The old VLS is dead.

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

I don't know if spike &/ or gizmo have the ability they say they have.

What I do know is that I have a progression system that won't fail!

As so many people that deride Spike also claim that no progression system is infailable and I
know they're wrong about that, how can their 'expertise' on Spike's abilities be given credence.

I will point out before he does, that Spike also believes that no progression system is infailable.

Glenn.

[Spike!]

that Spike also believes that no progression system is infailable>>

I never said that. I did say that a progression and a winning hit rate is unbeatable. I've never seen an progression that beats a negative game 100% of the time. I don't see how its possible if you don't have the edge.

[Noble Savage]

Um, it has to be longer than 2 hours. Try 6 months and get back to me.

It was even more than 6 months (otherwise I wouldn't have ranted about it).

And just because you won't or can't undestand something, that doesn't make the other person a liar.

Look, it's simple. Either true randomness is readable (in the sense of: predictable at a better than normal expectancy rate) or it isn't.

- What tells me it isn't: All my previous factual investigation, study, and practice/experience + Every scientific source on earth (which includes people who spend their lives studying such things as randomness).
- What tells me it is: Spike and Gizmotron's (unproved) claims.

See what I mean Spike. We can almost tell them and they won't see it.

Yes, everybody (including the present scientific community) is not smart enough to see "it" except you two.

Can you describe the fundamentals of reading randomness.

The "fundamentals of reading randomness" according to whom/what?
And what would the point be?

The mere idea of "bet selection" on true random events is silly.

I noticed that you made no reference to current states, situational awareness, or effectiveness.

Again, what's the point?

Your methodology/terminology/fundamentals of reading randomness are all bells and whistles.

For instance, you said "current states, situational awareness, or effectiveness" when they, in essence, refer to one thing: What is currently happening; which is useless because of the simple fact that no matter what happened recently, the possibilities of what will happen next are equal and unpredictable.

There is no bias to exploit, there is no "loophole" in true randomness, no high-probability bet.

If it were at least something where the probabilities change in real-time and are (somehow, somewhat) "estimateable". In market trading you aim to place high probability trades; in blackjack you count cards and bet when the odds are on your side; in VB you measure the physical variables producing the outcome and target high probability sectors; not to mention sports-betting; poker; etc. etc.

But in a true random game, the odds don't change from spin to spin; and because they don't, there is nothing to exploit.

[Spike!]

The "fundamentals of reading randomness" according to whom/what?>>

According to you, of course. You studied it for more than 6 months and learned aboslutey nothing except what you knew before you started?? That in itself is an extraordinary claim.

>>The mere idea of "bet selection" on true random events is silly.>>

Everything is silly when you can't figure it out.

>>the possibilities of what will happen next are equal and unpredictable.>>

But they're extremely finite! If you're betting red/black, the next spin won't be orange, or blue or a banana. You act like the next spin is a complete mystery, shrouded in darkness, hopeless. It'll be red or black or at the very worst, green. Everybody acts like the next spin could be the Old Maid card, they are terrified of it. Why is that?

[Noble Savage]

You don't understand do you?

Let me try something else.

How many spins do you need to see in order to make your first bet? 5, 10, 20, 30?

I know you don't want people discovering your all-powerful mystery method and all, but how about you make ONE bet. Just one single bet. (You aren't going to tell me your system can be discovered just by seeing ONE bet of yours, are you?)

Example: Suppose you need 20 spins and no more to form a single decision. I give you 20 spins and you pick a bet Black, Red, Even, Odd, Low, or High.

Whether you win or lose that single bet does not matter, what matters is your bet must have some kind of premise behind it. Meaning if you chose to bet Black, then you must believe that at that point within the stream of random outcomes, Black is more likely (72%?) to come next.

That said, what I'll do is simply this:

1) I'll take the 20 spin sequence (or whatever other size you required to make a bet), and I will automatically scan millions of spins for other completely identical 20 spin sequences.
2) I will record the result following each one of those 20 spin sequences.

If your bet has any real premise, I should find that most of these results are Black results at a rate that is equal to or close to your 72% long-term hit rate.

I will challenge you that whatever you bet after observed sequence X has no real premise since the long-term hit rate of the even chances following sequence X does not change.

What do you say? Will you take the challenge, or will you just resort to one of the two cheap lame excuses you'll probably resort to:

1) My whole system can be discovered just by seeing one bet of mine. (LOL)
2) When I see sequence X today I bet Black, but when I see the exact same sequence tomorrow I might bet Red. (LOL)

[bombus]

Given the option to pick from all the EC's –  BR, EO, HL - you probably won't find that many identical sequences to obtain a statistically significant result.
Even though the 'one bet' might be let's say BLACK, the state of the other EC's may well be a significant factor in that choice.

[Spike!]

2) I will record the result following each one of those 20 spin sequences.

It would mean nothing. I don't have trigger bets, I never use the same criteria twice for the same bet. All that would do is have a 50/50 outcome. If see a sequence of 5 R/B's and 5min later I see the exact same sequence, maybe my bet will be the same, maybe it won't. Thats what reading random is about, whats its doing NOW. Chances are its not doing the same as it was 5min ago.

[Noble Savage]

If see a sequence of 5 R/B's and 5min later I see the exact same sequence, maybe my bet will be the same, maybe it won't.

Read what I said. "How many spins do you need to see in order to make a single bet?"

If you see a sequence of 5 spins and bet on Red, then see the exact same sequence an hour later and bet Black, then there must bet something different. "What it's doing NOW" must have changed. How so? In the spins before the observed 5 spin sequence? Come on, I was referring to ALL the spins you need to observe in order to make a single decision. It's a finite number, right?

If you treat the EXACT same entire set of observed information differently each time then you have no "method" and must be either psychic or betting randomly.

[Spike!]

If you treat the EXACT same entire set of observed information differently each time then you have no "method">>

No, it means I don't have a system, I have a method. Nothing is ever the same twice, the number of spins I look at, or the bets I make. How could it be, its random outcomes, they're never the same, usually. A system means you react the same to triggers, a method has no trggers, it reacts to whats unfolding in front of you.

[Noble Savage]

Hence the immunity against ever being proven wrong.

[gizmotron]

It was even more than 6 months (otherwise I wouldn't have ranted about it).

Look, it's simple. Either true randomness is readable (in the sense of: predictable at a better than normal expectancy rate) or it isn't.

- What tells me it isn't: All my previous factual investigation, study, and practice/experience + Every scientific source on earth (which includes people who spend their lives studying such things as randomness).
- What tells me it is: Spike and Gizmotron's (unproved) claims.

You don't understand anything. In fact your statement shows that you don't know what to look for. Reading randomness is never predictable. It's just what it is. I swear. When will you people get it out of your head that it's not about changing the odds and it's not about achieving predictability or expectations. That's just what you think it's about. You have spent zero time attempting to getting it right.

[Spike!]

Hence the immunity against ever being proven wrong.>>>

I have no idea what that means.   You think because your because your 3rd grade teacher can do long division, and you can't, that makes her an idiot and you brilliant.

It doesn't.

[Spike!]

and it's not about achieving predictability>>>

Nope. Its just like reading a map. When you read a map, it doesn't cause you to 'predict' something, you read it and act accordingly. Its the same with reading random.

[gizmotron]

See, Spike openly shares from time to time. They say to get to Carnegie Hall "it takes practice, practice, practice.

But really it takes music theory, modes, intervals, scales, keys, chords, and practice, practice, practice. Then you need to have your mind blown by the likes of John Coltrane, Jeff Beck, Benny Goodman, Quincy Jones, Prince, Alicia Keys, etc...

Randomness spoken here...

[I have cookies]

Do you claim you can out guess even money distribution ? using Masse Ègale !

Lets assume you have an tendency towards some-thing ! then your attemps have to overcome the minimum to achive +1 with out increase you bet size ! is that what you and Spike claim ?

That was an polite question to take it back to basics ...

Cheers

[I have cookies]

-