Quote from: AMK on January 08, 2013, 12:37:21 AM
Could you describe your bet selection just a little Spike?


If I was standing next to you at the table what would I see you do during 40 spins?

I only bet the EC's. The entire game can be distilled down
to the EC's. The inner layout is irrelevant.

Random exists enough for the casino to make a ton of money.
Good enough for me.

Quote from: esoito on January 08, 2013, 12:11:44 AM
Spike wrote:  "The only way to beat roulette is with no MM."

How so?

Because if you have a good bet selection, MM is a waste
of time. If you want to beat roulette, you have to practice
like there was no MM to fall back on. This forces you to
concentrate on bet selection.

Quote from: wannawin on January 07, 2013, 10:26:26 PM
Because all betting selections will have many long term deficiencies.

Says who? Just because you make it sound like a fact,
that doesn't mean it is a fact.

If I ran a roulette camp, I would have people design systems
and methods that don't allow money management. No progressions.
No band aids, no short cuts. Just concentrate on bet selection.

Nobody would attend, what fun is roulette without its evil little partner
money management. What fun is flat betting. The thrill comes from
increasing your bets in clever ways to try and hide your total lack
of a good bet selection. Much like a cat buries its smelly business in
the litter box, money management lets you bury your smelly bet
selection. The only way to beat roulette is with no MM. But that's like
taking heroin away from an addict, he'll fight you all the way.

Quote from: Bayes on January 07, 2013, 03:51:05 PM
There is no voodoo about regression to the mean, the next sequence doesn't balance BECAUSE the previous sequence was extreme, there is no law of cause and effect in operation here, and the effect is strongest in a purely random process. It works in both directions -

This truth will go right over they're heads, Bayes. You violate
the first law of pseudo science: Everything is true because
I say its true. This allows them to ignore proven facts, and
continue to march to the tune of the losing drummer.

Applying cause and effect to random outcomes is a huge
fallacy that trips up most system designers. A and B just
happened, C can't be far behind. So they take examples
of where that happened and ignore those where it didn't.
Logic won't work in roulette, a very hard lesson to learn.

Quote from: albalaha on January 07, 2013, 04:21:50 AM
Hey J It is getting irritating and funny at times. There is nothing eternal in PB that can shake the gambling world.  I believe in tests and not in words and I am afraid that tests say absolutely opposite of your claims.

Don't worry, he did the same thing in 2010 by setting a date
far in the future. That day came and went in 2010 and he never proved
any of the stuff he said he would.  There's nothing to prove.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 06, 2013, 08:02:43 PM

I SAID THERE WAS A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE RESULTS. I attained with those two-even chances and RED BLACK. And im not alone in this finding.

There can't be a slight difference in the results. The
fact you can't see that shows the huge flaw in your
thinking about random outcomes. That you're not
alone in your flawed findings is hardly news, most
people are flawed in their understanding of roulette.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 06, 2013, 02:50:58 PM


don't ever talk down to me in a condescending manner Spike.

I don't know any other way to talk to you. If I said
what I think of you and your methods, I would be
banned permanently. I have zero respect for you
and the blather you spew.

Of course you said H/L are different than R/B and O/E,
we even had a discussion about it. You can't change
what you said in the past just by waving your hand.
Magical thinking doesn't work in reality, you know.

Quote from: esoito on January 06, 2013, 02:24:29 AM


So why couldn't we all put our heads together and come up with consistent winning method or strategy we could all merrily use?

Of course it's a pipe dream. Who in their right
mind would invent a winning method and then
share it with the world? It would cease to be
of any use almost immediately.

Quote from: sqzbox on January 06, 2013, 01:07:51 AM
Spike - you are absolutely right - the pockets could be called apples, pears, oranges, cats, mice, etc.  - makes no difference.  Properties of "numbers as labels" have no place in the development of strategies.

Once you name something, you expect to see it act in
specific ways. Better to always think of the wheel in
an abstract way. Work on what random might do, not
on what a wheel with named slots might do.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 05, 2013, 10:44:05 PM


I care because I've been making my living from this game for 8 years.

8 years. At a game you don't even understand.

Let me give an example. You state over and over that
the outcomes from H/L are somehow different than
those from R/B and O/E. This is patently false and
here's why.

The wheel has 37 pockets. We number them for the
sake of keeping track of them. The pockets don't
know they have numbers. They don't know half of them
are high and half are low, half are red and half are black,
etc.

On an unbiased wheel, which is most wheels, the ball
falls in the pockets randomly, it doesn't play favorites. In
the end, all pockets come up an equal number of times.

Every pocket is a combination of H/L  O/E  R/B. To say H/L
comes up differently than O/E or R/B is a physical impossibility.
Its foolishness to think so. Its even more foolish to state that
its true. Yet you do it all the time and expect a complete
falsehood to be taken as fact because you say so.

If you ever want to be taken seriously, study the game and learn
how it works first. Otherwise you'll just be talking to yourself.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 05, 2013, 10:16:46 PM

For your work to be taken seriously you must SHOW it working.

But why is being taken seriously so important? Who cares?
What difference does it make. You can either win or you can't,
that's the serious part. To so overwhelmingly care what people
on a board think of you seems just a little odd. You seem obsessed
with it and its imbedded in every post you make. You want to be
a roulette authority so badly that you actually beg people to believe
you. All you have is your work, that stands alone and determines
peoples opinion ultimately. Constantly pleading to be taken seriously
is off putting, to say the least.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 05, 2013, 08:09:25 PM


Then more will have a natural inclination to take what I say seriously.

Why is that so important, that anybody take you seriously?
You say things like that constantly, and it undermines everything
you write because the only people who think that way, that they
must be taken seriously, they have to be, are people with huge
inferiority problems. People who believe in themselves and know
what they're doing never make statements about being taken
seriously.
They're    THEIR work speaks for itself, they are never worried
about how they're perceived.

Quote from: Gizmotron on December 31, 2012, 07:56:16 PM
I've read your recommendations for flat betting the even chance bets for years. I have no idea how you can play low activity in variance.

By having good bet selection, how else. This game
isn't about math or variance or progressions, its
about bet selection. Precise bet selection.