily basis . A severely biased wheel would obviously benefit the bettor so the casinos take care that there are none.And I think the same would apply elsewhere.
The AP guys seem blissfully unaware that Probability Theory deals with uncertainty so only deals with likliehood not certainty.If the opinions of all those whom he names were correct then there would be no betting on Horse Racing or the Financial Markets, for example, because from the strict maths point of view as is applied to roulette they also have the disadvantage of a House Edge in the form of Bookies’ profit margins and the transactions costs of their bets.
So why do mathematicians single out roulette ? Because they believe that ” the wheel has no memory “.And what do our AP guys do if not use that selfsame “memory ”  So mathematicians give the thumbs down to AP . 
The reason I don’t accept the mathematicians’ certainty that we must lose eventually is because I recall reading that
the Long Run was likely to kick in” the nearer you get to infinity “and “when dealing with an infinite number of possible events an event that could conceivably happen
might have Probability zero. “ So,where is the certainty in that ?
Now that we know what they actually do we can see that there is reasoning behind it but it is reasoning based on the
assumption that their data will be repeated in the future.
This may or not be true but it could just as easily be the random factor at work. Houston believes that each spin is
random but if that is true then there cannot be a biased wheel .And don’t VB and Brian claim that the wheel is NOT
random ?
He clearly isn’t aware that, in a previous post, I instanced the case of two Chinese youths who used VB to win money in a London casino. But they used a COMPUTER to analyse the likely resting place of the ball.So I did accept that VB may be valid but only when used in conjunction with a computer. But it would need to be tested over thousands of trials before it could be regarded as valid.
It is clear that AP does not always work, hence the apeshit posts of VB and Brian when they claimed that the casinos went to dastardly lengths to thwart the AP player.Not the rest of us, mind you, just the AP guys. 
And I am still waiting for Houston to back up his boast that it would be fairly easy to determine the Long Run loss of my 200 pt. bank. I don’t think he will because he cannot. Or his ego would have insisted he told me long before now ! I have found no one making such a claim - in or out of encyclopedias. Perhaps Houston has ? 
He expounds theory, nothing more. Statements but no proof Then again his theorising could mean that be is another of those AP millionaires we never hear about. After all, he claimed to know that I hadn’t played roulette for 45 years. Now ,that is a claim of having extrasensory perception . LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 09:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Houston
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  725
Joined  2013-06-21
RankRankRankRank




The reason I don’t accept the mathematicians’ certainty that we must lose eventually is because I recall reading that
the Long Run was likely to kick in” the nearer you get to infinity “and “when dealing with an infinite number of possible events an event that could conceivably happen
might have Probability zero. “ So,where is the certainty in that ?

Saying that the long run doesn’t apply to you is like saying that life expectancy rates don’t apply to you because you only live a little bit of the time.

Saying that each spin is an independent trial has nothing to do with testing a roulette wheel for bias.  Collecting large samples of numbers from a specific wheel, and then running ‘goodness of fit tests’ such as ‘chi square’ is of value because it’s being used to measure the ‘fitness’ or ‘randomness’ of the wheel (again, the mechanical device).

However, trying to devise systems based on the layout and the random stream of number is of no value because each spin is an independent trial.  As a result, events do not become ‘due to occur’.

Then again his theorising could mean that be is another of those AP millionaires we never hear about. After all, he claimed to know that I hadn’t played roulette for 45 years. Now ,that is a claim of having extrasensory perception . LOL

Based on where you are with your system testing, enables me to determine just how long you’ve been trying to play this game.  You clearly haven’t been at it for very long because you are still trapped in the gambler’s fallacy, and you still haven’t realized that each spin is an independent trial.

-Houston

 Signature 

“Like a fool, a system player and his money are easily separated!”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2013 02:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
VB Meister
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  1072
Joined  2010-04-08
RankRankRankRank




scepticus - 10 July 2013 08:41 PM
harryj - 15 June 2013 10:08 AM

Brian I largely agree with what you say except the last sentence. For Probability to be Probable there has to be some connection with the elements of the whole. This CAN be used to predict a result. Perhaps not as accurately as AP but accurately enough to show a profit.
      Learn to live with it Brian you don’t have an exclusive right to winning.
      Regards       Harry

Harry,
Houston seems to believe that we are not aware of the writings of others.
Ed. Thorp does believe that no system can be devised to beat roulette but qualifies that by saying” any system that I am aware of “. So Thorp ,unlike the AP guys does not dismiss out of hand the possibility that a system could be devised.
In an earlier post I showed that Ed Thorp also believes that Visual Ballistics does not give the bettor sufficient advantage to make VB a worthwhile venture.So our AP players know better than Ed Thorp,Shannon and others who have actually studied the problem from a scientific standpoint. Thousands of spins would be needed to ascertain if a wheel was biased but these AP guys claim that they can do so every day.
When I speak about roulette wheels I am talking about wheels in regulated casinos in the UK which are calibrated on a daily basis . A severely biased wheel would obviously benefit the bettor so the casinos take care that there are none.And I think the same would apply elsewhere.
The AP guys seem blissfully unaware that Probability Theory deals with uncertainty so only deals with likliehood not certainty.If the opinions of all those whom he names were correct then there would be no betting on Horse Racing or the Financial Markets, for example, because from the strict maths point of view as is applied to roulette they also have the disadvantage of a House Edge in the form of Bookies’ profit margins and the transactions costs of their bets.
So why do mathematicians single out roulette ? Because they believe that ” the wheel has no memory “.And what do our AP guys do if not use that selfsame “memory ”  So mathematicians give the thumbs down to AP . 
The reason I don’t accept the mathematicians’ certainty that we must lose eventually is because I recall reading that
the Long Run was likely to kick in” the nearer you get to infinity “and “when dealing with an infinite number of possible events an event that could conceivably happen
might have Probability zero. “ So,where is the certainty in that ?
Now that we know what they actually do we can see that there is reasoning behind it but it is reasoning based on the
assumption that their data will be repeated in the future.
This may or not be true but it could just as easily be the random factor at work. Houston believes that each spin is
random but if that is true then there cannot be a biased wheel .And don’t VB and Brian claim that the wheel is NOT
random ?
He clearly isn’t aware that, in a previous post, I instanced the case of two Chinese youths who used VB to win money in a London casino. But they used a COMPUTER to analyse the likely resting place of the ball.So I did accept that VB may be valid but only when used in conjunction with a computer. But it would need to be tested over thousands of trials before it could be regarded as valid.
It is clear that AP does not always work, hence the apeshit posts of VB and Brian when they claimed that the casinos went to dastardly lengths to thwart the AP player.Not the rest of us, mind you, just the AP guys. 
And I am still waiting for Houston to back up his boast that it would be fairly easy to determine the Long Run loss of my 200 pt. bank. I don’t think he will because he cannot. Or his ego would have insisted he told me long before now ! I have found no one making such a claim - in or out of encyclopedias. Perhaps Houston has ? 
He expounds theory, nothing more. Statements but no proof Then again his theorising could mean that be is another of those AP millionaires we never hear about. After all, he claimed to know that I hadn’t played roulette for 45 years. Now ,that is a claim of having extrasensory perception . LOL

Scep…. you seriously do not know what you are talking about. Yes. I have said that to a VB player the wheel isn’t random IF there are defects on the wheel. In other words we look for a wheel that gives us an advantage. It could be tilt or a wheel track defect causing the same effect as tilt. Now you are going to say… “oh… there cannot be many wheels out there like that!” Well. Wrong! There are many wheels with 2 and 3 dominant drop zones and less with 1 dominant drop. All can be played and beaten.

What you are misunderstanding (Actually there is a helluva lot you are misunderstanding!) When Houston says a wheel is random he refers to you dumbasses playing system play. If you cannot increase your hit rate to beating the HE, which you cannot do by playing silly systems, you cannot win in the long run.

Now… it does not mean as an AP you cannot place bets before a spin. Just like system players, APs also analyse strings of numbers but this is not for vb but for bias play. And it isn’t as simple as just analysing the strings of numbers. There must be a reason why someone would even think of analysing 1000’s of numbers. A genuine AP wouldn’t just select a wheel and look for bias by looking at the numbers. Again there must be a reason that AP chose that wheel in the first place. I am saying this because you could potentially waste months looking at the wrong wheels.

What I have said about casinos and wheel manufacturers are the truth. The only countermeasures against roulette players, are against Advantage Play. Go to the Cammegh website and read about the Mercury 360 wheel with RRS and why it has this countermeasure. When finding a wheel and playing vb in a casino believe me if there are few people and you keep winning it is not long before countermeasures start. Wheel speed is changed from spin to spin. Dealers call nmb earlier. The dealer spins more short spins hardly rotating the required 3-4 revs before dropping. Very seldom dealers just start doing it. It usually starts after a word by the Pit boss or shift boss.

Bias play is countered by software running continuously, wheel maintenance and certain things done on the wheel itself when serviced. Still does not mean bias cannot be found….. There are wheels around with defective sensors (Seen a couple) which do not give the correct numbers at all times. Sometimes it misses a number and often it reads the neighbour number. For obvious reasons such wheel’s software randomness checker cannot give a correct analysis.

Busier high roller tables are better. Love it to play on a table with a loud chip scatterer hitting 10K on this spin and loosing 15K on the next. All attention are on those guys. Not on me. So yes all countermeasures are against AP players and only AP players.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2013 10:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
scepticus
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  941
Joined  2012-10-02
RankRankRankRank




Hi All
Well all except the obnoxious AP mob.And talking about the AP mob did you read the latest posts of New Kid On The Block Houston and Megamouth VB Meister ? Houston reminds me of that old joke “Children should leave home at sixteen when they still know everything ! “
I
The Kid now claims that he is an expert on system play.
A self -styled expert on system play that doesn’t know the layout of a roulette table !  Because, he says, it is irrelevant ! And yet pontificates on a subject - roulette- which he knows little or nothing about ! A true expert has no choice in the matter, he must learn all aspects of his subject .He brands my nine- column block as nonsense when he hasn’t even looked at it.if he had he would realise that it does not rely on “numbers that are due ” and his persistent claim it does
brands him as a faker.  The Block does what it says on the tin ! When I said I utilise the work of mathematicians he
interprets that as meaning a mathematician has helped me create the method . Like the rest of the AP mob when he can’t answer a question he resorts to verbal abuse.It saves them the bother of thinking ! And if he examined the block he could easily prove it wrong- well in his fevered imagination anyway.He would also see that it does not involve the Gambler’s Fallacy as he so stupidly claims.
ALL he is doing with his version of AP is taking previous NUMBERS and trying to make sense of them . I have no problem with that but he should stop the pretence that it is the only way.
He probably noted that there are times that these numbers exceed their probability and deduce from that there is bias. That is an assumption on his part - not a fact. There’s always enough random success to justify anything to anyone who wants to believe.And he is a true believer ! 
And again Houston attributes to me a view I do not hold.I said the Long Run was not certain not that it might not exist.It is an Expectation and an Expectation is something that may or may not happen.If this Long Run could be determined with accuracy then all the bettor need do is bet until just before this point .He asked me to say why I disagreed with all of his experts I showed that the experts
didn’t agree with him! If he is so expert as he claims why cannot he see that his claim of being able to find a biased wheel by analysing past spins contradicts his view that a wheel is random ?
He said he could determine the Long Run of my 8 chip bet but has failed to do so. I feel entitled to say then that he is full of bluff and bluster. All he does is make statements and make derogatory remarks about people who disagree with him , a trait that all AP players share..
His attempts at mind reading are so childish that they could not possibly come froman adult never mind an expert at system play. 
An expert on system play ? he. he he LOL
Someone on an ego trip.? Yes !


As for Vb Meister now here is a real expert - at posting garbage.
He claims that I don’t understand .Unfortunately for him I did understand. I said he couldn’t do what he claimed to do.
Note all the factors, analyse them and put his bets on before
“No more bets ” .
AND he claimed that he wins EVERY time he goes into a casino and wins thousands ! 
AND he claimed he could calculate faster than the casino’s computers !This from a guy whose calculations showed that there are only 100 members on this forum! 
AND he now admits that he did claim that the wheel wasn’t random but now claims that he said only IF there were a
flaw in the wheel.He didn’t.Because this is so bleeding obvious that his new version didn’t need saying .
AND he claims that the casinos go to great lengths to thwart the AP guys but only the AP guys !And how do they do this ?By varying wheel speeds and by changing wheel rotation.
If that beats his AP method then it cannot be much of a method can it? Yet claims that he wins thousands with it.
AND he claims that he can bet on a High-Rollers table and not be noticed and this from a guy who visits the casino every day !He should have a word with Brian about this.
AND he impugns the integrity of both casinos and theCAMMEGH roulette wheel maker by insinuating that they cheat gamblers by their ” countermeasures” which
are not countermeasures at all but merely software for   the casinos to monitor a wheel..Only a conspiracy theorist would think otherwise. Or a mentally disturbed individual like VB Meister.
And petulant pertinax claims that I am the most idiotic poster on this forum !  LOL

By the way guys Ed Thorp doesn’t think much of the idea of roulette Dealers Signature !
Why the Hell don’t people understand that all gambling is about uncertainty so no one can claim certainty of outcome !
We can only guess.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2013 11:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Houston
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  725
Joined  2013-06-21
RankRankRankRank




When I said I utilise the work of mathematicians he
interprets that as meaning a mathematician has helped me create the method -Scepticus .


Scepticus,

Enough blarney.

What math did you supposedly “utilize”? Show us the math that proves your system works.

-Houston

 Signature 

“Like a fool, a system player and his money are easily separated!”

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
Online roulette is also very popular in Australia with many of the internet casino brands directly targeting Australians, resulting in a huge choice of roulette sites available to Australians. CasinoReef recommends Ruby Fortune casino as one of the top online roulette casinos available in AUD. For New Zealanders, CasinoKiwi recommends Jackpot city casino as the most popular choice for new Zealanders playing roulette online.