|
| |
Buyer Beware !
Some roulette system sellers take pride in boasting about
how their system can beat various listings.
For example, some say they can beat a whole month of Hamburg spins
or 10,000 real casino spins, etc.
The potential buyer needs to be aware of this nonsense type of test
and below I will explain why.
Let's look at my "super secret Turbo 3000 version 8" which fictionally
sells for a measly $2,000.00
Here is the results of my testing (and no small test either, yes it's actually
30,000 spins from Spielbank/Hamburg casino - Jan 1st to March 31st 2006
|
| |
$87,000.00 of profit !
+2.34% edge to the player !!
FLAT BETTING ONLY !!!!!
|
| |
Sure looks impressive, I have to admit.
A flat betting method that makes such a large
profit over such a large sample of spins !
It's well worth the 2K asking price ?
Here is how it's done, and it's simple.
I loaded the complete file of spins and looked at
the statistics of the complete sample.
For this sample, the numbers 2,11,13,27,30 all hit well
above their mathamatical expected amount of shows.
I simply flat bet all of them every spin for all 30,000 spins.
This is simply called "reverse engineering" where-as you
"KNOW" the end results and simply form a method to beat
it. It can't fail.
The problem is of course that this same system played the same
way on the next set of spins results in a loss (of course).
But who cares ? To the system seller this is proof enough to
"hook" you into a sale because you think that there has to be
something great about this amazing method.
Don't be fooled - proof is testing against results that you don't
know ahead of time. No system seller will do such a thing because
it shows the actual results of their system.
The great "Andruchi" attempted it a while ago, running his method
against actuals before knowing the outcome.
The method did great until this little test was underway - then it
began to fail and the testing "mysteriously" ended, leaving
the positive results posted and the testing dis-continued.
The usual excuses were given as to why the testing was stopped,
but in reality it was only because the method failed.
Educate yourself before spending a dime for any method.
If it was tested against spins where the outcome is already known -
then obviously that isn't really proof of anything now is it ?
Of course not - This makes about as much sense as me saying
that I can predict yesterday's weather. I'll never be wrong will I ?
Thanks for stopping in
|
|
