Powerplay Roulette System Is Just another Scam and Rip-Off of Chip's et al.
Posted by Chip on July 21, 2000.
In Reply to: Fear to test a $5,000 roulette system against a $50 gambling strategy posted by Ion Saliu on July 21, 2000.
: I understand Chip sold his roulette system for around $5,000 (FIVE THOUSAND US DOLLARS). My roulette strategy consisted of more than a dozen systems. I sold the entire package for $50 (FIFTY US DOLLARS)!
: Can you believe this? I can't! How can one be afraid of testing his $5,000 system against a $50 system? Does it make any sense?
: That's the world we live in...
: Best of luck to you all! Best of luck especially to those who Chip sold his roulette gambling system to!
: Ion Saliu
Mr.Saliu,
To date I have tried to be respectful to you. It seems you have somewhat of a mental block in your ability to comprehend information. The more I read your responses, the more evident it is that you are an amatuer. You totally disregard mathematical certainty. You repeat that you think I am afraid to play you. I'm not sure what part you don't understand - nothing can be proven period. If you don't accept that it's fine, but it just goes to the fact that you are an amatuer and have no basis of understanding that your proposition is for fools.
As for your $50 system(s), that just makes this whole thing comical. You can criticise Powerplay all you want. It's 6+ years later and like the energizer bunny, it's still going. It was planned in a very methodical way and I could care less what your impressions are.
Let's go another step here though. Let's say that your $50 bargains work. In that case there would be tens of thousands of people that could easily afford to buy. Promote it in a manner that is such a certain guarantee of it's ability to work that you'll offer a 1000 times money back guarantee. There can be no problem can there? You are the great roulette guru aren't you? You meet all challenges. This will inspire enough people to purchase it and then there is a natural conclusion. Since it works so well, the casinos will be totally devastated and the game of roulette will cease to exist. And that will be your proof positive of how great you are. Should be easy for such a confident guy like you.
You will have surpassed Norman Squire, Norman Leigh, Russell Barnhart, the Claridge Casino syndicate, etc., etc. as the greatest roulette coup ever. Of course, you probably don't know some or all of the above, but no matter, you are the man. So beware casinos of the world ION and his buyers are going to rock your vaults.
Anyone interested in having one or more of my Powerplay roulette people comment on it's effectiveness and 52.7% hit rate to date, feel free to e mail me. As for you Ion, you are entering the legend in your own mind category and I can easily state that I have forgotten more about winning in a casino then you could ever hope to know. Farewell, and may you someday reach a level of maturity that will allow you to laugh at your naïvetés.
Chip
The 6 numbers, always the same six numbers, have nothing but a mystical significance. Oh! The group of six numbers for the French roulette is different from the group of six numbers for the American wheel (double-zero, or 38 numbers).
A player can save that US $5000 and choose (freely!) his/her 6 roulette numbers and always play them. The gambler can play the 6-number roulette group somehow dynamically by increasing the bet after various losing streaks. The results will be absolutely identical to the results of Powerplay gambling system! I can guarantee you that — I know what a static gambling system is all about!
The vast majority of the gambling systems today represent the aftermath of my Fundamental Formula of Gambling (FFG). The authors try hard to mask the source of inspiration from fear of plagiarism or piracy. That fear makes a gambling system weaker and worse! Yet, FFG has caused me fierce, even vicious attacks from those whose interests the Formula has affected.
Set the record straight on Chip, his real name, criminal behavior, Powerplay roulette, baccarat - June 2004.
Follow Up:
Comments: