Kimo Li,

How do your methods fare on RRS wheels?

I see there's another glowing review on Amazon. But notice that NONE of them are VERIFIED PURCHASES. The reason Amazon introduced this is to stop fake reviews. I'm not saying these reviews are necessarily fake, but just pointing it out.

I wrote a reply to the previous thread yesterday asking Stephen a few pertinent questions about his system. But it never saw the light of day. Perhaps he'll return.

Quote from: ADulay on June 11, 2017, 10:50:55 PM
The book is 38 pages long.  The information needed could be sent in a single text message.

Right. And I'm wondering what the differences are between versions given in the first and second editions of the book. The first edition was a 368 pages long! So either the system has been radically simplified or there was an awful lot of padding in the first edition.

The reviews of the first edition are not so complementary. One reviewer states

QuoteGives an example of 200 real live play shoes from a Casino to prove the method, but following those shoes would have seen a loss - there are thousands of shoes available like that online and they will also show the method is flawed. Such a shame, as it isn't living up to the title or the promises made.

In the opening pages of the second edition, Stephen says "I really do not understand how on earth anyone could give my book a bad review".

Perhaps because they tested the system over the 200 shoes and found that the system didn't come up to the claims made?

Stephen makes the sweeping claim that all online casino games are fixed. Just how he comes to this conclusion I would really like to know. Does that include casinos which offer live Baccarat? Again, he says that all computer generated games are essentially worthless, implying that any tests done over such shoes will not represent a fair test of the system. Apart from the issue of how he knows this, and what the differences are between computer generated shoes and those dealt from an automatic shuffle machine in a real casino, it means that he can immediately dismiss any losses generated from such shoes. Given that most players don't have access to hundreds of real live shoe results, but will HAVE to use computer generated results, a cynic might take the view that this is rather convenient.

System Gambler, a perfectly reasonable question: Why do you think Winkel has not endorsed your tracker and pdf of his GUT system?

Quote from: Gizmotron on October 13, 2016, 02:45:45 PM

I completely agree that by moving to a different table the odds don't change one bit. But the odds of finding randomness in a different state are higher if you move. There are five states or phases of conditions that define current possible conditions. If you leave a table in one state you have a four to one chance of finding a different state at another table. You like odds, -- explain that.

Gizmo,

At first reading your explanation sounds quite plausible, even insightful. How can anyone argue against moving if indeed the odds are 4-1 in your favor?

But wait. What you're implying is that the "state" you have just abandoned (in the hope of finding greener pastures elsewhere) will continue, or at least "tend" to continue (in other words, more often than not it will continue). However, this in turn implies that outcomes are not independent. A state you deem as "terrible" might be fleeting, or persist for dozens of spins. You just don't know. But you're claiming there IS a way of telling, based on past spins, which puts you firmly back in the gambler's fallacy camp I'm afraid. So there isn't really any compelling reason to not stick it out at tough table after all.

Quote from: greenguy on October 12, 2016, 04:18:15 AM
I can absolutely state that MrJ could move off the troublesome table and not diminish the chances of whatever he's chasing showing up in same fashion.

True. But the question is, will it increase the chances of whatever he's chasing showing up? That's the important question. If it doesn't, he may as well stay where he is.

The odds haven't changed by merely moving to a different table.

Quote from: greenguy on October 10, 2016, 12:30:07 PM
What I'm trying to say is the only number on the wheel with any leverage is zero. So if you want to play only 1 number or position, then the number or position you should play is zero.

I've no idea what this means. All numbers have the same "leverage" and there's nothing special about the zero.

I don't understand how anyone can make money using this progression. If betting the even chances a double win has odds of 3/1. The progression has 11 steps. The even chances can easily go to 20, 30 or more without a double win. Try it, you'll bust in short order.

Quote from: Tomla on October 09, 2016, 10:49:17 PM
ts really really really hard to lose 7 in a row in sports.......try to do it on purpose

It depends what the odds are. For long shots it's really really easy to lose 7 in a row.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 05, 2016, 11:16:29 PM
By the way, this system is from TurboGenius.
Don't underestimate it because of its simplicity.

Actually it's not that simple, at least coding it isn't. Since you're betting a variable number of outcomes at different times, I suggest using the same triggers but then betting on two random numbers instead of the numbers in the street. Then if this alternative system generates the same results as Turbo's system it will show there is no advantage in it.

Generally speaking, this is what systems players don't do. They just ASSUME that their strategy has merit, but don't check whether the opposite or random bets work just as well. If betting some random selection after a trigger (whether it's a 'trend' or 'clumping' or whatever) gives the same results as betting on the selections which the system requires, then you have shown that the strategy is worthless. Basic logic.

@ Blue_Angel,

No I'm not the Wizard of Odds. Different Mike.

Thanks for the system, I'll get back to you later with the results of my tests.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 04, 2016, 09:48:22 AM
In order to be valid what you are claiming for years, there have to be consistent tendencies instead of coincidental random events.

Coincidence suggests luck/random, consistent tendencies suggest reliable patterns.
So Gizmo, you cannot claim any skill unless there is something more than random coincidences.

I agree with this. If Gizmo's strategy attempts to take advantage of 'coincidences' then results should be no better than expectation. Only if it identifies and exploits consistent patterns can it claim to get results BETTER than expectation.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 03, 2016, 01:55:22 PM
On Law Of Thirds basis.

I never understood why the law of the third gets the attention it does. There's nothing special about it, it's just a probability like any other and doesn't warrant the almost mystical status it has. It's something that's only ever talked about on roulette forums and perhaps online casino or systems sites, but no statistician or mathematician knows about it. Try bringing it up on any math forum and you'll draw a blank. Why do you think that is?

Any system based on the law of the third is also based on the usual fallacy.

http://onlineroulette.org.uk/systems/law-of-the-thirds/

QuoteSo is this science or just gobbledeegook?

Well, the bottom line is that  the roulette wheel has no memory. And this system is hinting that the result of a spin is affected somehow by a historical event. So there is your big flaw. There are other "hot zone" strategies out there like the Quadrant roulette strategy, with which you will run in to the same problems.

The problem with these kinds of distribution modelling systems, is that they are modelling a group of spins (in this case 37) whereas you are betting on an individual spin. And therein lies the problem. If you were making a bet on whether 24 numbers would hit over the next 37 spins, then it has more legs.

Quote
Because you see only what you want to see, aka confirmation bias.

I'm glad you brought up the subject because it's exactly what system players aren't aware of. They ASSUME that their strategies have merit but never do any tests which disconfirm this assumption. That's confirmation bias. If they did they would realize the systems don't have any effect on their chances of winning.

It's not enough just to glibly state 'you only see what you want to see', and proving me wrong would be much more satisfying, wouldn't it?

Give me ANY system based on the law of the third and I'll show you it's no better than betting randomly.

Quote from: Gizmotron on September 03, 2016, 12:32:35 PM

We all know that he got caught in his wild claim and could never back down and admit it. That was the most telling of all. Math was never his strong point. He bragged about being a debating expert. The truth was never the point of his banter. He lived for the confrontation and in agitating others. You must know that. He's a classic Narcissist. Just look at the traits and look at his reactions to confrontations and crises that he created and fed on. He was there for one thing and one thing only, Narcissistic supply. All he needed was that 72%. When I did the one thing that he didn't approve of he turned on me to destroy me, a common reaction for a Narcissist. If you encounter him you need to know how to arm yourself. Look it up. You will see that I'm correct.

100% correct. Spike was just an attention junkie.

Quote from: Gizmotron on September 03, 2016, 10:52:52 AM
Now to your, so called scientific question. I'm sure once you get my answer you will ignore the fact that you ever asked it. In the game of Blackjack the cards are connected because the deck is reduced in size after each hand. This is known scientifically as variable change. There are less cards for the next hand, and the cards that are missing can be known if you pay attention to them as they are used. Some refer to this, clumsily, as the game having a memory.

Actually it's called sampling without replacement.

QuoteThat brings us to the game of Roulette that does not throw out slots on the wheel after each spin. The mechanical random number generator has the same number of slots for each spin. It has the exact same odds for each spin.

Yes, this is called sampling with replacement. So far so good.

QuoteIt's funny how independence minded neo-pseudo-scientists around here hang their hats on independence and then come right at everyone with the non-independence minded conglomeration of multiple events, spins, that are combined to form a notion of an iron clad probability declaration. How do you get to use combined spins to extort the existence of the long term odds if there is no such thing beyond independence?

This is where you go off the rails. No no no a thousand times no! Do you think it's only possible to calculate the probability of a sequence of outcomes only if each is not independent? How then would it be possible to come up with the binomial distribution which can tell you the chance of getting exactly, or at most/at least X wins in Y spins?

There is an analogous distribution for outcomes (like Blackjack) where outcomes are dependent. Whether outcomes are independent or not, the probability of a sequence of trials can be calculated, you just need to know the probability of success for a single outcome.

Because roulette is a 'sampling with replacement' type of game, it means the odds are FIXED. Therefore the chance of red after 20 blacks is the same as after one red. In doesn't mean you can't calculate the chance of 20 blacks in a row in advance. And just because you CAN do that doesn't give you the right to demand that suddenly the game is of the 'sampling without replacement' type.

QuoteIf your argument is that independent events are the proof that Roulette spins are not connected, then why connect them to prove that the odds are connected? It's just a convenient argument when it suits you and is to be ignored when it does not, is that it?

I'm not 'connecting' them, you are. Gizmo, you really don't need to learn any probability theory to understand that spins aren't connected. In fact you've already acknowledged it. You know the difference between sampling with and without replacement. That's all you need to know. From that you can easily deduce that virtual bets and waiting for triggers is ineffective. If you deny it and say they ARE effective, on what basis are they effective? is there another kind of 'connection' we don't know about? and why doesn't it seem to hold whenever we do any empirical testing? No matter what fancy triggers and virtual bets you can come up with, the results will ALWAYS be as if none had been used. They make no difference. None, zilch, nada, rien, zip, diddlysquat.

Quote from: TheLaw on September 03, 2016, 12:40:24 AM
Steve has shown that the forums are his primary stream of income with Roulette, and not the "computers" that he claims to sell.

It would be more accurate to say that the forums are what he uses to 'capture' prospective purchasers of his computers and systems. He doesn't get income directly from forums. And I agree, it's odd that there have been no reviews of his wares, although it could be that he asks clients to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

@ XXVV,

I think it's unfair to characterize members as 'cynical', 'nihilist', 'children' etc because they happen to agree with the universally recognized mathematical facts regarding roulette and are merely asking for some evidence that they don't exclusively apply. You, Gizmo, and other 'enlightened' members on the forums may well have 'overthrown' the accepted wisdom, but it's merely an assertion; there is and never has been the slightest evidence that any of these theories actually have any merit or reflect reality.

What gets me is that you continually drag in 'scientific' concepts in an attempt to confer some kind of validity by association. A case in point:

QuoteSuch is the case regarding Cluster Analysis in roulette where individual spin outcomes, although independent, are also inter-connected. Both - this seems hard for some to grasp, yet such is a characteristic of Quantum Mechanics in our real world.

What, in the name of Jehovah, does Quantum Mechanics have to do with roulette and independent outcomes? Just how can outcomes be simultaneously independent and inter-connected?

Answers to basic questions are always evaded by you guys. Such questions always put you either on the defensive or the offensive. Is it any wonder readers are suspicious of your motives, even when you're not openly touting for business? (as Gizmo and Albalaha both are).