I track two wheels on paper. My goal is to get a single string of numbers to work with.
I take the first number from wheel A.
I take the second number from wheel B.
I take the third number from wheel A.
I take the forth number from wheel B.
And so on till I get a string of numbers to work with.
I calculate the next bet using my method for R/B.
I do this for 20 bets, keeping the switching back and
forth going when writing down the next number.
What I find is, my hit rate is unchanged from when I
use a string of numbers from one table. I win just as
many times, percentage wise. Obviously this
is playing on paper, what table would I place the bet on,
A or B. Thats not the point.
Here is the point. This settles once and for all that the
previous number is completely independent and random
from the next number. They aren't in any way connected. Like this
is a big surprise to anybody who understands random. Its the string of random numbers
that you're playing that counts, NOT where they came from.
If you don't understand what this means, I'll try and explain it
further. This is a very 'big deal'.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 12:07:39 AM
I track two wheels on paper. My goal is to get a single string of numbers to work with.
I take the first number from wheel A.
I take the second number from wheel B.
I take the third number from wheel A.
I take the forth number from wheel B.
And so on till I get a string of numbers to work with.
I calculate the next bet using my method for R/B.
I do this for 20 bets, keeping the switching back and
forth going when writing down the next number.
What I find is, my hit rate is unchanged from when I
use a string of numbers from one table. I win just as
many times, percentage wise. Obviously this
is playing on paper, what table would I place the bet on,
A or B. Thats not the point.
Here is the point. This settles once and for all that the
previous number is completely independent and random
from the next number. They aren't in any way connected. Like this
is a big surprise to anybody who understands random. Its the string of random numbers
that you're playing that counts, NOT where they came from.
If you don't understand what this means, I'll try and explain it
further. This is a very 'big deal'.
Correct. That is what every knowlegable roulette player on this forum have been saying for ages.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 12:07:39 AM
This settles once and for all that the
previous number is completely independent and random
from the next number. They aren't in any way connected.
No it doesn't.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 12:07:39 AM
What I find is, my hit rate is unchanged from when I
use a string of numbers from one table.
So what?
You don't need to use two tables to split or combine the permanence. One table can do the job.
Quote from: bombus on March 28, 2011, 03:42:30 AM
So what?
You don't need to use two tables to split or combine the permanence. One table can do the job.
What does the permanence have to do with anything? What are you talking about?
Quote from: Zindrod on March 28, 2011, 03:00:48 AM
Correct. That is what every knowlegable roulette player on this forum have been saying for ages.
Yes, and I've been one of them. This just proves it, thats all.
Permanence = string of numbers (or block of cheese) however you want to slice it.
Quote from: bombus on March 28, 2011, 04:36:35 AM
Permanence = string of numbers (or block of cheese) however you want to slice it.
What does that have to do with what I said?
Ok maybe I don't get it, correct me if I'm wrong...
You form a string of numbers by taking a number from here and a number from there, then a number from here and a number from there, etc, then play your method using the mixed string for similar results to a single string – is that what you're saying?
The results are exactly the same, not similar.
Ok.
So you are combining two number strings to create your own single string and the results are the same.
You can do this a million ways on one table is what I'm saying.
And yes the results will be similar at the very least.
How the results can be improved is what the punters want to know.
Quote from: bombus on March 28, 2011, 05:07:35 AM
Ok.
So you are combining two number strings to create your own single string and the results are the same.
This proves that true random numbers aren't connected. If you can get them from two different sources and the results are the same, systems are useless against them. A system depends on whats come before, and this proves whats come before is meaningless.
cheese thanks but I dont understand what you are saying. you can prove random numbers arent connected but we already know this? please explain what you mean.
Quote from: telden on March 28, 2011, 05:35:13 AM
you can prove random numbers arent connected but we already know this?
You could have fooled me. If you already know this, why would you attempt to play a rule driven system on completely unconnected events? You SAY you know it, but you don't act that way.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 05:15:51 AM
...A system depends on whats come before...
That's just wrong.
A system can follow its own path regardless of what's come before.
A system can also run on several levels through several number strings from the same table.
Quote from: bombus on March 28, 2011, 06:00:04 AM
A system can follow its own path regardless of what's come before.
Thats what a system does, it follows its own path. How does this beat random outcomes? Name a rule based system that beats random outcomes.
The Charlie Sheen Bi-Winning system.
It wins over here & wins over there. ;D
Quote from: bombus on March 28, 2011, 06:12:07 AM
The Charlie Sheen Biwinning system.
You got nothing, in other words. You kinda 'know' the outcomes are in no way related, but secretly suspect they are.
You would would never play a rule based system on random cloud formations, but you do play them on roulette.
What difference does it make?
One string, two strings, skip a spin, add a spin, it's all the same – random outcomes.
You could bust up the results with a Fibonacci sequence and still get the same results.
The important thing is to select the most opportune time to place a bet, or sequence of bets.
Like a BB gun duck shoot at the carnival, you don't try and shoot every duck. You take careful aim and shoot only at selected ducks.
Quote from: bombus on March 28, 2011, 06:24:08 AM
The important thing is to select the most opportune time to place a bet, or sequence of bets.
What is the most opportune time to bet on based on? How do you apply rules to something follows no rules? Its like trying to house train a dog that has no brain. I keep asking these questions and you keep avoiding them with vague, generalized answers.
Quote from: bombus on March 28, 2011, 06:24:08 AM
What difference does it make?
One string, two strings, skip a spin, add a spin, it's all the same – random outcomes.
You could bust up the results with a Fibonacci sequence and still get the same results.
The important thing is to select the most opportune time to place a bet, or sequence of bets.
Like a BB gun duck shoot at the carnival, you don't try and shoot every duck. You take careful aim and shoot only at selected ducks.
It seems to me that the last 2 sentences contradict the first 3. I too, would like to know how you choose an "opportune" time. If it's all random and the past doesn't matter, how can there be such a thing as an opportunity? My definition of opportunity being "a favourable juncture of circumstances".
We keep going around in circles on this. There is no middle way; either opportunities exist, or they don't.
"Have Your Mind Blown" is the right title for this thread.
"it's all random and the past doesn't matter, but you have to find the right opportunities, and while you're at it find me a square circle". :sarcastic:
I cannae hold her much longer captain! :girl_wacko:
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 05:15:51 AM
This proves that true random numbers aren't connected. If you can get them from two different sources and the results are the same, systems are useless against them. A system depends on whats come before, and this proves whats come before is meaningless.
If what has come before is meaningless, then why do you focus on past spins and record them with a pencil and paper while playing your E/C method?
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 28, 2011, 09:57:48 AM
If what has come before is meaningless, then why do you focus on past spins and record them with a pencil and paper while playing your E/C method?
:) Must be because there is so much time between spins that Cheese is writing a novel (About cheeses of the World) :)
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 06:05:49 AM
Name a rule based system that beats random outcomes.
The Gizmotron Algorithm. It's not built yet. After all, computers are just tools that execute elaborate sets of instructions. Now that would be a BIG DEAL. Until then, I agree with you.
BTW, my mind is not blown yet. When does that happen?
Bombus you are correct - we can use one wheel and get 23456789 10 independent strings of distribution - i don't understand why some one would use two wheels - in the end its the same thing - what a ridiculous topic ...
Quote from: I have cookies on March 28, 2011, 12:45:25 PM
Bombus you are correct - we can use one wheel and get 23456789 10 independent strings of distribution - I don't understand why some one would use two wheels - in the end its the same thing - what a ridiculous topic ...
You took the words out of my mouth.
James.
This is the part I really don't understand:
Its the string of random numbers
that you're playing that counts, NOT where they came from.
Quote from: Mike on March 28, 2011, 07:20:43 AM
...I too, would like to know how you choose an "opportune" time...."a favourable juncture of circumstances".
Only bet when you're winning.
Quote from: birdhands on March 28, 2011, 05:03:27 PM
This is the part I really don't understand:
Its the string of random numbers
that you're playing that counts, NOT where they came from.
The whole point of the exercise is show that a rule based system cannot work on events that are unconnected. What better way to show they are unconnected than to take them from two different sources.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 28, 2011, 12:03:05 PM
The Gizmotron Algorithm. It's not built yet.
Yeah, we saw a demo of it in your other thread. Don't waste your time....
Quote from: I have cookies on March 28, 2011, 12:45:25 PM
- I don't understand why some one would use two wheels
To get random spins from completely separate sources, duh. Why do I care about 2 streams from one wheel, it proves nothing. When you use two wheels, it shows that you're not betting against the wheel at all, you're betting against random outcomes. It shows that if you see 10 reds in a row on one wheel, its meaningless. It shows there are no rules governing the outcomes, so how on earth can a rule based system of any kind predict the next spin? People will say, 'oh, we already know this', and then proceed to show you their rule based system, proving they know nothing at all..
Quote from: birdhands on March 28, 2011, 05:03:27 PM
This is the part I really don't understand:
Its the string of random numbers
that you're playing that counts, NOT where they came from.
Thats it in a nutshell. It makes no difference where they came from. You can't force rules on something thats no governed by rules. Look what Gizmo did yesterday. He says oh, that was a 'rare event', that should have won. Thats a rule he tried to foist on outcomes that obey no rules. I hate to sound trite, but in roulette rule number 1 is: There Are No Rules.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 05:15:51 AM
This proves that true random numbers aren't connected. If you can get them from two different sources and the results are the same, systems are useless against them. A system depends on whats come before, and this proves whats come before is meaningless.
If what has come before is meaningless, then why do you focus on past spins and record them with a pencil and paper while playing your E/C method?
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 28, 2011, 08:55:01 PM
If what has come before is meaningless, then why do you focus on past spins and record them with a pencil and paper while playing your E/C method?
I use a pen, not a pencil. I use a non-rule based method to play roulette. I use past spins as a guideline in determining the next bet. I have invented a game that I play within the game of roulette. It totally dependent on the spins being truly random.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 09:16:59 PM
I use a pen, not a pencil. I use a non-rule based method to play roulette. I use past spins as a guideline in determining the next bet. I have invented a game that I play within the game of roulette. It totally dependent on the spins being truly random.
Interesting. A game you invented to be played within the game of roulette. Since roulette itself is a random game your game must be random as well. Random vs. Random.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 28, 2011, 10:27:32 PM
Interesting. A game you invented to be played within the game of roulette. Since roulette itself is a random game your game must be random as well. Random vs. Random.
When you're dealing with true random outcomes, there's no 'game' there. The whole set up is a fraud. The inventor fashioned a game for suckers. The only way to beat it is to invent your own game. Not random against random, that never works.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 10:33:59 PM
The only way to beat it is to invent your own game. Not random against random, that never works.
I understand the concept, but where is your advantage? You are playing your own game against previous random outcomes where the result is still random. If anything can happen at anytime, then there is no advantage to be had.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 29, 2011, 12:02:47 AM
I understand the concept, but where is your advantage? You are playing your own game against previous random outcomes where the result is still random. If anything can happen at anytime, then there is no advantage to be had.
I'm not playing 'against' anything. I use past spins to play my own game and I use the roulette board to make the bets. The advantage is, the edge in my game is in my favor, not the houses. But the point is, the game is rigged, the way its set up. You have to look beyond the game as you see it laid out on the felt.
Hi Cheese,
It somehow makes sense, but what do you mean with a rule? Something like: wait till 1-2 appears, than bet 12?
If so, you say you have a non-rule based system, now let's assume you play your system a couple of times (say 3), and 3 times, the first two spins are 1 and 2: does your non-rule based system now give 3 different 3rd bets? Or is it reproducible?
If so, than of course your non-rule based system has rules (albeit different in nature from the "I-can-predict-the-next spin-because-it-worked-for-1000-spin-so-roulette-is-not-random-so-statistics-and-thus-math-is-flawed" rules)
Please note: I'm not trying to play a word game here, I'm merely looking for a way to escape the gravity field of standard roulette approach.
reddwarf
Quote from: reddwarf on March 29, 2011, 03:25:51 AM
of course your non-rule based system has rules
Nope, no rules at all. Every bet is independent of the last bet, they are never connected, just like the spins are not connected. I play from experience and practice, nothing else works as well. Mostly, nothing else works at all..
Hmmm interesting,
So this means that spins 1-2-3 on day1 will result in a different bet decision that 1-2-3 on day2? But does this also hold true for the betting amounts?
reddwarf
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 03:43:51 AM
Nope, no rules at all. Every bet is independent of the last bet, they are never connected, just like the spins are not connected. I play from experience and practice, nothing else works as well. Mostly, nothing else works at all..
::) You do not have an advantage.
Quote from: Zindrod on March 29, 2011, 04:07:58 AM
::) You do not have an advantage.
Thanks for the input. You're wrong, of course.
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 04:28:16 AM
Thanks for the input. You're wrong, of course.
ok then, proove your advantage. You cannot because you haven't got one. ::)
Quote from: Zindrod on March 29, 2011, 04:31:37 AM
ok then, proove your advantage.
I prove it to the casino every time I play. Why on earth would I prove it to anyone else?
I see no reason for cheese to prove anything to satisfy the curiosity of some.
Just by stating that he has a winning method does not require him to share it. Which translates : Do your OWN home work . Seek and ye too shall find. :ok:
Nathan Detroit
G'day,
Quote from: Nathan Detroit on March 29, 2011, 08:00:03 AM
I see no reason for cheese to prove anything to satisfy the curiosity of some.
Just by stating that he has a winning method does not require him to share it.
Which translates : Do your OWN home work . Seek and ye too shall find. :ok:
Nathan Detroit
I fully agree with ND's comments, except maybe..... the
<< Seek and ye too shall find >> idea,
some are never going to be capable to do this.
Glenn.
<< Seek and ye too shall find >> idea,
*******some are never going to be capable to do this.******( Glenn)
My good friend there is one alternative after a reasonable time of play coupled with negative results they should then stay away from the roulette tables. Sounds harsh but that`s the truth.
My advice to those is : You won`t find what you are seeking at roulette forums . There are plenty of books by quailified roulette authors out there. Stay away from single system sellers/scammers.
Nathan Detroit.
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
;D Cheese has nothing. anyone with half a brain cell knows this. Except maybe a slightly blue cheese smell!
You are right though nobody has to prove anything. It is a well known fact that roulette can only be beaten with proven methods which is off course AP. It's documented and proven.
Quote from: Zindrod on March 29, 2011, 09:01:20 AM
;D Cheese has nothing. anyone with half a brain cell knows this.
Gosh, Zin, no need to tell us your IQ, we already have a petty good idea what it is. And whats with the charming pic for your avatar? Is that how you feel all the time, like you need an exorcism? Get some med's, you'll fell much better in no time..
If the AP players are happy with their results , if cheese is satisfied , if all the system players are happy........then everybody is happy in their own way . That`s all what matters. :yahoo:
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 09:07:20 AM
Gosh, Zin, no need to tell us your IQ, we already have a petty good idea what it is. And whats with the charming pic for your avatar? Is that how you feel all the time, like you need an exorcism? Get some med's, you'll fell much better in no time..
;D Don't be nasty now. That's what I look like. Don't like the 'fell' idea either. You meant feel or fall? Wouldn't like to 'fall' much better though. Guess you meant 'feel' ... thanks for the concern!
Could be that my looks are due to eating too much cheese for breakfast... :haha:
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 08:46:48 PM
Thats it in a nutshell. It makes no difference where they came from. You can't force rules on something thats no[sp] governed by rules. Look what Gizmo did yesterday. He says oh, that was a 'rare event', that should have won. Thats a rule he tried to foist on outcomes that obey no rules. I hate to sound trite, but in roulette rule number 1 is: There Are No Rules.
This is how rare it is Cheese Baker. It's 15 out of 1000 chances that it will lose. That's .05 times .03 that it will lose on the first time out of 100 spins that is is tried.
Look at this from Alfred Baker (Spike):
From: Alfred Baker <kings_watermark@***.***>
To: gizmotron@***.***
Subject: Hey
Date: Mar 28, 2011 6:27 PM
Jesus, Mark, I just heard from ANOTHER guy that you fleeced. He has no clue what it was you're trying to teach, just like the others who contacted me. Why don't you give it up, that test on VLS you flunked should tell you something.
Not only is Cheese an internet freak but so is Alfred.
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 12:40:42 AM
I'm not playing 'against' anything. I use past spins to play my own game and I use the roulette board to make the bets. The advantage is, the edge in my game is in my favor, not the houses. But the point is, the game is rigged, the way its set up. You have to look beyond the game as you see it laid out on the felt.
Ah yes, more game within the game stuff, kind of like Cheese within the game of Spike. Spike thinks there is a combination of bets that change the odds in his favor. That's the same guy that can't see a rare event when it is shown to him. But that doesn't stop him from playing games. Internet freakazoid games.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 11:34:31 AM
Spike thinks there is a combination of bets that change the odds in his favor. That's the same guy that can't see a rare event when it is shown to him.
Where did Spike ever say there is a combination of bets that change the odds? If you read what he says, its always the polar opposite of that. There is no best time to bet, no favorable time to bet, random obeys its own rules, it never obeys yours. There are no rare events, every event in roulette is completely balanced and accurate. If you see 12 reds in a row on a wheel, somewhere in the world there is 12 blacks in a row. Balance. That was my point in starting this thread. The string of random numbers you use don't even have to come from a single source, because all the random numbers being produced by roulette wheels worldwide are connected, they are always striving to give perfect balance. The flaw in you're thinking, Gizmo, is you obviously think the last number on the wheel you're playing is somehow connected to the previous numbers from that wheel, and if you look real hard, you'll see 'rare events'. If the numbers aren't connected, and they're not, rare events don't exist. Its a mathematical impossibility.
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 08:09:10 PM
Where did Spike ever say there is a combination of bets that change the odds? If you read what he says, its always the polar opposite of that. There is no best time to bet, no favorable time to bet, random obeys its own rules, it never obeys yours. There are no rare events, every event in roulette is completely balanced and accurate. If you see 12 reds in a row on a wheel, somewhere in the world there is 12 blacks in a row. Balance. That was my point in starting this thread. The string of random numbers you use don't even have to come from a single source, because all the random numbers being produced by roulette wheels worldwide are connected, they are always striving to give perfect balance. The flaw in you're thinking, Gizmo, is you obviously think the last number on the wheel you're playing is somehow connected to the previous numbers from that wheel, and if you look real hard, you'll see 'rare events'. If the numbers aren't connected, and they're not, rare events don't exist. Its a mathematical impossibility.
No, you are an idiot. Spending time on you is fly paper.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 08:18:39 PM
No, you are an idiot. Spending time on you is fly paper.
Thats all the response you're capable of after I lay out the facts? Wow, I thought you had a little more than that going on, for somebody who's going to shut down the game any day now. I thought you'd have all kinds of counter theories, and you got nothin?
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 08:43:31 PM
Thats all the response you're capable of after I lay out the facts? Wow, I thought you had a little more than that going on, for somebody who's going to shut down the game any day now. I thought you'd have all kinds of counter theories, and you got nothin?
I didn't even bother to read your so called facts, I still haven't. Was it good? Perhaps someone else will recommend that I bother. I'll wait for that.
QuoteSpike - 16-Feb-2010 - "I look at the last outcome and balance it against the last few outcomes and balance THAT against my experience with random and make my educated guess. There really is nothing more to it than that. On the next spin everything changes and I do it all again.
Thats it in a nutshell. You can do the same thing with practice. I don't know any other way to explain it. I'm sorry that all my claims spring from such a simple method of play, but they do."
QuoteSpike - 16-Feb-2010 - "Sure the balance>>
Lets change it then.
"I look at the last outcome and study it against the last few outcomes and study THAT against my experience with random and make my educated guess."
Is that clearer? I don't balance anything in the way balance is understood."
QuoteSpike - 17-Feb-2010 -Yes, this is not new information, we have discussed it many times.
something like that (born out of experience)>>>
Yes, practice and experience, something Gizmo and I have been saying for about 3 years now. Its not giving anything away, only about 1 person in 10,000 will take the time to get the experience and probably not even that many.
This must be where Spike talks about following trends:
QuoteSpike -21-Feb-10 - "you have more hits on the 11, 12th 13th...... spin in a 10 Red streak>>
LOL! Read what I said, Kelly. If you FOLLOW the long streak, instead of bet against it and you're flat betting, you can only lose ONCE. Maybe it will go 3 or 4 more, but if it doesn't, you only lose one time. How many times can you lose betting against it? You can't know that answer, but you know for abosolute sure how often you'll lose betting WITH it. Common sense."
I could use that to teach my method. Thanks Spike.
Regarding something said to Gizmotron: "How can you guarantee that Spike can do something you've never seen Spike do much less ANYONE else?">>
QuoteSpike - 21-Feb-10 15:27 - "I know Gizmo 'gets it' because he says the right things. He stinks of authenticity, if you will."
Live with it, suffer its aroma!
>>If you FOLLOW the long streak, instead of bet against it and you're flat betting, you can only lose ONCE. >>
This isn't Spike's idea, actually. Its the rule for following streaks, something thats common knowledge. If you're forced to follow streaks, its better than the alternative.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 09:22:05 PM
Live with it, suffer its aroma!
I think Spike has said he had a good time making Gizmo believe he was on the right track, I'm sure you read those posts. You aren't the only one who can shovel the baloney, Gizmo.
QuoteSpike - 23-Feb-10 16:18 - "casinos get a hold of it and freak out a little. Then Roulette gets changed to accommodate their bottom lines.>>
I've said it over and over, Thorp writing that stupid book ruined card counting forever for the people who were already doing it. They begged him not to write it, but his huge ego had to have its day. What did he care, by his own admission he had no intention of ever playing BJ in a casino again.
Taking tests for roulette skill would be just as stupid. Right now the casinos are unwised up chumps. Lets leave them that way.."
QuoteSpike - 03-Mar-10 17:55 - "dominations in the Odd/Even or High/Low EC's>>>
This is something most people miss. When one side is dominating like red is here, quite often one of the other EC's has a dominating side at the same time. There is so much to watch for, so much to be aware of, I laugh when people ask why I practice. The more you play, the more you see. I don't think there's an end to the depth of it.
You want to know what reading random is? You just got a lesson."
I couldn't have stated this about trends any better. Thanks Spike. I guess this is Spike's worthless crud?
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 09:32:52 PM
I couldn't have stated this about trends any better.
"When one side is dominating like red is here, quite often one of the other EC's has a dominating side at the same time."
Where is the word trend mentioned?
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 08:09:10 PM
The flaw in you're thinking, Gizmo, is you obviously think the last number on the wheel you're playing is somehow connected to the previous numbers from that wheel, and if you look real hard, you'll see 'rare events'. If the numbers aren't connected, and they're not, rare events don't exist. Its a mathematical impossibility.
There can be no rare events when dealing with random numbers. There can be no favorable time to bet, how could there be. This isn't Bizzaro World, where everything is the opposite of the real world. If you think there are favorable times to bet, you don't understand random outcomes at all.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 11:29:14 AM
To: gizmotron@***.***
Subject: Hey
Date: Mar 28, 2011 6:27 PM
Jesus, Mark, I just heard from ANOTHER guy that you fleeced. He has no clue what it was you're trying to teach, just like the others who contacted me.
How many more will contact Spike that they got fleeced? Time will tell.
i would just like to say that this is a freeking awesome site. respect to the powers that be. . . . seems to me that its all bout making money and anything else is kinda. . . . irrelevant. . . ! Number mystics, opportunists, romantics, psychics and visionaries. Seems to me that these guys are always the winners. . . . like that dude who did up his life savings on B/R. . .
Quote from: late bet on April 07, 2011, 11:32:23 AM
Number mystics, opportunists, romantics, psychics and visionaries. Seems to me that these guys are always the winners. . . . .
Not always...
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 28, 2011, 12:03:05 PM
The Gizmotron Algorithm. It's not built yet. After all, computers are just tools that execute elaborate sets of instructions. Now that would be a BIG DEAL. Until then, I agree with you.
BTW, my mind is not blown yet. When does that happen?
Let me make sure that I understand this. You are a computer programmer. You have been on the internet in different roulette forums for years talking about your work in beating roulette. You have an algorithm on paper, I guess. Not sure what it means "It's not built yet. Building the algorithm is a big deal". So, why not build it? I work with complex algorithms all the time. Others on this forum do this also. I would be willing to help. Others on this forum would be willing to help also.
So build the software containing the algorithm. (If that is what you mean when you say "build"). Then we an all test it and publicize the results. And if you truly can beat roulette in a way that can be measured, you will go down in history as one of the great geniuses.
You must have just woken up from your drunken stupor. You missed the memo. It blew up in my face. I had it looking for four things from the past spins and then flipping the bets or not based on wins and losses in the recent past. It didn't work. There's far too many things to consider. Things like this:
Monster List:
Does the doz group continue to single?
Does a bet on the doz group for singles keep losing when tried?
Does the doz group singles break at 4,5,6,7,8 with a global repetition?
Does the doz group have a domination at 80% or better?
Does the doz group have a possible sleeper?
Does start bets on doz group sleepers always lose?
Does one section of the doz group only hit as a single, double?
Is there a global effect evident for any of the above conditions?
Is there a string of singles while there is also a sleeper in the doz group?
Is there any repeating pattern in the doz group?
Is the doz group absent from any formations?
Is there a swarm of doubles in the doz group?
It there a single dozen in the doz group that is dominant 80% or more?
What happened in the last three spins?
Did the very last spin win or lose?
Does a global effect in the doz group also occur in the col group?
Was the last two spins in the doz group single or double?
Was the last two spins in the doz group still a sleeper on one section?
Was the last three spins in the doz group single or double?
Was the last three spins in the doz group still a sleeper on one section?
Is there a streak of lost bets?
Is there a streak of winning bets?
Did I lose the last bet?
Did I win the last bet?
Did I reach my goal on the last bet?
Now do this for the columns group, and for each of the EC's groupings also.
Do it for each spin.
Now make a best guess strategy for all the data gathered above.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 12, 2011, 12:06:59 PM
You must have just woken up from your drunken stupor. You missed the memo. It blew up in my face. I had it looking for four things from the past spins and then flipping the bets or not based on wins and losses in the recent past. It didn't work. There's far too many things to consider...
Here is what you said "The Gizmotron Algorithm. It's not built yet. After all, computers are just tools that execute elaborate sets of instructions. Now that would be a BIG DEAL. Until then, I agree with you."
So, first you claim to have an algorithm which will beat roulette. But, it is hard to "build". By the way, this statement makes absolutely no sense to me. If you have the algorithm written down on paper then we can program it. Or, if you have the concept written down but not the algorithm, we can write an algorithm to enforce the concept. There are people on this forum who have the skills to do this. So, when I call you on this you insult me by saying "You must have just woken up from your drunken stupor.", so you call me a drunk and claim I am stupid. I don't drink. Now you claim that the Gizmotron Algorithm does not work. You made the post that I am quoting where you claim to have the Gizmotron Algorithm lately, so did you build it and it failed in the last few days?
Quote from: curious on April 14, 2011, 01:00:55 PM
Here is what you said "The Gizmotron Algorithm. It's not built yet. After all, computers are just tools that execute elaborate sets of instructions. Now that would be a BIG DEAL. Until then, I agree with you."
So, first you claim to have an algorithm which will beat roulette. But, it is hard to "build". By the way, this statement makes absolutely no sense to me. If you have the algorithm written down on paper then we can program it. Or, if you have the concept written down but not the algorithm, we can write an algorithm to enforce the concept. There are people on this forum who have the skills to do this. So, when I call you on this you insult me by saying "You must have just woken up from your drunken stupor.", so you call me a drunk and claim I am stupid. I don't drink. Now you claim that the Gizmotron Algorithm does not work. You made the post that I am quoting where you claim to have the Gizmotron Algorithm lately, so did you build it and it failed in the last few days?
Don't feed the troll.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 14, 2011, 02:04:28 PM
Don't feed the troll.
So, I am a troll because I ask you to explain what you are talking about in a way that everyone can understand and to stop insulting me and calling me names because I ask for explanations?
This makes me a troll?