mr jjjjjjjjjj is ahead for life......
Poll
 | 10 votes (18.51%) | ||
| | 23 votes (42.59%) | ||
| | 21 votes (38.88%) |
54 members have voted
Quote: EvenBobLots of people play streaks.
If the results can be reproduced, tell us here and now. If they can't, next stop is the heap of faded dreams.
Quote: SOOPOOKen has been posting prolifically of late... does anyone here really think Ken is ahead in his lifetime of 'thousands?' of hours of double zero roulette?
Armed with a powerful sense of precognitive synesthesia, the casino is his oyster.
Just ask Bob.
Quote: EvenBobIts even easier to say, systems have rules, methods
don't. All the 'system' sellers out there have strict
rules to follow. You can't sell a method, there's nothing
to pin down, it can change on every spin.
Of course methods have rules, otherwise you wouldn't know what to do......
This is semantics, they are the same thing. A method is something where you have to take outlined steps to accomplish a goal. A system is something where you have to take outlined steps to accomplish a goal. Even random betting is a method/system. Because it's outlined goal is to not follow a clear outlined method, therefore, being a method.
Quote: EvenBob... I saw 19 reds in a row, .... Nobody
would follow the streak, they were terrified of it.
And you only knew this until after the fact......you can't predict streaks. They don't have a "feeling". If you want to play that way, that's cool, I won't stop you, but you can't predict the future.
Quote: TriplellRegardless of streaks, or whatever you want to call it, the fact of the matter is that the casino only pays you back 95% of the true odds of the outcome.
Thanks to luck (sometimes referred to as variance, although I think they have a seperate definition), people can come out ahead on small sample sessions.
That said, anyone who claims to be a professional roulette player is foolish. The reason being is as time progresses, you expose money to the casino. Most people's bankroll doesn't increase with this exposure, therefore while their loss defecit increases, their bankroll stays constant.
At the end of the it all, the sample is too great, and the only way to overcome your losses would be to have bet's similiar in size of your losses and hope for some luck. This is a continuous cycle until you die.
That's why there is so many people who ruin their lives gambling. They overstep their bounds, and lose more then they are comfortable with losing. They then try to regain those losses with their limited bankroll (or they try to get it all back in one swoop and get unlucky)...
Either way, roulette favours the house by 5% of your exposure. If you expose $50,000 a year to roulette, then you can expect your loss at the end of the year to be $2500. The smaller your average bet, the less variance you'll experience.
I think this thread boils down to this finely written post by Triplell. I need not say more than the above about roulette.
Quote: YoDiceRoll11Of course methods have rules, otherwise you wouldn't know what to do.
Systems must have rules, methods might or might not.
Challenge: Describe to me a method, that has no rules.
This thread is a bore.
Quote: YoDiceRoll11.Challenge: Describe to me a method, that has no rules.
I know a guy who has a deer hunting system.
He always wears the same clothes, uses the
same gun, goes to the same area, uses the
same blind. His system requires he do everything
just so, if he's going to get a deer.
Another hunter I know has a methodology that
has no hard and fast rules. He might hunt where
he was last, he might not. It depends on the weather,
how many other hunters are there, how much
daylight is left. He might wear what he wore last time,
he might not. Every decision he makes depends
on factors he encounters that day. His method
works for him. It would never work for the system
guy who needs a lot of structure.
Quote: EvenBobSystems must have rules, methods might or might not.
What sort of "methods" might not have "rules"?
Quote: EvenBobI know a guy who has a deer hunting system.
He always wears the same clothes, uses the
same gun, goes to the same area, uses the
same blind. His system requires he do everything
just so, if he's going to get a deer.
Another hunter I know has a methodology that
has no hard and fast rules. He might hunt where
he was last, he might not. It depends on the weather,
how many other hunters are there, how much
daylight is left. He might wear what he wore last time,
he might not. Every decision he makes depends
on factors he encounters that day. His method
works for him. It would never work for the system
guy who needs a lot of structure.
Hunter's 1 method is to do the same thing regardless.
Hunter's 2 method is to have decisions and leave it all up to his personal choice.
A method is simply a way of doing things. To argue that Ken is a successful roulette player because he uses methods as opposed to systems is pretty foolish.
It seems to me that under your definition, a system is a preconceived way of doing things, and you don't vary from those rules. A method, on the other hand, is based on giving yourself freedom of choice and not making preconceived judgements of what you will do at certain situations.
(On a side note, I want to say that I feel like your definition of method is specific to you, and that I disagree with it, however I'll continue to use your definition)
Either way, regardless if you are using a method or a system, you do not change the odds of roulette. It is more then likely you will lose, and as I said, the more money you expose to the game, the more likely you will be to lose. Unless you have high variance in your bets, it is unlikely that you win.
Quote: KellyThere are really no need for arguing. Mr J s methods and principles has been testet on real spins and RNG on other boards and they lost with the expected percentage. Nevertheless J is always winning no matter what he plays. Sleepers or hot numbers. Those boards are just filled with winners. Its not the method it is Mr J. If he started on lottery he would also be ahead.
This is kind of my point. The guy calls me an idiot because I haven't "studied" roulette for countless hours, therefore I have no reason to believe that it is a losing game.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, studying roulette for years is like studying a math problem for years. The game mechanics are simple and the odds are clear. I do not need to study to game to understand what my EV is.
Quote: TriplellThis is kind of my point. The guy calls me an idiot because I haven't "studied" roulette for countless hours, therefore I have no reason to believe that it is a losing game.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, studying roulette for years is like studying a math problem for years.
I disagree in the most general sense. There are many math problems worth studying for years. Fermat's Last Theorem immediately comes to mind. Or the four-color map theorem. Both of those have been proven, but other conjectures like whether P = NP are still open questions.
The difference is that all those problems are, at least with modern technologies and knowledge, decidedly non-trivial. The mathematics of roulette has been well-understood for hundreds of years and is readily comprehended by an average high-school freshman. There is nothing to study about roulette that does not ultimately lead to a broader study of statistics or probability theory (or perhaps mechanics). Those are worthy of study in and of themselves, but roulette has nothing to do with why.
Studying roulette is more like studying your phone number. Once you memorize a few numbers, there's nothing else to it.
Quote: TriplellUsing a "method" known as "The feeling"...
Let me give you an example.
I have a feeling that the next number is going to be between 1 and 13. Using this "method", I can accurately wager on the first 12. If it hits, then my methods are flawless. If it fails, my methods are still flawless. Because I'll have another "feeling"...and eventually I will be right!
Was at DublinBet, sorry guys.
We can do this for weeks and weeks, no problem. You say BS Ken, I say yes I do 'well', back and fourth we'll go. My END result stays the same. I have not read the other posts yet so I'm asking again >> We'll take the last 266 hit numbers as an example. Are all numbers hit 7 times each? If no, why not?? Also, can this INFORMATION be used at all for *NEAR* future betting? I dont mean 100 spins later.
Ken
Quote: EvenBobI know a guy who has a deer hunting system.
He always wears the same clothes, uses the
same gun, goes to the same area, uses the
same blind. His system requires he do everything
just so, if he's going to get a deer.
Another hunter I know has a methodology that
has no hard and fast rules. He might hunt where
he was last, he might not. It depends on the weather,
how many other hunters are there, how much
daylight is left. He might wear what he wore last time,
he might not. Every decision he makes depends
on factors he encounters that day. His method
works for him. It would never work for the system
guy who needs a lot of structure.
Ok. The second hunter has one clear rule. A lack of rules. Thereby making it a method of free form.....Sorry. That's a rule, it is both a method and a system. Semantics.
Edit: If you want to redefine either word to fit your example, that's fine. But both hunters are using a system/method. Refer to my dictionary post.
Ken
Quote: KellyRoulette is one of the games you can`t play "wrong". Might as well turn your back to the table and throw the chips over your left shoulder and put some salt on the right shoulder while saying abracadabra. That being said, the quote "always quit when ahead" makes more sense than "always wait until you are behind when you quit". In the long run, same same. But might as well experience a few nights with wins too.
My best pal, hi guy !! Let me introduce Kelly, he is also from GG. You'll fit in just fine here, its GG2. (lol)
Ken
Quote: YoDiceRoll11Ok. The second hunter has one clear rule. A lack of rules.
There you go, then. I have zero interest in arguing
about something just because people want to argue.
Quote: KellyThere are really no need for arguing. Mr J s methods and principles has been testet on real spins and RNG on other boards and they lost with the expected percentage. Nevertheless J is always winning no matter what he plays. Sleepers or hot numbers. Those boards are just filled with winners. Its not the method it is Mr J. If he started on lottery he would also be ahead.
Wrong answer LIAR and BTW, where is your PROOF you do well with AP (cough)? Waiting....
"If he started on lottery he would also be ahead" >>> Funny you mention that. I'm on 12.5 years of the same lotto here, never missed a day. No I have not won (yet) but have missed out by ONE number 11 times and by two numbers, 301 times.
Ken
Quote: MathExtremistStudying roulette is more like studying your phone number.
The only people Ken has to convince are the people
who run the casino, what the opinion is here is not
relevant to anything.
Mathextremist is a nobody. STILL WAITING!!!111!!1!!!! (sorry, just threw that in for funny). Regarding P=NP, I don't understand how you can verify a solution without knowing how to compute the solution. Ken could you explain it please since Mathextremist probably threw in the towel on that one.Quote: mrjjj"Studying roulette is more like studying your phone number" >>> Its thinking like this that blocks you, you threw in the towel a long time ago. I pity you sir. You could of been somebody.
Ken
Quote: WongBoDon't feed the trolls
Can I get a definition on that? Let me guess....its the guy who ANSWERS posts, thats the troll. (lol)
Ken (1,205)
Ok can we stop now?
Quote: EvenBobThere you go, then. I have zero interest in arguing
about something just because people want to argue.
Bob? You continually argue about nearly everything on virtually every thread..... By the way, what percentage of the time Ken plays are you there? Since you vouch for his overall winnings you must be there nearly all of the time, right? Or how would you know his statements of winning when you are not there to be true...?
Quote: s2dbakerMathextremist is a nobody. STILL WAITING!!!111!!1!!!! (sorry, just threw that in for funny). Regarding P=NP, I don't understand how you can verify a solution without knowing how to compute the solution. Ken could you explain it please since Mathextremist probably threw in the towel on that one.
Where is the answer to my question?
Ken
Quote: WongBoYes I guess it is totally reasonable that everything humanity thinks they know about roulette is wrong and Ken is right.
Ok can we stop now?
We'll stop when I'm ready.
Ken
You didn't say "STILL WAITING!!!!111!!!!1!!"Quote: mrjjjWhere is the answer to my question?
Ken
Quote: WongBoTroll
Loser
Quote: s2dbakerYou didn't say "STILL WAITING!!!!111!!!!1!!"
Ummm, so that answer is where?
Ken
I am way ahead playing Big Six.
Turns out everything we thought we knew about the game is wrong and
You can actually make money at it if you just write down the results of every spin....
Quote: SOOPOOBob? You continually argue about nearly everything on virtually every thread..
See? Now you want to argue. No thanks..
Quote: WongBoWhy don't we all agree to stop talking about mrj and his roulette exploits?
This thread is a bore.
Thats like the 5th time you said...its a bore, you're done posting etc., but YET......you keep ATTACKING me. Bring it on Suzie, you dont have the stomache for it.
Ken
Quote: WongBoOh I'm no loser.
I am way ahead playing Big Six.
Turns out everything we thought we knew about the game is wrong and
You can actually make money at it if you just write down the results of every spin....
Thats cool, can you PROVE you are ahead? Same rule for all.
Ken
Stop, that Big Six method is still a secret! If you start blabbing then the casinos will take the game down!!Quote: WongBoOh I'm no loser.
I am way ahead playing Big Six.
Turns out everything we thought we knew about the game is wrong and
You can actually make money at it if you just write down the results of every spin....
I am way ahead at that as well.
Its kind a hard to believe that you perform any different than what comes out when i feed numbers into your methods. The truth is you are just a bit more stubborn in hanging on to your successfull gambler image than most. I and Bayes has already established you cant win doing what you are doing, its about time you come up proof of 2 X 2K winnings a week that you claim. You must have some sort of Ferrari or something.
(Waiting)
All the balls are weighted differently because of the amount of ink they use. I always pick the 66, 55, 44, 64, 46, 56, 65, 45 and 54 for that reason and I'm a millionaire because of it!!Quote: WongBoI don't know how you people haven't realized how predictable the numbers in keno are!
I am way ahead at that as well.
Quote: RonCI don't know what Ken does but I will say that I am up at Roulette since I did several specific things:
1) Stopped playing for hours on end.
2) Stopped betting a different way each spin.
3) Limited my play to a $50 loss per session. $10-$15 bet per spin.
4) Started betting "17" for at least $5 a spin while in a session with $1 "street" bets on the middle numbers and $1 on the 36 and/or 0/00 depending on small wins, etc.
5) Never play more than 2 sessions a day.
I do a lot of things that don't matter like look to see when the last 17 was hit, etc. I do use that to choose a table.
I either win $186 or more (as high as $361) one or more times per session or I am done. I have done this for over a year and I am in positive numbers since I started. If I can do it for a year, someone else can win over a lifetime. The likelihood is much lower and a lot of it may just be "luck" but "luck" combined with good bankroll management could keep someone who got ahead "up" over the long haul.
Sorry I have to drag you into this RonC (BTW, I'm happy for you, keep up the good work)
Yep, its GG2 here. (LMAO) Where is the consistency? RonC has said >> He is up for over a year AND playing on a 00 wheel. I count around 9 goofs here that ATTACK others for doing well. I count ZERO replies to RonC.......but why? (lol) I dont want to hear that I'm paranoid. Sure about that? Can I get a few answers to this post?
Ken
WAITING
Quote: KellyKen just look at the last test Bayes did after he corrected the algorithm. I also remenber i did a computer test on one of your systems a couple of years back.
Its kind a hard to believe that you perform any different than what comes out when i feed numbers into your methods. The truth is you are just a bit more stubborn in hanging on to your successfull gambler image than most. I and Bayes has already established you cant win doing what you are doing, its about time you come up proof of 2 X 2K winnings a week that you claim. You must have some sort of Ferrari or something.
(Waiting)
I already posted, I'm working on something NEW with my winnings, I said that already. The reason I am 'stubborn', I won't be told I dont do well. I'll try and give an analogy. (assuming you are married)....what if a bunch of posters here started saying, you dont love your wife. You know damn well you love her with all your heart, do you let the posts go, not respond? Just curious.
Ken
Quote: WongBoBecause he posted specifics and with his short term of playing it is not as implausible as your posts.
WAITING
No, no, no mister inconsistent. Its 5.26% REGARDLESS !!!!!!!!!!!!! I can understand if the guy played for only a week but its OVER a year. You know damn well if I had posted I did well on such-n-such method, using HIS rules, you still would ATTACK me but you didn't attack him, Hmmm. You are so full of s**t.
Ken
I've only been responding to this one because I love roulette but would never place a bet on an American wheel.
Quote: mrjjjWas at DublinBet, sorry guys.
We can do this for weeks and weeks, no problem. You say BS Ken, I say yes I do 'well', back and fourth we'll go. My END result stays the same. I have not read the other posts yet so I'm asking again >> We'll take the last 266 hit numbers as an example. Are all numbers hit 7 times each? If no, why not?? Also, can this INFORMATION be used at all for *NEAR* future betting? I dont mean 100 spins later.
Ken
WAITING......
You are really borderline insane, you know that right?
