view at statistics

[winkel]

tilt

[winkel]

tilt

[Herb]

Can you imagine, that this has an influence on what we would have to bet when we find 13R after 37 spins?

Winkel,

I know your excited by what you think you have found.
However, it would have no influence whatsoever.  This is straight-up "Gambler's Fallacy".  Search Wikapedia for more information.

The so called, "Law of the Third" isn't going to tell you which numbers are likely to repeat any more than the law of 1 in 38 will.

[winkel]

to Herb

<°)))o><

or read this

nolinks://nolinks.thegamblersedge.com/propensity.htm

[Herb]

The author of the above article doesn't comprehend basic probability and is clearly trying to peddle his own gambling system or books.



Compitent  experts on gaming probability are:  Dr. Edward Thorp, and The Wizard of Odds.  


Make no mistake, roulette is indeed a game of independent trials.  This is not even debatable.   It's an absolute fact.  (Real mathematicians  also don't debate whether or not it is as the author states.  [smiley=grin.gif]  LOL!! )



For roulette to not be a game of independent trials, the dealer would have to block each number after it had hit. Unfortunately that doesn't happen.  

[winkel]

Now I have an idea how you live and what you wear:

You live in a cage and wear furs.

despite of that i will go on.

and to Herb: Don't destroy my circles if you´re not willing to think new ideas or to change your point of view.

If it was worth to read and to think about we will state at the end.

[winkel]

tilt

[Herb]

Those charts won't help you either.

Regarding remaining open to views.  Actually I do keep an open mind to methods that are rooted in the real world.

Regarding your methods:  I'm not going to try and prove you wrong at every turn, or point out the flaws of every system posted.  It's rare that I even read someones system.  In your case I just thought I would point out the big flaw, so that I could perhaps save you years of frustration and maybe some money.  That's all.
Sometimes just stating some probability basics can save people some money.  

If you chose to believe otherwise, well, that's ok too.  If your having fun with the system then, by all means, keep having fun with it.

[winkel]

You are thick as a brick.

did I ever tell something about a system I wanna demonstrate?
I just wanna show some statistical views.

But as I learned now, my statistical views are not wanted.

so bye to all.

at VLS please delete this whole thing.

br
winkel

edit: @ herb: now you can go to a chursche and the people there, that there is no God.

[Herb]

Grow up Winkel.

[TwoCatSam]

Well, what the devil??

I log on and the first post is "tilt".

winkel, what did you post?  I missed it.  I want to read it.  Put it back up.  I don't care what "everybody" or "anybody" knows, I like to read other people's opinions.

Sam

Edit:  Were you talking of Ellison?

[TwoCatSam]

Could we debate this for the sake of learning?

[TwoCatSam]

winkel

I am a moderator with the "delete" key and I can wipe screen clean if that's what you want.

Sam

[Herb]

We were discussing whether or not roulette was a game of independent trials and the law of the third.

Unfortunately Winkel didn't like the answers.

[RichardGraceFan]

To censor the forum in the light of a totally valid dialogue is wrong in my opinion.
When there is verbal abuse then edit/delete should be customary, but Herb has not been hitting anything other than winkel's views with appropriate arguments. In my judgment that is not a valid enough reason to remove a post.

Winkel, please repost. You wrote: "my statistical views are not wanted." But that is not the case as every input has a place to enrich our understanding of the game, yours included. Do not merely use one person not fond of what you expose (Herb) for extrapolating his opinion to the whole forum population.

Like TwoCatSam said: "Could we debate this for the sake of learning?". Such is the appropriate way to go. There are also non-participating readers which can benefit from this pondering of arguments too.

By the way, one thing is to go to anyone else's church and say loud "there is no god" just for the sake of reactions and an entirely different thing is to say "after considering your reasons I believe X or Y argument is not accurate because of... (Insert proper valid point here)". The latter can spark a very interesting discussion and that is the whole point of debating, especially when using an open website like this.

Yours truly
RGF

[RichardGraceFan]

-