scepticus - 26 February 2013 05:07 PM

harryj - 26 February 2013 04:52 AM

VB you must admit “SCEP ” has a point. While AP methods may be the only GUARANTEED method for those who have the special abilities,” Mathematical” methods still produce winners. Sure there are risks, bet those risks can be managed. Businessmen manage far greater risks every day! The trouble with most punters is that they are not prepared to make the effort to learn your methods or mine. They want to be told in a couple of simple sentences how to defeat an industry worth hundreds of Billion dollars, without ever using the brain God gave them!
    I say good luck to you all whatever method you use. The casinos can afford a few winners.

Harry.
I have VB Meister down as a fantasist and suggest that we don’t give his addled brain any more oxygen. Gayotee was right , ignore the twat.
He has been rubbishing everyone who does not accept his version of AP since at least 2011.
In his latest reply to you he says that I do not use my own theory .How does he know ?Is he telepathic ? No. he is simply a LIAR because I do use my own theory. My target for each visit is 100 chips. and I actually did win exactly 100 chips on my last visit and in 20 spins.But how do, I prove it without revealing what I do.And with my 4 chip bet which VB Meister rubbishes. !
Go back over his posts and you will find numerous inconsistencies .In one post he says he always wins, in another he says he wins 99% of the time and in another he says that while he has an edge he might not win on the day He claims that the HE will destroy anyone not using AP and yet claims that Probability Theory does not work !  .No rational man would be as inconsistent as that. Or be so hostile to others solely because they do not agree with him.
For these reasons I think we should let him taik only to his inflated ego.

99% vs 100%  same thing to me. It does not change my bank account much. Probability does not work in roulette and yes the HE will destroy you.

As for name calling…... You are the one doing that.

It is very frustrating to read this forum. Almost all visitors talk against VB Meister and his “fantasies”.
Well, I can imagine why is so, you really have no idea what he talks and cannot have idea, if you did not before read anything about VB.
You need at least basic knowledge for VB if you want to understand VB Meister.

Another problem is that VB Meister cannot say into detail about certain things because this is still open forum.

I am only sorry that VB Meister does not come in one special vb forum, where everyone will understand him and where
he will learn too from other extremly knowledage members.

goforit,  GO FOR IT! PM VB, if you can keep him busy teaching you maybe he won’t have time to rubbish the efforts of those of us that are exploring other methods.
      Regards     Harry

Harry, good luck in math systems, because you will really need it

[quot
e author=“goforit” date=“1362093385”]Harry, good luck in math systems, because you will really need it

goforit Every bet ANYONE makes is subject to CHANCE .Look up your dictionary and you will find that CHANCE means LUCK abd LUCK means CHANCE.
and CHANCE does nit mean NO CHANCE.If you think those who use maths in roulette betting have NO CHANCE please let us into the secret as to how you know this.

scepticus - 28 February 2013 03:18 PM

[quot
e author=“goforit” date=“1362093385”]Harry, good luck in math systems, because you will really need it

goforit Every bet ANYONE makes is subject to CHANCE .Look up your dictionary and you will find that CHANCE means LUCK abd LUCK means CHANCE.
and CHANCE does nit mean NO CHANCE.If you think those who use maths in roulette betting have NO CHANCE please let us into the secret as to how you know this.

It has been explained over and over again yet you refuse to look at reason. The same as it has been explained how AP can give you an 20-30% edge over the house… chance you say… me thinks not! LUCK YOU SAY ..... Nope… I don’t think so!

To be perfectly correct CHANCE doesn’t mean LUCK. In fact if a dictionary definition mentions luck at all it’s a long way down the list of possible meanings. Mathematically LUCK can be defined as the STANDARD DEVIATION or VARIANCE that is the common factor in CHANCE. The theory of probability defines the SD’s with much greater clarity than the LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS or the mythical LONG RUN. The reason for this is ABRAM DE MOIVRE who theorized The SD’s was a gambler and made his observations over the gaming table. Not with contrived experiments as did PASCAL and BENOULLI.
    By using Physics you have largely eliminated chance. Good for you!  Juggling the SD"s may not be as certain but it is a skill that can produce winners. Trashing us with the law of large numbers is pointless and just illustrates that you are too dumb to really understand Probability.
      Sorry to be so blunt,    Harry

harryj - 01 March 2013 04:23 AM

To be perfectly correct CHANCE doesn’t mean LUCK. In fact if a dictionary definition mentions luck at all it’s a long way down the list of possible meanings. Mathematically LUCK can be defined as the STANDARD DEVIATION or VARIANCE that is the common factor in CHANCE. The theory of probability defines the SD’s with much greater clarity than the LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS or the mythical LONG RUN. The reason for this is ABRAM DE MOIVRE who theorized The SD’s was a gambler and made his observations over the gaming table. Not with contrived experiments as did PASCAL and BENOULLI.
    By using Physics you have largely eliminated chance. Good for you!  Juggling the SD"s may not be as certain but it is a skill that can produce winners. Trashing us with the law of large numbers is pointless and just illustrates that you are too dumb to really understand Probability.
      Sorry to be so blunt,    Harry

Only dumb people are people trapped by the classic gambler’s fallacy…... Sorry to be so blunt.

harryj - 01 March 2013 04:23 AM

To be perfectly correct CHANCE doesn’t mean LUCK. In fact if a dictionary definition mentions luck at all it’s a long way down the list of possible meanings. Mathematically LUCK can be defined as the STANDARD DEVIATION or VARIANCE that is the common factor in CHANCE. The theory of probability defines the SD’s with much greater clarity than the LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS or the mythical LONG RUN. The reason for this is ABRAM DE MOIVRE who theorized The SD’s was a gambler and made his observations over the gaming table. Not with contrived experiments as did PASCAL and BENOULLI.
    By using Physics you have largely eliminated chance. Good for you!  Juggling the SD"s may not be as certain but it is a skill that can produce winners. Trashing us with the law of large numbers is pointless and just illustrates that you are too dumb to really understand Probability.
      Sorry to be so blunt,    Harry

Harry. You continue to give the fantasist oxygen.

VB Meister - 01 March 2013 08:49 AM

harryj - 01 March 2013 04:23 AM

To be perfectly correct CHANCE doesn’t mean LUCK. In fact if a dictionary definition mentions luck at all it’s a long way down the list of possible meanings. Mathematically LUCK can be defined as the STANDARD DEVIATION or VARIANCE that is the common factor in CHANCE. The theory of probability defines the SD’s with much greater clarity than the LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS or the mythical LONG RUN. The reason for this is ABRAM DE MOIVRE who theorized The SD’s was a gambler and made his observations over the gaming table. Not with contrived experiments as did PASCAL and BENOULLI.
    By using Physics you have largely eliminated chance. Good for you!  Juggling the SD"s may not be as certain but it is a skill that can produce winners. Trashing us with the law of large numbers is pointless and just illustrates that you are too dumb to really understand Probability.
      Sorry to be so blunt,    Harry

Only dumb people are people trapped by the classic gambler’s fallacy…... Sorry to be so blunt.

  Yours is the fallacy. Your method forces you to think in single spins. Like a horse in blinkers you can see nothing else. To take advantage of the uncertainties of chance you need to think in terms of multiple spins. Where you calculate the various physical factors we calculate the possible results of the next few spins and place bets to cover those possibilities. We can’t be right all the time but neither are you.
      I don’t want to get into a slanging match with you but I would like the chance to put my ideas to the forum without being called an idiot by someone who is ignorant on the subject.  If the subject is AP I would personally welcome your participation otherwise stay out unless you can add something pertinent.
      Harry

scepticus - 01 March 2013 09:50 AM

harryj - 01 March 2013 04:23 AM

To be perfectly correct CHANCE doesn’t mean LUCK. In fact if a dictionary definition mentions luck at all it’s a long way down the list of possible meanings. Mathematically LUCK can be defined as the STANDARD DEVIATION or VARIANCE that is the common factor in CHANCE. The theory of probability defines the SD’s with much greater clarity than the LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS or the mythical LONG RUN. The reason for this is ABRAM DE MOIVRE who theorized The SD’s was a gambler and made his observations over the gaming table. Not with contrived experiments as did PASCAL and BENOULLI.
    By using Physics you have largely eliminated chance. Good for you!  Juggling the SD"s may not be as certain but it is a skill that can produce winners. Trashing us with the law of large numbers is pointless and just illustrates that you are too dumb to really understand Probability.
      Sorry to be so blunt,    Harry

Harry. You continue to give the fantasist oxygen.

  Sorry Scep,but I can’t stand by and watch promising threads side tracked and trashed for no reason. The purpose of this forum is to exchange ideas not to feed the egos of a small group of fanatics.

  Best wishes Harry

Sorry Scep,but I can’t stand by and watch promising threads side tracked and trashed for no reason. The purpose of this forum is to exchange ideas not to feed the egos of a small group of fanatics.

  Best wishes Harry

What I am saying, Harry, is that you should learn from my experience.I agree with your point of view but you will find, as I did , you cannot win an argument with someone who is so ignorant about the maths of roulette as VB is. He is so ignorant that he rabbits on that the House Edge (HE) yet claims Probability is useless in roulette so quite clearly doesn’t know that the HE is derived from Probability Theory.You cannot win an argument with a Fundamentalist he/ she is the bearer of THE TRUTH and everyone else is therefore MUST be.
wrong. That said, Harry, it’s your call/.
Best Wishes
Scepticus

scepticus - 01 March 2013 01:35 PM

Sorry Scep,but I can’t stand by and watch promising threads side tracked and trashed for no reason. The purpose of this forum is to exchange ideas not to feed the egos of a small group of fanatics.

  Best wishes Harry

What I am saying, Harry, is that you should learn from my experience.I agree with your point of view but you will find, as I did , you cannot win an argument with someone who is so ignorant about the maths of roulette as VB is. He is so ignorant that he rabbits on that the House Edge (HE) yet claims Probability is useless in roulette so quite clearly doesn’t know that the HE is derived from Probability Theory.You cannot win an argument with a Fundamentalist he/ she is the bearer of THE TRUTH and everyone else is therefore MUST be.
wrong. That said, Harry, it’s your call/.
Best Wishes
Scepticus

That is because all of you are wrong. I see single spins because every spin is a new event. Past results have no bearing on future events.

VB you are right in claiming every spin is a separate event, but mathematics makes provision for multiple chance events. I n fact the original question, posed to Pascal, that started the probability theory concerned multiple events. The fact that, in order to supply an answer he had to prove the existing theories and methods wrong sparked his interest. I hate to say this but you are 400 years out of date.
    Regards     Harry

harryj - 03 March 2013 08:14 AM

VB you are right in claiming every spin is a separate event, but mathematics makes provision for multiple chance events. I n fact the original question, posed to Pascal, that started the probability theory concerned multiple events. The fact that, in order to supply an answer he had to prove the existing theories and methods wrong sparked his interest. I hate to say this but you are 400 years out of date.
    Regards     Harry

Harry, you are hilarious. You are almost as funny as Scep. You say I am 400 years behind…. might very well be true. Been proven way back that roulette, a negative expectancy game cannot be beaten mathematically. Not so long ago a guy called Einstein mentioned when asked that the only way to beat the game is to steal the chips. He was off course referring to the fact that it was a random game with a negative expectancy. Guess we must be truly lucky to see TWO guys (you and scep) both on one forum who are more intelligent than Einstein.

It is a pity that newbies will listen to the likes of you guys. It is always the same.