Perhaps a few of you have noticed that I tend to support Spike with his educated guessing claims. Actually, lately it has been discovered that I'm almost 180 degrees different than his method while still agreeing with his basic plan. I'm a trend and pattern player that searches for reasons to place bets and then relies on a thing I'm actually doing that ends up being educated testing.
I test the waters as I go. I'm literally asking myself "how's it going?" Have you ever had times where you just win a bunch of bets in long streaks? What do you do with that? Were you ever way down before it happened and have not gotten back to even after it happened. Many people will tell you that this all leads to the discussion on expectations. But I say it leads to something far more important. "Game Management" is far more important than MM. If you do game management right the money you want will follow. You need to find ways to wait and search while waiting to discover those stretches that tend to win strongly.
I go about searching by playing different reasons to bet, by trying them out on paper and/or in my head. I'm just grinding away trying one half of one type and opposite itself as the alternate choice. Whenever you find a dominant system or method working it's like seeing swarms of trends or patterns of swarms in the data stream. Only it's a trend of something working. So you bet on it to continue.
You must have a method that also works to wait with while you are waiting to see working moments. You can test for one of those also. Roulette randomness is a moving target that continually swings in and out of working or not working in deferent degrees of intensity.
So the thread title is at the heart of what I'm doing. I must be thinking and searching as a moving target also. That's the only way to rapidly find what is working. So I'm saying that you need to be a game management expert and play loose and moving without getting trapped by wishful thinking.
I do this by tracking the statistical values for singles, doubles, and triples and how that relates to several choices of bets that would fit that data at that time. Roulette randomness flows between fitting and not fitting methods at different degrees of strength. There are no fixed systems that pin down randomness and hold it still as an unmovable object. That explains educated testing. I never explained it at GG. I tried to but it caused the crickets to sound off. (Nobody considered it of value.)
Gizmo, this deserves to stand on its own thread.
Thank you very much for it, it is appreciated and may help other people.
"Game management" is indeed a sound concept.
When trying to put the odds in your favor flat-bletting, there is no money management required but Game management as you put it. This explain why some spanish pro's go with an arsenal of system and have loads of tracking sheets; they are testing the waters, observing "what is the wheel doing" (as in seeing which system is working on today/at current session), making their best on trying to determine the right one to use.
I'll say the name of the game is "Continuity"; you spot it, make some tester bets, if you win, then GO for it! Betting for continuity of the events to take place.
Guaranteed, you don't know the result of the next spin, but you can measure and do know what has happened in your withnessed examples, can contrast it with the ideal values, see how deviated they are from them, etc.
This is what pisses off many people, the fact that players see events, being the only valid event there is accepted is a disconnected link is in place.
This thread deserves to stand at the Roulette & Gambling Framework (referenced as coming from here, of course).
Please advice if it is OK for me to split and move or you'd rather keep it here at talesman's thread (no beef if not, it is just a suggestion).
Kind regards,
Victor
Hi Victor,
Go ahead, make it another thread. It might be interesting to see if anyone wants to discuss it.
I'm adding to it that there is the possibility that mathematics can't explain a moving target. In math you always begin the problem by stating that all random events are independent outcomes and absolute in nature with no effect on them from past spins. They don't allow you to combine them in an attempt to form an opinion regarding randomness. But that has not always been the case in other forms of math. There is Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that states that if you attempt to measure an atom you change the results while trying to get an accurate measure. Einstein and Bohr went round and round regarding this. The term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed.
nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle)
nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics))
The current accepted thought on randomness stated is this:
"Randomness is a lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability. A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution."
nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness)
See what I mean yet? Not only can I not get a consensus on this subject but I have maths own history of disagreement to deal with too. I've been talking about the nature of randomness for a year. I now know that this level of heresy needs to be dealt with if I'm to get my arguments any further. At the heart of "game management" is a complete understanding of randomness and its describable deterministic patterns. I plan to one day build a computer sim that does this very well. You see I contend that randomness can be described as patterns while at the same time following probability distribution. The only proof that will be acceptable would be long term results that were significant. I wish to capitalize on all this hard work and not just push gambling to make small changes like Ed Thorp did with Blackjack.
Mark