I posted this question at GG

[Mr J]

This is in regards to the DUE theory (which I like alot). I've been reading a roulette article and thought this was interesting >>> "If nothing is ever "due," how can probability work?" I think its a GREAT point/question!!!!! Any comments?  Ken

[winkel]

Read R.D Ellison

br
winkel

[Mr J]

Read it? I own it and have read it, good stuff. Just curious about any comments on the subject.  Ken

[alarian]

Independent trial probability work because at a 1 dimension point of view, nothing is due.
Otherwise, everything would fit right in with the binomial distribution of probabilities instead of striving towards it.
Remember, the chain is endless in both directions.

I do however think there's one or even several deeper dimensions not yet proven... I think so because I believe in a deterministic universe as opposed to a universe of true random events.

We have everything in the universe affecting everything else, directly or indirectly through the laws of forces. How can the outcome be anything BUT what happens?

In a sense... Everything is due for sure... But how do you go about predicting something this complex?

[winkel]

Read it? I own it and have read it, good stuff. Just curious about any comments on the subject.  Ken

By the way: do you have some Information for me about his 3QA-strategy?

br
winkel

[Mr J]

I have it, crap. Should I post it? I am a slow typer, keep that in mind.  Ken

[Mr J]

"Everything is due for sure... But how do you go about predicting something this complex?" --- Complex? Predicting the start/end of the next ice-age, thats complex. Lets say you wanted to bet on the #5. *EVERY* spin that the 5 does not show.....you are now ONE spin CLOSER to it hitting. You cant disagree with that? With every failed attempt (at almost anything), you are now one step closer to achieving it.  Ken

[alarian]

"Everything is due for sure... But how do you go about predicting something this complex?" --- Complex? Predicting the start/end of the next ice-age, thats complex. Lets say you wanted to bet on the #5. *EVERY* spin that the 5 does not show.....you are now ONE spin CLOSER to it hitting. You cant disagree with that? With every failed attempt (at almost anything), you are now one step closer to achieving it.  Ken

Yes you are one step closer to the 5 hitting.
But wouldn't it be good if you could know which one was the next to hit? Since it's already decided according to a deterministic universe.

[Mr J]

"But wouldn't it be good if you could know which one was the next to hit?" --- No, that would suck.  Ken

[alarian]

OK then I'm out 

[TwoCatSam]

Ken

Please do post any and all you know about R.D. Ellison and the 3qA system.  I, too, have his book and have studied him quite a bit.

I agree with your logic.  Sooner or later, the number 4 will hit.  Every time the number 4 does not hit, we must move closer to the time when it will hit.  The only real question is can we wait it out. 

Imagine a wheel where #4 never hit again---ever. 

Sam

[Mr J]

@TCS -- I'm sitting here looking at his book trying to find a SHORT version of his method. I even did a Google search. I'm not sure if I can legally post his system? FYI -- Did you know he use to be a regular member at GG?  Ken

[Spike]

Of course everything is due, its just a matter of when. Gamblers Fallacy deals with the next couple spins, not the next 200 spins. Its a proven mathematical fact that progressions don't give you an edge. If you look at roulette without the rose colored glasses of progressions, you see a whole different game.

[Mr J]

"Gamblers Fallacy deals with the next couple spins, not the next 200 spins." --- I think thats great news. I do deal with the next 200 spins or at least use those 200 in my betting plan.  Ken

[TwoCatSam]

I did not know that about R.D.

I know his system.

Probably shouldn't post it.

[TwoCatSam]

-