It is just a matter of knowing what the wheel is throwing at the time.

[gizmotron]

Make it three outcomes, like three dozens, and the parameters expand greatly.

That's true. But things can be balanced out. It takes two bets, a win and a loss to balance the EC's. It takes three bets, two wins and one loss to balance the three dozens. I get some things that really tend to continue lasting a full third longer in the three dozens than I do in any of the EC's. I honed my skills in the dozens and columns. I couldn't get comfortable in the EC's, not like I am in the dozens. And there is no way I can get a computer to do it. I'm sick of looking at the code.

[cheese]

Can you give an example of how a RNG is not true random specifically?  What differences do you notice specifically btw true random and fake pseudo random?

My method is inconsistent on RNG's, and its not on real random. The numbers I get from random.org are fine, they aren't fine from a computer RNG. And numbers from an online casino are trash, they're a joke. Computer RNG numbers are inconsistent, they work for awhile and then they don't. In the long run they look identical, in the short term they're not.

[cheese]

I honed my skills in the dozens and columns. I couldn't get comfortable in the EC's, not like I am in the dozens.

The dozens cover 24 numbers, thats a huge fat cushion to fall back on. It way easier to bet there than with 18 numbers. But the problem is, you can get into trouble so fast with the dozens that it makes your head spin, and thats flat betting.

[gizmotron]

The dozens cover 24 numbers, thats a huge fat cushion to fall back on. It way easier to bet there than with 18 numbers. But the problem is, you can get into trouble so fast with the dozens that it makes your head spin, and thats flat betting.

That's 100% true and can only be known by experience. I know this too. You can get killed off in just three losses. When the goal is only to win a few and quit you can get behind real fast. Unless you are good, very good.

[curious]

If you are saying that the previous 5 spins do not gauranty what the next spin will be, then you are 100% absolutely Right!  Everybody knows that.

If you are suggesting that there is NO POSSIBILITY of ANY useful information contained in the recent past spins of
a roulette session, then you are 100% absolutely Wrong!  But you are not alone.



VKM

   

Then explain how the past spins are useful information.

[cheese]

That's 100% true and can only be known by experience. I know this too. You can get killed off in just three losses. When the goal is only to win a few and quite you can get behind real fast. Unless you are good, very good.

I would never play dozens in a casino, I would be afraid of the zeros. Always being able to recover quickly is a big part of roulette. Its very hard to remain upbeat when you're always trying to climb out of a hole. Staying around even is much easier flat betting EC's, and it beats the heck out of losing.

[curious]

I would never play dozens in a casino, I would be afraid of the zeros. Always being able to recover quickly is a big part of roulette. Its very hard to remain upbeat when you're always trying to climb out of a hole. Staying around even is much easier flat betting EC's, and it beats the heck out of losing.

Why are you not afraid of the zeros on the EC bets?

[Mike]

Mike,

I disagree (mildly) with you.  I think unless you do know how cheese plays his game within the game, then you can't discuss it rationally.  It's not because you're not rational (you're alot more rational that I am or choose to be).
It's just that you (and everyone else here) lacks that important info.  Without it, no correct conclusions can be made other than that "It doesn't make sense yet".

VKM

I disagree. The statements cheese made stand on their own as logically inconsistent. You don't need to know what the game is to see that. What he has said is that spins are independent and at the same time spins are not independent. I think anyone should be able to see that this is meaningless.

And what a strange thing to say: "you're alot more rational that I am or choose to be"

It's as though you believe to be rational is to be closed-minded. Being rational doesn't mean that at all. It means you are sceptical and don't take a CLAIM to be a FACT; it means you require evidence before changing your beliefs.

I was open-minded to the possibility winning at roulette through some kind of non-physics based method, but in my search I never found any evidence that it was possible in the long run. No-one has unlimited time and resources so I widened my search to include physics and found a way to win, but that doesn't mean that I've closed my mind to the possibilty.

[VKM]

I disagree. The statements cheese made stand on their own as logically inconsistent. You don't need to know what the game is to see that. What he has said is that spins are independent and at the same time spins are not independent. I think anyone should be able to see that this is meaningless.

And what a strange thing to say: "you're alot more rational that I am or choose to be"

It's as though you believe to be rational is to be closed-minded. Being rational doesn't mean that at all. It means you are sceptical and don't take a CLAIM to be a FACT; it means you require evidence before changing your beliefs.

I was open-minded to the possibility winning at roulette through some kind of non-physics based method, but in my search I never found any evidence that it was possible in the long run. No-one has unlimited time and resources so I widened my search to include physics and found a way to win, but that doesn't mean that I've closed my mind to the possibilty.

Mike,

If you are really just interested in the consistancy of what cheese thinks about the independence of individual spins,
then I was looking too far ahead, because I thought that what you were interested in was, how cheese manages to win.  That would require that missing information that I was talking about.

Next: Sometimes I'm rational and sometimes I'm not.  Sometimes I choose not to be.  (If you knew me better that would make more sense)  I don't believe that to be rational is to be closed-minded, but I also don't place rational thought above other avenues to truth or knowledge, such as intuition.  I never think for something to be true is dependent on my believing it's true.  The truth also doesn't depend on my knowing why it's true.

I am sincerely happy that you have found a way to win using physics.

I don't think that everybody on the forums who says they have a way to win are really winning.  I don't know what you actually do and I don't have any evidence how good you are at it, but I believe you when you say you've found a way to win.
I don't agree with everything cheese says, but I believe he has figured out a way to win and I'm happy for him.  As for HOW he actually plays, I do not know.

VKM

     

[cheese]

What he has said is that spins are independent and at the same time spins are not independent.

No I didn't, thats what you want to believe. You think if they're independent, they're worthless, and you can't wrap you're mind around anything else. The earth is flat and anybody who says it isn't is deluded, is what you think. Thats why you ask the same questions over and over, you're like a cop interrogating a suspect and trying to trip him up.

[VKM]

curious,

Then explain how the past spins are useful information.

In this topic read my following posts.  #14 #28 #39 # 44 #55 #73 #82 #92 #96.
They give a good real life example. 


VKM

[curious]

No I didn't, thats what you want to believe. You think if they're independent, they're worthless, and you can't wrap you're mind around anything else. The earth is flat and anybody who says it isn't is deluded, is what you think. Thats why you ask the same questions over and over, you're like a cop interrogating a suspect and trying to trip him up.

I read your same comments and I have no idea what you are talking about.  So, explain it.

[cheese]

I read your same comments and I have no idea what you are talking about.  So, explain it.

Why? All you want is to cause trouble.

[curious]

Why? All you want is to cause trouble.

Where have I caused trouble?  I have asked people to back up their claims with facts and have asked people to explain things that most do not understand.

[Mike]

No I didn't, thats what you want to believe. You think if they're independent, they're worthless, and you can't wrap you're mind around anything else. The earth is flat and anybody who says it isn't is deluded, is what you think. Thats why you ask the same questions over and over, you're like a cop interrogating a suspect and trying to trip him up.

Not in so many words, but you said it.

reply #272

"Past spins have no obvious relevance, unless you find an out of the box way to make them relevant."

reply  #276

I say over and over that spins are TOTALLY independent. They're so independent I can take unconnected spins from two unconnected wheels and put them together and get the same results. They don't point to anything, they point to nothing.

How is it possible to reconcile these two statements? that's all I'm asking.

[Mike]

-