Can Roulette Be Beaten?
Quote: TigerWu
EB has posted zero logs, proof, or evidence of his claims.
...
Still waiting for EB to show even a shred of evidence of his claims.
link to original post
Still waiting for EB to show even a shred of evidence of ANYTHING.
Mike. NOTE: EB has hinted that he might show evidence of X consecutive winning sessions and that that should mean something..
He's also suggested that at least one person in this thread should "Crap Or Get Off The Pot".
I have been generally staying out of this thread. Axel did post logs of short winning sessions. I first saw these when they were quoted by EB. Like you, I thought EB was finally posting something resembling evidence. Alas, I was mistaken. EB has never posted any data of any sort -- just wild claims.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
I would point out that EB used your name in vain claiming that you say that progressive betting systems cannot cause a player to win a unit in most of their sessions. I saw that EB is shifting the goalposts towards just posting evidence that he wins one unit almost every day by using a betting system. He insists that you say betting systems cannot turn a loser into a winner. He quoted your page on betting systems. He claims that the only reason he wins every day is not his betting system, but the fact that he wins most of his roulette spins every session.
I posted a note showing that you can win 73% of your sessions while flat betting single-zero roulette risking at most 10 units per session:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/2285-can-roulette-be-beaten/48/#post893896
I suspect EB intends to show more winning sessions than losing sessions. He wants you to say this is only possible if his underlying bets are +EV. Of course, you know this is not true. EB is, at best, a closet system player who has deluded himself into thinking he has discovered something new.
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
Quote for Wizard's benefit.
See how Evenbob equates and conflates having 6 weeks of consecutive winning days with 'Him Beating Roulette"?
I've already demonstrated that to be an invalid corollary.
He no longer suggests that he will show evidence of winning any 80% or whatever of wagers. He nowhere proposes to show any kind of winning history in any form or format. He's frankly delivering exactly what he offered to deliver. Nothing at all.....
..... Which is more than the total value of this thread.
I think you need some highlights but I don't have time to do it thoroughly. Here is the gist.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
My records are not intended to prove I can beat roulette, they are to show that what Bob is proposing as proof under his terms is meaningless. I say I can show proof given his own standard of proof. his standard of proof has no real predetermined terms, no set rules, and almost nothing is defined, or predetermined. Bob dared me to show proof.
Bob doesn't seem to understand that progression systems should win more often than they lose.
Bob doesn't seem to understand you need to define things if you're attempting to prove something.
Quote: EvenBob
I want to prove that I win at roulette because everybody here says I do not win roulette. Why do you give one flying F how I do it when you just said a few posts ago that I don't win, that I have no method to beat roulette. And if you think various progression systems will win more often than they lose all the time, you're 1,000% wrong.
Bob doesn't want to have a predetermined starting point and ending point. Bob wants to provide evidence of something totally different than what he's been claiming all this time.
Bob said he of course was going to cherry-pick
Basically, Bob only wants to show us that he is ahead at least 10 cents over 6 weeks to claim that he has provided proof he can beat roulette.
I’d definitely show proof of my winnings. I’d even show me playing and winning since that wouldn’t reveal any strategy, And I’d probably at some point challenge everyone here to bet that I could keep a consistent winning streak. And I’d ask everyone here to pool a big bet against me. Then I’d take all your money because I would be able to do it.
Well, that’s called FICTION. But that’s what I would do.
I wouldn’t reveal the actual strategy unless I was offered a big sum of money. I doubt if I would even tell anyone close to me how to do it. BUT I’d certainly show everyone I could do it, and make lots of money betting against people who claimed I couldn’t,
Apparently, Bob's super duper 80% hit rate master roulette method, one that uses pattern recognition, one that took him years to develop and master with hundreds of notebooks full of data, one that only a select few in the world have supposedly figured out. Can be easily learned by simply looking at what bets he has made, just ask him. ROTFLMAO!!!Quote: rxwineQuestion I ask myself, is what I would actually do if I can could do what EB claims?
I’d definitely show proof of my winnings. I’d even show me playing and winning since that wouldn’t reveal any strategy, And I’d probably at some point challenge everyone here to bet that I could keep a consistent winning streak. And I’d ask everyone here to pool a big bet against me. Then I’d take all your money because I would be able to do it.
Well, that’s called FICTION. But that’s what I would do.
I wouldn’t reveal the actual strategy unless I was offered a big sum of money. I doubt if I would even tell anyone close to me how to do it. BUT I’d certainly show everyone I could do it, and make lots of money betting against people who claimed I couldn’t,
link to original post
Quote: OnceDearI 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.
link to original post
My mistake. Thank you for the correction. Then why all the fuss and I believe three suspensions thus far?
Also, as has been posted, with something like the Martingale, it is easy to show a winning session. Let's say I have $4096 and it's my goal to win $1. My probability of success is 1-(19/39)^12 = 99.9821%. My probability of success over 42 sessions is (1-(19/39)^12)^42 = 99.252%.
What has EB stated is his bankroll or what he considers a losing session?
Quote: WizardQuote: OnceDearI 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.
link to original post
My mistake. Thank you for the correction. Then why all the fuss and I believe three suspensions thus far?
link to original post
Because Bob is being Bob and Gordon is being Gordon.
Quote: WizardQuote: OnceDearI 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.
link to original post
My mistake. Thank you for the correction. Then why all the fuss and I believe three suspensions thus far?
It has been argued by me, and several others as well, that EB is constantly trolling the forum and its members with his Roulette claims and "the management" is allowing him to get away with it for unknown reasons. Tensions regarding these claims sometimes boil over, causing people to get suspended.
Quote:
Also, as has been posted, with something like the Martingale, it is easy to show a winning session. Let's say I have $4096 and it's my goal to win $1. My probability of success is 1-(19/39)^12 = 99.9821%. My probability of success over 42 sessions is (1-(19/39)^12)^42 = 99.252%.
EB won't even show he can do that.
Quote:What has EB stated is his bankroll or what he considers a losing session?
link to original post
I don't believe he has said. He has literally offered no information, proof, or evidence of his claims, and yet this fiasco has been going on for years. Hence the claims of it being a massive troll job.
Quote: WizardQuote: OnceDearI 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.
link to original post
My mistake. Thank you for the correction. Then why all the fuss and I believe three suspensions thus far?
Also, as has been posted, with something like the Martingale, it is easy to show a winning session. Let's say I have $4096 and it's my goal to win $1. My probability of success is 1-(19/39)^12 = 99.9821%. My probability of success over 42 sessions is (1-(19/39)^12)^42 = 99.252%.
What has EB stated is his bankroll or what he considers a losing session?
link to original post
EB does more than state he has and does best roulette.
He makes contrary statements, which often lead to posters giving answers that seem (purposely?) To be wrong because EB has changed the statement or argument. EB then selectively quotes the person and does "skim the line" insults. (occasionally EB crosses the line and he just got suspended for one instance).
But it's also that EB puts down actual Advantage Players and their methods as false For example, EB in this thread and other threads has stated he doesn't believe more than 10% of my AP claims.
Basically he insists his methods of beating casinos is real, that the AP's including myself and Axel use fake methods, changes his own statements to trap and make the posters look bad.
And when people ignore him he bumps his own threads to keep people upset (note this thread started by him 13 years ago and with an original post that he has even admitted started with lying about his "friend".
Quote: Wizard
What has EB stated is his bankroll or what he considers a losing session?
link to original post
My bankroll will be $20 and a losing session will be not making a profit that session. But there won't be any losing sessions, that's the whole point of this.
Quote: EvenBobMy bankroll will be $20 and a losing session will be not making a profit that session. But there won't be any losing sessions, that's the whole point of this.
link to original post
Thank you.
I show using a modified Martingale, the probability of a successful session is 95.1%. The probability of 42 of them would be 12.1%. That would not be enough to convince me you can "beat roulette."
Mike, I can bet as little as 10 cents on single-zero roulette online. Did you use single-zero and 200 bets as a bankroll?Quote: WizardQuote: EvenBobMy bankroll will be $20 and a losing session will be not making a profit that session. But there won't be any losing sessions, that's the whole point of this.
link to original post
Thank you.
I show using a modified Martingale, the probability of a successful session is 95.1%. The probability of 42 of them would be 12.1%. That would not be enough to convince me you can "beat roulette."
link to original post
YOU ARE 1,000% WRONG!! According to EvenBob.Quote: WizardQuote: OnceDearI 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.
link to original post
My mistake. Thank you for the correction. Then why all the fuss and I believe three suspensions thus far?
Also, as has been posted, with something like the Martingale, it is easy to show a winning session. Let's say I have $4096 and it's my goal to win $1. My probability of success is 1-(19/39)^12 = 99.9821%. My probability of success over 42 sessions is (1-(19/39)^12)^42 = 99.252%.
What has EB stated is his bankroll or what he considers a losing session?
link to original post
Quote: EvenBob
And if you think various progression systems will win more often than they lose all the time, you're 1,000% wrong.
Quote: WizardQuote: EvenBobMy bankroll will be $20 and a losing session will be not making a profit that session. But there won't be any losing sessions, that's the whole point of this.
link to original post
Thank you.
I show using a modified Martingale, the probability of a successful session is 95.1%. The probability of 42 of them would be 12.1%. That would not be enough to convince me you can "beat roulette."
link to original post
I will not be using a Martingale I will be flat betting using a D'alem progression if I lose a unit only to speed it up. I could just flat bet if that's what everybody wants but it's going to take a lot longer.
I will be flat betting and if I lose one unit my next bet will be two units if I lose again my next bet will be 4 units if I win I will be one unit ahead in the session and I will quit. I could just flat bet all the time but it would take much longer per session when I lose a unit, I will not be playing 80% method because that takes too long and I do not have time to do that for this challenge and do my regular play for real money.
Quote: WizardQuote: EvenBobMy bankroll will be $20 and a losing session will be not making a profit that session. But there won't be any losing sessions, that's the whole point of this.
link to original post
Thank you.
I show using a modified Martingale, the probability of a successful session is 95.1%. The probability of 42 of them would be 12.1%. That would not be enough to convince me you can "beat roulette."
link to original post
EvenBob has access to 10c Online Single zero Roulette.
He would need to lose 7 wagers to go bust.
Probability of going bust on one session = (19/37)^7 = 0.0094159
Probability of not going bust over 42 sessions = (1 - 0.0094159)^42 =0.9906^42 = 67.2%
So, more likely than not, EB could win any set of 42 Sessions, with the simplest of Martingales.
What would be your opinion of his having proved ANYTHING, if he does so?
Quote: EvenBob
I will not be using a Martingale I will be flat betting using a D'alem progression if I lose a unit only to speed it up. I could just flat bet if that's what everybody wants but it's going to take a lot longer.
I will be flat betting and if I lose one unit my next bet will be two units if I lose again my next bet will be 4 units if I win I will be one unit ahead in the session and I will quit. I could just flat bet all the time but it would take much longer per session when I lose a unit, I will not be playing 80% method because that takes too long and I do not have time to do that for this challenge and do my regular play for real money.
link to original post
EB could use Flat Bet or D'Alem and still have High probability of 42 winning sessions. Success would be likely even flat betting if he can call a session end at any 10c profit point. I cannot be bothered to do the math.
His offer of such proof is IMHO, an insult to the intelligence of every participant in this thread.
Use that 6 weeks and show you can hit a simple 18 out of 20(80% hit rate) that you claim you can do.Quote: EvenBobQuote: WizardQuote: EvenBobMy bankroll will be $20 and a losing session will be not making a profit that session. But there won't be any losing sessions, that's the whole point of this.
link to original post
Thank you.
I show using a modified Martingale, the probability of a successful session is 95.1%. The probability of 42 of them would be 12.1%. That would not be enough to convince me you can "beat roulette."
link to original post
I will not be using a Martingale I will be flat betting using a D'alem progression if I lose a unit only to speed it up. I could just flat bet if that's what everybody wants but it's going to take a lot longer.
link to original post
Quote: OnceDear
His offer of such proof is IMHO, an insult to the intelligence of every participant in this thread.
link to original post
But it's academic. He is happy now to have Wizard giving him an audience. He will still NOT demonstrate anything. Not even this. He is just yanking our chains.
The fact that he doesn't understand this is astonishing. And yet, he wants us to believe he has the ability to beat roulette with a 50%-60% edge.Quote: OnceDearQuote: EvenBob
I will not be using a Martingale I will be flat betting using a D'alem progression if I lose a unit only to speed it up. I could just flat bet if that's what everybody wants but it's going to take a lot longer.
I will be flat betting and if I lose one unit my next bet will be two units if I lose again my next bet will be 4 units if I win I will be one unit ahead in the session and I will quit. I could just flat bet all the time but it would take much longer per session when I lose a unit, I will not be playing 80% method because that takes too long and I do not have time to do that for this challenge and do my regular play for real money.
link to original post
EB could use Flat Bet or D'Alem and still have High probability of 42 winning sessions. Success would be likely even flat betting if he can call a session end at any 10c profit point. I cannot be bothered to do the math.
His offer of such proof is IMHO, an insult to the intelligence of every participant in this thread.
link to original post
I never thought I would say this, but I kinda feel sorry for all the betting system touts.
"Man, this guy is making us look bad" 🤦♂️
Quote: AxelWolfThe fact that he doesn't understand this is astonishing. And yet, he wants us to believe he has the ability to beat roulette with a 50%-60% edge.
link to original post
What astonishes me is I had no idea roulette was so easy to beat, according to you guys. I thought I had really accomplished something but it looks like me beating roulette is like almost accomplishing nothing. I'm not exactly sure why I have to prove anything if you say it is so easy to beat, you should all just be believing me automatically. And please, 60% hit rate? I was doing that in the first year, my regular hit rate is closer to 70%. . I can get it up to 80% if I want to wait, but waiting takes time and time is something I don't have a lot of to screw around with stuff like this.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfThe fact that he doesn't understand this is astonishing. And yet, he wants us to believe he has the ability to beat roulette with a 50%-60% edge.
link to original post
What astonishes me is I had no idea roulette was so easy to beat, according to you guys. I thought I had really accomplished something but it looks like me beating roulette is like almost accomplishing nothing. I'm not exactly sure why I have to prove anything if you say it is so easy to beat, you should all just be believing me automatically.
What are you talking about?? Literally no one but you is saying roulette is beatable.
Quote:And please, 60% hit rate? I was doing that in the first year, my regular hit rate is closer to 70%. . I can get it up to 80% if I want to wait, but waiting takes time and time is something I don't have a lot of to screw around with stuff like this.
link to original post
He didn't say 60% hit rate. He said 60% edge. The fact that you're confusing those two things is very telling.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: WizardQuote: EvenBobMy bankroll will be $20 and a losing session will be not making a profit that session. But there won't be any losing sessions, that's the whole point of this.
link to original post
Thank you.
I show using a modified Martingale, the probability of a successful session is 95.1%. The probability of 42 of them would be 12.1%. That would not be enough to convince me you can "beat roulette."
link to original post
I will not be using a Martingale I will be flat betting using a D'alem progression if I lose a unit only to speed it up. I could just flat bet if that's what everybody wants but it's going to take a lot longer.
I will be flat betting and if I lose one unit my next bet will be two units if I lose again my next bet will be 4 units if I win I will be one unit ahead in the session and I will quit. I could just flat bet all the time but it would take much longer per session when I lose a unit, I will not be playing 80% method because that takes too long and I do not have time to do that for this challenge and do my regular play for real money.
link to original post
This is a great example of EB's contrary statements literally in the same post
First paragraph he refutes your suggestion that he will be using a Martingale and unequivocally states he will be flat betting, contradicting himself the very same paragraph by stating he will use a Dalembert!!!!!
Then in the second paragraph proceeds to discuss how he will double to two units upon a first loss, then double again to four literally describing how he intends to do a Martingale.
Quote: EvenBob
My bankroll will be $20
𝙒𝙊𝙒______!!!!
how extremely bold you are
you must have a tremendous amount of confidence in yourself to be willing to risk that much
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: EvenBob
My bankroll will be $20
𝙒𝙊𝙒______!!!!
how extremely bold you are
you must have a tremendous amount of confidence in yourself to be willing to risk that much
.
link to original post
Imagine being 13+ years into playing a system that can mathematically beat the game of Roulette and your bankroll is only $20.
Helluva system he's got there.
If true, a 70% hit rate is amazing.Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfThe fact that he doesn't understand this is astonishing. And yet, he wants us to believe he has the ability to beat roulette with a 50%-60% edge.
link to original post
What astonishes me is I had no idea roulette was so easy to beat, according to you guys. I thought I had really accomplished something but it looks like me beating roulette is like almost accomplishing nothing. I'm not exactly sure why I have to prove anything if you say it is so easy to beat, you should all just be believing me automatically. And please, 60% hit rate? I was doing that in the first year, my regular hit rate is closer to 70%. . I can get it up to 80% if I want to wait, but waiting takes time and time is something I don't have a lot of to screw around with stuff like this.
link to original post
What's astonishing is the fact that you don't know the difference between edge and hit rate. Roulette Experts usually know that. 80% hit rate does not =80% edge.
You are not beating roulette when you play, you are losing. You may have beat roulette for the day, the month, the year, etc. and you will lose eventually.
Had you simply claimed you are up lifetime on roulette, that's believable(Kinda). It all depends on how many spins and how your bets have been structured.
Claiming you have a method that can beat roulette, in the long run, is NOT believable. Claiming you have or can achieve a 70%-80% hit rate over the long run, ZERO chance ZERO believability.
That would be very easily proven.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: EvenBob
My bankroll will be $20
𝙒𝙊𝙒______!!!!
how extremely bold you are
you must have a tremendous amount of confidence in yourself to be willing to risk that much
.
link to original post
10c Euro Roulette, LLR,
By the end of session 42, he should be able to demonstrate that he has made $20 into $24.20
Which we all know with a coin toss would have success probability of 20/24 = 83%
And, of course, if he did hit that losing streak, he would just not post the result and call the demonstration off. I.e. he would not show himself failing, which he would conflate with winning.
No. Actually....... He is not EVEN GOING to demonstrate ANYTHING. And he'll blame it on us.
What an embarrassment this top rated thread has become.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfThe fact that he doesn't understand this is astonishing. And yet, he wants us to believe he has the ability to beat roulette with a 50%-60% edge.
link to original post
What astonishes me is I had no idea roulette was so easy to beat, according to you guys. I thought I had really accomplished something but it looks like me beating roulette is like almost accomplishing nothing. I'm not exactly sure why I have to prove anything if you say it is so easy to beat, you should all just be believing me automatically. And please, 60% hit rate? I was doing that in the first year, my regular hit rate is closer to 70%. . I can get it up to 80% if I want to wait, but waiting takes time and time is something I don't have a lot of to screw around with stuff like this.
link to original post
The above post is a lie. Bob was not hitting 60% on ‘even chance’ bets his first year. After the first year Bob was not hitting 70% on his so called ‘even chance bets’. Bob has no way to hit 80%.
The worst part of the above quoted stupid post is the ‘roulette is easy to beat according to you guys’. That is a personal insult to every member who has stated that roulette can’t be beaten easily. (There have been other threads discussion ballistics, or wheel bias. Bob specifically has stated that’s not what he does. ).
Summary. Bob does not win at roulette. Bob has not won at roulette. Bob will never win at roulette. There will be more inane posts from Bob. He will hem and haw but never complete a challenge, nor present evidence, that he can beat roulette. Because he can’t.
Mike…. You already closed the ‘EvenBob roulette challenge’ thread…. Because he bailed out on a challenge that you were wasting your time on.
Quote: OnceDear
And, of course, if he did hit that losing streak, he would just not post the result and call the demonstration off. I.e. he would not show himself failing, which he would conflate with winning.
No. Actually....... He is not EVEN GOING to demonstrate ANYTHING. And he'll blame it on us.
What an embarrassment this top rated thread has become.
link to original post
I know! HE WON'T EVEN POST CHERRY-PICKED SESSIONS OF HIS WINS TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK GOOD! He doesn't even know how to do THAT. That's what's so funny about this.... LOL...In fact, I'm skeptical that he even plays Roulette at all, now.
Quote: EvenBob
I will not be using a Martingale I will be flat betting using a D'alem progression...
I will be flat betting and if I lose one unit my next bet will be two units if I lose again my next bet will be 4 units
link to original post
Flat betting? EvenBob just demonstrated that he does not understand the simplest concept of flat betting.
To EvenBob, Flat betting is the same as progressive betting where the starting bet of a sequence is the same as the starting bet of the last sequence!!!!!!
NO Evenbob. Flat betting is where every wager is the same. Where the wager after a losing wager is the same as the wager after a winning wager
One cannot flat bet and use a progression at the same time.... Unless EVERY WAGER HAPPENS TO WIN.
AND. Evenbob does NOT understand d'Alembert progression
d'Alembert:
After every losing wager, the stake for the following wager must increase by one base staking unit. If you started with $1, for example, then you would increase the stake to $2 if you lost. If you then lost again, you’d increase the stake to $3
$3, EvenBob. NOT freakin' 4
EB says he'll use D'Alembert progression and then precisely defines the Martingale system that he is NOT using.
Oh. And what part of flat betting did he not understand.????
And we listen to this guy when he uses words like 'Percentile' and 'proof'
Craziest thing of all, EB does not even realise that flat betting. Actual real flat betting with 10c stakes, he could still very easily show 42 consecutive winning sessions by just ending the session after every advance into profit by 10c
Quote: darkozThis is a great example of EB's contrary statements literally in the same post. First paragraph he refutes your suggestion that he will be using a Martingale and unequivocally states he will be flat betting, contradicting himself the very same paragraph by stating he will use a Dalembert!!!!! Then in the second paragraph proceeds to discuss how he will double to two units upon a first loss, then double again to four literally describing how he intends to do a Martingale.
LOL, you noticed that too, eh?
Sometimes I suspect that yes, he DOES in fact "beat roulette.:"
It could be he named one of his cats "roulette."
Quote: OnceDear
Flat betting? EvenBob just demonstrated that he does not understand the simplest concept of flat betting.
link to original post
LOL...don't forget, he doesn't know the difference between "hit rate" and "house edge," either.
Like I said, I now think he doesn't even play Roulette at all. This is just a big con job.
How many times has he told us, "I don't gamble." The writing was on the wall the whole time, right in front of our noses....
EvenBob doesn't even play Roulette.
Oh and by the way, I did some more winning at roulette today.Quote: EvenBob
Yes, it's true, I was winning at roulette today, but I wasn't beating roulette while in play, and yet I beat roulette for many a day. I can win tomorrow just like I did last night, I can continue to win night after night. I can play your game and just do it for spit, It won't cost me any value or money cus the bonus is right, now put that in your pipe.
Do I need to continually post my winning plays, or will you admit I'm a roulette master and we can part ways?
@*%$.Quote: MrVQuote: darkozThis is a great example of EB's contrary statements literally in the same post. First paragraph he refutes your suggestion that he will be using a Martingale and unequivocally states he will be flat betting, contradicting himself the very same paragraph by stating he will use a Dalembert!!!!! Then in the second paragraph proceeds to discuss how he will double to two units upon a first loss, then double again to four literally describing how he intends to do a Martingale.
Sometimes I suspect that yes, he DOES in fact "beat roulette.:"
It could be he named one his cats "roulette."
link to original post
You just made me spit up my soda.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: OnceDear
Flat betting? EvenBob just demonstrated that he does not understand the simplest concept of flat betting.
link to original post
LOL...don't forget, he doesn't know the difference between "hit rate" and "house edge," either.
Like I said, I now think he doesn't even play Roulette at all. This is just a big con job.
How many times has he told us, "I don't gamble." The writing was on the wall the whole time, right in front of our noses....
EvenBob doesn't even play Roulette.
link to original post
I'm wondering if EB just randomly picks words out of posts and strings them together into what look like sentences.
I doubt he plays online roulette, too. His game is what he does here.
Quote: AxelWolfOh and by the way, I did some more winning at roulette today.Quote: EvenBob
link to original post
Me too.
I had an opening credit balance of £1.63
I played over 30 winning sessions, where I won £0.10 *
I chose to play Red/Black, but could have happily mixed up other 'Even Money' bets.
I HAD ZERO LOSING SESSIONS
I cashed out £5.03
I can show full game logs.
Did I beat roulette?
CAN I beat roulette?
No!
I just did something that was no more impressive than calling two coin flips correct.
In your next life(because it's probably too late now) if you want to be considered a knowledge-winning roulette player/expert and hang out on gambling forums.Quote: EvenBob
Take the time to learn some very basic math concepts and gambling terminology.
RTP
HA
Advantage
Percentage
Edge
Hit rate
Win rate
Flat bet
Standard deviation
Variance
Vig
Progression
ROR
-EV/+EV
Long run.
Hedge
The take
The actual difference between a legitimate method and a system.
*GAMBLERS FALLACY*
Things you should disregard
Trends
Streaks
Hot/Cold
Sleepers
Due
Quote: AxelWolf
Take the time to learn some very basic math concepts and gambling terminology.
...
Things you should disregard
Trends
Streaks
Hot/Cold
Sleepers
Due
link to original post
He should also familiarise himself with the word "proof"
and forget he ever heard the word "pattern"
Maybe EvenBob is just a sophisticated AI like ChatGPT and he's trying to pass the Turing test! That would explain a lot of his barely coherent, often contradictory posts...
Has anyone ever actually seen him in person???
Quote: TigerWuMaybe EvenBob is just a sophisticated AI like ChatGPT and he's trying to pass the Turing test! That would explain a lot of his barely coherent, often contradictory posts...Has anyone ever actually seen him in person???
More likely an Unsophisticated AI like the Magic Eight Ball.
As for actually seeing him in person: he did say his wife moved out, so yeah, she got a good look.
Quote: MrV
More likely an Unsophisticated AI like the Magic Eight Ball.
link to original post
Gambler: "Oh, wise, Magic EvenBob Eight Ball, should use a D'alembert, Martingale, or just flat bet?"
EB Eight Ball: "Yes."
Quote: TigerWu]
Maybe EvenBob is just a sophisticated AI like ChatGPT and he's trying to pass the Turing test!
Wow, I think Evenbob just got referred to as sophisticated.
Quote: MentalMike, I can bet as little as 10 cents on single-zero roulette online. Did you use single-zero and 200 bets as a bankroll?
link to original post
I used $1 as the winning goal and single-zero roulette.
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
If 75% on even money is not an "extremely good chance," what is? 90%, you already said 100% is crazy talk, but if 75% is way too low, what is the win rate on single even money bets?
I would be impressed with a win rate of over 75% on a single even money bet every bet for 40 bets consecutively. But I would also be impressed with a 75% call rate on a coin toss that you had no influence over for 40 consecutive flips (which would be easier than roulette.)
I mean sure, you could be unbelievably lucky for such a period, but even so, if your luck panned out that way, you deserve the accolades at that point.
I don't care about the amount wagered (I know some people are going down this rabbit hole -fairly so, why would you waste a single spin at that EV-), but wager zero, just sit at a live roulette wheel for 40 spins and make a single even money "bet" every spin (even if it is just verbally calling it before betting ends), for 40 consecutive spins, and anything over 75% at the end (which should be easy by your metrics), would be accolade territory. This would be more time consuming than just posting logs, but even so, 40 spins of roulette in an online livestream environment would be what, like two hours max -counting setup time-?
Bob claims to see certain patterns that indicate what to bet next, he claims that gives him a 70%-80% hit rate.Quote: GandlerQuote: 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
If 75% on even money is not an "extremely good chance," what is? 90%, you already said 100% is crazy talk, but if 75% is way too low, what is the win rate on single even money bets?
I would be impressed with a win rate of over 75% on a single even money bet every bet for 40 bets consecutively. But I would also be impressed with a 75% call rate on a coin toss that you had no influence over for 40 consecutive flips (which would be easier than roulette.)
I mean sure, you could be unbelievably lucky for such a period, but even so, if your luck panned out that way, you deserve the accolades at that point.
I don't care about the amount wagered (I know some people are going down this rabbit hole -fairly so, why would you waste a single spin at that EV-), but wager zero, just sit at a live roulette wheel for 40 spins and make a single even money "bet" every spin (even if it is just verbally calling it before betting ends), for 40 consecutive spins, and anything over 75% at the end (which should be easy by your metrics), would be accolade territory. This would be more time consuming than just posting logs, but even so, 40 spins of roulette in an online livestream environment would be what, like two hours max -counting setup time-?
link to original post
I don't know how many numbers are in his pattern string or exactly what he's looking for. I imagine it's something like RR BB RR BB R B R B RR Bet on Black. It could simply be a certain amount of same-color odd numbers in a row. Who knows? But I can see how it might take a while to see specific patterns that he believes can predict/guess the next spin with a 70%-80% confidence level.
I accept the fact that it may take a while to find specific patterns he believes offers a good opportunity. It's total nonsense that he's betting Mico stakes if he actually believes he can achieve such a high hit rate.
Just finding 2 opportunities per week should be sufficient enough to confidently make hundreds of thousands per year. This chart might seem like a funny joke but this is exactly what should happen with an 80% hit rate.
I'm sure someone here has some program that can generate an actual chart, I haven't any need for something like that.
Just like it's impossible to beat an even money flat betting situation with a 50%-60% disadvantage for long, it's impossible to lose for long with a 50%-60% advantage for long.
Elaborate on the situation.Quote: ChumpChangeOnce you're down 500 units, how are you gonna win them back? They just come back by themselves?
link to original post
I'd press into a winning streak, but there has been none in the past 11.1K spins.
