good design cool

[lucky_strike]

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

[Lanky]

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.

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.

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.

[Natural9]

........ 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

[simon]

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.

[Mr Chips]

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

[Innovcon]

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

[gizmotron]

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?  

[Mr Chips]

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?  

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.

[winkel]

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?  

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.

[Tangram]

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:

Actually 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.

[gizmotron]

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.

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.

[winkel]

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.

[gizmotron]

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.

[Landis]

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.

[winkel]

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! 
What about your  bad blue prints of "nothing works"

[winkel]

-