Please explain, step by step, how Winkel's G.U.T strategy works. After that please give a working example of the strategy.
Go to download-area and download track4.exe
or search for KonFuSed´s GUTCBA
There is all you need.
According to Konfused's simulation, the Gut doesn't work.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 03:25:55 PM
According to Konfused's simulation, the Gut doesn't work.
KonFuSed didn´t simulate the strategy.
He just took every possible crossing and brought it to -2,7% by running it through 10million spins.
Didn´t they come up with that result, we wouldn´t have a random game.
We couldn´t be sure, that there are winning streaks after losing streaks after winning streaks etc.
As everybody should know: There are waves, winning and losing.
To make G.U.T a perfect loser it would need that
all crossings at every possible point of appearance would lose and the idiot that is playing at that time doesn´t jump because he is to stupid to see he is in a losing streak.
G.U.T wins because it uses the swings of many possible crossings to eliminate the lost ones through winning ones.
This is the neccessary "gambler´intelligence"
That you don´t have that is proofed by yourself.
Quote from: Winkel on November 15, 2009, 03:43:24 PM
To make G.U.T a perfect loser it would need that all crossings at every possible point of appearance would lose and the idiot that is playing at that time doesn´t jump because he is to stupid to see he is in a losing streak.
G.U.T wins because it uses the swings of many possible crossings to eliminate the lost ones through winning ones.
This is the neccessary "gambler´intelligence"
That you don´t have that is proofed by yourself.
So you use an educated guess. When I explain that process at GG I get the Great Wall of China too. I'm not going to argue the merits of a system that has "intelligence" as the important factor in making selections. If a contraption of specified mechanical results leads you to the need to make an intelligent guess then there is no difference in what I do while using visual dexterity in my own charts. I have many opportunities and they occur all the time while playing. I refuse to program intelligent guessing in a long winded contraption. I thought your system was mechanical and strictly rule based. Perhaps you added some common sense after all this time?
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 15, 2009, 04:01:50 PM
Perhaps you added some common sense after all this time?
No, I told it from the beginning.
See "Jumping Tutorial" and you will see, that the strategy gives you the hint, when to jump!
All is result of "watching what is going on" and the resulting experience.
If you know all the rules of chess (bridge, poker and others) you don´t win neccessarily, do you? You need experience and training and intelligence!
Quote from: Winkel on November 15, 2009, 04:07:37 PM
...See "Jumping Tutorial" and you will see, that the strategy gives you the hint, when to jump!
All is result of "watching what is going on" and the resulting experience.
If you know all the rules of chess (bridge, poker and others) you don´t win neccessarily, do you? You need experience and training and intelligence!
This is my exact argument. I have been doing this all along. I completely understand it. So does Spike. For that my concepts are the scourge of the universe. We may use different concept to form out intelligent decisions but the process has the same end result. I win more than I lose because of what I see that is currently happening in my grouping that I'm observing. BTW, Spike uses a completely different set of groupings than I do. Yet he has come to the same conclusions. You must adjust for what you are seeing.
This topic is no longer relevant. I agree with Winkel's intelligent concepts of awareness.
QuoteIf you know all the rules of chess (bridge, poker and others) you don´t win neccessarily, do you? You need experience and training and intelligence!
I'm playing the Devil's advocate here for a moment; can the best chess players defeat the best chess computers?
The answer is no (I just looked it up). Up until the late 90's computer's didn't have the processing power, now they can beat the likes of Gary Kasperov. Anyway, my point is, any gambler's intelligence can be coded - although I wouldn't like to be the programmer doing it. ;D
In this case, the fundamental basics of the system are flawed. It's dependent on previous outcomes.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 04:51:29 PM
In this case, the fundamental basics of the system are flawed. It's dependent on previous outcomes.
Could there be a bi-/multi-nomial distrubution or a "Law of Third" without previous outcomes?
And there is still this question open: What about Kolmogoroff and Markov-theories?
As long as you are refusing to answer this you are banned (by yourself) from being allowed of any further statement!
btw: G.U.T is a strategy not a system. there is no system at chess or bridge, is it?
Winkel,
It's as simple as calculating the odds of what the next spin will be. For example: For a column the odds will be 12/37 and for a single number they will be 1/37. Therefore, the house edge remains intact.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 05:13:46 PM
Winkel,
It's as simple as calculating the odds of what the next spin will be. For example: For a column the odds will be 12/37 and for a single number they will be 1/37. Therefore, the house edge remains intact.
Bad Blue PrintAnd what about my questions?
I think you can´t answer because you are to dump stupid and uneducated to answer
keep on banging that steelball to your head. Perhaps it helps in any future. I ´m afrid it won´t
Quote from: Winkel on November 15, 2009, 03:43:24 PM
KonFuSed didn´t simulate the strategy.
He just took every possible crossing and brought it to -2,7% by running it through 10million spins.
Didn´t they come up with that result, we wouldn´t have a random game.
We couldn´t be sure, that there are winning streaks after losing streaks after winning streaks etc.
As everybody should know: There are waves, winning and losing.
I would have thought the vast majority of systems would be brought to -2.7% by running them through 10 million spins.
Virtually every one of them will have winning streaks after losing streaks after winning streaks etc.
So this "gambler's intelligence" should in effect be applicable to any and every system?
What a problem for the long termers.
Markov chain
"In mathematics, a Markov chain, named after Andrey Markov, is a random process where all information about the future is contained in the present state (i.e. one does not need to examine the past to determine the future). To be more exact, the process has the Markov property, meaning that future states depend only on the present state, and are independent of past states. In other words, the description of the present state fully captures all the information that could influence the future evolution of the process. Being a stochastic process means that all state transitions are probabilistic (determined by random chance and thus unpredictable in detail, though likely predictable in its statistical properties).
At each step the system may change its state from the current state to another state (or remain in the same state) according to a probability distribution. The changes of state are called transitions, and the probabilities associated with various state-changes are called transition probabilities. An example of a Markov chain is a random walk on the number line which starts at zero and transitions +1 or −1 with equal probability at each step."
What a bummer. Spike's concepts are backed by math. That will give a head ache to the flat earthers. Mathboyz, don't remember this. It's too hard to handle. You will get another headache.
Quote from: bombus on November 15, 2009, 05:41:05 PM
So this "gambler's intelligence" should in effect be applicable to any and every system?
Yes, it almost does. It has nothing to do with progressions though. They are mindless.
So it would be a good idea to use the simplest method with the smoothest transitions.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 15, 2009, 05:46:28 PM
What a problem for the long termers.
Markov chain
"In mathematics, a Markov chain, named after Andrey Markov, is a random process where all information about the future is contained in the present state (I.e. one does not need to examine the past to determine the future). To be more exact, the process has the Markov property, meaning that future states depend only on the present state, and are independent of past states. In other words, the description of the present state fully captures all the information that could influence the future evolution of the process. Being a stochastic process means that all state transitions are probabilistic (determined by random chance and thus unpredictable in detail, though likely predictable in its statistical properties).
At each step the system may change its state from the current state to another state (or remain in the same state) according to a probability distribution. The changes of state are called transitions, and the probabilities associated with various state-changes are called transition probabilities. An example of a Markov chain is a random walk on the number line which starts at zero and transitions +1 or −1 with equal probability at each step."
What a bummer. Spike's concepts are backed by math. That will give a head ache to the flat earthers. Mathboyz, don't remember this. It's too hard to handle. You will get another headache.
Thank you for quoting:
With G.U.T
the current state is a crossing-situation
the transition probability is due to the amount of the group e.g. 14 13 10
the probability for transition is therefore 14/37 13/37 or 10/37
Quotedetermined by random chance and thus unpredictable in detail, though likely predictable in its statistical properties
that is simply what I ever said, didn´t I?
QuoteThank you for quoting:
With G.U.T
the current state is a crossing-situation
the transition probability is due to the amount of the group e.g. 14 13 10
the probability for transition is therefore 14/37 13/37 or 10/37
Quote:
determined by random chance and thus unpredictable in detail, though likely predictable in its statistical properties
that is simply what I ever said, didn´t I?
I'm assuming that you're talking about the odds of 12 numbers hitting.
The odds of 12 numbers hitting is still 12/37, not 14/37 or 13/37 or 10/37. The payoff is still just 2 to 1 or 35 to 1 for any one number. Therefore the house edge remains intact.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 08:22:59 PM
I'm assuming that you're talking about the odds of 12 numbers hitting.
The odds of 12 numbers hitting is still 12/37, not 14/37 or 13/37 or 10/37. The payoff is still just 35 to 1. Therefore the house edge remains intact.
You are not even able to read. If I talk of 14 13 an 10 numbers groups then I am not talking of 12 numbers.
And what about Kolmogorof and Markov and my other questions you dump idiot.
And as your arguments disappear in Nirwana you go back to house-edge. You poor stupid boy, go back to school or better pre-school before you talk to me
I'm sorry, but you're not side steppping probability or effecting the house edge.
Look, on the math and physics forum we want to see the math. Not rude comments. If you want us to take you seriously, then you must act like an adult.
Show me the math.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 08:32:30 PM
I'm sorry, but you're not side steppping probability or effecting the house edge.
Look, on the math and physics forum we want to see the math. Not rude comments. If you want us to take you seriously, then you must act like an adult.
Show me the math.
How can I show you when your brain is closed due to severe malfunction
and I repeat: What about Kolmogorof and Markov?
Why should I go to a phjysics-forum. I´m not interested in phsysics. I would go to a stochastics-forum. But if all people there are that closed-minded as you
QuoteI'm sorry, but you're not side stepping probability or effecting the house edge.
Nobody is trying to side step anything that can or can't cause nor prevent the next outcome from happening. The one time odds don't change. They don't predict either. The current situation will continue or it won't. Probability does not explain anything that continues on the very next spin. Past spins from before the last spin can't predict what will happen either. Only the last spin can tell you if the state for continuance exists. Only the next spin can become the last spin during that moment that it is spun and then completed. The state of continuance exists until it stops.
Trend detection can make use of many coincidences to establish its circumstantial existence. The odds on the next spin are irrelevant. When all the conditions are right then the continuance tends to hold up. Experience extrapolating coincidence and form allow the brilliant player to take it in all very easily. That's why reason based charting systems are so complex that common sense is often ignored by their users. Some times detection is a no brainer. I know this. You must use most of your ability to decipher the current state and less on producing meaning from multi-faceted, reasoned-out contraptions that require extraneous deductions just to communicate back to you what to do. The topic is following the current state of randomness. It could be by a rule based charting system or a guess based charting system. It's better to control the outcome than to be dragged through its bad patches.
Both of you pretend to be math guys, so show me the math. Show me how you have changed the odds and what the new odds are of a number(s) hitting.
Thanks.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 09:01:46 PM
Both of you pretend to be math guys, so show me the math. Show me how you have changed the odds and what the new odds are of a number(s) hitting.
Thanks.
I don't pretend to be a mathematician. I have no doubt I can write a computer program that guesses better than the odds. I know how to put enough conditional testing into an algorithm for it to produce the results that I claim. In the end the algorithm would be the evidence that proves my points. I don't need to be a traditionally trained mathematician to make my points. I've told you where and how the topic can be known. Do your own proof. I guess you will have to go out and become a brilliant Roulette player and a computer programmer. I will not disclose exactly what I do on an open forum. That does not mean that it can't be done.
QuoteShow me how you have changed the odds and what the new odds are of a number(s) hitting.
Don't be ridiculous. I never said that I change the odds. That's you attempting to venture into the twilight zone. Everything I know about roulette is that the odds for the next spin are absolute. Only now you show me the math for continuance occurring exactly like the odds for the next spin only. Continuance is different than red or black. It can't exist for every spin. Red and black does exist for every spin. There is a difference.
Landis, for you nothing works and that may be true. What are you searching for on vls forum?
You have opinion that nothing can beat math odss and I agree.
Only want to say what is point to discuss here with winkel and others?
Do you have some method for share with us or anything else beside debating about math odss?
Gizmo,
You and Winkel both pretend to be math guys. Now that a real math guy is asking you questions, you're singing a different song. I thought that you were supposedly an expert on randomness? What's up?
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 09:19:30 PM
Gizmo,
You and Winkel both pretend to be math guys. Now that a real math guy is asking you questions, you're singing a different song. I thought that you were supposedly an expert on randomness? What's up?
I never ever said I am a math guy! You did you are one, but you don´t know Kolmogorof and Markov. so just shut up, if you refuse to give answers to questions. just hanging around and repeating senseless statements doesn´t help anyone in anyway.
:skull:
Winkel,
You have implied that you are everytime you attempt to belittle or berate someone because they don't see the brilliance of your system. Should I provide some examples?
Enough said.
Now, can you or can't you demonstrate why your method is effective mathematically?
All I'm asking is for you to show how the house edge is changed by the system.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 09:19:30 PM
Gizmo,
You and Winkel both pretend to be math guys. Now that a real math guy is asking you questions, you're singing a different song. I thought that you were supposedly an expert on randomness? What's up?
I guess you are a lier. You are also another sorry math guy that has no clue what really happens. If I prove to you that I can write a computer program that proves my position then I'll have to kill you. :skull:
Landis, you are effectively a beggar. Does that add up? It's simple arithmetic. No jerkwater math wannabe is going to get me to drag them to the casino as a success. You can endlessly suffer in your limited math based conclusions.
Gizmotron,
You claim to be an expert on randomness, right? Ok, then how many standard deviations above normal does your system perform when betting on five numbers after 100k spins?
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 09:33:07 PM
Winkel,
You have implied that you are everytime you attempt to belittle or berate someone because they don't see the brilliance of your system. Should I provide some examples?
Enough said.
Now, can you or can't you demonstrate why your method is effective mathematically?
All I'm asking is for you to show how the house edge is changed by the system.
At boxing-sports they would call you a stinker:
Please give samples as much as you want. Perhaps you read and learn somthing about my STRATEGY not system.
Now can you or can´t you answer my questions ref. Kolmogorof and Markov?
and can you or can you not see and read, that I always said my strategy is not mathematically?
And can you see or read or can´t you that I never denied the house edge and I´m not trying to beat the house edge?
There is something that is called in German "the longest possible period of succesful play"
My method implies that this period is not reached throughout a gamblers possible life-play-distance.
That´s it. Proof it wrong with your math if you are able otherwise shut up
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 09:40:20 PM
Gizmotron,
You claim to be an expert on randomness, right? Ok, then how many standard deviations above normal does your system perform when betting on five numbers after 100k spins?
This question shows how dump you are.
in 100k spins he could bet just once and win. what would it tell.
the question should be how often he would bet and with how many numbers covered and with what result.
yoiu have to learn a lot about Roulette.
Winkel, You claim at every turn that your system is mathematical. You claim that is based on binomial distribution.
You provide examples that are supposed to appear mathematical. You even pretend to base your system on Kolmogorof and Markov, yet you can't demonstrate or express the mathematics involved. You, like Gizmotron, attempt to bully the people that question your methods and call them idiots because they aren't as smart as you.
Now, that you are put on the spot, you claim that you aren't really a math person and that your system doesn't really give the player the edge. What gives?
I'm here to tell you now, that unless you gain the edge over the casino, then you can't win in the long run. And I CAN demonstrate this mathematically.
I'm going to give you a break, and I'm going to give you some time to rethink some of your lofty claims.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 09:40:20 PM
Gizmotron,
You claim to be an expert on randomness, right? Ok, then how many standard deviations above normal does your system perform when betting on five numbers after 100k spins?
How often will continuance occur in the average 100 spin session? What do you do if you come across one of the very rare patterns that form a perfect pattern of 30 to 40 spins in a continuous form? Standard deviation does not effect the next outcome. Didn't you get the memo? All you are doing is being a pest. How many times did you stand on one foot while playing roulette? How many times where you stuck next to a loud mouthed drunk with bad breath and rotten teeth? Math is for those that wish they knew something and need to impress towheaded girls with tape on the bridge of their glasses. You are a geek. Don't be a math NAZI too.
Gizmotron,
Understand this, I don't like you. I don't like the way you attempt to bully other people on the other forums. You pretend to know more about randomness than everyone else, yet you can't calculate standard deviation or chi square. To really comprehend randomness, you need to understand how to measure what's relevant and what's not relevant using the above tools.
It would appear that you are nothing more than an expert at being a bully.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 09:49:58 PM
Winkel, You claim at every turn that your system is mathematical. You claim that is based on binomial distribution.
You provide examples that are supposed to appear mathematical. You even pretend to base your system on Kolmogorof and Markov, yet you can't demonstrate or express the mathematics involved. You, like Gizmotron, attempt to bully the people that question your methods and call them idiots because they aren't as smart as you.
Now, that you are put on the spot, you claim that you aren't really a math person and that your system doesn't really give the player the edge. What gives?
I'm here to tell you now, that unless you gain the edge over the casino, then you can't win in the long run. And I CAN demonstrate this mathematically.
I'm going to give you a break, and I'm going to give you some time to rethink some of your lofty claims.
I claimed it in this thread several tiome: It is not mathematical!
And Kolmogorof and Markov are stochastic people not math-people. do you know the difference? I´m sure you don´t.
If you wanna proof me wrong mathematically, pls try. But don´t just repeat your house-edge and "nothing works" stupid phrases.
I´m talkihng not about the house-edge i´m talking about "the longest possible wdinning betting distance". the linmiit of this distance is marked by the infect of the house-edge. if you know, but i promise you don´t
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 09:49:58 PM
You, like Gizmotron, attempt to bully the people that question your methods and call them idiots because they aren't as smart as you.
I question math conclusions that make no sense. Why do the odds perform so badly against my educated guessing method? I don't expect someone like you that never looks at why, on their own, to get past their own excuses. You are not an idiot. You are a waste of a perfectly fine functioning mind. There is no need and probably never will there be a time needed to bully you. You are your own self fulfilling disaster. The only deviation I need to know is that you haven't gotten past the math yet. You think math is absolute as long as you use the convenient parts I guess. It does not take a math expert to know that you are bluffing. It must be nice to bully non math people with your calculator and the few classes you took on higher reasoning. Only you can't explain what I know about randomness with it. What's more you guys are still in the dark regarding it. That's your problem. You solve your own demands. Seeing you in dumb dumb-ville works for me. The math boss, the math! You remind me of Tattoo on Fantasy Island.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 09:58:23 PM
Gizmotron,
Understand this, I don't like you. I don't like the way you attempt to bully other people on the other forums. You pretend to know more about randomness than everyone else, yet you can't calculate standard deviation or chi square. To really comprehend randomness, you need to understand how to measure what's relevant and what's not relevant using the above tools.
It would appear that you are nothing more than an expert at being a bully.
Let's break that down.
A math geek does not like me because I don't see his minimalist opinion about things that don't effect the current situational awareness. Anyone would question the importance of relevance. Why do you struggle so badly in that regard? To understand randomness a study of standard deviation or chi square are not required. Anyone that thinks they are required has no clue what randomness is. This has gotten to be the most interesting debate I have ever had with regards to randomness. The stats of randomness only give you a long term baseline to reference from. Binomial distribution are best applied to progressions. The odds for 18/37 or 18/38 are absolute numbers and serve all that you need to understand about baseline reasoning with regards to randomness.
You have not demonstrated any of the characteristics of randomness. You can't with standard deviation. Characteristics of trends are far beyond the realm of long term stats. They apply to the short term. That's why standard deviation does not apply to the next ten spins, and definitely not the very next spin.
Show me one Standard Deviation conclusion that shows continuance in the form of the characteristics of randomness. I have extensively investigated long term results for series in 50/50 and 12/24 conditional occurrences. They are one way to see trends in Randomness. Oops, I did what you needed already.
BTW, I really like you.
Standard Deviation and Chi Square are useful statistical tools... for testing, establishing relevance. That's it.
As for the actual selection process, when dealing with pure randomness, you cannot apply linear mathematics (including parametric statistics) to a non-linear stochastic process.
To deal with unpredictability you must use a method that does not require predictability.
Quote from: Marven on November 16, 2009, 01:51:47 AM
Standard Deviation and Chi Square are useful statistical tools... for testing, establishing relevance. That's it.
As for the actual selection process, when dealing with pure randomness, you cannot apply linear mathematics (including parametric statistics) to a non-linear stochastic process.
To deal with unpredictability you must use a method that does not require predictability.
So I use coincidence to establish a bet selection premise. Situational awareness comes from observation of the current conditions that exist, irregardless of the long term nature that exists too. Then the situation can be evaluated for each spin as they happen. The effectiveness of the premise can be evaluated at the same time too. At no time has predictability ever been factored. Yet, I have never had a discussion of randomness that has not had to deal with someone that insists that my concepts can't predict what will happen. They never get it when I agree with them. Only they hang themselves up on the need for predictability. So, Marven, you are one of the very few really smart people that discuss Roulette. Coming from me, that might not be a good thing to be. I'm crazy with all my concepts and beliefs after all.
Doctrine of the Maturity of the Chances
...be used in interpreting the phrase on average, which applies most accurately to a large number of cases and is not useful in individual instances. A common gamblers' fallacy, called the doctrine of the maturity of the chances (or the Monte-Carlo fallacy), falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is dependent on the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be... (Source Encyclopedia Brittanica)
The Gambler's Fallacy and its sibling, the Hot Hand Fallacy, have two distinctions that can be claimed of no other fallacies:
They have built a city in the desert: Las Vegas.
They are the economic mainstay of Monaco, an entire, albeit tiny, country, from which we get the alias "Monte Carlo" fallacy.
Both fallacies are based on the same mistake, namely, a failure to understand statistical independence. Two events are statistically independent when the occurrence of one has no statistical effect upon the occurrence of the other. Statistical independence is connected to the notion of randomness in the following way: what makes a sequence random is that its members are statistically independent of each other. For instance, a list of random numbers is such that one cannot predict better than chance any member of the list based upon a knowledge of the other list members.
To understand statistical independence, try the following experiment. Predict the next member of each of the two following sequences:
2, 3, 5, 7, __
1, 8, 6, 7, __
The first is the beginning of the sequence of prime numbers. The second is a random sequence gathered from the last digits of the first four numbers in a phone book. The first sequence is non-random, and predictable if one knows the way that it is generated. The second sequence is random and unpredictable—unless, of course, you look in the phone book, but that is not prediction, that is just looking at the sequence—because there is no underlying pattern to the sequence of last digits of telephone numbers in a phone book. The numbers in the second sequence are statistically independent.
Many gambling games are based upon randomly-generated, statistically independent sequences, such as the series of numbers generated by a roulette wheel, or by throws of unloaded dice. A fair coin produces a random sequence of "heads" or "tails", that is, each flip of the coin is statistically independent of all the other flips. This is what is meant by saying that the coin is "fair", namely, that it is not biased in such a way as to produce a predictable sequence.
Consider the Example: If the roulette wheel at the Casino was fair, then the probability of the ball landing on black was a little less than one-half on any given turn of the wheel. Also, since the wheel is fair, the colors that come up are statistically independent of one another, thus no matter how many times the ball has fallen on black, the probability is still the same. If it were possible to predict one color from others, then the wheel would not be a good randomizer. Remember that neither a roulette wheel nor the ball has a memory.
Every gambling "system" is based on this fallacy, or its Sibling. Any gambler who thinks that he can record the results of a roulette wheel, or the throws at a craps table, or lotto numbers, and use this information to predict future outcomes is probably committing some form of the gambler's fallacy. (Source nolinks://nolinks.fallacyfiles.org/gamblers.html (nolinks://nolinks.fallacyfiles.org/gamblers.html) )
The above articles explain why both the GUT and Signum can NOT work. Both systems are dependent on previous spins effecting future spins.
In other words, the blue prints for both systems are faulty.
-Landis
Quote from: Landis on November 16, 2009, 02:57:34 PM
Based on the above articles, it's easy to see why both the GUT and Signum System EC B& R can't work because both of them are dependent on previous spins effecting future spins.
Both systems clearly have faulty blue prints.
-Landis
To bad they aren't smart like me. My premise for bet selection is based on previous spins NOT effecting future spins. It's based on the exact science of confirming coincidence after it has happened.
QuoteI have never had a discussion of randomness that has not had to deal with someone that insists that my concepts can't predict what will happen. They never get it when I agree with them. Only they hang themselves up on the need for predictability.
Landis,
nobody can and wants to beat the ODDS cause that's impossible - IT's about beating the GAME. what does that mean? Simply to take advantage of certain phenomenons that can be seen when observing the random nature of numbers. Let's take the law of third for example...which we all know It's not a mathematical law,but It's fact that in a complete cycle of 37 spins more or less one third of the numbers will not show up. So as much as we have to be aware of the fact that every spin is indipendent from the previous one,we must also be aware of facts like this and try to use them to our advantage
The GUT and the law of third are TOOLS at disposition of the player and NOT mathematical provable methods cause they rely mainly on stocastic and statistical processes,therefore it doesn't make anysense to ask winkel to mathematically prove the GUT on math or physics forums - a great deal about winning with roulette requires an educated guessing(I agree when winkel talks about intelligent guessing) attitude with the help of these tools (unless you have a consistent winning flat bet,which is another matter..with that no guessing needed),and I for one I can say that properly and intelligently used the GUT can help you achieving the desired results,preferably combined with the LOT (that's how I play it)