Author Topic: Simplicity.  (Read 1411 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MickyP

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2019, 08:39:00 AM »
let me try again...

RRRRRBB The mirror result is BBRRRRR

RRRRRBB The opposite result is BBBBBRR.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 11:53:49 PM by kav »
 

UnlikelySam

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2019, 12:21:09 PM »
Wow so much debate over a mirror ???  almost  like a scene from Snow-white and the 7 dwarfs ::)

For those that still didn't quite get Micky's "marching orders" Left Right Right Left... Attention...   :D   

Below is the simplest form of a mirrored effect... Maybe this will put the debate to rest at least this current affairs... :-\


No Thank you needed Micky ;) ;D


« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 12:50:17 PM by UnlikelySam »
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

MrPerfect.

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2019, 01:51:12 PM »
For these who look "simple" systems to play layout...
   Why you guys always complicate so much?
There used to be "tips" button in Fairway casino. If button is not available or dealers are not available to take your tips then just transfer your money to some charity. Result will be the same, but at least your money will go to someone who may need it more then multibillion casino industry. 
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

scepticus

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2019, 11:49:35 PM »
Isn't this   the same idea that Dobbelsteen was punting for some years ? He bet that the next   ten numbers would not repeat in the same sequence as the last ten numbers  - and he used a Marty .

I see has now wisely  reduced the risk by betting only 4 after 2 Virtual Spins.
 

Godfrey

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2019, 01:34:11 AM »

Scepticus, I've said this few posts ago.  ;)

Extremely old idea. Look at dobbelsteen's SSB method. Exactly the same. Some play it 8 steps, some 10 steps.

Some play it after 4 virtual losses. Some play it with a divisor.

In the end it doesn't matter. They all lose against a negative game.
 

Godfrey

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2019, 01:38:35 AM »


I've said this already, I don't care if it's called opposite, mirror, chair, stool, bagel, helicopter or superman.

The system is called Mirror and has been coded years ago. Just search for the post Possible Holy Grail.

This system has proved itself for tens of thousands of spins,achieving an overall profit which is many times more than the initial bankroll   (1000) It's betting against the last 8 results on any EC pair.Check the attachments!
 

Stratege

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #36 on: May 29, 2019, 06:26:41 AM »
For these who look "simple" systems to play layout...
   Why you guys always complicate so much?
to take your tips then just transfer your money to some charity. Result will be the same,


 Why give to a charity? MrPerfect needs money to survive? I thought he was winning roulette! Truth be told, a true professional in VB loves losers because he knows that losers are very helpful in creating an overcrowded atmosphere at the roulette tables. It is essential to play VB just before or “after” the fall of the ball ("after" it’is similar to the technique of the "push " (little push) without the disadvantages of prosecution, because the croupier will have stopped the games too late). Can we use this trick, at the limit of the scam, and then come on a forum to talk about roulette method?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 06:31:22 AM by Stratege »
 

MickyP

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #37 on: May 29, 2019, 12:08:36 PM »
Oooooooooh.....NASTY PMS, NASTY!

 

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2019, 02:22:02 PM »
It's something that its played for long and wins at these machines , specifically are 2 , one for dozens and another one for columns .
ill be interested in this as well . .
 

MrPerfect.

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2019, 03:25:14 PM »
For these who look "simple" systems to play layout...
   Why you guys always complicate so much?
to take your tips then just transfer your money to some charity. Result will be the same,


 Why give to a charity? MrPerfect needs money to survive? I thought he was winning roulette! Truth be told, a true professional in VB loves losers ...
Yes ,Stratege,  l love the fact that you exist.  These like you to lose, l do not mind.
 

Mako

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2019, 06:51:05 PM »
I haven't tested any of the common 'bet against a pattern to repeat' methods in a long while, as others have already mentioned, no matter how you approach it you will run into said pattern at exactly the frequency rate that probability exists.  And in doing so, with the game's incorrect payout, the negative expectation will win...eventually.

You can win for a long while with some of them however, which is why we occasionally see people who have 'never lost' (and they're being truthful) providing their methods for others to benefit from.  But in the end, it will follow the same curve as if X amount of gamblers entered a casino all betting the same system...at the end of the night a third of them will be winners, a third will break-even, and a third will have hit the pattern and be down for the session.

Turbo dreamt up one of the best of them, his "Raindrops" from GG is an example of one that reduces probability to the point that you can avoid the bulldozer for an extended period.  Maybe with some tweaking it could be elevated. 
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

juice

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2019, 11:01:19 PM »
.   
« Last Edit: June 03, 2019, 11:18:12 PM by juice »
 

juice

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2019, 11:10:09 PM »
"I haven't tested any of the common 'bet against a pattern to repeat' methods in a long while, as others have already mentioned, no matter how you approach it you will run into said pattern at exactly the frequency rate that probability exists.  And in doing so, with the game's incorrect payout, the negative expectation will win eventually.."

**This above quote is not entirely accurate **

First off, never go against any pattern, go with it. ( few exceptions apply ). This does nothing to the math, but , it will help with the counterintuitive training of the mind and eye when developing a winning strategy. ( no computer simulation for testing is going to aid in your search for a winning method. All it can do is assemble the data for ones ease of study).
I expect the majority of people on this forum to snarl at my post, but in doing so, one only closes off the mind to the possibility of discovery.
The power of two chart may state that there is a finite amount of permutations possible for any given set of ec's, but,
Not all permutations posses the same strength, or put another way, have the same propensity to fail at an equal rate of decay.
I, myself, play only ec's and 2:1 bets, for the rent. Again, snarl if you like.

I want people that read these post to expand their minds, whether they snarl or not.
Create an equation, use proper philosophy, know your math, and understand what to do with your findings.


Some members here feel that the Monty Hall Paradox can not be applied to roulette, but that is also an incomplete thought.

Because many members here believe that each result is random and with that belief, discount the application of the MHP, simply because the impending result will manifest through complete chance, they abandon other opportunities to apply the method.
The MHP does not necessarily need to be applied to the outcome, it can be applied to the equation that leads to the outcome.
When a player finds an opening for him or her self to make logical sense in an area that could not be more GRAYER than when learning, playing and mastering a game such as roulette, one of the first things that they must do, is to understand that very few, if anyone, will believe in their methods or even understand them and how they were born, let alone support the belief that they were smart enough to get there in the first place. Surely smarter folks than you have tried hard and failed miserably.
What I think it boils down to is just this.....
Explaining, or wanting to explain, thought processes and dynamics is really difficult. Especially when trying to do so to an individual or even group of people that have already formed a partial or entire opinion about their own approach and the game as a whole.
When you begin explaining your rap to a player that you assume has a grasp on what you are talking about, it becomes very clear, very fast, that they are on a different planet. BUT.... That does not make them wrong, just a world apart.
They may have something that is working for them, and you're not picking up on their vibe. That's ok.
When forced to defend your method, one only needs to be able to support his / her claim, should it matter to them to do so.
I say all of this in the interest of forward thinking and in the hopes that even just a few voyeurs, lurking in the weeds might continue on the path to creative thinking.                              
« Last Edit: June 03, 2019, 11:35:58 PM by juice »
 
The following users thanked this post: Rinad, MickyP, Third

Rinad

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2019, 02:10:50 AM »
 

    My own personal belief is that I dont think Math always tells the truth.
that is me, and maybe it is that I dont know all math formulas that a advanced math guy would know, I just know basics.  permutations DONT have the same strenght and I agree tottaly .how do I apply Math to sequence of ecs that dont show up as often as others? that is the challenge I think if we want "proof", but not everyone are there to find out "the how the box is made"  as long as it does what it is doing and we can profit from it.....
great topic,
Cheers,
Rinad
 

Third

Re: Simplicity.
« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2019, 02:50:44 AM »
The Law of the Third defies math on every spin; i.e. actual probability is not a simple static concept but a dynamic concept and the Law of the Third proves that in every sequence, no matter the length.  Its not about percentages (a false simplified view of probability; we don't play "per 100" sessions or coup attempt length), its always about statistical expectation (per 37 spins).

@Juice: I would love to learn more about EC behavior, right now I am simply playing Count-Strong-Side (the EC with the most hits) & after a coup, I re-analyze to see if I should bet Second Strongest based on the last sequence of relevant spins (1-10), if they are competing.  Its very simple and I would love to improve.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 03:03:56 AM by Third »