08 Show Posts - Mike


Please login or register.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Mike

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23 Next
General Discussion / Re: Function of a Roulette Forum
« on: November 08, 2018, 05:14:25 pm »
Your response, with all due respect, is exactly what one would say when one does not possess a strategy that makes money consistently. One of the questions that I may ask when someone is interested in learning a lesson is: "Do you believe a roulette strategy can beat the House Edge?" If your answer is no, you will not qualify for a lesson, reason being, you already have defeated mindset.

If one enters an endeavor and believes they cannot succeed, they will not succeed.

Not really. I can have a "negative" mindset but if the system works and I follow it as per the rules, I will still win. In the remainder of your post you went on to describe the experience of a former student who at first failed and then succeeded, but he didn't fail because of a negative mindset, only because he continued to use his "old" methods.

I don't believe any system can beat the house edge, but it's not the BELIEF itself which causes me to lose. There are other causes (such as that the system doesn't increase the accuracy of predictions).

The OP's question "Can anyone figure out how many possible outcomes (assuming an "outcome" is a permutation) exist in a shoe of baccarat?"  is quite clear, and Lugi answered it correctly. Magic man answered a different question to the one actually posed.

Thomas, if you're going to correct someone's calculation, be sure to actually understand the question before answering it, otherwise it makes YOU the moron, lol.

Main problem about talking of progression is you can not even think beyond those rotten progressions you have been reading about and I always said they are all fool's gold. Progression is not only about raising bets blindly but unfortunately that is how every newbie perceives it to be. Increasing bets at worst times could rather kill you faster. The core idea is to strive to make a progression truly meant for the "long run". I have already defined the long run.

It doesn't matter whether the progression is smart or unintelligent. They are all equally useless in the long run. You say a progression is not about "raising bets blindly". But that means any progression, if it is to be effective, must be used at the right time. How is anyone to know what that right time is if (as you say in no. 1 in your list above) the game is totally random and unpredictable?

It's a blatant contradiction, which is the norm for system players because they don't do logic.

            The answer lies in understanding the probability up to the exteme and be ready to face all of them, well in advance.
A money management is essential to handle these. Sadly, most people look at age old ideas to pick from. None of the classic failure progressions will help you. They are all myopic and meant for small sessions only.

Wishful thinking of winning flat bet will never help. You can not pick the best bet by any methodology. The sooner you learn this lesson, will be better for you.

Where did I ever say bet selection works in the random game? It doesn't; how can you predict random numbers? it's an oxymoron. Your mistake is in thinking that a mild progression can make up for it. If you've won until now, it's only because of luck. I suggest you quit while you're ahead, it's the only time "hit and run" works, lol.


I agree with you too. But there's just one thing; you're the same, except you didn't fade away, and now you own the forum, lol.


I don't really see the distinction that you're trying to make between random and non-random (or the "laws of probability" and "the laws of math").

Random means anything is possible.

Non Random are limiting events.  They can be limited by Physics or Math.

A physical roulette wheel that is out of balance due to dust and dirt accumulating around the spindle would cause the ball to favor a sector. The Laws of Physics dictate that the ball has to drop in one sector more often than any other. It HAS TO HAPPEN, it HAS TO OBEY the Laws of Physics.

But the laws of physics are always working, not only if the wheel is biased. "Random" just means we are ignorant of the true causes of an event. We can know things which MUST happen, such as that there must be at least one repeat in 38 spins on a single zero wheel, but it doesn't help us to predict the next number. Conversely, there are probabilistic situations (where the outcomes are not fully determined) where we actually CAN predict the outcome to a degree better than chance (an example would be visual ballistics).


Give it up. Like so much of modern physics these days, Albrecht and Philip's paper is purely mathematical and speculative. Make a few assumptions and simplifications, run the math, and see what you get. Most of the conclusions which result from these assumptions and manipulations aren't even testable in the real world, so in that sense they don't even qualify as science; they are really no more than philosophical opinion.  Furthermore, with respect to that particular piece of "research" :

The researchers admit that their example is very simplified and that they would have a hard job tracing the amplification of quantum uncertainties in all familiar contexts, be it rolling dice or picking out a card at random. They also point out that it would only take one counterexample to falsify their idea – a use of classical probabilities that is clearly isolated from the physical, quantum world.
(Physics World article).

There are so many problems with the theory that I don't even know where to start. Probability is, as Einstein correctly believed, a way of quantifying our ignorance. It does not reflect the "inherently random nature of the world as described by quantum mechanics". And ironically, if the uncertainty principle was evident in the macroscopic world as you suggest, predicting the outcome at roulette would be even harder than it is under classical mechanics. Techniques like visual ballistics wouldn't work because the initial conditions would be undermined by the principle!

There is so much nonsense believed in the name of QM, or rather, the misunderstanding of it. It's used to justify all kinds of crazy ideas (such as "reality is mind dependent") and is exploited by charlatans like Deepak Chopra, who are keen to give scientific credence to their scams. Have you ever tried explaining your ideas about roulette and QM in a serious physics forum? You'll be torn to pieces.

In my next post in �Use Math/Statistics to beat baccarat/roulette� I will explain more and actually show results of 100,000 spins using the Triplets system. I think with these facts and empirical data you can make up your own mind whether Math/Statistics can help you beat baccarat/roulette.


Looking forward to that. Although I don't believe that any mechanical system can get an edge, I'm with you in that I think it (a MECHANICAL system) should be the goal. I just don't find it interesting to keep hearing that it's discipline, experience, intuition etc which is the key to success. Discipline by itself means nothing if it's applied to a losing system, of course, and I don't know why people keeping banging on that it's some kind of substitute for an edge. As for experience, what use is it if you don't learn from it? and learning from it means, essentially, learning "rules" about what to do and what not to do in a given situation, what decisions to make. So anyone who denies that mechanical systems can work but experience can work is being contradictory.

Wherever position, momentum, and energy is involved, on any scale, the uncertainty principle is always involved.

The uncertainty principle is always "involved" but quantum effects are not evident or noticeable at the macroscopic level (that means roulette wheels) because Planck's constant is so small. This is really basic quantum physics, which you obviously don't comprehend, butthead.

By your comment, It seems the last behind kicking I gave you, flogging that ignorance of yours that is unable to comprehend even basic quantum physics, still hurts. 

Don't flatter yourself. The only thing I'm interested in is pointing out your BS to members who might fall for it. You are totally clueless. Now p*ss off and try to scam someone else, you low life parasite.

Sure, the answer is just the right progression.  :zzz:

6- It is good when you have a streak, but what all advantage players must know, that most gamblers don�t, is that variance is found within all games of chance because of the uncertainty found in the game produced by its physical factors and conditions. That is the law of the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg�s uncertainty principle. What you observe and interact with, changes in accordance with said law and the given conditions. If you force your will on a thing towards the desired outcome, the uncertainty principle will make this thing to change in a way you cannot fully predict.

Just like the guy in the video said, we don't notice the uncertainty principle in our everyday lives, and that includes playing roulette. The uncertainty in roulette arises for other reasons, so don't try to blind members with your BS.  :-*

I have no argument that there is or can be a successful math system to beat Bacc (or roulette), so I agree with Glen. But what I disagree with is the notion or suggestion that there can be any "non mechanical", intuitive way of playing which is superior; a way based on experience. If there was such a way then of course the rules could be found and hey presto, you would have a successful mechanical system after all. To deny this is incoherent and contradictory.

General Discussion / Re: re: WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
« on: July 10, 2018, 08:20:49 am »
Not at all nice, are they?


I'm glad you saved the thread and made it a sticky, now everyone can see what kind of person "The Magician" is. The most unpleasant character I've ever encountered on any forum. Normally I'm pretty restrained but this guy really is a nasty piece of work.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23 Next