+ Register

[Chauncy47]

I would like to add to the thread;  For me, it's not about forming an opinion on anybody or the methods they play or the success claims they post.  It seems that a great deal of energy is being spent on whether JL's claims are valid or not.  And this is my opinion only, that when I see someone judging another person, regardless of the topic, they are not in any way defining that person, but rather they are defining themselves.  And that's just more of an observation from me. 

So when it comes to roulette, and all the claims by JL or anyone else, and the their methods,  it makes no sense for me to debate about things I have no control  over because there's nothing I can do about it anyways, and quite frankly, why should I even debate about things  I do control?  That activity of debating alone keeps my thinking immobilized and prevents me from reaching my ultimate goal of being a successful roulette player.   

There are so many great methods out there and I play many of them every day, live at a casino, and I also just happend to play them Hit & Run style.  It works for me, and it works within the framework of my current thinking. 

Just a last observation:  Everyone's post in this forum is valuable, -- not because anybody says so, or because they post successful results, not because they have been playing the game for 30 years, or because they are a math expert, and it's not because they claim they made a lot of money using their method or disclaiming another -- but it's because they decide to believe in a method that works for them and for no other reason than to believe in it!   That in itself is the value for me and I take something away from it everytime.  I enjoy JL's passion for the game as much as I enjoy observing the people who challenge him.  So thank you to everyone for your contribution.  You all have made me a better and much more successful roulette player    

[JohnLegend]

I would like to add to the thread;  For me, it's not about forming an opinion on anybody or the methods they play or the success claims they post.  It seems that a great deal of energy is being spent on whether JL's claims are valid or not.  And this is my opinion only, that when I see someone judging another person, regardless of the topic, they are not in any way defining that person, but rather they are defining themselves.  And that's just more of an observation from me. 

So when it comes to roulette, and all the claims by JL or anyone else, and the their methods,  it makes no sense for me to debate about things I have no control  over because there's nothing I can do about it anyways, and quite frankly, why should I even debate about things  I do control?  That activity of debating alone keeps my thinking immobilized and prevents me from reaching my ultimate goal of being a successful roulette player.   

There are so many great methods out there and I play many of them every day, live at a casino, and I also just happend to play them Hit & Run style.  It works for me, and it works within the framework of my current thinking. 

Just a last observation:  Everyone's post in this forum is valuable, -- not because anybody says so, or because they post successful results, not because they have been playing the game for 30 years, or because they are a math expert, and it's not because they claim they made a lot of money using their method or disclaiming another -- but it's because they decide to believe in a method that works for them and for no other reason than to believe in it!   That in itself is the value for me and I take something away from it everytime.  I enjoy JL's passion for the game as much as I enjoy observing the people who challenge him.  So thank you to everyone for your contribution.  You all have made me a better and much more successful roulette player

it's a challenge all around Chauncy47. 7 months from now everyone will know I am a man of my word. I intend to keep going to satisfy the likes of Robeenhutt (Matt) Who say hmm he can win for 1,000 games then he will lose it all.

No it has never worked like that. Im never giving it all back never ever. Random will grab, snatch at my bankroll and get a portion of that pot of gold. Then I will take it back with interest. There is no giving back, no collapse. If it takes ten years to prove this then ten years this will go on. I want the most diehard maths worshipper asking questions. Instead of sneering and saying math is the governor it never lies, it can't be overcome.

I am in no hurry. I am going to purposely test PADDYPOWER to breaking point. find out what their limit is before they close the door on me. That's how far I will take this. We are at the beginning of a very long journey that's going to absolutely revolutionize the thought process of alot of people.

[spike]

There's been too much negative posting thus far from those who seem to believe "there's my way and the wrong way".

If you know for a fact something doesn't work and say so,
how is that a negative post. It almost like people here want
to constantly discover gravity or the Martingale every other
day.

Punter A: Hey, I just found that if you double up after a loss
   I always come out ahead!

Punter B: Yeah, Um, I discovered the hard way that doesn't
   really work dude. Sorry.

Mod: Punter B, you are being banned for having a negative attitude.
   How dare you kill the creativity of Punter A with your personal
   claims. Just because you lost doesn't mean everybody
   will lose. Take your horrible attitude somewhere else.


Ya know?

[esoito]

But as far as Punter A is concerned it works. He's happy. Until the bubble bursts.

Why burst it for him? (Or try to burst it for him?)

People seem to learn best when there's a bit of pain involved.  Those are the lessons they really remember. 

Learning through experience...  Can't beat it.

You can TELL Johnny 'til you're blue in the face not to do something because of the danger/risks involved.

But it's only when he finally cuts his finger, or discovers the water really IS hot , that he understands the message!

[NathanDetroit]

Punter A will be   sooooo happy when the croupier tells him " that was you final bet, you have reached  the Maximum of our table limits"

O LaLa-Land  here we come.


Kumbaya .

[spike]

People seem to learn best when there's a bit of pain involved. 

No, people learn best when they're showed the error
of their ways by those that have been there. That's
why there are textbooks and schools and tests
and diplomas. Just letting people flounder around on
their own until they learn the right way (when you can
show them they right way) is a colossal waste of time.
With that attitude nobody would ever learn to read or
write or do basic math.

[esoito]

After all that pontificating about "the bleedin obvious" a little clue was totally missed -- the little devil icon.

The Devil's Advocate is a useful device for drawing people out in discussions.

[spike]

After all that pontificating about "the bleedin obvious" a little clue was totally missed -- the little devil icon.

So you agree that if somebody posts a losing system, and
you can prove it loses, its far better just to show him the
error of his ways than let him go on for months thinking
he's really found something?

[esoito]

Depends on whether or not you perceive yourself as your 'brother's keeper'.

Sometimes it's best to let someone learn from their own mistakes (as long as it's not a life-threatening situation they're in)

Like I said -- painful lessons are generally the ones we tend not to forget.

Anyway, I'll leave you to continue to wander through the mulberry bushes if the fruit appeals that much to you.

Views have been civilly expressed and, for me, there the matter ends.


Edit:  The word 'sometimes' has been clearly stated above.  That means it's not an absolute statement. 

[spike]

Sometimes it's best to let someone learn from their own mistakes (as long as it's not a life-threatening situation they're in)

Like I said -- painful lessons are generally the ones we tend not to forget.

I'm not understanding you. Why would you keep the truth a
secret? what's the point? that's how humanity has progressed,
we learn from the mistakes of those that came before us, because
they tell us about them. They say "Don't do that, it doesn't work,
and here's why." that's why every new generation doesn't have
to invent calculus and algebra, those who did invent it kindly showed
us what they did........

[VLS]

My humble view:

Sharing with a fellow human is an universally recognized value, but it stops at the toothbrush.

I think it's a matter of balance.

While I do agree we are moving forward by working upon other's previous work, it is undeniable there are some things that are irreplaceable as our personal experiences. Both 3rd-party knowledge and personal experience have a weight in our formation.

When dealing with gambling it is great to know the standard math of the game inside-out.

One must explore, be curious, and yes: make our own mistakes. Good thing is in gambling you don't need to lose your hard-earned money to learn from your own mistakes. If you are pragmatic and accept there's no difference in outcomes whether you are present or not, then you can accept trying out your ideas/methods on past actuals is just as valid as being there wagering.

Given people don't need to lose money to convince themselves about something working or not since that's what testing is there for, then there's no harm.

My advice is balance when dealing with this; Learn, use and enjoy the knowledge left by those before you, but also explore, make your own trials, get your own conclusions.

[Bayes]

So you agree that if somebody posts a losing system, and
you can prove it loses, its far better just to show him the
error of his ways than let him go on for months thinking
he's really found something?

What sort of "proof" are we talking about here?

According to the standard math result, ALL systems are losing systems and there are NO loopholes (that includes ANY means by which you choose your bets; see impossibility of a gambling system). If that's your standard of proof, why single out a particular system for criticism?  why should there not be a forum rule which says that no-one should be allowed to post any systems because it's been proved that they don't work?

According to the math, the search for a winning method of playing roulette is ultimately futile. On the other hand, if you insist that the game can be beaten, you are implicitly denying the math, so shouldn't you thereby forfeit the right to trash systems proposed by others?
If you've already thrown out the math, by what criteria do you judge a system to be a loser?

Keep in mind that "the math" is a STATISTICAL proof, meaning that, ON AVERAGE, the casino wins and the punters (taken as a GROUP), will lose. But statistics cannot say anything about an INDIVIDUAL case, measurement, data point or whatever, so some individual who plays a "losing" system may well win with it, for a time. You can't insist that anyone who posts positive results for a "losing" system must therefore be lying, any more than you can insist that a particular individual must be over 5 ft in height merely because most people are over 5ft in height.

[KingsRoulette]

I want to add up something here. I feel that JL may be correct, as well. Let superman, speramus group, twisteruk and many others who are using it come up with their outcomes.  PB is basically, "random vs random" and martingale clubbed. One may get more wins than losses for sure, if he enters random sessions. There are many guys who play martingale of 5 steps after getting 5-6  virtual losses on an EC and they do not lose ever. Unless a particular pattern (that has not come up yet)emerges in that very moment, he can't lose 7 units.
             It is pertinent to mention here that a player playing PB may escape losing moments that comes up in data tests of a big data, while playing for real. Theoratically and mathematically no method can win but there are guys who are winning regularly from casino games for decades. I don't think that all who are winning with it or claiming to win with it are lying.

           Exactly, Bayes. I told the same thing. No one has right to prove or disprove any system. Those who are bashing it have not come up themselves with any winning idea. If there can be no winning idea and the guys who are sure of it, don't need to join this forum or any other forum.
             Can Spike and Gizmo suggest an ambiguous and better approach to play that will give better results, in all sessions that PB can't?  Mind it, I am not calling names or trying to defame anybody but to tell the truth. It is a hard fact that all of us are passengers of the same boat. If someone understand randomness or probability attached with this game, he will never claim that he has something that can work all the time or even most of the time.

[Bayes]

It's funny, there seems to be an unwritten rule in these forums that you should be allowed to post any system you like, as long as you don't claim it wins. 

Regarding esoito's first post:

Notice of Intent

So why shouldn't Moderators delete purely negative posts about others' ideas and methods, if those negative posts are NOT  backed up by transparent,

verifiable test data?

On the flip side, shouldn't those who make positive claims be prepared to back them up when challenged? If we're interested in the truth, and not just cleansing the forum of negativity, then why shouldn't mods delete purely POSITIVE posts about others' (and their own) ideas and methods, if those POSITIVE posts are NOT backed up by transparent, verifiable test data?

[Bally6354]

            If someone understand randomness or probability attached with this game, he will never claim that he has something that can work all the time or even most of the time.

I am not a devout follower of John Patrick but he does repeat over and over in his books that gaining some experience and knowledge of the game can give you a 50/50 chance.

Heck, I wish I had a 50/50 chance when I first started playing roulette.