### Author Topic: Re: To all mathematician here  (Read 3855 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1432
• Thanked: 212 times
• Gender:
##### Re: To all mathematician here
« on: January 21, 2016, 12:50:12 AM »
Dr. Talos,

At this point you guys are merely gambling.   In time your luck will run out as the house edge consumes your bankroll.

Sorry, just the facts,

-Really

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1432
• Thanked: 212 times
• Gender:
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2016, 11:37:43 PM »
Quote
I have been testing simply betting the "last event". Meaning if you had red-red,
there was no change. So bet red again. Or if it was red-black, there was a change.
So bet red, for a change.-Mogul

Mogul,

If the number of pockets on the wheel remains the same from one spin to the next, then why would it matter whether or not the last spin was red or black?

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1432
• Thanked: 212 times
• Gender:
##### Re: The Parachute roulette strategy (best ever?)
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2016, 11:57:00 PM »
Guys,

You can't "side step" or "trick" probability just by looking for rare events or events that are "due."

In the random game, the probability of the next event will always be greater than the house payout, regardless of the dance that you perform.

You've stepped into the trap that is the gambler's fallacy.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 02:57:53 AM by kav »

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1432
• Thanked: 212 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2016, 05:06:50 AM »
And you are recycling the same old GF ideas.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1432
• Thanked: 212 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2016, 05:08:55 AM »

Quote
Because we all have seen 50 of an EC in a row right?-Reyth

Well, if you stand around and wait for 45 in a row, then you have about a 1 in 32 chance of seeing 50 in a row. (No Zeros)

If you're really patient and you stand around and wait for 49 in a row, then you have about a 1 in 2 chance of seeing 50 in a row.  (No Zeros)

-Really
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 05:12:58 AM by Real »

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Duncan

• New
• Posts: 94
• Thanked: 50 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2016, 07:53:14 AM »
Mr Real.
We all do appreciate the things you say about the pockets and the maths of roulette and most of us we really know the things you say.
We can t argue with what you say because they are REAL
BUT here is a roulette forum and this means that we all try to find something that is impossible.
Maybe we are crazy , maybe we live in our falacy .
My point is that we are trying to explore IF there a pattern or something that can have a better probability than the expected... a wave in randomness to ride etc.
So IMO posting the same things all over isn t helping in any way.I mean there is no point in posting that roulette can t be beaten with patterns etc.
Would you like to participate in our journey?( I guess not)
You can take it that its our hobby ... in our free time we are dreaming that randomness may have a way to be managed and take this advantage to make money.
Personally speaking I know that it is impossible but I feel better exploring than stopping.
It s not like a mania its like a hobby.
I know you have a good understanding in Bias and VB . So If you like to contribute to this forum why don t you post things about your field?  Then you will have a real reason to be in here.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Bayes

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 562 times
• roulettician.com
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2016, 09:43:58 AM »
I see Real now has his own section. Good Idea!

Each time he attempts to hijack a thread the post could be diverted to here - the GF Dump. No need to even check what he's written because they're all variations on the same theme.

« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 09:46:01 AM by Bayes »

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Bayes

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 562 times
• roulettician.com
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2016, 10:22:29 AM »
I know you have a good understanding in Bias and VB . So If you like to contribute to this forum why don t you post things about your field?  Then you will have a real reason to be in here.

What you have to remember about Real is that his purpose in posting in the forums (like it is in the "real" world - pun intended) is to locate vulnerable wheels. He has been quite explicit about that elsewhere. He's looking for contacts - the more the better. So it wouldn't make sense for him to give any credence to systems or any method of play which doesn't involve physical aspects of the game. A key part of the strategy in his "recruitment campaign" is to trash the competition, i.e. systems. The more readers and posters he can convince that systems are worthless, the more potential contacts he has. Simple as that.

I know the constant "trolling" can be annoying, but I don't think he's a troll in the usual sense in that he's deliberately trying to get a reaction, nor do I think he really cares one way or the other whether anyone understands the received truth about systems; he's not doing it for idealistic reasons or to "save" roulette players from the gambler's fallacy; his reasons are more personal than that (and not saying that's a bad thing, it's just something to keep in mind when you read his posts).

So it's a big waste of time trying to explain your reasons for thinking that there can be merit in systems, or trying to "prove" that they can work. It wouldn't suit his agenda to even acknowledge that possibility. It's not that he has tried systems and only then turned to AP, having found them wanting; he has never been interested in them and never will be.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth, gizmotron

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1467
• Thanked: 839 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2016, 11:32:49 AM »
I know you have a good understanding in Bias and VB . So If you like to contribute to this forum why don t you post things about your field?  Then you will have a real reason to be in here.

What you have to remember about Real is that his purpose in posting in the forums (like it is in the "real" world - pun intended) is to locate vulnerable wheels. He has been quite explicit about that elsewhere. He's looking for contacts - the more the better. So it wouldn't make sense for him to give any credence to systems or any method of play which doesn't involve physical aspects of the game. A key part of the strategy in his "recruitment campaign" is to trash the competition, i.e. systems. The more readers and posters he can convince that systems are worthless, the more potential contacts he has. Simple as that.

I know the constant "trolling" can be annoying, but I don't think he's a troll in the usual sense in that he's deliberately trying to get a reaction, nor do I think he really cares one way or the other whether anyone understands the received truth about systems; he's not doing it for idealistic reasons or to "save" roulette players from the gambler's fallacy; his reasons are more personal than that (and not saying that's a bad thing, it's just something to keep in mind when you read his posts).

So it's a big waste of time trying to explain your reasons for thinking that there can be merit in systems, or trying to "prove" that they can work. It wouldn't suit his agenda to even acknowledge that possibility. It's not that he has tried systems and only then turned to AP, having found them wanting; he has never been interested in them and never will be.
Interesting? Is it about same Real l know?
Qwote from his book :
" There have been countless mathematical systems created for the random game. All of them fail miserably because the player still has a negative expectation each spin, regardless of the amount wagered. However, what happens when the player has a positive expectation each spin?
Answer: Many of these worthless mathematical systems can then actually work! The key is that you have the advantage each spin, provided that you are only wagering on BIAS numbers. Regardless of the amount you wager on a bias number each spin, your expectation is a positive one. Have some fun playing around with some of these different systems."
As you can see, Real is not egeinst systems themselves. ... his argument is always same : " Need to address issue of HE".
I myself say the same. Let's find favorable bets thru physical ways ( vb/ bias) and then explore generated advantage with all means that system play may offer.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Bayes

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 562 times
• roulettician.com
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2016, 12:45:01 PM »
I myself say the same. Let's find favorable bets thru physical ways ( vb/ bias) and then explore generated advantage with all means that system play may offer.

Once you've found a favourable bet you don't need a system. And the money management is simple too. You may agree with Real, but at least you don't hijack system threads in multiple forums with "it won't work". It must as boring for Real to keep writing it as it is for those who have to read it, but if it gets him more contacts and biased wheels I guess it must be worth the trouble.

My point was that for Real it isn't really about: "fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time", or "stopping the infection of ignorance". There's another reason for the constant system bashing.

« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 12:48:50 PM by Bayes »

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1467
• Thanked: 839 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2016, 02:04:49 PM »
I myself say the same. Let's find favorable bets thru physical ways ( vb/ bias) and then explore generated advantage with all means that system play may offer.

Once you've found a favourable bet you don't need a system. And the money management is simple too. You may agree with Real, but at least you don't hijack system threads in multiple forums with "it won't work". It must as boring for Real to keep writing it as it is for those who have to read it, but if it gets him more contacts and biased wheels I guess it must be worth the trouble.

My point was that for Real it isn't really about: "fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time", or "stopping the infection of ignorance". There's another reason for the constant system bashing.
It's wrong to think that one's you found wheel, bet - you are automatically OK.  Exploration of favorable opportunities is not a skill , it's a science.  One can do everything wright and still loose money due to mistake in edge estimation and/ or money management. Find situable wheel is easiest part ( they are everywhere), determine how to squize money out of it , it's all other story.
I do not know about others, l spend far more time on data analysis and tracking then playing itself.
You say bashing systems... l do not see systems or folks who speak them , besides one or two probably. People recicle old ideas over and over, it's a road to nowhere. Problem is not systems, it's odds. While odds are in favor of casino- casino wins.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2194
• Thanked: 469 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2016, 02:56:54 PM »
I myself say the same. Let's find favorable bets thru physical ways ( vb/ bias) and then explore generated advantage with all means that system play may offer.

Once you've found a favourable bet you don't need a system. And the money management is simple too. You may agree with Real, but at least you don't hijack system threads in multiple forums with "it won't work". It must as boring for Real to keep writing it as it is for those who have to read it, but if it gets him more contacts and biased wheels I guess it must be worth the trouble.

My point was that for Real it isn't really about: "fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time", or "stopping the infection of ignorance". There's another reason for the constant system bashing.

Once you've found a favourable bet you don't need a system.

I agree Bayes and have said so before . This was what the old- timers did . Find a bias and bet the  numbers in the biased areas.  No need for any other calculations.
That was then and this is now and Physicists would scorn the idea that you can find a modern wheel that is so biased that it could be exploited. I read somewhere that Real’s hero ,Laurence Scott , admits that his idea may not work with modern wheels.
So the notion that you can find such a wheel is itself  likely to be a fallacy .
I have challenged Real to tell me a Physicist that agrees that he can find such a wheel -in a corporation owned casino . He has failed to do so  and that, I think, is because there are none.
Is his Real  purpose in trashing systems  to lure the gullible into paying  him for his help ? If his book is free why doesn’t he post it on this and other forums . I think he is afraid to post it here because it would give us the opportunity to LO.L.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4070
• Thanked: 1355 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2016, 04:09:43 PM »

« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 06:04:13 PM by kav »

The following users thanked this post: ShadowBlue

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1467
• Thanked: 839 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2016, 05:51:12 PM »
I myself say the same. Let's find favorable bets thru physical ways ( vb/ bias) and then explore generated advantage with all means that system play may offer.

Once you've found a favourable bet you don't need a system. And the money management is simple too. You may agree with Real, but at least you don't hijack system threads in multiple forums with "it won't work". It must as boring for Real to keep writing it as it is for those who have to read it, but if it gets him more contacts and biased wheels I guess it must be worth the trouble.

My point was that for Real it isn't really about: "fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time", or "stopping the infection of ignorance". There's another reason for the constant system bashing.
OK,  Bayes, if it's so simple, l will post 600 numbers , you make your predictions ( structure bet, progression... ets). And then l post 300 more so we  can verify how did you perform on such an easy task. OK?  I'll post when arrive home.

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1467
• Thanked: 839 times
##### Re: Gambler's Fallacy Mega thread
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2016, 12:54:58 PM »
@Scepticus, Bayes, here is your chance, guys. You can show your undrestanding in what is related to determining bet and proper progression.
on the link provided there is 300 spins results. Structure your bet and progression to win at least 3k on next 100 spins or 15k on next 200 spins

https://mega.nz/#!1xUQlDxC!XYN32pQYh06koofKQ0GJV22x8skfiq2a4siHYPchB1U

Task is obviosly possible and relatively simple.
initial bank- 100 . minimum bet is 1/number . maximum (if you need it)- 10000/number. After you both submitted your bet and strategy sudgestions, l will post 200 spins more , so we can see how you guys performed.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 01:03:58 PM by kav »