Quote from: Drazen on October 19, 2013, 12:05:43 PM
Oh it is, sir! [smiley]aes/martini.png[/smiley]  Excatly due to what you have said!

Regards

Drazen

Drazen, care to explain?


I'm looking forward to your explanation of how it's possible that 2 + 2 = 5!


Vagueness and obfuscation is rife in the world of roulette systems, and anyway, most people don't really know what they're doing. The starting point is usually something based on the gambler's fallacy. Hey!, THIS pattern might 'work' - give it a try! (otherwise you're just being 'negative'). 


There are literally billions of possible roulette systems, and you can't see the wood for the trees without some kind of overarching principle like probability and mathematical expectation, which cuts through the myriad possibilities and gives you a clear answer - NONE of them can work.


But ignore expectation and you're doomed to (perhaps) spend your life looking for something which cannot exist (and never realizing that it cannot exist)[smiley]cps/thinking.gif[/smiley]


Incidentally, the fact that so many systems are possible makes a nonsense of any number of hints or clues that might be handed out to eager sycophants, especially since the 'guru' has made it clear that anyone who comes up with some plausible piece of the jigsaw won't have it either confirmed or denied by him (otherwise he would simply have posted the whole system in the first place). The 'guru' must on no account give away the whole system, otherwise he will lose his position of power and influence, added to which, if the system in its entirety is posted, it will then be tested or simulated and found to be a loser, just like any other system ever devised.

This  post   by Mike  said it loud and  clear. It is mature and  contains   the right ingredient of  common sense.

.



It is  not how much  one wins  but how LITTLE one  loses. This  is the reality of  any casino game.
=

Enjoy your stay at B& M casinos just as much as I do. Those  palaces are built for  recreation not as a full tme or part time business venture.



Nathan Detroit

xqzbox and graildigger you will find the bet one day if you will put a lot of time in it.
Even Carlitos showed big development

Razor,


If you care to answer.....


if you walked up to a brand new table (no prev number history) and you observed the first spin being 25.....would this string produce 5 losses in a row after that appearance?

25 ....first spin observed
14
36
17
17
10


Or am I not close?

Ask yourself these questions.

If there really exist a bet that consistently win, would you share it with your friend who have consistently doubt you and even mock you for wasting your time looking for one? Would you not be afraid that the bet might allow too many people to win in the game that the casino change the rules of the game or even remove the game from the casino?

If one would not share such a bet with even his close friend, why would anyone want to reveal his betting secret to strangers in the forum like you and me?   

Good questions, Francis. 

Anyone want to bet on the replies?

The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.

The second rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.



If I had this mythical CWB I would just get on with using it. 

My main problem with CWB is yes someone may develop what they think is a very good bet selection, but there is no way to prove that their CWB is exactly the same as Charles CWB bet.

So no matter how good the OP's CWB bet may be, without confirmation from Charles that his CWB is the same as the OP's then how can you say you found it.

For me it is very simple would you take a test/exam without knowing that there was a way of checking your answers are correct?

Answer: No you would not!


This is a bit like asking the question "What's the meaning of life?"

Ask Ten people and you will get Ten different answers depending on their life experiences.

But the answer you give is irrelevant because there is no way to prove or disprove your answer.


Thanks

malcop

Quote from: Mike on October 19, 2013, 02:57:45 PM

Drazen, care to explain?

I'm looking forward to your explanation of how it's possible that 2 + 2 = 5!

I actually did, dear Mike. If you will go through my last posts you will find it there. So as first ascent from my real play...

You are stuck with expectations in this game... But as I see that isn't biggest problem in this game..

Imagine you are playing red and black and somehow you have mystery bet selection which can obtain ideal sequence going LWLWLWLW all the time... That is called variance. Now tell me, if zero would interfere by its probability (1/36) from time to time, would you care if you would apply any negative progression and wouldn't even care about it? I assure you, you wouldn't

So question you have to ask is it possible somehow to lock down certain number of losses in next x spins after some point? Yes.

Next question would be due to what and how that would be possible?

First of all due to randomness limits, (randomness has its limits you know?) and one phenomenon you can use in randomness which is scientifically provable of course and it is called regression toward mean. Maybe you have heard of?

Unfortunately you can't ideally reduce variance as in the example I gave, but even if you manage to reduce it by some part you are at very good postion to "crack" the game.

Then comes final and also very important part for that "cracking". How you will deal and profit from that reduced variance?

That is what you have to do with progression(s) and money management. It will need some practice and testings, but it can be found what works good enough. [smiley]afb/comfort.gif[/smiley]

That is how I spoted things and it works for me (and some others too)

Regards

Drazen

......maybe i have seen the light too.....












Carlitos 

Some people can't be convinced of a way though roulette...even when you explain it clearly and with examples


Some people, because of their failures, don't believe it is possible to beat roulette, turning to bitterness and ending up in attacking anyone who seems to have the answer.



Some people don't believe in god


Some people believe in UFOs from other planets.


All you can ever do is present your case. If you want a club or society to follow you as a Messiah, then that's a different thing you are trying to achieve


If you like roulette, and think you have the way, and no one listens...you still have your winning idea or theory.


If you drop it, because you were lampooned or ridiculed, then like I said, that's a different thing you are trying to achieve.

QuoteOk, i have some ideas. I think playing 2 dozens until a loss or X number of spins (on Xth spin usually comes the change) is part of the bet. Other part is probably to soak part of losses if change comes earlier. So combo could be 2 dozens + 2 EC or maybe 2 DOZ + 1 COL + 1 EC.  

But that means we would use 5 chips while only 4 chips are being used with the 3 part bet, if I'm correct.....

Carlitos 

Quote from: Atlantis on October 19, 2013, 10:47:01 AM

Hi Graildigger,
Maybe you're right. I remember Gizmotron posted something similar a while back... Here it is:

A.

Its good to see the big picture. I can see many 4 series of single doz


I wouldn't of formed the same idea as gizmo by looking at these results....not saying his wrong, just saying I don't see it here.

@Malcop,


Exactly the point I made in my previous post. There is no way to confirm that you have found the CWB (even if such a thing were possible), and I can't see how razor knows that he has it.


@Drazen,


I know about variance and regression to the mean. Could you post exactly what you're doing please? and how long have you been playing this way? and with what results?


@Turner,


I assume your last post was directed at me. You're making a few assumptions there, and Sam made the same; he assumed that I must be 'bitter and twisted' because I was never able to find a 'way through' roulette, as you put it. But I have to repeat that this is merely a personal attack and is totally beside the point. If you're going to attack anything, attack the math - the argument that roulette cannot be beaten.


Are you aware that there is a watertight argument that no winning system is possible?


Many members are vaguely aware of something called the 'house edge', but it seems to be something that never applies to them!


Let me try another tack; don't you find it a little odd that in the 300 years or so since roulette was invented, a consistently winning roulette system has never been demonstrated? Furthermore, don't you find it a bit curious that highly educated professional mathematicians are, in your view and many others, completely wrong?


Please could you direct me to where I can find the solution clearly explained with examples?

@Drazen,


Although I don't have details of the way you play, it seems that it hinges on being able to reduce the variance sufficiently so that you can use some kind of progression and not get into deep water with it, am I correct?


You may not have noticed my previous post where I said that variance is tied to expectation. In other words, you cannot reduce the variance without also reducing the expectation (in other words, the house edge). If you want a demonstration of this, let me know. But I'd be interested to know your results to date, nevertheless.

Quote from: Mike on October 20, 2013, 07:37:41 PM


Turner,


I assume your last post was directed at me. You're making a few assumptions there, and Sam made the same; he assumed that I must be 'bitter and twisted' because I was never able to find a 'way through' roulette, as you put it. But I have to repeat that this is merely a personal attack and is totally beside the point. If you're going to attack anything, attack the math - the argument that roulette cannot be beaten.


Are you aware that there is a watertight argument that no winning system is possible?


Many members are vaguely aware of something called the 'house edge', but it seems to be something that never applies to them!
Let me try another tack; don't you find it a little odd that in the 300 years or so since roulette was invented, a consistently winning roulette system has never been demonstrated? Furthermore, don't you find it a bit curious that highly educated professional mathematicians are, in your view and many others, completely wrong?

Please could you direct me to where I can find the solution clearly explained with examples?

@Mike,


You have me wrong. I wasn't really aiming it at you.


I don't believe in HG or CWM


I do believe you can win more than you lose. I do.


You have to see your losses as part of your bad luck. Bad luck = HE and random


Importantly, you have to forget making a living out of it. by becoming a pro gambler, you don't change anything other than your exposure to HE and Random.


Give me any system, and i will give you a set of losing numbers.


Even if you think they are silly like RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR0RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR or 22,1,22,1,22,22,22


If they can happen they will.


Now it gets silly...sorry


I believe random has limits....and you carry your own permanence around with you.


You should note the numbers you expose yourself to and make a judgement on them.


Not in testing...just live numbers as you observe them


I started recording my numbers and backward engineer them to decide what I will play.


Now you think Im a nut and can disregard all I say from now on lol