good design cool

[Marven]

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.

[Landis]

Tangram,

You're right though, there is a great deal of bad blue prints on the forum.

[Landis]

Actually somethings do work.

I'll post a blue print sometime soon called, "Guidelines for Evaluating Systems." 

[Mr Chips]

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:

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

I will repeat it a 3rd time in case it doesn't register

     

use all the information, that becomes available in a session

[Marven]

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/

[Mr Chips]

Congratulations Administrators Welcome to GG HELL version2

[gizmotron]

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.

[Mr Chips]

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

[gizmotron]

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.

[Landis]

Mr. Chips,

The sky is not falling.  This is not GG, even though you have Spike, Gizmo, and Jame Wendall all here.

[Landis]

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

[winkel]

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.

[Landis]

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  )

[Landis]

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

[gizmotron]

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.

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.

[gizmotron]

-