Hey VB Players: You've Been Busted!!

[Spike!]

I think it is more likely to get the odds/rules changed >>>

The only way to change the odds is to add more zeros and thats not going to happen. What they would do is ban all writing material at the table and it would kill most systems.

>we can get some ideas to arrange such kind of a deal.>>

The only idea they will come up with is they'll want to pay out of the winnings they make. Thats doesn't work, sorry. Get the money from the bank and pay THEM back out of the winnings, thats how the real world works.

[Spike!]

>>can make profits "short-medium" term but useless short and medium-long term. >>

How do you figure that? Thats the whole point, to win long term. Anybody can win in the short, big deal.

[gtype]

long term always returned losses at the value of the house edge.  i am talking 10 million simulations though and like i said, i couldn't grasp the concept very clearly and the stop loss strategy apparently like everything else relies a lot on your intuition.  i can't code that.  like i said, it is possible, but i don't have all the knowledge, practice, experience or anything to use it.  i just determined that it might be possible so that people would stop bashing it

[sherminator]

The casinos have tried to eliminate all types of AP play to increase revenue over the last 10-15 years.
For the most part, they have accomplished their goal. They are happy enough to share a few crumbs with the grafters.

[Spike!]

stop loss strategy>>>

I don't use a stop loss, all I have is a goal.

>>They are happy enough to share a few crumbs with the grafters. >>

Don't kid yourself. They hate all winners and want it all for themselves. The best scenerio for them is you win big and give it all back the same day. They don't want you leaving, you might lose it somewhere else. The look at themselves as an entertainment venue, not as a place for you to make your living.

[gtype]

in your case it would mean properly identifying "loosing trends", something i guess i had difficulty with.

[gizmotron]

To kill the game of roulette? I doubt it, I think it is more likely to get the odds/rules changed — like Thorp did with Blackjack. Anyway... Don't you think your revolutionary discoveries in pattern recognition will affect not only gambling but many other areas? I would say that $2M is a good price and there may be candidates interested in this offer (not me of course... unless you can offer a long-term lease option =] ) But yeah, the tough bit is the demonstration of the 'product' and the payment in advance. I'll speak to someone more bussiness-oriented than me, sure we can get some ideas to arrange such kind of a deal.

I already documented the area of interest that will be all the rage when the cat is out of the bag for gambling. The science already exists. In fact, I can't believe it's taken this long for thinkers not to come waltzing in with the answers. Someday you will remember playing Roulette and Craps. There won't be a mild version of these two games. Randomness will be broken as a predictive utilization.

nolinks://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/#comment-1731


Bayesian probability: nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability


Predictive inference: nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_inference

"Predictive inference is an interpretation of probability that emphasizes the prediction of future observations based on past observations."

[sherminator]

"Don't kid yourself. They hate all winners and want it all for themselves."

Normally yes, but hypothetically, if I owned a chain of casinos and you were coming in quietly a couple of times a month and taking home a few bucks without cheating and hitting your 72%, why would I want to rub you up the wrong way. It would not be very prudent.
The bias and vb guys have had their fun and there's fcuk all they can do about it now. It could just be that someone with your talents would get the kid gloves treatment.

[Spike!]

but hypothetically, if I owned a chain of casinos>>>

If you did, you would be staring at a huge bottom line every month and resent the hell out of aybody who walked out with a dime. You can't stop all of them, but you can stop the consistant winners.

[pins]

i dop not believe there are any winners in trhe long run. i won on my last visit i may win today but no system gurantees winning. i see people winning large amounts the casino pays out.  at the end of the day the table shows a profit. the winners will be back to win more the losers will be back to recoup. if any table fails to show a profit the casino would be worried. look at the profits the casinos make. winners are good . my casino gives away thousands of dollars every day. if you had a look at the players records you would see they all lose. good luck

[Noble Savage]

I already documented the area of interest that will be all the rage when the cat is out of the bag for gambling.

That's all we need. Another James Wendel/Fender1000.

You guys are funny.

nolinks://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/#comment-1731

That's a pretty laughable post.

Bayesian probability: nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

Predictive inference: nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_inference

I like it when you post Wikipedia articles of concepts you have no idea about and try to pass it off as support for your arguments. I'm not sure whether you're innocently misunderstanding that information, or intentionally skewing it to fit your absurd theory of the "predictability of a true random process". Most probably both.

Either way nice try, you almost sound like you know what you're talking about. But you missed the basic fact that Bayesian probability has nothing to do with the random process of games of chance (such as roulette, or dice). It deals with something else entirely.

Subjectivists, also known as Bayesians or followers of epistemic probability, give the notion of probability a subjective status by regarding it as a measure of the 'degree of belief' of the individual assessing the uncertainty of a particular situation. Subjective probability is sometimes called 'credence' (as opposed to the term 'chance' for a propensity probability).

Some examples of epistemic probability are to assign a probability to the proposition that a proposed law of physics is true, and to determine how probable it is that a suspect committed a crime, based on the evidence presented.

So you want 2 million huh?

Good luck with that. You might actually make a few thousand though, some people can be desperate enough to believe you. (how do I know? I used to be one )

Best of luck with your sales, Mark.

[Spike!]

That's a pretty laughable post.>>

I just read it and thought it was right on. Please point out the laughable parts. I doubt you even read it.

>>I like it when you post Wikipedia articles of concepts you have no idea about>>

Which concepts, exactly, does he have no idea about? Point them out and lets see what Mark says. You are great about making stupid blanket statemnts, be more spcific and lets see what you know.

>>But you missed the basic fact that Bayesian probability has nothing to do with the random process of games of chance >>

Bayesian probability refers to 'the state of knowledge', which is exactly what reading random is all about.

Whats your name on GG? ou sound exactly like Jugs Monthly, who has the same snotty, superior and condencending style of posting that you do.

[Herb6]

Spike and Gizmo,



Spike and his brother Gizmotron

It's real comedy when you two guys pretend to know how to win.  



Let's not forget that Laurance exposed your scams on GG.

[Noble Savage]

I just read it and thought it was right on.

To you? Of course it was.

You are great about making stupid blanket statemnts

Is that so?

Bayesian probability refers to 'the state of knowledge', which is exactly what reading random is all about.

Bayesian probability does not suggest (or support the argument) that you can "read random".

Whats your name on GG? ou sound exactly like Jugs Monthly, who has the same snotty, superior and condencending style of posting that you do.

I'm not Jugs.

[Spike!]

It's real comedy when you two guys pretend to know>>>

Its even funnier watching you hang out on forums trying to pick up tips since the airball has been taken off the table for you. Thats extremely funny.

>Let's not forget that Laurance exposed your scams>>

ROTFLMAO!!!!

[Spike!]

-