Can Roulette Be Beaten?
July 25th, 2023 at 1:25:19 PM
permalink
Quote: MrVOf course he won't.
It's all about him getting attention in his dotage, alone , petting his feral cats, choking down turnips and kale.
The one bright spot in his life is knowing he's successfully played this BS card for decades.
link to original post
It beats dying alone.
Psalm 25:16
Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
July 25th, 2023 at 1:27:59 PM
permalink
Are you a gambling man TigerWu? $:o)Quote: TigerWu
Are you going to do that, or are you going to keep stalling and trying to move the goalposts?
link to original post
Psalm 25:16
Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
July 25th, 2023 at 1:30:56 PM
permalink
Quote: OnceDearIt beats dying alone.
Perhaps, but what kind of epitaph would it lead to?
""Some say he lied, and now he lies here forever?"
"What, me worry?"
July 25th, 2023 at 1:33:56 PM
permalink
Quote: OnceDearAre you a gambling man TigerWu? $:o)Quote: TigerWu
Are you going to do that, or are you going to keep stalling and trying to move the goalposts?
link to original post
link to original post
Hey, I can admit that I put money on a sucker's bet from time to time....
July 25th, 2023 at 1:37:57 PM
permalink
"That's five years of your life you'll never get back"Quote: MrVQuote: OnceDearIt beats dying alone.
Perhaps, but what kind of epitaph would it lead to?
""Some say he lied, and now he lies here forever?"
link to original post
Psalm 25:16
Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
July 25th, 2023 at 2:05:02 PM
permalink
No I did not say that. There are too many factors and not enough information for me to answer that question. It really depends.Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfBecause I'm not dumb enough to believe just because you are winning on something for an extended period of time that you have a winning method. You need ejumucate yourself on some variance and standard deviation stuffses.Quote: EvenBobIf you come out a winner why aren't you playing it.
link to original post
So for you me presenting 6 weeks worth of play is not enough, correct? Is that what you're saying that you will not accept that as proof that I consistently be roulette?
link to original post
For instance, if 6 weeks only consists of 70 bets and you are only ahead 1 unit, then no, I wouldn't accept that as proof you have a winning method.
If you make 1000 bets at 10 cents and you're down 52 bucks and then you make a $200 bet and win for a $148 profit, I won't accept that as proof.
If you make 50 bets on even money bets and have an 80% hit rate I will believe you.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
July 25th, 2023 at 2:36:07 PM
permalink
Quote: OnceDearQuote: MrVOf course he won't.
It's all about him getting attention in his dotage, alone , petting his feral cats, choking down turnips and kale.
The one bright spot in his life is knowing he's successfully played this BS card for decades.
link to original post
It beats dying alone.
link to original post
How? Either way, he ends up in a house full of hungry cats, ala Marie Provost.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
July 25th, 2023 at 2:41:51 PM
permalink
"He was the winner that became the cats' dinner"Quote: billryanQuote: OnceDearQuote: MrVOf course he won't.
It's all about him getting attention in his dotage, alone , petting his feral cats, choking down turnips and kale.
The one bright spot in his life is knowing he's successfully played this BS card for decades.
link to original post
It beats dying alone.
link to original post
How? Either way, he ends up in a house full of hungry cats, ala Marie Provost.
link to original post
Psalm 25:16
Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
July 25th, 2023 at 2:50:13 PM
permalink
Even little kitties have to eat
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
July 25th, 2023 at 2:52:48 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfNo I did not say that. There are too many factors and not enough information for me to answer that question. It really depends.Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfBecause I'm not dumb enough to believe just because you are winning on something for an extended period of time that you have a winning method. You need ejumucate yourself on some variance and standard deviation stuffses.Quote: EvenBobIf you come out a winner why aren't you playing it.
link to original post
So for you me presenting 6 weeks worth of play is not enough, correct? Is that what you're saying that you will not accept that as proof that I consistently be roulette?
link to original post
For instance, if 6 weeks only consists of 70 bets and you are only ahead 1 unit, then no, I wouldn't accept that as proof you have a winning method.
If you make 1000 bets at 10 cents and you're down 52 bucks and then you make a $200 bet and win for a $148 profit, I won't accept that as proof.
If you make 50 bets on even money bets and have an 80% hit rate I will believe you.
link to original post
What will you say if he hits at a 74% rate? 63%?
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
July 25th, 2023 at 3:42:29 PM
permalink
Quote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBob
So how many weeks or months or years of play would I have to present for you to say that I beat roulette consistently.
link to original post
YOU said six weeks. That was YOUR standard. You also said you win more often than you lose. These are YOUR words.
I am simply agreeing to the terms that YOU set forth. You said you can offer proof that you win more often than you lose, and that you could provide six weeks of records as proof.
I am agreeing to that. I am saying if those six weeks of records show that you win more often than you lose, then I will concede that you can win at Roulette more often than you lose at Roulette over a six week period, which, again, is the time-span that YOU are offering as proof.
Are you going to do that, or are you going to keep stalling and trying to move the goalposts?
link to original post
So how much play do I have to produce for you to say that I beat roulette, that I win at the game consistently more than I lose the majority of the time. Telling me I for 6 weeks as meaningless because it implies that anything longer than 6 weeks and I'm a loser. Of course I know anybody that can say they're going to win for six weeks and then does it obviously has the game beat. Because it's not like they did it accidentally and then started waving that around, they said they were going to do it and they did it which means they have a mastery of it. How much time played do you have to see before you make the statement that I beat roulette consistently. I'm not stalling, I'm just not going to start this until I get an idea of what's going on.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 3:47:21 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolf
If you make 50 bets on even money bets and have an 80% hit rate I will believe you.
link to original post
That would take me at least a couple of months to do at one Casino. And it doesn't prove anything more then what I'm proposing. For some reason you have this 80% thing stuck in your mind as being something meaningful and it's not. It really has nothing to do with anything but you'll never see that. It's just a convenient way for me to play it has nothing to do with winning or losing. But for some reason to you it's the be all end all and proves everything. It doesn't.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 3:50:44 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBob
So how many weeks or months or years of play would I have to present for you to say that I beat roulette consistently.
link to original post
YOU said six weeks. That was YOUR standard. You also said you win more often than you lose. These are YOUR words.
I am simply agreeing to the terms that YOU set forth. You said you can offer proof that you win more often than you lose, and that you could provide six weeks of records as proof.
I am agreeing to that. I am saying if those six weeks of records show that you win more often than you lose, then I will concede that you can win at Roulette more often than you lose at Roulette over a six week period, which, again, is the time-span that YOU are offering as proof.
Are you going to do that, or are you going to keep stalling and trying to move the goalposts?
link to original post
So how much play do I have to produce for you to say that I beat roulette, that I win at the game consistently more than I lose the majority of the time. Telling me I for 6 weeks as meaningless because it implies that anything longer than 6 weeks and I'm a loser. Of course I know anybody that can say they're going to win for six weeks and then does it obviously has the game beat. Because it's not like they did it accidentally and then started waving that around, they said they were going to do it and they did it which means they have a mastery of it. How much time played do you have to see before you make the statement that I beat roulette consistently. I'm not stalling, I'm just not going to start this until I get an idea of what's going on.
link to original post
The probability that you cannot beat roulette and that any evidence you give is doctored is higher than the probability that you actually beat roulette.
As in 99% probability you have doctored evidence and .00000001% chance you actually beat it. And the left over percentage is you didn't Doctor the evidence but are just mistaken.
Most cons involve showing incontrovertible evidence to people just gullible enough to believe it
Until it's debunked!
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
July 25th, 2023 at 3:51:20 PM
permalink
Quote: billryanQuote: AxelWolfNo I did not say that. There are too many factors and not enough information for me to answer that question. It really depends.Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfBecause I'm not dumb enough to believe just because you are winning on something for an extended period of time that you have a winning method. You need ejumucate yourself on some variance and standard deviation stuffses.Quote: EvenBobIf you come out a winner why aren't you playing it.
link to original post
So for you me presenting 6 weeks worth of play is not enough, correct? Is that what you're saying that you will not accept that as proof that I consistently be roulette?
link to original post
For instance, if 6 weeks only consists of 70 bets and you are only ahead 1 unit, then no, I wouldn't accept that as proof you have a winning method.
If you make 1000 bets at 10 cents and you're down 52 bucks and then you make a $200 bet and win for a $148 profit, I won't accept that as proof.
If you make 50 bets on even money bets and have an 80% hit rate I will believe you.
link to original post
What will you say if he hits at a 74% rate? 63%?
link to original post
You don't realize it but that's actually a very good question. Because that's actually what happens I have a certain percentile rate that I hit at and all I did is tweak it to get it up to 80%. Of course I had to give up a lot of things to get the 80% but the time I save makes it worth it to me. Congratulations you actually impressed me with a logical realistic question. Something that is completely lacking here..
In any event, what Mike says about all this is all that matters to me. He's the expert here if he says 6 weeks is enough for him then that will be enough for me to get started. What's the rush, if I start right this minute it's going to be the middle of September before I get done.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 4:04:41 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: billryanQuote: AxelWolfNo I did not say that. There are too many factors and not enough information for me to answer that question. It really depends.Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfBecause I'm not dumb enough to believe just because you are winning on something for an extended period of time that you have a winning method. You need ejumucate yourself on some variance and standard deviation stuffses.Quote: EvenBobIf you come out a winner why aren't you playing it.
link to original post
So for you me presenting 6 weeks worth of play is not enough, correct? Is that what you're saying that you will not accept that as proof that I consistently be roulette?
link to original post
For instance, if 6 weeks only consists of 70 bets and you are only ahead 1 unit, then no, I wouldn't accept that as proof you have a winning method.
If you make 1000 bets at 10 cents and you're down 52 bucks and then you make a $200 bet and win for a $148 profit, I won't accept that as proof.
If you make 50 bets on even money bets and have an 80% hit rate I will believe you.
link to original post
What will you say if he hits at a 74% rate? 63%?
link to original post
You don't realize it but that's actually a very good question. Because that's actually what happens I have a certain percentile rate that I hit at and all I did is tweak it to get it up to 80%. Of course I had to give up a lot of things to get the 80% but the time I save makes it worth it to me. Congratulations you actually impressed me with a logical realistic question. Something that is completely lacking here..
In any event, what Mike says about all this is all that matters to me. He's the expert here if he says 6 weeks is enough for him then that will be enough for me to get started. What's the rush, if I start right this minute it's going to be the middle of September before I get done.
link to original post
So basically EB currently has zero evidence he beats roulette.
Two years of online gambling and no record.
Sounds logical!
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
July 25th, 2023 at 4:41:09 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: billryanQuote: AxelWolfNo I did not say that. There are too many factors and not enough information for me to answer that question. It really depends.Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfBecause I'm not dumb enough to believe just because you are winning on something for an extended period of time that you have a winning method. You need ejumucate yourself on some variance and standard deviation stuffses.Quote: EvenBobIf you come out a winner why aren't you playing it.
link to original post
So for you me presenting 6 weeks worth of play is not enough, correct? Is that what you're saying that you will not accept that as proof that I consistently be roulette?
link to original post
For instance, if 6 weeks only consists of 70 bets and you are only ahead 1 unit, then no, I wouldn't accept that as proof you have a winning method.
If you make 1000 bets at 10 cents and you're down 52 bucks and then you make a $200 bet and win for a $148 profit, I won't accept that as proof.
If you make 50 bets on even money bets and have an 80% hit rate I will believe you.
link to original post
What will you say if he hits at a 74% rate? 63%?
link to original post
You don't realize it but that's actually a very good question. Because that's actually what happens I have a certain percentile rate that I hit at and all I did is tweak it to get it up to 80%. Of course I had to give up a lot of things to get the 80% but the time I save makes it worth it to me. Congratulations you actually impressed me with a logical realistic question. Something that is completely lacking here..
In any event, what Mike says about all this is all that matters to me. He's the expert here if he says 6 weeks is enough for him then that will be enough for me to get started. What's the rush, if I start right this minute it's going to be the middle of September before I get done.
link to original post
I know that I am crying in the rain, but why? If you are sending Mike the results from this experiment to simply report if you are positive or negative from six weeks of play, why not just send him all online casino records since 2021 (or whatever year it was you said) that you switched to 100% online play at licensed casinos? He would not have to reveal any data about amounts or specific profit levels, he can just confirm that you flat bet (no progressive betting system, and no use of bonuses) and are in the profit since inception of your play?
This seems like it would be far easier (and it could be completed in a matter of minutes) versus starting a play session specifically for this purpose. I mean if you are willing to send to just one party (which is understandable) data to verify the claim to minimize public availability, why not just send them all (he already knows who you are and what casinos you play, so it is not like this is valid argument that you fear he will tip off the casinos that you play. And, the forum would not have any additional info.) Wizard already knows everything about you (related to this subject) if you really feared he would reveal your play to the casinos that you play, so this cannot be a defense to simply not sending him the logs to verify. I do not see what privacy concerns can be gained by doing a limited experiment versus just sending the logs.
I just don't get it, you have been discussing for over decade a claim that could be solved in a matter of minutes by providing the logs.
That being said, if you are truly flat betting, daily betting for six weeks with zero losses on even money bets, and never being wrong would be impressive. Sure, it could be simply luck for such a time limit, but zero losses in six weeks with a flat bet everyday would still be impressive.
July 25th, 2023 at 4:44:59 PM
permalink
When playing the game of "Mine is bigger than yours" there always comes a time to unzip and show the world what you've got..
The time is nigh.
As far as his claim that him saying he's going to win in advance and then winning proves he has a winning system: uh,no, not at all.
I've made much less likely predictions and they've come true: it's called "luck" .. when it actually happens.
The time is nigh.
As far as his claim that him saying he's going to win in advance and then winning proves he has a winning system: uh,no, not at all.
I've made much less likely predictions and they've come true: it's called "luck" .. when it actually happens.
"What, me worry?"
July 25th, 2023 at 4:47:17 PM
permalink
\Quote: Gandler
If you are sending Mike the results from this experiment to simply report if you are positive or negative from six weeks of play, why not just send him all online casino records since 2021
link to original post
I'm not sending Mike anything, I will post the results right here. I just want him to weigh in on what it will mean.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 4:52:12 PM
permalink
It's like this. Annie Oakley was probably the best shot the world has ever seen, she hit anything she aimed at. She thad exhibitions all over the world and she would announce before every shot what she was going to do. She would say I'm going to shoot a cigarette out of that guy's mouth from so many yards or I'm going to shoot a hole in a 50 cent piece somebody flips into the air, and then she would do it. Not a single person in any of those crowds that she did this ever said hahaha, nice try Annie Oakley. You got lucky, one shot doesn't mean anything. We want you to stand here for 6 weeks and do that over and over and over and then we'll believe that you can do it.
The whole point of the exhibition was that she announced what she was going to do before she did it. That's the most important part. I'm announcing what I'm going to do before I do it and you people act like it's going to be some kind of accident if I accomplish this. Well, 6 weeks will only prove that you can win for 6 weeks. That's not good enough. No, it's good enough, because if I can do it for 6 weeks I can do it for 6 months or 6 years.
The whole point of the exhibition was that she announced what she was going to do before she did it. That's the most important part. I'm announcing what I'm going to do before I do it and you people act like it's going to be some kind of accident if I accomplish this. Well, 6 weeks will only prove that you can win for 6 weeks. That's not good enough. No, it's good enough, because if I can do it for 6 weeks I can do it for 6 months or 6 years.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 5:06:40 PM
permalink
Quote: GandlerQuote: EvenBobQuote: billryanQuote: AxelWolfNo I did not say that. There are too many factors and not enough information for me to answer that question. It really depends.Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfBecause I'm not dumb enough to believe just because you are winning on something for an extended period of time that you have a winning method. You need ejumucate yourself on some variance and standard deviation stuffses.Quote: EvenBobIf you come out a winner why aren't you playing it.
link to original post
So for you me presenting 6 weeks worth of play is not enough, correct? Is that what you're saying that you will not accept that as proof that I consistently be roulette?
link to original post
For instance, if 6 weeks only consists of 70 bets and you are only ahead 1 unit, then no, I wouldn't accept that as proof you have a winning method.
If you make 1000 bets at 10 cents and you're down 52 bucks and then you make a $200 bet and win for a $148 profit, I won't accept that as proof.
If you make 50 bets on even money bets and have an 80% hit rate I will believe you.
link to original post
What will you say if he hits at a 74% rate? 63%?
link to original post
You don't realize it but that's actually a very good question. Because that's actually what happens I have a certain percentile rate that I hit at and all I did is tweak it to get it up to 80%. Of course I had to give up a lot of things to get the 80% but the time I save makes it worth it to me. Congratulations you actually impressed me with a logical realistic question. Something that is completely lacking here..
In any event, what Mike says about all this is all that matters to me. He's the expert here if he says 6 weeks is enough for him then that will be enough for me to get started. What's the rush, if I start right this minute it's going to be the middle of September before I get done.
link to original post
I know that I am crying in the rain, but why? If you are sending Mike the results from this experiment to simply report if you are positive or negative from six weeks of play, why not just send him all online casino records since 2021 (or whatever year it was you said) that you switched to 100% online play at licensed casinos? He would not have to reveal any data about amounts or specific profit levels, he can just confirm that you flat bet (no progressive betting system, and no use of bonuses) and are in the profit since inception of your play?
This seems like it would be far easier (and it could be completed in a matter of minutes) versus starting a play session specifically for this purpose. I mean if you are willing to send to just one party (which is understandable) data to verify the claim to minimize public availability, why not just send them all (he already knows who you are and what casinos you play, so it is not like this is valid argument that you fear he will tip off the casinos that you play. And, the forum would not have any additional info.) Wizard already knows everything about you (related to this subject) if you really feared he would reveal your play to the casinos that you play, so this cannot be a defense to simply not sending him the logs to verify. I do not see what privacy concerns can be gained by doing a limited experiment versus just sending the logs.
I just don't get it, you have been discussing for over decade a claim that could be solved in a matter of minutes by providing the logs.
That being said, if you are truly flat betting, daily betting for six weeks with zero losses on even money bets, and never being wrong would be impressive. Sure, it could be simply luck for such a time limit, but zero losses in six weeks with a flat bet everyday would still be impressive.
link to original post
If you are a person unfamiliar with Photoshop, six weeks sounds like long enough to familiarize yourself!
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
July 25th, 2023 at 5:08:16 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIt's like this. Annie Oakley was probably the best shot the world has ever seen, she hit anything she aimed at. She thad exhibitions all over the world and she would announce before every shot what she was going to do. She would say I'm going to shoot a cigarette out of that guy's mouth from so many yards or I'm going to shoot a hole in a 50 cent piece somebody flips into the air, and then she would do it. Not a single person in any of those crowds that she did this ever said hahaha, nice try Annie Oakley. You got lucky, one shot doesn't mean anything. We want you to stand here for 6 weeks and do that over and over and over and then we'll believe that you can do it.
The whole point of the exhibition was that she announced what she was going to do before she did it. That's the most important part. I'm announcing what I'm going to do before I do it and you people act like it's going to be some kind of accident if I accomplish this. Well, 6 weeks will only prove that you can win for 6 weeks. That's not good enough. No, it's good enough, because if I can do it for 6 weeks I can do it for 6 months or 6 years.
link to original post
That is a bad comparison because Annie Oakley was famous because she could shoot at a consistently skilled rate with large audiences and many official records. She was not famous for just telling people that she could and that they had to believe her. She was not famous for one lucky shot, she was famous because she could make skilled shots consistently (also the stakes were way higher.)
The other difference if Annie Oakley failed with her cigar trick once, her husband would die (assuming it was legit and not a magic trick as some suspect, but that is another rabbit hole.) If you fail with your prediction once the worst that happens is you lose a few dollars and you can say, "it was just not coming to me clearly that time."
In either event (assuming she was completely legit which we will never know), hitting a very specific target with life/death ramifications every day, is very different than getting one 50/50 guess right a day (most days) for six weeks. One is a tangible skill that can be demonstrated (and would have to be or else your life would be ruined), one is just guessing on a coin toss.
I don't disagree that flat betting daily on even money bets, and not getting a single loss for six weeks would be impressive. But, it is hardly equivalent to somebody that was famous specifically because they spend their whole life demonstrating to the public their skill.
I honestly do not get the comparison, because that is almost the most polar opposite example that one can come up with.
July 25th, 2023 at 5:31:49 PM
permalink
\Quote: Gandler
That is a bad comparison because Annie Oakley was famous because she could shoot at a consistently skilled rate with large audiences and many official records.
link to original post
LOL! I absolutely knew somebody was going to say this and I already had my answer prepared. Do you really think that every place in Europe that Annie Oakley toured in the 1890s was absolutely totally familiar with her reputation? Hell no. She went many many places where they had absolutely no idea who she was and had to be told. So for them she had no reputation, she was simply a woman who said what she was going to do and she did it. There was not a single person there who said do that again 150 times because we think it was luck. You say you are going to do something and you do it, in this case a few times in front of a live crowd, this gives you total credibility. But not here not on this forum. If I say I'm going to do something for 6 weeks you all say, hahaha, that's just dumb stupid luck anybody could do that. To which I'm saying, go ahead and try it. I dare you.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 5:34:48 PM
permalink
Quote: Gandler
I don't disagree that flat betting daily on even money bets, and not getting a single loss for six weeks would be impressive.
link to original post
Impressive? That would be a 100% hit rate, who in their right mind would ever claim they could do that. Not me.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 5:43:48 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob\Quote: Gandler
That is a bad comparison because Annie Oakley was famous because she could shoot at a consistently skilled rate with large audiences and many official records.
link to original post
LOL! I absolutely knew somebody was going to say this and I already had my answer prepared. Do you really think that every place in Europe that Annie Oakley toured in the 1890s was absolutely totally familiar with her reputation? Hell no. She went many many places where they had absolutely no idea who she was and had to be told. So for them she had no reputation, she was simply a woman who said what she was going to do and she did it. There was not a single person there who said do that again 150 times because we think it was luck. You say you are going to do something and you do it, in this case a few times in front of a live crowd, this gives you total credibility. But not here not on this forum. If I say I'm going to do something for 6 weeks you all say, hahaha, that's just dumb stupid luck anybody could do that. To which I'm saying, go ahead and try it. I dare you.
link to original post
So all those dumb Europeans who bought tickets to her show had no idea who she was or what she did.
I'm not sure why you do what you do, but it's obvious you have zero credibility here and your recent post are approaching Grandpa Simpson quality. Post whatever you want. It doesn't matter. The bottom line is no one believes you and short of handing out bags of money, no one will.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
July 25th, 2023 at 5:52:00 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob\Quote: Gandler
That is a bad comparison because Annie Oakley was famous because she could shoot at a consistently skilled rate with large audiences and many official records.
link to original post
LOL! I absolutely knew somebody was going to say this and I already had my answer prepared. Do you really think that every place in Europe that Annie Oakley toured in the 1890s was absolutely totally familiar with her reputation? Hell no. She went many many places where they had absolutely no idea who she was and had to be told. So for them she had no reputation, she was simply a woman who said what she was going to do and she did it. There was not a single person there who said do that again 150 times because we think it was luck. You say you are going to do something and you do it, in this case a few times in front of a live crowd, this gives you total credibility. But not here not on this forum. If I say I'm going to do something for 6 weeks you all say, hahaha, that's just dumb stupid luck anybody could do that. To which I'm saying, go ahead and try it. I dare you.
link to original post
"A few times in front of a live crowd" is certainly NOT what you are proposing.
Six weeks in front of no crowd is what you are proposing.
Mein Gott, the ridiculousness of this.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
July 25th, 2023 at 6:00:26 PM
permalink
Quote: MrVOf course he won't.
It's all about him getting attention in his dotage, alone , petting his feral cats, choking down turnips and kale.
The one bright spot in his life is knowing he's successfully played this BS card for decades.
link to original post
This post is a personal insult. It is directed at EB and is insulting. It is immaterial whether any or all of it is accurate; this is a mean-spirited personal insult.
Mr. V, I will give you a choice:
Either give me permission to delete the content of this post, or be suspended for 3 days. If I do not hear from you within 24 hours, I will default to the three day suspension.
If any member wishes to comment on this ruling/action, please do so in the Discussion About the Suspension List Thread.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
July 25th, 2023 at 6:08:46 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob\Quote: Gandler
That is a bad comparison because Annie Oakley was famous because she could shoot at a consistently skilled rate with large audiences and many official records.
link to original post
LOL! I absolutely knew somebody was going to say this and I already had my answer prepared. Do you really think that every place in Europe that Annie Oakley toured in the 1890s was absolutely totally familiar with her reputation? Hell no. She went many many places where they had absolutely no idea who she was and had to be told. So for them she had no reputation, she was simply a woman who said what she was going to do and she did it. There was not a single person there who said do that again 150 times because we think it was luck. You say you are going to do something and you do it, in this case a few times in front of a live crowd, this gives you total credibility. But not here not on this forum. If I say I'm going to do something for 6 weeks you all say, hahaha, that's just dumb stupid luck anybody could do that. To which I'm saying, go ahead and try it. I dare you.
link to original post
A. That does not address my other points in the comparison.
B. You and I know who she is because of her records and appearances. We are not in the 1890s, we know who she is over 100 years later because she had enough legitimized appearances that their was either something to her skills or she was a great entertainer (either way impressive for her time.) Though realistically, we probably both heard of her from the Musical which inspired us to do further research (which is still the same.)
C. In the 1800s entertainment was very different, and reputations mattered a lot more. People may have watched her initially because she was part of a famous show, but the reason that she is more famous than the show she got her start from was because people felt like documenting her.
D. You are not doing anything in front of a live crowd, you are posting results that you choose (even if we accept that they happened), to a message board after the fact. You are not sitting in front of a roulette wheel predicting every spin in real time with 100% accuracy.
E. You have to repeat less likely results less times to make them equally credible. Shooting a cigar out of your husband's mouth once a day is enough to shut up most people. You could not do this once (let alone consistently) if you were not a perfect shot (or again were fulfilling the act in another way, but that is a debate for another day.)
I do not get this response, I have admitted that six weeks of 100% flat bet wins with daily bets are impressive (and if this turns out to be the case I will be impressed, I have no issue admitting this). But, you have yet to do this so we do not even know if you will. Instead, you are talking about some famous entertainer (who was probably as likely to be a fraud as she was legit if we are being honest) from over 100 years ago who actually did public shows routinely, while failing to do a single one.
July 25th, 2023 at 6:11:14 PM
permalink
Quote: billryan
So all those dumb Europeans who bought tickets to her show had no idea who she was or what she did.
link to original post
A lot of them did not, no. There was no movies, there was no TV, there was nothing except newspapers. Ever going to a carnival sideshow and buy a ticket to something you've never even heard of and watch the act and they totally impress you? It was like that. She was a sideshow act, but because she did what she said she was going to do people were impressed. Way back when Cassius Clay started fighting, people hated him because he would brag before the fight about what he was going to do to the guy. If you were a sports figure in the 1960s you didn't do that, you were considered arrogant and full of yourself. But he did what he said he was going to do and that totally impressed people.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 6:15:04 PM
permalink
Quote: Gandler
A. That does not address my other points in the comparison.
link to original post
That's because I don't read your posts, you know I don't read your posts. How many times in the other forum have I said I never read them because they're longer than Encyclopedia Britannica articles I just don't have the time. I addressed the first part of it because that's all I read and I'm not going to read any more of it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 6:16:33 PM
permalink
Where is Mike anyway. He's not at Burning Man cuz that doesn't start till the end of August. Is he climbing a mountain somewhere? When will he be back.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 6:26:50 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobWhere is Mike anyway. He's not at Burning Man cuz that doesn't start till the end of August. Is he climbing a mountain somewhere? When will he be back.
link to original post
I am sure if he wanted us to know he would have told us. He usually gives a report when he returns.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
July 25th, 2023 at 6:31:12 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: billryan
So all those dumb Europeans who bought tickets to her show had no idea who she was or what she did.
link to original post
A lot of them did not, no. There was no movies, there was no TV, there was nothing except newspapers. Ever going to a carnival sideshow and buy a ticket to something you've never even heard of and watch the act and they totally impress you? It was like that. She was a sideshow act, but because she did what she said she was going to do people were impressed. Way back when Cassius Clay started fighting, people hated him because he would brag before the fight about what he was going to do to the guy. If you were a sports figure in the 1960s you didn't do that, you were considered arrogant and full of yourself. But he did what he said he was going to do and that totally impressed people.
link to original post
Did EB really just call Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay?
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
July 25th, 2023 at 6:32:17 PM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888Mr. V, I will give you a choice: Either give me permission to delete the content of this post, or be suspended for 3 days.
It's just words on a screen so yeah, go ahead and delete it.
But ask yourself this: is what I wrote REALLY an insult to EB?
He's often said he doesn't bother to read anything I write, so to echo that old saw: "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make noise?"
If my comments cause him no offense because he never saw them, where is the harm?
I just saw over on the discussion thread that EB jumped in,whining about you giving me the option: I will take the option, if for no other reason than to be a burr in his side.
Spike and I go waaaaay back, dontcha know...
"What, me worry?"
July 25th, 2023 at 6:32:27 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: Gandler
A. That does not address my other points in the comparison.
link to original post
That's because I don't read your posts, you know I don't read your posts. How many times in the other forum have I said I never read them because they're longer than Encyclopedia Britannica articles I just don't have the time. I addressed the first part of it because that's all I read and I'm not going to read any more of it.
link to original post
Sure you do, because you generally respond to a random sentence 80% into my posts (and then oddly insist that you don't have time to read the rest while responding to a point that you can only quote if you take the time to get to it.)
Also, your post history and activity on this topic alone shows that you have nothing but time.
July 25th, 2023 at 6:36:50 PM
permalink
Quote: darkoz
Did EB really just call Muhammad Ali Cassius Clay?
link to original post
He fought under his real name Cassius Clay from 1960 to 1964 and had some of his most famous fights under that name. I still remember him as Cassius Clay, calling him Muhammad Ali has always seemed very strange to me.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 6:48:52 PM
permalink
Quote: GandlerQuote: EvenBobQuote: Gandler
A. That does not address my other points in the comparison.
link to original post
That's because I don't read your posts, you know I don't read your posts. How many times in the other forum have I said I never read them because they're longer than Encyclopedia Britannica articles I just don't have the time. I addressed the first part of it because that's all I read and I'm not going to read any more of it.
link to original post
Sure you do, because you generally respond to a random sentence 80% into my posts (and then oddly insist that you don't have time to read the rest while responding to a point that you can only quote if you take the time to get to it.)
Also, your post history and activity on this topic alone shows that you have nothing but time.
link to original post
Think what you want, I don't read your posts and if I respond to something in it it was by accident something that caught my eye without actually reading it. As far as having nothing but time, nothing could be more laughable. I have time right this minute because I'm in bed, but during the day especially in the summer I'm outside three or four hours a day working on the property. Whenever I post it's because I came in to take a break or eat lunch. People seem to think that I spend all day in front of my computer and the polar opposite is true I spend almost no time during the day ask the computer. Last summer I built an entire garage all by myself and this year I'm putting in a 300 sqft patio. If think you can do that sitting in front of a computer all day go ahead and try it. And my post history on this forum most of that comes from the first three years I was here which is 10 years ago. I've gone for vast periods of time without posting anything on this forum.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 7:05:41 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: GandlerQuote: EvenBobQuote: Gandler
A. That does not address my other points in the comparison.
link to original post
That's because I don't read your posts, you know I don't read your posts. How many times in the other forum have I said I never read them because they're longer than Encyclopedia Britannica articles I just don't have the time. I addressed the first part of it because that's all I read and I'm not going to read any more of it.
link to original post
Sure you do, because you generally respond to a random sentence 80% into my posts (and then oddly insist that you don't have time to read the rest while responding to a point that you can only quote if you take the time to get to it.)
Also, your post history and activity on this topic alone shows that you have nothing but time.
link to original post
Think what you want, I don't read your posts and if I respond to something in it it was by accident something that caught my eye without actually reading it. As far as having nothing but time, nothing could be more laughable. I have time right this minute because I'm in bed, but during the day especially in the summer I'm outside three or four hours a day working on the property. Whenever I post it's because I came in to take a break or eat lunch. People seem to think that I spend all day in front of my computer and the polar opposite is true I spend almost no time during the day ask the computer. Last summer I built an entire garage all by myself and this year I'm putting in a 300 sqft patio. If think you can do that sitting in front of a computer all day go ahead and try it. And my post history on this forum most of that comes from the first three years I was here which is 10 years ago. I've gone for vast periods of time without posting anything on this forum.
link to original post
A 300 sqft patio over the course of four months, how could you ever do that without devoting 100% of your energy to it and not making dozens of posts a day?....
If most of your time on your computer comes from before being on your computer was profitable (online roulette became legal), I am not sure that bodes well for your system...
July 25th, 2023 at 8:22:23 PM
permalink
Quote: Gandler
A 300 sqft patio over the course of four months, how could you ever do that without devoting 100% of your energy to
link to original post
That's just my big project I have probably seven or eight smaller projects I'm doing at the same time. I spent 3 hours working Outdoors today and didn't spend 30 seconds working on the patio. Also, I'm 74 years old, and you're what 20 something? How could you possibly have any idea about how long it takes to get stuff done when you're 74.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 8:54:37 PM
permalink
Of course it's meaningful. The higher your hit rate/edge is the fewer bets you need to be confident you have a winning method. With an 80% hit rate depending on the HA, you would have a 51-59% advantage on each bet.Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolf
If you make 50 bets on even money bets and have an 80% hit rate I will believe you.
link to original post
That would take me at least a couple of months to do at one Casino. And it doesn't prove anything more then what I'm proposing. For some reason you have this 80% thing stuck in your mind as being something meaningful and it's not. It really has nothing to do with anything but you'll never see that. It's just a convenient way for me to play it has nothing to do with winning or losing. But for some reason to you it's the be all end all and proves everything. It doesn't.
link to original post
That's a monstrous advantage, your variance would be extremely low and a graph would look like this.
Most knowledgeable gamblers, math guys, and logical people would believe someone was a fool not to be betting large amounts every time an 80%hit rate opportunity presented itself.♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
July 25th, 2023 at 9:46:45 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolf
Most knowledgeable gamblers, math guys, and logical people would believe someone was a fool not to be betting large amounts every time an 80%hit rate opportunity presented itself.
link to original post
But you keep forgetting, I'm not a gambler. I've only stated this probably dozens of times, I do not gamble. I don't like it, I don't like risk-taking, I think most gamblers have something psychologically wrong with them. My wife is a gambler there is definitely something wrong with her when she's in a casino. My wife is one of the biggest tightwads that I know but get her in a casino and it's like money loses all meaning. I'm not like that, I'm in total control of whatever I do all the time. So you go ahead and make your large bets, whatever it takes to grow your chest hair. I just plod along and do my thing because it's my life and not your life.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 10:46:12 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolf
Most knowledgeable gamblers, math guys, and logical people would believe someone was a fool not to be betting large amounts every time an 80%hit rate opportunity presented itself.
link to original post
But you keep forgetting, I'm not a gambler. I've only stated this probably dozens of times, I do not gamble. I don't like it, I don't like risk-taking, I think most gamblers have something psychologically wrong with them. My wife is a gambler there is definitely something wrong with her when she's in a casino. My wife is one of the biggest tightwads that I know but get her in a casino and it's like money loses all meaning. I'm not like that, I'm in total control of whatever I do all the time. So you go ahead and make your large bets, whatever it takes to grow your chest hair. I just plod along and do my thing because it's my life and not your life.
link to original post
EB is not a gambler. He is just someone who gambles at least once a day (and hangs out on gambling forums making the highest post count)
That's why he doesn't take advantage of a situation where he's guaranteed to win. Because he believes being guaranteed to win is gambling.
It's just George Orwellian arguments. Up is down, four equals five. Nonsense logic ala Carroll. Except Orwell and Carroll wrote well and didn't actually believe in the nonsense they wrote.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
July 25th, 2023 at 10:57:55 PM
permalink
Quote: darkoz
EB is not a gambler. He is just someone who gambles at least once a day
link to original post
I do not gamble, I do not make a bet unless I'm extremely sure that I'm going to win. That is not gambling, that is driving your car because you're extremely sure that your brakes are going to work every time you push on the pedal. I do not like a risk-taking and gambling is risk-taking. Would you drive your car if your brakes only work 75% of the time? You would have to be an idiot. I do not bet money unless I know for a fact there's an extremely good chance I'm going to get it back. I do not understand life in any other context. What my wife does in a casino totally baffles me. If she wins she keeps playing, if she loses she keeps playing. She keeps taking risk after risk for no apparent reason and it usually never works. You get her in any other venue and she'll squeeze a dime till it screams. I don't get it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 25th, 2023 at 11:40:16 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: darkoz
EB is not a gambler. He is just someone who gambles at least once a day
link to original post
I do not gamble, I do not make a bet unless I'm extremely sure that I'm going to win. That is not gambling, that is driving your car because you're extremely sure that your brakes are going to work every time you push on the pedal. I do not like a risk-taking and gambling is risk-taking. Would you drive your car if your brakes only work 75% of the time? You would have to be an idiot. I do not bet money unless I know for a fact there's an extremely good chance I'm going to get it back. I do not understand life in any other context. What my wife does in a casino totally baffles me. If she wins she keeps playing, if she loses she keeps playing. She keeps taking risk after risk for no apparent reason and it usually never works. You get her in any other venue and she'll squeeze a dime till it screams. I don't get it.
link to original post
An extremely good chance?
Did the definition of chance just get announced as having new meaning?
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
July 26th, 2023 at 2:52:28 AM
permalink
Extremely good chance of winning, and yet, you bet micro steaks. ROTFLMAOQuote: EvenBobQuote: darkoz
EB is not a gambler. He is just someone who gambles at least once a day
link to original post
I do not gamble, I do not make a bet unless I'm extremely sure that I'm going to win. That is not gambling, that is driving your car because you're extremely sure that your brakes are going to work every time you push on the pedal. I do not like a risk-taking and gambling is risk-taking. Would you drive your car if your brakes only work 75% of the time? You would have to be an idiot. I do not bet money unless I know for a fact there's an extremely good chance I'm going to get it back. I do not understand life in any other context. What my wife does in a casino totally baffles me. If she wins she keeps playing, if she loses she keeps playing. She keeps taking risk after risk for no apparent reason and it usually never works. You get her in any other venue and she'll squeeze a dime till it screams. I don't get it.
link to original post
But guess who hasn't spent years of my life studying roulette with boxes and boxes of data and whatever other junk you claim? ME ME ME AND IM WINNING, I'M BI-WINNING!!!!!!! And I'm posting up results... You do nothing but flap your yap. Here are some more results just for you...
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
July 26th, 2023 at 3:09:17 AM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfExtremely good chance of winning, and yet, you bet micro steaks. ROTFLMAOQuote: EvenBobQuote: darkoz
EB is not a gambler. He is just someone who gambles at least once a day
link to original post
I do not gamble, I do not make a bet unless I'm extremely sure that I'm going to win. That is not gambling, that is driving your car because you're extremely sure that your brakes are going to work every time you push on the pedal. I do not like a risk-taking and gambling is risk-taking. Would you drive your car if your brakes only work 75% of the time? You would have to be an idiot. I do not bet money unless I know for a fact there's an extremely good chance I'm going to get it back. I do not understand life in any other context. What my wife does in a casino totally baffles me. If she wins she keeps playing, if she loses she keeps playing. She keeps taking risk after risk for no apparent reason and it usually never works. You get her in any other venue and she'll squeeze a dime till it screams. I don't get it.
link to original post
But guess who hasn't spent years of my life studying roulette with boxes and boxes of data and whatever other junk you claim? ME ME ME AND IM WINNING, I'M BI-WINNING!!!!!!! And I'm posting up results... You do nothing but flap your yap. Here are some more results just for you...
link to original post
Next we'll get EB saying. "why do I need to prove roulette can be beaten when AW already proved it."
To Gandler and all those who missed it. Carefully read what he now proposes to demonstrate. If it turns out to be a (incredibly easy) demo of winning X days on the trot, expect the false corollary that that is proof of other previous and absurd claims.
Psalm 25:16
Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
July 26th, 2023 at 6:07:32 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob
So how much play do I have to produce for you to say that I beat roulette, that I win at the game consistently more than I lose the majority of the time. Telling me I for 6 weeks as meaningless because it implies that anything longer than 6 weeks and I'm a loser. Of course I know anybody that can say they're going to win for six weeks and then does it obviously has the game beat. Because it's not like they did it accidentally and then started waving that around, they said they were going to do it and they did it which means they have a mastery of it. How much time played do you have to see before you make the statement that I beat roulette consistently. I'm not stalling, I'm just not going to start this until I get an idea of what's going on.
link to original post
You tell me. You're the roulette expert, right? You keep claiming you know more about it than anyone here. You keep telling me that I have no idea what I'm talking about, so why are you asking ME what the parameters of the proof should be? Whatever you say, I'm fine with. If you say six weeks is long enough to prove you can beat the game, then I'm good with that. I can't wait to see the proof.
Stop stalling and put up or shut up.
July 26th, 2023 at 8:20:05 AM
permalink
I've been asked to make an appearance in this thread.
I do see EB has posted short log files at least twice. Can anyone please summarize the evidence presented so far? Not something like x winning days in a row, but a summary of every bet posted. For example, x even-money bets were made in single-zero roulette and EB won y of them. Thank you.
I do see EB has posted short log files at least twice. Can anyone please summarize the evidence presented so far? Not something like x winning days in a row, but a summary of every bet posted. For example, x even-money bets were made in single-zero roulette and EB won y of them. Thank you.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
July 26th, 2023 at 8:25:55 AM
permalink
Betting $10 on even money bets for 380 spins on a double 0 wheel leads to a total bet of $3,800 x 0.0526315789473684 HA = $200 HA. Good luck beating that!
Betting $10 on even money bets for 370 spins on a single 0 wheel leads to a total bet of $3,700 x 0.027027027027027 HA = $100 HA
Betting $10 on even money bets for 370 spins on a European single 0 wheel leads to a total bet of $3,700 x 0.0135135135135135 HA = $50 HA
I'd start with 5X 370 spins or 1,850 spins on the European single 0 wheel and see how long $250 lasts me.
Of course I'd use some other strategy to run this out to past 20,000 spins.
Betting $10 on even money bets for 370 spins on a single 0 wheel leads to a total bet of $3,700 x 0.027027027027027 HA = $100 HA
Betting $10 on even money bets for 370 spins on a European single 0 wheel leads to a total bet of $3,700 x 0.0135135135135135 HA = $50 HA
I'd start with 5X 370 spins or 1,850 spins on the European single 0 wheel and see how long $250 lasts me.
Of course I'd use some other strategy to run this out to past 20,000 spins.
Last edited by: ChumpChange on Jul 26, 2023
July 26th, 2023 at 8:45:45 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI've been asked to make an appearance in this thread.
I do see EB has posted short log files at least twice. Can anyone please summarize the evidence presented so far?
link to original post
I can't see any log files or evidence at all from EB.
AW showed a log of his own of 1 dollar rough martingale.
From EB NOTHING but hints that he may be about to post something like a min bet progressive showing X winning sessions in a row.
Psalm 25:16
Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
July 26th, 2023 at 8:50:02 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI've been asked to make an appearance in this thread.
I do see EB has posted short log files at least twice. Can anyone please summarize the evidence presented so far? Not something like x winning days in a row, but a summary of every bet posted. For example, x even-money bets were made in single-zero roulette and EB won y of them. Thank you.
link to original post
EB has posted zero logs, proof, or evidence of his claims. Axelwolf posted a few things that show him winning some, I think.
A few days ago EB said he would be willing to post proof that he "wins more than he loses," and then he said he could provide six weeks worth of evidence to demonstrate this, but when some of us flat out agreed to those terms he started waffling on it and sounds like he's trying to back out once again. Now he wants you to weigh in and say what would constitute proof (which I thought you already did in his other Roulette thread, or maybe private message?).
That's where we are right now. Still waiting for EB to show even a shred of evidence of his claims.
