New Forum Address: ROULETTELIFE.COM
  Update your Bookmarks

Author Topic: Percentage's Even Chance System  (Read 1544 times)

palestis, leowls, MrPerfect. and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Sputnik

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2018, 05:52:20 PM »


Medardo you have to get used to that topics has there own life.

Cheers
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

scepticus

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2018, 08:19:39 PM »
" If you find that a wheel is biased you bet on the biased numbers, that's it. There's no waiting for triggers, no hit and run, you just bet on the biased numbers for as long as the bias exists ." says  Mike

Triggers have nothing to do with  my question in which I asked you to justify your assertion that biased numbers and independent numbers are NOT mutually exclusive.
In one of my first " discussions " with Real I said there was no need to track a wheel  if you alteady knew it was already biased . So you tell me nothing new here Mike.
So , come on , are biased numbers and independent  numbers Mutually exclusive or are they not mutually exclusive  ?   

 

scepticus

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2018, 08:23:18 PM »
Medardo.
The reason that you have had  no answer is that no one is really interested in your method - or they would have replied by now . You will get  used to that in forums - if you stay long enough  ! ;D
 

palestis

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2018, 01:38:56 AM »
I think Medardo had a good point. but it doesn't look like he  wants to deal with negativity.
But here is a 70% R-30% B  example below, and the results after that are very much the  expected. 
And to the left of it there was an approx. 70 % B- 30%R, and again the reds caught up. 
What happened to the doctrine that what happened before it doesn't affect future spins?
Y do I see this picture 100 times before I see something different only 2 times? Just wondering.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 01:43:47 AM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Mike

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2018, 10:43:22 AM »
So , come on , are biased numbers and independent  numbers Mutually exclusive or are they not mutually exclusive  ?
I thought I just explained that they are not. If a wheel is biased it doesn't mean that if some pattern comes up then another pattern is more likely than not (or vice-versa), and that tells you that outcomes can be biased AND independent at the same time (NOT mutually exclusive).

I think you still don't understand what independence means. It just means that P(A | B) = P(A), where A and B are events.
 

medardo

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2018, 11:10:45 AM »
"What happened to the doctrine that what happened before it doesn't affect future spins?"
This is true but on short run, on long run NO. Because you will never see 70-30 % on even
chances after 500+ spins, and more the spins that 50-50 % number is more closer, of course
you will always have 2.70 % on zero, that is house edge on long run for casino.

What is the point of this forum if not to hemp each other to make money on roullet,
or it is something else. :-)
I am waitng that somebody play my system and report the results.
For me it is good, I make few units every day.

 
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

scepticus

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2018, 04:32:58 PM »
" I think you still don't understand what independence means. It just means that P(A | B) = P(A), where A and B are events. " Mike

My understanding is that "Independence " means independent of each other while " dependence " means dependent on each other .  IMO Biased  wheels nowadays are a figment of AP imagination.

If a bias DID exist  then numbers would be determined by that bias  and therefore cannot be " independent " . 

 
 

Third

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2018, 04:48:29 PM »
P(A | B) = P(A), where A and B are events.

We don't care about PAB=PA we only care about P(A<X<B) which you conveniently ignore for your own inane purposes.



Your presence here would be 100% useless if you didn't cause us to think about how you are so wrong all the time.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 04:51:09 PM by Third »
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis, scepticus

palestis

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2018, 08:25:38 PM »
"What happened to the doctrine that what happened before it doesn't affect future spins?"
This is true but on short run, on long run NO. Because you will never see 70-30 % on even
chances after 500+ spins, and more the spins that 50-50 % number is more closer
Yes of course in the short run,  just like in the picture I posted.
I have played this system in the past. But as a backup system. I take notes while I am focused on quicker systems, but when 70-30 or 65-35 appears, I drop every system that am playing,  and play just that. Needless to mention that it never lost. 100% certainty that it will win. And yes long waiting is not unusual if you want towin all the time. I have waited 6+ hours many times. One time 16 hours. If I could only find a partner that has the same amount of patience. These are long range systems that are fail proof.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 08:53:44 PM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: SugTips, Third

palestis

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2018, 08:34:08 PM »
P(A | B) = P(A), where A and B are events.

We don't care about PAB=PA we only care about P(A<X<B) which you conveniently ignore for your own inane purposes.
It's funny that some people think that if you bet RED 100 times the probability of hitting it is always 50%. It is insane.
 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Mike

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2018, 10:49:00 AM »
We don't care about PAB=PA we only care about P(A<X<B) which you conveniently ignore for your own inane purposes.
And just how does P(A<X<B) give you an advantage? I don't expect any reply.  ::)
Quote
Your presence here would be 100% useless if you didn't cause us to think about how you are so wrong all the time.
So P(A | B) = P(A) doesn't apply to the random game of roulette?
Guys, from your point of view my posts may be useless, but at least they're not harmful (unlike yours). Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to insist that  you are right and all the experts (you know, mathematicians and those who actually make a living gambling) are wrong?

Your silly theories and systems are just giving hope to those who are serious about making a consistent income from gambling. None of your absurd systems have a snowball's chance in hell of working because you fail to understand basic logic.  ::)
Just which force is responsible for the wins when you use your triggers? The gravitational force? the strong  or weak nuclear force? the electromagnetic force? Or perhaps this one?


Quote
If a bias DID exist  then numbers would be determined by that bias  and therefore cannot be " independent " . 
  :(
Quote
100% certainty that it will win.
  :(
Get a clue guys!  ;D
 

Mike

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2018, 10:50:40 AM »
It's funny that some people think that if you bet RED 100 times the probability of hitting it is always 50%. It is insane.
What's insane is that you still don't understand basic probability.  ::)
 

palestis

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2018, 01:22:11 PM »
Guys, from your point of view my posts may be useless, but at least they're not harmful (unlike yours). Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to insist that  you are right and all the experts (you know, mathematicians and those who actually make a living gambling) are wrong?

Your silly theories and systems are just giving hope to those who are serious about making a consistent income from gambling. None of your absurd systems have a snowball's chance in hell of working because you fail to understand basic logic.  ::)
This is an insult to everybody's basic intelligence here.
Those who are serious about making income from roulette, have to ability to analyze systems and decide for themselves what they want to play and if the systems posted here are profitable for them. They are not  elementary school kids looking for a teacher /savior that wants to teach them basic probability. If they were looking for advice they would've asked for it. But I haven't seen anybody asking you for advice. So I don't know what your mission is here. It is obvious that the majority of members do not agree with you.
So what's the point of your futile persistence?
You would've been much more useful if you were offering your alternatives to systems, so that everybody can analyze them. But it looks like you haven't got anything to offer, other than continuing negativity.
 Which is much more annoying than useful.

 
The following users thanked this post: Third

Third

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2018, 02:12:59 PM »
We don't care about PAB=PA we only care about P(A<X<B) which you conveniently ignore for your own inane purposes.
And just how does P(A<X<B) give you an advantage? I don't expect any reply.  ::) 
There are practical limits to probability which we leverage to our favor, using some positive variance to win profitably.  Its ALWAYS possible to win and you will never prove otherwise but instead you pretend that it is impossible and thus continuously lie to everyone that you are supposedly trying to "help".

Quote
Quote
Your presence here would be 100% useless if you didn't cause us to think about how you are so wrong all the time.
So P(A | B) = P(A) doesn't apply to the random game of roulette?
Guys, from your point of view my posts may be useless, but at least they're not harmful (unlike yours).
No, it IS harmful because you discourage people from discovering the truth about how statistics and probability actually work.  You are actively preventing people from being successful which is counter to the mission of this forum.

Quote
Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to insist that  you are right and all the experts (you know, mathematicians and those who actually make a living gambling) are wrong?
Appeal to Authority doesn't prove an argument.  Even mathematicions have opinions.  No mathematician, no matter how accomplished, can prove that it is impossible to win at roulette.  Let's start there, you know, REALITY for a change?

Quote
Just which force is responsible for the wins when you use your triggers? The gravitational force? the strong  or weak nuclear force? the electromagnetic force? Or perhaps this one?
We use the physics of statistics to win at roulette.  Sorry that your theory doesn't work but my bankroll is happy it doesn't.

 

Mike

Re: Percentage's Even Chance System
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2018, 02:57:03 PM »
There are practical limits to probability which we leverage to our favor, using some positive variance to win profitably.  Its ALWAYS possible to win and you will never prove otherwise
What does "practical limits to probability" even mean? There are NO limits to randomness, and probability doesn't help because the payouts are always short unless you use advantage play strategies. I've already given an example of how to get an advantage playing negative expectation games.

Quote
No, it IS harmful because you discourage people from discovering the truth about how statistics and probability actually work.  You are actively preventing people from being successful which is counter to the mission of this forum.
What I'm doing is pointing out your fallacies and showing people how to find a real advantage, which can't be achieved using virtual bets, triggers, patterns or progressions. The fact is, you and other system junkies are so attached to your pet theories that you won't even acknowledge that you might be wrong, and you don't have the necessary understanding in order to  prove even to yourself that the methods don't work.

Quote
Appeal to Authority doesn't prove an argument.  Even mathematicions have opinions.  No mathematician, no matter how accomplished, can prove that it is impossible to win at roulette.  Let's start there, you know, REALITY for a change?
It's not appeal to authority when the experts actually know what they're talking about.

Probability 101 : you can't beat a random game of independent trials which has negative expectation by the methods you're suggesting. It's ludicrous. This is very basic stuff which any 1st  year stats student knows. Try posting your ideas on a stats forum or at stackexchange and see what replies you get.

Quote
We use the physics of statistics to win at roulette. 
What is the "physics of statistics"? It doesn't even make sense! You are very confused.

The Statistics of Physics DOES mean something, though.