Okay, a question for......
A question for the non-roulette people. For the people who play against a very low HA. The 'skilled' players. (Good thing I have not eaten dinner yet)
So I assume you are netting 10-20K per week? If no, why not? After everything I have read, you POSSESS that 'SKILL' (not luck), sounds like a sure thing to me.
I'm not saying you dont have losing days, I did not ask that.
Ken
Quote: SOOPOOI'll bite. When i play against a game with an inherent house edge I expect to lose, not win. Sometimes there may be variables, like comps, or match play coupons, that might slightly sway a house edge to my favor. Or perhaps dealer errors may give me a small advantage. But overall I would expect to lose money, not make money. As stated a gazillion times before, there are certain times when BJ may be a player advantage game, and if you can bet more those times and less on the times it is a House Advantage game, then you can make a positive weekly net. The same can be said for certain VP paytables. Since roulette, under all circumstances, has an extremely large house advantage, there should be no roulette player who would expect to consistently make a net profit. By the way, since you do not hijack threads, and everyone can quickly figure out where you are going with your posts/threads, I am very happy for you to be a member of the forum. Those who find your ideas silly just should not follow your threads... I still have my offer to you of dinner if you ever make it to western New York.
I am DUE for a vacation. I need one bad.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjNo, its not about hot numbers, calm down.
A question for the non-roulette people. For the people who play against a very low HA. The 'skilled' players. (Good thing I have not eaten dinner yet)
So I assume you are netting 10-20K per week? If no, why not? After everything I have read, you POSSESS that 'SKILL' (not luck), sounds like a sure thing to me.
I'm not saying you dont have losing days, I did not ask that.
Ken
You assume correctly.
Quote: MarieBicurieYou assume correctly.
Just so I dont misquote. You personally are netting 10-20K per week on a regular basis playing various casino games?
Ken
Quote: MarieBicurieYou sound jealous. You asked a question, I answered it.
No, no, no, thank you for the reply. In case I quote you in the future, I want to make sure I am doing it correctly.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjNo, no, no, thank you for the reply. In case I quote you in the future, I want to make sure I am doing it correctly.
Ken
lol
Quote: MarieBicurieObjection, calls for speculation.
Lol! Sustained:)
Quote: EvenBobThis MarieBicurie person seems to have a real problem with Ken, 3 threads about him and most of his posts are related to him. Hmmm, very curious, isn't it, this obsession. Don't you think so too, Ken?
I agree. Regardless if its this board or another, there are a few that follow me around, start threads about me, giving me s**t etc.
I said it before......usually (not always) its a current or past poster from another board who does NOT want to reveal who they are. These days, I dont even believe it when they have a female name (lol).
Do I mind it all? So-so, just a day in the life of ole' KJ...
Ken
Ken
Craps has a low house advantage compared to roulette. A $10 passline player at craps can expect to lose about $170 over the course of a week while a $10 roulette player can expect to lose about $630. That's why more people here play craps than roulette.
On the other hand, if a $10 player were to expect to net 10-20k/week, he'd need to have nearly a 100% player advantage. $10 bets x 30 bets/hour x 40 hours/week = $12,000. Even if a $100 player were to expect to net 10-20k/week, he'd need almost a 10% player advantage. There are no house-banked games with anything resembling a 10% player advantage without cheating, even for the most skilled AP. The closest to a 10% advantage any player ever has in a casino is at the poker table, e.g. Doyle Brunson playing Texas Hold'em against me. In other words, your assumption that "TONS of posters" should be netting 10-20k/week is unfounded.
In short, this means they suck at math. So how would they know whether or not their systems work?
They must rely on us for the facts.
Quote: KeyserBy their own admissions, both Mr. Jjj., and Evenbob are not, as they say, "mathboyz".
In short, this means they suck at math. So how would they know whether or not their systems work?
They must rely on us for the facts.
There's a logical fallacy at work there.
Not following the math at the roulette table does not mean they can't add up the sum total of winnings and losing to decide if they are ahead or behind.
Quote:Not following the math at the roulette table does not mean they can't add up the sum total of winnings and losing to decide if they are ahead or behind.
Oh, I'm not so sure about that. Have you read their posts? They claim that they can tell the difference between the live streams of a random roulette wheel verses the RNG.
Moreover, you CAN NOT tell them how badly they are doing at the tables by the maths; merely what they expectations (and the curve of those expectations) are.
This nether defends or attacks, it's a plain statement. You may assess their claims against that probability curve, decide it's highly unlikely and request further evidence. The lack of that further evidence you can decide as indicating they are foolish and making it up.
EvenBob, at least, doesn't care what you think about his claimed results. He has no intention of proving his results (from posts passim). You can take that to mean a variety of things. I certainly don't think Bob is a mouth breathing drooler who can't add up a profit/loss account, so I discount "he's made a math mistake all these years" as a result.
On my last trip to Vegas I netted a total of $47 over ten days.
I don't have the bankroll nor the inclination to even try for $10K-$20K.
Quote: KeyserBy their own admissions, both Mr. Jjj., and Evenbob are not, as they say, "mathboyz".
In short, this means they suck at math. So how would they know whether or not their systems work?
They must rely on us for the facts.
Very correct. Hey, we agree on something. The math 'experts' (cough) are the guys that only see obstacles and blame others for their lack of success. Kind of like....now(?) lol
Ken
Quote: kpI am a skilled player that plays low HA games.
On my last trip to Vegas I netted a total of $47 over ten days.
I don't have the bankroll nor the inclination to even try for $10K-$20K.
I'm not rippin !!!
'Skilled player' = $47?, Hmmm, well, I'm lost again.
Ken
Quote: Keyser
Oh, I'm not so sure about that. Have you read their posts? They claim that they can tell the difference between the live streams of a random roulette wheel verses the RNG.
Who is 'they'? (cupcake won't answer that)
Ken
Quote: thecesspitThere's a logical fallacy at work there.
Not following the math at the roulette table does not mean they can't add up the sum total of winnings and losing to decide if they are ahead or behind.
....and isn't that what its all about for ALL bettors? What does your wallet look like after you leave the casino!! A math degree or not, when I buy NICE THINGS, I really dont think they care that I dont have a math degree.
Ken
Quote: MathExtremistYour assumption is in error. A "low house advantage" game still has a house advantage and, therefore, the player is still expected to lose on average. Not net 10-20k per week. "Low house advantage" is not the same as "player advantage".
Craps has a low house advantage compared to roulette. A $10 passline player at craps can expect to lose about $170 over the course of a week while a $10 roulette player can expect to lose about $630. That's why more people here play craps than roulette.
On the other hand, if a $10 player were to expect to net 10-20k/week, he'd need to have nearly a 100% player advantage. $10 bets x 30 bets/hour x 40 hours/week = $12,000. Even if a $100 player were to expect to net 10-20k/week, he'd need almost a 10% player advantage. There are no house-banked games with anything resembling a 10% player advantage without cheating, even for the most skilled AP. The closest to a 10% advantage any player ever has in a casino is at the poker table, e.g. Doyle Brunson playing Texas Hold'em against me. In other words, your assumption that "TONS of posters" should be netting 10-20k/week is unfounded.
Well this makes no sense. Myself vs. a 'skilled' player here....I'm up against 5.26% and I *STILL* dont hear any kick a** stories of winning on a regular basis (I dont mean $80), and I do NOT mean winning every day/week, so lets cross that off the bashing list.
Ken
mrjjj (Ken). You seem to enjoy asking questions but your tack record at providing answers is a little spotty. Here's an easy question for you and I really am interested in knowing what you have to say.Quote: mrjjjVery correct. Hey, we agree on something. The math 'experts' (cough) are the guys that only see obstacles and blame others for their lack of success. Kind of like....now(?) lol
Ken
What, in your own words, is the difference between a "system" and a "method"? To make it easy for me to understand your answer, perhaps you could respond in the following manner:
I define a roulette "system" as...
I define a roulette "method" as...
I ask because you seem to feel that there is a definite difference between the two and I'm not able to see the difference myself so I though you'd be kind enough to help me.
While you're at it, I have 2 more questions and both can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". Your posts seem to imply that you have made a profit in your (roughly) 4 years as a roulette player using a variety of "methods". Is that true? Do you place bets on a roulette layout based upon the numbers that have appeared on that roulette wheel in the past?
Quote: TheNightflymrjjj (Ken). You seem to enjoy asking questions but your tack record at providing answers is a little spotty. Here's an easy question for you and I really am interested in knowing what you have to say.
What, in your own words, is the difference between a "system" and a "method"? To make it easy for me to understand your answer, perhaps you could respond in the following manner:
I define a roulette "system" as...
I define a roulette "method" as...
I ask because you seem to feel that there is a definite difference between the two and I'm not able to see the difference myself so I though you'd be kind enough to help me.
While you're at it, I have 2 more questions and both can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". Your posts seem to imply that you have made a profit in your (roughly) 4 years as a roulette player using a variety of "methods". Is that true? Do you place bets on a roulette layout based upon the numbers that have appeared on that roulette wheel in the past?
As far as method vs. system, I have answered that MANY times before, I won't do it again. Even the Ken bashers here will ADMIT I have answered that.
I have to be specific with my answer. Since day ONE of playing roulette? At that time period, I lost a TON, no lie. It was BS, stuff like playing a Marty etc.
The last 4 years? (I also answered that before).....Yep, I am WAY UP playing against 5.26%, big deal. A while back, I even invested in HALF of a restaurant with roughly 80% of my ROULETTE winnings from a 5.26% game. The bad news (I also posted), as of this coming January 1st, I'll be out of the restaurant and into something different, I cant wait.
I think I understand your second question? Do I use past results? A few things I do much differently compared to 1.5-4 years ago >>
I am more into hot numbers compared to cold numbers (due). I lost too much money playing, 'its due'!! (lol)
I only bet on 2-4 numbers. I use much less progressions these days, its mostly flat betting. Dont get me wrong, I'm not knockin progressions.
Your definition of past results is? (lol) One number is the PAST, correct? Anyways, in the past I would use numbers from 200-350 spins prior, I dont anymore. I do use them but mostly going back 25 spins. I would ESTIMATE that the methods I use are around 65% using past numbers but INCLUDING even if its only ONE number. Why the changes over the years? Real simple, its called trial & error.
Ken
Quote: mrjjj'Skilled player' = $47?, Hmmm, well, I'm lost again.
I thought any positive result was pretty good playing against a game with a HA.
Quote: kpI thought any positive result was pretty good playing against a game with a HA.
I dont know? There are different definitions for different posters here, I dont know.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjWell this makes no sense. Myself vs. a 'skilled' player here....I'm up against 5.26% and I *STILL* dont hear any kick a** stories of winning on a regular basis (I dont mean $80), and I do NOT mean winning every day/week, so lets cross that off the bashing list.
Ken
I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to you, but you don't play roulette against skilled players, you play against the house. One cannot be a meaningfully more skilled roulette player than someone else. Roulette is not a game of skill.
Quote: mrjjjAs far as method vs. system, I have answered that MANY times before, I won't do it again. Even the Ken bashers here will ADMIT I have answered that.
I don't think I've ever seen you answer that question on this board. If you won't re-write your answer, maybe you could just quote your previous response?
Regardless, it's safe to say that we all view him as another "system" or Martingale player that likes to spin a yarn.
Quote: KeyserI don't believe that he has ever provided us with a definition of "system" verses "method".
Oh he has. It was word soup, but he has provided his own definition, using words in a way no-one else does.
Quote: vert1276what are the chances that "Ken" is really a smart man who understands math, and that there is no such thing as "hot numbers" or "due numbers" and is just trolling us all for laughs?
Zero -- how is it smart to pretend you're not?
Quote: KeyserI don't believe that he has ever provided us with a definition of "system" verses "method".
Regardless, it's safe to say that we all view him as another "system" or Martingale player that likes to spin a yarn.
Yes I have cupcake but as usual, you need to stir the pot and do me a favor......stop with the 'we'. (ROFL)
Ken
Quote: mrjjjYes you have cupcake but as usual, you need to stir the pot and do me a favor......stop with the 'we'. (ROFL)
Ken
I agree with Keyser that you're just another system player. So "we" works for me. "All" is a stretch.
And so far "we" have not read your answer to the questions.
Quote: thecesspitI certainly don't think Bob is a mouth breathing drooler who can't add up a profit/loss account, so I discount "he's made a math mistake all these years" as a result.
Keyser always needs to have his posts translated.
When he says I don't know the
math, what he really means is I don't accept the
math in the same way he does. To him it looks like
a dead end, to me its just another opinion, because
it doesn't include all the parameters. The math is
true for all the information they have, but they don't
have all the information. And thats what really bugs
him.
Quote: rdw4potusI agree with Keyser that you're just another system player. So "we" works for me. "All" is a stretch.
Thank you for your opinion sir, much appreciated.
Ken
Quote: KeyserMr Jjj.,
And so far "we" have not read your answer to the questions.
What question(S)? Method vs. system? I did already *MANY* times. Nice try trouble maker. This is your only home HERE cupcake, have fun with IT because no other forum will allow you to post. (ROFL)
Ken
Ok, my mistake.
Ken
Ken
Quote: mrjjjSo in CONCLUSION to my ORIGINAL point/question........I have read zero posts saying that the so-n-so 'skilled' player with that LOW HA, is netting THOUSANDS per week? Hmmm I just assumed, if I am taking in $xxx per month based on 5.26%, that the 'skilled' guy would be taking in $xxx per month.
Ok, my mistake.
Ken
Ken- the reason no one is answering you is that no one believes a word you say! They know you do not make money at roulette. They also know that they are not making money playing against a casino. I have offerred to watch you play here in Buffalo, offerred to meet you in the Chicago area, offerred to meet you in Vegas. I know you would likely lose using any method, and would love to watch you play. If you would happen to have an extraordinary streak of luck and win, I would love to see that, too. What proof or evidence do you have to support your claim that you now can reliably make money at roulette? Nada. Nil. Zilch. If I make an equally outlandish claim, like the moon is made of cheese, I would hope someone would call me out on it. And I would have to provide some evidence. You have no evidence. Just blather.
"They also know that they are not making money playing against a casino" >>> What? Are you including the 'skilled' guy playing a low HA game? Are those guys part of 'they'?
"I know you would likely lose using any method, and would love to watch you play" >>> I respect your opinion, thank you but lets not forget......losing for the day? Absolutely 100% that could happen. Will you watch me play 4-5 days a week for four-six weeks?
"What proof or evidence do you have to support your claim that you now can reliably make money at roulette? Nada. Nil. Zilch" >>> Here we go again with this subject. BORING but I'll play along. (lol) Can you post your PROOF that you do 'well'?
I know, I know, you play only for fun and dont care about losing, correct? You see, this definition of PROOF and EVIDENCE should be the SAME for all, not just the posters you feel like attacking.
Ken
Quote: mrjjjThe question has LITTLE to do with ME. I'm asking in terms of the 'skilled' player, how well do they do?
"They also know that they are not making money playing against a casino" >>> What? Are you including the 'skilled' guy playing a low HA game? Are those guys part of 'they'?
"they" do not claim to be making the money you do. Anyone here would say that a skilled player playing against a casino in a game that has a low HA will still usually result in a casino win, not a player win. What they DO say is that they are MORE LIKELY to win than a roulette player.
"I know you would likely lose using any method, and would love to watch you play" >>> I respect your opinion, thank you but lets not forget......losing for the day? Absolutely 100% that could happen. Will you watch me play 4-5 days a week for four-six weeks?
As with all real world examples I do not think I would watch you play for a month straight. I know any 'sample size' would offer no real proof of your success or failure, I just say I would enjoy watching you. And I can assure you, I would be rooting for you to win, not lose.
"What proof or evidence do you have to support your claim that you now can reliably make money at roulette? Nada. Nil. Zilch" >>> Here we go again with this subject. BORING but I'll play along. (lol) Can you post your PROOF that you do 'well'?
I can offer no proof that I do well. By your definition I do not. However, I've given many specific examples of situations I've been able to take advantage of, resulting in small wins for me. My gambling is of such a low level by any standard, I could not win or lose anything significant. I can't 'prove' that I gamble for the competition, not to earn money. Those who know me don't need me to prove this. For those who don't, some may think I am fabricating, but none of my claims have been outlandish or even eyebrow raising. I've never won more than $1000 in a day. I would guess that there are only a few members of this forum that can say that.
Ken
To summarize, I am a man of math and science. Its how I make a living. It adds order to my world. Your claims which I know to be false are fun for me to expose.
Quote: SOOPOOTo summarize, I am a man of math and science. Its how I make a living. It adds order to my world. Your claims which I know to be false are fun for me to expose.
Ummm, neat.
"they" do not claim to be making the money you do" >>> Here's the problem with that......they have claimed NOTHING except for the $47 example. And where are my posts saying that I make a TON of money? I do quite 'well' but I ASSUME the crew playing a low HA game, would be doing much better than me? Isn't that what the math (cough) would say?
"I know any 'sample size' would offer no real proof of your success or failure" >>> Well, you did say.....'I know you would likely lose using any method'. Hmmm, a bit confusing.
"I've never won more than $1000 in a day. I would guess that there are only a few members of this forum that can say that" >>> Yeah, me!! So you are a 'skilled' player and play a game with a lower HA (compared to roulette) and have NEVER won more than 1K in a day? So, I DID start a good thread afterall. Your answers (or the lack of answers from others) makes me look damn good.
Ken
Quote: SOOPOOTo summarize, I am a man of math and science. Its how I make a living. It adds order to my world. Your claims which I know to be false are fun for me to expose.
Face it, Ken. You can't be winning. Please stop
immediately before the world as they know it
comes to an end.
Quote: EvenBobFace it, Ken. You can't be winning. Please stop
immediately before the world as they know it
comes to an end.
To a certain degree, it might be easier for me to NOT 'claim' I do well. Its a headache with all the hate posts and I get NOTHING out of spending all this time responding. I could just say.....'ok guys, I really lose alot every week playing roulette'.
This way, I now have lots of free time. (lol)
Ken
Quote: mrjjjTo a certain degree, it might be easier for me to NOT 'claim' I do well. Its a headache with all the hate posts and I get NOTHING out of spending all this time responding.
You know some of these people are going
to pound you into a pigeonhole because
you don't fit into their world. People who
win when they shouldn't be winning confuse
them, and they can't rest until they satisfy
themselves you aren't winning at all.
