Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;423169]Sorry, I deleted my own post within a minute of posting it. The vids were funny but I thought some people might not think so.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that was pretty nasty man. I can see why you deleted it.

Hey schneed, I don't "think" it works, it "does" work.
Just won $650 more 3 weeks ago. It's a "scientifical" fact. ;)

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=jsarno;423380]Yeah, that was pretty nasty man. I can see why you deleted it.

Hey schneed, I don't "think" it works, it "does" work.
Just won $650 more 3 weeks ago. It's a "scientifical" fact. ;)[/quote]

No, it doesn't work. There's no such thing as a successful roullette system. It's a mathematical fact.

PS I'm not above descending into this argument again!

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;423391]No, it doesn't work. There's no such thing as a successful roullette system. It's a mathematical fact.

PS I'm not above descending into this argument again![/QUOTE]

LOL...there are other things in life besides statistical facts...even statistics tell you that.
The massive amount of winnings everyone has won off my system speaks all the proof it needs to speak. You don't have to beleive it, that's your right, just doesn't make it any less true and effective.

Re: Loose Change
 

Statistics are for losers. Forty percent of all people know that :)

Re: Loose Change
 

82% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;423399]Statistics are for losers. Forty percent of all people know that :)[/QUOTE]

LOL! True.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=jsarno;423392]LOL...there are other things in life besides statistical facts...even statistics tell you that.
The massive amount of winnings everyone has won off my system speaks all the proof it needs to speak. You don't have to beleive it, that's your right, just doesn't make it any less true and effective.[/quote]

It can't be any less true and effective than it already is.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=Schneed10;423368]Seriously, the last thing anybody wants on this site is for me to be a mod. I'm better off as a member.

But I can dream. I would ban:

RedskinRich because I don't care who's signing autographs today.

Dmek because he's a liberal commy pinko.

Jsarno because he thinks you can actually use a system to win at roullette.

Hess for obvious reasons.

GTripp for occasionally losing his common sense within the mountains of stats he crunches through.

saden because he agrees with Dmek too much.

EarthQuake for making my team lose to SS's in his Warpath Madden Super Bowl. That would just never happen. Ever.

FRPLG for being the member most deserving of modship and not getting it. It's like being the best golfer never to win a major. It's almost to the point of being a depressing loser. Seriously, just leave the site with a semblance of dignity. (I tease, of course)

12th Man for being on the news and not acting like a rabid maniac of a fan. He made us look way too smart. We can't live up to that reputation.

Know what I'd really do? Ban anyone who says we're in cap hell without it being true. Instantaneously. No questions asked. My vision would be to create a site consisting only of folks who understand the salary cap. Vote Schneed for Ego.

Actually, I'd ban everybody so me and CC can have this place all to ourselves. Maybe GTripp can stay just to watch once in a while.

LOL

But seriously, nothin but love for the Warpath. Even from grumpy old Schneed![/quote]I demand my own personal bullet-proof window.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;423413]It can't be any less true and effective than it already is.[/QUOTE]

LOL

[quote]The massive amount of winnings everyone has won off my system speaks all the proof it needs to speak.[/quote]

nuff said.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=jsarno;423392]LOL...there are other things in life besides statistical facts...even statistics tell you that.
The massive amount of winnings everyone has won off my system speaks all the proof it needs to speak. You don't have to beleive it, that's your right, just doesn't make it any less true and effective.[/quote]Don't get caught in the "it worked before so it has to work in the future" vortex. That's where 90% of bad football analysis, and 100% of Vince Young's defenders come from.

There are some principles in your system, like moderation and the law of averages that affect how people will make and lose money, and if they are smart enough to realize that you can "quit while you are ahead".

None of that changes the fact that you can't alter statistical probabilities, your system is basically just trying to maximize the value of good luck--which can't succeed unless the player is aware of the statistical improbability that the luck run will continue.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;423421]Don't get caught in the "it worked before so it has to work in the future" vortex. That's where 90% of bad football analysis, and 100% of Vince Young's defenders come from.[/quote]

1 problem with that analysis is that football changes daily, and especially yearly, so in that context, you are correct. When you are speaking of something that does not change, then there is no reason to think it won't work in the future.

[quote]There are some principles in your system, like moderation and the law of averages that affect how people will make and lose money, and if they are smart enough to realize that you can "quit while you are ahead".[/quote]

That is most certainly part of my system.

[quote]None of that changes the fact that you can't alter statistical probabilities, your system is basically just trying to maximize the value of good luck--which can't succeed unless the player is aware of the statistical improbability that the luck run will continue.[/QUOTE]

My system is based on stastical probability. Like after black has hit 3 times in a row, it is statistically higher than 50/50 that red will hit. The only way to figure this out is to do a study of how often all those numbers / colors etc hit...I did a study of well over 10000 rolls. My statistics are accurate, and have proven to be so with winnings. It's clear as day. The winnings don't lie. Of course this could be a massive discussion yet again, and it will end with someone getting annoyed cause both sides won't budge...that's cool. Whoever disagrees can continue to do so and never win a thing. I will continue to beleive in my system and continue to reap the rewards. Approximately 13k in winnings in 4 years speaks for itself. I hold no hard feelings for those that don't beleive in the system. I have fact backing me up, so of course I will see the fact and the rewards and of course beleive in those. I can't expect skeptics to beleive when they have never seen it first hand, nor seen the actual statistical proof. It's not like if you don't beleive in Santa, he won't show up. You can not beleive all you want, and I will continue to win, and continue to win money for others as well. I guarentee you those that I have shown are 100% beleivers. That's all that really matters.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=jsarno;423426]1 problem with that analysis is that football changes daily, and especially yearly, so in that context, you are correct. When you are speaking of something that does not change, then there is no reason to think it won't work in the future.



That is most certainly part of my system.



My system is based on stastical probability. Like after black has hit 3 times in a row, it is statistically higher than 50/50 that red will hit. The only way to figure this out is to do a study of how often all those numbers / colors etc hit...I did a study of well over 10000 rolls. My statistics are accurate, and have proven to be so with winnings. It's clear as day. The winnings don't lie. Of course this could be a massive discussion yet again, and it will end with someone getting annoyed cause both sides won't budge...that's cool. Whoever disagrees can continue to do so and never win a thing. I will continue to beleive in my system and continue to reap the rewards. Approximately 13k in winnings in 4 years speaks for itself. I hold no hard feelings for those that don't beleive in the system. I have fact backing me up, so of course I will see the fact and the rewards and of course beleive in those. I can't expect skeptics to beleive when they have never seen it first hand, nor seen the actual statistical proof. It's not like if you don't beleive in Santa, he won't show up. You can not beleive all you want, and I will continue to win, and continue to win money for others as well. I guarentee you those that I have shown are 100% beleivers. That's all that really matters.[/quote]

Wow. That's more scientifical info than I needed.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;423426]My system is based on stastical probability. Like after black has hit 3 times in a row, it is statistically higher than 50/50 that red will hit.[/QUOTE]

OMG it is not. You 100% factually wrong. That is not an opinion. It is fact. Given two outcomes on any one roll it is 50/50 EVRY TIME. No matter what.

Re: Loose Change
 

Yeah, jsarno, you're dead wrong on the red and black thing. You're basically saying that if you flip a coin and it lands on heads 3 times in a row, then it's more than 50% likely to land on tails during the next flip.

That's flat out incorrect. Events that happened in the past are exactly that, in the past. They do nothing to change the probabilities of future outcomes.

Your stance makes you appear uneducated.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=Schneed10;423493]Yeah, jsarno, you're dead wrong on the red and black thing. You're basically saying that if you flip a coin and it lands on heads 3 times in a row, then it's more than 50% likely to land on tails during the next flip.

That's flat out incorrect. Events that happened in the past are exactly that, in the past. They do nothing to change the probabilities of future outcomes.

Your stance makes you appear uneducated.[/quote]

Whats the probability of it landing on its side? ;)