Hone your guessing skills on a daily basis till you're winning more than losing. Continue practicing till you're winning a lot more than you're losing. Thats pretty much it in a nutshell.
You're welcome.
Hi spike,
Practicing what, how to guess more times right than wrong?, thats sounds pretty hard to me without any based rules.
Can I ask you if you have some selection criterion?
JD
There are no rules with random numbers. As soon as you think there are, you're sunk. Confusing, isn't it.
Why confusing? There are rules with random, they are just not so solid. Only change is permanent, thats the basic rule.
the maths say you will guess wrong more times then you will guess right.
Hi Spike,
I just want to know if you have been talking to my girlfriend?
I played just 66 spins on Sat**day night, with the GF by my side.
She didn't say much because I was "doing my thing". Anyway, on about half a dozen occasions she said, after I had placed my bet, that it would be the opposite colour, and on all bar one occasion she was right!
The kicker is that only 2 times she said:
"I think the next number will be 11" - and it was and then some 10 spins later said "Gee zero hasn't come out for a while" and that spin was the green!!
Then at the end of the night I asked her to look at some of the marquees and tell me when the next colour would be, and she got 4 out of 5 right!
I guess some have it, and some don't.
Mocco
Marry that girl RIGHT now Mocco :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good:
I just want to know if you have been talking to my girlfriend?>>
Talking? No, we seldom do any real talking. Once in awhile she says 'Thank you'. Does that count as 'talking'?
Quote from: xman1970 on October 12, 2009, 03:26:22 AM
Marry that girl RIGHT now Mocco :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good:
Hhahahahahaha...Lmao @ Xman.
Good One Mate.
Lanky.
Quote from: Spike on May 15, 2008, 04:36:33 PM
There are no rules with random numbers. As soon as you think there are, you're sunk. Confusing, isn't it.
Einstein ran into the same basic problem with his "Theory of Relativity": if there are no absolutes, then that, itself, can't be an absolute theory.
And teachers teach rules and theories, which puts you in the same league (, if only on that point)... leaving you with the question, "How to discard the rules (of science) after having properly acquired those?"
Not confusing at all!
Quote from: J.Daniels on May 15, 2008, 06:27:14 AM
Hi spike,
Practicing what, how to guess more times right than wrong?, thats sounds pretty hard to me without any based rules.
Can I ask you if you have some selection criterion?
JD
I do. I check for dominances of single or doubles in the last spin and the past several spins beyond that. I check it against several groups & group sizes. I do this to watch which one is working the best. I then guess that it will continue to work in my next bet. This is where I must practice getting good at it. I know that some trends will end but I also know that some will continue for a few spins. I also know that some will continue for an hour or two. If you practice to see what is working then you will be able to figure out how to exploit it best too. It all comes down to guessing after determining what is happening.
Quote from: Gizmotron on October 12, 2009, 03:43:19 PMIt all comes down to guessing after determining what is happening.
Better to just surmise what will (likely) happen next... sacrifice some of the "determining" for some of the "guessing"?
Quote from: GARNabby on October 12, 2009, 06:22:23 PM
Better to just surmise what will (likely) happen next... sacrifice some of the "determining" for some of the "guessing"?
I respectfully disagree. It's best to know exactly what happened recently and to know how that applies to seeking the best of the few opportunities presenting themselves. It's difficult to surmise what will likely happen when you know that randomness presents three states, working very well, working very bad and ending, and chop. I always know what will happen that way. I'm guessing on finding the opportunity that continues the exact same thing I'm seeing as productive. It's important to know what is happening. It's possible to determine independent of guessing and to be very good at both.
Give spike his own section. So that we can read all his teachings at one place.
Quote from: Gizmotron on October 12, 2009, 06:59:10 PM... randomness presents three states, working very well, working very bad and ending, and chop. I always know what will happen that way. I'm guessing on finding the opportunity that continues the exact same thing I'm seeing as productive. It's important to know what is happening. It's possible to determine independent of guessing and to be very good at both.
Giz,
Okay, sounds like your defintions, of 'determine' and 'guessing', are each already crossing over into the other.
The most important fundamental implication of the rule-but-not concept I tried to present above is that randomness is essentially "flawed"... a state of guessing but not guessing, the latter (, not guessing,) because we're making a rule of it (, the guessing). Hence there must be some way to exploit that much more than by, eg, VB... on some underlaying mathematical/physical level. Specifically, a level which somehow puts the guessing onto the not guessing, one definition onto the other.
Second, you write of continuance... but intuitively, outcomes may equally have the "tendency" to revert, to even out (after being brought to some point of disequilibrium of dominance/streaking). So why not try for both at once... eg, the roulette outcomes from the last, say 20 to 40 spins? Instead of the next-to-last, or the numbers which haven't appeared in a very long time. (In baccarat, this is akin to following up PPBB with BBPP.)
Quote from: GARNabby
The most important fundamental implication of the rule-but-not concept I tried to present above is that randomness is essentially "flawed"... a state of guessing but not guessing, the latter (, not guessing,) because we're making a rule of it (, the guessing).
I've never thought of randomness as being flawed. It's almost perfect, especially in the real world of real casinos and say 300 spins or less per session. If you use rules to go along with randomness then those same rules must take you through the times when it won't work well or like chop too.
Quote
Second, you write of continuance... but intuitively, outcomes may equally have the "tendency" to revert, to even out (after being brought to some point of disequilibrium of dominance/streaking). So why not try for both at once...
What makes you think I don't? If something is not in dominance then it is what would happen if it was not dominate. Chop is a type also. I just look at so many things at once that knowing what is happening is the best working guess. Rules are sluggish and often don't fit unique experiences very well. You should be open minded to what is happening now so that you can adjust to new things as they become aware to you. Some of my best super wins have come from areas rules would have missed.
Where are the forum moderators? I mean the padded wagon and the two guys with the white coats & straight jacket.
Moderator - Please remove this and my comments to James when you remove his. Thanks
I have removed Wendel's post. I see Lanky has removed 3 other posts.
Quote from: Gizmotron on October 13, 2009, 12:13:21 AMYou should be open minded to what is happening now so that you can adjust to new things as they become aware to you. Some of my best super wins have come from areas rules would have missed.
Giz,
I'm open to researching the basic "rule(s)"... one(s) which will cover all the possible sub-rules you've pointed out.
What happens to charges which make all this up as they pass through the as-yet seemingly random courses now of force, space & time, and under the veil of having mass? Given the last known information about those before the "shuffle", we ought to be able to do so much better than by VB, etc, and in almost every random-like game.
Well-defining rules and regulations, like Einstein wrote, "Understanding a question is the best way to answer it", is the only way to be truly open-minded... in the long-run. As Copernicus wrote, "If you want to improve, let others call you sick and stupid." And, as another physicist wrote, "It's not a matter of being crazy, but of being crazy enough."
Is what you're doing "crazy enough"?
Quote from: Spike on May 14, 2008, 10:48:21 PM
Hone your guessing skills on a daily basis till you're winning more than losing.
MWOAAAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA......... I always thought that guessing was a science!
GARNabby, I think it's a waste of time attempting to understand a set of rules that attempt to create meaning from metaphysical categorizations.
If I give you common sense rules I'm sure that you will relate to it so far from what was intended that many won't be able to relate to your responses.
To start, all you are doing is fishing for a set of rules to guess with. From that you hope to get me to divulge my entire technique. I'm not willing to give away to the masses of the world my actual technique.
To prove that we will discuss the "global effect" concept. Watch now as GARNabby attempts to attribute misunderstanding as the lead. Here is a clue. "Global Effect" does not mean every roulette mechanism producing similar random results at the same time all around the world.
The more informative discussions that I have ever had all involved defining terms as part of the arduous process involved in the effort to communicate in the first place. It's hard enough to present ideas without them running off on bunny trails so far removed that they lose interest or worth.
What do you think that "the global effect" means? Yes, this is a test.
Quote from: Gizmotron on October 13, 2009, 12:59:30 PM
GARNabby, I think it's a waste of time attempting to understand a set of rules that attempt to create meaning from metaphysical categorizations.
Giz,
Sorry, but not really, for making an actual effort here, at the underlaying possible physics of randomness... and "wasting" 2 minutes of your precious time while you chase
stuff which can not work, regardless your own assertion that I'm trying to "trick you" to give something up. This is a brand-new direction for these as-yet totally-ineffective
forums, and the furthest thing from anything I have seen from you.
Who are you to tell the others this is above/beneath them? The one who
"disagrees respectfully"? Then askes for moderation against others, tries to "put all manner of words in my mouth", writes that he's not really trying to "give anything away" anyway, and leaves this with some sort of silly, functionally-illiterate "riddle".
I guess you'd have to be an "emperor" (w/o new clothes) to fall for that one. So... as I've often wrote, "The one's who conclude it can't be done are far ahead of those still dreaming."
GARNabby, are you serious? You want an understanding of randomness to be a set of rules, one's based on physics. I knew that you only joined this topic in order to cast your pontifications about why it can't work.
If your revelations are so far reaching and beyond anything ever discussed before then why don't you dazzle us and just come out and say it. You don't need to drag me along to prove your points. Good luck.
Quote from: Gizmotron on October 13, 2009, 02:50:51 PM
GARNabby, are you serious? You want an understanding of randomness to be a set of rules, one's based on physics. I knew that you only joined this topic in order to cast your pontifications about why it can't work.
If your revelations are so far reaching and beyond anything ever discussed before then why don't you dazzle us and just come out and say it. You don't need to drag me along to prove your points. Good luck.
Giz,
Wow, talk about keeping an open mind! Now, we really now at least one of us who's not being serious... and as you continue still to relate simple potentially-useful observations to "pontifications" and "revelations", the very religious-based adjectives for your own "scientific work" on this subject.
Are you that unused to someone coming right out and concisely outlining something, to be unable to readily interpret such?
Quote from: GARNabby on October 13, 2009, 03:00:47 PM
Wow, talk about keeping an open mind! Now, we really [k]now at least one of us who's not being serious... and as you continue still to relate simple potentially-useful observations to "pontifications" and "revelations", the very religious-based adjectives for your own "scientific work" on this subject.
Well you should know. You are the one that's the sky pilot with a pulpit. What the hell are you talking about?
What does physics have to do with randomness?
What do rules have to do with randomness?
Please make your point. Stop attacking me, stop saying that guessing can't work. We know what you think about that. What about your important unseen before information?
Hi Giz
Talk your crap somewhere else . We all here already know the true facts you can't guess. Go teach your crap somewhere else not here.When I read crap like what you post I will come after your sh$$ . When people like you hurt other people here by teaching them to lose money your wat. Listen real close because you will here my footsteps coming for you with the real facts. The Math tells the real Truth. That's my proof. Go tell your fake post's somewhere else
AS I said I will be watching for bad post's like yours ,that people will lose their money on. And I'm not really James he pays me with his own money to keep an eye on this forum from people that post just for the sake to post.He's at A.C right now with his REAL WINNING SYSTEM.It's posted here and it's in the test zone right here on this forum.
This was posted by winwithmath .
Since Bobby can't post So now he will take notes on the posts that hurt people.
James Albert Wendel
WARNING about James Albert Wendel for all new visitors!
James goes by many names. He thinks that he has special math knowledge that allows him to win. He uses this forum in order to put people on the hook, that will believe his fantasies and delusions. He thinks he has a gambling team that goes with him to casinos. Don't be fooled by what he says. James has a damaged brain. He is clinically being treated for mental illness. Mostly, and so far, he has been a harmless nuisance by interrupting and disrupting several threads here. You know what they say at the zoo? Don't feed the animals. James is an attention deficited, zoned out, maxed zoomed dweeby. Make sure you are sure of your facts before engaging James in his fantasies.
Hey Giz
You really think people here will believe you anymore .Your bad posts are done here my friend.I will expose all here because what you post here shows what kind of person you are.The post's by you and spike shows that you and him just post for sake of posting..
winwithmath
James Albert Wendel
Quote from: warman on October 14, 2009, 11:52:21 AM
Hey Giz
You really thing people here will believe you anymore .Your bad posts are done here my friend.I will expose all here because what you post here shows what kind of person you are.The post's by you and spike shows that you and him just post for sake of posting..
winwithmath -James Albert Wendel
I never "thing" people here. Why would I care if anyone that needs to learn how to win at roulette is ready to read what I have written. I didn't consider a more simple approach myself until I had exhausted my search for a system that would work. Why should it be any quicker a process for them? My bad posts about you are just starting. I post to watch people change, to come to their senses. Too bad that you missed that. If some people are not ready for advanced concepts then they can get advice from you while they trudge through the standard process of eliminating what does not work. You would be really good in that regard. You have never taught anyone what you promised that you would teach. You kept it all for your gambling team out of spite for being rejected.
Nothing works my friend I have the only system that works.Live with it. I just got back from A.C. I will sleep a bit then post more.Thinks for the spelling lesson I been driving for 3 hours. And for the part that you said that you post things that's what a forum does also. People here check out my system in the test zone right here it's my proof that I have the only system in the world that really works to beat all the table games.Also flat betting only .
winwithmath
James Albert Wendel
Quote from: warman
Hey Giz
Nothing works my friend I have the only system that works.Live with it. I just got back from A.C. I will sleep a bit then post more.Thinks for the spelling lesson I been driving for 3 hours. And for the part that you said that you post things that's what a forum does also. People here check out my system in the test zone right here it's my proof that I have the only system in the world that really works to beat all the table games.Also flat betting only .
winwithmath
James Albert Wendel
Yeah, right. It must be really nice there in your own little world. Show me one person that understands your "only system" and that has learned from you on this forum. Let that person come forward and explain it in the simplest of terms, please. You have the floor. The spotlight is on, the microphone is hot, the audience is ready. Let the masses be shown the light of day.
Quote from: Mr J on October 13, 2009, 05:30:47 PMThis current way, I am betting on 2 numbers that have not hit in a LONG time but are NOT the 2 furthest back.
(From the thread, nolinks://vlsroulette.com/gambling-and-roulette-related/playing-over-the-weekend-did-great (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/gambling-and-roulette-related/playing-over-the-weekend-did-great)!/ .)
Ken,
This is the symbolic, rather than simplistic, approach-example I game to Giz in the thread nolinks://vlsroulette.com/general-board/how-to-beat-roulette/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/general-board/how-to-beat-roulette/) .
Unlike baccarat's binary P-B choices, roulette offers the (inside) numbers; but roulette affords no card-information, by counting or randomization of. Therefore, the type of randomness of roulette is more subtle; less about alternating sequences continuing(alternately), or about long streaks ending, or short ones beginning (, in the finite long-run, of course). This, of course then, leaves us with the irregular zig-zag outcomes, which streak but don't streak... hence which should then end but not end, as by the "strategy" above.
Until some (real) applied physics models of randomness has been developed to account for how the past outcomes are being transformed into the future ones, perhaps impossible with only those numerical outcomes, such a "strategy" may be a very-good stepping-off point.
Wrt Giz's request for specifics, I have some from the baccarat-vantage at nolinks://projectbaccarat.proboards.com/index.cgi (nolinks://projectbaccarat.proboards.com/index.cgi) . (Interested persons may register first to be signed in later.)