No !I am pleased that others win because it helps to PROVE that roulette is beatable .
Another nonsense,absolute rubbish!
If and when some win it doesn't prove anything,it could be the plain ole lady luck!
Have you thought about it??
Winning IS proof that roulette is beatable.
Whether by accident or design may be debatable but how else can you show that roulette IS beatable except by showing a profit? So, when you win that is not down to your skill ( ? ) but Lady Luck ?
Actually is the only objective criterion (profit-loss=balance) and probably you have heard that something which could be replicated plenty of times cannot be by accident...
However,in every rule there is an exception and in this case its name is Marti...
You see gamblers like Dobelsteen think that by betting with martingale progression requires some special skill in order to win,but this is far from truth,even a kid could bet a martingale progression if allowed inside the casino.
Many frequent wins for the martingalers but just one or two losses could be catastrophic and this is what happens in most of the cases.
Another absurd notion was that the zero (in French roulette) is advantage for the player, when you lose half instead of whole bet doesn't make it advantage, you are still losing.
My goal is to win, no to lose less, besides these rules (le partage & en prison) are not our invention to repeat over and over that the zero is advantage for the player!:-)hahaha
Like I said before, 'test of ruin' is the only objective criterion for any kind of system/strategy, because reflects the relationship between risk and reward.
I've seen so much crap around this forum and my eyes start hurting!
I need to take a break and clear my mind.
Happy new year Scep!:-)
