Riding The Waves of Fluctuation

[Spike!]

>>If it were predictable it is no longer what it is: random.>>>

Thats just not correct.

>>Yes it is and you can't prove otherwise (which makes it pointless).>>

No, YOU can't prove it, all you can do is prove you lose with all forms of random outcomes.

>>So there must stages of true random, from crude to advanced.>>  <<Nonense>>

Have you ever seen the outcomes from decaying radioactive material and compared it to coin flips or roulette EC outcomes? They look nothing alike at all. Where you can see obvious patterns in the former, whether they are really there or not, in the latter there are none. It looks like this:

111111122222211112222222211111221122222111111222211221111111

There are stages of true random, depending on the type of RNG used. 

[gizmotron]

Randomness is unpredictable, if it were even slightly predictable we wouldn't call it "randomness".

That is completely the truth.

But randomness is also coincidental in that things happen by coincidence. An example would be 3,25,16,18 all a stretch of red numbers. It's because of the game Roulette that randomness takes on different characteristics. Nothing stops the random feed of spins from being random. Yet things happen by pure coincidence. I'm trying to say there is no force that causes the streak of reds. It just happens from time to time. Streaks come and go in bunches too. Singles in series come in bunches too. It just happens for no reason at all.

[mistarlupo]

Well, true randomness is highly debatable topic. It is hard to define a RNG as absolutely true since they all rely on some deterministic procedures. "Physical sources of randomness have to be measured, and the measurement process introduces some bias." If designed well, a PRNG can even generate better statistical results than so-called TRNG.

John von Neumann, a mathematician whose studies involved the nature of randomness, said: "Anyone who uses arithmetic methods to produce random numbers is in a state of sin." However, distinguishing true-random from pseudo-random is a challenging task...

[bombus]

Riding the waves of fluctuation implies that you are already out there in the random sea. But in reality you must get out there first. The most effective way to get out there is by diving through the waves.

So before you can ride any waves you must dive through some of them.

[Steve]

In the context it is usually used (not necessarily the precise definition), there is no such thing as "random". To say any event is random is exactly the same as saying there is no cause and effect. Nothing ever happens without a cause - that should be obvious and not the focus of discussion.

The real question is whether or not these so-called random events are predictable with enough accuracy to overcome the house edge.

Gizmo, yes the waves.pdf document is partly political. It appears clear you dont understand the relevant parts. You want it spelled out for you in plain language:

Everything is energy, everything. Energy is a recursive waveform. Everything affects everything. The universe is not solid like you may perceive. Putting it into a way that's easier to relate to: where the ball lands is never random - it is due to various factors such as ball, wheel design, air pressure, pocket shapes etc etc - essentially though it is all energy.

What affects where the ball lands? EVERYTHING, to varying degrees. To make a prediction, do you need to consider EVERY factor? Well yes if you want to know EXACTLY where the ball will land. Is it realistic? No. Is it more realistic to predict a sector? Yes. Do you need to know EVERY factor to predict sectors with reasonable accuracy - ie enough accuracy to overcome the house edge? No. Advantage players get their edge by considering a reasonable amount of variables.

It is hard to wrap your head around this concept if you view the universe as solid, but to predict the so-called random events, you would need to figure out how to represent the interaction of energies. I believe there are streaks, sure they are statistical, but I do believe there is structure. Exactly what? I dont know, that's what we are trying to figure out.

Where to start: first we need definitions, to define any pattern. We might divide the wheel into three sectors and attempt to predict streaks for that sector. We would also need to define each wavelength - the greater the definitions, the more accurate we would be.

Let's say:

1-2 spins
1-3 spins
1-4 spins
1-5 spins
1-6 spins and so on.

We may be able to use this information to predict trends. See attached image and red line with down-trend.

This may be wrong, but it's a start, and sure as hell is better than most stuff on forums.

I know for a fact the science is legitimate, but TRANSLATING it into the way you need for predicting trends is a real challenge.

[Spike!]

>>Randomness is unpredictable, if it were even slightly predictable we wouldn't call it "randomness".>>

>>That is completely the truth.>>

My point is, there are different grades of randomness. Like crude oil, its all 'oil', but there are grades of it up and down the chart. Lumping all random together is a mistake, because it depends on where it comes from. Some of it is much easier to work with than others. Random.org results are a little more difficult than roulette, computer RNG is too chaotic, and radioactive is impossible. None of it is predictable, the best you can do is make guesses.

[Spike!]

Riding the waves of fluctuation implies that you are already out there in the random sea. But in reality you must get out there first. >>>

I prefer parachuting in..

[Spike!]

We might divide the wheel into three sectors and attempt to predict streaks for that sector.>>>

You're better off using EC's, less choices, less math, narrower parameters. Always start small and gradually expand.

[bombus]

Well yes. With a big enough bankroll parachuting in is the way to go. Jet ski tows aren't bad either.

[bombus]

In the context it is usually used (not necessarily the precise definition), there is no such thing as "random". To say any event is random is exactly the same as saying there is no cause and effect. Nothing ever happens without a cause - that should be obvious and not the focus of discussion.

The real question is whether or not these so-called random events are predictable with enough accuracy to overcome the house edge.

Gizmo, yes the waves.pdf document is partly political. It appears clear you dont understand the relevant parts. You want it spelled out for you in plain language:

Everything is energy, everything. Energy is a recursive waveform. Everything affects everything. The universe is not solid like you may perceive. Putting it into a way that's easier to relate to: where the ball lands is never random - it is due to various factors such as ball, wheel design, air pressure, pocket shapes etc etc - essentially though it is all energy.

What affects where the ball lands? EVERYTHING, to varying degrees. To make a prediction, do you need to consider EVERY factor? Well yes if you want to know EXACTLY where the ball will land. Is it realistic? No. Is it more realistic to predict a sector? Yes. Do you need to know EVERY factor to predict sectors with reasonable accuracy - ie enough accuracy to overcome the house edge? No. Advantage players get their edge by considering a reasonable amount of variables.

It is hard to wrap your head around this concept if you view the universe as solid, but to predict the so-called random events, you would need to figure out how to represent the interaction of energies. I believe there are streaks, sure they are statistical, but I do believe there is structure. Exactly what? I dont know, that's what we are trying to figure out.

Where to start: first we need definitions, to define any pattern. We might divide the wheel into three sectors and attempt to predict streaks for that sector. We would also need to define each wavelength - the greater the definitions, the more accurate we would be.

Let's say:

1-2 spins
1-3 spins
1-4 spins
1-5 spins
1-6 spins and so on.

We may be able to use this information to predict trends. See attached image and red line with down-trend.

This may be wrong, but it's a start, and sure as hell is better than most stuff on forums.

I know for a fact the science is legitimate, but TRANSLATING it into the way you need for predicting trends is a real challenge.

This looks like a job for Peyote man!                         

[Steve]

Surprised Roadkill Cactus strikes again..

[gizmotron]

Steve, I use wave movement all the time.  I watch the transitions of several cycles, all at once, in order to determine the current states of many wave forms. I watch for direction, amplitude and cyclical change all the time. But there is something else that I do too. I watch for interval patterns like chord voicing changes done in music. You can invent anything you want to create characteristics from spin results in roulette. Here is a pattern that I won 3000 with in thirty minutes: 1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2. The ones represent the same 12 numbers, the twos represent the remaining 26 numbers. There was no physics that formed that pattern of cyclical wave structure. It was my recognition process for creating groups that symbolize form.

[Noble Savage]

@Steve:

Ultimately nothing is random, cause and consequence, etc. etc.  I'm aware of all that.

But there's a difference between:

A) Someone observing a coin toss, looking at the physical variables involved in producing the outcome (coin weigh and dimensions, toss velocity, air resistance, etc.) and making a prediction (VB?) or someone exploiting any biases in the coin (one side may be heavier than the other due to different pictures creating a slight long-term bias).

B) Someone who looks at past outcomes and guesses future ones using things like numerology or educated guessing.

The first is trying to find the non-randomness (cause/consequence relationship) and exploit it. While the second is looking at the final outcomes of the process that are random, trying to guess future ones using nonsense.

[Spike!]

>>While the second is looking at the final outcomes of the process that are random, trying to guess future ones using nonsense.>>>

Obviously if it works, they aren't using 'nonsense', are they. A written foreign language looks like useless nonsense to me. To somebody who knows how to read it, its anything but..

[Steve]

Gizmo/Spike, what you do may or may not work - I dont know enough of what you do to say 100% either way. But if a "way" were to work and be replicated by others, it would need to be definable - like a clear algorithm where if you came across the same spins, the predictions would be the same. The exception would be precognition. Only when something with clear rules and procedures is defined can it be considered something beyond mere guesswork.

Honestly if I had the holy grail for gambling, roulette or otherwise, first I would thoroughly exploit it over a few years, then I would publish it freely. Why? Because I dont like casinos and what they do to people.

[Steve]

-