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

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day Pins,

the greatest brains in the world have said nobody can beat roulette in the long run. from playing the game I have come to the conclusion that they are right.

Those original people didn't have access to computers, internet or skype,
The more recent people are most likely close minded (math focused) or those that just didn't find their way to a HG,
and now just follow the well worn self satisfying belief of the other unenlightened forerunners.

Steve, Cheese / Spike, Gizmo, Nathan Detroit and others have all written posts or parts of posts stating that certain things "don't work', "won't last" etc that are actually part of my method / system which can't lose and these are people that are long time winners, so when a self confessed loser comes along........how much credence should they be given?

you can win for a week a month . but one day you will go to the casino and the system does not work.

I have stated that mine works using both a negative as well as a positive progression,
therefore one has to at some stage overtake the other and negate all losses.

if you had a h.g. why would you want to share it with people you do not know.

Have you ever heard of charity? People give away money and then don't have it, I was offering you the idea, I was still going to possess it for myself, I was doing this to a stranger, WHO LIVES IN THE SAME GREAT CITY AS ME, 'BONDING'
I have a track record for giving it away to people for nothing, (coincidental, they're the sort of women I like)!

if I had a h.g. I would be getting rich .

I retired at the age of 43 before ever making a bet, I AM RICH!!

all the systems in the world will fail in the long run. but we live in hope.

Not much needed to be said here, LOSER,(not necessarily as a person,
but certainly overall or at lest sometimes at Roulette), DREAMER!! Lost that opportunity!!

Glenn.

[pins]

methinks you protest too much.

[Mike]

A person can win in their imagination that causes a win at the roulette table. How does that help? Try to notice that this was not a miss quote.

If the win in your imagination causes a win at the roulette table, it means that there is a link between past spins and future spins. Can you see that this must be true?

Cheese denies it, and there's no point in continuing a discussion if people can't even agree on a basic point like that. Either there is a link between past and future spins, or there isn't. It doesn't matter how remote the chain of correlation is, or what convoluted processes you put the raw spins through to arrive at your bet; if your bet selection is producing more wins than expectation and you're using past spins to arrive at your selection, it proves that spins aren't independent.

You both seem to be confusing the SUBJECTIVE process of choosing the bet (whether it be through "inventing another game",  perceived trends etc) with the OBJECTIVE process of actually winning more than you lose, based only on observing past outcomes. If your subjective bet selection process results in objective wins (meaning that anyone would get the same results using the same process) then past results cannot be meaningless. If you can't acknowledge this basic logic, then any further discussion is pointless.

[Mike]

G'day,

I use a method that includes net betting, both positive & negative progressions, with martingale features,
covers every possible combination on an EC up to a 20 decision cycle resulting in it having to be a profit!

Glenn.

There are over 1 million permutations of 20 spins. Are you sure this is what you mean?

[cheese]

Cheese denies it, and there's no point in continuing a discussion if people can't even agree on a basic point like that. Either there is a link between past and future spins, or there isn't.

I don't understand how there is confusion. The spins are independent, random events. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.

[Mike]

YOU are "proving" otherwise because you claim to win more than expectation by using past spins to choose your next bet. That's the contradiction.

Using past spins is the "cause" of you winning. Never mind that the spins are "processed" before making your selection, the link must be there if what you claim is true.

[cheese]

Never mind that the spins are "processed" before making your selection, the link must be there if what you claim is true.

I don't know what to tell you. The spins aren't connected, its an impossibility. Its like that puzzle you see in a kids book, where the face of an old man is in the branches. You can't see it for a long time, and when you finally do see it, you can't 'not' see it again. Its there everyhtime you look.

[Mike]

If you use past spins as a guide and win above expectation and if when you don't use past spins you win according to expectation, then it shows that past spins are a "cause" of you winning, therefore (if it's true that you win) future spins cannot be independent of past spins.

This is just common sense as used in everyday life and science. It's not my fault if you can't see the logic. This has nothing to do with whether you actually win or not, it just means that you can't consistently say spins are independent and also that you win by using past spins. Again, if you're not interested in being consistent I can't do anything about that, just don't expect to be taken seriously.  

[cheese]

Again, if you're not interested in being consistent I can't do anything about that, just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Oh, I'm extremely consistent and have been for years. I never expect to be taken seriously and could care less if I am. I post here for me, not you. I learn when I'm challenged. I taught high school for one year after I graduated from college, and realized that I learned 10 times more in my class than any of my students did. Most teachers feel that way. Actually, you've asked me several questions nobody ever asked me and it really made me think. Thats great, from my standpoint. Mostly, I have to wade thru an army of mouth breathing cretins to get just one good question, and you asked me several.

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day Mike,

I use a method that includes net betting, both positive & negative progressions, with martingale features,
covers every possible combination on an EC up to a 20 decision cycle resulting in it having to be a profit!

There are over 1 million permutations of 20 spins. Are you sure this is what you mean?

This seems to be an ongoing problem for 'challenged people',
either not reading correctly or understanding said written words,
UP TO......................RESULTING in it having to be a PROFIT!,
If my selection is 2 units on Red / Black (though I prefer / play Baccarat) and Red / Black comes in, that is,
UP TO......................RESULTING in it having to be a PROFIT!,
or it might only take 10 - 14 decisions to make a 8 unit profit.

Where does the 1 million permutations come into the equation now?

No wonder Gizmo & Spike Cheese gets so antsy with the less knowledgable.
First the not following basic english, then misquoting (not in this case),
& the always popular condescending 'Are you sure this is what you mean?' idea!

Glenn.

[Mike]

No wonder Gizmo & Spike Cheese gets so antsy with the less knowledgable.

According to your previous posts regarding Spike and Gizmo, they count as the less knowledgeable too. Still, if it fits your agenda, that's what counts eh?

And yes, "up to" means you will eventually need a plan for each of the 20 million permutations.

Don't tell me; "I'm never going to play 20 million spins in my lifetime". 

[Mike]

Oh, I'm extremely consistent and have been for years.

Not this time. 

[Mike]

I retired at the age of 43 before ever making a bet, I AM RICH!!

And *modified by mod*, apparently.
.....

warning

(iggiv)

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day Mike,

As far as Gizmo & Cheese / Spike are concerned, YES, I don't agree with some of their beliefs.

And yes, "up to" means you will eventually need a plan for each of the 20 million permutations.
Don't tell me; "I'm never going to play 20 million spins in my lifetime".

There aren't 20 million permutations involved,
you are let down in your analisis by a combination of ignorance and misuse of sarcasm.

I'm a LOMBARD, - Lots Of Money, But A Real Dickhead!

Glenn.

[gizmotron]

If the win in your imagination causes a win at the roulette table, it means that there is a link between past spins and future spins. Can you see that this must be true?

There's a greater link through Predictive Inference. But because a respected mathematician hasn't come forward and proven an advantage exists in Roulette yet the frequintists feel safe. But here is your linkage. Like it or not.

Predictive inference is an interpretation of probability that emphasizes the prediction of future observations based on past observations.

nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_inference

Initially, predictive inference based on observable parameters was the main function of probability, but it fell out of favor in the 20th century due to a new parametric approach pioneered by Bruno de Finetti. The approach modeled phenomena as a physical system observed with error (e.g., celestial mechanics). De Finetti's idea of exchangeability–-that future observations should behave like past observations–-came to the attention of the English-speaking world with the 1974 translation of his 1937 book Foresight: its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources

nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeability

Exchangeable random variables: "

In statistics, an exchangeable sequence of random variables (also sometimes interchangeable) is a sequence such that future samples behave like earlier samples, meaning formally that any order (of a finite number of samples) is equally likely. This formalizes the notion of "the future being predictable on the basis of past experience."

A sequence of independent and identically-distributed random variables (i.i.d.) is exchangeable, but so is sampling without replacement, which is not independent.

The notion is central to Bruno de Finetti's development of predictive inference and to Bayesian statistics — where frequentist statistics uses variables (samples from a population), Bayesian statistics more frequently uses exchangeable sequences. They are a key way in which Bayesian inference is "data-centric" (based on past and future observations), rather than "model-centric", as exchangeable sequences that are not, cannot be modeled as "sampling from a fixed population".

[gizmotron]

-