lynx lij27 insulated jacket this forum has got good design keep it up.
I think the Signum system is not properly tested. By that I mean no statistical significance (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance) has been established and published and therefore the system cannot be described as a long-term winner that would work for anyone properly using it.
If the system is truly mechanical it should be possible to have it coded by a professional and real tests conducted. If the published results are statistically significant, you would get famous Richard. Why isn't this happening and why do you chose to rely on insignificant hand-testing? I've seen systems win for a surprisingly long time before they end up losing. Positive fluctuations are a reality.
One more thing I disagree with is Richard's opinion that winning methods are necessarily complex. In my opinion this is not true. Simple approaches are the best (notice that I did not say "easy" but simple).
Marv
Quote from: Landis on November 14, 2009, 06:22:38 PM
I think I need to point something out here:
Just because we have P +4 or M-3, or whatever value, the odds of red or black hitting on the next spin haven't changed. Not even a little bit. The odds remain 18/37!
Mr. Chips, you've chosen to use the name Signum. You imply that you're a math guy with your Ps and Ms, until you are confronted with some very basic questions about your system, like what's the edge? How many units does it make per spin? etc. What gives?
-Landis
(By the way, I'm a real math guy, not a pretend one.)
First of all I am not a Maths guy implied or otherwise. I do however know a couple of mathematicians and
they certainly don't have your attitude. If they come across a problem like Signum they will examine it
in some detail and then ask pertinent questions.
I have no interest in this thread as I consider it a waste of time. If you don't like the Signum system
that's ok, if you don't have the intellectual capability to understand the system that's ok
You seem the type of guy who would be more at home on a maths forum.
Hi Mr. Chips,
he couldn´t get me, now he is trying to get you.
What is that a mathematician who stops learning after he found 1+1=2?
and refuses to think further
br
winkel
Hey Guys,
Landis has been polite, asked fair questions & posted a separate thread to state that he didn't think certain systems worked.
Like him or not, like his questions or not, it's all above board
Let's keep it that way pls :good:
Thanking everyone in advance 8)
Since Winkel has locked his thread so that I can't post there, I guess I'm stuck posting here.
Winkel,
You're English is fine. As a matter of fact, it's good enough that you've managed to post more than 75 pages written in English.
Here's what I've decided to do, since my posts here are censored. I've decided that we'll post both systems: The GUT, and Mr. Chips systems on nolinks://nolinks.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70 (nolinks://nolinks.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70) I should have the thread posted by tomorrow. I'll also post it on Gambler's Glen.
Let's see what the rest of the world thinks about both SYSTEMS.
-Landis
(A real math guy. Not one of the pretend ones.)
Quote from: Landis on November 14, 2009, 08:11:31 PM
Since Winkel has locked his thread so that I can't post there, I guess I'm stuck posting here.
Winkel,
You're English is fine. As a matter of fact, it's good enough that you've managed to post more than 75 pages written in English.
Here's what I've decided to do, since my posts here are censored. I've decided that we'll post both systems: The GUT, and Mr. Chips systems on nolinks://nolinks.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70 (nolinks://nolinks.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70) I should have the thread posted by tomorrow. I'll also post it on Gambler's Glen.
Let's see what the rest of the world thinks about both SYSTEMS.
-Landis
(A real math guy. Not one of the pretend ones.)
Hi Landis,
I didn´t close the topic.
But I have unlocked it again, don´t know what happened, or how this happened. It was not meant to censor you.
br
winkel
I don´t like that you will post my strategy on Gamblers Glen.
I just don´t like that Forum and I will not become a member there nor discuss anything.
br
winkel
Landis,
I am not really a maths person, but what would this strategy or indeed any strategy have to accomplish to be deemed a long term winner?
It would be appreciated if you can help me.
Quote from: Winkel on November 14, 2009, 07:47:47 PM
Hi Mr. Chips,
he couldn´t get me, now he is trying to get you.
What is that a mathematician who stops learning after he found 1+1=2?
and refuses to think further
br
winkel
Hi Winkel,
If you look through the posts of this character Landis you will discover a similarity to a certain
nuisance, that used to post here and waste everyone's time with his monotonous "gamblers
fallacy"
I hope he is aware of copyright.
Regards
Richard
/.\
Regarding copyright. You can't copyright a gambling system. So I'm not worried about posting it.
Quote from: Landis on November 14, 2009, 08:11:31 PM
Here's what I've decided to do, since my posts here are censored. I've decided that we'll post both systems: The GUT, and Mr. Chips systems on nolinks://nolinks.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70 (nolinks://nolinks.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70) I should have the thread posted by tomorrow. I'll also post it on Gambler's Glen.
Let's see what the rest of the world thinks about both SYSTEMS.
-Landis
(A real math guy. Not one of the pretend ones.)
........ what is that supposed to accomplish? I'm sure a physics forum would have no interest in the system or even roulette for that matter, and it is an insult to Mr. Chips to post his system at gg which is ridiculous, do you really need opinions from people at gg to help you decide if Mr. Chips system has any merit or not? Why don't you just decide for yourself if it's worth spending any time with or not and if you think it's worthless and other people want to spend time with it that's their problem. I'm sure we could find plenty of people, at your physics forum, math forum and/or anywhere, that would say gambling and roulette and anything you have to offer as well are a waste of time too. Mr. Chips decided to post his system and advise people about it here, not at gg. It is not your business to post it at gg. that is a rather obnoxious thing to do and will accomplish nothing, maybe you should just hang out there and keep having the same conversation over and over again that they've had there for years: 1) post anything; 2) get bashed for being a system seller; 3) repeat, ad nauseum.
I've decided to post it anyway.
I believe Mr. Chips system works for him, but it probably wouldn't work for me. Perhaps sometimes you cannot prove or disprove something, perhaps sometimes things work, for certain people, "for reasons unknown." That being said, I think this thread could serve a good purpose, as I for one would certainly be interested in hearing from people who have actually studied the system if they find that it has merit and works, or not.
Actually it's very simple to prove that it can't work.
how is it you can assume that you can prove his system doesn't work, when you haven't even studied it? (plus I think much of it involves subjective decision making by one very familiar with playing it.) that is a bit presumptious of you, don't you think?
personally I have not studied the system and am reluctant to do so for various reasons, but I don't see how you can prove that something works or not when you don't even understand it. which is why it would be good to hear from people who have actually worked with it.
Quote from: Landis on November 14, 2009, 11:13:52 PM
Regarding copyright. You can't copyright a gambling system. So I'm not worried about posting it.
The contents of a website can be copyright and in particular the authors description of the contents.
In the USA they have strict laws on copyright.
I have emailed Fishman over at GG and informed him concerning the possible infringement of copyright.
For starters, you can't copyright a gambling system. You also can't enforce a copyright on a gambling system even if you could copyright it. So I will in no way be deterred. I can freely discuss your system at length. There's nothing original about the system. Read about the Monte Carlo Fallacy and you'll understand why.
To the Administrators,
This Landis, probably herb/snowman is only here for one purpose and that is to disrupt this forum.
He has done it before and as soon as a system gets any real interest and people start to show any
favourable results he will do his best to undermine it in some way.
He has no intention of making any constructive criticism, but will habitually quote gamblers fallacy
and will try to convince yourselves that his criticisms are valid and he hopes to subvert the author
of the system and in Winkels case his G.U.T strategy.
Both Winkel and myself have been down this road before and speaking for myself I will not put up
with it.
Regards
Richard
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 02:14:11 AM
So I will in no way be deterred. I can freely discuss your system at length.
........... but why would you WANT to? that is as crazy as certain persons who are obsessed with discussing this forum at length and saving us from ourselves (strangely entertaining), who don't even participate in the forum but watch every word of it. How could it be a constructive use of time to discuss a system that you believe is worthless? Whatever... do what you gotta do... whatever floats your boat...
Guys, it's just a gambling system. Why would you be afraid to get some opinions from other math guys before you waste your hard earned money trying to play it?
Why would you oppose it being shown elsewhere after you posted it on this public board?
This just doesn't make sense to me. I would think that you would find it beneficial.
I mean this in a polite way, so please don't be offended.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 02:14:11 AM
For starters, you can't copyright a gambling system. You also can't enforce a copyright on a gambling system even if you could copyright it. So I will in no way be deterred. I can freely discuss your system at length. There's nothing original about the system. Read about the Monte Carlo Fallacy and you'll understand why.
Under United States law you can copyright the contents of a website and the method used in this website
also has links elsewhere outside of gambling.
Mr. Chips,
With all do respect, I can freely describe the system and discuss as I see fit. It's not protected.
Why are you afraid of others expressing their views regarding your system?
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 02:35:14 AM
Guys, it's just a gambling system. Why would you be afraid to get some opinions from other math guys before you waste your hard earned money trying to play it?
Why would you oppose it being shown elsewhere after you posted it on this public board?
This just doesn't make sense to me. I would think that you would find it beneficial.
........... yes, perhaps it would be beneficial, IF these other people are willing to spend hours studying the system (sure-- have at it and let us know what you think), and IF Mr. Chips wanted to personally advise them all how to play the system, which I'm sure he is not going to do............ whatever...
Simon, that won't be a problem. I can just post a link to this forum.
Problem solved. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 02:50:42 AM
Mr. Chips,
With all do respect, I can freely describe the system and discuss as I see fit. It's not protected.
Why are you afraid of others expressing their views regarding your system?
You have no intention of describing the system in your own words because you have no intention
of understanding the system.
There a number of people here now who have made the effort to understand the system and if they
find any faults in the system they most certainly have my permission to point them out to me.
If it's a major fault and they show me verifiable results, that after 30 sessions Signum is showing
a loss I will close down the website. That is what I call constructive criticism and I will always respond
to it not generalaties about gamblers fallacy.
Mr. Chips,
You have explained your system here. Why are you acting like this????
I won't try explaining it in my own words. I'll simply post a link to it here. Please don't get worked up over this. It's not worth it.
Would that be ok with you?
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 03:16:17 AM
Mr. Chips,
You have explained your system here. Why are you acting like this????
I won't try explaining it in my own words. I'll simply post a link to it here. Please don't get worked up over this. It's not worth it.
Would that be ok with you?
The place to criticise Signum is on this forum. I am the author of the contents of the website and I am
happy for it to be discussed in detail here only. I will not be going on any other forum.
Making any sort of remarks about Signum outside of this forum is frankly pointless, as I am the person
obviously best able to respond to any criticism.
What also you seem to overlook is that people here are not stupid, as you seem to infer by trying to save
them money by not using Signum. If it's a load of rubbish they will soon voice their opinion having tested
the system for themselves. Also I have stressed don't use real money until you fully understand the system.
As I have said the method I use for roulette purposes has other applications as well, which I won't go into
here, so even out of curiosity and the mathematicians I know are intensly curious people, just take a
proper look at the website and then ask me specific questions about it, that is constructive criticism.
Then it's ok to post the link to the system on the math and physics forum?
Great :thumbsup:
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 03:44:21 AM
Then it's ok to post the link to the system on the math and physics forum?
Great :thumbsup:
No one can object to a link. What maths and physics forum?
Dear Landis.
First of all when you write and try to argue and make an attempt to criticise you get on the wrong road when you do so.
Because your statements are all wrong and the basic knowledge that you think you have is not having an basic foundation based upon math, probability and statistics.
If you had this knowledge you could make an attempt to make constructive criticism and argue and make you point clear for every one to read and learn from.
Here is some facts that you can not escape from and that any one that is familiar with science or statistics will tell you is the truth.
You say that an event always remain independent "has no memory" and that past outcomes does not effect future outcomes.
They are not connected.
I believe that all members will agree with you and this is an basic, common view that every one learn or being told that this is the truth behind an independent spin or distribution of events.
Now I can tell you that there exist an conflict that dictates otherwise regarding the common view above.
There is not many who have this knowledge because there is not so many who know how to apply math, probability and statistics the correct, proper way following certain laws that exist and has been proven by sciences.
For you to understand the following you have to have an open mind and let it all in.
Forget all about what you read about patterns or clustering.
Here the measuring only give singles events with any length certain values and the same goes for series with any length certain values.
Here you have the same amount of both and 50/50 situation.
Then there is an distribution where the random outcome produce singles and series.
They come in short and long waves and jump up and down or hovering when you observe them.
There is balance and imbalance and even distribution.
I want go into details the many different ways you can apply an value for this events or how you can measuring them.
This is the conflict and the significant change that exist regarding an distribution with random events that produce singles and series.
When there occur an imbalance and it reach an std of 3.0 or higher there is significant proof that it will at some point find it way down and get weaker and that is always the case and no laws or science can change that.
Now then how can an distribution be independent if this is the case?
Well the truth is that if you get an strong imbalance that hit an std of 3.5 or 4.5 it can grow.
Once in world history there has grow with an std of 5.49.
Then it can stay at this state and hovering or get weaker or start to jump up and down.
But that we know will always happens is that it will get weaker and find its way down.
It can go slow or fast or hovering is way down and can go back to back.
But the fact remains it will always find its way down and you and no one else can change that.
Then its an different story how to take advantage of this knowledge and apply an method to capture this facts.
Take care with affection.
LS
Quote from: Mr Chips on November 15, 2009, 02:26:42 AM
To the Administrators,
This Landis, probably herb/snowman is only here for one purpose and that is to disrupt this forum.
He has done it before and as soon as a system gets any real interest and people start to show any
favourable results he will do his best to undermine it in some way.
He has no intention of making any constructive criticism, but will habitually quote gamblers fallacy
and will try to convince yourselves that his criticisms are valid and he hopes to subvert the author
of the system and in Winkels case his G.U.T strategy.
Both Winkel and myself have been down this road before and speaking for myself I will not put up
with it.
Regards
Richard
Hi Mr Chips.
Mate We can't stop people from having opinions...Let alone stop people from voicing their opininions in their own Topics.
And Landis is the Author of this Topic.
And as frustrating as it may seem to You,He has been polite about it all so therefore I can't see where the Administrators or Mods can do a thing about it.
If He was interrupting Your thread with a post....all You have to do is press Report to Moderator and We will take things from there.
Now as for the Legality of if He can post Your Method elsewhere....that is something that You both will have to fight out to find who is right or who is wrong.
Once again I don't see where We as Mods have any rights to get involved with that as it appears to Me at least to be a Legal Issue.
QuoteThere a number of people here now who have made the effort to understand the system and if they
find any faults in the system they most certainly have my permission to point them out to me.
If it's a major fault and they show me verifiable results, that after 30 sessions Signum is showing
a loss I will close down the website. That is what I call constructive criticism and I will always respond
to it not generalaties about gamblers fallacy.
Richard My Friend I think that with that Statement from You....
That people who are reading this thread would now require a Put up or shut Up answer to it....
You have now virtually said "prove Me wrong".
I wish You all the best.
Lanky.
Quote from: simon on November 15, 2009, 12:38:30 AM
........ what is that supposed to accomplish? I'm sure a physics forum would have no interest in the system or even roulette for that matter, and it is an insult to Mr. Chips to post his system at gg which is ridiculous, do you really need opinions from people at gg to help you decide if Mr. Chips system has any merit or not? Why don't you just decide for yourself if it's worth spending any time with or not and if you think it's worthless and other people want to spend time with it that's their problem. I'm sure we could find plenty of people, at your physics forum, math forum and/or anywhere, that would say gambling and roulette and anything you have to offer as well are a waste of time too. Mr. Chips decided to post his system and advise people about it here, not at gg. It is not your business to post it at gg. that is a rather obnoxious thing to do and will accomplish nothing, maybe you should just hang out there and keep having the same conversation over and over again that they've had there for years: 1) post anything; 2) get bashed for being a system seller; 3) repeat, ad nauseum.
His system has already been bagged in GG so what thep point of putting it there anyway they wil lend up bagging the system and Richard as well they have plenty of form on the forum to go by so it wont acheive anything
next hvn will be trying to sell it on ebay. in my experience it is a waste of time to check roulette systems with mathematitians and people outside these forums because many people do not gamble or play roulette and when I tried discussing a system that I found to be particularly interesting with a mathematitian with no experience playing roulette it just ended up taking too much time explaining the game and bets, even though it seems simple to us roulette fanatics. I paid a math major at a prestigious university who was advertising tutoring services for an hour of his time to look at a roulette system I was very interested in (my own-- still a work in progress) and it was a waste of time and money because he was not familiar with playing roulette and I ended up getting much more and better information about it for free from persons at this forum.
I doubt that anyone at a "physics forum" or even a math forum would have much interest in studying Richard's system (persons with advanced education in physics, math, science and engineering, their interest in roulette if any would probably lean toward the Euadaemonic Pie strategies, not Mr. Chips strategies, I would think.) but, if there are people in physics and math forums who are willing to take a hard look at Richard's methodology, I guess that would be a good thing to know what they think, if they are willing to study the system.
Lanky, xman, Victor.
No one objects to having opinions, but they are quite different from general criticisms directed
at a particular system or strategy, as they are not constructive criticisms.
I could have the opinion, that simple systems will not work in the long term and anyone who
posts such a gamblers fallacy is wasting their time. OK I have not directed my opinion against
any particular system. I could however pick on a simple system, that a Member has posted and
direct my "opinions" solely against his system and make the sort of remarks under the current
rules of the forum that would not get me banned, but the person on the receiving end would be
in no doubt that I am making things difficult for him and he is just as likely to call it a day and
leave.
I left once before because the Administrators refused to stop the disruptive nonsense, that was
going on at the time, mainly against Winkel and myself and history is repeating itself.
Victor you have repeatedly asked for everyone to be friendly towards other members and for
that to happen requires strict ground rules.
I did return to this forum, as the rules were tightened up and over the past few months this
has been an excellent forum in which to have a friendly debate about various gambling subjects.
You must decide whether you want a friendly, productive forum or slide back and let in trouble
makers for that is their intended purpose.
Constructive criticism yes specifically about certain details of a system or strategy.
Repetitive general comments directed at a system or strategy no.
I hope we will get back to a productive forum again.
Regards
Richard
Richard,
My only hope is that you do not lose track of the very simple fact that many members of this forum are grateful for your sharing of ideas. I for one do not need proof that something like a 'gambling method' works or does not work for an individual. I am a grown man. I have a brain and I can think for myself and do my own testing. It is entirely up to me to either put forth the effort to test the method and draw my own conclusions or not.
The bottom line is I do not know if your method will work for me or if it will not. I have not put forth the effort required to test the approach. Once I do I will form my conclusions and not one second before.
Thanks for all your effort.
Innovcon
The truth is that neither Mr Chips or Winkel's G.U.T strategy have ever been stated in a simple step by step form that is easy enough to understand. I challenge anyone to make these instructions known. I'm sure there could be simulations created to test for the real research needed to prove their worth. I would make my attempt to program them both. I would also make the source code available for these sims also. If they really do well then they would be ground breaking. They have not been properly discussed at GG. If they had, others would be able to explain them.
Why are they so difficult to explain? :o
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 15, 2009, 02:35:13 PM
The truth is that neither Mr Chips or Winkel's G.U.T strategy have ever been stated in a simple step by step form that is easy enough to understand. I challenge anyone to make these instructions known. I'm sure there could be simulations created to test for the real research needed to prove their worth. I would make my attempt to program them both. I would also make the source code available for these sims also. If they really do well then they would be ground breaking. They have not been properly discussed at GG. If they had, others would be able to explain them.
Why are they so difficult to explain? :o
There are a growing number of members here who do understand Signum. It has been designed for
human beings to play and use all the information, that becomes available in a session.
Any so called simulation would be worthless, as I am sure those who understand the system would
agree.
You people over at GG don't discuss anything, as far as I can see, just insult each other and ridicule
ideas and systems. What you all gain from such pointless, worthless, timewasting nonsense is
beyond me.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 15, 2009, 02:35:13 PM
The truth is that neither Mr Chips or Winkel's G.U.T strategy have ever been stated in a simple step by step form that is easy enough to understand. I challenge anyone to make these instructions known. I'm sure there could be simulations created to test for the real research needed to prove their worth. I would make my attempt to program them both. I would also make the source code available for these sims also. If they really do well then they would be ground breaking. They have not been properly discussed at GG. If they had, others would be able to explain them.
Why are they so difficult to explain? :o
This shows your ignorance.
I made some
Iron rules which KonFuSed used to program G.U.T and he made a html-sheet which can be downloaded.
You didn´t read it, not even notice it.
But simply coding it, would need that it is "math-system" which GUT isn´t.
That you think a HG-Strategy could be formed in "simple words and rules" shows that do don´t know nothing about roulette.
I agree with Mr Chips' comments regarding constructive vs general criticism. It seems pretty clear that "Landis" is Herb. Why isn't he posting using "Herb"? was Herb banned?
Landis wrote:
QuoteActually it's very simple to prove that it can't work.
Landis,
Why single out Mr Chips and the signum system? the kind of proof you have in mind is the simple expectation/house edge proof which would apply to
any system or method posted here other than VB. Your only reason for being here is to stir things up and cause trouble.
QuoteYou people over at GG don't discuss anything, as far as I can see, just insult each other and ridicule
ideas and systems. What you all gain from such pointless, worthless, timewasting nonsense is
beyond me.
Some of us interested in systems are interested enough to spend long hours understanding them. I have not been able to figure out your charting system.
I think it is a GG-Attack to this forum, because they got bored by themselves over there just telling themselves over and over again: nothing works.
Quote from: Winkel on November 15, 2009, 03:15:03 PM
This shows your ignorance.
I made some Iron rules which KonFuSed used to program G.U.T and he made a html-sheet which can be downloaded.
You didn´t read it, not even notice it.
But simply coding it, would need that it is "math-system" which GUT isn´t.
That you think a HG-Strategy could be formed in "simple words and rules" shows that do don´t know nothing about roulette.
I know far more than you do. You can go ahead and administrate the most complex algorithm you want to. All you have to do is have the integrity to explain each line until it is known, conforms to your standards, and is understood so that communication is the only thing on trial. Understanding your concepts is the only travesty here. It's never been personal. You have always presented your method as a defense reaction. You are still insulting me. I have the patience to program all the fine details. It's the only way I can understand your system.
So what you're saying is that since I disagree with his wild claims, I shouldn't post?
Understand this.... Ignorance builds on ignorance. You can't build a house with bad blue prints.
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 03:52:42 PM
Understand this.... Ignorance builds on ignorance. You can't build a house with bad blue prints.
That´s right! I builded my ingnorance on yours! :laugh:
What about your bad blue prints of "nothing works"
Quote from: Mr Chips on November 15, 2009, 02:51:47 PM
Any so called simulation would be worthless, as I am sure those who understand the system would agree.
The simulation would be anything but worthless since it would allow anyone to conduct automated tests over as many actuals/days/years they wish instead of having to spend months hand-testing.
You seem sort of reluctant to the idea of coding and testing the system over significant sample sizes. I could be wrong.
Tangram,
You're right though, there is a great deal of bad blue prints on the forum.
Actually somethings do work.
I'll post a blue print sometime soon called, "Guidelines for Evaluating Systems."
Quote from: Marven on November 15, 2009, 03:57:12 PM
The simulation would be anything but worthless since it would allow anyone to conduct automated tests over as many actuals/days/years they wish instead of having to spend months hand-testing.
You seem sort of reluctant to the idea of coding and testing the system over significant sample sizes. I could be wrong.
You conveniently left out the 1st quote:
QuoteThere are a growing number of members here who do understand Signum. It has been designed
for human beings to play and use all the information, that becomes available in a session
I will repeat it a 3rd time in case it doesn't register
Quoteuse all the information, that becomes available in a session
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 04:07:49 PM
Actually somethings do work.
I'll post a blue print sometime soon called, "Guidelines for Evaluating Systems."
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/the-dark-side/system-facts-like-it-or-not/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/the-dark-side/system-facts-like-it-or-not/)
:D
Congratulations Administrators Welcome to GG HELL version2
Winkel has made his points very clear. I had no difficulty understanding his explanation. In fact I agree with what he is saying. It's not a game. We talked for a while and I understood it. This is not an attack on my part from GG. Perhaps phantoms in the ether are blocking your vision.?
I would still love an explanation that I can find that explains the use of "M's" in Mr Chips charts. I promise to play nice. If so many people understand it then why not a simple explanation.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 15, 2009, 04:22:54 PM
Winkel has made his points very clear. I had no difficulty understanding his explanation. In fact I agree with what he is saying. It's not a game. We talked for a while and I understood it. This is not an attack on my part from GG. Perhaps phantoms in the ether are blocking your vision.?
I would still love an explanation that I can find that explains the use of "M's" in Mr Chips charts. I promise to play nice. If so many people understand it then why not a simple explanation.
As you say "if so many people understand it". Well they are posting results in the Signum thread and you
don't have to be the sharpest knife in the draw to suppose they also understand the system.
As they put themselves out to understand it, what makes you so different or should we draw our
own conclusions. You can post freely we are currently in GG HELL
Quote from: Mr Chips on November 15, 2009, 04:32:47 PM
As you say "if so many people understand it". Well they are posting results in the Signum thread and you
don't have to be the sharpest knife in the draw to suppose they also understand the system.
As they put themselves out to understand it, what makes you so different or should we draw our
own conclusions. You can post freely we are currently in GG HELL
OK, fine, what page of that endless thread is the explanation of the "M's" on? I'm just guessing here but how many had trouble discovering the basic concept of the "M's."
We all got suckered into that Matrix stuff posted by Ipsolorum, Artenvivo. At this point I see no difference in the mystery of the allusive "m's" explanation. At some point you may say it was all a joke, something I'm guilty of. But others think you are afraid to show what you got. Perhaps you deserve this thread even if I never get to that allusive grasp.
Mr. Chips,
The sky is not falling. This is not GG, even though you have Spike, Gizmo, and Jame Wendall all here.
Mr. Chips,
Here's the big problem with your system.
The results of any one play of the game do not "influence" the results of any other play of the game. Therefore regardless of the "P" or "M" count, the odds of red or black hitting remain 18/37. You can not side step probability just because you're tracking the number of times the red or black have hit in the past.
-Landis
Quote from: Landis on November 15, 2009, 08:28:05 PM
Mr. Chips,
Here's the big problem with your system.
The results of any one play of the game do not "influence" the results of any other play of the game. Therefore regardless of the "P" or "M" count, the odds of red or black hitting remain 18/37. You can not side step probability just because you're tracking the number of times the red or black have hit in the past.
-Landis
not a bit of intelligence influences your thinking and writing.
Doctrine of the Maturity of the Chances
...be used in interpreting the phrase on average, which applies most accurately to a large number of cases and is not useful in individual instances. A common gamblers' fallacy, called the doctrine of the maturity of the chances (or the Monte-Carlo fallacy), falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is dependent on the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be... (Source Encyclopedia Brittanica)
The Gambler's Fallacy and its sibling, the Hot Hand Fallacy, have two distinctions that can be claimed of no other fallacies:
They have built a city in the desert: Las Vegas.
They are the economic mainstay of Monaco, an entire, albeit tiny, country, from which we get the alias "Monte Carlo" fallacy.
Both fallacies are based on the same mistake, namely, a failure to understand statistical independence. Two events are statistically independent when the occurrence of one has no statistical effect upon the occurrence of the other. Statistical independence is connected to the notion of randomness in the following way: what makes a sequence random is that its members are statistically independent of each other. For instance, a list of random numbers is such that one cannot predict better than chance any member of the list based upon a knowledge of the other list members.
To understand statistical independence, try the following experiment. Predict the next member of each of the two following sequences:
2, 3, 5, 7, __
1, 8, 6, 7, __
The first is the beginning of the sequence of prime numbers. The second is a random sequence gathered from the last digits of the first four numbers in a phone book. The first sequence is non-random, and predictable if one knows the way that it is generated. The second sequence is random and unpredictable—unless, of course, you look in the phone book, but that is not prediction, that is just looking at the sequence—because there is no underlying pattern to the sequence of last digits of telephone numbers in a phone book. The numbers in the second sequence are statistically independent.
Many gambling games are based upon randomly-generated, statistically independent sequences, such as the series of numbers generated by a roulette wheel, or by throws of unloaded dice. A fair coin produces a random sequence of "heads" or "tails", that is, each flip of the coin is statistically independent of all the other flips. This is what is meant by saying that the coin is "fair", namely, that it is not biased in such a way as to produce a predictable sequence.
Consider the Example: If the roulette wheel at the Casino was fair, then the probability of the ball landing on black was a little less than one-half on any given turn of the wheel. Also, since the wheel is fair, the colors that come up are statistically independent of one another, thus no matter how many times the ball has fallen on black, the probability is still the same. If it were possible to predict one color from others, then the wheel would not be a good randomizer. Remember that neither a roulette wheel nor the ball has a memory.
Every gambling "system" is based on this fallacy, or its Sibling. Any gambler who thinks that he can record the results of a roulette wheel, or the throws at a craps table, or lotto numbers, and use this information to predict future outcomes is probably committing some form of the gambler's fallacy. (Source nolinks://nolinks.fallacyfiles.org/gamblers.html (nolinks://nolinks.fallacyfiles.org/gamblers.html) )
Based on the above articles, it's easy to see why both the GUT and Signum System EC B& R can't work because both of them are dependent on previous spins effecting future spins.
Both systems clearly have faulty blue prints.
-Landis
Quote from: Landis on November 16, 2009, 02:57:34 PM
Based on the above articles, it's easy to see why both the GUT and Signum System EC B& R can't work because both of them are dependent on previous spins effecting future spins.
Both systems clearly have faulty blue prints.
-Landis
To bad they aren't smart like me. My premise for bet selection is based on previous spins NOT effecting future spins. It's based on the exact science of confirming coincidence after it has happened.
QuoteI have never had a discussion of randomness that has not had to deal with someone that insists that my concepts can't predict what will happen. They never get it when I agree with them. Only they hang themselves up on the need for predictability.
As far as I can see it sure looks like Landis is looking for a fight. This became clear after attacking various members on this forum.
Landis, believe what you like. These members have all the right to post their systems here and share it FOR FREE. Now have you tried Winkels's GUT? Have you tried Mr. Chip's Signum system? If you have, have you confirmed with them that you have played it correctly?
Landis my friend. To critisize is one thing but to look for fights is a totally different kettle of fish. I am totally sick of people disrupting other's work. Mr. Chips and Winkel have both gone to extraordinary efforts to share their methods for free. I take my hat off and salute you guys. To you though Landis. Keep it civil and if you are only planning to be disruptive.....then there is no place here for you.
Cheers
Jakk
Quote from: Jakkalsdraai on November 16, 2009, 03:33:22 PM
As far as I can see it sure looks like Landis is looking for a fight. This became clear after attacking various members on this forum.
Landis, believe what you like. These members have all the right to post their systems here and share it FOR FREE. Now have you tried Winkels's GUT? Have you tried Mr. Chip's Signum system? If you have, have you confirmed with them that you have played it correctly?
Landis my friend. To critisize is one thing but to look for fights is a ttally different kettle of fish. I am totally sick of people disrupting other's work. Mr. Chips and Winkel have botrh gone to extraordinary efforts to share their methods for free. I take my hat off and salute you guys. To you though Landis. Keep it civil and if you are only planning to be disruptive.....then there is no place here for you.
Cheers
Jakk
Exactly, thank you for making it clear to Landis. We are not interested in confrontation, it serves no
purpose and is a complete waste of time.
I hope the Administrators take note of this post, as I am sure the majority of members here agree with it.
Regards
Richard
No, I'm not looking for a fight.
I just wanted to correct some of the blunders.
Mr. Chips Signum system does not and can not work. I've read it, and it immediately became obvious to me that he's relying on previous spins to effect future outcomes. As every encyclopedia and mathematician will tell you, each spin in roulette has no connection to past spins. Keeping tracking of how many times the red or black have hit will not change the odds of them hitting on the next spins. Therefore the odds of either red or black hitting remains 18/37 and the house edge remains 2.7% (These facts are published on the internet, cited in books on probability and statistics, and can easily be found in just about every encyclopedia out there.)
Regarding Winkels system. Winkel now admits that it doesn't change the house edge and that it's not a long term winner, since it also does not change the odds of numbers hitting on the next spin.
Unless someone speaks up occasionally, people will continue to build systems based on faulty blue prints.
By the way, you'll notice that I've gone out of my way to be polite to these guys, despite the name calling that they have participated in on a regular basis.
The purpose of the posts are to learn from past mistakes instead of building on blunders.
-Landis
I will post rules for building and evaluating more effective systems sometime soon.
Building systems based on bad information is causing you guys to walk in circles. You're reinventing the gambler's fallacy on a daily basis, only with different names. The guide should help you out.
I suppose it depends on how you look at past results mate.
Do you agree that if the balance on red and black are 43% black 57% red that black will even out with red?
Do you agree that so called advantage techniques use past spins to calculate (in their words) the physics in predicting future events.
What you would want people to believe is that a wheel effectively could go through 10 mil spins and have 65% Red and 35% black after these 10 mil spins? You agree that this is not the case? Do you admit that results even out?
Cheers
Jakk
Quote from: Landis on November 16, 2009, 03:57:54 PM
I will post rules for building and evaluating more effective systems sometime soon.
Building systems based on bad information is causing you guys to walk in circles. You're reinventing the gambler's fallacy on a daily basis, only with different names. The guide should help you out.
Try to comprehend this:
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 16, 2009, 02:31:25 PM
So I use coincidence to establish a bet selection premise. Situational awareness comes from observation of the current conditions that exist, irregardless of the long term nature that exists too. Then the situation can be evaluated for each spin as they happen. The effectiveness of the premise can be evaluated at the same time too. At no time has predictability ever been factored. Yet, I have never had a discussion of randomness that has not had to deal with someone that insists that my concepts can't predict what will happen. They never get it when I agree with them. Only they hang themselves up on the need for predictability. So, Marven, you are one of the very few really smart people that discuss Roulette. Coming from me, that might not be a good thing to be. I'm crazy with all my concepts and beliefs after all.
QuoteDo you agree that if the balance on red and black are 43% black 57% red that black will even out with red?
The red and black fluctuation will occur until the end of time. You can not expect them to equalize in a way that will enable you to profit. There is no law of averages, only the law of large numbers. If you do more research on it you will understand that it's not possible to take advantage of any imbalance and profit since roulette is a game of independent outcomes. This means even if black hit 50 times in a row, the odds of red/black hitting is still just 18/37.
QuoteDo you agree that so called advantage techniques use past spins to calculate (in their words) the physics in predicting future events.
Visual ballistic and computer ballistics are using the physics of the wheel to predict the outcome by using meaningful observations. Past observations enable the user to determine the most common ball bounce, and other factors that can be used to calculate where the ball will likely impact the wheel. You can not equate observations in the outcomes of the random game with the
relevant observations of the gambling device.
QuoteWhat you would want people to believe is that a wheel effectively could go through 10 mil spins and have 65% Red and 35% black after these 10 mil spins? You agree that this is not the case? Do you admit that results even out?
Again, regardless of the past results, the odds of red/ black hitting on the next spin remains 18/37.
Cheers.
I've attached an article for you to study below. It's bascially about the maturity of chances aka gambler's fallacy.
Please study the article below to learn more.
-Landis.
-----------------------------------
Exposition:
The Gambler's Fallacy and its sibling, the Hot Hand Fallacy, have two distinctions that can be claimed of no other fallacies:
They have built a city in the desert: Las Vegas.
They are the economic mainstay of Monaco, an entire, albeit tiny, country, from which we get the alias "Monte Carlo" fallacy.
Both fallacies are based on the same mistake, namely, a failure to understand statistical independence. Two events are statistically independent when the occurrence of one has no statistical effect upon the occurrence of the other. Statistical independence is connected to the notion of randomness in the following way: what makes a sequence random is that its members are statistically independent of each other. For instance, a list of random numbers is such that one cannot predict better than chance any member of the list based upon a knowledge of the other list members.
To understand statistical independence, try the following experiment. Predict the next member of each of the two following sequences:
2, 3, 5, 7, __
1, 8, 6, 7, __
The first is the beginning of the sequence of prime numbers. The second is a random sequence gathered from the last digits of the first four numbers in a phone book. The first sequence is non-random, and predictable if one knows the way that it is generated. The second sequence is random and unpredictable—unless, of course, you look in the phone book, but that is not prediction, that is just looking at the sequence—because there is no underlying pattern to the sequence of last digits of telephone numbers in a phone book. The numbers in the second sequence are statistically independent.
Many gambling games are based upon randomly-generated, statistically independent sequences, such as the series of numbers generated by a roulette wheel, or by throws of unloaded dice. A fair coin produces a random sequence of "heads" or "tails", that is, each flip of the coin is statistically independent of all the other flips. This is what is meant by saying that the coin is "fair", namely, that it is not biased in such a way as to produce a predictable sequence.
Consider the Example: If the roulette wheel at the Casino was fair, then the probability of the ball landing on black was a little less than one-half on any given turn of the wheel. Also, since the wheel is fair, the colors that come up are statistically independent of one another, thus no matter how many times the ball has fallen on black, the probability is still the same. If it were possible to predict one color from others, then the wheel would not be a good randomizer. Remember that neither a roulette wheel nor the ball has a memory.
Every gambling "system" is based on this fallacy, or its Sibling. Any gambler who thinks that he can record the results of a roulette wheel, or the throws at a craps table, or lotto numbers, and use this information to predict future outcomes is probably committing some form of the gambler's fallacy.
Sibling Fallacy: The Hot Hand Fallacy
Source:
A. R. Lacey, Dictionary of Philosophy (Third Revised Edition), (Barnes & Noble, 1996).
Resources:
Julian Baggini, "The Gambler's Fallacy", Bad Moves, 11/19/2004
Colin Bruce, "The Case of the Gambling Nobleman", in Conned Again, Watson! Cautionary Tales of Logic, Math, and Probability (Perseus, 2002). This is a Sherlock Holmes short story which explains clearly and entertainingly why the Gambler's Fallacy is fallacious.
Robert Todd Carroll, "The Gambler's Fallacy", Skeptic's Dictionary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q&A:
Q: Isn't there a sort-of fallacy embedded in the form of the gambler's fallacy, which is that it depends on the gambling device being "fair", something which (I submit) is technically unknowable and at best inferred through a series of trials? Put another way, while it is a fallacy to expect something other than a chance outcome for the next trial on a fair gambling device, I don't think it's a fallacy to expect a different-from-chance outcome on an unfair device. What if the actual reasoning that occurs "in the wild" and at Vegas is something like this?
P: A series of events has occurred which would be highly-improbable if the device is fair.
C: The device is (probably) not fair.
―David A. Ventimiglia
A: You're right that we test randomizers for fairness primarily through trials, but that's not the only consideration. A die will be a good randomizer if it's a cube and evenly weighted, which can be tested by direct measurement. However, it isn't necessary that it be perfect. No physical randomizer will ever be perfectly fair; for instance, no die will ever be perfectly symmetrical or absolutely evenly weighted. As with other mathematical laws―as well as scientific laws in general, and even the laws of logic―the laws of probability apply to the physical world only approximately. But if a randomizer approximates fairness closely enough, then the gambler's fallacy is, indeed, fallacious. So, to be perfectly precise, the form of the fallacy should be expressed in the following way:
An approximately fair gambling device has produced a "run".
Therefore, on the next trial of the device, it is significantly less likely than chance to continue the run.
There was a famous "man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo" who studied the roulette wheels in the casino and discovered that one seemed to favor certain numbers. By betting those numbers, the man was able to amass a small fortune. When the casino realized what he was doing, it switched the roulette wheels around at night while the casino was closed, and the man began to lose heavily. Nowadays, you can bet that casinos around the world have learned the lesson, which is why there has been no "man who broke the bank" since the 19th century.
However, consider how the man who broke the bank reasoned: Certain numbers on the wheel had come up more often than expected. Therefore, the man bet on those numbers! According to the Gambler's Fallacy, he should have bet against them because it was the other numbers on the wheel that were overdue. Rather than the Gambler's Fallacy, his reasoning actually took the form of its sibling, the Hot Hand Fallacy; that is, he bet that the run would continue.
In cases such as the Monte Carlo one, it may be reasonable to conclude that a gambling device is not fair based upon a highly improbable series of results. In those rare cases, the Hot Hand form of argument is not fallacious. The Gambler's Fallacy, in contrast, always is.
I must question my sanity for jumping into this fray.............
Jakk posed the question: "Do you agree that if the balance on red and black are 43% black 57% red that black will even out with red?"
I am not math guy, but I've read a couple of books on the subject of roulette, craps and Baccarat. I have read books on probability as it applies to roulette and random numbers. That is my pedigree......
Now to the question. No, they do not have to even out. Not ever. They probably will, but probably is very close to probability. In fact, over millions of spins, the actual numerical distance between red and black may decrease but there is no law dictating it must. While I agree with R.D. Ellison that there is a "statistical pressure" for them to conform, they don't have to.
Then there is the time constraint. How long should we give red and black to equalize? How many trials? Or should we be like the famous Al Gore recount theory: We stop the count when Al is one vote ahead!
I'm bored. Jump all over me. Someone start a fight. I need the exercise! :threaten:
Sam
A great place to start would be for you to read on the "law of large numbers and the "gambler's fallacy."
QuoteMr. Chips Signum system does not and can not work. I've read it, and it immediately became obvious to me that he's relying on previous spins to effect future outcomes.
Landis,
The problem I have is with that word "effect" (actually, I think it should be "
affect", meaning - to influence). I don't think anyone seriously believes that past decisions
affect future outcomes in the way that the trajectory of a ball affects (influences) where the ball will eventually land, as the gambler's fallacy seems to be saying. The reason why people look at past outcomes as a possible aid to making future decisions is because the distribution of outcomes have characteristics which can be exploited. To use a simplistic example, observation (and theory) tells you that an even chance streak of 8 will occur much less often than a streak of 3, and under certain circumstances it can be advantageous to use this information. You may also notice that events and patterns don't repeat themselves endlessly in a given sequence of outcomes, and this
observation may also be used to good effect. There is no "cause and affect" in operation here, simply the noticing of certain tendencies.
Actually, the way the gambler's fallacy is stated is, I believe, itself a fallacy - an example of
post hoc ergo propter hoc: "after this, therefore because of this". The fallacy has to do with causality, and it has this structure:
A occurred before B, therefore A caused BAs in the joke: "Why are you whistling?" "To keep the Tigers away." "But there aren't any Tigers around here."
"See, it works!".
Regarding "effect" and "affect" I frequently interchange the two when I'm typing quickly. It's nothing more than a typo. Believe it or not, I sometimes make typos when typing as well as the occasional spelling eRor
QuoteThe reason why people look at past outcomes as a possible aid to making future decisions is because the distribution of outcomes have characteristics which can be exploited. To use a simplistic example, observation (and theory) tells you that an even chance streak of 8 will occur much less often than a streak of 3, and under certain circumstances it can be advantageous to use this information. You may also notice that events and patterns don't repeat themselves endlessly in a given sequence of outcomes, and this observation may also be used to good effect. There is no "cause and affect" in operation here, simply the noticing of certain tendencies
There's nothing that you can exploit in the random game that will enable you to gain the edge. The odds of a streak occurring are exactly as they should be according to probability. The observation of the streak or streaks do not change the odds of them occurring. For example: A streak of 8 reds has just occurred. The odds of another red occurring on the next spin remains 18/37 for an unfair payoff of just 35 to 1. The house edge remains intact. Understand?
Below is a link to help you learn more.
nolinks://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/fallacy.html (nolinks://wizardofodds.com/askthewizard/fallacy.html)
Here is something I don't understand. The Signum website states " Roulette is considered a game of chance and the Signum system, when fully understood will make it a game of skill, turning the casino advantage in favour of the player. "
O.K. so are you saying that if I was playing red or black at my local casino and I bet against what the Signum strategy would suggest, then the odds for me are worse than 18/37?
If you are saying this, then does that mean the casino are wrong in their game odds that they display at the casino?
Landis,
I said nothing about the odds changing because of past outcomes, neither did I suggest that anything is "due". This is just a restating of the "cause and affect" argument. You just don't get it, and I don't think you ever will because you're not willing to suspend your disbelief for long enough to actually give it a try - and then try again when you fail (which you will). I have no need to understand anything more about the gambler's fallacy. I've known about it for years and have (thankfully) ignored it for years.
But keep up the good work anyway! ;D
Quote from: Landis on November 16, 2009, 05:16:52 PM
...The observation of the streak or streaks do not change the odds of them occurring.
Congratulations, now keep it in mind. The observation of streaks don't cause them to happen either. The observation of streaks don't make them continue either.
The observation of Standard Deviation does not cause them to happen either. The observation of relevance to large numbers does not cause streaks to happen. Landis flapping his mantra on a gambling forum does not prevent others from seeing streaks continue either.
VB causes math Nazis to have blind spots based on none relevant math basics. They have such inadequacies that they think they are clever when they actually bore everyone.
Landis did start his own thread for the purpose critiquing, and aside from an initial condescending tone, he has kept it a clean fight from his corner, and what may develop from the discussion could be quite interesting and useful for a lot of members.
The topic name is probably a bit contentious. Perhaps it should be a 'criticism of systems in general', with specific systems then included in the thread.
That said it could also be seen as a bit of an old chestnut...
Landis, can you prove that luck exsist??
Maybe these systmes or startegy open lucky dimension.
How many people belives in luck but can they prove it?
Quote from: GogoCro on November 16, 2009, 07:17:05 PM
Landis, can you prove that luck exsist??
Maybe these systmes or startegy open lucky dimension.
How many people belives in luck but can they prove it?
Hey, GogoCro.
Can we use this as a rule in your possible HG thread?
Rule 5) System must be lucky!
Haha...
What about the general notion that you create your own luck?
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 16, 2009, 07:38:05 PM
What about the general notion that you create your own luck?
I strongly believe luck is a universal commodity, and the entire human race is constantly making deposits and withdrawals.
It's the bloody deposits that stuff it up for most people. You deposit some bad luck, and in a moment of weakness, I come along and withdraw it!
We can sell luck on ebay, varius packing size.
-Bambus , rule 5) Player must be lucky (not system)
I think the biggest problem at hand is the failure of many people to grasp basic probability.
Sometime soon I will post some general guidelines for evaluating systems.
The biggest problem so far on this forum is most of the systems are unfortunately built with bad blue prints. Yes,
I'm talking about the gambler's fallacy.
Is it possible to build systems and methods that aren't built upon the gambler's fallacy?
The answer is YES. (And NO, I'm not trying to sell something.)
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fimg199.imageshack.us%2Fimg199%2F1607%2Froflbothitl.jpg&hash=ef85727a4e6fb3f4af1782fbf3cd96d0a69562cb)
Quote from: GogoCro on November 16, 2009, 07:55:23 PM
We can sell luck on ebay, varius packing size.
-Bambus , rule 5) Player must be lucky (not system)
@ Gocrowitonamountain
Ok, but will there be a 'buy it now' option?
Landis,
QuoteIs it possible to build systems and methods that aren't built upon the gambler's fallacy?
Suppose I study 100,000 actuals and find that long runs don't occur nearly as often as theory predicts. A run of 13 blacks is more improbable than it should be, so having seen 12 blacks in a row, I'm going to bet red. Am I committing the gambler's fallacy?
Yes :D
Tangram
Suppose I study 100,000 actuals and find that long runs don't occur nearly as often as theory predicts.
..you wrote and the blue is mine, of course.
I understand the word "suppose" puts your whole question in the realm of supposition and not reality, I just don't understand why. In reality, will there ever be a time when the wheel does not confirm to probability, assuming a fair and balanced wheel?
But to answer the question, no you would not be buying into the GF as we know it. You would be exploiting something, although I don't know what.
Sam
You would be betting with the erroneous belief that you had a better than 18 in 37 chance of winning. In a way, absolutely every method, including VB is fallacious.
While we try to catch something possible there is always one who claims it is impossible.
QuoteI understand the word "suppose" puts your whole question in the realm of supposition and not reality, I just don't understand why. In reality, will there ever be a time when the wheel does not confirm to probability, assuming
a fair and balanced wheel?
QuoteWhile we try to catch something possible there is always one who claims it is impossible
That's because you're misinterpreting probability. Read more on it and you will understand why.
I'd like to hear Landis' response to my question, I have my own opinion, but I'd like to hear his. :)
No tricks Landis, I'm not trying to catch you out. I'm not sure whether my opinion is correct. I like to know whether you think it's a fallacy or not, and why.
QuoteSuppose I study 100,000 actuals and find that long runs don't occur nearly as often as theory predicts. A run of 13 blacks is more improbable than it should be, so having seen 12 blacks in a row, I'm going to bet red. Am I committing the gambler's fallacy?
The odds of 12 backs in a row is (18/37)^12 before the first spin takes place. On the 13th spin, the odds of red hitting or black hitting remains just 18/37. Unless you have a defective wheel.
Randoness is bIG.
Don't under estimate it.
-Landis
One time I looked at the first 100 spins of a wheel and realized that I had witness a rare event that nobody would likely ever see again.
What are the odds of those first 100 spins having occurred in the exact order in which they did occur?
Put it this way, It's more improbable than 100 reds in a row.
Quote from: Landis on November 17, 2009, 01:34:04 PM
Put it this way, It's more improbable than 100 reds in a row.
Landis
Are you speaking of numerical order, red/black, odd/even or large/small? You only speak of "exact order".
Sam
@ Landis
Odds what you mention is true, but something interesunting is in it.
Let say that was 99 reds in row and odds in next spin is 18/37 will hit red or black.
But WHY is not more such events happen ?? Its always near 50:50 but longer chain is not happen often.
Quote from: Landis on November 17, 2009, 12:13:50 PM
That's because you're misinterpreting probability. Read more on it and you will understand why.
Do you really think and believe, that you are the only one who read about probability?
So did you read about Kolmogorof and Markov? You refused to answer this question since some posts.
and for all:
yes, after 12 red the probability for red or black is 18/37
yes the the probability for 12 red in a row is 18/37^12
BUT
the probability for a 13th red is now 18/37^13
and the probability for black is now 1-(18/37^13)
and the probability for Zero is 1-(1/37^13)
which probability is higher?
simple question and simple answer, but landis refuses to think about that.
this is stochastical correct math-way. and the all-knowing one just ignores it
Although nobody in this forums claims that due to this probability
Black has to come.
The probabilities only apply if you started betting at step one of the 12 reds in a row. If you see 12 reds, then dive in and bet black thinking "I'm sure to win", that is the fallacy because you're not part of that chain of events. You're starting your own chain from step one, or your first bet, which is on black, though feasibly you could easily encounter another 12 reds before black appeared. The odds are always 18/37, betting mechanically you're never more likely to win on one spin than another, regardless of how long you waited or how many outcomes you tracked. Roulette probability is mainly useless. All it does is get people in the red.
Number6,
did I say it would be a good bet to bet on Black?
No I didn´t !
I just told something about the math of probability and said black doesn´t have to show up
and NO: the probability, due to the so called "Law of Great number (better would be: trials)", doesn´t start with my bet, it is always there.
these arguments can go on forever, that's ok I guess but it's too bad the original purpose of this thread is not getting accomplished which is to get the signum system explained, dissected and exposed as being any good or not, but you can't judge a system if you can't understand it, neither should you insult the teacher if you can't follow along with the class (I can't follow it, but apparently others can.)
Quote from: simon on November 18, 2009, 01:07:16 AM
these arguments can go on forever, that's ok I guess but it's too bad the original purpose of this thread is not getting accomplished which is to get the signum system explained, dissected and exposed as being any good or not, but you can't judge a system if you can't understand it, neither should you insult the teacher if you can't follow along with the class (I can't follow it, but apparently others can.)
@simon.
If you can't follow it, then I'm not even going to try...
Quote from: bombus on November 18, 2009, 01:24:25 AM
@simon.
If you can't follow it, then I'm not even going to try...
............. well don't go by me, I'm no genius, you could probably follow it if you tried, I just don't think it's explained well enough for me, I haven't tried real hard to understand it, I just look at it from time to time thinking ok I'll get it next time I check it, but I keep having the same reaction which is.... huh? at this point in time I would like to sneak a plug in (and plea for help) for a system I think will be much easier to follow then the signum system, which is the 2 staking systems at once thread over in Money Management, should any of you smart guys care to check it out, could use some help and your sage opinions over there about it, thanks....
Quoteand for all:
yes, after 12 red the probability for red or black is 18/37
yes the the probability for 12 red in a row is 18/37^12
BUT
the probability for a 13th red is now 18/37^13
and the probability for black is now 1-(18/37^13)
and the probability for Zero is 1-(1/37^13)
which probability is higher?
Sorry Winkel, but you are wrong. After 12 reds have just hit, the odds of a 13th red hitting just after 12 of them have already hit is still just 18/37. The odds of black hitting are also just 18/37. You need to read more on basic probability.
A great website to learn more is the wizardofodds.com
Rare events happen every day at the roulette table. Take the first 100 spins. Does anyone realize how rare of an event they are? Before the very first spin, the odds of those numbers having hit in the exact order in which they did is for more unlikely than just 100 reds or blacks in a row. The odds that you will see those numbers occur in that exact order again are 1/37^100. Amazing! The odds of 100 reds in a row is only 18/37^100. You could also tell people that you have witnessed something as rare as 100 reds in a row by showing them the pattern of the red and black during the first hundred spins as well.
My point is this: Rare events happen everyday.
Quote from: Landis on November 18, 2009, 04:54:11 AM
Sorry Winkel, but you are wrong. After 12 reds have just hit, the odds of a 13th red hitting just after 12 of them have already hit is still just 18/37. The odds of black hitting are also just 18/37. You need to read more on basic probability.
A great website to learn more is the wizardofodds.com
Rare events happen every day at the roulette table. Take the first 100 spins. Does anyone realize how rare of an event they are? Before the very first spin, the odds of those numbers having hit in the exact order in which they did is for more unlikely than just 100 reds or blacks in a row. The odds that you will see those numbers occur in that exact order again are 1/37^100. Amazing! The odds of 100 reds in a row is only 18/37^100. You could also tell people that you have witnessed something as rare as 100 reds in a row by showing them the pattern of the red and black during the first hundred spins as well.
My point is this: Rare events happen everyday.
you poor boy, you have to read more about advanced probability.
and not on gamblers homepaghes, but on stochastic pages
QuoteYou could also tell people that you have witnessed something as rare as 100 reds in a row by showing them the pattern of the red and black during the first hundred spins as well.
Every 100 spin sequence is as likely as any other only if you're looking at it from the point of view of
order of outcomes. Thus, RRRRRRRRRR is as likely as RRBBRBRRBB, because when viewed as a
permutation (order
is important) the probability of either sequence is (18/37)
10. So you can also say that a sequence of 100 reds in a row is just as likely a sequence of 100 having 45 reds which are "mixed up" with the 55 blacks. But the standard deviation (z-score) of the latter sequence is about 1.0 (not very rare at all), which is certainly not the case for the sequence of 100 consecutive reds. This is because the normal distribution is only concerned with the
number of reds and blacks in a sequence, not the particular order they come in.
If you look at each sequence as a
combination (order of outcomes does
not matter), then the probabilities are different. For the above sequences, the probability of RRRRRRRRRR is 0.13% and the probability of
RRBBRBRRBB is 24.5%, which is also the probability of RBRBRBRBRB (because it also has 5 blacks and 5 reds).
You could also have looked at the last 2 sequences in terms of the number of streaks, or the number of patterns of length 2 in each, and you would come up with different probabilities. My point is, a sequence can have many probabilities, depending on what you're looking for, and they will all be equally valid. The basic formula is -
Probability = No. of outcomes giving "looked for" result/Total No. of equally likely outcomesYour understanding of probability appears to be very narrow and limited, I suggest you learn a little more about it before attempting to lecture others. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
Quote from: Landis
Sorry Winkel, but you are wrong. After 12 reds have just hit, the odds of a 13th red hitting just after 12 of them have already hit is still just 18/37. The odds of black hitting are also just 18/37. You need to read more on basic probability.
A great website to learn more is the wizardofodds.com
Rare events happen every day at the roulette table. Take the first 100 spins. Does anyone realize how rare of an event they are? Before the very first spin, the odds of those numbers having hit in the exact order in which they did is for more unlikely than just 100 reds or blacks in a row. The odds that you will see those numbers occur in that exact order again are 1/37^100. Amazing! The odds of 100 reds in a row is only 18/37^100. You could also tell people that you have witnessed something as rare as 100 reds in a row by showing them the pattern of the red and black during the first hundred spins as well.
My point is this: Rare events happen everyday.
Are you using "odds" for slang as probability, which is what imbeciles do, or do you really not know the difference? As a REAL maths guy you seem to be a bit confused.
The only people Landis is fooling are those who have virtually zero knowledge of probability. Why does he keep telling us to visit the Wizard of Odds? you can't learn probability there, but it's pretty obvious he has, and that's all he knows.
I hate stuff like this, self-proclaimed experts who actually know nothing.
Landis, FYI, 18/37 is the probability of winning an even chance bet. The odds are 19 to 18 against, or 1.05 to 1. The payout is 1:1. There is a little lesson for you. I doubt a "real" math guy would persistently mix these up. Auf wiedersehen, champ.
Hi PhilC,
let me explain it with an example
We have three spins with R and B
possible spins:
RRR
RRB
RBR
BRR
BBR
RBB
BRB
BBB
if you sort them up
1 only R
3 2R1B
3 2B1R
1 only B
you now have to imagine, that probability can only pick one of these figuers
so the odd for a mixed one is 8:2
the more spins you take (e.g. 100) there is still one only R and one only B possible, but the mixed ones increase their possible number by y^x.
any order of R&B is still equal to appear
but a "single-coulour-one" has an odd of 1 : all others, that means (2^100)-1
br
winkel
QuoteYour understanding of probability appears to be very narrow and limited, I suggest you learn a little more about it before attempting to lecture others. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
Oh, really... Please tell me where I'm wrong. Please don't tell me that you too are one of the gambler's fallacy guys.
Tangram, my comments to Winkel are spot on. Please tell me why you feel his method will work.
odds - 7 dictionary results
Online Sport GambIing USA
Great promos for real customers. Real cash online books for US.
nolinks.topsportsbooks4u.info (nolinks://nolinks.topsportsbooks4u.info)
800 Hole-in-1
Hole-in-One Insurance Contest Insurance, Signs & Banners
hole-in-one-insurance.com
Convert $100 into $50,000
85% winners with our systems. 100% money back guarantee.
Sponsored Resultsnolinks.thesportsinvestment.com
odds /ɒdz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [odz] Show IPA
Use odds in a Sentence
See web results for odds
See images of odds
–noun (usually used with a plural verb) 1. the probability that something is so, will occur, or is more likely to occur than something else: The odds are that it will rain today.
2. the ratio of probability that something is so, will occur, or is more likely to occur than something else.
3. this ratio used as the basis of a bet; the ratio by which the bet of one party to a wager exceeds that of the other, granted by one of two betting opponents to equalize the chances favoring one of them: The odds are two-to-one that it won't rain today.
4. an equalizing allowance, as that given the weaker person or team in a contest; handicap.
5. an advantage or degree of superiority on the side of two contending parties; a difference favoring one of two contestants.
6. an amount or degree by which one thing is better or worse than another.
Definition of probability - 5 dictionary results
Is Your Account Down 35%?
Forget that! Make 6% per Month w/ ETFs. Free Webinar, No Hype/Fluff
ETFmentor.com/Free-Webinar
Probability Etf Trading Seminar
Make better decisions about ETF Trades with this Free Webinar!
nolinks.TradeStation.com (nolinks://nolinks.tradestation.com)
Colorado State University
distance graduate statistic courses MS degree and certificates
Sponsored Resultsnolinks.stat.colostate.edu
prob⋅a⋅bil⋅I⋅ty /ˌprɒbəˈbɪlɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [prob-uh-bil-I-tee] Show IPA
Use probability in a Sentence
See web results for probability
See images of probability
–noun, plural -ties. 1. the quality or fact of being probable.
2. a strong likelihood or chance of something: The probability of the book's success makes us optimistic.
3. a probable event, circumstance, etc.: Our going to China is a probability.
4. Statistics. a. the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.
b. the relative frequency with which an event occurs or is likely to occur.
—Idiom5. in all probability, very probably; quite likely: The factory will in all probability be relocated
When describing the red/ black you can say the probability of red hitting is 18/37 the odds against it hitting are etc........
Get the idea?
People will frequently interchange the words chance, probability, and odds. I will frequently interchange odds for probability just because it's quicker to type. My post is still accurate, regardless of the "syNtaX"
Guys, my points is this, you're wasting your time with this law of the third and gambler's fallacy crap.
You need to investigate advantage play methods and design systems designed to attack the gaming device.
-Snowman
Lol, what is all this BS?
BTW, your post is not accurate. Odds and probability are different. Only people who don't know the difference use them interchangeably. For a real math guy it's not great that you're resorting to dictionary definitions to validate your inaccuracy. A real math guy wouldn't make the mistake in the first place. The probabilty of winning an even chance bet is 18/37, the odds are 1.05 to 1 against. The odds are not 18/37, that gives 0.486, which is the probability of hitting. It's lame that your excuse is "it's quicker to type". Probably, it isn't. But what are the odds?
Number Six,
Perhaps you should explain to me why you feel Mr. Chips and Winkel's systems are valid. ;D
Don't play syntax games with me. My point was still valid.
QuoteOh, really... Please tell me where I'm wrong. Please don't tell me that you too are one of the gambler's fallacy guys.
Tangram, my comments to Winkel are spot on. Please tell me why you feel his method will work.
I didn't say you were wrong, just that what you've said regarding a sequence of 100 reds in a row being just as likely as any other sequence is quite misleading. I can't comment on Winkel's method because I don't know it, but you are right that his calculation was incorrect.
The thing is Landis, I can't argue with you on theoretical grounds, but I get the feeling that even if someone were to show verifiable results which were beyond any reasonable doubt and were statistically significant in favour of a non-physics method, you still wouldn't "buy it". It wouldn't change your attitude one iota.
Quote from: Tangram on November 18, 2009, 04:35:23 PM
... I can't comment on Winkel's method because I don't know it, but you are right that his calculation was incorrect.
Which calculation was incorrect?
Winkel,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying the probability for black after the 13th red is something other than 18/37.
Quote from: Tangram on November 18, 2009, 04:50:50 PM
Winkel,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying the probability for black after the 13th red is something other than 18/37.
Yes I said that!
And pls read my post again and try to understand.
It is a difference if I look at just one (the next spin) or if I look at a row of trials.
It is like: 1+1=2 and 2*1=2
Landis and obv. you are sticking at 1+1 and denying that 2*1 may have the same result.
br
winkel
Quote from: Landis
Number Six,
Perhaps you should explain to me why you feel Mr. Chips and Winkel's systems are valid. ;D
Don't play syntax games with me. My point was still valid.
I don't believe I ever said they were valid. But I don't think YOU fully understand why they aren't. BTW, it isn't a matter of syntax. A zebra is a stripy horse, but a horse isn't a zebra. It's pretty much official that odds and probability aren't the same. A real math guy should know that. Wait, just a typo, right?
this thread seems to have gotten a bit side-tracked from it's original purpose. I have not studied the signum system but I am curious about just one thing-- it seems that Mr. Chips refers to winning against certain spin results and what I want to know is, these are not spin results that have been published or can be observed somehow before applying the system, are they?
I mean that would make no sense to present that this is what happens when you play the system, as there is no way you can or should know what is going to happen before applying the system. the ONLY test results I would want to see before deciding to study a system or not, and that would have any validity, is a copy of actual play at the casinos (which Mr. Chips says he has done for years, did he not?)
If one goes to the casino with a system like this, you know that one is taking careful notes (and the casino doesn't care if you take notes or not at the roulette table) and I'm sure you would be saving these records of actual play for further analysis and to keep a record or diary of how the system is holding up and how much you've made and lost, etc. so really what Mr. Chips should do is scan his notes from (the many sessions?) of actual casino play with the signum system (personally I always write the date and time and place and $ forked over for chips at the top of my notes before I commence betting) (and hide them good if I lost badly.)
Then you make a picture from live casino play and upload it and that is what should be presented as valid results. anything other than a record of actual live spontaneous casino play is worthless as far as I am concerned, because ofcourse it's easy to win if you can bet after the ball drops!
So I would just like to know if these results and illustrated strategy of the system at work and the decisions that were made are from spins that were already published or could be observed somehow before the system was played against them, or not. And if not, then how can I know that the subjective decisions that were made during the course of play were not reverse-engineered (if not consciously, then perhaps un-consciously) to fit the outcomes? There is no way you can say, "here are spin outcomes and here's how the system would have played them." that cannot be a valid presentation of the system at play, if there is any subjective decision making involved.
Regarding copyright: "The chances are quite good that you've granted the forum owner an irrevocable license to publish your posts once you posted them."
Mr Chips has passed his rights to the publisher of VLS. It would be up to Victor to attempt to prosecute a complaint of copyright infringement. What's more you have lived with prier infringements of your so called copyright and have not prosecuted your claims in those cases. Your copyright is worthless and any lawyer can win a case against you. You can't win in court. So go ahead and flex your outrage. Everyone knows that your Signum system has been openly discussed in several places on the internet. You have failed to defend your copyright in a timely manner. Your copyright is worthless. What's more this: "The signum website has full copyright number 0030569." is sophistry to scare little children.
It is my understanding that for an infringement of copyright to be successful that Mr Chips would have to prove in court that his strategy did have an edge over the casino as he states on his website. I would pay good money to witness that :sarcastic:
Quote from: Mr Chips on November 22, 2009, 07:04:36 PM
Publishing posts has nothing to do with copyright of the Signum website and it's contents. As the author of
the website I have sole rights, as to whether extracts can be made public. I did check this out very carefully
here in the UK and USA and registered copyright accordingly.
It is of course legitimate for Signum to be discussed openly, but no extracts can be made puplic without the
authors permission and when the author has pointed this out to someone who has perpatrated infrigement
of copyright, then they are breaking, in this case United States law, which recognizes registered copyright.
That's too bad then. You need to get your money back. "Signum system 2009" is not a registered trademark, right? You have an invalid copyright. I'll bet you would like to know why too. To late. The so called infringement has already taken place. Add this too. Did you allow others to publish excerpts from that website before this and did they get your permission before that happened. I suggest that Victor protects all references to your website and any quoted materials that reflect a duplicate representation of anything at that was posted from your website. It's evidence in your big lawsuit.
Question for you... If you are so concerned about copyright, why exactly would you post it on a FREE website for all to see?
This makes about as much sense as trademarking words in the english language.
From page three of the original thread here:
"
Quote from: simon on October 30, 2009, 02:16:34 PM
I am printing out all pages from the website and before I spend a lot of time studying the signum system in earnest, I would like to know if you think it will be ok to use it against a double zeroe real wheel and/or a double zeroe virtual wheel. I expect the results won't be as good but do you think it can still make a profit against a 00 wheel (any profit is good) and will it make any difference that the arrangement of the numbers around a double zeroe wheel is different than the arrangement of the numbers around a single zero wheel? thanks.
From the 20 sessions that are shown on the website, as an example, I substited 5 for 00, just to see what difference
it would make. The total profit from those sessions is +55 and using the substitution reduces the profit to +42.
The arrangement of the numbers shouldn't make any difference. "
I wonder if Simon bothered to get written permission to re publish those pages? I don't see a complaint for compliance so he must have. Mr Chips might want to give some hush money to Simon seeing how cooperative mrChips has been to Simon.
Quote from: Mr Chips on November 22, 2009, 05:52:01 PM
SNOWMAN/LANDIS
By reproducing extracts from the Signum system on Gamblers Glen, without the authors permission you
have caused Fishman of Gamblers Glen to be in breach of copyright under United States law. The signum
website has full copyright number 0030569. In addition the copyright includes aspects of Signum, which
are in use elsewhere. Such contravention of copyright can lead to Gamblers Glen being taken down and
also a fine imposed.
I have already sent an email to fishman informing him of the copyright.
Gads, I missed that one. Landis/snowman you will love this. The author does not have a legal copyright on that website. Gee, that's a tough one.
This is rapidly getting very old. Back to the usual messages criticizing the system. :)
yeah well whatever, I think you can print anything off a website as long as it's for personal use and you don't sell it. FYI something is automatically copy-righted in the U.S. as soon as you author it, or paint it, or whatever-- you don't have to apply for an official copyrght-- and you can issue a cease and desist order to anyone using your work for profit and sue them for any profits they may have made with your work (that is, selling your work, not making $ with it at the casino, obviously.)
I wish someone would answer my previous question about the results and if they are based on decisions already known before the strategy and decision making process is shown.
Simon, so you didn't have permission to print it? Don't worry. It's too late to complain now. There is a legal requirement to defend your copyright or it's invalid. If he didn't complain to you or give you permission then he has established a weakness that he is satisfied to live with. It would be a more simple case if you would just state now for the record if he granted you permission. If he didn't then his case is in the toilette.
for the record there's a Print button at the top of every webpage and every thread and I use it when I want as does everyone else. also for the record I cannot be given permission to do anything because I am not a real person, "Simon" does not exist, I am a psyber-robot. also for the record I wish we could stop arguing about copy-right issues and get back to finding out if the system in question is any good or not and should I drop everything and learn it, or what.
simon
I agree with you on trying to determine if the system is valid.
Beginning in 2010, early, I plan to tackle the Signum. (There should be shouts and whistles here! :yahoo:) Not that I'm any smarter than anyone else, but that I'm retired and have many hours to devote to study during our Winter months. Who knows, I may not even be able to understand it but I think I can.
So, I'll do my best and report. As always, I have no interest promoting the thing or flaming it, so I'll just see what happens.
Sam
good, glad to hear it 2cat, that's what we need, someone who doesn't have "an agenda" to spend time with it and check it out. (it seems to me while we're arguing about it other people seem to be learning it and getting good results, I think...)
It's almost a public service to show standing up for your intellectual property. There are ways to do it and there are ways to do it for things that truly need copyrights. This entire communication process is part forum and part website. It is clear that several people have to ask for help to attempt to understand this freely offered system. I'm one of them. I have a thread in this same category of this forum that asks questions in order to attempt to understand the system. It's for dummies like me. There are hundreds of books out there on the market that all end with "for Dummies." It's not a point of shame or an attempt to criticize the topic. In all cases there is enough interest that publishers spend the money to print the books in the first place.
I have a standing question that nobody has attempted to answer there. Now there must be someone that can fill in the blanks so that we can move forward from a standpoint of learning goes. It's not a criticism over there. It's an honest attempt to understand the writings and opinions of the author of the system. Just because he has a chip on his shoulder and a thin skin does not mean that the results that are claimed to be correct should not be researched. I'm asking for help. It's as simple as that. I've presented as clear as I can my questions.
@ Simon,
Regarding the spins Mr Chips has used, I posted something at the end of this thread which is relevant -
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/general-board/thank-you-mr-chips-for-your-contribution-you-are-what-this-forum-is-all-about/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/general-board/thank-you-mr-chips-for-your-contribution-you-are-what-this-forum-is-all-about/)
I believe that Mr Chips deliberately used spins from spielbank wiesbaden because they're verifiable, in the sense that they're in the public domain, so anyone can download the exact spins which produced the results that Mr Chips has put on his site. If you have learned the system you can then play the spins and if the results you get don't agree with those on the site you will want to know why. The only issue is that any subjective elements in the way the system is used could lead to disagreements about the result. I can't really comment at this stage how this might be resolved because I haven't learned the system yet. So yes, Mr Chips could have used his own personal spins taken from a real casino (as you suggested would be the "right" thing to do), but that doesn't guarantee that he didn't just make them up or cherry-pick them to give a favourable result. At least using spins from wiesbaden everyone can verify that they are genuine spins.
Quotesimon
I agree with you on trying to determine if the system is valid.
Beginning in 2010, early, I plan to tackle the Signum. (There should be shouts and whistles here! ) Not that I'm any smarter than anyone else, but that I'm retired and have many hours to devote to study during our Winter months. Who knows, I may not even be able to understand it but I think I can.
Guys,
If you have to test this system to determine if it's valid or not, then you really have no business gambling in a casino. Give your wife the checkbook and credit cards.
You should be able to tell within a minute that this system is based on gambler's fallacy. There is absolutely no way this system could work. Why isn't this immediately obvious to everyone here?
-Landis
Regarding copyright,
You can't copyright a gambling system based on the gambler's fallacy. I'm free to discuss and describe with whom ever I choose.
Quote from: Landis on November 23, 2009, 07:51:20 AM
Guys,
If you have to test this system to determine if it's valid or not, then you really have no business gambling in a casino. Give your wife the checkbook and credit cards.
You should be able to tell within a minute that this system is based on gambler's fallacy. There is absolutely no way this system could work. Why isn't this immediately obvious to everyone here?
-Landis
If Signum did not work then it would not be able to produce consistent profits. Those profits have
not only been produced by me but other members of this forum. You can of course call me a liar
and that I have fixed the results in some way, but are you also calling the other members who
have been providing profitable session also liars and fixing their results?
The problem is you have a fixation that all roulette systems are based on gamblers fallacy. They are
words that you have picked up on various sites together with a limited understanding of probability,
which other members have pointed out to you.
The results I have so far provided show a z-score of 9.90 and there is still a number of months still to
complete for the year.
I have already mentioned other members supplying profitable results on the Signum thread and their
combined results are in line with those I have shown on the Signum website. To dismiss their results
is not only ridiculous, but also rather insulting and puts your credibility on this forum at an all time low.
You can carry on quoting endless nonsense from various dubious sites, but it won't change the fact that
Signum will continue to produce consistent profits and not just by me.
Quote from: Landis on November 23, 2009, 07:53:37 AM
Regarding copyright,
You can't copyright a gambling system based on the gambler's fallacy. I'm free to discuss and describe with whom ever I choose.
A great many websites have copyright, take for example the Oops site which has copyright. Now it is
perfectly in order to discuss and comment about the site, but I certainly wouldn't copy extracts from
the site and show them here or anywhere else, without the permission of the owners of the site, as
I respect their entitlement to copyright.
Components of Signum do not only relate to gambling, but to other uses as well and they are also
contained within the total copyright.
sometimes you have to accept things even if you don't understand them. it doesn't hurt to have an open mind. some people want to test the system with the intention of proving that it doesn't work. so that may be as un-objective an approach as someone who wants to prove that it does work. I haven't learned the system but for me basically the proof is in the pudding, that is what kind of results people are actually getting, not what is supposed to happen in a million spins which I will never play. I note that so far I see mainly + signs and no one is showing the system tanking as is usually the case.
OK, so let's get to the bottom of something else while we wait for one informed practitioner of the system to come forward and fill out my form on how to look back a few spins.
Has there been one regular poster that has learned this system yet. All we have are new posters that can do it. Is that true? I didn't bother to do a forensic study of those that claim to know how this works yet. That should be the next investigation. Now if there is a credible poster here that knows how to do this then that person should go to the dummies thread and fill in the form. Why can't the usual posters figure this out?
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 23, 2009, 03:04:19 PM
OK, so let's get to the bottom of something else while we wait for one informed practitioner of the system to come forward and fill out my form on how to look back a few spins.
Has there been one regular poster that has learned this system yet. All we have are new posters that can do it. Is that true? I didn't bother to do a forensic study of those that claim to know how this works yet. That should be the next investigation. Now if there is a credible poster here that knows how to do this then that person should go to the dummies thread and fill in the form. Why can't the usual posters figure this out?
I am only guessing, but perhaps some members here are not that keen on people like you posting
unpleasant remarks about this forum over at GG, surely you remember the remarks you made there.
Then there are the remarks made against me and Signum.
Do you think in the circumstances the members here should be queueing up to answer your questions.
No doubt you will then return to GG and post how stupid we all have been to answer your questions.
Mr. Chips,
Numerous people are emailing me this and asking if this is your patent. Well?
nolinks://nolinks.wikipatents.com/4077631.html-2 (nolinks://nolinks.wikipatents.com/4077631.html-2)
Mr Chips, imagine how wonderful for you it will be to have me proven wrong. Where's that missing link? If a majority of the people here are newbies to Roulette and gambling then they must go through the period of discovery where they discover that systems don't work and why they don't work. It's easy to pull the wool over some people's eye's. You might be a fraud. The general consensus is still out.
Let's come at this from another angle. Suppose that MR Chips has really built a system that works the way that is being published at this forum says it does. Several of us are going to have mud on our faces. Mr Chips is going to be seen on all the academic magazine covers. He will be interviewed on Oprah. Of course he will have to explain his free system on TV to millions of listeners. That will be worth watching just as one of the most unbelievable displays of entertainment seen anywhere in years. And the casinos. This must apply to all even chance betting methods that apply to all table games that have them. So thousands of people are going to be unemployed during a global recession. Yeah, everyone is going to love and respect Mr Chips.
It's legal to cut and paste parts of his system for discussion on the messageboards. Don't let ignorance get in the way. We can legally do so and discuss the system with others as we see fit.
It's also legal to scam suckers by pretending to have something revolutionary that works. To present it as free. To sell advise to anyone that comes begging. It's covered under buyer beware common sense.
"there is no speciufic rule how far to look back .."
There was one example of looking back. Can someone show an example of a 20 spin sample where the distance looking back is shown & explained?
Anyone's opinion or set of facts is welcome.
Could a numerical value for this table's last item (...) be filled in for each row? To fill it out, just use quote in your post. It will show the table already formatted properly.
[table=,]
Row,G or R,+/-/0,P or M,Units +/-,(looked back# spins)
1,G,,,,(...)
2,R,-1,,,(...)
3,G,-2,P+1,,(...)
4,G,-1,OOO,,(...)
5,R,-2,P+1,,(...)
6,R,-1,P+2,-1,(...)
7,R,0,P+1,-2,(...)
8,R,+1,,,(...)
9,G,0,OOO,-3,(...)
10,R,-1,M-1,,(...)
11,G,-2,M-2,-2,(...)
12,G,-1,M-1,-3,(...)
13,G,0,M-2,-2,(...)
14,R,-1,M-1,-1,(...)
15,R,0,OOO,-2,(...)
16,G,-1,P+1,,(...)
17,G,0,P+2,-1,(...)
18,R,-1,P+3,0,(...)
19,R,0,P+4,+1,(...)
20,R,+1,P+3,0,(...)
21,G,0,P+4,+1,(...)
22,G,+1,P+5,0,(...)
23,R,O,P+6,+1,(...)
24,R,+1,P+7,+2,(...)
[/table]
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 23, 2009, 04:17:57 PM
Mr Chips, imagine how wonderful for you it will be to have me proven wrong. Where's that missing link? If a majority of the people here are newbies to Roulette and gambling then they must go through the period of discovery where they discover that systems don't work and why they don't work. It's easy to pull the wool over some people's eye's. You might be a fraud. The general consensus is still out.
I expected people like you and your buddy spike and the usual GG crowd to ridicule Signum it's par for
the course. There is one interesting aspect of Signum that you and your buddies continually overlook
in your eagerness to condemn it as nonsense. I explained this in the "constructive criticism" thread
a little while back. You all say it can't work. OK then obviously it has to lose. What you have to consider
is how will it lose, bearing in mind the explanation I gave in the "cc" thread.
It's not usual that anyone gets to interview such a distinguished luminary of the gambling world in our own home arena. So why is that you can write sensibly in this discussion and that your pathetic attempt to make sense with your grand achievement is so embarrassing an example to common sense? The difference is staggering. Perhaps it's just your well practiced complaint about GG. I wonder when someone with credibility will come forward to back your claims. You must realize that proof leads directly to Oprah.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 23, 2009, 05:56:47 PM
It's not usual that anyone gets to interview such a distinguished luminary of the gambling world in our own home arena. So why is that you can write sensibly in this discussion and that your pathetic attempt to make sense with your grand achievement is so embarrassing an example to common sense? The difference is staggering. Perhaps it's just your well practiced complaint about GG. I wonder when someone with credibility will come forward to back your claims. You must realize that proof leads directly to Oprah.
Now don't forget, you will have to consider,
how is Signum going to lose? ;)
ok I'm not going to keep jumping in to defend Mr. Chips, it's his problem and he can deal with it himself, I only want to make 2 points in regards to the above comments and that's it, and they are: 1) I don't know why you guys keep accusing him of "scamming" people when his system is offered for free, take it or leave it; and 2) let's say his system actually works (on some level or other), no he is not going to be on TV and no the casinos are not going to have any worries concerning his system because I'm sure it would be such a tiny percentage of the millions of people who lose their money daily at the casinos that would actually want to study, practice, believe in and play this system that the effect would be negligible to say the least. come on, even people who are obsessed with this game (like me/us) don't want to deal with his system (like me/and others), and we represent just a tiny percentage of all the serious and/or recreational and/or tourist gamblers who walk in and out of casinos every day. if I were a casino owner and had a look at this system and accompanying threads, answers and questions I would say "yeah, good luck, keep dreaming, bring it on, this looks like quite a bit of nonsense." I mean really, most people are too busy and/or lazy to want to begin to try and fathom this system (like me) and do not want to waste time on (perceived to be) useless gambling systems. which is why the casinos have nothing to worry about and Mr. Chips will not be putting Oprah and the veiwing audience to sleep with his explanation of the system, and the gambling world is not going to change, even if his system works.
simon
If you have $100,000 and a system that works, Vegas will give you two things: A plane ticket and a room!
I totally agree with your position.
Sam
I look forward to your un-biased assessment of the system, Sam.
This is getting funny now. Where is that missing link? Where is there anyone that can answer questions or that can rewrite this so that normal people can understand it?
BTW, I'll get you that booking on Oprah Mr Chips. Never before in the history of the world has something with these level of results, that has come so far, been reveled. Ever heard of Edward Thorp? He so changed the world over night that the game changed. This applies to all even chance games, not just Blackjack. There will be a math book taught at MIT. This might change celestial mechanics. This is a best selling book at least.
**If you have $100,000 and a system that works, Vegas will give you two things: A plane ticket and a room!**
:lol: :lol: :lol: That one cracked me up. You are right Sam.
Then I have only three words to say to them Vegas Suits BRING IT ON!!!!!!
P.S. can anyone sub me 100k :whistle:
elmo, all you need is about $100 to start with.
Just win enough sessions to turn that into $1,000. Then use $5 chips and turn that into $5,000. Then use $25 chips and turn that into $25,000. Then use $100 chips and turn that into $100,000. Then go to Vegas on comp.
Why are there no long term posters here with the capability to fill out these charts? Why has Mr Chips put a chip on his shoulder while claiming he has explained everything? Why has MR Chips removed his "Ok, lets 'look under the hood' of the Signum system," remarks? I smell a rat. This is evidence that the system presentation is fishy like a red herring.
**Why are there no long term posters here with the capability to fill out these charts?**
they are all too busy playing BINGO!!! :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 25, 2009, 08:13:10 PM
Why are there no long term posters here with the capability to fill out these charts? Why has Mr Chips put a chip on his shoulder while claiming he has explained everything? Why has MR Chips removed his "Ok, lets 'look under the hood' of the Signum system," remarks? I smell a rat. This is evidence that the system presentation is fishy like a red herring.
Mark,
Landis/herb/snowman has been his usual disruptive self and the thread has been removed temporarily.
He has even duplicated the title, he must be desperate, to suppress Signum. He certainly has some sort
of problem, it is certainly not normal behaviour.
I can recommend you looking over at GG, where some kind person has shown a copy of the "OK, lets
look "under the hood" of the Signum system2
Regards
Richard
Mr. Chips,
Since you don't want to have any constructive criticism of the Signum here on VLS, I've decided to have the thread moved over to GG and one of the math forums.
Regards,
Landis.
Quote from: Landis on November 25, 2009, 09:07:38 PM
Mr. Chips,
Since you don't want to have any constructive criticism of the Signum here on VLS, I've decided to have the thread moved over to GG and one of the math forums.
Regards,
Landis.
If your idea of disrupting other members threads is constructive criticism then you definitely have
a screw loose. As far as I am concerned we have tolerated your disruptive behaviour long enough
and it's now up to the Administrators to take the appropriate action.
Thanks Mr. Chips. :)
I feel it's important that we discuss the system and explain why systems built with bad blueprints won't work. This will help prevent the same losing systems from being reinvented each week with new names.
It's important to explain how dangerous these systems can be to your bankroll.
Quote from: Landis link=topic=12936. msg86486#msg86486 date=1259219656
Thanks Mr. Chips. :)
I feel it's important that we discuss the system and explain why systems built with bad blueprints won't work. This will help prevent the same losing systems from being reinvented each week with new names.
It's important to explain how dangerous these systems can be to your bankroll.
Landis,
You still did not answer my question, you seem to have all the answers to successfully winning at Roulette so when are you going to share with us lesser mortals.
I would take you more seriously if you could demonstrate to me the success you have had at the tables.
I'm not saying Mr Chips method is good or bad, but at least he is prepared to put his money where his mouth is, unlike you.
I don't understand what your problem is, if people want to try his method let them, his system is not using a large bank roll, how many methods only needs no more than 5 units a session and flat bets?
What I see is members that have taken the time to learn this method have given signum positive praise, but you are disrespecting them by saying they are misguided in trying the system for themselves.
What you afraid of, is it because this thing might actually work!!!
You are the kind of person that would have told the Wright Brother don't be stupid if man was meant to fly God would have given use wings, or say to Thomas Edison give up after the 5th attempt you will never make the light bulb work.
I'm not saying signum in the same vain as above but the fact is you don't know if it works or not because you have not tried it.
GIVE US SOME CREDIT FOR BEING ABLE TO USE OUR OWN BRAINS TO MAKE UP OUR OWN MINDS AND STOP TRYING TO SAVE US!!!
Thanks
Malcop
Quote from: Landis on November 25, 2009, 09:07:38 PM
Mr. Chips,
Since you don't want to have any constructive criticism of the Signum here on VLS, I've decided to have the thread moved over to GG and one of the math forums.
Regards,
Landis.
Perhaps what is needed here is a typical response in GG style:
>>> Snowman - "No. Past spins have no influence on future spins. This is why systems like the law of the third, and the signum can not and do not work. They all have bad blueprints that rely on gambler's fallacy."<<<
My response: >>>gizmotron - "No snowman, that is not why systems don't work. They don't work because most people run out of bankroll as they encounter times when the systems are not effective. At no time do past spins have anything to do with anything. Your conclusions are like that if you stand on one leg you will not be mistaken for a pink lawn ornament. Your transcendental mantra is easily becoming the longest running chant in the history of your greatest hits. I doubt that a single visitor to this forum has not heard your broken record trick. I'll bet you are a real hoot at all the parties. Make sure they don't cook you this Thanksgiving. You just might be mistaken for the turkey."<<<
??? I just have to ask this.
Landis, have you tried this method yet? How could anyone actually give creative criticism on any topic without becoming an expert of that system themselves beforehand!
Landis, take a page out of Sam's book. (Meant in general)
1. Learn the system so you know it and can play it at the same level as the creator of that system
2. If it then fails for you. Compare notes and ask why?
3. If it still fails and there are no answers from the creator, open a criticism thread and bash the guy. (Sam does not do this though lol)
It seems that you Landis like to skip right to the second part of point 3 (open a criticism thread and bash the guy)
Cheers
Jakk
BTW. I have not looked at signum except for the first couple of pages. Maybe later though.
Quote from: Jakkalsdraai link=topic=12936. msg86491#msg86491 date=1259226459
??? I just have to ask this.
Landis, have you tried this method yet? How could anyone actually give creative criticism on any topic without becoming an expert of that system themselves beforehand!
Landis, take a page out of Sam's book. (Meant in general)
1. Learn the system so you know it and can play it at the same level as the creator of that system
2. If it then fails for you. Compare notes and ask why?
3. If it still fails and there are no answers from the creator, open a criticism thread and bash the guy. (Sam does not do this though lol)
It seems that you Landis like to skip right to the second part of point 3 (open a criticism thread and bash the guy)
Cheers
Jakk
BTW. I have not looked at signum except for the first couple of pages. Maybe later though.
Landis,
I am in total agreement with Jakkalsdraai how can you be so critical of something you have not even looked at yet, it does not make sense to me, and I'm sure other members feel the same way.
Why can't you accept that members that have tried the system so far are happy with signum once they have fully understood it.
I know it could go bang in the future, but if it does but at least those that have taken the time to learn signum will be more informed to do a full analysis on why it failed and possibly how to fix it.
Parts of signum are subjective but I look on that as a good thing. Mr Chips has always said that once you become skilled with signum the decisions you make in a session will become easer.
I know you are not interested in anything that anyone has to say unless it is in agreement with you, but it had to be said.
Thanks
Malcop
Seeing that the signum system uses past spins to make decisions, Landis immediately throws it into the "Gambler's Fallacy" trash can. It seems that this observation (that past spins are used) trumps everything, even the actual results that people are getting. He explains these away by saying that it must be "curve fitting", or unconscious cheating. Landis obviously likes to think of himself as a man of science, but this kind of closed-mindedness is just bad science.
Tangram,
1. He's not exploiting a defective wheel.
2. He's not observing the position of the ball in relation to the rotor.
3. His observations have no meaning.
So you believe that his system works?
Quote from: Landis link=topic=12936. msg86537#msg86537 date=1259255585
Tangram,
1. He's not exploiting a defective wheel.
2. He's not observing the position of the ball in relation to the rotor.
3. His observations have no meaning.
So you believe that his system works?
Landis,
And you obviously believe that your VB method is the only way to win at Roulette, and anything else does not work. I get you know you have to see it to believe it.
That's why you kid yourself that you can make good money using VB, you poor deluded fool you.
Check out this site nolinks. predictroulette. com/roulette/_notes/visualballistics. htm
The conclusion is the VB does not work, period.
Now I have shown you that VB does not work, now you show me concrete proof that the signum system does not work.
Oh sorry you can't can you because it is all in your head!!! :nono:
Show me the proof not just your opinion that signum does not work, show me tests done on signum that it does not work, guess what you can't find any, but I know if I look hard enough I will be able to find a lot more proof that VB dose not work!!!
I have an idea.
Here's what we can do. Let's have Mr. Chips demonstrate his system by placing 5k real bets on Dublinbet.
Mr. Chips, don't worry about the bankroll, we'll let your supporters step forward and bankroll you in a show of support.
Now, here's the big question: Who would like to step forward and bankroll Mr. Chips? How about you Malcop? Will you bankroll him?
(I'm guessing that everyone will back away frightened, and that this post will disappear before the end of the day, but I trust that I've made my point.)
-Landis
Quote from: Landis link=topic=12936. msg86549#msg86549 date=1259259500
I have an idea.
Here's what we can do. Let's have Mr. Chips demonstrate his system by placing 5k real bets on Dublinbet.
Mr. Chips, don't worry about the bankroll, we'll let your supporters step forward and bankroll you in a show of support.
Now, here's the big question: Who would like to step forward and bankroll Mr. Chips? How about you Malcop? Will you bankroll him?
(I'm guessing that everyone will back away frightened, and that this post will disappear before the end of the day, but I trust that I've made my point. )
-Landis
You that is a stupid idea, the reason is you can't judge a method on one session, If you looked at the results for signum you will see that their are losing sessions, but in the long run their are more winning sessions than losing ones.
So your test is like you pointless. If I find signum to give me the same type of results as what is shown on the signum website I will be more than happy to use my own money and play live for myself only not your benefit!
You see unlike you I'm more than happy to put my money where my mouth is.
Landis,
we all know your opinion and warning about systems.
But is time to move on man.
I'd like to see some real results, not curve fits on old numbers.
Look, I'm not trying to hound you, or your other ID Mr. Chips.
My point is this: Don't pretend for one minute that this system works. Unlike the other system players, I can instantly see through the blarney. I can tell you within seconds whether a method has merit, or whether it has faulty blueprints. This system clearly has faulty blueprints because it is dependent on past spins influencing future spins.
-Landis
You are repeating yourself, move on..
I'd like to see some real results, not curve fits on old numbers.
Landis,
We both know this won't change anything. What would be the point of Mr Chips taking up the challenge you suggest? Remember the challenge you did with Ray? did it change your attitude?
For some reason you have it in for Mr Chips. Of all the systems you could have picked on, you choose one which flat-bets on the even chances. There is really not much chance of someone losing a bundle doing this, even if they were betting randomly. Why didn't you choose to criticize Mr J's system which seems to be popular at the moment? A 56 step progression on 2 numbers with more than $3000 losses if it fails... It really doesn't square with your "concern" for members losing their bankrolls, does it?
And it's beside the point whether I "believe" in the signum system or not. If testing shows statistically significant results then shouldn't this data stand on it's own? suppose there had been some other system which claimed these results but you didn't know how the bets were chosen, would you choose to ignore the results in that case?
I don't really expect any answers. I think you're only doing this out of boredom.
My point has been made. Moving onward. :)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
OMG malcop! Your posts had me in tears! It's so rare on this forum to find someone with such a great sense of humour!
Quote from: Davey-Jones link=topic=12936. msg86650#msg86650 date=1259285880
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
OMG malcop! Your posts had me in tears! It's so rare on this forum to find someone with such a great sense of humour!
I'm glad you liked it.