Mike

Your posts are so similar to ones we've seen before.  You have beat your head against the rock for years and you've decided since you can't do it, no one can.  You're like the guy who has quit smoking and belittles everyone who does.  You're like the fat man who's lost weight.  And on and on......

We get it.  Two and two will never equal five.  The math is against us.  And on and on........

Let me pose a question:  There is a basketball court.  At one end is a normal goal.  At the other end, there is one exactly ten times the diameter of the normal goal.  Which end do you think people would shoot at? 

Let me ask you a direct question:  Do you believe the person exists who makes money from roulette?

Let me ask you another question.  We've all seen this:  R B R B R B  What have we not seen is that for 100 spins?  Why do some series come into the fray?  In the world of math, physics or mathematics, there is nothing saying you can get 100 R B in a row, but you don't. 

Tell me why...........

You come on this forum stating the obvious as if we needed to hear it.  You intimate we are fools, stupid people, country bumpkins and on and on.......

Tell us about Mike.  What can you do? 

TwoCat

"There are those who do and those who criticize".......Whomever

Here is a screen shot of Normy's bot.  You will note there are 31 spins, 20 of whom are winners.  With this system, one only needs about 7 winners out of 20 spins to succeed.  More or less...........

Now, is this typical of what the bot does.  Well, yes, it is!  And it's no secret.  Normy laid it out in his thread.

Is it the "Holy Thingy"?  Don't know.

To a large extent--and I don't fully understand the logic behind it--this idea tracks flow.  It tracks which way the wind is blowing and goes with, not against, it.

So far it has been surprisingly successful and it does not assume two and two are five or that zero does not exist or that there is no 2.7% rake for the casino.  This bot takes into account pure reality and nothing else.

Some are just hoping to God it fails.  Why?  Why not hope it succeeds and earn a little money??

I'm a little miffed.  Can anyone tell??

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 19, 2013, 03:54:49 PM
Mike

Your posts are so similar to ones we've seen before.

Sam, speak for yourself, not all members. YOU may have seen posts like mine before, but evidently, since so many here are seeking the holy grail, the message hasn't been understood. And anyway, why are you suddenly on the offensive? in a recent post you said 'thanks for the enlightenment', or perhaps that was sarcasm?

QuoteYou have beat your head against the rock for years and you've decided since you can't do it, no one can. 

So it's sour grapes, then? This is attacking the messenger and totally ignores the actual valid argument that no system can win. Your attack is irrelevant to the merits of the case. Suppose I HAD been searching for years and couldn't find a winning system, would that mean that a system couldn't be found? of course not, but there are other reasons that DO establish that fact.

QuoteWe get it.  Two and two will never equal five.  The math is against us.  And on and on........

I don't think you do get it. And it's worth pointing out that it isn't obvious at all that no winning system is possible. Many intelligent (even highly intelligent) people believe otherwise, and in fact it requires quite a deep level of understanding in order to see just why there is no such thing as a winning gambling system for NE games. People tend to lump together poker, sports betting and games like roulette; to them, it's all gambling, they don't understand the crucial difference which make poker and sports POTENTIALLY beatable and roulette not at all beatable (at least using 'systems'). FWIW, I spent a lot of time years ago trying to crack roulette myself, and wrote literally hundreds of simulations. No-one on any forum gave me a plausible reason why it couldn't be done. And it wasn't that I just quit because I was tired of seeing another chart heading south, it was the insight (after having it explained to me on a statistics forum) just why, in principle, no such system was possible.

QuoteLet me pose a question:  There is a basketball court.  At one end is a normal goal.  At the other end, there is one exactly ten times the diameter of the normal goal.  Which end do you think people would shoot at? 

I don't get it. What's the point of this question? are you trying to suggest that roulette is easier to beat than sports betting?

QuoteLet me ask you a direct question:  Do you believe the person exists who makes money from roulette?

No. Not long term anyway (other than certain kinds of advantage play). Of course there are people who win every day - but they give it all back and more. What I'm saying is that there is no 'consistent winning bet' or system which can be mechanically played and return consistent profits.

QuoteLet me ask you another question.  We've all seen this:  R B R B R B  What have we not seen is that for 100 spins?  Why do some series come into the fray?  In the world of math, physics or mathematics, there is nothing saying you can get 100 R B in a row, but you don't. 

Tell me why...........

These questions are asked all the time in roulette forums. Actually, probability DOES say that 100 RB in a row is possible, but just very very unlikely. Absent a biased wheel, all the formulas of probability are remarkably accurate. The casinos rely on them for their livelihood. You can write computer programs which will verify any formula you care to simulate, so it's not just 'theory'. This is why no winning system is possible, because outcomes conform to the theoretical distribution of wins and losses and the casino's house edge takes account of ANY possible system you could dream up. So patterns, waiting for losses etc are completely ineffectual.

QuoteYou come on this forum stating the obvious as if we needed to hear it.  You intimate we are fools, stupid people, country bumpkins and on and on.......

As I said above, it isn't obvious.

QuoteTell us about Mike.  What can you do? 

Give me any system you like, I can prove it can't win. I'm also not bad at sports betting.

Give me any system you like, I can prove it can't win.


Captain Obvious

You have stated that no system wins long term.  So I give you one, you will prove it doesn't work.

Wow!!

That was really obvious.  I'm impressed.

What--other than that--can you do, Mike?  You sling mud at those of us who try, yet you offer nothing but negativism.

The basketball goal was an analogy as to how people want to do something difficult, not easy.  What NFL team wants to play high school freshmen?  Folks with a brain want a challenge.

You're a breath of stale air on this forum, Mike.  We've heard it all before and the flip side, too.  You are the "Anti-Jl" if I may name you yet again!! 

Mike, if you can't go over the mountain you may be able to go around it.  While there is no winning system, and most of us use the term "Holy Grail" tongue-in-cheek, there are those who win. 

Have a blessed day!

Sam

Today's three runs.  Note win/loss ratio.  Note the numbers and you can see these three trips happened at the same time.  Just enough time to close the bot and re-start it.

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 19, 2013, 07:52:13 PM

What--other than that--can you do, Mike?  You sling mud at those of us who try, yet you offer nothing but negativism.

Pointing out the facts is neither negativism nor slinging mud.

QuoteThe basketball goal was an analogy as to how people want to do something difficult, not easy.  What NFL team wants to play high school freshmen?  Folks with a brain want a challenge.

LOL, and you think that trying to beat POTENTIALLY beatable games isn't enough of a challenge?  "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference"

QuoteYou're a breath of stale air on this forum, Mike.  We've heard it all before and the flip side, too.  You are the "Anti-Jl" if I may name you yet again!! 

Gee, that's a laugh. You talk about stale air, but the only thing I see here is re-hash after re-hash of fallacious systems and methods that can't possibly win, they're just variations on a theme which is doomed to failure from the get-go. Seems to me that I'm a breath of fresh air to point that out.

QuoteMike, if you can't go over the mountain you may be able to go around it.

More empty rhetoric. There's no getting around it, you have to take a different path.

Hmmmmm

Interesting writing going on there/here.

Who IS 'Mike' I wonder?


Seems that either he has been here before, or certainly he has obtained experience in some
other forum establishment before.


Its always strange when a relative Newbie, comes along and begins laying down the LAW, and having a go at a very well respected member of the Roulette Community.


It take style and some organisation, to be as concise as 'Mike' is when posting on a forum like this.
A sense of "Let me tell you straight"...in the approach.


I have to be curious as to why he has come here, (assuming it's a he)....and what the underlying motive is.
I know Esoito has had a word with the new member.


Maybe we ALL need to watch out for the message!

Chrisbis,


I used to post in vlsroulette.com. You can see a recent post of mine there in the 'Gambler's Paradox' thread. I don't play roulette any more, though I used to dabble in advantage play (not much percentage in it these days) but now sports betting only!
[mod] Are you a regular poster in rouletteforum.com ? seem familiar [/mod]

I'm used to being dismissed as a naysayer, but I don't mind. Diehards like Sam will never change, but what I say needs to be heard by the newbies.
[mod] Sam is one of the hardest working testers there is, on new and existing systems/methods, and I believe in conjunction with 6th sense & Nickmsi/Steph, is now winning a little more consistently[/mod]

I do actually have some positive contributions to make here, in time. I was looking around for a new forum and this one seemed to fit the bill since it's not, unlike the others, concerned exclusively with casino games.
[mod] We look forward to your posts then.......and not this very worn vinyl you seem to have stuck on your record deck![/mod]

By the way Sam, it's not as easy as you might think to prove that a system doesn't work.
[mod] That's what the forum exists for...primarily....to test, test and test some more. And we don't mind how you test, nor if you want to post links to other testing sites, as a few members have done before.[/mod]

Mike

It is quite easy to prove a system does not work.  I simply hire Nick to create a sheet for the ExcelBot and let 'er run.  For me, a system fails when it requires more bankroll than I'm willing to advance.  For another player, it might be a better or even a winning system.  Every person has their own criteria.

I think you will find that a constant flow of vitriol will not fly on this forum. 

There are many people on this forum who do not constantly rehash the same old ideas.  Many do and that's their privilege.

If you had one lick of understanding of the human animal, you would know that you cannot tell a person not to do something and have them follow your advice.  I think every person has to learn the Martingale really will not work.  I think many will agree with that statement.

So go right on ragging on everyone who posts.  Soon you will find yourself muted or gone entirely.  We are here to kindly help, encourage and enjoy each others company not try to prove how smart we are by belittling others.

Besides, some ideas are just plain fun to test.  Mike, you do understand fun don't you?  Some people will actually spend money on it!!

Samster

Chrisbis,


I don't have an account at roulettforum.com, only at vlsroulette.com.


You talk about well worn vinyl and being stuck, but I don't see any other critique of systems by any other member of this forum.
People need to be reminded every now and then that what they're attempting is impossible, and more importantly, WHY it's impossible.
If this warrants some kind of censorship or a ban, then so be it. I don't see any point in pussyfooting around with the facts.

Sam,

Why so sensitive? you're taking it all so personally.
In fact, you're the one making snide remarks and unwarranted assumptions about me.

Hiring Nick to do your programming for you doesn't make it 'easy'.
Nick had to learn those skill so that you could hire him.
Besides, programming isn't the only way of proving that a system won't work.
The best way is to learn that you don't actually need to test ANY system ever again.

@ Mike


I seriously think you mistaken if you don't see systems being criticized here.


There are some of biggest critics in the gaming world in here, (and our sister station).


There is a difference between asserting your in the right about any given system,
and showing that you correct in the analysis.


Show and tell has always been the most effective method of imparting knowledge,
(since that is what your mission seems to be)......and therefore we would welcome that approach.


Maybe, because your forum-wise, you just got off the wrong foot so2speak.


One of the best forms of show&tell, is being undertaken by the member Proofreaders2000,
with his fantastic cataloguing and archiving of every system & method he comes across,
or is sent to him, through the forum.
Maybe you could help in this regard, but be aware....as he charts the system, he also plays it,
and strangely enough, almost each time he puts a bet on the system under test....he wins!!


Its amazing results so far!


But we all know why that is ....don't we Mike!??!!


(I'd be interested in your analysis of that scenario.!)

Here is the first run I've found where I have more losses than wins.

Here is the best win/loss ratio I have had.  I'll quit doing this now and go back to playing the Martingale.  Now, let's see..........what is 2+2??

five

LOL