tell me why its better to play 5 on red and 10 on black? you lose 15 when zero comes out. if you just had 10 on black you would only lose 10. If it was as good as your making it out to be, then I would expect bets to be more logical
You're looking at things from a purely on-the-surface micro perspective: just focussing on red/black in isolation of the complete mathematics of the entire system that is difficult to wrap your mind around. In other words: you don't have a complete macro perspective on WHY the system works.
That's the BIG question: WHY does such a seemingly illogical bet selection work in making money? Your mind is screaming, "This makes no sense, it's illogical. My mind just can't grasp this", but it has worked. The results have been proven. What more can I say?
Learn the techniques professionals use to beat roulette consistently. The most complete professional roulette strategy course including visual ballistics, bias analysis & much more. Submit your name & email for a free evaluation copy and more info (your email is kept private & you can remove yourself anytime):
OK I've had another look at the video and it seems to be betting on a colour coming an even number of times.
e.g.
If we see RB it bets in favour of B (to give a RBB) If we see RBB it bets in favour or R (to give RBBR) If we see RBBB it bets in favour of B (to give RBBBB)
Whether that's spot on or there's more to it is irrelevant - the simple fact is it's foolish to bet say 30 on black and 15 on red as it achieves no better result than just 15 on black - and in the event of a zero hitting you lose 45 rather than 15.
You're looking at things from a purely on-the-surface micro perspective: just focussing on red/black in isolation of the complete mathematics of the entire system that is difficult to wrap your mind around. In other words: you don't have a complete macro perspective on WHY the system works.
That's the BIG question: WHY does such a seemingly illogical bet selection work in making money? Your mind is screaming, "This makes no sense, it's illogical. My mind just can't grasp this", but it has worked. The results have been proven. What more can I say?
- Rouland
No, I disagree. Its not that I can't "grasp" it, its just it is totally ridiculous to make a bet that could potentially lose more than another way. If you had a choice to jump off a cliff and land of rocks, or take the stairs, which would you choose? either way your going to get to the bottom, but one will hurt more
I've tested systems for 2000 spins and produce well over 10,000 unit profits, then it goes down hill. If you have seen a few spins, hell even a hundred, i hardly would be convinced on that. I'm not been sceptical, not at all. But if the criteria was there, i.e all the testing etc. Then it would be sceptical. Since there isn't any data then its all heresay
if it makes a profit over shorter runs surely that is the point.
has anyone acctually sat at a table and bet continuously for 10,000 spins?
No, I disagree. Its not that I can't "grasp" it, its just it is totally ridiculous to make a bet that could potentially lose more than another way. If you had a choice to jump off a cliff and land of rocks, or take the stairs, which would you choose? either way your going to get to the bottom, but one will hurt more
I disagree with you big time. As I've suggested: your mind is so focussed on a micro element of roulette bet selection to the extent that you're missing the big picture that is based on a mathematical algorithm that is hidden from view. That's why you think it's ridiculous. You only see the obvious. And the obvious is not enough to beat roulette consistently.
That's why you think it's ridiculous. You only see the obvious. And the obvious is not enough to beat roulette.
For you, make a bet of 1 on black and 1 on red and nothing to 0 is "mind is so focussed on a micro element " or is a very high risk to lost 2 units ?
Make this kind of bet don't make sense for me, but yes.. i can have a very loosing mind to undestand this rule
You're making my point exactly: on the surface such a bet makes no sense. However, if you develop a mathematical algorithm that takes into consideration the concept of equilibrium and flux as it relates to roulette and numbers (heads / tails or red / black), then we're talking about what is not obvious.
The problem you're facing is that you don't know what the software algorithm is, so all you can see is the obviously ridiculous bet selection without thinking that the missing piece of the puzzle is the software algorithm.
I have a screen recording just like jo made, but it was made before he posted. I couldn't possibly rig those 100 numbers against him. I will post the numbers to anyone who wants to be the checker, and in case someone thinks the checker and I are plotting against jo, I'll post the video on YouTube and anyone who cares to can watch it. In case someone thinks the checker is feed the numbers to jo, I'll use bj as a counter-checker if he agrees. Or Lullox or tater. Or Carlo. Makes me no difference. I think the pro-jo person should be Rouland.
Let's test this fellow. If he's for real and his program is for real, I'll shout his accolades from the top of the carport I'm building.
The way I see it, Jobsaboba's system uses separate algorithms to calculates what you need to wager on red and black independently of each other. Sometimes the program will decide to play a 1 chip on red, and at the same time place 1 chip on black. It does so because they are independent.
Maybe what the program lacks is a final calculation to minus one from the other to get the overall bet. That is something the human can do.
But behind all that is a system that uses mathematics to produce a winning system.
Arguing over whether or not to bet on red and black at the same time is irrelevant. What you should be arguing about is whether the system behind all that is working or not...the algorithm that decides what needs to be placed on red AND the algorithm the decides what needs to be placed on black.
OK Guys, show me one successful system based on math because I don't know any? Must I have an Alzheimer when I don't know any? You cannot show me any because doesn't exist yet. Give me the evidence and than we can speak on the same level. Because now I speak English and you guys who believe in math miracles speak Chinese. This demo reminders me on Gamlet's unfinished roulette Walt Disney pictures. Scam or Bum? Or both? Carlo
The way I see it, Jobsaboba's system uses separate algorithms to calculates what you need to wager on red and black independently of each other. Sometimes the program will decide to play a 1 chip on red, and at the same time place 1 chip on black. It does so because they are independent.
Maybe what the program lacks is a final calculation to minus one from the other to get the overall bet. That is something the human can do.
But behind all that is a system that uses mathematics to produce a winning system.
Arguing over whether or not to bet on red and black at the same time is irrelevant. What you should be arguing about is whether the system behind all that is working or not...the algorithm that decides what needs to be placed on red AND the algorithm the decides what needs to be placed on black.
Bruce
Bang on Bruce,
The system works, but it definately is not finished. You have it right the red and black bets are probably independant of each other. I agree that there is no point in betting 2 on red and 2 on black just as betting 10 on black and 5 on red is stupid, the same as betting 5 on black.
The program definately is not finished. Maybe when the program he uses tells you for example to bet 10 on black and 3 on red you should just bet 7 on black, 7 on black is better of course. The maths seem to work but they need to be refined as you play in my opinion. When the program tells you to bet 5 on red and 5 on black why not just skip the spin altogether as this would also be a better play.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Logged
