What It Is

[Bayes]

I'm not coming to your house to show you, if thats what you mean. 

And how could you do that anyway? You say what you do can't be taught!

The truths in Spike's world change according to the whim of the moment.   Nothing is fixed, it just depends on whether you need to be put in your place.   Are you starting to see the pattern dear readers? Get used to it. 

[Number Six]

You wouldn't be the first though. James Wendel, Charles Hampshire, and Richard (Mr. Chips) are examples of individuals who share the same problem.

With people like this it's a self-esteem problem. They create a scenario whereby they are wholly dependent on pretending that their fantasy is true. That way they feel special and that others are interested in them. By constantly preaching the same thing over and over and over, it keeps older members in the discussion (albeit the same one) and sucks in the new members. Spike and Gizmo live in the blubber world with Fender, Wendel and Wankshire. The blubber world is where the maths of the real world does not apply.  

[gizmotron]

Gamble To Win Roulette is organized around the author's main betting system 3Q/A Reverse Select, which was extensively discussed here and on GG. The remainder of the book does not offer anything new, however it is not a bad read.

Ellison claims that 3Q/A has been independently verified to yield a 7.94% player advantage, in a sampling of over 7,500 live roulette spins. This figure represents a spread of 13.20% over the established house edge of 5.26% for American roulette. So far so good. But why does it work? In essense, "you're looking for a trend that is occurring inside of a non-trend." "Because of the way the numbers of each respective group are spaced along the wheel itself, the two form a symbiotic relationship, by virtue of the effects of the dealer signature."

Are 7,500 results adequate to pin down a reliable percentage representing the player advantage? Why wasn't a computer simulation of perhaps a million spins performed? Answer: "The short-term nature of this approach is not adaptable to computer trials, which are designed to process nearly infinite strings of numbers. Such cannot duplicate the effect of moving from table to table, and 'qualifying' each one before the start of play." Yes. According to the author's rules you must change wheels after a brief win or loss.

Do you really think Ellison's method has any merit?

That's all very interesting. Only one problem though. I don't consider his 3Q/A Reverse Select worthy of even looking at. And I have not gotten that far into the book yet. So far the book is about the pitfalls of playing Roulette and how to avoid losses. In my opinion that is as important as anything that needs to be learned firsthand. It talks briefly about what must be known and acted on every time you go into a casino. It's the most important part of the book, not the system. What are the chances that the  3Q/A Reverse Select system is a red herring? Could this author being clever in his publishing a working method while providing cover with a half assed system? Would that be a confirmation that those who work for this are the only ones that will reap the benefits? Tell but don't show.

It might have worked on you if he was that clever.

[gizmotron]

Absolutely not, that's no-where near enough - try at least 100,000.

Bullshit.  Remember this guy is trying to sell books! Any programmer worth his salt can simulate all the things which Ellison says is missing from computer trials. 

Same tired old drivel.  What is the "effect" of moving from table to table? you are just as likely to miss a great winning streak by leaving the current table, and just as likely to hit the sequence from hell at the new one, and vice-versa.  This should be blindingly obvious.

Yeah right. Are any of you sure you want to take this advice? This person has no clue what is going on here. He makes assumptions like the stats for what the weather does is the same stats for the accuracy of the weatherman's educated guesses. The weather is an independent machine that has variables that have cause and effect. The weatherman gathers information regionally from what has happened before when conditions were similar and from experience with history. The weatherman then makes a guess. But the machine, the weather, occurs based on the changes, as they evolve. And the weather evolves independent of the opinion of the weatherman.

You don't want to take the advice of someone that has little experience of this topic. He is just making it up. He's invested himself in this idea that the weatherman analogy is an equivalent argument that supports his opinion. He even has that assumption wrong.

[gizmotron]

And how could you do that anyway? You say what you do can't be taught!

The truths in Spike's world change according to the whim of the moment.   Nothing is fixed, it just depends on whether you need to be put in your place.   Are you starting to see the pattern dear readers? Get used to it. 

Your only big deal is seeing some proof. You can wait forever as far as I'm concerned. Proof is there for anyone willing to prove it to themselves. In mountain climbing it's the adventure of getting to the top, not the being at the top, that is why climbers climb. You could have your hand held for you and each step of the way of learning could be done for you. Only one problem. You are not a person I would want to help. I would put grease on the stairway I thought you would use next. You can just sit there in your own arrogance and enjoy your own rewards. You are the enemy of good. I regard you as the kind of person that scams. Your advice is nearly worthless and damaging. You have not made a compelling argument and you don't deserve an apprenticeship in gambling.

[gizmotron]

With people like this it's a self-esteem problem. They create a scenario whereby they are wholly dependent on pretending that their fantasy is true. That way they feel special and that others are interested in them. By constantly preaching the same thing over and over and over, it keeps older members in the discussion (albeit the same one) and sucks in the new members. Spike and Gizmo live in the blubber world with Fender, Wendel and Wankshire. The blubber world is where the maths of the real world does not apply.  

Yeah right. More advice from a person that can't do it. To top that off he now has his comfortable excuse to never try. Perfect. The retribution of informed people is that people like this have the resolve to never try. They make zero sense. I'll bet he can't read Ellison's book and relate to the good advice. I wonder if he is another person here that never plays? Anyone can include him with flat earthers and Global Warming freaks. He is wrong. He has lied. Perhaps he just needs attention?

[Spike!]

The blubber world is where the maths of the real world does not apply.>>>

It always comes down to this, doesn't it. The math never lies. In point of fact, thats true. However, if you get the smallest part of your foot in the door, and turn the edge from the houses favor to yours, the 'real world' math now shifts to you and away from the casino.

Bayes says its 'sad' that only suckers will believe that random can be exploited. Has he ever proven it can't be exploited? All he has is speculation, because in truth he can't prove anything. Glen is right about the flat earther thing. All the math boyz can do is repeat what they've heard, don't sail your ship too far or you'll fall off. They could prove this isn't true, but then their faulty world view would be shattered, and who needs that.

[Noble Savage]

Sheesh, I didn't think I would have to explain this.

If:

A weatherman has a correct forecasting rate of 75%

Then:

His AVERAGE probability of a correct forecast is 75%.

It does not mean that his probability of a correct forecast for one particular day MUST be exactly 75% (you simply assumed that that's what I meant, nice try), it just means that the average probability is 75%. It might be 55% one day, 87% another, 68% another, and 90% another. Eventually the average would be 75%, hence the 75% long term "hit-rate".

This would be a case of variable probability with a constant long-term average. It's what a VB player or a weatherman would be dealing with. In the case of an average roulette player however, or say a bias player betting on a bias sector that has a constant 60% probability of hit, they would be dealing with constant probability, not one that varies on a spin to spin basis depending on the quality and accuracy of the prediction.

Now based on what you said, you must be dealing with variable probability with a constant long-term average. You said that your next bet might not necessarily have 72% prob. but hardly so. 72% merely represents your long-term hit rate.

You then contradict yourself by saying that you don't "change the odds". lol then what do you call this? Just because your probability is variable (as opposed to constant, on a spin to spin basis), it's still higher than the normal odds on average. You claim to have a physical edge. Having a physical edge IS changing the odds in your favor.

The problem is not with the "what", it's with the "how". The reason why no one with enough intelligence in these forums ever takes you seriously (as you might have noticed) is because of what your claimed method/edge is based on. It is merely based on looking at past results of outside bets (something that is absolutely guaranteed to yield no advantage whatsoever) and make a guess *cough*. It doesn't matter what you see in such past spins because no matter what you think you see and no matter what your bet (based on such observation) is, Red or Black, the next outcome has exactly 50% probability of showing (minus the house edge).

The only way towards a physical edge is, as Steve says, increasing the accuracy (probability) of predictions. The only way to increase such accuracy in the game of roulette is to attack the physical process creating the outcomes with a method that tracks the physical variables/agents involved in producing the outcome, seeks non-randomness in behavior (that others don't see) and exploits it by targeting high probability pockets/sectors in real time.

You (Gizmo and Spike) accuse everyone else of ignorance, stupidity, assumptiousness, being a loser (in roulette), having no clue, and resorting to demeaning comments; when clearly these things apply more to you than anyone else.

[Rheti]

spins   no
1   5
2   3
3   30
4   32
5   3
6   10
7   22
8   29
9   21
10   29
11   23
12   22
13   20
14   7
15   18
16   19
17   3
18   17
19   31
20   0
21   8
22   7
23   7
24   0
25   18
26   13
27   18
28   31
29   12
30   29
31   29
32   4
33   17
34   14
35   1
36   11
37   16

Spike and Gizmo: the first 37 numbers

Try to analyze them; give some remarks or bets you should have done..

and what would you do or bet the next spin ?

european wheel..

[gizmotron]

Sheesh, I didn't think I would have to explain this.

If:

A weatherman has a correct forecasting rate of 75%

Then:

His AVERAGE probability of a correct forecast is 75%.

It does not mean that his probability of a correct forecast for one particular day MUST be exactly 75% (you simply assumed that that's what I meant, nice try), it just means that the average probability is 75%. It might be 55% one day, 87% another, 68% another, and 90% another. Eventually the average would be 75%, hence the 75% long term "hit-rate".

There's the proof I needed. Thanks. BTW anyone here can call you the correct pejorative for this.

The weather has an occluded front and depending on where pressure from the east hits it, and when, the front will either pass north of the region or it will hit the region with threats of a string of tornadoes popping up in the area. The percentage for the two scenarios is 100%.  It has a 20% chance of missing the area. That percentage is based on randomness. It is unknown what will cause the pressure from the east to act the way it will. Now those are the known conditions that currently exist. Now you are making an argument that the weatherman can't read the known conditions because every day's weather is an independent trial and that it would defy mathematics. And yet you insist that the weatherman, that can't read randomness, can conclude that there is an 80% chance that the area will be hit by a string of tornadoes. You math people use selective assumptions.

[Noble Savage]

Spike and Gizmo: the first 37 numbers

Try to analyze them; give some remarks or bets you should have done..

and what would you do or bet the next spin ?

lol

Spike and Gizmo will talk the talk to the point of boring us all, but will come up with a million excuse not to walk the walk.

Otherwise I would have challenged them in a real betting contest, right here. We start with the same bankroll and we see who ends with more money.

Would they take it? Nah. They always chicken out of real challenges.

[gizmotron]

Spike and Gizmo: the first 37 numbers

Try to analyze them; give some remarks or bets you should have done..

and what would you do or bet the next spin ?

I noticed a pet set of numbers that went from almost inactive to an above statistical average after the inactivity ended. I would have won with that method. By the way. The numbers I use for that pet set of numbers are based on pie sections of the wheel. That's sections of the American wheel. Yet the numbers worked excellently for the European wheel where the pie shapes don't exist. That's because exploiting randomness doesn't require cause and effect data in order to exploit it.

[suitcase charlie]

@Noble, it is pretty pointless challenging people who you know for whatever reason (right or wrong) will decline.
Anyway, let's leave the kids out of it and you can challenge me if you have the fortitude for it. 
By "reading random" I amassed +57 units by playing on spins 19, 31, 34 and 36 of Rheti's example.  3 winning spins out of 4 flat betting. 

ready and waiting. . . . . . . .

[Noble Savage]

@charlie: lol, yes let's leave the kids out.

Nice win there. Let's do it, should be fun.

I'll start a new thread later tonight.

[suitcase charlie]

looking forward to it and wishing us both good luck.   It would be great if we both come out showing a nice profit over the length of the contest.

[suitcase charlie]

-