EvenBob
Quote: JackSpadeIs this the gambling 'professional' you pay for advice?
link to original post
I'm not paying for advice I'm paying for a professional analysis. I thought about paying somebody here but I don't think there's anybody on this forum who could do this fairly because they so want it not to be true. It's called confirmation bias, they want their beliefs to be confirmed. So I went to somebody in the higher education field who doesn't care what the outcome of the analysis is. She's somebody who's recommended by my daughter who does this kind of thing all the time and gets paid for it. I don't think she can look at it till this weekend but I'm in no hurry. As far as I'm concerned I got what I wanted by starting this thread and I got it in spades. This is a nothingburger for most of you but for me it's gigantic. You can have no idea. Here I am for being constantly told that I can't be doing what I'm doing yet I'm doing and along somebody, two people actually, who confirm it. In my world it's Christmas morning.
Quote: FinsRuleQuote: EvenBobQuote: CristobalHi EvenBob, can I ask you how many units have you bet since january 2021 when you begging to betting in online casino?
If I understand well you said that you look for 1 unit profit per day and you have a hit rate of 80%. If you are betting for 21 months I will guess that is something arround 1000 units? Correct me if I am wrong please.
Thanks.
link to original post
Yes you are wrong. Casino gambling was passed in January 2021 but the casinos didn't actually open online until September 2021 so it was a year ago. I don't remember exactly when I started playing for real but it wasn't in September it was a couple months later I think. I said in this thread already but it's over 500 units. It's only possible to have that high a hit rate because they show me 90 spends an hour. In a brick-and-mortar casino my hit rate is much smaller.
link to original post
This is not accurate. I played online casino in Michigan in August 2021.
link to original post
I thought it was September could have been August , what's the difference. It was summer 2021 and I started playing in September
Quote: GandlerQuote: SOOPOOListen kids, depending on how you are interpreting ‘random’ you are both correct. The next card in blackjack is ‘random’ with regards to the remaining cards in the deck. The next spin in roulette is random with regards to the 38 possible outcomes. Which is why the mumbo jumbo Bob post’s is just that, mumbo jumbo.
Just a reminder that EB does NOT win 80% of his even chance bets. That he does NOT pay his bills from his easily obtained roulette winnings. That there is not ONE post he has made in this thread that there is ANY reason to believe is based on any real life occurrence.
Reminder…. This ENTIRE thread is nothing but a troll thread. It is embarrassing that it is allowed to exist here.
link to original post
You are conflating "random" with "random outcome" (which is the crux of the argument).
Blackjack is not a "random outcome" game because prior events influence the next. But there is a card draw is a "random event" (which seems to be your definition of random).
The next spin of a roulette wheel is always a "random outcome", the next draw of a BJ hand generally is not.
link to original post
When a deck of cards is shuffled correctly every appearance of a card is random. You don't need to think about it any further than that because what happens after that is irrelevant to the fact that it's a random deck producing random outcomes. Just like a roulette wheel is producing random outcomes. Random Is Random you can't introduce extra caveats that make the random magically disappear.
Quote: SOOPOOListen kids, depending on how you are interpreting ‘random’ you are both correct. The next card in blackjack is ‘random’ with regards to the remaining cards in the deck. The next spin in roulette is random with regards to the 38 possible outcomes. Which is why the mumbo jumbo Bob post’s is just that, mumbo jumbo.
Just a reminder that EB does NOT win 80% of his even chance bets. That he does NOT pay his bills from his easily obtained roulette winnings. That there is not ONE post he has made in this thread that there is ANY reason to believe is based on any real life occurrence.
Reminder…. This ENTIRE thread is nothing but a troll thread. It is embarrassing that it is allowed to exist here.
link to original post
Actually I think EvenBob is as sincere as you are, just in different ways.
Confirmation bias.Quote: EvenBobQuote: JackSpadeIs this the gambling 'professional' you pay for advice?
link to original post
I'm not paying for advice I'm paying for a professional analysis. I thought about paying somebody here but I don't think there's anybody on this forum who could do this fairly because they so want it not to be true. It's called confirmation bias, they want their beliefs to be confirmed. So I went to somebody in the higher education field who doesn't care what the outcome of the analysis is. She's somebody who's recommended by my daughter who does this kind of thing all the time and gets paid for it. I don't think she can look at it till this weekend but I'm in no hurry. As far as I'm concerned I got what I wanted by starting this thread and I got it in spades. This is a nothingburger for most of you but for me it's gigantic. You can have no idea. Here I am for being constantly told that I can't be doing what I'm doing yet I'm doing and along somebody, two people actually, who confirm it. In my world it's Christmas morning.
link to original post
Pot meet kettle...
Your entire theory is based on confirmation bias. It's been well established that you'll only accept information that looks as if it backed up whatever you are currently claiming. You'll even change whatever you have once said before in an attempt to win a new argument. You'll ignore valid arguments and proof. And, when push comes to shove, we will get............ "I didn't care"
From my understanding, you live a simple life, so How is simply paying your bills gigantic and life-changing?
Quote: AxelWolfConfirmation bias.Quote: EvenBobQuote: JackSpadeIs this the gambling 'professional' you pay for advice?
link to original post
I'm not paying for advice I'm paying for a professional analysis. I thought about paying somebody here but I don't think there's anybody on this forum who could do this fairly because they so want it not to be true. It's called confirmation bias, they want their beliefs to be confirmed. So I went to somebody in the higher education field who doesn't care what the outcome of the analysis is. She's somebody who's recommended by my daughter who does this kind of thing all the time and gets paid for it. I don't think she can look at it till this weekend but I'm in no hurry. As far as I'm concerned I got what I wanted by starting this thread and I got it in spades. This is a nothingburger for most of you but for me it's gigantic. You can have no idea. Here I am for being constantly told that I can't be doing what I'm doing yet I'm doing and along somebody, two people actually, who confirm it. In my world it's Christmas morning.
link to original post
Pot meet kettle...
Your entire theory is based on confirmation bias. It's been well established that you'll only accept information that looks as if it backed up whatever you are currently claiming. You'll even change whatever you have once said before in an attempt to win a new argument. You'll ignore valid arguments and proof. And, when push comes to shove, we will get............ "I didn't care"
From my understanding, you live a simple life, so How is simply paying your bills gigantic and life-changing?
link to original post
Everybody and I mean everybody has their lives run by confirmation bias. We wake up every day and our goal is to confirm what we already believe. Nobody ever starts today thinking I want to change all my beliefs, life doesn't work that way. We all arrived at certain conclusions and we spend our time confirming those conclusions. Confirmation bias is not a bad thing it's just a thing. If I want to get a realistic analysis of this paper I have find a non gambler mathematician who has no confirmation bias towards gambling. Everybody here already has a set of beliefs and like it or not they will try to confirm those beliefs. I am always trying to confirm mine, why wouldn't I. It took science a long time for realize that people doing the testing on whatever they were working on tainted every project with their own personal bias thereby affecting the results.
Quote: EvenBob
The only thing blackjack and poker have in common with roulette is they both use random outcomes. That's it they have absolutely nothing else in common so any other comparisons you make have zero validity. The only point I was trying to make and I've said this about 20 times now is that they both use random outcomes. Period.
link to original post
Blackjack is not a game of independent trials. While you cannot be 100% certain what the hand will be with counting cards, you CAN know when the deck favors the house or the player with a high degree of accuracy. Poker is random each hand sure but how you play each hand against the players at the table comes down to your understanding of what cards are still in the deck based on the limited information you have (hole cards and community cards) as well as how your opponents are betting. You can infer what cards they are likely to have based on their betting patterns and behavior.
Both of those are nothing like your method of Roulette play. By your own admission earlier in the thread, the previous spins have no impact on the next outcome. There is no actual math backing up your method, just broad claims of "intuition" which to the sniff test comes across to me as the classic Gambler's Fallacy.
Bob was claiming that since blackjack starts with a random shuffle and people have figured out a way to beat it, then certainly that must lend credibility to his claims.Quote: AitchTheLetterQuote: EvenBob
The only thing blackjack and poker have in common with roulette is they both use random outcomes. That's it they have absolutely nothing else in common so any other comparisons you make have zero validity. The only point I was trying to make and I've said this about 20 times now is that they both use random outcomes. Period.
link to original post
Blackjack is not a game of independent trials. While you cannot be 100% certain what the hand will be with counting cards, you CAN know when the deck favors the house or the player with a high degree of accuracy. Poker is random each hand sure but how you play each hand against the players at the table comes down to your understanding of what cards are still in the deck based on the limited information you have (hole cards and community cards) as well as how your opponents are betting. You can infer what cards they are likely to have based on their betting patterns and behavior.
Both of those are nothing like your method of Roulette play. By your own admission earlier in the thread, the previous spins have no impact on the next outcome. There is no actual math backing up your method, just broad claims of "intuition" which to the sniff test comes across to me as the classic Gambler's Fallacy.
link to original post
He would be onto something IF he was making a comparison between Card counting and wheel clocking or biased wheels. Proven logical methods that can legitimately take some of the randomnesses out of the equation.
He claims to have found some super special way to beat future randomness using past results period.
Wheeeee....
I hope nothing is posted here that would cause that report to not be posted.
Quote: AxelWolfBob was claiming that since blackjack starts with a random shuffle and people have figured out a way to beat it, then certainly that must lend credibility to his claims.
link to original post
You still don't get it. For the 14th time the only point I'm trying to make is they all start out randomly. I don't care if you can beat blackjack by scattering chicken bones on the ground and reading them. It's irrelevant how blackjack or poker or roulette is beaten. The fact that ties them together is they all start randomly and they all get beat. How they get beat is absolutely totally irrelevant to my point. Why is this so hard to understand. It's like I'm saying a Volkswagen Beetle and a Hummer both have four wheels that's what they have in common. And you say yeah but the Hummers 4 times bigger. And I say you're totally missing the point who cares if it's 10 times bigger they still have four wheels in common and then you'll bring up 10 more points on how the Hummer is different than Volkswagen.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfBob was claiming that since blackjack starts with a random shuffle and people have figured out a way to beat it, then certainly that must lend credibility to his claims.
link to original post
You still don't get it. For the 14th time the only point I'm trying to make is they all start out randomly. I don't care if you can beat blackjack by scattering chicken bones on the ground and reading them. It's irrelevant how blackjack or poker or roulette is beaten. The fact that ties them together is they all start randomly and they all get beat. How they get beat is absolutely totally irrelevant to my point. Why is this so hard to understand. It's like I'm saying a Volkswagen Beetle and a Hummer both have four wheels that's what they have in common. And you say yeah but the Hummers 4 times bigger. And I say you're totally missing the point who cares if it's 10 times bigger they still have four wheels in common and then you'll bring up 10 more points on how the Hummer is different than Volkswagen.
link to original post
Please explain how Roulette "starts"!
Blackjack. Several games to be wagered "start" after a shuffle makes the game into a totally random state.
Poker. Several games to be wagered "start" after a shuffle makes the game into a totally random state.
Roulette. Since you believe this also "starts" for several games to be wagered in a random state, please show the exact point the game elements are shuffled to make them random?
Or do you mean EVERY SINGLE SPIN they are random. As in independent wagers. TOTALLY UNLIKE Blackjack or Poker where several wagers are no longer random after just the first hand is dealt.
Your analogy so far is more akin to this. You point out that a Volkswagen has four wheels. And so does a horse drawn carriage. Therefore they are both motor vehicles.
So again start to convince us by explaining when a roulette wheel or Roulette ball or roulette table is shuffled for randomness by the dealer such that a finite number of separate rounds can be dealt.
Quote: MrVIronically (and comically) enough he is paying a "mathematician" to find proof that his anti-math ways are valid.
Wheeeee....
link to original post
it's really kinna strange to me
I don't consider EB to be an illogical guy - I disagree with him a lot - but many of his posts outside of this thread are on target and interesting
it's only here that he maintains a concept that cannot stand up to well established knowledge___________go figure________because I can't
.
Quote: MDawgQuote: SOOPOOListen kids, depending on how you are interpreting ‘random’ you are both correct. The next card in blackjack is ‘random’ with regards to the remaining cards in the deck. The next spin in roulette is random with regards to the 38 possible outcomes. Which is why the mumbo jumbo Bob post’s is just that, mumbo jumbo.
Just a reminder that EB does NOT win 80% of his even chance bets. That he does NOT pay his bills from his easily obtained roulette winnings. That there is not ONE post he has made in this thread that there is ANY reason to believe is based on any real life occurrence.
Reminder…. This ENTIRE thread is nothing but a troll thread. It is embarrassing that it is allowed to exist here.
link to original post
Actually I think EvenBob is as sincere as you are, just in different ways.
link to original post
I disagree. I do not know his motive for posting, but there is no way his posts confer actual real world events. He has not won 80% of his even chance bets. He does not pay bills with roulette winnings. He has not found a way to consistently win at roulette. I would bet that there is no math expert he is paying to analyze his roulette system/method. (I certainly could be wrong on that one, but I’d bet not!) I would bet he does not make real life bets to win one unit every day, sometimes more than once per day, and NEVER fails, given he states he doesn’t Martingale.
As I’ve said before, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of EB’s posts. Can you give me one reason I should?
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: MDawgQuote: SOOPOOListen kids, depending on how you are interpreting ‘random’ you are both correct. The next card in blackjack is ‘random’ with regards to the remaining cards in the deck. The next spin in roulette is random with regards to the 38 possible outcomes. Which is why the mumbo jumbo Bob post’s is just that, mumbo jumbo.
Just a reminder that EB does NOT win 80% of his even chance bets. That he does NOT pay his bills from his easily obtained roulette winnings. That there is not ONE post he has made in this thread that there is ANY reason to believe is based on any real life occurrence.
Reminder…. This ENTIRE thread is nothing but a troll thread. It is embarrassing that it is allowed to exist here.
link to original post
Actually I think EvenBob is as sincere as you are, just in different ways.
link to original post
I disagree. I do not know his motive for posting, but there is no way his posts confer actual real world events. He has not won 80% of his even chance bets. He does not pay bills with roulette winnings. He has not found a way to consistently win at roulette. I would bet that there is no math expert he is paying to analyze his roulette system/method. (I certainly could be wrong on that one, but I’d bet not!) I would bet he does not make real life bets to win one unit every day, sometimes more than once per day, and NEVER fails, given he states he doesn’t Martingale.
As I’ve said before, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of EB’s posts. Can you give me one reason I should?
link to original post
what proof do you have? or is it just an educated guess?
🤣🤣Quote: sevenQuote: SOOPOOQuote: MDawgQuote: SOOPOOListen kids, depending on how you are interpreting ‘random’ you are both correct. The next card in blackjack is ‘random’ with regards to the remaining cards in the deck. The next spin in roulette is random with regards to the 38 possible outcomes. Which is why the mumbo jumbo Bob post’s is just that, mumbo jumbo.
Just a reminder that EB does NOT win 80% of his even chance bets. That he does NOT pay his bills from his easily obtained roulette winnings. That there is not ONE post he has made in this thread that there is ANY reason to believe is based on any real life occurrence.
Reminder…. This ENTIRE thread is nothing but a troll thread. It is embarrassing that it is allowed to exist here.
link to original post
Actually I think EvenBob is as sincere as you are, just in different ways.
link to original post
I disagree. I do not know his motive for posting, but there is no way his posts confer actual real world events. He has not won 80% of his even chance bets. He does not pay bills with roulette winnings. He has not found a way to consistently win at roulette. I would bet that there is no math expert he is paying to analyze his roulette system/method. (I certainly could be wrong on that one, but I’d bet not!) I would bet he does not make real life bets to win one unit every day, sometimes more than once per day, and NEVER fails, given he states he doesn’t Martingale.
As I’ve said before, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of EB’s posts. Can you give me one reason I should?
link to original post
what proof do you have? or is it just an educated guess?
link to original post
Dude, he's had the holy grail of betting systems/methods for years, and yet, he uses old candles to heat his home to a whopping 50 degrees or whatever.Quote: lilredrooster
I don't consider EB to be an illogical guy
Quote: AxelWolfDude, he's had the holy grail of betting systems/methods for years, and yet, he uses old candles to heat his home to a whopping 50 degrees or whatever.Quote: lilredrooster
I don't consider EB to be an illogical guy
link to original post
POST OF THE YEAR!
Quote: sevenQuote: SOOPOOQuote: MDawgQuote: SOOPOOListen kids, depending on how you are interpreting ‘random’ you are both correct. The next card in blackjack is ‘random’ with regards to the remaining cards in the deck. The next spin in roulette is random with regards to the 38 possible outcomes. Which is why the mumbo jumbo Bob post’s is just that, mumbo jumbo.
Just a reminder that EB does NOT win 80% of his even chance bets. That he does NOT pay his bills from his easily obtained roulette winnings. That there is not ONE post he has made in this thread that there is ANY reason to believe is based on any real life occurrence.
Reminder…. This ENTIRE thread is nothing but a troll thread. It is embarrassing that it is allowed to exist here.
link to original post
Actually I think EvenBob is as sincere as you are, just in different ways.
link to original post
I disagree. I do not know his motive for posting, but there is no way his posts confer actual real world events. He has not won 80% of his even chance bets. He does not pay bills with roulette winnings. He has not found a way to consistently win at roulette. I would bet that there is no math expert he is paying to analyze his roulette system/method. (I certainly could be wrong on that one, but I’d bet not!) I would bet he does not make real life bets to win one unit every day, sometimes more than once per day, and NEVER fails, given he states he doesn’t Martingale.
As I’ve said before, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of EB’s posts. Can you give me one reason I should?
link to original post
what proof do you have? or is it just an educated guess?
link to original post
If he said he has rolled 50 consecutive 7’s at a craps table, would you ask me the same question? With the exception of him actually paying a ‘math expert’ to analyze his silly ideas, the rest is not an educated ‘guess’. It is just easily determinable fact.
Him not actually hiring a math expert is an educated guess by me, noting the totality of his posts.
Also, the documented post that MDawg provided of Gonzalo Garcia- Palayo is furthur proof that roulette is beatable .
Quote: cwwbjrI think what Evenbob is saying / meaning as I understand it ,( referring to the deck of cards only), is that the cards are shuffled resulting in a fixed random order for all card games. He is not referring to wagers or outcomes of wagers which may or may not have random outcomes due to other influences in different games.
Also, the documented post that MDawg provided of Gonzalo Garcia- Palayo is furthur proof that roulette is beatable .
link to original post
No one has said Roulette isn't beatable.
It's just not beatable in the way EB claims he is doing.
EB always uses a truth to prove a untruth.
For example I truthfully state both whales and sharks are born and live their whole lives in the water.
Therefore they are both the same aquatic animals and both fish.
It's those types of attempts to win people over by making truthful statements to perpetrate lies that get everyone riled up.
Quote: lilredrooster
it's only here that he maintains a concept that cannot stand up to well established knowledge___________go figure________because I can't
link to original post
I will keep repeating the story of the doctor in the nineteenth century who discovered that washing his hands in between surgeries saved lives. The well established knowledge of the time among the other doctors was that he was insane and they crazy and they locked him into an insane asylum. My well-established knowledge over the last 16 years is different than yours. You bring up a good point, do I sound crazy in other threads? Why would I go out of my way to post things in this thread that were not true. It makes no sense, if I wanted to be a T-word I would do it everywhere not just in this thread.
Quote: SOOPOO
I disagree. I do not know his motive for posting, but there is no way his posts confer actual real world events. He has not won 80% of his even chance bets. He does not pay bills with roulette winnings. He has not found a way to consistently win at roulette. I would bet that there is no math expert he is paying to analyze his roulette system/method. (I certainly could be wrong on that one, but I’d bet not!) I would bet he does not make real life bets to win one unit every day, sometimes more than once per day, and NEVER fails, given he states he doesn’t Martingale.
As I’ve said before, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of EB’s posts. Can you give me one reason I should?
link to original post
What you don't know could fill volumes and yet you keep posting it like it's facts. And you're not even interested in the details of it all you care about is your opinion which is based on nothing except erroneous conjecture.
Quote: seven
I disagree. I do not know his motive for posting, but there is no way his posts confer actual real world events. He has not won 80% of his even chance bets. He does not pay bills with roulette winnings. He has not found a way to consistently win at roulette. I would bet that there is no math expert he is paying to analyze his roulette system/method. (I certainly could be wrong on that one, but I’d bet not!) I would bet he does not make real life bets to win one unit every day, sometimes more than once per day, and NEVER fails, given he states he doesn’t Martingale.
As I’ve said before, there is absolutely no reason to believe any of EB’s posts. Can you give me one reason I should?
link to original post
what proof do you have? or is it just an educated guess?
link to original post
It's not even an educated guess its just wild conjecture. He hopes it's true therefore he pretends it's true.
Quote: AxelWolfDude, he's had the holy grail of betting systems/methods for years, and yet, he uses old candles to heat his home to a whopping 50 degrees or whatever.Quote: lilredrooster
I don't consider EB to be an illogical guy
link to original post
No I don't, that's ridiculous. I have a small bedroom sometimes I'll light a bunch of candles in the winter and they keep the temperature steady in there at around 64 but that's only because I like candles and I have a couple thousand of them to get rid of. It works really well if the room is small enough. I like small bedrooms because they're easy to heat and cool.
Quote: SOOPOO
If he said he has rolled 50 consecutive 7’s at a craps table, would you ask me the same question? With the exception of him actually paying a ‘math expert’ to analyze his silly ideas, the rest is not an educated ‘guess’. It is just easily determinable fact.
Him not actually hiring a math expert is an educated guess by me, noting the totality of his posts.
link to original post
I'm not hiring her to prove my ideas I hired her to analyze the paper of someone else. These people don't work for free. And you have no facts all you have is herd mentality conjecture.
Quote: cwwbjrI think what Evenbob is saying / meaning as I understand it ,( referring to the deck of cards only), is that the cards are shuffled resulting in a fixed random order for all card games. He is not referring to wagers or outcomes of wagers which may or may not have random outcomes due to other influences in different games.
Also, the documented post that MDawg provided of Gonzalo Garcia- Palayo is furthur proof that roulette is beatable .
link to original post
Oh my God somebody actually gets it I don't have to explain it again. Yes that's all I'm referring to is the shuffle cards are random, that's it. What people do with them is irrelevant to my point. All three games blackjack poker and roulette start randomly. Where they go from there is a totally different story. You can even throw baccarat in there.
Quote: darkozQuote: cwwbjrI think what Evenbob is saying / meaning as I understand it ,( referring to the deck of cards only), is that the cards are shuffled resulting in a fixed random order for all card games. He is not referring to wagers or outcomes of wagers which may or may not have random outcomes due to other influences in different games.
Also, the documented post that MDawg provided of Gonzalo Garcia- Palayo is furthur proof that roulette is beatable .
link to original post
No one has said Roulette isn't beatable.
It's just not beatable in the way EB claims he is doing.
EB always uses a truth to prove a untruth.
For example I truthfully state both whales and sharks are born and live their whole lives in the water.
Therefore they are both the same aquatic animals and both fish.
It's those types of attempts to win people over by making truthful statements to perpetrate lies that get everyone riled up.
link to original post
You have no idea what you're talkin about, quit acting like you do.
Quote: MDawgThat was a good one, score one for EvenBob!
link to original post
Sorry, EB was disqualified a long time ago.
Quote: EvenBobOn Sunday I sent the Markov chain article to my daughter who I've said many times here is a college math professor. She doesn't teach this kind of math so she sent it to a math professor friend of hers who does. She got an email from her today saying that she looked at it and the math seemed sound to her. I'm still waiting for somebody here to debunk it. I'm in the process of trying to get ahold of the author of the article to see if he's doing any more work on this or what his thoughts are today about it.
link to original post
It doesn't take long to see glaring errors in the paper. Aside from this, the actual code that produces the remarkable result is not included. Therefore, the paper does not prove any interesting result from the point of view of someone trying to beat the game.
What community college does this professor teach at?
Look at the table: "Probabilities to reach other states from S4 and S5 in at most 3 steps"
After 1 step, the probabilities sum to one. This is good. After two steps, the probabilities do not sum to one but to 0.78. So after two spins of the wheel, we have a 78% chance of being in a valid state. There is a 22% chance that we have left the permissible states and have presumably vanished into the ether. Good grief!
I haven't interacted with EB before, but I am sorry I even glanced over this thread.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: JackSpadeIs this the gambling 'professional' you pay for advice?
link to original post
I'm not paying for advice I'm paying for a professional analysis.
link to original post
Please don't waste your money. I read literally hundreds of scientific papers every month. I'm not exaggerating when I state that the paper that you referenced is absolutely the worst paper, on any subject, that I've ever read in my life. It was written by a (very poor) student in an undergrad statistics class, probably at a third-rate school.
You don't need to prove anything to anyone except for yourself.
Quote: MentalQuote: EvenBobOn Sunday I sent the Markov chain article to my daughter who I've said many times here is a college math professor. She doesn't teach this kind of math so she sent it to a math professor friend of hers who does. She got an email from her today saying that she looked at it and the math seemed sound to her. I'm still waiting for somebody here to debunk it. I'm in the process of trying to get ahold of the author of the article to see if he's doing any more work on this or what his thoughts are today about it.
link to original post
It doesn't take long to see glaring errors in the paper. Aside from this, the actual code that produces the remarkable result is not included. Therefore, the paper does not prove any interesting result from the point of view of someone trying to beat the game.
What community college does this professor teach at?
Look at the table: "Probabilities to reach other states from S4 and S5 in at most 3 steps"
After 1 step, the probabilities sum to one. This is good. After two steps, the probabilities do not sum to one but to 0.78. So after two spins of the wheel, we have a 78% chance of being in a valid state. There is a 22% chance that we have left the permissible states and have presumably vanished into the ether. Good grief!
I haven't interacted with EB before, but I am sorry I even glanced over this thread.
link to original post
No confirmation bias in you, LOL. This is exactly the reason why I went outside of the forum to find a math person. And no she doesn't teach at a Community College she teaches at a private college.
Quote: UsernameRemorseQuote: EvenBobQuote: JackSpadeIs this the gambling 'professional' you pay for advice?
link to original post
I'm not paying for advice I'm paying for a professional analysis.
link to original post
Please don't waste your money. I read literally hundreds of scientific papers every month. I'm not exaggerating when I state that the paper that you referenced is absolutely the worst paper, on any subject, that I've ever read in my life. It was written by a (very poor) student in an undergrad statistics class, probably at a third-rate school.
You don't need to prove anything to anyone except for yourself.
link to original post
Now I really want to have it checked out. Too late I already sent it to her. You think I'm going to take the word of anybody on this biased forum? That would be nuts.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: MentalQuote: EvenBobOn Sunday I sent the Markov chain article to my daughter who I've said many times here is a college math professor. She doesn't teach this kind of math so she sent it to a math professor friend of hers who does. She got an email from her today saying that she looked at it and the math seemed sound to her. I'm still waiting for somebody here to debunk it. I'm in the process of trying to get ahold of the author of the article to see if he's doing any more work on this or what his thoughts are today about it.
link to original post
It doesn't take long to see glaring errors in the paper. Aside from this, the actual code that produces the remarkable result is not included. Therefore, the paper does not prove any interesting result from the point of view of someone trying to beat the game.
What community college does this professor teach at?
Look at the table: "Probabilities to reach other states from S4 and S5 in at most 3 steps"
After 1 step, the probabilities sum to one. This is good. After two steps, the probabilities do not sum to one but to 0.78. So after two spins of the wheel, we have a 78% chance of being in a valid state. There is a 22% chance that we have left the permissible states and have presumably vanished into the ether. Good grief!
I haven't interacted with EB before, but I am sorry I even glanced over this thread.
link to original post
No confirmation bias in you, LOL. This is exactly the reason why I went outside of the forum to find a math person. And no she doesn't teach at a Community College she teaches at a private college.
link to original post
Okay, never mind. At private colleges, probabilities of all transitions don't have to add up to 100%. In the real world, they do.
Quote: EvenBob
I have a small bedroom sometimes I'll light a bunch of candles in the winter and they keep the temperature steady in there at around 64 but that's only because I like candles and I have a couple thousand of them to get rid of. It works really well if the room is small enough. I like small bedrooms because they're easy to heat and cool.
don't candles eat up a lot of the oxygen in the room_____________? __________________according to this link this is what they do - maybe written by some more unenlightened scientists____________????
.
"Wax is made of hydrogen and carbon. When a candle burns, the hydrogen and carbon from the wax combine with the oxygen in the air to become carbon dioxide and water vapor. Most of the matter in the candle ends up as these two gases."
."Candles consume oxygen and produce humidity"
"Aneta Wierzbicka, a scientist at Lund University in Sweden who studies indoor air pollution, has conducted a number of experiments to measure particle emissions from candle flames. “Candles, in homes without tobacco smoking, are among the most powerful indoor sources of particles, followed by cooking,
She said that constant exposure to these tiny particles can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases"
.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/science/randall-munroe-candle-xkcd.html
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: EvenBob
I have a small bedroom sometimes I'll light a bunch of candles in the winter and they keep the temperature steady in there at around 64 but that's only because I like candles and I have a couple thousand of them to get rid of. It works really well if the room is small enough. I like small bedrooms because they're easy to heat and cool.
don't candles eat up a lot of the oxygen in the room_____________? __________________according to this link this is what they do - maybe written by some more unenlightened scientists____________????
.
"Wax is made of hydrogen and carbon. When a candle burns, the hydrogen and carbon from the wax combine with the oxygen in the air to become carbon dioxide and water vapor. Most of the matter in the candle ends up as these two gases."
."Candles consume oxygen and produce humidity"
"Aneta Wierzbicka, a scientist at Lund University in Sweden who studies indoor air pollution, has conducted a number of experiments to measure particle emissions from candle flames. “Candles, in homes without tobacco smoking, are among the most powerful indoor sources of particles, followed by cooking,
She said that constant exposure to these tiny particles can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases"
.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/science/randall-munroe-candle-xkcd.html
.
link to original post
I'm certain if you burn 40 candles 24 hours a day and it might be a problem. People burned candles and far worse things for centuries and centuries and they turned out okay. If you're worried about the occasional candle you have far more to worry about than you think
Quote: EvenBob
I have a small bedroom sometimes I'll light a bunch of candles in the winter and they keep the temperature steady in there at around 64 but that's only because I like candles and I have a couple thousand of them to get rid of. It works really well if the room is small enough. I like small bedrooms because they're easy to heat and cool.
don't candles eat up a lot of the oxygen in the room_____________? __________________according to this link this is what they do - maybe written by some more unenlightened scientists____________????
.
"Wax is made of hydrogen and carbon. When a candle burns, the hydrogen and carbon from the wax combine with the oxygen in the air to become carbon dioxide and water vapor. Most of the matter in the candle ends up as these two gases."
."Candles consume oxygen and produce humidity"
"Aneta Wierzbicka, a scientist at Lund University in Sweden who studies indoor air pollution, has conducted a number of experiments to measure particle emissions from candle flames. “Candles, in homes without tobacco smoking, are among the most powerful indoor sources of particles, followed by cooking,
She said that constant exposure to these tiny particles can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/science/randall-munroe-candle-xkcd.html
If you're worried about the occasional candle
yeah, but you didn't say an occasional candle. you said "sometimes 𝙄'𝙡𝙡 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙖 𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙝 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙡𝙚𝙨 in the winter
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: EvenBob
I have a small bedroom sometimes I'll light a bunch of candles in the winter and they keep the temperature steady in there at around 64 but that's only because I like candles and I have a couple thousand of them to get rid of. It works really well if the room is small enough. I like small bedrooms because they're easy to heat and cool.
don't candles eat up a lot of the oxygen in the room_____________? __________________according to this link this is what they do - maybe written by some more unenlightened scientists____________????
.
"Wax is made of hydrogen and carbon. When a candle burns, the hydrogen and carbon from the wax combine with the oxygen in the air to become carbon dioxide and water vapor. Most of the matter in the candle ends up as these two gases."
."Candles consume oxygen and produce humidity"
"Aneta Wierzbicka, a scientist at Lund University in Sweden who studies indoor air pollution, has conducted a number of experiments to measure particle emissions from candle flames. “Candles, in homes without tobacco smoking, are among the most powerful indoor sources of particles, followed by cooking,
She said that constant exposure to these tiny particles can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/science/randall-munroe-candle-xkcd.html
If you're worried about the occasional candle
yeah, but you didn't say an occasional candle. you said "sometimes 𝙄'𝙡𝙡 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙖 𝙗𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙝 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙡𝙚𝙨 in the winter
.
link to original post
So what. I've known people in my life who light tons of candles in their homes. I even made candles at one point in my hippy-dippy days. I had a girlfriend once completely surrounded her bathtub with lit candles probably 15 of them every time she took a bath she still alive today. How is that possible? I still have a couple thousand candles in the barn and I'm going to keep fighting them because I'm old now and they make me feel good.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: GandlerQuote: SOOPOOListen kids, depending on how you are interpreting ‘random’ you are both correct. The next card in blackjack is ‘random’ with regards to the remaining cards in the deck. The next spin in roulette is random with regards to the 38 possible outcomes. Which is why the mumbo jumbo Bob post’s is just that, mumbo jumbo.
Just a reminder that EB does NOT win 80% of his even chance bets. That he does NOT pay his bills from his easily obtained roulette winnings. That there is not ONE post he has made in this thread that there is ANY reason to believe is based on any real life occurrence.
Reminder…. This ENTIRE thread is nothing but a troll thread. It is embarrassing that it is allowed to exist here.
link to original post
You are conflating "random" with "random outcome" (which is the crux of the argument).
Blackjack is not a "random outcome" game because prior events influence the next. But there is a card draw is a "random event" (which seems to be your definition of random).
The next spin of a roulette wheel is always a "random outcome", the next draw of a BJ hand generally is not.
link to original post
When a deck of cards is shuffled correctly every appearance of a card is random. You don't need to think about it any further than that because what happens after that is irrelevant to the fact that it's a random deck producing random outcomes. Just like a roulette wheel is producing random outcomes. Random Is Random you can't introduce extra caveats that make the random magically disappear.
link to original post
Emphasis mine.
Yes, you do, because the deck is not producing random outcomes, every outcome has a different probability based on the prior cards dealt. Every spin of the roulette wheel has the exact same probability.
Quote: darkozQuote: cwwbjrI think what Evenbob is saying / meaning as I understand it ,( referring to the deck of cards only), is that the cards are shuffled resulting in a fixed random order for all card games. He is not referring to wagers or outcomes of wagers which may or may not have random outcomes due to other influences in different games.
Also, the documented post that MDawg provided of Gonzalo Garcia- Palayo is furthur proof that roulette is beatable .
link to original post
No one has said Roulette isn't beatable.
It's just not beatable in the way EB claims he is doing.
EB always uses a truth to prove a untruth.
For example I truthfully state both whales and sharks are born and live their whole lives in the water.
Therefore they are both the same aquatic animals and both fish.
It's those types of attempts to win people over by making truthful statements to perpetrate lies that get everyone riled up.
link to original post
As far as I know there are three possible legitimate (legal) ways to beat roulette: 1. Biased Wheel. 2. Using roulette promos and comps. 3. Psychics computers that can quickly determine where (or approx) the ball will land before betting ends (this may be illegal in some states as it would be an electronic device, though doing it from home on live dealer roulette should probably be fine -I do know of cases of people in Europe being arrested for such computers, but I am not sure about arrests in the U.S. so consult local laws etc....-).
Bob said he does not use biased wheels and does not use comps or promos at all (so certainly not in an AP way). The physics computer is unlikely (as these are very specialized and only a few in existence at least publicly known, and he seems to establish his bet before the spin starts anyway). So there is no legitimate way for him to beat roulette.
There are many more illegal ways to beat roulette (including simple standards like past posting, dealer collusion, and some which are quite ingenious including airstream devices in sleeves to influence the ball), but these would also not apply since most illegal techniques require being present at the wheel -so somebody who only gambles online could not use them- (it also would be unlikely that somebody would go through such lengths to establish an illegal winning technique -actually it would be pretty unlikely that anyone with such a unique roulette winning technique even if legal, would be intentionally drawing attention to it, even people who beat roulette with promos usually do not discuss it until years after the promos have disappeared if ever-).
Quote: GandlerQuote: darkozQuote: cwwbjrI think what Evenbob is saying / meaning as I understand it ,( referring to the deck of cards only), is that the cards are shuffled resulting in a fixed random order for all card games. He is not referring to wagers or outcomes of wagers which may or may not have random outcomes due to other influences in different games.
Also, the documented post that MDawg provided of Gonzalo Garcia- Palayo is furthur proof that roulette is beatable .
link to original post
No one has said Roulette isn't beatable.
It's just not beatable in the way EB claims he is doing.
EB always uses a truth to prove a untruth.
For example I truthfully state both whales and sharks are born and live their whole lives in the water.
Therefore they are both the same aquatic animals and both fish.
It's those types of attempts to win people over by making truthful statements to perpetrate lies that get everyone riled up.
link to original post
As far as I know there are three possible legitimate (legal) ways to beat roulette: 1. Biased Wheel. 2. Using roulette promos and comps. 3. Psychics computers that can quickly determine where (or approx) the ball will land before betting ends (this may be illegal in some states as it would be an electronic device, though doing it from home on live dealer roulette should probably be fine -I do know of cases of people in Europe being arrested for such computers, but I am not sure about arrests in the U.S. so consult local laws etc....-).
Bob said he does not use biased wheels and does not use comps or promos at all (so certainly not in an AP way). The physics computer is unlikely (as these are very specialized and only a few in existence at least publicly known, and he seems to establish his bet before the spin starts anyway). So there is no legitimate way for him to beat roulette.
There are many more illegal ways to beat roulette (including simple standards like past posting, dealer collusion, and some which are quite ingenious including airstream devices in sleeves to influence the ball), but these would also not apply since most illegal techniques require being present at the wheel -so somebody who only gambles online could not use them- (it also would be unlikely that somebody would go through such lengths to establish an illegal winning technique -actually it would be pretty unlikely that anyone with such a unique roulette winning technique even if legal, would be intentionally drawing attention to it, even people who beat roulette with promos usually do not discuss it until years after the promos have disappeared if ever-).
link to original post
Listen, I would not even mind if EB had found some advantage angle that was new or unusual.
It's just that he has now described his methods, mentioned multiple times that his method uses no predictable method, that he sees patterns that he understands are only in his imagination but allow him to make winning wagers anyway.
It's just page after page of contradiction about a method that doesn't work.
Quote: Gandler
...Clipped...
3. Psychics computers that can quickly determine where (or approx) the ball will land before betting ends
...Clipped...
The physics computer is unlikely (as these are very specialized and only a few in existence at least publicly known,
...Clipped...
PLEASE tell me the second one is the typo.....that would make things much more interesting.
Quote: MentalQuote: EvenBobOn Sunday I sent the Markov chain article to my daughter who I've said many times here is a college math professor. She doesn't teach this kind of math so she sent it to a math professor friend of hers who does. She got an email from her today saying that she looked at it and the math seemed sound to her. I'm still waiting for somebody here to debunk it. I'm in the process of trying to get ahold of the author of the article to see if he's doing any more work on this or what his thoughts are today about it.
link to original post
It doesn't take long to see glaring errors in the paper. Aside from this, the actual code that produces the remarkable result is not included. Therefore, the paper does not prove any interesting result from the point of view of someone trying to beat the game.
What community college does this professor teach at?
Look at the table: "Probabilities to reach other states from S4 and S5 in at most 3 steps"
After 1 step, the probabilities sum to one. This is good. After two steps, the probabilities do not sum to one but to 0.78. So after two spins of the wheel, we have a 78% chance of being in a valid state. There is a 22% chance that we have left the permissible states and have presumably vanished into the ether. Good grief!
I haven't interacted with EB before, but I am sorry I even glanced over this thread.
link to original post
While the paper is amateurish and does reach unjustified conclusions, I don't believe there is an issue in this table. As mentioned in the text above, this table is intended to list only the First Passage Time to reach each state at each step after starting in a given state. In a given row, this ignores any time we reach a state multiple times, so we shouldn't expect the probabilities to sum to 1.
To check the math on the table starting at S_4, in the first step, we either reach state S_5 for the first time (with probability 9/19) or S_1 with probability 10/19. Then, in step two, we can get to S_6 from S_5 with probability (9/19)^2, to S_1 from S_5 with probability (9/19)(10/19) or S_2 from S_1 with probability (10/19)(9/19). This leaves out the self loop from S_1 to S_1 with probability (9/19)^2, since that would not be visiting S_1 for the first time. This matches the ~22% you pointed out was missing. So, the numbers appear to check out.
If you want something to sum to 1, I think you can sum down a column over all steps to infinity. This is the probability we ever hit a state S_i over all steps. Since the chain is ergodic, this should be 1.
Quote: darkoz
It's just that he has now described his methods, mentioned multiple times that his method uses no predictable method, that he sees patterns that he understands are only in his imagination but allow him to make winning wagers anyway.
It's just page after page of contradiction about a method that doesn't work.
link to original post
Just because you do not understand them does not mean they are contradictions. For instance all perceived patterns created by random outcomes are not really there because random outcomes cannot create patterns. They are pseudo patterns and it's a big mistake to think that the patterns are real because if you do that then you think they're subject to some kind of rule and regulation. You always have to keep in mind that a pattern can end on the very next spin. Just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's going to continue. This is why I look for situations as a whole including the pattern and compare it to when I've seen it before. I look for other factors going on besides the pattern. For instance. If I see 15 or 18 red and black outcomes and none of them are singles then all of a sudden it starts going into a chop, there's a good chance that chop will continue for one more spin. Or it could end. But I would bet for it to go one more chop. Reason being singles are the most prevalent event in even chance outcomes and when they disappear they're going to come back because roulette is always trying to balance itself. Does it work every time? Nothing works every time there are no rules only comparing what you've seen in the past to what you're seeing now.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: darkoz
It's just that he has now described his methods, mentioned multiple times that his method uses no predictable method, that he sees patterns that he understands are only in his imagination but allow him to make winning wagers anyway.
It's just page after page of contradiction about a method that doesn't work.
link to original post
Just because you do not understand them does not mean they are contradictions. For instance all perceived patterns created by random outcomes are not really there because random outcomes cannot create patterns. They are pseudo patterns and it's a big mistake to think that the patterns are real because if you do that then you think they're subject to some kind of rule and regulation. You always have to keep in mind that a pattern can end on the very next spin. Just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's going to continue. This is why I look for situations as a whole including the pattern and compare it to when I've seen it before. I look for other factors going on besides the pattern. For instance. If I see 15 or 18 red and black outcomes and none of them are singles then all of a sudden it starts going into a chop, there's a good chance that chop will continue for one more spin. Or it could end. But I would bet for it to go one more chop. Reason being singles are the most prevalent event in even chance outcomes and when they disappear they're going to come back because roulette is always trying to balance itself. Does it work every time? Nothing works every time there are no rules only comparing what you've seen in the past to what you're seeing now.
link to original post
I fully understand English!
"...all perceived patterns created by random chance are not really there".
Those are your words above. What does the words "not really there" mean?
In English it means the pattern you describe isn't there.
This isn't me failing to understand what the pattern is but fully understanding that you are in plain English contradicting yourself.
Now if you wish to explain that "not really there" means it "really is there" and you just have an inability to speak properly, this is your chance.
Quote: darkozQuote: EvenBobQuote: darkoz
It's just that he has now described his methods, mentioned multiple times that his method uses no predictable method, that he sees patterns that he understands are only in his imagination but allow him to make winning wagers anyway.
It's just page after page of contradiction about a method that doesn't work.
link to original post
Just because you do not understand them does not mean they are contradictions. For instance all perceived patterns created by random outcomes are not really there because random outcomes cannot create patterns. They are pseudo patterns and it's a big mistake to think that the patterns are real because if you do that then you think they're subject to some kind of rule and regulation. You always have to keep in mind that a pattern can end on the very next spin. Just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's going to continue. This is why I look for situations as a whole including the pattern and compare it to when I've seen it before. I look for other factors going on besides the pattern. For instance. If I see 15 or 18 red and black outcomes and none of them are singles then all of a sudden it starts going into a chop, there's a good chance that chop will continue for one more spin. Or it could end. But I would bet for it to go one more chop. Reason being singles are the most prevalent event in even chance outcomes and when they disappear they're going to come back because roulette is always trying to balance itself. Does it work every time? Nothing works every time there are no rules only comparing what you've seen in the past to what you're seeing now.
link to original post
I fully understand English!
"...all perceived patterns created by random chance are not really there".
Those are your words above. What does the words "not really there" mean?
In English it means the pattern you describe isn't there.
This isn't me failing to understand what the pattern is but fully understanding that you are in plain English contradicting yourself.
Now if you wish to explain that "not really there" means it "really is there" and you just have an inability to speak properly, this is your chance.
link to original post
I can understand why the wording is confusing.
"Randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable"
Each outcome produced by a roulette wheel is a random event. If you did not have a marquee to look at with the past outcomes on it and you did not write them down the outcomes in roulette would seem like random chaos. But if you see them displayed in front of you they seem to your brain to form a pattern. But because the events in roulette are totally unrelated to each other, the last spin has no influence on the next spin, the pattern only exists in your brain. It appears to exist on the Marquis. In actuality they are just random chaotic events. Because they only exist in our brain we are creating the reality that we see a pattern. I've said before there are people who can't do this. Most people can see patterns but there are some people where you can point them out and they can't see them. I've done this, I've seen it. For some reason those people are unable to create a pattern from the same outcomes where you see a pattern. That's because the pattern does not really exist except in your brain.
Ever see a random cloud in the sky that looks like the face of Abraham Lincoln or somebody famous? It's just a random cloud your brain is creating a pattern out of it. If you had never seen Abraham Lincoln before the cloud would look like nothing to you. But because you have seen a picture of Lincoln your brain makes the connection out of something that's not really there. It's just a cloud. Because your brain thinks it sees patterns in roulette you can also exploit these patterns if you're careful.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: darkozQuote: EvenBobQuote: darkoz
It's just that he has now described his methods, mentioned multiple times that his method uses no predictable method, that he sees patterns that he understands are only in his imagination but allow him to make winning wagers anyway.
It's just page after page of contradiction about a method that doesn't work.
link to original post
Just because you do not understand them does not mean they are contradictions. For instance all perceived patterns created by random outcomes are not really there because random outcomes cannot create patterns. They are pseudo patterns and it's a big mistake to think that the patterns are real because if you do that then you think they're subject to some kind of rule and regulation. You always have to keep in mind that a pattern can end on the very next spin. Just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's going to continue. This is why I look for situations as a whole including the pattern and compare it to when I've seen it before. I look for other factors going on besides the pattern. For instance. If I see 15 or 18 red and black outcomes and none of them are singles then all of a sudden it starts going into a chop, there's a good chance that chop will continue for one more spin. Or it could end. But I would bet for it to go one more chop. Reason being singles are the most prevalent event in even chance outcomes and when they disappear they're going to come back because roulette is always trying to balance itself. Does it work every time? Nothing works every time there are no rules only comparing what you've seen in the past to what you're seeing now.
link to original post
I fully understand English!
"...all perceived patterns created by random chance are not really there".
Those are your words above. What does the words "not really there" mean?
In English it means the pattern you describe isn't there.
This isn't me failing to understand what the pattern is but fully understanding that you are in plain English contradicting yourself.
Now if you wish to explain that "not really there" means it "really is there" and you just have an inability to speak properly, this is your chance.
link to original post
I can understand why the wording is confusing.
"Randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable"
Each outcome produced by a roulette wheel is a random event. If you did not have a marquee to look at with the past outcomes on it and you did not write them down the outcomes in roulette would seem like random chaos. But if you see them displayed in front of you they seem to your brain to form a pattern. But because the events in roulette are totally unrelated to each other, the last spin has no influence on the next spin, the pattern only exists in your brain. It appears to exist on the Marquis. In actuality they are just random chaotic events. Because they only exist in our brain we are creating the reality that we see a pattern. I've said before there are people who can't do this. Most people can see patterns but there are some people where you can point them out and they can't see them. I've done this, I've seen it. For some reason those people are unable to create a pattern from the same outcomes where you see a pattern. That's because the pattern does not really exist except in your brain.
Ever see a random cloud in the sky that looks like the face of Abraham Lincoln or somebody famous? It's just a random cloud your brain is creating a pattern out of it. If you had never seen Abraham Lincoln before the cloud would look like nothing to you. But because you have seen a picture of Lincoln your brain makes the connection out of something that's not really there. It's just a cloud. Because your brain thinks it sees patterns in roulette you can also exploit these patterns if you're careful.
link to original post
I fully understand what you have been saying all this time.
You are exploiting something that ISN'T there. Patterns that are ONLY in your mind and ONLY you can see them.
You know the euphemism that diamonds are ice? Well, if every time I look at regular H2O frozen water I see diamonds AND know it's in my head and then tell people that even though I know it's really water, that I see diamonds and can sell them on the open market for diamond prices and can cut the ice and make jewelry that I sell on fifth avenue and I fetch high prices because to me regular ice is diamonds..... That's all just utter nonsense which is even sadder because I am admitting that I know it's all water.
I'm starting to believe you truly think what is in your head only can influence the reality around you.
You think it, therefore it is!
If that's true then you could very well be winning 80% of the time IN YOUR HEAD! BUT NOT IN REALITY and it would seem just as real to you as those patterns.
Some deeper rational part of your brain recognizes this and makes excuses for any situation that would disprove YOUR REALITY so any suggestions of displaying proof you make an excuse
It's like the rationalizations made by Anthony Perkins in Psycho. Real to part of his brain but not real to other parts so he rationalizes the disparity.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: darkoz
It's just that he has now described his methods, mentioned multiple times that his method uses no predictable method, that he sees patterns that he understands are only in his imagination but allow him to make winning wagers anyway.
It's just page after page of contradiction about a method that doesn't work.
link to original post
Just because you do not understand them does not mean they are contradictions. For instance all perceived patterns created by random outcomes are not really there because random outcomes cannot create patterns. They are pseudo patterns and it's a big mistake to think that the patterns are real because if you do that then you think they're subject to some kind of rule and regulation. You always have to keep in mind that a pattern can end on the very next spin. Just because you think you see it doesn't mean it's going to continue. This is why I look for situations as a whole including the pattern and compare it to when I've seen it before. I look for other factors going on besides the pattern. For instance. If I see 15 or 18 red and black outcomes and none of them are singles then all of a sudden it starts going into a chop, there's a good chance that chop will continue for one more spin. Or it could end. But I would bet for it to go one more chop. Reason being singles are the most prevalent event in even chance outcomes and when they disappear they're going to come back because roulette is always trying to balance itself. Does it work every time? Nothing works every time there are no rules only comparing what you've seen in the past to what you're seeing now.
link to original post
Emphasis mine
SO you do understand why we are skeptical of your claims.
Quote: EvenBobroulette is always trying to balance itself.
Because roulette is a sentient being? How does roulette ‘try’ anything? Another Pearl of wisdom from EB!
(I know, if there have been a streak of Reds, roulette will ‘try’ for a streak of Blacks…)
