Real Answers to help you to win

[atlantis]

You can win wrote:

Now for Roulette The how and why I can beat all E.C. chances.

Huh? Those are BIG claims - You didn't show HOW or WHY you can do it !?!   C'mon are you gonna post it or not?
And can we have it without all the bull and unfathomable explanations ? Yawn..


A.

[gizmotron]

"grouping in stretches of similar streaks..." Again, this is vague - what does it mean?

• how many numbers are you talking about?
• what is a "stretch" - how long is it?
• what does "similar" mean?
• what is a "streak" - how long is it?

12,18,12,14,7,14,9,10,13,8,4,33,31,17,29,2,3,14,25,36,23,19,4,15,10,33,24,6,17,1, - end 1st hour

16,27,12,3,34,9,32,22,11,20,28,15,4,35,13,10,3,9,19,27,36,7,16,28,13,2,14,17,31,1, - end 2nd hour

A "stretch" is an unspecified number of spins. It usually means from one condition to another condition. An example would be that blacks kept hitting for a "stretch" until red started hitting for a "stretch." Coincidentally both "stretches" were common to each other in duration. The math person must learn to identify the use of the term stretch as it relates to Roulette spin results. This takes experience and perhaps hand holding, like when teaching little children to cross the street or to learn their alphabet.

"Similar" implies anything containing a characteristic that is common to anything, usually a group of continuous spins. Similar sections of a continuous spin sequence were both red or black but contained stretches of spins that were consistent for each, like clusters of reds or clusters of blacks. It's a way of showing that singles in series, for the reds or blacks, was noticeably absent.

A "streak" is a small identifiable stretch of continuous spins. The reason it's identifiable is by observing its recognizable characteristic that makes it recognizable.

In this example of spins above anyone with a rudimentary capacity to evaluate spins can see that these spins have recognizable stretches that have a similar characteristic in the over all grouping of two types of streaks. This consistency goes from the first hour to the second and continues until near the end of the second hour. If someone were to notice that then they might have taken advantage of the characteristic during the second hour. Perhaps part of the first hour too.

I've actually talked to math oriented Roulette players that can't conceive of any of this. It's a completely oblivious topic to most of them. It's easy to test for this too. Just ask them to identify the traits and characteristics that make up the current phase of identifiable characteristic as stretches, streaks, and similarities. Many of them can't do that. Yet they insist that they understand everything.

Can you do it Bayes? Let's see it.

[gizmotron]

WHAT IS THIS WE SUPPOSE TO HELP EACH OTHER WHY IS IT A COMPETETION BETWEEN OURSELVES WHAT DID WE WANT TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE? BEAT THE CASINO LOOKS LIKE WE JUST WANT TO BEAT EACH OTHER

This is the kind of stuff that is considered off topic too:

This is just common sense Gizmo, try to use some if you have any!

We are waiting for Bayes to show that he understands the question. A question he insists that never comes and never gets answered. So please be patient Stick.

[Bayes]

Gizmo,

You're all over the place. What you lack in your writing is clarity. I don't know what you want from me. 

Can you do it Bayes? Let's see it.

Can I do what? recognize patterns? what do you want to see?

We are waiting for Bayes to show that he understands the question.

What question?

A "stretch" is an unspecified number of spins.

Great. That's about as much use as a fart in a hurricane. Gizmo, as a programmer how would you go about testing your theories? You say that the maths is not applicable to your way of playing and yet you say you've written simulations that prove it works. Computer simulations using random numbers are just another way of doing probability, albeit easier for complex systems. So you have already proved for yourself that the math is capable of showing what you claim it can't. 

[gizmotron]

Gizmo,

You're all over the place. What you lack in your writing is clarity. I don't know what you want from me. 
Can I do what? recognize patterns? what do you want to see?

What question?

Great. That's about as much use as a fart in a hurricane. Gizmo, as a programmer how would you go about testing your theories? You say that the maths is not applicable to your way of playing and yet you say you've written simulations that prove it works. Computer simulations using random numbers are just another way of doing probability, albeit easier for complex systems. So you have already proved for yourself that the math is capable of showing what you claim it can't. 

This is evidence that you can't do it. If you can't get this far then you have no intention of showing how current state probability has anything to do with long term probability. We trenders are going to bury you in evidence of your groundless assumptions.

To prove it I'll bet several here can take the basic question and explain how the following question should be answered.

Here are the basics again for those that like to see Bayes run and hide:

12,18,12,14,7,14,9,10,13,8,4,33,31,17,29,2,3,14,25,36,23,19,4,15,10,33,24,6,17,1, - end 1st hour

16,27,12,3,34,9,32,22,11,20,28,15,4,35,13,10,3,9,19,27,36,7,16,28,13,2,14,17,31,1, - end 2nd hour

In this example of spins above anyone with a rudimentary capacity to evaluate spins can see that these spins have recognizable stretches that have a similar characteristic in the over all grouping of two types of streaks. This consistency goes from the first hour to the second and continues until near the end of the second hour. If someone were to notice that then they might have taken advantage of the characteristic during the second hour. Perhaps part of the first hour too.

...Just ask them to identify the traits and characteristics that make up the current phase of identifiable characteristic as stretches, streaks, and similarities. 

Can you do it Bayes? Let's see it.

[Bayes]

Gizmo,

Why are you avoiding my point about programming your theories?  

Is it possible, in principle at least, to simulate the way you play?

[A3on47]

Gizmo, where can I learn more about trends?
I'm really interested in that, I want to go in the same direction you went...

Afonso

[gizmotron]

Gizmo,

Why are you avoiding my point about programming your theories?  

Is it possible, in principle at least, to simulate the way you play?

You started this by saying that I'm not giving specific information. I'll get to your next point after you finish the first point. There is nothing worse than an algorithm that keeps on asking new questions in order to avoid answering the original question. It all looks like someone attempting to change the subject. It's just a form of dodging the question. The truth is you won't be able to relate current state math for my original question. Do you need to be reminded or do I have to go back and find it? We've seen your trash talk. Let's see your high minded understanding of the problem.

[gizmotron]

Gizmo, where can I learn more about trends?
I'm really interested in that, I want to go in the same direction you went...

Afonso

I first tackled disbelief. I lost my bankroll. I couldn't believe that 24 numbers could consistently hit on four different wheels in the same casino, so I bet against it. After that I experienced a perfect pattern among the same 12 numbers for a little more than half an hour. This time I went with them and made a huge killing. Then I studied systems like progressions. That turned out to be worthless. So I moved on to detecting three hottest numbers for 300 spin sessions. That taught me a great deal about randomness. I discovered that what I was learning applied to all the bets. I learned that randomness comes and goes in one of three states. Basically it goes from singles in series to streaks of repeats. If you can learn how it does that and learn how it changes then you can relate that to dominances, patterns, and the repeating pattern of similarities over time. You do this by tracking multiple spins and looking at the data that comes from that. Good luck.

[Bayes]

Gizmo,

I didn't start anything. I was responding to this post of yours:

They never tell the story of the math that fits for the current state of conditions being seen. They never produce the math that tells how long a trend will last the next time one occurs. They never show their own selective versions of "laws of math."

I'm not interested in identifying any "characteristics" or "traits". You are claiming that the maths is limited and doesn't account for trends and all the things you observe. I'm saying it does, but you need to translate your trends and "characteristics" into a form amenable to probability calculations. Why is that so hard to understand?

[A3on47]

@gizmo

Thanks
Then the only way is to practice a lot, trying to see R/B patterns and play with then.
But I don't see how can we know when a pattern is going to stay or to leave :S

Afonso

[gizmotron]

Gizmo,

I didn't start anything. I was responding to this post of yours:

I'm not interested in identifying any "characteristics" or "traits". You are claiming that the maths is limited and doesn't account for trends and all the things you observe. I'm saying it does, but you need to translate your trends and "characteristics" into a form amenable to probability calculations. Why is that so hard to understand?

You are too mister dodge.

Please explain how long term math relates to the current state of ten reds in a row, where both reds and blacks have been grouping in stretches of similar streaks for the past hour. Now if that trait were to continue for the next hour would that give you an advantage? What long term math expectation prevents you from exploiting that two hour trend? Because after the two hours are up you would know if you did well or not. It's possible to have an experience that does not fit the long term expectations of the math. Is that possible?

You followed that question with a requirement to get specific and to show you numbers. Now you are craw fishing your way out of it. I gave you those specific numbers and I provided you with specific definitions for terms. Now all you are doing is confirming to the entire world that your math assumptions are groundless. You are oblivious to any attempted explanation. There is no way for you to draw intelligent conclusions from what I claim about randomness. You are, specifically, clueless. I can't even drag you to it kicking and screaming. All you need is (37/1) = house advantage. I call that equation darkness. Perhaps "blinders" fits it far more effectively.

[gizmotron]

@gizmo

Thanks
Then the only way is to practice a lot, trying to see R/B patterns and play with then.
But I don't see how can we know when a pattern is going to stay or to leave :S

Afonso

You will never know that. It's a good thing to know. That's why it's important to be aware of effectiveness. Having a bet selection method is not the entire story. You need to learn how it flows in and out of the three states, works very good, works very bad, or it acts chaotic in effectiveness. That's all you will end up discovering. It takes searching. It takes learning from the getting there. Randomness only takes on the meaning that you impose upon it. Otherwise it just ends up being a blotch of meaningless numbers all jumbled up into a statistical average.

[gizmotron]

I'm saying it does, but you need to translate your trends and "characteristics" into a form amenable to probability calculations. Why is that so hard to understand?

I get it. You say that I have to do all the work so that you can show how short term stats on a very powerful trend have no advantage because long termed probability always rules perfectly over short termed situations. It looks like you have your amenable excuse for never making a valid point. Why don't you take any powerful trend you like and show how short termed stats are forced to conform to long termed stats as an explanation of math's demonstration of the two differing states, current state and average state? You must at least have your own explanation for that.

[Noble Savage]

Randomness only takes on the meaning that you impose upon it. Otherwise it just ends up being a blotch of meaningless numbers all jumbled up into a statistical average.

Ah, so true randomness stops being random when we believe it isn't.

So if I see a cloud that randomly took a shape resembling a tree, and I say that it's a cherry tree, does that mean that it will rain cherries?

Give me a break man.

[Noble Savage]

-