I think we are all wasting our time...

[Bayes]

I was lucky to have the ability to move on.

Spoken like a true gambler - good luck! (you're gonna need it).

[I have cookies]

No, I understand perfectly well.   I was lucky to have the ability to move on.   It's a shame that you couldn't.

I am sorry to say it takes years - money - education - skills and build the right relations ...
Argue against it is no good idea - ask the right questions and move forward is an good start ...

/.\

[gizmotron]

@Gizmotron can u explain WHY the trends are giving an advantage?? what is the reason behind it?

Trends always give an advantage when they last a long time in your favor. It's always a risk to start betting on a trend. It's also a risk to make any bet based on any premise. In any case you establish a trend line for past bets placed. You can see when the effectiveness is in a state of dominance of wins or dominance of losses. You can see when your session is just chaotic and that you are not getting anywhere.

Skeptics believe that the probability for how many trends that must end, as you begin to bet them, will equalize any previous advantage that you may have had. One problem with that theory. Probability odds are not consistent. In fact, those odds go through the exact same characteristics as effectiveness. It's possible to create a time line graph that shows probability changing from spin to spin. Math oriented players are too lazy to create graphs that would help them to understand randomness as when it is related directly to current states.

It's not important to attempt to bring along those that are stuck on fixed probability odds. They don't get it and they have stopped themselves from proving it to themselves. It's kind of like Global Warming scientists. They believe what they want to and  damn those that don't.

Beware of the next big thing, Wobble Globing.

[Noble Savage]

It's possible to create a time line graph that shows probability changing from spin to spin.

LOL. Sorry but I couldn't help but laugh at that comment.

You conclude that just because the random outcomes fluctuate, then the probabilities of events fluctuate too.

You are way, way off base about this Mark.

[Bayes]

C'mon Noble, get with the program!

Don't you know Spike & Gizmo make up their own probabilities as they go along? Fixed odds are only for math nazis.  

[Noble Savage]

[gizmotron]

"It's possible to create a time line graph that shows probability changing from spin to spin."

LOL. Sorry but I couldn't help but laugh at that comment.

You conclude that just because the random outcomes fluctuate, then the probabilities of events fluctuate too.

You are way, way off base about this Mark.

Please excuse the use of wikipedia, but in this regards any apology is not necessary. It's just that a few of you snobs need to discredit the messenger when you are clearly blown off the stage, as they say.

Markov chain, "A Markov chain is a discrete random process with the property that the next state depends only on the current state. It is named for Andrey Markov, and is a mathematical tool for statistical modeling in modern applied mathematics, particularly information sciences..."

"Formally, a Markov chain is a discrete random process with the Markov property. A discrete random process means a system which is in a certain state at each "step", with the state changing randomly between steps..."

"The Markov property states that the conditional probability distribution for the system at the next step (and in fact at all future steps) given its current state depends only on the current state of the system, and not additionally on the state of the system at previous steps..."

This notion is not an invented notion. Conditional probability, now theres another example of current state logic.

Laugh all you want. I have imagined what mathematicians have already postulated. Why did I imagine it? "Necessity is the mother of invention." Now laugh that one off.

[gizmotron]

C'mon Noble, get with the program!

Don't you know Spike & Gizmo make up their own probabilities as they go along? Fixed odds are only for math nazis.  

Hey Spike, don't you know that Bayes and Noble Savage can't read randomness and have an oblivious perspective on situational awareness. Yet they consider themselves as qualified critics of what we can or can't do. That makes them Feckless & Factless, the schmuck brothers.

[Spike!]

make up their own probabilities as they go along?>>>

Let me ask you a question. If you're trying to guess how many marbles are in a jar and the guy who filled the jar tells you how many bags he put in, does that change the math and probability of you winning? Reading random also chnges the probability of you winning, it changes it from the casinos favor to your favor. So we don;t make up the probabilities, but we do change them.

[Noble Savage]

"The Markov property states that the conditional probability distribution...

The problem is that you really seem to have no clue how irrelevant these things (that you keep purposefully injecting this "reading random" fantasy with as an attempt to dress it in scientific credibility) to what we're dealing with here, i.e. random outcomes with fixed odds. Hence the laughing; we see beyond the bells and whistles.

[Spike!]

 to what we're dealing with here, I.e. random outcomes with fixed odds. >>>

If readng random works and gives you a better idea as to whats coming next, does that change the 'fixed' odds?

[gizmotron]

The problem is that you really seem to have no clue how irrelevant these things (that you keep purposefully injecting this "reading random" fantasy with as an attempt to dress it in scientific credibility) to what we're dealing with here, I.e. random outcomes with fixed odds. Hence the laughing; we see beyond the bells and whistles.

Read the quotation that you laughed at.

"It's possible to create a time line graph that shows probability changing from spin to spin."

It doesn't say that I read the probability as it changes. It clearly states that its possible to create a graph of a constantly changing current state. The odds are not fixed. That's your laughable fantasy. In fact it's your lost world. I guess nobody can tell you anything. You are too set in your ways, with your "full cup." When I clearly demonstrate to you a bigger world that acknowledges changing states in randomness you dismiss it as irrelevant. It's a very big fantasy that you pretend to hold court in. And, you are oblivious to evidence to the contrary. What's it going to take? You jokers have no clue whatsoever. Just keep laughing, that's what you need the most.

[Noble Savage]

If readng random works and gives you a better idea as to whats coming next, does that change the 'fixed' odds?

Isn't it easy to say "If".

Unfortunately it doesn't work, and here are the big news: You can't prove it does.

The odds are not fixed.

Of course, and I can travel to the future.

[Noble Savage]

Spike and Gizmo use their mind power to block certain pockets in the wheel, changing the odds of the next spin.

[Herb6]

Probability odds are not consistent. In fact, those odds go through the exact same characteristics as effectiveness. It's possible to create a time line graph that shows probability changing from spin to spin.

Prove it.  Show us. Explain how they change at each spin.

[Herb6]

-