The Holy Gral or G.U.T the Great Universal Theory

[mamas]

Hello Mr WINKEL,

As you are attacked from all sides I would like to support you through my results.

I do not play completely as you, I only play 17, 16, 15 numbers.

In three months of real RNG games I played 631 times :

17: 73 wins, 62 losses
16: 89 wins, 106 losses
15: 150 wins, 151 losses

Sigma: 3. 6

For 17, I only play the "1" if I have 17-17-3 at spin 23.

The way I play, I've tested over millions of spins.

In this case the standard deviation exceeds 10.

So GUT is really a system that beats roulette over the long term.

But as you said, it's like playing chess, it takes a minimum of strategy.

Best regards

Mamas.

[winkel]

Thanks for your comment.

I think a lot of people are playing it, but don´t tell. 

br
winkel

[WhiteKnight]

can this win with a mechanical bet?  if not, then how can this be a holy grail?

[winkel]

It is like the Holy Grail of King Arthur:

You don´t get it just as a present. you do have to work for it. and if you got it, you still have to work to get the fortune out of it.

There is nothing for free in the world.

You won´t get the holy grail by asking: Is this the Holy grail?
and you won´t get rich if the answer is yes!

[Noble Savage]

Oh please...

He asked a very legitimate question.

can this win with a mechanical bet?

No it can't. Winkel claimed it wins mechanically at first (and that he tested it via computer simulations but refused to show proof). Then a simulation was written by KonFuSed and the system was proved to be a loser.

It was only after THAT that Winkel started saying this is actually a subjective strategy and it doesn't work mechanically but you need "gambler's intelligence" to make it work.

Same old c-r-a-p fed to the uninformed.

[winkel]

Oh please...

He asked a very legitimate question.

No it can't. Winkel claimed it wins mechanically at first (and that he tested it via computer simulations but refused to show proof). Then a simulation was written by KonFuSed and the system was proved to be a loser.

It was only after THAT that Winkel started saying this is actually a subjective strategy and it doesn't work mechanically but you need "gambler's intelligence" to make it work.

Same old c-r-a-p fed to the uninformed.

don´t talk about things you don´t have the slightest idea of.

What Kon-Fu-Sed proofed was, that every single crossing on its own will lose longterm.

Roulette wouldn´t be a random game if that wasn´t true.
What I said and proofed is this:
In every sequence of 50 spins there are several crossings with several numbers of numbers to bet.
Gamblers intelligence and watching what is going on enables the player to avoid losing streaks and win winning streaks.

this I proofed with my stochastical math proof.

Just saying "it doesn´t proof" is not enough. Pls proof the opposite by giving the "better" stochastical arguments than I did.


Nearly every day I get messages " does it win?" "do you still play?" "Is it worth reading it?" "Can you proof" "Who does it play?"

I don´t answer these stupid questions anymore. It is proofed by TCS. The only reason he lost was "the devil in him" who made him place bets in a senseless way and making horrible progressions.

Everyone who is to lazy to read all those examples and tutorials and my math proof isn´t worth the HG

no reagrds

[Noble Savage]

It is proofed by TwoCatSam. The only reason he lost was "the devil in him"

How people take you folks seriously is beyond me.

[winkel]

How people take you folks seriously is beyond me.

Pls proof me wrong by telling me which of my stochastical arguments are wrong.

But you can´t, therefore you have to attack TCS and me this way, because you see that you have no arguments at all

so shut up and piss off

[Noble Savage]

You have posted no legitimate mathematical proof. I've seen those math formulas you posted in German and I had them verified. They are nonsense. Nice try.

People, do your proper research and investigation before you believe absurd people like Winkel. You'll be glad you did.

[winkel]

You have posted no legitimate mathematical proof. I've seen those math formulas you posted in German and I had them verified. They are nonsense. Nice try.

People, do your proper research and investigation before you believe absurd people like Winkel. You'll be glad you did.

What is wrong with them?

What is wrong with the teories of Kolmogoroff and Markov? Are they wrong?
It is called "universal" because it regards to nearly all stochastical theories and combines them to a strategy.

To proof me wrong would mean to proof Markov, Kolmogoroff an Döblin and Poincare and Ehrenfest wrong.

Try this, otherwise: see above

I think you only have empty phrases but no facts

[Spike!]

What is wrong with them? What is wrong with the teories of Kolmogoroff and Markov? Are they wrong?>>

Winkel, Noble Savage has no idea whats wrong with them. You insult his delicate sensibilities when you suggest you have found a way to win. So instead of answering you, he's posted that he's leaving the forum because we're all just too absurd for him to handle. He's only 22 and still wet behind the ears, he can't help himself..

[Herb6]

Here's the problem with Winkel's Gut system:



His crossings graphs have no meaning. For example, just because the number one has hit three times, it doesn't make it more or less likely to hit than the number two.

The graphs don't even account for the position of the numbers as they lay on the wheel. Therefore, they have no value whatsoever.  



For his system to work, past outcomes would have to somehow influence future outcomes.  Since the number of pockets remain the same from one spin to the next, the odds of a number hitting does not change at each new spin.  



Sorry Winkel, but you're wasting your time with this GUT stuff

[Spike!]

The experts have spoken, Winkel. If you're winning using GUT, according to them you really aren't. They have been taught what really wins, how dare you defy them..

[Coxx16]

*sigh*...we lost Winkel? He was one of our most active contributors.....

[shadow_2011]

Hello
I think the link is removed
I had published.
I try to attach the program
format.  zip.

[shadow_2011]

-