### Author Topic: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?  (Read 4194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 288 times
• Gender:
##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2018, 08:50:54 PM »
Quote
But I do , Real, I do  !-Scepticus

« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 09:07:34 PM by Real »

The following users thanked this post: TheGenner

#### scepticus

##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #61 on: February 09, 2018, 12:32:51 AM »

#### Mike

##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #62 on: February 09, 2018, 08:56:40 AM »
Even if kav's proof that a player can still be ahead after thousands of spins is true, it's irrelevant. Who cares if after a million spins 1 or two players are ahead if it's not shown that it's the SYSTEM which is the winning factor? The question is : can you prove that a system (rather than blind luck) cannot win? And the answer is yes, of course.

Here is what Dr John Haigh says about roulette systems in his book "Taking Chances : winning with probability" :

"The combination of a house edge on any bet, and a house limit, is enough to ensure that every collection of bets, whether on one spin or on many, is at a disadvantage to the punter. There can be no 'system' where the punter is at an advantage, unless the wheel is flawed. Sorry, folks. If you read Graham Greene's Loser Takes All, you might think that a sufficiently expert mathematician will be able to construct a winning system, but you would be wrong. Mathematics shows the exact opposite: no such system can exist."

scepticus,

perhaps you should write to him and explain your 9 blocks. He'll feel pretty silly then, won't he? LOL.

#### Jesper

##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #63 on: February 09, 2018, 10:50:28 AM »
One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
But quite a few have experience from it!!!

We have not to do so many spins before we see an outcome which we probably never see repeat.
Every played session if it is not extreme short, show us a very rare event.  That is not any special.
It it like have a basket with trillions of different numbered balls, every time we pick one (and put back).
It is very small chance a special ball will come up, but 100% a ball. All together 100% to get a rare event.

To lose a session it must come up such an event we lose, and that will PROBALLY come.

The fact the game is unfair, so we lose more spins then we win, many sessions end an plus anyhow.
I can admit winning long on an American 38 number roulette needs a bit of luck (at least  )

#### scepticus

##### Re: One Can Not Prove That A System Cannot Win?
« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2018, 05:59:16 PM »
Mike
I am talking about real life. Haigh talks about theory. If the winning number is in your bet then you win
As for the Nine Block I said that I use it to win - not necessarily on it's own.
Tell you what Mike. Send Haigh MY approach and send him YOUR approach and ask him which is the more likely to profit.Yours is a flawed  theory mine is maths - andIi think that a mathematician will go for mine rather than yours.  Though he won't approve of either.
I am not afraid to play in front  of neutral  observers . You are . You would rather indulge in academic theory.
You could have chosen any mathematician and you would still have Haigh's argument  so your claim is only more of AP point - scoring.
Anyway Haigh is wrong . He only use half the argument against winning at roulette- as i have explained elsewhere. If he thinks that ONLY the Odds Against and Limits he needs to explain why Sports Bettors win. They , too,face those two disadvantages.