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

[schoenpoetser]

Nobody on this forum shall deny the 50/50 chance for the next spin for EC.It is so many times said the next spin we cannot predict.After 10 times Red/Black I expect that in the next 10  spins  the Color shall repeat.The chance I am wrong is more than 1M.20 R/B happens in 2^20 spins. A successful player does not wager on the next spin but on what happens in a couple of spins.The large of the couple depends on the kind of the chance and the calculated risk

[MauiSunset]

Nobody on this forum shall deny the 50/50 chance for the next spin for EC.It is so many times said the next spin we cannot predict.After 10 times Red/Black I expect that in the next 10  spins  the Color shall repeat.The chance I am wrong is more than 1M.20 R/B happens in 2^20 spins. A successful player does not wager on the next spin but on what happens in a couple of spins.The large of the couple depends on the kind of the chance and the calculated risk

Wait a minute - there are folks here who "see" things and claim that they don't work with 50/50 odds anymore.  You see them bragging about their superhuman ability all the time; they are wrong of course.

If Red/Black shows up 10 times in a row, that means nothing to the next 10 spins - zip, zilch, nothing.

If you want to say that Red/Black just showed up 10 times in a row and thus I believe that the next 10 spins favor the same or opposite color, then that is Gambler's Fallacy.

The next 10 spins have NOTHING to do with the 10 spins before it.  The reason there is a Marquee at the Roulette pit is because the casino knows 95% of the folks betting believe in Gambler's Fallacy in one form or the other.  The casino simply wants to help the gamblers lose money with their fantasies....

[Zindrod]

Wait a minute - there are folks here who "see" things and claim that they don't work with 50/50 odds anymore.  You see them bragging about their superhuman ability all the time; they are wrong of course.

If Red/Black shows up 10 times in a row, that means nothing to the next 10 spins - zip, zilch, nothing.

If you want to say that Red/Black just showed up 10 times in a row and thus I believe that the next 10 spins favor the same or opposite color, then that is Gambler's Fallacy.

The next 10 spins have NOTHING to do with the 10 spins before it.  The reason there is a Marquee at the Roulette pit is because the casino knows 95% of the folks betting believe in Gambler's Fallacy in one form or the other.  The casino simply wants to help the gamblers lose money with their fantasies....

You are correct. Every spin is a new event.

[Mike]

@ Mike,

"VKM, I also asked you if you knew WHY conditions are favorable when you play your method, are you able to give me an answer?"

In the example we are talking about, I chose to play the method that I played because of the results the table (wheel) in that particular session had been consistantly producing.  Because of those results, I thought that the Conditions looked Favorable.  I was hoping for at least one win and I was fortunate that I started my betting while the conditions continued.  Winning the bets that I won confirmed that the Conditions were indeed Favorable.  As to WHY that unique stream of numbers resulted in those conditions at that specific time... I do not know. 

Thank goodness I didn't have to understand everything about it in order to take advantage of the situation.

VKM
     

So your reason for betting the way you did was because of "the results the wheel had consistently been producing". Why would you expect the wheel to continue to produce those results? Just because the wheel had produced a particular pattern doesn't mean anything unless you have some OTHER reason for believing that the pattern was the way it was. The mere existence of the pattern doesn't indicate a favorable opportunity unless you believe that those previous spins you observed somehow indicate what will follow:

"The reversal is also a fallacy, the inverse gambler's fallacy, in which a gambler may instead decide that tails are more likely out of some mystical preconception that fate has thus far allowed for consistent results of tails; the false conclusion being: Why change if odds favor tails? Again, the fallacy is the belief that the "universe" somehow carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes."

If you had some evidence that the wheel was tending to favor red (or the non-continuation of blacks beyond 3) then it might indeed be a favorable bet, but the mere fact of seeing the pattern that you did doesn't constitute evidence, because random numbers will produce those outcomes at times without any external causes. It might indeed be the case that there was some influence which you weren't aware of which was causing the pattern, but without any knowledge of it, you are relying solely on luck.

[gizmotron]

1.) ...Why would you expect the wheel to continue to produce those results?...

2.) ..."Why change if odds favor tails?" ...

3.) "If you had some evidence that the wheel was tending to favor red (or the non-continuation of blacks beyond 3) then it might indeed be a favorable bet, but the mere fact of seeing the pattern that you did doesn't constitute evidence, because random numbers will produce those outcomes at times without any external causes. It might indeed be the case that there was some influence which you weren't aware of which was causing the pattern, but without any knowledge of it, you are relying solely on luck."

Answers:
1.) It's a fallacy to insist that following trends is about expectation. Apparently it's the only way you can relate to the concept of following an existing trend. Why do you do that? Everyone that objects to this method always gets stuck on that expectation thing. I really don't know how to get around it. It's like a straw man argument and the straw man is somehow made of steal. Could it be that it's easy to assume that it's about expectation and so disagreement on subjective terms is an easy point? We are here to discuss beating this game. It's hard enough to deal with real concepts. People can't learn in a vacuum. At this point all I see are rose colored glasses and blinders. I hope you get this this time. It's not about expectation.

2.) The odds never favor tails. Again, that's the expectation argument. At least I think that was what was implied.

3.) Is it luck allowing yourself an opportunity to form in front of you? At first it's just a mirage, but when it forms up it becomes real. It does this completely by luck. But was it luck to take the chance in the first place? What would it be if you never took the chance? I'm mostly fascinated by those that believe the better strategy is to never take the chance. To never attack the mirage so that it can never become real. If you don't have a method or reason to attack the casino when it is vulnerable, real or not, then you are missing out on the most effective way to win at this game. People that count cards know this. They even bring in the teams with their best attacker all ready to go. Once they have a reason to see an advantage they attack. The reason does not have to be backed up by mathematical advantage. The reason can be a mirage and their is also nothing that can prevent the mirage from becoming real.

Can you see the difference between any reason for a perception of an advantage and expectation?

[gizmotron]

You are correct. Every spin is a new event.

Great. Now let's do the math.

Spin number one is a new event. It's red, odds were 50/50.

Same for the next nine spins. They were all new events. All Red. Odds were 50/50 for each spin.

So when the next ten spins did the same thing, you got it. New events, Red, and 50/50 for each new event.

The only conclusion must be that 20 reds in a row is a 50/50 chance. That's wonderful.

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

Following a trend is no better or worse than following a mirage.
But sometimes the mirage is right in line with the real thing.
- Gizmotron.

So true, risk the initial bet.

Glenn.

[VKM]

@ Mike,

Your post was well thought out and well presented.

"So your reason for betting the way you did was because of "the results the wheel had consistently been producing". Why would you expect the wheel to continue to produce those results? Just because the wheel had produced a particular pattern doesn't mean anything unless you have some OTHER reason for believing that the pattern was the way it was. The mere existence of the pattern doesn't indicate a favorable opportunity unless you believe that those previous spins you observed somehow indicate what will follow."

Being aware of the results that the wheel was producing in that particular session, and even without having any idea why the wheel was producing those results,  I had no reason to believe that the current conditions would change.  

Information, that I noticed in those past spins, created in my mind, what appeared to be favorable conditions to win at least one bet.  I acted on that information and as a result I won several bets, which confirmed that in that particular session, what appeared to be favorable conditions were favorable conditions.


VKM

   
           

[VKM]

Gizmo,

Your post #79.

Very good. 

VKM

[pins]

so after ten reds i put my bet on red . its easy to be wise after the event.

[gizmotron]

Capt. here's some more. It doesn't matter what your bet selection process is based on. You can have any consistent reason for making it. You can use anything. All it has to do is produce win streaks. I don't mean you can use a huge expensive progression. I mean something simple. In the end you play bigger bets on your win streaks and the lowest allowable bets when it's not a win streak.

Now that includes a domination of blacks with a few sparsely occasioned reds. You are seeing 80% blacks in a big streak. That of course is using a trend to make a choice. But it's also a good time to attack.

Here is another perfectly good system to play roulette with. Let's say there are 16 table games surrounding the area where you are playing your Roulette at. So you look at each table. If there are an even number of people playing at table #1 then you bet even on the next bet. Then for the next bet you go on to table #2 and bet odd or even on that next bet at your Roulette table. You do this until you have all 16 tables played. People come and go so it changes a little all night from odd or even. Like I said. The reason for the bet selection does not have to be about trends. It's just that I use them to detect win streaks. So with this simple odd/even bet selection process you can detect win streaks too.

In the end it's not about  money management. It's about attack management.  I said so two weeks ago. This game is about play management. If you can't tell you are in a win streak then I don't know where to start. I suppose it does need to be taught some how. I learned it the hard way. I sure can tell when I'm not in a win streak. I was told more than 30 years ago to "bet big when you are winning." This is not a revelation discovered by me. It's been around for ages.

[gizmotron]

so after ten reds I put my bet on red . its easy to be wise after the event.

It's not as hard as you think. So after ten reds you get ten more. That happens or you get a black on the eleventh  spin. But it works like this too. You lose $500 or you get $5000.

At some point you must use play management. You ask your self questions like is the session going well? Are my guesses keeping up with a consistent winning strategy? If you get ten $500 losses in a session then guess what. You should have gotten out of that bad session. You must use your mind and your memory like a well oiled tool. This is not about having fun. This is about war.

You just demonstrated a simple guess. You need to add context to your guessing. There's far more to this than just simple bet selections. Two years ago I suggested that you need to test the waters as you go. I was disclosing my secrets all the way back then. Now you have context for that.

[Mike]

Can you see the difference between any reason for a perception of an advantage and expectation?

Gizmo, yes I can. We've had this discussion earlier in the thread. In reply #48 you said (your reply in blue):

I understand what Gizmo is saying regarding not trying to predict future spins. Yes, you can play for "coincidence" and just guessing that a trend may continue, but the reality is that sometimes it will and sometimes it won't, and the number of times you get it wrong and lose 1 unit, vs the number of times you get it right and make a profit, will eventually balance out so that you win/lose the expected amount.


That's not true. It does not balance out. You don't know what the global effect is. You can't see how it also applies. And I won't teach it on this forum. I've learned that lesson the hard way.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "global" effect but assuming it means the pattern over a longer spin history, then why should this "global" effect not be subject to the same laws as a "local" effect (meaning the more recent pattern) - what reason is there for me to believe otherwise?

But really, there isn't much point in this endless back and forth, it beats me why you don't just shut us all up by giving a demo. If you did that we would all be put in our place and you would be proved right. Notice that I'm not asking for a full revelation of your method, just a demonstration of its effectiveness. If you don't want to do it publicly maybe we could arrange something privately?

[Mike]

Being aware of the results that the wheel was producing in that particular session, and even without having any idea why the wheel was producing those results,  I had no reason to believe that the current conditions would change.  

Information, that I noticed in those past spins, created in my mind, what appeared to be favorable conditions to win at least one bet.  I acted on that information and as a result I won several bets, which confirmed that in that particular session, what appeared to be favorable conditions were favorable conditions.

VKM
   

Ok, well you had no reason to believe the current conditions would CONTINUE either, so rationally, the decision to bet or not should have been 50/50. The fact that you won several bets doesn't confirm that the bet was favorable; you haven't considered the alternative explanation: that it was pure luck.

Naturally, if you've been playing like this for years and winning (I'm talking at least several thousand placed bets) then luck as an explanation doesn't seem very plausible.

Are you claiming that you win consistently playing this way?

[zippyplayer]

Very interesting gentlemen i thank you

i believe Zindrod & Mike have it

[zippyplayer]

-