Thanks for your comment.

I think a lot of people are playing it, but don´t tell. 

br
winkel

It is like the Holy Grail of King Arthur:

You don´t get it just as a present. you do have to work for it. and if you got it, you still have to work to get the fortune out of it.

There is nothing for free in the world.

You won´t get the holy grail by asking: Is this the Holy grail?
and you won´t get rich if the answer is yes!

don´t talk about things you don´t have the slightest idea of.

What Kon-Fu-Sed proofed was, that every single crossing on its own will lose longterm.

Roulette wouldn´t be a random game if that wasn´t true.
What I said and proofed is this:
In every sequence of 50 spins there are several crossings with several numbers of numbers to bet.
Gamblers intelligence and watching what is going on enables the player to avoid losing streaks and win winning streaks.

this I proofed with my stochastical math proof.

Just saying "it doesn´t proof" is not enough. Pls proof the opposite by giving the "better" stochastical arguments than I did.


Nearly every day I get messages " does it win?" "do you still play?" "Is it worth reading it?" "Can you proof" "Who does it play?"

I don´t answer these stupid questions anymore. It is proofed by TwoCatSam. The only reason he lost was "the devil in him" who made him place bets in a senseless way and making horrible progressions.

Everyone who is to lazy to read all those examples and tutorials and my math proof isn´t worth the HG

no reagrds

Pls proof me wrong by telling me which of my stochastical arguments are wrong.

But you can´t, therefore you have to attack TwoCatSam and me this way, because you see that you have no arguments at all

so shut up and piss off

What is wrong with them?

What is wrong with the teories of Kolmogoroff and Markov? Are they wrong?
It is called "universal" because it regards to nearly all stochastical theories and combines them to a strategy.

To proof me wrong would mean to proof Markov, Kolmogoroff an Döblin and Poincare and Ehrenfest wrong.

Try this, otherwise: see above

I think you only have empty phrases but no facts

Here's the problem with Winkel's Gut system:



 His crossings graphs have no meaning. For example, just because the number one has hit three times, it doesn't make it more or less likely to hit than the number two.

The graphs don't even account for the position of the numbers as they lay on the wheel. Therefore, they have no value whatsoever.  



 For his system to work, past outcomes would have to somehow influence future outcomes.  Since the number of pockets remain the same from one spin to the next, the odds of a number hitting does not change at each new spin.  



Sorry Winkel, but you're wasting your time with this GUT stuff

*sigh*...we lost Winkel? He was one of our most active contributors.....