What of this method?

[Tangram]

Indicators are used to identify what is happening. That is all. They don't tell you what to bet or what not to bet. The bet selection and the attacking tactics to be used are down to the player and cannot be coded by anyone. To code it would would mean there is set criteria and there isn't. That's why it is called adaptation. Nothing is done automatically, as it is with a system. How is that using triggers? Triggers are event-driven and prompt other events. Something happens and you automatically do the opposite etc. If you can't understand that then I think you're just a devil's advocate.

OK, I see the difference between an indicator and a trigger, but it seems to me that an indicator becomes a trigger at some point (much in the way that a speedometer in a car is an indicator, and when it "indicates" a certain value, it becomes a "trigger" to apply the brakes).
I'm not being a devil's advocate, and frankly I'm baffled that you don't see what I'm getting at (or choose not to). I repeat - sooner or later you have to make a bet, some combination of events or set of circumstances "points" to a bet (or series of bets) being advantageous (based on previous experience or research), correct?

I think there is a misconception about what programming is and what computers can do, Gizmotron has said more than once that his method is capable of being coded, and he doesn't use a conventional system.

how do you program difficult

How do you define it? you must refer to all the variables in the system (number of losses, over how many spins the losses occurred, the state of the tables, how much one table is in the lead, etc). You set up an abstract structure to model the system and update it as you play, the "difficulty" of the session could be defined on a scale of 1-10, where each number in the scale reflects the "state" of the system and results at any given point in play.

[rjeaton1]

OK, I see the difference between an indicator and a trigger, but it seems to me that an indicator becomes a trigger at some point (much in the way that a speedometer in a car is an indicator, and when it "indicates" a certain value, it becomes a "trigger" to apply the brakes).
I'm not being a devil's advocate, and frankly I'm baffled that you don't see what I'm getting at (or choose not to). I repeat - sooner or later you have to make a bet, some combination of events or set of circumstances "points" to a bet (or series of bets) being advantageous (based on previous experience or research), correct?

I think there is misconception about what programming is and what computers can do, Gizmotron has said more than once that his method is capable of being coded, and he doesn't use a conventional system.

It's taken everything in me to stop commenting on this thread...

However, I can't stop myself anymore.

Tangram has put into words what has run through my mind everytime I read and re-read this thread.  In doing so, it has triggered me to put in my two cents...again.

I believe those talking of "indicators" or whatever they choose to call them are intentionally ignoring what facts have been laid before them.

We (those of us saying you do in fact use triggers) are not asking you to continue to tell us what AREN'T triggers.  We understand that you're saying you use indicators but they don't necessarily tell you when to bet, they are only a guide, etc, etc.

What we are saying is that AT SOME POINT you put your money on the table...you do that based on your indicators telling you SOMETHING has become favorable...that is a trigger.

I asked this question earlier and did not get an answer...

"When you finally place a bet, do you have a reason?"

If you say yes, please add what your reason for doing so is.  That reason is a trigger.  Granted, that trigger may have only come after using your "indicators" that are not triggers...but at some point you place a bet and you have a reason for doing so.

Also, when you're waiting to place a bet, it is because your "indicators" are telling you not to place a bet.  So every single time you don't place a bet you're using a trigger.

So, I'll ask another question...

"When you choose NOT to place a bet, do you have a reason?"...

If you say yes, again, please add what your reason is.  That reason is a trigger as well.  And again, that trigger may have only come from using your "indicators" that are not triggers...but those indicators lead you to make decisions...decisions are triggers.

[rjeaton1]

Oh, and if you're answer to either of the questions above is: "because my indicator said I should/shouldn't bet" then I'll ask another question...

What about the "indicator" said you should or shouldn't bet?

At some point you're going to have to realize that everything you base decisions on can be quantified (assigned a value).

If you're basing your decisions on anything...anything at all...you've just quantified it in some way...whether or not you choose to admit that at some point is irrelevant...you have.

Let's say I want to go bike riding.  I look outside and I see sun.  However, I also see the leaves on the trees moving.  So I say, well, maybe it's warm, maybe it isn't, maybe it's too windy, maybe it isn't.  Let me check.

I open the door, I feel that it is in fact warm enough to go bike riding and that it isn't too windy to go bike riding.

Now, neither of those things have been really "quantified" (assigned a value to).  I simply "felt" that it was alright.

But, what if it was 10 degrees colder?  Or the wind was blowing 10 mph faster?

I would have walked outside and said it's too cold or the wind is blowing too hard, I would have said those things without knowing the temperature or the wind speed however.  I would have just "felt" it.

Nevertheless, I (unknowinglY) made my decisions based on values.  But, because of my ignorance, my values weren't quantified.  They were just made.

However, if I had a temperature and wind speed gauge on my front porch, it would be easy enough to make a chart.

I walk outside (without looking at the gauges) I make my decision.  THEN, I look at the gauges.  I write down temperature and wind speed.  I do this over the course of a month.

Eventually, I'll find the min. max. of each value that I'm willing to ride my bike in WITHOUT ever having to experience ALL possible scenarios.

There will never be a scenario where I'm willing to ride my bike for enjoyment purposes in winds over the speed of 30 MPH or 110 degrees.

I discovered that because I found that I'd never be willing to ride my bike for enjoyment purposes in winds over the speed of only 15 mph and/or 85 degrees.

So, first you quantify your results.  Then, you qualify them (what qualifys as okay and what doesn't).

You're currently qualifying without quantifying based on "feel" or whatever.  You're "feel" or "feelings" have values.

You're using triggers...everytime you place a bet, you've used a trigger.  Everytime you don't place a bet, you've used a trigger.

You're indicators led you to that trigger maybe, but it doesn't matter.

[Tangram]

Well said rj. 

[rjeaton1]

No need for you to tell Tangram to not use analogies, as it was me that used a metaphor.  Not him.

Alright, you answered two questions with your answer above.  The first question you answered (when you finally place a bet do you have a reason?) you said "yes, to win".  Fair enough.

The second question you answered (when you choose not to place a bet, do you have a reason?) obviously the answer to that question would be "yes, to not lose"



So, my next question to you is:

When you place a bet to win, what makes you think you'll win that bet over the bet you chose to not place so you didn't lose?  (or vice versa).


I'm sorry, but you're either going to be eventually forced to actually answer the question with a real answer (which would be your trigger) or you can continue to evade it.

The point is, when you place a bet, you have a reason for doing so.  To win.  Well, when you place a bet to win, you obviously have a reason to think that bet will win...that's why you placed it.  The reason you think that bet will win and not lose is your trigger.

Unless you'd like to answer the question above with this response:

"I chose to bet to win because I no longer think it is going to be a bet that will lose"
or

"I chose not to bet because I no longer think it is going to be a bet that will win"

Then the same question I've already asked still applies but followed with yet even more unnecessary words.

[rjeaton1]

This thread is obviously not leading anywhere productive, so regardless of your answer/response to my last post above I'll stop posting in this thread.

[esoito]

I wonder if I can 'trigger' some more responses to the topic of the thread, namely:

What of using an  'educated guess'  as a selection method?

Can anyone offer a working definition?  (At the moment the concept seems to mean different things to different posters. Hardly surprising, though.)

Perhaps the concept defies definition?

Is it an art? A mathematical science? A physical science? Or all three in some combination?

Is a degree of creativity involved?

Who uses it? How? Why? With what strike rate/ROI and all that?

What is the role of 'gut feeling'?

Does it involve visualisation? Or a level of psychic awareness?

And so on...


(And, please -- no nastiness or personal attacks. Posts have been pretty good so far -- let's continue to keep it that way.)

[rjeaton1]

I wonder if I can 'trigger' some more responses to the topic of the thread, namely:

What of using an  'educated guess'  as a selection method?

I didn't mean to appear to hijack your thread esoito.  I was actually giving my input.  Educated guessing as a selection method is just the same as a system.  Albeit infinitely more complicated (in most cases) it is the same.

An "educated guess" gets the "educated" part by using past results and experiences to form bet selection.  Same as a system does.  Whether it is done "on the fly" or beforehand.  The only thing that does not rely on "past results" is blind guessing.

[gizmotron]

I didn't mean to appear to hijack your thread esoito.  I was actually giving my input.  Educated guessing as a selection method is just the same as a system.  Albeit infinitely more complicated (in most cases) it is the same.

An "educated guess" gets the "educated" part by using past results and experiences to form bet selection.  Same as a system does.  Whether it is done "on the fly" or beforehand.  The only thing that does not rely on "past results" is blind guessing.

Funny, I don't recall a significant bet selection system that has proven successful. There was the so called Matrix. You couldn't possibly be referring to progression systems. It would be real interesting to see these fine systems.

And this one for sure does not fit your explanation. You don't explain away the elegant pattern and the proper attack scenario for that occurrence. You would have to include the fact that almost all elegant patterns are original and unique discoveries in real time playing. I'm sorry if that is inconvenient but adaptation is part of knowing original unseen before situations require an agility to adjust the attack method so as to fit the unique adaptation. The only system there is is knowing it works if you attack it. That fits a method more than it does a stack of rules to follow. It's not important to cast disparaging remarks on the claimers by use of semantic reasoning. If you are threatened by this method and acquired skill experience then don't be. You can keep drum beating your systems until the cows come home. I'm sure your followers will be pleased. This discussion is for those attempting to learn it. It's not to trash it and move on. If you don't like the process then why don't you take a break.

As far as hand to hand instructions go, I'm not sharing that. So the system to get me talking is a loser too. So far all guilt trips and semantic gyrations have done is make a few naysayers happy with their own remarks. You will never trust this so why stick around this thread? You haven't learned anything by patting yourselves on the back and categorizing triggers as systems, including this one.

[bombus]

People are stupid until they learn & stop being stupid. I've given enough. I've shared enough. I'm done with this forum crap. I no longer wish to share talk about roulette. Goodbye sports fans. Don't be stupid. It's embarrassing.

He's ba-ack!

Not quite done yet, apparently.

Hahaha!

[rjeaton1]

I'm sorry if that is inconvenient but adaptation is part of knowing original unseen before situations require an agility to adjust the attack method so as to fit the unique adaptation............The only system there is is knowing it works if you attack it..................It's not important to cast disparaging remarks on the claimers by use of semantic reasoning.................If you are threatened by this method and acquired skill experience then don't be.

I'm reminded of an episode of friends where Joey uses the Thesaurus to write a recommendation letter to an adoption agency for Monica and Chandler...it does as follows:

Monica: It doesn't make any sense.
Joey: Of course it does. It's smart! I used a thesaurus!
Chandler: On every word?
Joey: Yep.
Monica: All right, what was this sentance, originally?
Joey: Oh. "They're warm, nice people with big hearts."
Chandler: And that became, "They're humid, pre-possessing homosapiens with full-sized aortic pumps?"

[bombus]

Educated guessing is the wrong term. It puts many people off because it insinuates that they are uneducated, and therefore somehow beneath the educated guessers.

I prefer the term chance-ability . A melding of chance and probability, and yes it is an art that one needs to develop with razor sharp focus and vast, almost immeasurable practice. But I believe it can be accomplished because we are human and roulette is just, well, roulette.

So I take my hat off to those who sustain the effort required to master this skill.

Cheers

[Bateman]

You will never trust this so why stick around this thread? You haven't learned anything by patting yourselves on the back and categorizing triggers as systems, including this one.

It is pointless talking to people about non-system methods when their view of roulette is so one-dimensional. I felt compelled to delete all information I had posted here as it seems to have gone completely over everyone's head. In plain English I explained the difference between indicators and triggers. It was met with blatant disbelief. People are obsessed with event-driven betting, using triggers. The problem is, they don't understand randomness enough to even begin grasping the IDEA of other betting concepts. The common consensus seems to be: if you say you aren't using a system, you are a liar or you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know the difference between that word and this word. It all means the same. Acutally, it doesn't, and arguing otherwise is just a feeble attempt at wishful thinking by the people who are still investigating [stuck on] systems.

[Mr Chips]

Tangram,
 
I'm a duffer when it comes programming  but it seems to me that what you have outlined, will not provide the program
with the necessary info, for it to conclude the session was "difficult". All it will achieve is the decision of whether, the session
is still positive or not.
 
I just don't see apart from the positive and negative info of the session, what there is in addition, that will tell the program,
yes a "difficult session". It could happen that a different session was up and down, but that would not necessarily be
considered as "difficult". To borrow a recent remark, my stone age thought process can't imagine how it could work in practice
 
Mr Chips

[Tangram]

It is pointless talking to people about non-system methods when their view of roulette is so one-dimensional. I felt compelled to delete all information I had posted here as it seems to have gone completely over everyone's head.

That's a shame. Actually you couldn't be further from the truth. Speaking for myself, my view of roulette is anything but one-dimensional, in that I always interpret a stream of data in several different ways and only bet when they harmonize, never when they oppose (I realise this is vague, but here isn't the place to expand on what I mean).

All I and rjeaton were asking for was for you to acknowledge that you must have a reason to bet, that's all. It's basic logic; if you have an advantage (as evidenced by your consistent profits) then some "indicators" must be stronger than others... I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

In plain English I explained the difference between indicators and triggers. It was met with blatant disbelief.

No it wasn't. A few posts ago I replied and acknowledged the difference, but then you deleted all your posts, so I didn't have a chance to read your response.

The problem is, they don't understand randomness enough to even begin grasping the IDEA of other betting concepts.

That's beside the point. common to ALL betting concepts is the action of actually placing a bet, a prerequisite of which is having a reason to do so.

To be honest I find it odd that you found it necessary to delete all your posts. Didn't you say that this was an "interesting discussion"? To then delete everything either comes across as "throwing your toys out of the pram" in a fit of pique, or sudden panic that your pearls of wisdom will result in all casinos closing their doors ("it's no use guys, the game's up - better quit while we're ahead").

It seems to be a recurring theme that those who are most patronizing and superior actually have the least to contribute. Their posts sound impressive, but when you look a little deeper there isn't much of substance.

[Tangram]

-