I shall say from the outset that this thread is about 'constructive criticism only,
so don't waste your time by making any general criticisms, as I will ask for them to be
removed.
Those members who have been keen to understand Signum have on the Signum thread
produced sessions quite independent of me and have produced the following results:
+7, +7, 0, 0, +7, +1, +6, +4, +4, +3, +4, +4, +5, +6, 0, +5, +3, +4, +5, +3, -1.
In addition a test by a member : +7, +2, +1, +6, +2, 0, +3, -1, +2, -1, +7, +2, +1, +2, +7, +3,+1.
The above results are in line with those that have and will continue to be shown on the website.
So everything is out in the open, no false claims by me or anyone else.
For those people who say that Signum is going to fail, you have to demonstrate logically a likely
scenario of how it will fail, bearing in mind the consistency of all the results shown here and on
the website.
There is a minimum loss strategy of -3 to -4 units and for there to be a catastrophic failure of the
system there would have to be more losses than wins. This seems to me a logical statement.
What would cause such a collapse of the system? You don't have to understand the system in
detail to know, that there are 4 winning Formations and 1 losing one.
Formations are simply a patterns of symbols, which rise and fall and can be found in a complex
mix. So whatever happens those patterns are going to appear, whether a session is losing or
winning. If we go down the road of those people who say this system has to fail, then it has
to be a pattern, which will lead to a loss. This is also logical.
So instead of the above results we would more likely see something like the following:
-3, -2, +1, -4, +2, -4, -3, -1, +1, -4, -3, +3, -4, -3, -1, -4,
In order for the system to lose the above are the sort of results necessary, especially to wipe
out the profitable wins previously shown above.
The interesting outcome of producing such losses is that anyone using Signum, will now know
that when he begins a session, it is more likely to lose than win and the pattern of symbols
will reflect this situation. So what is he to do? The expectations that would be apparent in
most winning sessions are no longer valid, so instead the expectation will be instead for
a losing pattern. The most difficult pattern to contend with are C patterns (Formations).
It is therefore more likely there will be more C patterns, than any other one. In roulette
we are told you cannot expect anything, as that would be a fallacy!
Also if there is likely to be more C patterns then logically we can use this piece of knowledge
and take advantage of it, but that would mean we could profit from it!!! Hey presto more
wins than losses. Isn't logic wonderful.
Richard
QuoteAlso if there is likely to be more C patterns then logically we can use this piece of knowledge
and take advantage of it, but that would mean we could profit from it!!! Hey presto more
wins than losses. Isn't logic wonderful.
Hi Mr. Chips,
To me, this passage of yours is a bit too simplistic. The first thing that I would look for is "why" should it work, or what is the main premise behind the idea you have presented. All too frequently people come up with ideas, but no clue about the reason it should work.
eg. "wait for 6 reds in a row and bet the opposite, using a martingale progression, and stop at a streak of ten reds"
To me, this is not a good enough way to state the idea. If you were to say that the notion is that you dont see many streaks longer than 10 so by betting opposite after 6 in a row and stoppin at ten, there should be a hit most of the time. this would be better. It makes a good starting point for discussion. we can better see where you are coming from, what the problem is you are trying to conquer , how you got to your solution.
Others can then weigh in with their opinions, with the posters central hypothesis in the back of their minds, and explain why it will or will not work.
So with that being said, what is the main premise under the hood of the signum system ?
potatochips,
Ok, lets "look under the hood" of the Signum system.
Firstly, many people have mistakenly formed the opinion (without first finding out), that the symbols
P & M are simply a substitute for B & R. It would obviously be pointless to do such a thing and what
does it say about the people who suggested such nonsense.
The symbols P & M are the chief components of Signum and they form a number of different patterns.
Such patterns would be impossible with B & R. The patterns (Formations in Signum terminology) can
easily be identified and are referred to as A, B, C, D, (Formations).
The characteristic of an A pattern is that it has P symbols and they rise and fall, rather like a commodity
on the stock market and rise say for a week then fall the next week. It is therefore possible to make a
profit when A rises and when it falls. As it rises and falls the correct Black or Red has to come in and
no matter how complex the series of the colours are, there will be sufficient correct decisions in a session
to make a profit from a A Formation (pattern).
A, B pattern (Formation) is similar to A, the difference being the use of the symbol M.
A, C pattern (Formation) is often more complicated, as it can rise and fall in a complex mix e.g.
+3, +4, +3, +2, +3, +4, +5, +4 etc
The exception is when it shows +1, +2, +1, +2, +1, +2 etc
A, D pattern (Formation) will show P & M ending often immediately, so that P begins then ends, begins
again, then ends, and then M begins and ends.
In a session the above mentioned patterns can appear in one session, so that D appears, then A briefly,
then say B to complete the session.
A session then must contain one or more of those patterns.
Patterns A, B, and D will inevitably lead to a profitable session as they are well defined patterns and
therefore such patterns can be profitably exploited.
The most difficult pattern as has been briefly explained above is C. This pattern can lead to a loss, unless
other information can be found in a session, as for example there may be a sequence of Reds and that
may help to make a decision. Also for example if the P symbol has not gone above +3, say halfway
through a session, then a reasonable expectation will be for it to continue and it would then be expected
to fall to +2 next bet instead of +4.
According to the maths relating to gambling, Signum sooner or later will fail and show a loss. The patterns
A, B, C & D, must somehow show a number of losses. Patterns A, B, & D, as have been described previously
will lead to a profitable session. The intervention of C during the formation of A, B & D, will complicate a
session. In order for a number of losses to occur, the appearance of C on it's own or intervening in the
other patterns, must occur on a regular basis, in order to increase the number of losses. A, B & D must
not occur, as often as has been show on the website, as well as the sessions that have been produced
by members on the Signum thread.
The expectation then is for a number of complex C patterns, such that they create a number of losses. I
should add, that there must also be little or no information from other columns in a session, as mentioned
above. In roulette the maths tells us that we cannot expect something to occur. After 10 Blacks we cannot
expect Red, as Black has an equal chance of coming in.
The first dilemma then is the expectation of a C pattern.
The second and final dilemma is that previously there would have been expectations of a number of
A, B, & D patterns. Now the expectation is for a number of C patterns leading to a great many losses.
It therefore follows that being aware that when using Signum, there will be a number of complex C
patterns and far less profitable A, B, & D, it will allow the user to make decisions, on the likely expectation
of a C session. It will then be possible to profit from such expectations and hence a paradox has developed.
Complex C sessions must occur to ensure Signum fails, but when C occurs there is the inevitable expectation,
and instead of a loss, the session makes a profit!!!
If a mathematician or someone can solve this paradox, then they must demonstrate how Signum can lose
in the long term.
Richard
I doubt if Richard is going to like this but I agree with him almost completely. Snowman is correct in one regard too. My understanding of randomness is very similar to Mr Chips last post. Without saying anything further I can prove it. There are several examples of my writings on the topic of randomness. There might be some threads where I suggest a characteristic or the way things happen. In all these writing there is an attempt to explain basic randomness.
Richard's conclusions about the A,B,C,and D types of patterns, as he has just described it, show characteristics with randomness that are consistent with what I have discovered.
Anyone can create any complex algorithm that equates down, to have a result that contains these basic characteristics. They are, works very good, fits very good, continues very well, duplicates very well, repeats very well, etc... The other two states exist for all these as well. The other two states are works kind of flat, without definitive direction, and the last state is works very badly.
I use the table layout for red and black. I use the table layout for odd or even. So here is a basic form of establishing a complex algorithm that equates down into a final form that can be described as a pattern type.
Take from group 1,2, or 3
Skip 1,2, or 3 spins, based on the group number of the first spin
Use the selected spin's group number to select the next spin
Take the color of the next spin and chart it on a line of the chart that is next
If the previous color is the same then add one unit to the running value(x)
If the previous color is not the same then subtract one unit to the running value(x)
If value(x) repeats for three selected past spins then add 1 to the existing indicator for M or P
If value(x) does not repeat for three past selected spins then subtract 1 from the existing indicator for M or P
To determine a type of randomness pattern look at the flow direction and consistency of the flow stream of the M's or the P's. Bet according to the current state of randomness being currently displayed in the results. In other words bet along with the type's basic characteristic. If the pattern type is flat then consider stepping out of the game for a while. If the pattern type is excessively negative then bet the opposite of the characteristic.
Now this example of algorithm following is not the same as the Signum system. But it will also show the pattern types with the same characteristics.
I can see the same characteristics with visual dexterity. A simple chart of the reds & blacks, just like the marquee sign above the wheel, is all that is needed to see randomness and its basic nature.
Believe it or not,
Mark
Mark,
I had to check this was a genuine Gizmotron post, you can't blame me for being skeptical!
I am very pleased with your post and I only hope you don't go back to GG and say it was
all a joke and rubbish Signum just for the sake of it.
I have never suggested that Signum is the ultimate system, as I am sure there are other
solutions, whether they are systems, strategies or exploring random numbers in some way.
So in number of tortuous and often conflicting posts we may have arrived at a point,
where we can respect each others point of view and explore the amazing possibilities
of long term roulette solutions.
Regards
Richard
You and I inadvertently validating a concept for types in randomness will do little to validate the field of randomness research as a whole. I'm not a peer reviewed scientist that has ever attempted a validation process for publishing research. I want the money before the opportunity is taken away. Casinos will not stand for a known advantage to stand against them. It's a business. They will need to take an action that defeats the advantage if it exists. They have in the past. So get yours while the gett'n is good.
BTW, I already admitted to agreeing with you at GG before you posted your doubts.
Guys,
This system is an amazing waste of time for the following reasons:
1. It won't work since past spins don't influence future spins.
2. Even if the test results weren't curve fit, the gains are paultry at best.
Adavantage players try to win 50 to 300 or more units per session, not just one or two. Any system that would only win one or two units per session would be too risky to play because of the large probability of ruin.
I'm going to go ahead and post the system on a couple of the math sites, so you can see just how silly the rest of us really think it is. (Provided that they don't just laugh at it and prevent it from being posted.) I'll post the location of the websites once it's been up for a day or so.
Landis.
Landis, post this with it, before it's well known at Wikipedea:
"BTW, do you need a definition for Mathematician's Fallacy?
Mathematician's Fallacy is expecting long term probability, like the law of large numbers, to be the same as the true results for probability from the full probability being experienced during any real played gambling session. Mathematicians that lean heavily on Gambler's Fallacy to explain other's investigation into the nature of randomness do so because of this basic belief in this Mathematician's Fallacy. They are stuck in a classically trained form of probability. Many others in the mathematical world have moved beyond these limitations."
Ok, but I'll have to register under the name of Gizmotron. ;D
Quote from: Landis on November 24, 2009, 04:07:15 PM
This system is an amazing waste of time for the following reasons:
1. It won't work since past spins don't influence future spins.
That's nice. Past spins won't park your car either. Past spins can't influence any elections either.
Past spins will work to show the current state of the full probability that currently exists. When that is broken down into segments of the current full session there can be true stats for probability as it goes through temporary changes in sections. To reject this is to be a math Nazi.
2. Even if the test results weren't curve fit, the gains are paultry at best.
Well, i think Mr. Chips just received a form of acknowledgement from one of our resident guru. :thumbsup:
Nonetheless, thanks for the explanation. Next step, what's the definition of these formations. How many spins do you need to begin to see the nose of such formations? Can you give us a small sequence for each of these formations?
All e/c systems have a nemisis pattern what would it be for Signum and would it happen enough to destroy it
Gizmo,
I don't for even one minute take you seriously. You simply don't know what you don't know.
You guys need to focus on real strategies to beat the wheel.
When Clercx from the "John Solitude" manual gathered a few advantage players together to show him their stuff, they all failed miserably but according to the world of Landis...
**Adavantage players try to win 50 to 300 or more units per session**
sure they do :girl_wacko: And no doubt many times they fail and lose a bundle.
I think a lot of them would be happy if they could average a win of 3 units a session.
"You guys need to focus on real strategies to beat the wheel."
Like what, learning to judge rotor speed? Pretty soon the advance of new technologies will render VB and all the other so-called advantage methods totally obsolete. It's better to find a way of beating the random process now rather than later.
Quote from: Landis on November 24, 2009, 05:12:36 PM
Gizmo,
I don't for even one minute take you seriously. You simply don't know what you don't know.
You guys need to focus on real strategies to beat the wheel.
I do know what you don't know though. Having a VB bigot, with Gambler's Fallacy in his shirt pocket, like Barney Fife's bullet, does not worry me none. I obviously don't need to kowtow to your tempest in a tea pot. Having you not take me seriously is possibly the worst revenge that I could cast onto you. Keep up the faith, go VB go.
Quote from: Landis link=topic=12974. msg86246#msg86246 date=1259093556
Gizmo,
I don't for even one minute take you seriously. You simply don't know what you don't know.
You guys need to focus on real strategies to beat the wheel.
So Landis,
Please could you enlighten us all with these "real strategies to beat the wheel" you talked about, I bet you don't have any do you, if you do please share.
But I know that is not going to happen because you are just all talk, all you can do is criticise other people for trying to put an idea forward.
If I was so critical of someone else's ideas I would at least have something better to put forward to prove my point, but you don't you are just full of hot air, and to be honest I'm getting a little bit fed-up of seeing you stupid posts.
I wish their was some sort of a spam filter on this forum, because I know where all your posts would go, straight to the trash folder!
I don't know what your problem is but all I can say is GET A LIFE!!!!!!!
Thanks
Malcop
Look, I stated in the very first post I did not want any general criticisms.
Landis, your nonsense posts are not welcome here. The results shown on the website are certainly
not paultry. You seem unaware, that substantial size bets can be made on the EC's.
Everyone of your posts makes your credibility sink lower and lower.
Quote from: potatochips on November 24, 2009, 05:05:06 PM
2. Even if the test results weren't curve fit, the gains are paultry at best.
Well, I think Mr. Chips just received a form of acknowledgement from one of our resident guru. :thumbsup:
Nonetheless, thanks for the explanation. Next step, what's the definition of these formations. How many spins do you need to begin to see the nose of such formations? Can you give us a small sequence for each of these formations?
What your asking for should be found on the website and there are 20 examples of the various Formations.
I would like to focus in this thread on constructive criticisms.
I will put up the bankroll, not because I am a follower of Mr Chips but because it would be interesting to see the results.
My personal opinion is that if this thing worked as good as claimed, Mr Chips would never have shared it on this forum and I am also of the opinion that Mr Chips hardly frequents the casinos. You do not need to be a genius to come to this conclusion but I will offer him the chance to prove me wrong.
Quote from: elmo on November 25, 2009, 06:57:56 PM
I will put up the bankroll, not because I am a follower of Mr Chips but because it would be interesting to see the results.
My personal opinion is that if this thing worked as good as claimed, Mr Chips would never have shared it on this forum and I am also of the opinion that Mr Chips hardly frequents the casinos. You do not need to be a genius to come to this conclusion but I will offer him the chance to prove me wrong.
You are obviously not aware the way this character Landis/herb/snowman works. He tries various ways
to discredit in the main Winkel and myself. He knows that his usual tactics have failed, so he dreams up
other ways to undermine Signum and me as the creater of the system.
He knows for example I only go to actual casino's and not online and yes I go to a number of casino's in
London and along the South Coast of England, with occasional visits to Manchester.
I have asked for reply 19 to be removed.