A month ago I noticed one the casinos that has an airball machine had set it so the ball didn't hit the track till after the timer ran out. Now all the airball's in all my local casinos have done it. I asked the kid who's 2nd shift slot tech manager tonight and he said IGT did it. In March they got an email memo from IGT telling them the airball machines had been targeted all over the US by 'Visual Ballistics teams' (his words) and they would be receiving software to change the machines so no bets could be placed after the ball was released. So because of your silly assed GREED, we are all paying the price. Now I don't get 60 spins an hour, I only get 50. Thanks a lot.
I asked if they can take advantage of when the wheel is out of balance and he said the airball wheels are checked by sensors after every spin by a computer and shut down if not within tolerance. So, BUSTED you greedy wankers, nice job all around.
The fact that Herb didn't reply to this thread means he already knows its going on. Right, Herb?
Already in August 2009 Mike Barnett was aware of the Alpha streets and its opportunitys, and from that point on i knew it would come to an end sooner or later. "Swept by several VB teams" is a bit of an overstatement, you were talking to the management who was giving an excuse for the new changes. "A few", rather than "several" is more likely and to my knowledge some of them were not VB players but was "helped" a little bit.
"A few", rather than "several" is more likely >>>
Whatever the reason its now down to 50 spins an hour and not 60. Its barely better than Rapid Roulette.
Quote from: Spike! on May 01, 2010, 12:31:57 AM
So because of your silly assed GREED, we are all paying the price. Now I don't get 60 spins an hour, I only get 50. Thanks a lot.
Are you absolutely for real, Spike?
In one simple sentence you have completely hypocrisized (is that even a word?) yourself to our entire roulette community.
Here is a man (this has yet to be verified, in fact all the superfluous facial hair that keeps popping up in spikes avatars makes me wonder if there might not be a bit of penis envy going on there) with an unequaled ability to correctly select EC outcomes at 72%, yes that's right, not a typo, 72%! Who is spitting the dummy at the "GREEDY" VB Gods because they chopped 10 spins an hour off "her" sessions.
Think about it... Spike always bets, practically never skips a spin, and maintains a 72% guaranteed strike rate. That's 36 winning bets in 50 spins, which, thanks to the GREEDY VB Gods is all poor Spike gets now in one lousy hour.
Big arsed strike rate = 72%
60 bets per hour at $100 with 43 winners = $2600 profit!
50 bets per hour at $100 with 36 winners = $2200 profit!
50 bets per hour at $120 with 36 winners = $2640 profit!
So all poor old Spike has to do is increase the stake by 20% and get the flock out of there in 1 hour with the same earnings.
You GREEDY VB assholes!
Hahahahahahaha!
Quote from: bombus on May 02, 2010, 06:14:25 AM
Are you absolutely for real, Spike?
In one simple sentence you have completely hypocrisized (is that even a word?) yourself to our entire roulette community.
Here is a man (this has yet to be verified, in fact all the superfluous facial hair that keeps popping up in spikes avatars makes me wonder if there might not be a bit of penis envy going on there) with an unequaled ability to correctly select EC outcomes at 72%, yes that's right, not a typo, 72%! Who is spitting the dummy at the "GREEDY" VB Gods because they chopped 10 spins an hour off "her" sessions.
Think about it... Spike always bets, practically never skips a spin, and maintains a 72% guaranteed strike rate. That's 36 winning bets in 50 spins, which, thanks to the GREEDY VB Gods is all poor Spike gets now in one lousy hour.
Big arsed strike rate = 72%
60 bets per hour at $100 with 43 winners = $2600 profit!
50 bets per hour at $100 with 36 winners = $2200 profit!
50 bets per hour at $120 with 36 winners = $2640 profit!
So all poor old Spike has to do is increase the stake by 20% and get the flock out of there in 1 hour with the same earnings.
You GREEDY VB assholes!
Hahahahahahaha!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
That's funny.The thing all Spike has to do is prove what he has been mouthing off about the past few years in different roulette forums.
Its easy Spike all you have to do is invite a load of us forum guys here at vls to meet you in Vegas and show us your incredible 72% strike rate on the even chances,which gives you over an 20% edge over the house.
You dont have to tell us how you do it Spike,all you do is walk over to one of the nice plush roulette tables in the MGM Grand if thats all ok,their is lots of space in the MGM so plenty of room for the mass of crowds who will be rushing to see the man who can guess the EC bets correct 72% of the time,and bets on every spin of the wheel .
Even the double zero wheel makes no different to Spike its still the same 72% strike-rate :haha: so lets meet you in Vegas and watch you play every spin of the wheel for an hour and watch this amazing 20% edge you have over the house by making "educated guesses" on the wheel :haha: :haha: :haha:
@Bombus
Nice one LMAO :lol: :lol: :lol:
In one simple sentence you have completely>>
Sigh. When I'm in the casino, I always record 150 spins for my record of actuals from a 0/00 wheel. So when I'm done playing I stay until I have the spins I need. There is nowhere on the net to get RELIABLE 0/00 spin results, so I get my own. But now I have to stay a half hour longer because I only get 50 an hour. What used to take 2 1/2 hours now takes 3 hours. I also share these spins with 2 other serious players and they're damned glad to get them.
Anything else you need to know?
@Bombus: lol. Amazing isn't he? :sarcastic:
Quote from: Spike! on May 02, 2010, 06:05:19 PM
There is nowhere on the net to get RELIABLE 0/00 spin results
I can get a million 0/00 spins a day. It's called Random.org
Just set the integers between 0 and 37 (and then treat 37 as a 00).
I can get a million 0/00 spins a day. It's called Random.org>
Sigh. Those are from atmospheric noise, not a real 0/00 wheel. They work fine for testing but are not the real thing. The numbers from an airball wheel are not exactly the same as those from a dealer spun wheel. So if I want to play airball exclusively, I need actual spins from an airball wheel to test with. Duh.
You will never get any of this because you don't have a winnng method or system. All actuals are not created equal, but to the untrained eye, they are identical. I can see the difference in testing, you would see nothing. Not my problem. Thats why the other 2 players I send them to are so appreciative, airball actuals aren't available anywhere. Its like comparing a common violin and a Stradivarious, only an expert can hear the difference.
1. What the casinos do (countermeasures) gives you clues as to how roulette is legitimately beatable, and what they are/aren't worried about. I've seen tables with a $500 limit for inside bets, and a $50,000 limit for outside bets. Sectors, perhaps?
2. For every 1 consistent winner, there are perhaps 1000+ consistent losers. A single consistent loser can make up for that 1 anomaly (the winner), and if the winner bets much bigger than the others, they are easily identified and banned.
If there's something that speeds up the game (nmb after ball release), it is more economical/profitable for casinos to allow it, even if there is the occasional winner. A smart casino that does the math knows the best thing for them to do is work on identification of consistent winners, not making things like VB impossible. Even if nmb was called before ball release, there are still legitimate ways (not just bias) to beat the wheel, and it will always be this way (long term spins) as long as wheel properties remain the same - irrespective of ball release points. That might seem like it defies logic, but you need to think along the terms of long term, not individual spins.
PS - Spike, calling VB players or anyone "greedy wankers" is not the kind of language I want around here. You are contributing but please relax.
Ok Spike, sorry.
In that case you need to stop treating obstacles as negative circumstance.
Try to turn it around and use the extra half hour to your advantage... perhaps some yogic breathing exercises while collecting the final ½ hour of numbers. Some pelvic floor muscle contractions as well.
When embraced, this extra ½ hour could end up adding years to your life! :)
A smart casino that does the math knows the best thing for them to do is work on identification of consistent winners>>>
What makes you think casinos are smart? All they can think of doing is making it as hard as possible to beat their games. Identifying consistant winners takes effort, they would rather make it so consistant winners are as small a problem as possible. A lot of casinos have learned to tolerate card counters, if they don't win much. But most still throw them out on their ear.
>>calling VB players or anyone "greedy wankers" is not >>>
Spoken just after I got home from the casino, I've since gotten over it. Can we have a hug, then, and forget it was said at all...
Spike I'm not sure about a hug. I might get fleas off that beard of yours. But I'm sure everyone can get over it.
As for casinos being smart of dumb, here's my take: Most staff have very little understanding of roulette and how it is beatable. Some flat dont believe it can be beaten except under exceptional circumstances like a heavily biased wheel, which is great. Some staff, albeit very few, are properly trained and know from a player's behavior alone if the player is a professional. Professional players are usually a step ahead of casino staff when it comes to understanding roulette which is because such players spend their time trying to understand roulette, whereas staff spend time on other things. All up, casino staff are not dumb - they are in general quite ignorant, but no more ignorant than the rest of the population about other matters. But there are of course other staff that know better.
Quote from: Spike! on May 02, 2010, 08:01:15 PM
Those are from atmospheric noise, not a real 0/00 wheel. They work fine for testing but are not the real thing. The numbers from an airball wheel are not exactly the same as those from a dealer spun wheel. So if I want to play airball exclusively, I need actual spins from an airball wheel to test with. Duh.
lol so if I post 10 txt files here each one full of 0/00 spins, and tell you one of them contains real wheel spins, and the rest are from Random.org, will you be able to identify the one with the real wheel data?
No you won't, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Funny that you now say random.org data is not like a real wheel's, because this is what you said in "the Zone" thread:
Quote from: Spike! on April 29, 2010, 02:18:00 AM
From the random.org site: " RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise"
Why all the confusion, just go there and look. Its true random, just like the wheel.
Funny that you now say random.org data is not like a real wheel's>>
They're both true random, but not identically the same. Don't worry about it, its something you'll never have to deal with. To you, the results from an online casinos RNG look just like any other actuals. How would you possibly know the diffrence.
Some staff, albeit very few, are properly trained and know from a player's behavior alone if the player is a professional.>>>
Those people are mostly in Vegas. In the hundreds of Indian casinos they don't know squat and don't want to know. All they care about is the bottom line and that means stopping consistant winners any way possible.
I should be able to know the difference between real and rng spins, assuming the real wheel spins meet certain criteria like for example the same wheel. If you were able to give more data for each spins it would make it much easier like for example the diamond that was hit. But manually faking diamond hits for hundreds of thousands of spins would take some time.
@Steve: I was referring to EC outcomes (since that's what Spike plays) of a real wheel vs. EC outcomes of a TRNG (such as random.org).
Sure there is any real quantifiable difference that you can tell between the two?
@Spike: Again, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I won't even suggest a challenge because you won't take it because you're not sure you can (ever) back up your silly claims.
Obviously, whatever you think you can do as far as this game is concerned is pure self-delusion based on the fallacies and psychological biases typical of addicted casino gamblers, so there's no "arguing with you".
whatever you think you can do as far as this game is concerned is pure self-delusion>>>
LOL! Whatever, pal. Don't paint me with the same brush you use to paint yourself. You remind me of the Native American tribes the Europeans encountered when they first came here. The Indians assumed the invaders were stupid and ignorant because they didn't know the Indian languages. They even mocked them behind their backs. Here were people smart enough to build ships and guns and canons and printing presses, yet the Indians thought they were 'stupid'. The truth was, the Indians were the dumb and ignorant ones, but they were so dumb and ignorant they didn't know it.
You assume everybody is as ignorant about roulette as you are, so you can't fathom anything outside you limited experience. Stay ignorant, the casinos depend on guys like you and so so I, you keep them open.
QuoteSure there is any real quantifiable difference that you can tell between the two?
Yes most definitely, but not if you're talking red/black or EC. I'm sure there would be but I havent found it, yet. Sectors are different. What would I know though. I just recently learned what EC meant. :give_rose: (I couldnt find a suitable emoticon - it'll do)
Quote from: Spike! on May 02, 2010, 10:17:38 PM
you can't fathom anything outside you limited experience.
No, it's not just
my experience.
Quote from: Spike! on May 02, 2010, 10:17:38 PM
You assume everybody is as ignorant about roulette as you are
This isn't about me. (that's what you and Gizmo do when someone points out your lies with simple logic)
You claim all people (including geniuses and experts of advanced mathematics and physics) are too stupid to "figure it out", except you.
Wheel EC outcomes ARE true random outcomes. You claim you can guess true randomness at a better than expectancy rate - more specifically 72%, or about
+27% edge over normal expectancy (which is -5.2%). lol This sounds more like pure predictive ability, not a "guessing" one.
hmm, guessing true-randomness, reading and beating unpredictability itself. Are you aware of how huge and serious such a discovery would be if it were true and what kind of impact it would have on a scientific (and philosophical) level to begin with?
Sorry ol'man, I still think you're delusional. :sarcastic:
are too stupid to "figure it out", except you.>>
And your point is?
It doesn't surprise me one bit why educated math types can't look into ground breaking principles, where pattern recognition is already a field of study. There won't be a probability function that relates to short termed current state principles because they don't have an iron clad, chiseled in stone, absoluteness to them that provides them an easy path to riches. They are not considering it, mainly because they lack the imagination to research it. They are only capable of following in the footsteps of others. Unfortunately for them they can't believe that a non math type person is saying it's possible. People have consistently turned what was believed to be the truth about things into new ideas that explain things better. John Nash turned everything upside down in the field of economics. Einstein gave us a new explanation of gravity. Nobody has given us advantage based pattern recognition, for gambling, as of yet. So for now on all you mathboyz are officially "Nobody." Nobody says what I can't do. But, nobody knows for sure. Because Nobody is afraid to be wrong.
Quote from: Noble Savage on May 03, 2010, 04:21:34 PM
No, it's not just my experience.
This isn't about me. (that's what you and Gizmo do when someone points out your lies with simple logic)
You claim all people (including geniuses and experts of advanced mathematics and physics) are too stupid to "figure it out", except you.
Wheel EC outcomes ARE true random outcomes. You claim you can guess true randomness at a better than expectancy rate - more specifically 72%, or about +27% edge over normal expectancy (which is -5.2%). lol This sounds more like pure predictive ability, not a "guessing" one.
hmm, guessing true-randomness, reading and beating unpredictability itself. Are you aware of how huge and serious such a discovery would be if it were true and what kind of impact it would have on a scientific (and philosophical) level to begin with?
Sorry ol'man, I still think you're delusional. :sarcastic:
You are illusionless.
Why you don't want to become legend? Like Newton or Einstein?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to argue with you. Plain curiosity.
Quote from: mistarlupo on May 03, 2010, 06:18:07 PM
Why you don't want to become legend? Like Newton or Einstein?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to argue with you. Plain curiosity.
My expertise is in algorithms. If I were to produce the proof you require I would have to accept having my discovered opportunity being removed by those that would be damaged by my explanation. Now if you could arrange a method for me to be compensated then I would be very happy to kill off the game of Roulette. I'll settle for 2 million$, tax free. Then you can take the algorithm and explain why it works mathematically according to new concepts of probability. You can't spend legend. I can spend the winnings now. I can also taunt the lazy now. When these principles become wide spread truth I will have already "been there, done that." So I already have enough of the legend. There is no way for your ilk to remove that. You are the rejecting peanut gallery of that legend.
Why you don't want to become legend?>>>
Which pays better, being a legend, or playing a winning system in the casino? The occupation of 'legend' doesn't even pay minimum wage, get real.
Fair enough. It doesn't pay the bills. I'm asking for the reason not to use an edge to build a fortune AND THEN the legend-ary stuff...
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 03, 2010, 06:33:38 PM
My expertise is in algorithms. If I were to produce the proof you require I would have to accept having my discovered opportunity being removed by those that would be damaged by my explanation. Now if you could arrange a method for me to be compensated then I would be very happy to kill off the game of Roulette. I'll settle for 2 million$, tax free. Then you can take the algorithm and explain why it works mathematically according to new concepts of probability. You can't spend legend. I can spend the winnings now. I can also taunt the lazy now. When these principles become wide spread truth I will have already "been there, done that." So I already have enough of the legend. There is no way for your ilk to remove that. You are the rejecting peanut gallery of that legend.
To kill the game of roulette? I doubt it, I think it is more likely to get the odds/rules changed — like Thorp did with Blackjack. Anyway... Don't you think your revolutionary discoveries in pattern recognition will affect not only gambling but many other areas? I would say that $2M is a good price and there may be candidates interested in this offer (not me of course... unless you can offer a long-term lease option =] ) But yeah, the tough bit is the demonstration of the 'product' and the payment in advance. I'll speak to someone more bussiness-oriented than me, sure we can get some ideas to arrange such kind of a deal.
Hi guys, new here but just thought i would say some stuff. casinos don't care about people who can beat their games, they just want to stop cheating. since betting after the ball is release does improve odds to the player they stop it. if anyone got there and said "hey i can beat the game with 72% every time every day", they wouldn't believe you. since their profit has been the house edge for ages, they really don't care. the standard factual proven truth presently is that roulette is not beatable without cheating and that's it. and if somehow you do beat the game, they just politely ask you to leave.
also, having read all posts by Gizmo and doing some math, their system seems like any normal system. can make profits "short-medium" term but useless short and medium-long term. And it requires a very good stop loss system. Nothing indicated about 72% advantage, but again, i only used the notions generally given by Gizmo in the forums. Also i should emphasize that the single most important thing in their system (according to the incomplete information i have and the ignorance of practice in it) is the stop loss strategy. that's true for most systems though. erm. . replace everything system above with strategy please :)
oh, about the RNG. short term, big difference. since they bet in what they call "patterns" it should be an influencing factor. no difference at all globally.
I think it is more likely to get the odds/rules changed >>>
The only way to change the odds is to add more zeros and thats not going to happen. What they would do is ban all writing material at the table and it would kill most systems.
>we can get some ideas to arrange such kind of a deal.>>
The only idea they will come up with is they'll want to pay out of the winnings they make. Thats doesn't work, sorry. Get the money from the bank and pay THEM back out of the winnings, thats how the real world works.
>>can make profits "short-medium" term but useless short and medium-long term. >>
How do you figure that? Thats the whole point, to win long term. Anybody can win in the short, big deal.
long term always returned losses at the value of the house edge. i am talking 10 million simulations though and like i said, i couldn't grasp the concept very clearly and the stop loss strategy apparently like everything else relies a lot on your intuition. i can't code that. like i said, it is possible, but i don't have all the knowledge, practice, experience or anything to use it. i just determined that it might be possible so that people would stop bashing it
The casinos have tried to eliminate all types of AP play to increase revenue over the last 10-15 years.
For the most part, they have accomplished their goal. They are happy enough to share a few crumbs with the grafters.
stop loss strategy>>>
I don't use a stop loss, all I have is a goal.
>>They are happy enough to share a few crumbs with the grafters. >>
Don't kid yourself. They hate all winners and want it all for themselves. The best scenerio for them is you win big and give it all back the same day. They don't want you leaving, you might lose it somewhere else. The look at themselves as an entertainment venue, not as a place for you to make your living.
in your case it would mean properly identifying "loosing trends", something i guess i had difficulty with.
Quote from: mistarlupo on May 03, 2010, 07:54:46 PM
To kill the game of roulette? I doubt it, I think it is more likely to get the odds/rules changed — like Thorp did with Blackjack. Anyway... Don't you think your revolutionary discoveries in pattern recognition will affect not only gambling but many other areas? I would say that $2M is a good price and there may be candidates interested in this offer (not me of course... unless you can offer a long-term lease option =] ) But yeah, the tough bit is the demonstration of the 'product' and the payment in advance. I'll speak to someone more bussiness-oriented than me, sure we can get some ideas to arrange such kind of a deal.
I already documented the area of interest that will be all the rage when the cat is out of the bag for gambling. The science already exists. In fact, I can't believe it's taken this long for thinkers not to come waltzing in with the answers. Someday you will remember playing Roulette and Craps. There won't be a mild version of these two games. Randomness will be broken as a predictive utilization.
nolinks://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/#comment-1731 (nolinks://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/#comment-1731)
Bayesian probability: nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability)
Predictive inference: nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_inference (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_inference)
Quote"Predictive inference is an interpretation of probability that emphasizes the prediction of future observations based on past observations."
"Don't kid yourself. They hate all winners and want it all for themselves."
Normally yes, but hypothetically, if I owned a chain of casinos and you were coming in quietly a couple of times a month and taking home a few bucks without cheating and hitting your 72%, why would I want to rub you up the wrong way. It would not be very prudent.
The bias and vb guys have had their fun and there's fcuk all they can do about it now. It could just be that someone with your talents would get the kid gloves treatment.
but hypothetically, if I owned a chain of casinos>>>
If you did, you would be staring at a huge bottom line every month and resent the hell out of aybody who walked out with a dime. You can't stop all of them, but you can stop the consistant winners.
i dop not believe there are any winners in trhe long run. i won on my last visit i may win today but no system gurantees winning. i see people winning large amounts the casino pays out. at the end of the day the table shows a profit. the winners will be back to win more the losers will be back to recoup. if any table fails to show a profit the casino would be worried. look at the profits the casinos make. winners are good . my casino gives away thousands of dollars every day. if you had a look at the players records you would see they all lose. good luck
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 03, 2010, 08:58:11 PM
I already documented the area of interest that will be all the rage when the cat is out of the bag for gambling.
That's all we need. Another James Wendel/Fender1000.
You guys are funny.
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 03, 2010, 08:58:11 PM
nolinks://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/#comment-1731 (nolinks://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/#comment-1731)
That's a pretty laughable post.
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 03, 2010, 08:58:11 PM
Bayesian probability: nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability)
Predictive inference: nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_inference (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_inference)
I like it when you post Wikipedia articles of concepts you have no idea about and try to pass it off as support for your arguments. I'm not sure whether you're innocently misunderstanding that information, or intentionally skewing it to fit your absurd theory of the "predictability of a true random process". Most probably both. :sarcastic:
Either way nice try, you almost sound like you know what you're talking about. But you missed the basic fact that Bayesian probability has nothing to do with the random process of games of chance (such as roulette, or dice). It deals with something else entirely.
QuoteSubjectivists, also known as Bayesians or followers of epistemic probability, give the notion of probability a subjective status by regarding it as a measure of the 'degree of belief' of the individual assessing the uncertainty of a particular situation. Subjective probability is sometimes called 'credence' (as opposed to the term 'chance' for a propensity probability).
Some examples of epistemic probability are to assign a probability to the proposition that a proposed law of physics is true, and to determine how probable it is that a suspect committed a crime, based on the evidence presented.
So you want 2 million huh? :sarcastic:
Good luck with that. You might actually make a few thousand though, some people can be desperate enough to believe you. (how do I know? I used to be one ;D)
Best of luck with your sales, Mark.
That's a pretty laughable post.>>
I just read it and thought it was right on. Please point out the laughable parts. I doubt you even read it.
>>I like it when you post Wikipedia articles of concepts you have no idea about>>
Which concepts, exactly, does he have no idea about? Point them out and lets see what Mark says. You are great about making stupid blanket statemnts, be more spcific and lets see what you know.
>>But you missed the basic fact that Bayesian probability has nothing to do with the random process of games of chance >>
Bayesian probability refers to 'the state of knowledge', which is exactly what reading random is all about.
Whats your name on GG? ou sound exactly like Jugs Monthly, who has the same snotty, superior and condencending style of posting that you do.
Spike and Gizmo,
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.readyprofitsystems.com%2Fimages%2FHillbillys.jpg&hash=e42806e0522e15a1657a270df0015d136d3f9125)
Spike and his brother Gizmotron
It's real comedy when you two guys pretend to know how to win. :sarcastic:
Let's not forget that Laurance exposed your scams on GG.
Quote from: Spike! on May 03, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
I just read it and thought it was right on.
To you? Of course it was. ;D
Quote from: Spike! on May 03, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
You are great about making stupid blanket statemnts
Is that so? ;D
Quote from: Spike! on May 03, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
Bayesian probability refers to 'the state of knowledge', which is exactly what reading random is all about.
Bayesian probability does not suggest (or support the argument) that you can "read random".
Quote from: Spike! on May 03, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
Whats your name on GG? ou sound exactly like Jugs Monthly, who has the same snotty, superior and condencending style of posting that you do.
I'm not Jugs.
It's real comedy when you two guys pretend to know>>>
Its even funnier watching you hang out on forums trying to pick up tips since the airball has been taken off the table for you. Thats extremely funny.
>Let's not forget that Laurance exposed your scams>>
ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>Bayesian probability does not suggest (or support the argument) that you can "read random".>>
Was it supposed to? The guy died in 1761, was random pertaining to gambling a tasty topic in the mid 1700's? Roulette was in its infancy when he died, it didn't really get started till the 1790's. He doesn't show how to do quantum mechanics either, I wonder why.
'the state of knowledge' pertains to reading random, like it or don't.
I'm not Jugs.>>
Uh Huh. LOL
Quote from: Noble Savage on May 03, 2010, 10:19:07 PM
But you missed the basic fact that Bayesian probability has nothing to do with the random process of games of chance (such as roulette, or dice). It deals with something else entirely.
It deals with pattern recognition and documented advantages discussed by interested mathematicians in the pattern recognition field. If you understood what I know about games of chance such as Roulette you would be skeptical of their lack of interest from that field too. But neither them nor you understand what I know. They just have not taken an interest in gambling when the applications for computer science are far more interesting and profitable. Just because they're not here blowing it for everyone now doesn't mean that they will stay away forever. One of them is going to come calling with a Master's thesis or a defensible dissertation for their doctorate. You will be that dope sitting on a stool with a tall cone shaped hat. It's right underneath your nose and all you have are excuses. I'm not laughing at them. I'm laughing at you.
Quote from: Gizmotron on May 03, 2010, 11:13:32 PM
But neither them nor you understand what I know.
Okay. ;D
This was a post from when Laurance busted Spike and Gizmotron.
Posted: 12-Apr-10 20:39 Laurance wrote the following,
"Giz: I would beg to differ. The discussion did, in fact, happen. The problem is that the discussion always went the same way:
OK. I accept you can read random. Give me some insight into how you do it?
--- I can't tell you.
OK. I accept you don't want to tell me. Can you at least show some evidence that it is possible?
--- No. Not without you being able to steal what it is I do.
OK. Then what is it, exactly that you want me to do?
--- Give up your wayward Mathboyz ways and accept the reality that random can be beaten.
Uhhh...I don't think I am ready to do that unless I see some evidence that it can, in fact, be done.
--- I don't have to prove anything to anybody. This forum is made up of a bunch of arrogant, contemptible idiots. I'm outa here.
Not exactly word for word, but this is pretty much how every discussion on "Reading Random" has gone.
It was pretty much just good clean fun, until Spike contacted me and wanted me to pony up to the pump and pay $75,000 for the privilege of learning how to read random without offering any proof whatsoever that he could actually do it.
I wonder how many people actually buy his bullshit and are willing to pay $$$'s to learn the impossible.
Giz (&Spike): There is one way to make this old, arrogant and contemptible idiot really shut the f**k up. Just demonstrate you can do what you say you can do.
The fact is, I believe you are running a scam. A very clever scam based in hardcore Mathboyz statistics. Declare you can do something that is a 1 in 4 million shot, and then when it comes down to the short hairs of extracting money out of someone, pull off a demonstration that has about a 1 in 15 chance of success just by luck alone. If you can line up 50 people who will pay you big bucks if you can do the impossible, well.....do the math. The skill really isn't being able to read random, but rather the skill is being able to read a sucker.
Go ahead Giz (or Spike). Ask me to substantiate the above paragraph. Or, just go quietly into night and that will
shut me up as well."
You will be that dope sitting on a stool with a tall cone shaped hat.>>>
I've got one with Herb's name on it.. :pleasantry:
but this is pretty much how every discussion on "Reading Random" has gone.>>>
As it should..
>>until Spike contacted me and wanted me to pony up to the pump and pay $75,000>
Absolutely taken out of context and twited is his favor. I had already REJECTED any dealings with him when I told him his offer of 20K was laughaby small, I would never take anyting less than 75K. I never EVER said he had to pony up any amount. His first offer was 20 million, ask him if you don't believe me.
>>pull off a demonstration that has about a 1 in 15 chance of success just by luck alone. If you can line up 50 people who will pay you big bucks if you can do the impossible, well.....do the math.>>
LOL!!!!!! An absolute fantasy dreamed up by Laurance. Never happened, never will happen. Bitterness makes people say really stupid things, I guess.
Poor (dunce hat) Herbie/Snowman.
Quote"Giz (&Spike): There is one way to make this old, arrogant and contemptible idiot really shut the f**k up. Just demonstrate you can do what you say you can do."
Oh, you think that just asking for proof, how it's done, basically begging for an explanation wins it for your side? You get nothing and you will have to live with that too. Nothing has changed. Laurance didn't produce any results and neither Spike nor myself has disclosed what we know. Here is your only hope. Get off your butts and figure it out on your own. We did. And we aren't from some of the great minds around here according to you guys. You are so smart? Prove it.
Get off your butts and figure it out on your own.>>>
But they won't. The only reason I discovered it was by accident, and Gizmo had been working on similar things for years. I didn't even realize I was reading the random till I had been dong it for 2 years. Read my early GG posts, I never even mention it till 2008, I believe. The MathBoyz don't even know where to start, thats whats really funny.
What really cracks me up is that you must be smart enough to keep it to yourself. Everything they complain about is centered around sharing it on an internet forum for millions to eventually get a hold of it. And so based on that practical recommendation we are scammers. Well, beggars can't be choosers. Lazy math freaks get nothing. It's just too bad.
Everything they complain about is centered around sharing it>>
What does 'sharing' get you, new friends? Has Coke shared their secret formula? Has KFC shared their secret recipe? The Wright Bros tried to protect their rights with patents and their ideas were stolen anyway. They lost all their money in court sueing the thieves, while their competitors built planes and made millions.
Sharing is called wising up the chumps, and we know how much thats worth in dollars and cents.
Honestly,
Does anyone here take either Spike or Gizmotron seriously?
Speak up if you believe a word they say or any of there absurd claims?
Anyone?
Speak up if you believe a word they say or any of there absurd claims?>>
Poor Herb, he just can't stand it when somebody knows something he doesn't. He's not satisfied till he's run them into the ground. Just stay on GG as the roulette mod, you're working wonders there. Were there 2 new posts today or 3? LOL!!
Why would anyone with half a brain want to speak up and have herb and his band of merry men dogging them all over the internet?
Spike and Gizmotron,
I doubt anyone will speak up.
Quote from: Spike! on May 04, 2010, 12:58:27 AM
Poor Herb, he just can't stand it when somebody knows something he doesn't.
lol
Herb is light-years ahead of you when it comes to roulette. :-X
Quote from: Noble Savage on May 04, 2010, 01:08:26 AM
lol
Herb is light-years ahead of you when it comes to roulette. :-X
Don't be stupid. Nothing that happens can effect the future. Just ask Herb. :P
Being stuck on bias and then visual ballistics is not a sign of qualified experience when it comes to understanding and reading randomness. That makes herb a naive amateur. That makes you one too for thinking he's so smart. Go chase a car beggar. :spiteful:
We all have our opinions about what reality is. Sure some are correct and some are wrong. Most of the time it's all just not worth the time and effort.
Based on what I know of Herb, he does know what he's talking about. However, arguably he doesnt appear to have an open mind to certain possibilities - I may be wrong. For example, there really does appear to be much more going on at a roulette wheel than just ballistics. I believe in part we do influence outcomes, but figuring out exactly what's going on may not occur in our lifetime. When it comes to things Spike says, sorry to say I dont agree either because I dont see any substantiating information, but I dont want to argue the point more as we'd just go in circles.
Anyway a possum shat on my car last night. To make matters worse, when I cracked my eggs this morning, the yolk ran instead of staying in-tact so I wasnt able to dip bread into the yolk. I cant handle anymore today - please everyone be nice.
Herb is light-years ahead of you>> and >>arguably he doesn't appear to have an open mind to certain possibilities>>
Somewhere in between these two opinions, Herb is hiding, trying to learn. Too bad his math education is his biggest obstacle.
>>Anyway a possum shat on my car last night.>>
When you let a possum drive, :nono: thats what you get. We only let racoons drive in the States, they respect your property. :haha:
Spike and Gizmotron, I doubt anyone will speak up.>>
And if they do, it will have as much meaning as 1st graders voicing their opinion on college alegbra.
Spike/gizmo, you two sure know how to run a board down. I thoght you guys said that only newbees and other imbeciles was present here on vls, now you can`t live without it. 269 posts in no time. What the hell, maybe you two consider yourself to be in that category, so you feel home here. The only thing is that even the newest newbee seems to have a more down to earth relationship to roulette than you two.
Another spike brain failure:
"Spike: Any positive progression is non sense, but flat bets where i raise my bets as i win is great. (thats the same thing idiot) i just calculate how many bets im gonna win for the next 10 spins and calcuate an average (you can`t know how many spins you are gonna win in the next 10 spins idiot)" Just theory from someone who obviously never took the MO further than to the PC.
VB is not dead with the air ball machines out, and they are not all out, just an overlooked opportunity soon gone. Plenty more where they came from.
Vls RIP
Kelly, you are just another guy ripping on Randomness. I never left here. My section on Randomness is still here. You have no idea what I passed by you guys. I blew it right over your heads. There will never be an argument that makes me think that I'm doing anything wrong. I don't care if you can calculate the physics and win with it. The casinos have got your number. Nothing lasts forever. You have your world, I have mine. I just don't need snowman with his Nazi gas chambers. He's just too cool for school.
Quote from: Steve on May 04, 2010, 01:42:58 AM
Anyway a possum shat on my car last night. To make matters worse, when I cracked my eggs this morning, the yolk ran instead of staying in-tact so I wasnt able to dip bread into the yolk. I cant handle anymore today - please everyone be nice.
Hi STEVE,
This morning as I was buttoning my shirt, a button fell off. After that, I picked up my briefcase, and the handle fell off. Then I went to open the door, and the doorknob fell off. I went to get into my car, and the door handle came off in my hand. Now I'm afraid to pee.
:yes:
A.
win for the next 10 spins and calcuate an average (you can`t know how many spins you are gonna win in the next 10 spins idiot)>>
Sure you can, if you know your average hit rate. For you it would be how many you're going to lose in the next 10 spins. I'm sure you know and can come real close, Kelly.
VB is not dead with the air ball machines out>>>
Not dead, but it sure is on life support. Soon the only VB left will be with roulette computers, doing it without help will be impossible.
>>Spike/gizmo, you two sure know how to run a board down.>>
Right. We left GG and now if there are 4 posts a day in the roulette section they throw a party. And half of those are from Galeb and Snowman. Go to GG, Kelly, they really need you there..
Atlantis, lol, good one. don`t wipe your ass either.
Gizmo, your advice comes in the category where someone giving chess advice would say: "When your opponent gets a weak spot in his position you slowly manouver him backwars and extends his weak position untill he has to give up. See ? How can you lose ?"
The player is left baffled: "But what do i do"
reply: "Just follow my advice, don`t say i didn`t show you"
The player is left with the feeling that the advisor don`t really know what to do, just trying to give "smart ass" advice.
Spike, what good is an average hit rate if one loses the next 9 spins and win the next 11 or more likely, having a temporary drawdown with smaller than average hit rate for a while and then later a larger run of wins giving you a higher than average hitrate ?
Using the Kelly criteria you curvefit your bet sizes to be smaller as you lose and bigger when you win. Using an average you will overpay the casino in the losing streaks, say over 3 months time, and underpaying yourself in the winning streaks again in the next 3 - 4 months time. Im not talking about 10 spins, but a larger run over a years time.
Quote from: Kelly on May 04, 2010, 02:57:35 AM
Gizmo, your advice comes in the category where someone giving chess advice would say: "When your opponent gets a weak spot in his position you slowly manouver him backwars and extends his weak position untill he has to give up. See ? How can you lose ?"
The player is left baffled: "But what do I do"
reply: "Just follow my advice, don`t say I didn`t show you"
You just make up sophistry and pretend that you had a realistic discussion don't you. I clearly say the strategic advantage comes from a complete understanding of the characteristics of randomness. I've named four primary characteristics. I have also freely shared that effectiveness comes in three states. I have deliberately made it clear that I'm never going to take anyone down a journey of step by step instructions. Anyone with half a brain should not expect to be spoon-fed like a baby. The entire argument is that anyone willing to work hard enough will respect those that suggest keeping this for themselves. I take it that you lose at chess too? No wonder there.
Im sure someone would have come up with a strategy if they could transfer your advice to roulette then. Bayesian state of knowledge doesn`t trigger anything to anyone. But it soiunds fancy, gotta admit that.
what good is an average hit rate if one loses the next 9 spins and win the next 11>>
If reading random meant I would lose 9 in a row, I'd quit playing. You're talking about what the average know nothing player expects. I know my average for 10 bets and its always within the same parameters.
Quote from: Kelly on May 04, 2010, 03:36:48 AM
Im sure someone would have come up with a strategy if they could transfer your advice to roulette then. Bayesian state of knowledge doesn`t trigger anything to anyone. But it soiunds fancy, gotta admit that.
It was never meant to be. It's a direct answer to the mathboyz and their endless droning of what probability stats for long term results must be, the only absolute truth. My point has always been that math is worthless. I would never use a math solution for detecting an advantage based on clustering analysis and pattern recognition. I would use a complex form of conditional algorithms that detect weak points and attack scenarios that are advantageous. I would use a computer if the casinos would allow it. I'm forced to use my intellect to find these weaknesses. It doesn't bother me that I see things where others only see nothing. Right now you are suffering from intelligence fallacy. It's easy for me to see this. When will you?
>>Bayesian state of knowledge doesn`t trigger anything to anyone.>>>
Who's fault is that? Are you blaming me for other's ignorance?
Bayesian Probability:
an analysis of the "system" (random): the understanding and interpretation of
what is going on in the system. (random outcomes)
• predictions:(guesses) about how the "system" will evolve in the near future
• decisions:(betting) What actions should be taken on the basis of the available information?
They use Bayesian probability to teach robots how to process what to them is random information, and make sense out of it. They teach them how to read random. My, what a concept.
Clear as a bell to me.
>>My point has always been that math is worthless. >>
The math assumes all you can ever do is make random bets against random outcomes. Thats its flaw. As soon as you get the smallest part of your foot in the door, the math changes to being in your favor. The MathNazis have red faced fits over his, they hyperventilate and tip over backwards at the very notion. Very funny to observe.
Sure you do. But the rest of the world who has to live without a crystal ball, are better off curve fitting their results to the actuals.
I can`t make conversation with someone so far from reality and not willing to back up wild claims. Gotta go.
PS: Just give 1, just 1 single example of 1 bet made on black or red with basics in Bayesian thinking.
another winning day. will the casino ban me .i only back single numbers. its pure chance on my next viusit i might lose the lot. i find it hard to believe that you people are winning all the time. good luck
the rest of the world who has to live without a crystal ball>>
Bayesian probability allows no crystal balls, sorry.
>>just 1 single example of 1 bet made on black or red with basics in Bayesian thinking.>
Sure. Analyse the random, make a guess about how it will evolve in the near future, and decide what action you should take with the available information. Pretend you're a robot. :scratch_ones_head:
As usual: Ducking and diving. Don`t you ever get tired of running ?
Just 1 example. Black or Red and the Bayesian link to this bet. Thatll be the day..............
---Pretend you are a robot-----
--We don't have to pretend,as we really are robots
of your verbal nonsense.
But we just can't get rid of your everyday verbal bombarding.
I bet you must be happy about it.
Sick.
As usual: Ducking and diving. >>
A single example would be useless. You would dismiss it immediately, and rightly so. Its 100 examples that would be meaningful, and we already know why thats not going to happen.
But we just can't get rid of your everyday verbal bombarding. >>
I participate in very few threads, just ignore the ones I'm in. How hard is that?
It doesn't bother me that I see things where others only see nothing.>>>>
In Vegas a few years ago, I tried to show a guy the patterns I saw in B/R. He couldn't see them. I thought he was joking, but no matter what I said, he just got more confused. He didn't see BB RR BB RR as a pattern. Amazing.