If I see something written in German, it means nothing to me. Its useless information because I don't have the key to reading it. When somebody explains to me what the symbols mean and how they're organized into words, I can start to make sense of it. Random outcomes are similar, but you can only make a vague sense out of them, not an exact sense, like you can with a foreign language. Its all about organization. It about how good you are at organizing the random events into something you can use. It about taking one thing and making it into something else. Like BJ, you take the outcomes and turn them into a counting game to give yourself the advantage. There's a way to organize the random events in roulette to give yourself an edge. Lets see if any sock puppets pop up and say "Oh yeah, thats how its done, thats how I always do it." To which my answer will be "No you don't."
I actually have more success playing the EC's when I play a different game using the outcomes.
I use the table layout for red/black & odd/even and play tic tac toe with the results.
Yep, noughts & crosses works better than anything else I've come up with.
Quote from: bombus on April 07, 2011, 03:43:29 AM
I actually have more success playing the EC's when I play a different game using the outcomes.
You're making a joke, but you're closer to right than you know.
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 03:45:23 AM
You're making a joke, but you're closer to right than you know.
No, I'm serious.
Tic Tac Toe is as good as any bet selection I have found for the EC's. :)
Quote from: bombus on April 07, 2011, 03:47:38 AM
No, I'm serious.
Tic Tac Toe is as good as any bet selection I have found for the EC's. :)
It will just break even, its too random.
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 03:51:33 AM
It will just break even, its too random.
Maybe...
But I just won 6 units in 33 spins while waiting for this reply.
Quote from: bombus on April 07, 2011, 03:57:18 AM
Maybe...
But I just won 6 units in 33 spins while waiting for this reply.
I take it back then, its a solid winner. :haha:
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 03:59:08 AM
I take it back then, its a solid winner. :haha:
Thank you.
Tic Tac Toe sounds good - i made a old classic post about a similar way and assume some one have the option to strike different events using Tic Tac Toe - so how do you play ?
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 03:19:52 AM
It about taking one thing and making it into something else. Like BJ, you take the outcomes and turn them into a counting game to give yourself the advantage. There's a way to organize the random events in roulette to give yourself an edge.
Are you really taking the roulette outcomes and turning them into a counting game like BJ, or are you just using that as an example as it relates to card counting and BJ?
Reading Randomness means finding the context. There is context for the method, be that Tic-Tac-Toe or any consistent technique. I prefer a few solid follow the trends set of rules. These rules are nearly meaningless. They do not make up the entire process for a complete bet selection method. They only make it possible to see the three states that come and go. That's where the context of reading randomness comes into play. It regards the effectiveness of the ferreting out process. So Tic-Tac-Toe is as good as anything I suppose. I don't like it though because it's random in it's own right. It's better to use a simple rule. If you can come up with a reason to use FTL or use OLD then you have a less random qualifier.
But that is not the end of the matter. There is a reading randomness in the data that comes from your discovery process. You need to detect the three states that exist one at a time. I've mentioned them for years on this forum. It works very good, it works very badly, or it's mixed with both good and bad. In the end that's what you must be aware of. You must have a method to play against the rapid changes that come and go. If you can't find these types of context then you are blind to them. They will happen right underneath your nose and you will never even know it. So reading randomness is about taking a proactive action in advance of an expected difficulty.
Math oriented players expect that you must participate in all corrective downturns. They believe that there is no way to avoid or experience getting out of paying losses back to the casino that amount to a greater sum than any winnings already acquired. I say that that is baloney. It's possible to be aware of conditions and to take proper actions regarding them. One thing is clear as a bell, and it's easy to read too. Math oriented players are looking for nothing and finding it. Why should people that seek nothing be regarded as having seen the light? They are blind. Their conclusions are born of nothing. Most of all they want others to follow them. Believing that randomness can't be read is self destructive. Why follow that?
Somebody may spend a lot of time trying to decipher roulette and get a better understanding of how roulette works.
If they fail, It is highly likely that they will come to the conclusion that reading randomness can't be achieved. That would be the expected reaction in my book. They are hardly likely to say 'well, I can't do it but good luck to the guys that can and I hope they make a killing. At least I can console myself that my losses are going to those guys' lol.
They are more likely to say 'I can't do it and that means it's impossible. After all I have studied roulette for 10 years and I am a pretty clued up guy' That sounds more like the reality to me. People don't like to admit they are no good at something. It softens the blow to the ego to say that it can't be done.
This is the thing. If you can't do it, it does not mean it can't be done. But at the same time I can see how it could be used on a gambling forum by someone to make themself feel superior to others.
My opinion is that it is probably a skill that maybe a few could get better at over time. Just like a lot of other things in life really.
John, that's an interesting take on human nature. That lesson for the ego is better served by those that climb mountains I think. You either die trying or you come to grips with learning that you can't do it. The latter being the far better lesson in life. For me I had something else going for me. Nobody came along claiming this reading randomness was the way to go. There was nobody claiming it was impossible either. I just figured it out from actual playing experience and common sense. So I can vouch for banging my head against two kinds of walls. There is no substitute for overcoming adversity. This idea that some can't do this might best be left to the content of their own characters and their better judgment. There must be a kind of discernment allowed for from those that refuse to even try based on some fundamental belief. At least there must be that acknowledgment.
Quote from: John Gold on April 07, 2011, 11:29:45 AM
They are more likely to say 'I can't do it and that means it's impossible. After all I have studied roulette for 10 years and I am a pretty clued up guy' That sounds more like the reality to me. People don't like to admit they are no good at something. It softens the blow to the ego to say that it can't be done.
How about turning that around and saying that the guy with the big ego is the one who claims that they CAN win consistently.
There's no shame in admitting that you can't guess random numbers better than expectation. ;D
It's really weird how ignorance of math is held up as a badge of honour on this forum. :sarcastic:
Quote from: Mike on April 07, 2011, 02:02:01 PM
It's really weird how ignorance of math is held up as a badge of honour on this forum. :sarcastic:
I'm not ignorant of math. I started out with probability books and hand held calculators more than 20 years ago while hand writing simulations. Frequentest probability is no "badge of honor" either.
So how will you explain a working algorithm that beats this game long term? Won't it become time to admit to being a little ignorant of math on that day? That day will soon arrive. So get ready for it. We should have a BOZO festival and a fools parade. The Mathboyz burn forever day. This archive will be a testimony to Nikola Tesla types.
So far you have just shown that you cant handle a real game that turns against you and a box with nothing that beats roulette. Its always "when i eventually"....... yeah, the casinos are still there and spike and you are still at the starting line when it comes to show what you say you can do. Personally i dont think you have placed more than 10 real bets in your life if you can get so messed up in so short time.
Quote from: Kelly on April 07, 2011, 04:45:45 PM
So far you have just shown that you cant handle a real game that turns against you and a box with nothing that beats roulette. Its always "when I eventually"....... yeah, the casinos are still there and spike and you are still at the starting line when it comes to show what you say you can do. Personally I dont think you have placed more than 10 real bets in your life if you can get so messed up in so short time.
Vaporware proceeding as expected:
holdYesListSingle -
holdMaybeListSingle -
holdYesListSleep - col3,
holdMaybeListSleep - red, odd, high, doz2, doz3, col1,
Actually I've shown that I can get a lame reaction from someone that is offered straws so that they will grasp at them. Thanks for being predictable.
Quote from: Kelly on April 07, 2011, 04:45:45 PM
Personally I dont think you have placed more than 10 real bets in your life if you can get so messed up in so short time.
Thats what puzzled me. He said he was going to bet 100 times, and after 6 bets, he threw up his hands in disgust and ran out of the room. For somebody that claims to have played roulette for 35 years, this makes no sense at all. 6 bets is nothing, its less than nothing.
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 09:25:28 PM
Thats what puzzled me. He said he was going to bet 100 times, and after 6 bets, he threw up his hands in disgust and ran out of the room. For somebody that claims to have played roulette for 35 years, this makes no sense at all. 6 bets is nothing, its less than nothing.
And still you don't get it. I had no idea what a great and spontaneous moment that really was. I got way more out of it than expected. I moved on. But you are stuck to it scratching your head and trying to explain it. I even told you my real motives and actually set out to do what I really meant by it. But you two are scratching your heads.
Cheese / Spike, you are the perfect person, Father Roulette, for those that claim they learned nothing useful. How odd is it that like mentalities gravitate toward one another? You belong together. Father Roulette and his cult of comet chasers. Man you all drank the Kool-aid. This is getting good. When is the galactic harmonic gathering of the morons and the mother ship?
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 07, 2011, 09:54:15 PM
And still you don't get it.
Oh, I get it, we ALL get it. We got it immediately. No worries...
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 07, 2011, 10:19:13 AM
Are you really taking the roulette outcomes and turning them into a counting game like BJ, or are you just using that as an example as it relates to card counting and BJ?
Its an example. There is nothing to count in roulette.
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 09:56:38 PM
Oh, I get it, we ALL get it. We got it immediately. No worries...
"No worries?" I don't think so. You can't stop bringing it up. And yet the only way for you to explain it is with it patting yourself on your own back how wonderful you are. I think you now use it as a crutch. I've explained it. I was there. You have no idea what my motives where. That is clear by your pathetic remarks. But since you are glued to it by your own admission, I will turn it on you as a contradiction, an epiphany, and a paradox.
I know, more promises about something that is to come later. That's your rant you know. I'm the one actually working here. You are the butt cleaner at the zoo.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 07, 2011, 10:57:00 AM
I've mentioned them for years on this forum. It works very good, it works very badly, or it's mixed with both good and bad. In the end that's what you must be aware of.
If thats happening, you have a method that works part of the time. This is what most people have. You need to keep looking until you have a method where its always good, all the time. Thats why you spend 10 hours in the casino to win a few units, you've got half a method.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 07, 2011, 10:07:51 PM
"No worries?" I don't think so. You can't stop bringing it up.
I bring it up because I can't believe you did it. I'm still in shock. The outcome was a foregone conclusion. I didn't think it would happen after 6 bets, I thought you'd hang in there for at least 15. It all worked out in the end. If you don't want people bringing it up, you should have thought of that when agreed to the demo. Duh.
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 10:12:48 PM
If thats happening, you have a method that works part of the time. This is what most people have. You need to keep looking until you have a method where its always good, all the time. Thats why you spend 10 hours in the casino to win a few units, you've got half a method.
Typical conclusion. And I don't spend ten hours to reach my goal. I spent ten hours to play hot number guessing with 300 spins. That was decades ago. Why do you struggle with context? Are you stupid? So you don't get it.
You must be kidding that I would take your feeble advice. By your own admission you can't deal with chaos. That's what you called it more than a year ago. If you have trouble with that just look up your own words in the archives. I guess you have "a method that works part of the time" too. Pot Kettle Black.
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 10:17:20 PM
I bring it up because I can't believe you did it. I'm still in shock. The outcome was a foregone conclusion. I didn't think it would happen after 6 bets, I thought you'd hang in there for at least 15. It all worked out in the end. If you don't want people bringing it up, you should have thought of that when agreed to the demo. Duh.
You are such an ignorant Father Roulette. That's a bonus for your followers I'll bet. The odds for that three step progression to fail the first time it was tried was nearly a thousand to one. And you pretend that you know something with it failing in fifteen spins. That makes you the Zen Buddha of the "DUH" chanters. :spiteful:
>>If you have trouble with that just look up your own words in the archives. I guess you have "a method that works part of the time" too.>>
My opinion on chaos has evolved, thats what happens when you constantly work at something. All the spins in roulette are chaotic. It can't be any other way. The method I use works all the time. I always know where I am 100% of the time, where my method is in the unfolding chaotic events. You have to come to a place where you truly believe the spins are unconnected, independent events. There are no better bets, no better places to bet, its an illusion. The marquee has probably done more damage to how the player thinks about the game than anything else. Why do you think the casino uses it. Their profits went up 30% overnight after they started installing tote boards. think about it.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 07, 2011, 10:27:23 PM
You are such an ignorant Father Roulette. That's a bonus for your followers I'll bet. The odds for that three step progression to fail the first time it was tried was nearly a thousand to one. And you pretend that you know something with it failing in fifteen spins. That makes you the Zen Buddha of the "DUH" chanters. :spiteful:
A different point of view:
Am I the only one that thought that Gizmo made the Right move by ending the challenge session when it started off extremely negative? It made sense to me.
VKM
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 10:39:01 PM
>>If you have trouble with that just look up your own words in the archives. I guess you have "a method that works part of the time" too.>>
My opinion on chaos has evolved, thats what happens when you constantly work at something. All the spins in roulette are chaotic. It can't be any other way. The method I use works all the time. I always know where I am 100% of the time, where my method is in the unfolding chaotic events. You have to come to a place where you truly believe the spins are unconnected, independent events. There are no better bets, no better places to bet, its an illusion. The marquee has probably done more damage to how the player thinks about the game than anything else. Why do you think the casino uses it. Their profits went up 30% overnight after they started installing tote boards. think about it.
That's fine. So I know for a fact that your guessing is not 100% correct for every spin. So you have a method that does not work all the time. It's still Pot Kettle Black. And there must be times when your guesses hit a downturn. That's the nature of randomness. You must have a good reaction for when that happens. You are not fooling me.
I don't need to be lectured to by you about independent spins and randomness. I knew all that long before I ever met you. I've just been waiting for you to figure it out. Now you act like you are the only one that knows these things. Try as you might, I just don't need your Father Roulette guidance.
Quote from: VKM on April 07, 2011, 10:41:36 PM
A different point of view:
Am I the only one that thought that Gizmo made the Right move by ending the challenge session when it started off extremely negative? It made sense to me.
VKM
It surprised me. It blew up in my face, a thousand to one and it blew up in my face. All I could do is laugh. The smart move was to end the session. I was only going to use the progression about four or five times. I wanted to mix things up so that nobody could define my method. But to have Cheese and Kelly drag it out as proof made it even more valuable. They are stuck to it like glue. I could have won ten sessions and not accomplished that much from them. They are perfect. I got to laugh at what happened and I got them acting stupid too. It's all good.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 07, 2011, 10:50:13 PM
That's fine. So I know for a fact that your guessing is not 100% correct for every spin. So you have a method that does not work all the time.
Absolutely not true. I have a specific hit rate, and it always achieves the hit rate. Always. Its like a marksman. He never hits the bullseye 100% of the time, but he does hit it often enough the he has a consistent hit rate. Nobody does anything 100% of the time, its impossible.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 07, 2011, 10:56:09 PM
But to have Cheese and Kelly drag it out as proof made it even more valuable.
Its certainly valuable to us, thats for sure. I 100% think you were right for quitting while you did, why embarrass yourself any further. It would have been icing on the cake and who needs that..
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 11:32:05 PM
Absolutely not true. I have a specific hit rate, and it always achieves the hit rate. Always. Its like a marksman. He never hits the bullseye 100% of the time, but he does hit it often enough the he has a consistent hit rate. Nobody does anything 100% of the time, its impossible.
I don't know about that Father Roulette. You have dirt on your cape.
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 11:35:00 PM
Its certainly valuable to us, thats for sure. I 100% think you were right for quitting while you did, why embarrass yourself any further. It would have been icing on the cake and who needs that..
You really are stuck on me aren't you? Every day, the same old FLY PAPER!
Meanwhile the vaporware is proceeding as expected.
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 11:32:05 PM
Absolutely not true. I have a specific hit rate, and it always achieves the hit rate. Always. Its like a marksman. He never hits the bullseye 100% of the time, but he does hit it often enough the he has a consistent hit rate. Nobody does anything 100% of the time, its impossible.
We all know you love to talk roulette, I suspect deep down you would also get off and love to show us all that you really do have a winning method. The reason you are so hesitant to do a public demo is bc you want to protect your method like its gold, which is understandable. However if you were so smart to think outside the box and come up with a winning method, how come you can't come up with a clever way to disguise your method while at the same time showing how you can easily win 5-7 units like you claim?
It should not be that difficult to disguise your bet to make it impossible to be reverse engineered, or throw in random wrong bets to confuse and distract, even if that means your hit rate will suffer.
Why not just do it? Step up to the plate and show us how good you really are.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 07, 2011, 11:41:00 PM
Meanwhile the vaporware is proceeding as expected.
Are you aware this is the definition of vaporware?
"Vaporware is a term in the computer industry that describes a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually released. The term also generally applies to a product that is announced months or years before its release, and for which public development details are lacking. The word usually implies a negative opinion of a product or developer, and pessimistic uncertainty that it will eventually be released."
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 07, 2011, 11:46:46 PM
However if you were so smart to think outside the box and come up with a winning method, how come you can't come up with a clever way to disguise your method while at the same time showing how you can easily win 5-7 units like you claim?
Um, two weeks ago I challenged Gizmo to a contest with both of us betting 2 dozens at once, and he wouldn't do it. So blame him.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 07, 2011, 11:46:46 PM
...while at the same time showing how you can easily win 5-7 units like you claim?
Oh thank you Father Roulette. You are worth a pile of it today. I didn't have a win goal for my software. But you just set the standard. You expect to get a 5-7 net win at 30 to 40 spins. That's the line in the sand goal for my software now. You set the standard.
Thanks ll l ll l lll ll
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 11:51:48 PM
Um, two weeks ago I challenged Gizmo to a contest with both of us betting 2 dozens at once, and he wouldn't do it. So blame him.
The dozens? We both know you only play the E/C's. This is a challenge for only you. To prove you can win and to prove you are smart enough to do it while disguising your method. Should not be too hard.
If as long as your method is disguised and safe from being reverse engineered, there should be absolutely no reason for you not to do it. The only logical reason is if you really don't have a winning method after all.
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 11:49:22 PM
Are you aware this is the definition of vaporware?
"Vaporware is a term in the computer industry that describes a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually released. The term also generally applies to a product that is announced months or years before its release, and for which public development details are lacking. The word usually implies a negative opinion of a product or developer, and pessimistic uncertainty that it will eventually be released."
Are you aware that I intentionally used it. Can you figure that out? It's right up there with 6 spins and out. This should be a real head scratcher for you.
Father Roulette, you're a hoot. I can't believe that it was you that walked into this one. Are you OK? Didn't have a stroke did you?
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 08, 2011, 12:02:17 AM
If as long as your method is disguised and safe from being reverse engineered, there should be absolutely no reason for you not to do it.
Sigh. Thats why I challenged Gizmo to a dozens contest, because it was disguised. He declined. What part of this don't you understand?
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 12:02:24 AM
Are you aware that I intentionally used it.
So you're saying its all another of your 'inside' jokes, there is no app to beat roulette, its vaporware. Why isn't anybody surprised.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 12:10:09 AM
Sigh. Thats why I challenged Gizmo to a dozens contest, because it was disguised. He declined. What part of this don't you understand?
I'm not interested in you challenging anyone but yourself. Do your disguised dozen method to make 7 units right here for everyone to see.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 08, 2011, 12:15:35 AM
Do your disguised dozen method to make 7 units right here for everyone to see.
Gosh, my wife doesn't even get to tell me what to do, let alone you. I already volunteered once and nobody was interested. Look it up.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 12:13:08 AM
So you're saying its all another of your 'inside' jokes, there is no app to beat roulette, its vaporware. Why isn't anybody surprised.
Jeez, and I went to all that effort to show I was really working on it too. I used "vaporware" because you were predictable. I knew some person here would be. If I just said I was working on it you would have called it vaporware yourself, had you the education required to know that term. At the very least someone would have. It just turned out to be you. I'm really doing it. It's going faster than I thought it might. I still have to work out the attack and fall back layer and the section that keeps track of wins and losses based on bets placed. But I'm down to placing the bets now. And I've been publishing progress at this forum just as I said I would too.
So it's puzzling how much you need this to be vaporware. It's like you are invested in the hope that this is another baloney festival. I'm sorry to disappoint you. I'm really going to deliver. You know, pride and all that vanity stuff.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 12:31:22 AM
I'm really going to deliver. You know, pride and all that vanity stuff.
You used to pull this junk on GG all the time. String people along and then laugh and laugh at how gullible they are. Thats what you're doing now. Trying to make up for failing your own demo by making fools out of people. I don't know if you noticed, but the reaction to your silly 'vaporware' isn't exactly overwhelming. You're the boy that cried wolf once too often. We all know who and what you are.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 12:21:26 AM
Gosh, my wife doesn't even get to tell me what to do, let alone you. I already volunteered once and nobody was interested. Look it up.
Your reluctance to do it and verify your claims makes everything you say suspect.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 08, 2011, 12:38:05 AM
Your reluctance to do it and verify your claims makes everything you say suspect.
I don't care. Where were you 2 weeks ago when I was begging to do it? Nobody was interested then. No matter how hard you try, you can't please everybody.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 12:43:53 AM
I don't care. Where were you 2 weeks ago when I was begging to do it? Nobody was interested then. No matter how hard you try, you can't please everybody.
I don't ever recall you asking Gizmo to a challenge. I just looked it up and couldn't find any mention of that. Are you sure you weren't referring to Spike on GG?
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 08, 2011, 12:52:49 AM
I don't ever recall you asking Gizmo to a challenge. I just looked it up and couldn't find any mention of that. Are you sure you weren't referring to Spike on GG?
He was not invited. He just barged in while I was doing a demo. He made up some rules and insisted that I follow them. At first I thought it was his "Danger, Will Robinson" bit. He's had this agenda for the past year. Perhaps if any of your are clever you can recognize it. I've seen it from the get go.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 01:22:00 AM
He was not invited. He just barged in while I was doing a demo.
Gizmo said there was no way I could do what he was doing. So I said fine, we'll do it together and have a challenge. We would both bet dozens and columns. He refused. Simple as that.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 01:43:08 AM
Gizmo said there was no way I could do what he was doing. So I said fine, we'll do it together and have a challenge. We would both bet dozens and columns. He refused. Simple as that.
I'm sure you saw it that way. I was already started. But you barged in and spouted your rules. Nobody is standing in your way. You obviously have something to prove. I already made my decision. You are to much work. You demand far too much attention. That (Spike's World) stuff is getting very tired.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 01:53:43 AM
Nobody is standing in your way. You obviously have something to prove. I already made my decision. You are to much work.
See what I'm sayin'? Oh well....
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 07, 2011, 03:00:36 PM
Frequentest probability is no "badge of honor" either.
So how will you explain a working algorithm that beats this game long term? Won't it become time to admit to being a little ignorant of math on that day? That day will soon arrive. So get ready for it. We should have a BOZO festival and a fools parade. The Mathboyz burn forever day. This archive will be a testimony to Nikola Tesla types.
Looking forward to the day. But aren't you afraid the casinos will close down the game when your secret is out? :)
BTW, what is "Frequentest probability"?
Quote from: Mike on April 08, 2011, 11:23:05 AM
Looking forward to the day. But aren't you afraid the casinos will close down the game when your secret is out? :)
BTW, what is "Frequentest probability"?
Oh, I misspelled it. It should read Frequentist probability.
Look up: Frequency probability.
Look up this: nolinks://nolinks.statisticalengineering.com/frequentists_and_bayesians.htm (nolinks://nolinks.statisticalengineering.com/frequentists_and_bayesians.htm)
Quote"Frequentists and Bayesians
What IS "probability?"
Confidence Intervals vs Credible Intervals
Most engineers are surprised to learn that statistics is not monolithic, nor statisticians of one stripe. In fact statistics as a discipline remains sharply divided even on the fundamental definition of "probability."
The frequentists definition sees probability as the long-run expected frequency of occurrence. P(A) = n/N, where n is the number of times event A occurs in N opportunities. The Bayesian view of probability is related to degree of belief. It is a measure of the plausibility of an event given incomplete knowledge.
Thus a frequentist believes that a population mean is real, but unknown, and unknowable, and can only be estimated from the data. Knowing the distribution for the sample mean, he constructs a confidence interval, centered at the sample mean.
...Bayesians have an altogether different world-view. They say that only the data are real."
For the record, my algorithm utilizes these credible intervals to make intelligent choices and to determine when to attack. It does this by first qualifying situations and by extrapolating a quality by percent rate of pre existing situations. That data is real.
So why not lets see a roulette bet generated by bayesian probability ? Not easy ?
You have been talking for 4 years, but went sour after 6 spins in a demo. Can you understand why you look more like a talker rather than a walker....
There is at least 1 major flaw as to why you can`t use bayesian probability to pin point a favourable bet in roulette.
Quote from: Kelly on April 08, 2011, 12:25:33 PM
So why not lets see a roulette bet generated by bayesian probability ? Not easy ?
You have been talking for 4 years, but went sour after 6 spins in a demo. Can you understand why you look more like a talker rather than a walker....
There is at least 1 major flaw as to why you can`t use bayesian probability to pin point a favourable bet in roulette.
You can join the parade too. So what is this major flaw?
Quite obvious, but why don`t you show us a bet where bayesian principles are used to generate a bet ? Please dont tell me that you cant.
As far as I can see, Baye's theorem is just a way of calculating conditional probabilities. "Conditional" meaning given that such-and-such has occurred, then the probability of something else occurring is so-and-so.
Pretty obvious, as kelly says, why you can't apply this to roulette, and why ultimately it's a waste of time.
You could use it for sports betting, no doubt. But not roulette.
Why not?
Exactly.
Sports betting could be something. Maybe Poker ? Naa.. I doubt the pros would go for it, but theoretically....
Quote from: Kelly on April 08, 2011, 01:03:28 PM
Exactly.
Sports betting could be something. Maybe Poker ? Naa.. I doubt the pros would go for it, but theoretically....
You're probably right about the pros, but the theorem seems to be known in poker circles -
nolinks://nolinks.ruffpoker.com/blog/poker-math-baye%E2%80%99s-theorem/ (nolinks://nolinks.ruffpoker.com/blog/poker-math-baye%E2%80%99s-theorem/)
Gizmo, it won't work in roulette, but thanks for the info! :)
Gizmo, you do understand why it can't work in roulette, don't you? :-\
Quote from: Kelly on April 08, 2011, 12:45:36 PM
Quite obvious, but why don`t you show us a bet where bayesian principles are used to generate a bet ? Please dont tell me that you cant.
I'm doing it right now. But this is the point where I'm not going to show the internal workings of the black box. It wouldn't be a black box if I kept showing what's inside. Up till now I have been using the algorithm to send messages that show me that all stages up to that point are executing properly. I showed everything of that on this forum. I managed to isolate the only sleeper in the outside bets. What I'm writing now is using that sleeper to place the next bet. It ferreted out that it was the best and most powerful trend. But that's not all my method is about. I know what to do with selected bets strategically. I'm writing that too. Nothing is obvious here. You see with your data and I see with mine. You've been answered. If you don't like it then make something up.
Christ, what just happended while i was enjoying a bit of red wine. 3 windows open on Bayesian probabilitys, and 4 on modern portfolio theory.............. im off.
LOL
Quote from: Mike on April 08, 2011, 12:54:56 PM
As far as I can see, Baye's theorem is just a way of calculating conditional probabilities. "Conditional" meaning given that such-and-such has occurred, then the probability of something else occurring is so-and-so.
Pretty obvious, as kelly says, why you can't apply this to roulette, and why ultimately it's a waste of time.
You could use it for sports betting, no doubt. But not roulette.
Why not?
I don't get the joke. I am using it on Roulette. I've been advocating using it for more than two years. "Calculating conditional probabilities" is exactly what my software is doing. I'm using Boolean logic principles combined with recognizable conditions.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 01:17:11 PM
You see with your data and I see with mine. You've been answered. If you don't like it then make something up.
It doesn't matter whose data it is. Can anyone tell me why it won't work?
cheese?
Surely a lot of people must know this in a roulette forum. Or maybe that's the point. They don't. ;D
Quote from: Mike on April 08, 2011, 01:14:16 PM
Gizmo, you do understand why it can't work in roulette, don't you? :-\
Great, you can carry the baton at the fools parade.
I would love to hear a cogent argument on why I can't do what I'm actually doing right now. Could you please provide one of those revelations. Now would be a good time.
Never mind Gizmo, I don't see the point in arguing, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I await your software with anticipation. The first thing I'm going to buy is a solid gold yacht. :)
Quote from: Mike on April 08, 2011, 01:34:29 PM
Never mind Gizmo, I don't see the point in arguing, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I await your software with anticipation.
Well I was considering a logo for my software. How about an image of a fresh pile of shit? So when you try it out you can think about savoring that.
Hi all, I'm following this discussion for some time, and I have to admit that even though I know that math tells us that it is impossible to beat random and predict trends, I'm still trying even when I know it is pointless. I believe that math is right though. There are several clever ideas that seems to work if you thing about them, even if a simulation proves them wrong. Because bet selection does not theoretically matter, it does not hurt that much if you try it. Then why not try it?
While there is no conditional probability in roulette, we know that random can produce anything, even a not so random sequence. Gizmo in his posts says, that he can find such a pattern and ride it before it is done. How often is the chaos the game throws at us perfect? I don't know. What I agree is that there might be a mechanical method to select trends that are trending long enough, and if you notice them soon enough, you can GAMBLE that they continue. There is a killer sequence that after you notice a trend and jump in, trend change, then you try another trend and it stops trending again and so on until you lose. Because the possibility is there, in the long run it will happen and suck all wins you have by previous correct riding trends. Riding trends is difficult and I can't do it well, but the idea does not look so bad, and I see some reason for it to be useful. It should not hurt that much to at least try it.
Another correct thing Gizmo says and I agree upon is that there are three states of random.
A: clearly winning
B: choppy or slowly losing
C: clearly losing
If it is clearly winning, there is really a big advantage, because it has to overcome a zero. This "advantage" is a Phata Morgana, but it happens from time to time somewhere, so a good method should be ready to catch it. If it is clearly winning, an opposite side is clearly losing. A => C on opposite chance.
If it is choppy, then we have to look at a graph without zero. Many times it is winning without zero, but it is choppy if zero is there. If it is choppy, the opposite side is also choppy, but it can be also losing. My simulations and graphs showed me, that if one even chance is choppy, the opposite one is often losing. B => B or C on opposite chance.
If it is clearly losing, then the other side is clearly winning. C => A on opposite chance.
How to deal with trends? I am trying to use same method that traders use, like trailing stoplosses and moving averages, right now I'm looking into indicators. They should not work in long term, I know, but what if I find that combining them in a right way can catch random for a prolonged periods of time? If random by chance produces sequence that is not so random, then it should be able to catch them.
Example of my pre-alpha trend catching system:
It plays an even chance, and there is a rolling stoploss for that. This even chance means "buy", and opposite one means "sell". As long as it is going up, system continues and only if rolling stoploss is broken, then system reset stoploss and immediately plays another chance, thus changing a position. In this way a new graph is produced, and we can deal with that as with an another even chance. So same thing is done with this virtual play, and only decisions from that are played. It sometimes works, sometimes not. If the original even chance is losing enough, it can turn it into winning one. The problem is a choppy sequence, that causes a clearly winning or losing streak. That can be filtered with another layer. The problem is if choppy produces a choppy graph again. If I look at any graph, I can thing that with complex enough rules, it would be possible to turn it into profit, flat betting. What can an eye see, is hard to program into working code. There is a need for better indicators than rolling stoploss or moving average, one specifically developed for roulette. It will not work forever, of course, and in fact it does not work for me most of time, but I see an idea. If a system could create Phata Morgana often enough, I am OK with that. I add a graph of even chance (green line) turned into profitable play(red line) with virtual game (violet line) and two rolling stoplosses. Sometimes it works, often it fails, it is just a component and right now I am looking into for any useful components.
Another thing is that wining and losing streaks are often quiet cyclic. Moving averages and even that rolling stoplosses resemble a sine wave, maybe something like that could be used as an indicator. Another image has two simple moving averages, slower and faster one, and if faster is above slower, it bets original even chance, if it is below or equal it bets opposite side. It does not work always, just another component to be put together. Both of them somehow resemble sine wave.
Maybe it is useless to try to find a system, when it has been proven that negative expectation game cannot be beaten, but it is really exciting and fun to try to do impossible.
QuoteI would love to hear a cogent argument on why I can't do what I'm actually doing right now. Could you please provide one of those revelations. Now would be a good time.
First of all, no one knows what you do, except you claims that you beat the house. Now, we have a hard time believing you are beating the house, we even have a hard time believing you are playing roulette judging from your way of handling a little bit of wind in the face from the casino. Apart from that, you dont beat the house because the payout sucks and you cant change that.
That way, that is.
Quote from: Kelly on April 08, 2011, 03:34:52 PM
First of all, no one knows what you do, except you claims that you beat the house. Now, we have a hard time believing you are beating the house, we even have a hard time believing you are playing roulette judging from your way of handling a little bit of wind in the face from the casino. Apart from that, you dont beat the house because the payout sucks and you cant change that.
That way, that is.
Nice try Kelly but that was not an argument of why I can't use "Calculating conditional probabilities." That was just an attack against my claims. You are still on track to enter your float in the fools parade. Keep up the good attitude.
Quote from: mr.ore on April 08, 2011, 03:00:30 PM
If it is clearly winning, there is really a big advantage, because it has to overcome a zero. This "advantage" is a Phata Morgana, but it happens from time to time somewhere, so a good method should be ready to catch it.
Nice going: "Following a trend is no better or worse than following a mirage. But sometimes the mirage is right in line with the real thing."
You might like attempting to attack that Phata Morgana while it happens. I do.
Quote from: Mike on April 08, 2011, 01:34:29 PM
I await your software with anticipation. The first thing I'm going to buy is a solid gold yacht. :)
Don't hold your breath. 'Vaporware', as he calls this, means its a myth, its never going to happen. I exchanged over a thousand emails with Gizmo, and he told me many times that his favorite thing to do is make fools out of people on forums, then sit back and laugh and laugh. Too bad we're all onto to him now, he's only talking to himself and doesn't even know it.
Quote from: mr.ore on April 08, 2011, 03:00:30 PM
Another correct thing Gizmo says and I agree upon is that there are three states of random.
A: clearly winning
B: choppy or slowly losing
C: clearly losing
But this is meaningless. Its what every roulette player experiences, whether he has a system or not. You're always in one of these three states. Winning, winning and losing, and clearly losing. Watch people randomly betting, you can see it happening right in front of you. To trumpet this as some kind of 'discovery', as Gizmo has done, is ludicrous. Its an integral part of roulette, so what. It tells you nothing you can use to beat the game.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 01:25:59 PM
I don't get the joke. I am using it on Roulette. I've been advocating using it for more than two years. "Calculating conditional probabilities"
Yet another concept Gizmo blatantly ripped off from me. He never talked about this before I did, and then acted like he knew about it all along. Look here: nolinks://nolinks (nolinks://nolinks). gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8404&forum=Roulette_Message_Board
"The reason using past spins works is called conditional probability, which is "the probability of A occurring, given that B has occurred." "Conditional probability is the probability of some event A, given the occurrence of some other event B." Done correctly, it gives you huge advantage over general probability. Its not supposed to work on independent outcomes, so what you need to do is invent a scenario (a game inside the game) where the independent outcomes can be connected to the future outcomes and go from there."
"To beat the math, you need to make up parameters that don't exist, and pretend they do. I said a long time ago that I made up a game I play within the existing game of roulette. In that game, conditional probability works on roulette."
"The thing about discussing all these types of probabilities is, in gambling you can be wrong and still make money. You just have to be right more often than wrong. Thats why its ok to invent parameters that don't exist to play against. 2+2 doesn't have to add up to 4 every time, it just has to be close often enough to make a profit. ."
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 06:44:52 PM
Yet another concept Gizmo blatantly ripped off from me. He never talked about this before I did, and then acted like he knew about it all along. Look here: nolinks://nolinks (nolinks://nolinks). gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8404&forum=Roulette_Message_Board
"The reason using past spins works is called conditional probability, which is "the probability of A occurring, given that B has occurred." "Conditional probability is the probability of some event A, given the occurrence of some other event B." Done correctly, it gives you huge advantage over general probability. Its not supposed to work on independent outcomes, so what you need to do is invent a scenario (a game inside the game) where the independent outcomes can be connected to the future outcomes and go from there."
"To beat the math, you need to make up parameters that don't exist, and pretend they do. I said a long time ago that I made up a game I play within the existing game of roulette. In that game, conditional probability works on roulette."
"The thing about discussing all these types of probabilities is, in gambling you can be wrong and still make money. You just have to be right more often than wrong. Thats why its OK to invent parameters that don't exist to play against. 2+2 doesn't have to add up to 4 every time, it just has to be close often enough to make a profit. ."
What a cry baby. Whaaah! Hey Father Roulette the topic is frequentist vs bayesian probability and I ripped it off from you. That's almost as funny as your claimed hit rate of 72%. What I think now is that you've been drinking straight 72% grain alcohol. Get a real life. This has become the theater of the absurd.
If you play a progressions you might not notice the three or more states, because you are winning even if a chance is slowly losing. Without testing, I would not know that a chance can be in a "clearly losing" state for several hundreds or even thousands spins, and the other having a huge advantage. They are often long enough to thing of using some method to catch them. I do not believe in bet selections, but I want to prove myself that NOTHING can be done. I have ignored them for a long time, because there is no reason for them to work, game is perfectly random. There are some people on forums who claim that bet selection can make losing trends shorter. I want to find a good bet selection and measure if it really works. There are instruments how to partially deal with fluctuations - moving average can help to avoid quick and long downturn, same with rolling stoploss and another trading indicators. Now I wonder, if it is possible to create an indicator, that with a high degree of certainity works, and from time to time completely fails to make up for expected value. Like slowly winning for 5000/+0.0324 units per spin, then a quick loss for 1000 spins/-0.162 units loss per spin to make up for expectation, and then again slowly winning.
Math says that advantage cannot be overcomed and roulette beaten. Then I wonder - can a graph of this game be controlled in such a way so that it is always contained in a certain area, within certain boundaries? If it would be possible, then the more a graph would be near a low boundary, the lower a chance of a long losing streak. Then a system could wait for a small losing streak within that, and on barrier it would start playing, maybe with a progression. Such a play would be a conditional probability, supposing you could really force graph say into +-1 SD. It is probably impossible to make losing strike shorter without creating new ones within derived games though.
What I am looking into is either to make up for house edge with catching an upward fluctuation, or to force a graph as near expected value as possible, so that it never deviates too much. Even if it was losing flat betting, then as long as amount_won/amount_bet = 36/37 math condition is satisfied, even if a bankroll balance is in a profit. In an infinity it will certainly lose, but in the same way we will never see 100 reds, could there be a system that won't lose in a finite number of spins?
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 07:35:39 PM
bayesian probability and I ripped it off from you.
All I know is, you NEVER talked about it before I did in 2009. You glom onto other peoples work and claim it was your idea all along. Thats my major issue with you. You never ever discussed conditional probability before I started talking about it.
Quote from: mr.ore on April 08, 2011, 07:43:45 PM
If you play a progressions you might not notice the three or more states
Of course you'll notice them, you don't win more often when using a progression.
You might ignore them until your progression fails ;) Or at least do not thing of them too much, especially if a progression is marty-like something, but just a little mellower than that. If you know that nothing can be done to avoid them, you do not even try.
How did you created a game within game where conditional probability works?
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 06:44:52 PM
Yet another concept Gizmo blatantly ripped off from me. He never talked about this before I did, and then acted like he knew about it all along. Look here: nolinks://nolinks (nolinks://nolinks). gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8404&forum=Roulette_Message_Board
Your link shows that you posted this on "Posted: 17-Nov-09 20:00"
You will notice in the same thread at (Posted: 19-Nov-09 15:32) that I mention bayesian probability. BTW, it was first brought up by me much earlier.
In a discussion of fuzzy logic:
from here: nolinks:// nolinks.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=898&forum=Roulette_Archive_2007 (nolinks://nolinks.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=898&forum=Roulette_Archive_2007)
QuoteThe fact that fuzzy logic allows for iterative adaptation gives it some closeness to Bayesian probabilities (see that phrase), but it cannot be confused with them as it is more ..."fuzzy", approximate
"
That was (Posted: 01-Nov-07 22:41) two years and 16 days before you Father Roulette. You really need to get a grip there bub.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 07:45:33 PM
All I know is, you NEVER talked about it before I did in 2009. You glom onto other peoples work and claim it was your idea all along. Thats my major issue with you. You never ever discussed conditional probability before I started talking about it.
I talked about it two years and 16 days before you did. That makes you a baloney festival promoter.
I didn't get it from you. I got it from Artinvivo / ipsumlorem.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 08:05:56 PM
You will notice in the same thread at (Posted: 19-Nov-09 15:32) that I mention bayesian probability. BTW, it was first brought up by me much earlier.
I connected conditional probability to roulette and you glomed onto it like you do with everything I come up with. You have nothing of your own except 'elegant patterns', whatever the heck those are.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 08:14:44 PM
I connected conditional probability to roulette and you glomed onto it like you do with everything I come up with. You have nothing of your own except 'elegant patterns', whatever the heck those are.
I guess I'd be nothing without you. That explains why my students have no clue what to bet next. You are one big conflicted, fat weirdo. You came up with Reading Randomness too didn't you? I wrote my first hot number analyzer more than 12 years before I ever heard of you. It has the ability to hunt the hottest numbers and to change to them in a 300 spin cycle. It actually checks for conditional situations to make its choices. It looked for the hottest 6 numbers and selected the hot three when ever any of the previous three had cooled off. You were never on my mind back then. Now you are nothing but a full blown joke.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 06:26:34 PM
But this is meaningless. Its what every roulette player experiences, whether he has a system or not. You're always in one of these three states. Winning, winning and losing, and clearly losing. Watch people randomly betting, you can see it happening right in front of you. To trumpet this as some kind of 'discovery', as Gizmo has done, is ludicrous. Its an integral part of roulette, so what. It tells you nothing you can use to beat the game.
I don't get this. You claim that all my ideas come from you. Father Roulette, how could you have missed this one?
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 08:27:01 PM
You came up with Reading Randomness too didn't you?
Yup, sure did. And you proved your understanding of random in your 'demo', where you claimed afterwards that something was 'supposed' to win.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
I don't get this. You claim that all my ideas come from you.
They did. Up until I started complaining recently, you couldn't get thru a post without mentioning me. Now all my ideas are crap. Make up your mind.
QuoteI don't get this. You claim that all my ideas come from you.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 08:43:01 PM
They did. Up until I started complaining recently, you couldn't get thru a post without mentioning me. Now all my ideas are stuff. Make up your mind.
Is that why you are so mad? I started teaching others and you want all the credit for it. You never shared with me what you do. Does that sound familiar? You don't like Elegant Patterns so you won't claim that one. You do like "Reading Randomness," but you can't prove that you used it first. Now you take the past four years and try to say you were the only authentic reason on any forum we were both at. I just got done proving I had heard of Bayesian Probability before you mentioned it. You only have one thing. You were talking about Educated Guessing. That's all you have on me. I came up with everything else on my own. You made that clear as a bell that you don't share with anyone. You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 08:54:55 PM
You can't have it both ways.
You can tap dance all you like and try to rewrite history. Everybody knows what the truth is.
6 bets and -$360. You'll never live that down.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 08:43:01 PM
Now all my ideas are stuff.
Show me where I have been talking down at your ideas for the past year. It's your arguing and your ego that I disagree with. I still think you can win at this game of Roulette.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 09:00:17 PM
You can tap dance all you like and try to rewrite history. Everybody knows what the truth is.
6 bets and -$360. You'll never live that down.
Context, that's what blinders do for you. You can't see that is was a very rare occurrence. But you are so enlightened with conditional probability that you can't see how rare it was. Funny how you glob on to words that sound smart. Too bad you can't actually use the concept in a sentence. Yes, everyone knows the truth. I set you up and you dug a giant hole with it. And you keep on digging too. I wonder if conditional probability applies to making an ass of yourself? You are banging down the doors of that hit rate. I'd bet on you to squish your soap box any time soon.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 09:07:39 PM
Show me where I have been talking down at your ideas for the past year.
You don't get it! You haven't beaten roulette. You rip people off by taking their money and teaching them nothing. I don't want to be connected to you in any way. I'm sick and tired of seeing my name linked to yours. I'm tired of you giving me credit for your losing methods. Its as simple as that.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 09:13:55 PM
You can't see that is was a very rare occurrence.
OK, do the demo again. Show us it was a rare occurrence. How hard is that?
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 09:14:06 PM
You don't get it! You haven't beaten roulette. You rip people off by taking their money and teaching them nothing. I don't want to be connected to you in any way. I'm sick and tired of seeing my name linked to yours. I'm tired of you giving me credit for your losing methods. Its as simple as that.
That's simple enough. I'll tell everyone that you eat shit. That your baloney ideas are based on plagiarism. That you want to live in anonymity while posting in every thread where your Father Roulette routine can gain notoriety. They will see right away that your 72% hit rate has always been that secret Holy Grail. And I'll remind them that you never share what you do on any forum, ever. Yep, that's an easy one KOOK.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 09:16:07 PM
OK, do the demo again. Show us it was a rare occurrence. How hard is that?
What, no conditional probability math? Certainly you can prove to us all that you know the odds? I think you can't. So let's see that proof. What are the odds? It was a three step progression, 1, 4, 13, on each dozen. It had a 33 to 1 chance that it would fail the first time it was tried in that 100 spin test. What are the odds for it to lose on that first trial? You don't know conditional probability. You just pretend to use it to impress people. It's really good stuff too Father Roulette.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 09:20:29 PM
That's simple enough. I'll tell everyone that you eat shit. That your baloney ideas are based on plagiarism.
Thats fine. What I don't want is to be connected to a scammer ripping people off, like you're doing. Or the crackpot vapor-box you aren't making. Or anything to do with you.
Quote from: cheese on April 08, 2011, 09:32:31 PM
Thats fine. What I don't want is to be connected to a scammer ripping people off, like you're doing. Or the crackpot vapor-box you aren't making. Or anything to do with you.
OK then, I got the message. It's time to cut the cheese.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 08, 2011, 09:26:19 PM
What, no conditional probability math? Certainly you can prove to us all that you know the odds? I think you can't.
In other words, you won't do it again because you realize it doesn't work. No surprise there..
Quote from: cheese link=topic=18544. msg133710#msg133710 date=1302157192
If I see something written in German, it means nothing to me. Its useless information because I don't have the key to reading it. When somebody explains to me what the symbols mean and how they're organized into words, I can start to make sense of it. Random outcomes are similar, but you can only make a vague sense out of them, not an exact sense, like you can with a foreign language. Its all about organization. It about how good you are at organizing the random events into something you can use. It about taking one thing and making it into something else. Like BJ, you take the outcomes and turn them into a counting game to give yourself the advantage. There's a way to organize the random events in roulette to give yourself an edge. Lets see if any sock puppets pop up and say "Oh yeah, thats how its done, thats how I always do it. " To which my answer will be "No you don't. "
I agree it's a good way to play making a "vague sense" out of random outcomes rather than anything super specific. It's how I play and it's how I regularly win. With practice it becomes very easy to visualize what is coming next. Not what is coming the next spin specifically, but what may be coming in the next 2-4 spins based on what has been happening. When there is a change, I get off it and either change with it or look for another even chance that is trending well.
I don't make my style of play as complicated as you seem to do such as "taking one thing and making it into something else" or organize the random events in roulette to give yourself the edge. " I simply have mastered reading what is currently happening and playing for it to continue in a very general vague way. I do this by watching the marquee. Red and black is the easiest to see, but after months of practice I can easily do the same with O/E and H/L.
I always reach my win of 10 units and leave. My biggest drawdowns are usually -4, sometimes as high as -5 but I always recover and when I do recover it happens quite rapidly. I can sometimes reach 10 units in 10 spins, other times as long as 100 spins, it all depends. With regular practice it's actually quite easy. I have been playing for 9 months like this and have substantially built up my bankroll. I am now playing with $500 chips.
Quote from: Frame it on April 08, 2011, 11:07:33 PM
With practice it becomes very easy to visualize what is coming next. Not what is coming the next spin specifically, but what may be coming in the next 2-4 spins based on what has been happening.
You can tell whats coming in the next 2-4 spins? And you bet $500 chips? Is that the story you're sticking with?
Quote from: cheese link=topic=18544. msg133952#msg133952 date=1302318114
You can tell whats coming in the next 2-4 spins? And you bet $500 chips? Is that the story you're sticking with?
Yes. That is what I said. It is not a story, it is real life, it is what I do.
Quote from: Frame it on April 09, 2011, 12:05:52 AM
Yes. That is what I said. It is not a story, it is real life, it is what I do.
Whatever you say..
QuoteNice try Kelly but that was not an argument of why I can't use "Calculating conditional probabilities." That was just an attack against my claims. You are still on track to enter your float in the fools parade. Keep up the good attitude
Well since there are no way you can use either normal,conditional or "bayesian" probability as an indicator, you would have to show how you do that.
Why you can`t ? Because the wheel has no memory. Depending on the lenght/amount of spins that has just occured and goes into the calculation, you can calculate a probability value for the next outcome. So what ? If we have 4 or 5 reds in a row, the probability for another red gets smaller and smaller each time you add another spin. You know what happens if I run a test on real Hamburg or Wiesbaden spins, that says "bet black after 4 reds" ?
It comes out with a loss of - 1.35% of the wagered amount, same shit happens if I bet red after 4 or 5 blacks.
Its just an example, but it shows clearly that no matter what kind of "acumulated" probability you get to after x amount of spins, it does not affect the real probability that applys to 1 spin only. 50/50 minus the house edge or 1/37 with a payout of 35 etc etc.
So, now its your turn. How do you apply conditional probability to create an edge over the house ?
Quote from: Kelly on April 09, 2011, 02:04:48 AM
It comes out with a loss of - 1.35% of the wagered amount, same shit happens if I bet red after 4 or 5 blacks.
Its called unconditional probability, it rules roulette. Thats why you have to invent a game from the random outcomes that can use conditional probability. Its doesn't have to be anything close to accurate, just so it wins more than 50% of the time.
The calculation for unconditional probability is:
To find the unconditional probability of an event, sum the outcomes of the event and divide by the total number of possible outcomes.
What could that possibly gain in roulette ?
Quote from: Kelly on April 09, 2011, 02:29:04 AM
What could that possibly gain in roulette ?
Thats what I said, its rules roulette, you can't win with it. You have to invent a game from the actuals where you can use conditional probability and play that instead.
Conditional probabilty relys on that spins are not independend, which they are. If they are not, it must be possible to construct some sort of proof that they aren`t. You can apply conditional probability to BJ and Poker where some cards cannot be in 2 seperate places at once. In roulette there is nothing that stops an occurence although the accumulated probability might get smaller or larger. In BJ, there is a physical condition when a lot of small cards has dissapeared from the deck, that gives the player a small advantage in the pay out on hitting a Black Jack. In roulette there are no physical conditions that has changed between 2 spins.
What kelly said. :thumbsup:
Of course it's possible to do probability calculations using Bayes' theorem because it can be used even if you're ignorant of whether the distribution is independent or not. You can also invent a "game within a game" if you want, but none of that will help you to pick more winners than expectation because on each spin there are no outcomes which are eliminated (as in the case of BJ or Poker).
Bayes' theorem will only confirm what should be obvious: that outcomes are independent. You can't just "decide to use" conditional probability (which doesn't even make sense) and somehow magically make the outcomes dependent! this is a serious misunderstanding of probability and math in general.
Conditional probability is only sensible when the set of outcomes is restricted in some way, so if cards are removed from a deck then obviously those cards cannot re-appear and any probability calculations are with respect to that reduced set of cards.
It's all very well having the electric hat and a T-shirt with "Bayes or Bust" emblazoned on it, but unless you understand the concepts you end up looking like an idiot. :haha:
Quote from: Mike on April 09, 2011, 02:59:02 AM
Bayes' theorem will only confirm what should be obvious: that outcomes are independent.
Nobody's arguing they aren't independent. What I'm saying is, you have a invent a game to play inside the game of roulette where you can use conditional probability to win more than 50% of the time.
Quote from: Kelly on April 09, 2011, 02:04:48 AM
So, now its your turn. How do you apply conditional probability to create an edge over the house ?
For one thing I don't start with the wheel has no memory. That's a red herring if I ever saw one. The wheel doesn't need a memory in order to create a unique sequence of spins. I start with the fact that the most recent spins have formed a unique sequence. From that sequence I can accumulate data that is real. I can check it for baseline references to deviations from the baseline. I can apply rule based decisions on it to form both trend and pattern formations. These formations can take on the shapes of a rhythm, much like music does. I use this to produce win streaks. I know how to use these moments to take down the casinos. Sometimes the rhythm of the patterns are so perfect that they form into a perfect win streak. That's a moment when opportunity reaches an almost 100% quality to it. The fact that there are those that won't take advantage of these moments doesn't surprise me. They would rather listen to the wood in the wheel. It talks to them. The wood has no memory.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 03:22:39 AM
The wheel doesn't need a memory in order to create a unique sequence of spins.
What?
Of course it does. So you're saying that a sequence can't repeat when on each spin each number has the same chance of appearing?
The only way a sequence would be guaranteed to be unique is if some numbers were removed from the wheel - ie: outcomes were dependent.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 03:22:39 AM
I can apply rule based decisions on it to form both trend and pattern formations.
Yes, you can. You can apply them all day long. You can apply rules to random events till you're blue in the face and the cows come home. You can apply them 24/7. You can also attempt to staple jello to the wall. See which one works first.
Quote from: cheese on April 09, 2011, 03:19:04 AM
Nobody's arguing they aren't independent. What I'm saying is, you have a invent a game to play inside the game of roulette where you can use conditional probability to win more than 50% of the time.
Ok, you can invent your game but eventually you have to deal with reality. Having a game where you pretend that outcomes are dependent doesn't change the reality that they aren't, and sooner or later you have to place a bet. I'm not sure whether you're saying that outcomes are independent or they're not independent. You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Mike on April 09, 2011, 03:41:30 AM
Having a game where you pretend that outcomes are dependent doesn't change the reality.
Of course not. But it skews it enough to gain an edge. It doesn't change anything except the way you look at it. I makes guesses based on my game, I have no idea whats coming next. If I'm wrong, I'm never ever surprised, there are no 'good' bets, there is no 'better' time to bet.
Quote from: Mike on April 09, 2011, 02:59:02 AM
Bayes' theorem will only confirm what should be obvious: that outcomes are independent. You can't just "decide to use" conditional probability (which doesn't even make sense) and somehow magically make the outcomes dependent! this is a serious misunderstanding of probability and math in general.
A recent unique sequence of spins is independent of the expectation inference of the long termed sample. You can use pattern recognition technique on any unique sequence.
"In machine learning, pattern recognition is the assignment of some sort of output value (or label) to a given input value (or instance), according to some specific algorithm. An example of pattern recognition is classification, which attempts to assign each input value to one of a given set of classes "
I'm using an algorithm to assign output values to unique sequences of current data that is real.
You are assigning that all data from past spins obtains a qualification value of nothing. You demand that all others seek this same data sample of nothing from witch you extrapolate nothing. You are guilty of your own inference. You are assigning it a value too.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 03:48:42 AM
I'm using an algorithm to assign output values to unique sequences of current data that is real.
Assigning values to unique random outcomes is an exercise in futility. Random follows no rules. No matter how hard you wish, and how hard you curve fit, and how much you dream, they will never follow any rules.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 04:05:43 AM
Pattern recognition is not an exercise in futility.
Assigning rules to pattern recognition is an exercise in futility. I do this day in and day out, I know no rules whatever can work with random outcomes. You can't give ONE example where it works.
Quote from: cheese on April 09, 2011, 04:13:02 AM
Assigning rules to pattern recognition is an exercise in futility. I do this day in and day out, I know no rules whatever can work with random outcomes. You can't give ONE example where it works.
You mean like a working computer algorithm?
Don't feed the troll...
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 04:19:41 AM
You mean like a working computer algorithm?
.
No, a real example, not a vaporware example. A real example we can see and judge, not something you're perpetually going to reveal 'next week'.
Quote from: cheese on April 09, 2011, 04:26:35 AM
No, a real example, not a vaporware example. A real example we can see and judge, not something you're perpetually going to reveal 'next week'.
Well you've wrecked another thread. That's what you do.
One thing is to reckognize a pattern, anybody can do that, where is the guarantee that it will continue with a hit rate better than expectation ? You can apply the law of the series to also apply to a pattern as long as both samples has the same spin lenght. You will find that both types has as many break ups, as they have continuations. Unless you have found a unique pattern that comes more often than others. Feel free to post that. In fact, post any kind of sequenze that triggers a bet, i don`t care what the bet might be, just a sequenze that triggers a bet.
Quote from: Kelly on April 09, 2011, 05:22:27 AM
One thing is to reckognize a pattern, anybody can do that, where is the guarantee that it will continue with a hit rate better than expectation ? In fact, post any kind of sequenze that triggers a bet.
There is NO pattern that continues better than expectation. There are no triggers in roulette, its impossible. Anybody who believes there are has not studied long enough or is deluding themselves.
Quote from: cheese link=topic=18544. msg133993#msg133993 date=1302338296
There is NO pattern that continues better than expectation. There are no triggers in roulette, its impossible. Anybody who believes there are has not studied long enough or is deluding themselves.
Patterns can be recognized after they happen, but that doesn't mean you can't attempt to ride the begining of a pattern into a 20+ win streak, it happens. In roulette there are no laws, the wheel has no memory and that's where trends and patterns were born. That's how and why they can be exploited. If the wheel HAD a memory it would spit out a perfect equal distribution such as R b R b R b R b R b R b R b R b R b.
Are you saying that if I look at the last 8 spins and I see 6 reds and 2 blacks (regardless of what pattern there is b/c I don't pay attention to patterns), that I absolutely will not get at least 1 or two more reds in the next 2-4 spins?
Of course you will say no. You will say that aything can happen at anytime and you are right. However when I see this on the marquee I am far more right than I am wrong. If I am wrong and it changes then I change with it or jump onto another E/C where it is continuing to work. If it looks like a complete mess and there is nothing that I see that has dominated the last half-dozen spins, then I don't play that stream & I look for something better. I have mastered this skill with such precision I can walk into a casino, take one quick glance at the marquee and begin to bet. It's how I keep under the radar. I keep moving from table to table, from casino to casino.
stunning.... :clapping:
Frame_it, thanx a lot for the info, i have a question: let's say u identified dominant EC. U place your bet, say on RED. u wait for 4-5 losses to occur before quitting this particular spot? Or for how many losses? When u said: 4-5 losses, u meant for this particular "mini-session" or for a whole day? or maybe for this whole session on this particular wheel before u move to another?
thanx again
Quote from: Kelly on April 09, 2011, 05:22:27 AM
One thing is to reckognize a pattern, anybody can do that, where is the guarantee that it will continue with a hit rate better than expectation ?
It doesn't need a guarantee. It doesn't even have to win. I win more times than I lose. That's all that matters. If you can't attack a win streak then why do you ask for information from others? All you do is tell people that they can't do what they are already doing. Nothing ever changes.
Quote from: iggiv link=topic=18544. msg134002#msg134002 date=1302357731
stunning. . . . :clapping:
Frame_it, thanx a lot for the info, I have a question: let's say u identified dominant EC. U place your bet, say on RED. u wait for 4-5 losses to occur before quitting this particular spot? Or for how many losses? When u said: 4-5 losses, u meant for this particular "mini-session" or for a whole day? or maybe for this whole session on this particular wheel before u move to another?
thanx again
If you see something that looks good and you lose, quit that stream after 3 consecutive losses, or 3 out of 4 losses. Look for something better. Sometimes quit after 2 consecutive losses, you have to get a feel for it. Sometimes it changes quicker than others. Looking for something better can be on that wheel on a different even chance or a different table. Don't place a single bet until you have practiced thousands of spins and never lose a session.
Anything can be used. If you see a ton of reds, bet that reds will keep coming. If you see a ton of streaks, bet they will keep coming. If you see a ton of switching like RbRbRbRbRb or even RbRRbrbRRb. . . . bet that it will continue. If you are wrong, you are wrong and you move on to find the next. In roulette this is ALWAYS happening on every wheel at every table, it's quite easy when you practice.
Quote from: iggiv on April 09, 2011, 11:02:11 AM
stunning.... :clapping:
Frame_it, thanx a lot for the info, I have a question: let's say u identified dominant EC. U place your bet, say on RED. u wait for 4-5 losses to occur before quitting this particular spot? Or for how many losses? When u said: 4-5 losses, u meant for this particular "mini-session" or for a whole day? or maybe for this whole session on this particular wheel before u move to another?
thanx again
You are asking questions about the difficulty of the session. Those are the right questions to ask. If you lose once following a trend then that is a clear signal that it's not working. There is only one time when you might want to risk a second loss on that trend. You might be flat betting the EC's in a 80% pure domination typed trend. That's where you would expect a perfect execution of what you are seeing to have a few interspersed losses. So you ride it out to see if it holds up.
thanx a lot guys
Frame it, what you say is highly hypothetical. Take a bet selection like the Guetting March/strategy. It conforms towards whatever is trending. Chops or series, even 2er series and nose patterns.
B
B
Bet B
B
R
B
Bet R
B
B
R
R
B
Bet B and the bet RR anticipating that that the 2er series continues.
X
X
(-) X Follow the serie fails
X (-) Follow new chop serie fails
X (-) Follow possible chop fails
(-) X Follow new, because 2 in a row, serie fails
(-) X Follow chops fails
X (-)Follow serie fails
(-) X Follow 2er serie fails
(-) X Follow chops fails
You can jump and dance all you like, as soon as you think you go choppy, series starts and when you think series is about to start, they go choppy. Any bet selection has an enemy pattern. Just go along with whatever trend there is, and you are home free, simply does not cut it. Its wishfull thinking, real spins arent really that nice to you. As on the stock market, in roulette its easy to see what you should have done after a elegant pattern just ocurred, the truth is, you dont know what is going to happen to your next line of bets.
Quote from: Frame it on April 09, 2011, 01:13:20 PM
If you see a ton of reds, bet that reds will keep coming. If you see a ton of streaks, bet they will keep coming. If you see a ton of switching like RbRbRbRbRb or even RbRRbrbRRb. . . . bet that it will continue.
This works exactly half the time. If this worked like you say, find streaks and patterns and bet they will continue, everybody would be doing it, and they're not. Try it in practice at home, you will see in no time that you do exactly 50% in no time. If it were as easy as you say to win this way, roulette would have shut down 200 years ago.
Quote from: Kelly on April 09, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
Just go along with whatever trend there is, and you are home free, simply does not cut it. Its wishfull thinking, real spins arent really that nice to you.
Its rule based betting and it can never work. Its newbie stuff, just follow this or bet against that and you'll beat the game. No, you won't.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 01:07:10 PM
If you can't attack a win streak then why do you ask for information from others? All you do is tell people that they can't do what they are already doing.
Because they AREN'T doing it, thats why. If I can't do it, why can they? Its like somebody posts they can leap tall buildings with a single bound, like Superman, and I'm supposed to believe it. I don't.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 06:57:20 PM
I'm doing it.
You've found good and bad times in random sequences. A mathematical impossibility. There is no better time to make a bet, its all the same. Yet you're 'doing it'.
Sure you are.
Quote from: cheese on April 09, 2011, 07:05:34 PM
You've found good and bad times in random sequences. A mathematical impossibility. There is no better time to make a bet, its all the same. Yet you're 'doing it'.
Sure you are.
You are without exception the Cheesiest of all the mathboyz. And you come off looking like Barney Fife trying it too. You just love to argue.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 07:16:41 PM
You are without exception the Cheesiest of all the mathboyz.
OK, prove me wrong. Give just one example of a 'good' time to bet. Make me look bad. Show us you know the next spin so well that you can conclude this is the 'best' time to bet. I've said literally thousands of times that there can never EVER be a best or worst time, thats what makes roulette beatable. But here you are, saying the exact opposite. Vaporware, vaportheory.
Quote from: Frame it on April 09, 2011, 09:23:10 AM
Are you saying that if I look at the last 8 spins and I see 6 reds and 2 blacks (regardless of what pattern there is b/c I don't pay attention to patterns), that I absolutely will not get at least 1 or two more reds in the next 2-4 spins?
Of course you will say no. You will say that anything can happen at anytime and you are right. However when I see this on the marquee I am far more right than I am wrong.
Far more right than wrong. You see 6 reds and 2 blacks and you get 1 or 2 more reds in the next 2-4 spins, far more often than you don't. Thats physically and mathematically impossible, you realize that, right? If what you're saying is true, everybody would be at the casino right now playing it. Using a progression, you would never lose. And they're not playing it. What does that tell you.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 07:34:13 PM
My software is smarter than you. That's your demo. Try it, don't try it, fine. If others find that it works then you will be forced to try it.
Ok, I'll try it if you give just one example of a 'best' time to bet. Prove me wrong. You can't do it because it can't be done. Therefore, your download is a pantload.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 07:50:15 PM
I guess you are too stupid to recognize a winning streak.
So a winning streak is the 'best' time to bet? But in roulette, there are just as many losing streaks as winning streaks, so in the end, you're playing right at the house edge. Thats it, thats your whole strategy? But thats every ploppies strategy, bet a lot when you're winning, and less when you're losing. Nothing new about that.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 08:07:10 PM
You are such a moron. You sound exactly like Snowman.
So you think there are more winning streaks than losing streaks. And if you just follow the winning streaks, all will be good. Right?
Gizmo, bud, please calm down. I understand that u consider Cheese wrong, but no excuses. no personal attacks or insults. Remember that. Please.
Quote from: cheese on April 09, 2011, 08:10:45 PM
So you think there are more winning streaks than
You're silence on this speaks volumes. No examples, no explanations, is this what you sold your students? No wonder they contacted me.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 07, 2011, 03:00:36 PM
I'm not ignorant of math. I started out with probability books and hand held calculators more than 20 years ago while hand writing simulations. Frequentest probability is no "badge of honor" either.
So how will you explain a working algorithm that beats this game long term? Won't it become time to admit to being a little ignorant of math on that day? That day will soon arrive. So get ready for it. We should have a BOZO festival and a fools parade. The Mathboyz burn forever day. This archive will be a testimony to Nikola Tesla types.
Let me make sure I understand this. You have claimed in other posts on this forum that you have the Gizmotron algorithm, but it "is not built yet". So, I am guessing that you are talking here about your own algorithm. And, you are planning on implementing it at some point. Then you will have a positive edge versus roulette. But, here you are insulting people who understand math. So, your algorithm is not based on math and cannot be understood by anyone who knows anything about math? Is that what you are saying?
Quote from: curious on April 14, 2011, 01:20:33 PM
So, your algorithm is not based on math and cannot be understood by anyone who knows anything about math? Is that what you are saying?
No. Why are you asking me questions? Do you have a bet going from a troll gathering?
Don't feed the troll.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 14, 2011, 01:43:45 PM
No. Why are you asking me questions? Do you have a bet going from a troll gathering?
Don't feed the troll.
I am asking you questions because i want you to either explain your system or method or whatever you call it, or tell everyone that you refuse to explain it. And stop calling me names. If you can fill up every single thread on this forum with your nonsense, then I can ask you to explain what you claim to have. So far you have refused.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 09, 2011, 08:38:11 PM
He only posts this worthless crud here is to filibuster this forum. Can't you see that? His sole purpose is to run my posts off the recent posts list.
=============================================
This is an untested Beta. It might have bugs. It has never locked up. There are no memory leaks. Please report feature requests. It's intentionally minimal.
nolinks://home.earthlink.net/~gizmotron/getbetaGBB.exe (nolinks://home.earthlink.net/~gizmotron/getbetaGBB.exe)
This is a self extracting archive. It contains a simple installation program. It will place a shortcut icon on your desktop. It comes with an un-installer in your programs folder.
Gizmo, I am not a judge, and that's not a court. I don't know anyone motives and purposes here. I don't know who is right and who is wrong in pushing his ideas in the forum. All I know is that I want this forum be a friendly place,
about discussing roulette, not attacking each other. that's it. So here we go.
Curious and Gizmo, please try to put your mutual personal dislikes aside, and get to the subject, not to
manifest what you think about each other behaviour in the forum. You both have rights to express your opinions, critisize each other ideas, but please a bit less hostile. This is not a religious war or a witch-hunt. Thanx, guys. :)
Quote from: curious on April 14, 2011, 02:49:41 PM
I am asking you questions because I want you to either explain your system or method or whatever you call it, or tell everyone that you refuse to explain it. And stop calling me names. If you can fill up every single thread on this forum with your nonsense, then I can ask you to explain what you claim to have. So far you have refused.
I'm not telling everyone that I refuse to explain it. I'm just telling you that I refuse to explain it to you.
Quote from: I have cookies on April 07, 2011, 09:26:24 AM
Tic Tac Toe sounds good - I made a old classic post about a similar way and assume some one have the option to strike different events using Tic Tac Toe - so how do you play ?
I use the table layout as a tic tac toe game board. One for red/black, and one for odd/even.
Numbers 1,4,7,10 belong to the top left section.
Numbers 2,5,8,11 belong to the top middle section.
Numbers 3,6,9,12 belong to the top right section.
Numbers 10,13,16,19 belong to the middle left section.
Numbers 11,14,17,20 belong to the middle middle section.
Numbers 15,18,21,24 belong to the middle right section.
Numbers 25,28,31,34 belong to the bottom left section.
Numbers 26,29,32,35 belong to the bottom middle section.
Numbers 27,30,33,36 belong to the bottom right section.
I work backwards with the spin history and put the corresponding result in the proper section, marked R-B, or O-E.
Once a section is filled I ignore any other results that hit the same section.
The bet is when any two of the same EC's contain any 2 sections on the same line with the third section free. So just like TTT we want 1 symbol to fill a line of 3 sections.
I watch the first game then follow the last result. Sometimes there is a double bet. When there is I switch to opposite the last for that bet.
Once set up this method bets every spin.
Each new bet requires a new TTT game board drawn up.
That's just about it, although there are other betting options, and another different way to play using the EC results to play the doz/col bets... I like that one the best.
Quote from: iggiv on April 15, 2011, 02:53:24 PM
Gizmo, I am not a judge, and that's not a court. I don't know anyone motives and purposes here. I don't know who is right and who is wrong in pushing his ideas in the forum. All I know is that I want this forum be a friendly place,
about discussing roulette, not attacking each other. that's it. So here we go.
Curious and Gizmo, please try to put your mutual personal dislikes aside, and get to the subject, not to
manifest what you think about each other behaviour in the forum. You both have rights to express your opinions, critisize each other ideas, but please a bit less hostile. This is not a religious war or a witch-hunt. Thanx, guys. :)
yOUR ALSO THE MOD OVER AT ROULETTE FORUM.CC I SEEM WHICH ONE DO YOU PREFER :haha:
OR YOU CANT MAKE YOUR MIND UP SO MOD BOTH ;D
i am not a Mod there. even if i were who cares except u?
He has 11 posts and off to a bad start. Probably a past poster.
Ken
take it easy Ken :)
he did not try to insult me. i am just surprised that someone really cares in what forums i participate and about my preferences. ;D
What I do......I look back and read all posts from the person. I see if there are any patterns of only commenting on CERTAIN subjects or directed to CERTAIN members.
Its usually a give away but NOT always. Hey, I'm only keeping an eye on things, nothing more.
Ken :give_rose:
:good: :clapping:
Quote from: Mr J on April 26, 2011, 06:07:18 PM
He has 11 posts and off to a bad start. Probably a past poster.
Ken
Another poster who can't make his mind up which roulette forum he likes out of about 20 although I think he has passed his sell by date over at the glenn. :pleasantry: :haha: :sarcastic:
Quote from: graham44 on April 29, 2011, 05:43:06 PM
Another poster who can't make his mind up which roulette forum he likes out of about 20 although I think he has passed his sell by date over at the glenn. :pleasantry: :haha: :sarcastic:
BAM! ;D I can spot this s**t like it aint nothin. I can usually tell who is 'new' to roulette and 'new' to boards and it aint this cat. A past poster who STILL needs to get his AGENDA across. Already has certain buddies here and certain posters he does not like. The only thing different is his user name. Its a gift I have. ;)
Ken
Quote from: Mr J on April 29, 2011, 06:21:59 PM
BAM! ;D I can spot this s**t like it aint nothin. I can usually tell who is 'new' to roulette and 'new' to boards and it aint this cat. A past poster who STILL needs to get his AGENDA across. Already has certain buddies here and certain posters he does not like. The only thing different is his user name. Its a gift I have. ;)
Ken
Actually whilst we are talking about your good self Ken ,it has come to our attention from one of our roulette contacts ,that you have posted over at the let's talk winning forum(yes we know all the roulette forums you post at ,Ken :sarcastic:) a system which appears to follow our rules to give you an edge at the game.
Could you be so nice as to post it here as we have encounterd some problems registering over there.
BTW if you cut all the progression bull you use in your systems you play, come on Ken a 50 step progression really is beginner stuff :haha: :sarcastic:,you would do so much better.
What? Where to start?
'Our attention' >> Who? Like I give a s**t.
'roulette contacts' >> :girl_wacko:
'system which appears to follow our rules' >> Its a method, not a system. Why not copy/paste what you are talking about? I have it narrowed down to 3 PAST posters, who you are. Bored are we? :sarcastic:
"give you an edge at the game' >> Again with the edge word and again, I dont care. Call it whatever makes you feel most comfortable.
'Could you be so nice as to post it here' >> If its there, I'm sure its here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Ken
Where did my buddy go? :laugh: I asked you a couple questions. You might as well answer now, your time is limited. ;D
Ken