[dred_blue]

Would you like the actual log or the script that makes the log? See the point?

"Anyone claiming to be a winner at roulette in the long term is either lying or delusional." Possibly but you don't know this. Besides he doesn't claim "over the long term" and states WHY he quit playing.

"The house edge in roulette is huge." Yes. IF the game is random. Read the post above.

[TylerE]

It would still be more substantial than anything he has offered so far.

To make an assertion that a game of roulette in a licensed casino is not random is in the realm of moon landing conspiracy.

PS: I also think it's rather sad and transparent that you created a new shill account to reply to me.

[jqm]

Look, as I stated twice before, I don't claim to prove anything. If you chose to believe I am misrepresenting my experiences (motive?) that's fine. I understand. I'm just relating the results of a lot... and I do mean a lot (as in hundreds if not thousands of hours) of observation in hope it saves someone some money from the table bumping scam. I have seen drunks cleaned out with it more than a few times. But you can be "right" if it makes you feel good.

You simply don't have my experience. Sorry.

[grkvlt]

I don't think thousands of hours playing roulette places you in the 'rational and detached follower of the scientific method' camp, somehow

[jqm]

Thanks for your opinion.

Observation is observation and it makes one a bit of an expert.

Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? I have a lot of stories like this.

You weren't there. You don't know. You don't have to believe me. If you want to take the time... go observe for yourself.

[grkvlt]

> Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money?

Absolutely. That is a classic case of observational or confirmation bias, with a sample size of one, it shows absolutely nothing. At odds of 36-1 there will be, randomly, one time in 36 when you make an incorrect hypothesis about the way a roulette ball is going to land, and yet by chance it happens the way you 'predicted'. To confirm your hypothesis with any degree of certainty, one would need to have multiple situations of this kind happen repeatedly. You aren't doing that.

[jqm]

I have seen dealers with this skill many times. And I took advantage of it many times. Read my posts before talking about "sample size". I simply mention __this__ event because it is one of the more skilled dealers I ever encountered.

So... a one in 36 chance. Actually, I'll give you one in 18 as there are two sets of green zeros... 0 and 00.

So what is the chance of this happening 4 times in a row?

1/18 cubed = .000000952 chance of occurring. Probably not confirmation bias. Probably not something one is likely to EVER encounter. (Never mind that I encountered similar many times). If you read the post, I watched her practice doing this. No one was playing at the moment. Then she did it again and I burned her for a lot of money. Read my posts if you care. Or, believe whatever you wish. Roulette is not always random. And if you spent the time I have you would know this.