Moderator,
Please ban me/delete my acct.
In the words of Trump, in his tv-show, "That was an easy one."
Thank you.
Do it yourself. Go to your profile and under preferences take the action to delete your account.
Goodbye.
Done. You're right - it was an easy one.
Quotehe is the only one that uses the "an" even when the next word is starting with "w"
eg "an wheel"
Jump on spelling and letters is so poor as you would not dear argue and bring it to the tabel - as you have no clue about all does
false positives that souronds you an others ...
Sure I am stupid as your understanding is below me and your poor knowledge and comments about the game just show us your true colours ...
Cheers
Quote from: Jordan27 on April 21, 2010, 06:11:42 AM
I have cookies=stupid lucky strike.
he is the only one that uses the "an" even when the next word is starting with "w"
eg "an wheel"
How genius of you to notice! Too bad you lack the intelligence to realize what a ludicrous liar Spike truly is.
The only thing "stupid" here is your pointless posts.
Quote from: Noble Savage on April 21, 2010, 11:19:45 AM
How genius of you to notice! Too bad you lack the intelligence to realize what a ludicrous liar Spike truly is.
The only thing "stupid" here is your pointless posts.
Those who reject what Spike freely shares are afraid he might be right. They attempt to attack his intelligence. They never bother to see if there is anything to it. They are often suspected of being nothing more than lazy beggars. They just want proof that an acquired skill actually works before they will attempt to make an effort themselves. What they don't know is that they are supposed to reject it. They are supposed to figure it out long after the chance to use it has passed. So all we get from them is their insistent whining. They won't figure out why they are supposed to reject it. Now let's see how intelligent they are.
That was my point about the leaders and the followers.
It is probably too late for the followers even now.
Creating the opportunity for YOURSELF is what it's all about.
I was a newbie in the 80's without a clue.
I was a follower in the 90's and every opportunity had a closed sign on it by the time I got there.
I worked hard in the 00's teaching MYSELF and learned some harsh lessons.
It makes me laugh when I see the brown noses. As if that is going to really help.
In gambling, you paddle your own canoe. I f you can't appreciate the first lesson, then it is going to be a fair old trek.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 21, 2010, 01:01:37 PM
They never bother to see if there is anything to it.
Oh I bothered, probably more than anyone here did.
I am not a math academic (I only know what I need to know, and what I do know I taught myself). I like out-of-the-box thinking and I did investigate possibilities for "reading randomness". I even looked into some chaos theory and tested more approaches than I cared to count. Trends, dominances, pattern-mining, ecarts, correction, law of the third, law of averages, binomial distribution, moving averages, stochastic oscillators, subjective non-rule-based guessing, staking-plans (which I investigated for a while as well), you name it.
No matter how simple, sophisticated, out of the box, experience-based, etc. my bet selection process was, the result was ALWAYS the same eventually (well, except for those times when I fell in the "unconscious curve-fitting" trap for a while). Coincidence?
I did not "jump" to any conclusions, bro. Time is precious, and I invested more time and effort into this "reading random" rubbish more than I like to admit, thanks to people like Spike and yourself.
Now go ahead and carry on your claims of doing the impossible, predicting the unpredictable. All I can say is: I know better now.
Quote from: Noble Savage on April 21, 2010, 01:57:32 PM
Oh I bothered, probably more than anyone here did.
I am not a math academic (I only know what I need to know, and what I do know I taught myself). I like out-of-the-box thinking and I did investigate possibilities for "reading randomness". I even looked into some chaos theory and tested more approaches than I cared to count. Trends, dominances, pattern-mining, ecarts, correction, law of the third, law of averages, binomial distribution, moving averages, stochastic oscillators, subjective non-rule-based guessing, staking-plans (which I investigated for a while as well), you name it.
No matter how simple, sophisticated, out of the box, experience-based, etc. my bet selection process was, the result was ALWAYS the same eventually (well, except for those times when I fell in the "unconscious curve-fitting" trap for a while). Coincidence?
I did not "jump" to any conclusions, bro. Time is precious, and I invested more time and effort into this "reading random" rubbish more than I like to admit, thanks to people like Spike and yourself.
Now go a head and carry on your claims of doing the impossible, predicting the unpredictable. All I can say is: I know better now.
Absolutely wonderful. It's so rare when someone comes forward honestly.
See what I mean Spike. We can almost tell them and they won't see it.
So please just go one more step if you would. Can you describe the fundamentals of reading randomness. Please make it clear what to read. I noticed that you made no reference to current states, situational awareness, or effectiveness.
and I invested more time and effort into this "reading random" rubbish more than I like to admit>>>
Um, it has to be longer than 2 hours. Try 6 months and get back to me. And just because you won't or can't undestand something, that doesn't make the other person a liar. When you're 5th grade teacher was explaining something you didn't get, did you think they were lying?
Spike you should know or am I wrong - thinking GG - what happen ??>>>
Of course its Lucky Strike, nobody massacre's the English language quite like you.
Quotenobody massacre's the English language quite like you.
No comment - i just smile ...
Cheers
In gambling, you paddle your own canoe.>>>
The reason nobody ever gives gambling secrets away for free is its so much damned work getting them. It takes so long, and involves so much effort, that you naturally hang on to them for yourself. Only an idiot runs into the street blabbing to everybody he meets, after years of work. But idiots never discover anything worthwhile anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 21, 2010, 01:01:37 PM
Those who reject what Spike freely shares...
I'm sorry, did I miss something? :sarcastic:
QuoteI have cookies=stupid lucky strike.
Correct. He has posted under same IP as his previous username. I'm not sure why you're back LS. Didnt you request to be removed or something?
Anyway I havent read all the stuff here, some over the line and some on it. If spike is here to contribute, and doesn't break any rules, he's welcome here unless of course there is an overwhelming majority of members that dont want him here. No I dont agree with much of what what spike says - I dont agree with a lot of people but that isnt reason to stifle what he says. If people want to attack him or anyone on a personal level, they are not welcome here. I removed some of the posts. If you want to have these kind of discussions, please do it elsewhere as the posts will just be removed.
G'day,
I don't know if spike &/ or gizmo have the ability they say they have.
What I do know is that I have a progression system that won't fail!
As so many people that deride Spike also claim that no progression system is infailable and I
know they're wrong about that, how can their 'expertise' on Spike's abilities be given credence.
I will point out before he does, that Spike also believes that no progression system is infailable.
Glenn.
that Spike also believes that no progression system is infailable>>
I never said that. I did say that a progression and a winning hit rate is unbeatable. I've never seen an progression that beats a negative game 100% of the time. I don't see how its possible if you don't have the edge.
Quote from: Spike! on April 21, 2010, 05:19:22 PM
Um, it has to be longer than 2 hours. Try 6 months and get back to me.
It was even more than 6 months (otherwise I wouldn't have ranted about it).
Quote from: Spike! on April 21, 2010, 05:19:22 PM
And just because you won't or can't undestand something, that doesn't make the other person a liar.
Look, it's simple. Either true randomness is readable (in the sense of: predictable at a better than normal expectancy rate) or it isn't.
- What tells me it isn't: All my previous factual investigation, study, and practice/experience + Every scientific source on earth (which includes people who spend their lives studying such things as randomness).
- What tells me it is: Spike and Gizmotron's (unproved) claims.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 21, 2010, 02:09:49 PM
See what I mean Spike. We can almost tell them and they won't see it.
Yes, everybody (including the present scientific community) is not smart enough to see "it" except you two. :)
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 21, 2010, 02:09:49 PM
Can you describe the fundamentals of reading randomness.
The "fundamentals of reading randomness" according to whom/what?
And what would the point be?
The mere idea of "bet selection" on true random events is silly.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 21, 2010, 02:09:49 PM
I noticed that you made no reference to current states, situational awareness, or effectiveness.
Again, what's the point?
Your methodology/terminology/fundamentals of reading randomness are all bells and whistles.
For instance, you said "current states, situational awareness, or effectiveness" when they, in essence, refer to one thing: What is currently happening; which is useless because of the simple fact that no matter what happened recently, the possibilities of what will happen next are equal and unpredictable.
There is no bias to exploit, there is no "loophole" in true randomness, no high-probability bet.
If it were at least something where the probabilities change in real-time and are (somehow, somewhat) "estimateable". In market trading you aim to place high probability trades; in blackjack you count cards and bet when the odds are on your side; in VB you measure the physical variables producing the outcome and target high probability sectors; not to mention sports-betting; poker; etc. etc.
But in a true random game, the odds don't change from spin to spin; and because they don't, there is nothing to exploit.
The "fundamentals of reading randomness" according to whom/what?>>
According to you, of course. You studied it for more than 6 months and learned aboslutey nothing except what you knew before you started?? That in itself is an extraordinary claim.
>>The mere idea of "bet selection" on true random events is silly.>>
Everything is silly when you can't figure it out.
>>the possibilities of what will happen next are equal and unpredictable.>>
But they're extremely finite! If you're betting red/black, the next spin won't be orange, or blue or a banana. You act like the next spin is a complete mystery, shrouded in darkness, hopeless. It'll be red or black or at the very worst, green. Everybody acts like the next spin could be the Old Maid card, they are terrified of it. Why is that?
You don't understand do you? :)
Let me try something else.
How many spins do you need to see in order to make your first bet? 5, 10, 20, 30?
I know you don't want people discovering your all-powerful mystery method and all, but how about you make ONE bet. Just one single bet. (You aren't going to tell me your system can be discovered just by seeing ONE bet of yours, are you?)
Example: Suppose you need 20 spins and no more to form a single decision. I give you 20 spins and you pick a bet Black, Red, Even, Odd, Low, or High.
Whether you win or lose that single bet does not matter, what matters is your bet must have some kind of premise behind it. Meaning if you chose to bet Black, then you must believe that at that point within the stream of random outcomes, Black is more likely (72%?) to come next.
That said, what I'll do is simply this:
1) I'll take the 20 spin sequence (or whatever other size you required to make a bet), and I will automatically scan millions of spins for other completely identical 20 spin sequences.
2) I will record the result following each one of those 20 spin sequences.
If your bet has any real premise, I should find that most of these results are Black results at a rate that is equal to or close to your 72% long-term hit rate.
I will challenge you that whatever you bet after observed sequence X has no real premise since the long-term hit rate of the even chances following sequence X does not change.
What do you say? Will you take the challenge, or will you just resort to one of the two cheap lame excuses you'll probably resort to:
1) My whole system can be discovered just by seeing one bet of mine. (LOL)
2) When I see sequence X today I bet Black, but when I see the exact same sequence tomorrow I might bet Red. (LOL)
Given the option to pick from all the EC's – BR, EO, HL - you probably won't find that many identical sequences to obtain a statistically significant result.
Even though the 'one bet' might be let's say BLACK, the state of the other EC's may well be a significant factor in that choice.
2) I will record the result following each one of those 20 spin sequences.
It would mean nothing. I don't have trigger bets, I never use the same criteria twice for the same bet. All that would do is have a 50/50 outcome. If see a sequence of 5 R/B's and 5min later I see the exact same sequence, maybe my bet will be the same, maybe it won't. Thats what reading random is about, whats its doing NOW. Chances are its not doing the same as it was 5min ago.
Quote from: Spike! on April 21, 2010, 11:58:54 PM
If see a sequence of 5 R/B's and 5min later I see the exact same sequence, maybe my bet will be the same, maybe it won't.
Read what I said. "How many spins do you need to see in order to make a single bet?"
If you see a sequence of 5 spins and bet on Red, then see the exact same sequence an hour later and bet Black, then there must bet something different. "What it's doing NOW" must have changed. How so? In the spins before the observed 5 spin sequence? Come on, I was referring to
ALL the spins you need to observe in order to make a single decision. It's a finite number, right?
If you treat the EXACT same entire set of observed information differently each time then you have no "method" and must be either psychic or betting randomly.
If you treat the EXACT same entire set of observed information differently each time then you have no "method">>
No, it means I don't have a system, I have a method. Nothing is ever the same twice, the number of spins I look at, or the bets I make. How could it be, its random outcomes, they're never the same, usually. A system means you react the same to triggers, a method has no trggers, it reacts to whats unfolding in front of you.
Hence the immunity against ever being proven wrong. :yes:
Quote from: Noble Savage on April 21, 2010, 10:27:36 PM
It was even more than 6 months (otherwise I wouldn't have ranted about it).
Look, it's simple. Either true randomness is readable (in the sense of: predictable at a better than normal expectancy rate) or it isn't.
- What tells me it isn't: All my previous factual investigation, study, and practice/experience + Every scientific source on earth (which includes people who spend their lives studying such things as randomness).
- What tells me it is: Spike and Gizmotron's (unproved) claims.
You don't understand anything. In fact your statement shows that you don't know what to look for. Reading randomness is never predictable. It's just what it is. I swear. When will you people get it out of your head that it's not about changing the odds and it's not about achieving predictability or expectations. That's just what you think it's about. You have spent zero time attempting to getting it right.
Hence the immunity against ever being proven wrong.>>>
I have no idea what that means. You think because your because your 3rd grade teacher can do long division, and you can't, that makes her an idiot and you brilliant.
It doesn't.
and it's not about achieving predictability>>>
Nope. Its just like reading a map. When you read a map, it doesn't cause you to 'predict' something, you read it and act accordingly. Its the same with reading random.
See, Spike openly shares from time to time. They say to get to Carnegie Hall "it takes practice, practice, practice.
But really it takes music theory, modes, intervals, scales, keys, chords, and practice, practice, practice. Then you need to have your mind blown by the likes of John Coltrane, Jeff Beck, Benny Goodman, Quincy Jones, Prince, Alicia Keys, etc...
Randomness spoken here...
Do you claim you can out guess even money distribution ? using Masse Ègale !
Lets assume you have an tendency towards some-thing ! then your attemps have to overcome the minimum to achive +1 with out increase you bet size ! is that what you and Spike claim ?
That was an polite question to take it back to basics ...
Cheers
QuoteDo you claim you can out guess even money distribution ? using Masse Ègale !
Lets assume you have an tendency towards some-thing ! then your attemps have to overcome the minimum to achive +1 with out increase you bet size ! is that what you and Spike claim ?
That was an polite question to take it back to basics ...
Lets talk scale and masse égale - here is an exampel just to illustrate the basics ...
Whit seven attempts to gain at least +1 as minimum - wish has to over come the amount of attemps - seven in this paricular exampel ...
87/35
920108 +1
920108 +1
920115 +1
920124 +1
920127 +1
920131 +1
920205 +1
920207 +1
920211 +1
920213 +1
920214 +1
920218 .X
920219 .X
920302 +1
920325 -7
920406 +1
920428 +1
920519 -7
920520 +1
920527 +1
920609 +1
920612 +1
920613 +1
920617 +1
920622 +1
920716 +1
920720 +1
920723 +1
920729 +1
920810 .X
920818 +1
920820 +1
920824 +1
920826 +1
920827 +1
920903 +1
920904 +1
920909 .X
920915 +1
920923 +1
920924 +1
920930 +1
921002 +1
921005 +1
921005 +1
921014 +1
921022 +1
921024 +1
921027 +1
921030 +1
921101 +1
921111 +1
921112 +1
921112 +1
921114 +1
921116 +1
921117 +1
921120 -7
921209 +1
921212 +1
921215 +1
921219 +1
921221 +1
921222 +1
930113 +1
930114 +1
930117 -7
930117 +1
930204 +1
930204 +1
930221 +1
930223 +1
930301 +1
930302 +1
930304 +1
930304 .X
930305 +-0
930307 +1
930324 +1
930326 +1
930330 +1
930331 +1
930406 -7
930406 +1
930407 +1
930425 +1
930428 +1
930507 +1
930507 +1
930510 +1
930516 +1
930517 +1
930520 +1
930529 +1
930601 +1
930622 +1
930626 +1
930628 +1
Cheers
QuoteIts just like reading a map.
"A map is a visual representation of an area—a symbolic depiction highlighting relationships between elements of that space such as objects, regions, and themes." - wikipedia
To read a map presupposes the area already exists, which is not the case with random numbers not yet spun. The missing element is time, which Spike obviously thinks is a minor detail! The analogy is absurd and just another example of Spike messing with your minds. Don't fall for it people. Give Spike the attention he deserves - none.
QuoteThe analogy is absurd and just another example of Spike messing with your minds.
Sure - words is an intressting thing - that is why it is so fun to get back to kindergarden level - to see what is what ...
Cheers
Do you claim you can out guess even money distribution>>
The correct answer is 'duh'.
A map is a visual representation of an area>>
And the past spins are a visual representation of where the random has recently been. There are all kinds of maps, this is just one more.
QuoteDo you claim you can out guess even money distribution>>
The correct answer is 'duh'.
This is an perfect exampel how to avoid certan things ...
Do you at any moment increase you bets - yes you do - and still you claim that you use masse égale ...
Do you claim to have 72% hit ratio - any one can achive that - if they increase there bets ...
How many attempts do you use 123456789 to get an positive return - not intressting any more as you incrase you bets and still claim that you use masse égale ...
Conclustion = Spike can not use Masse Ègale and achive the minimum +1 to overcome the amount of attempts he try to do so - with out increasing hes bets at some moment during the play ...
That is an true statment ...
Cheers
Cheers
any one can achive that - if they increase there bets ...>>
I never use a progression, flat bet only.
masse égale>>>
Is that a car or the name of a sandwich?
Perspective - that word taste great - dont you agree ...
Cheers
with out increasing hes bets at some moment during the play ...That is an true statment ...>>>
No, its as far from the truth as you can get. I never EVER use progressions, I've only ststed that about 1000 times on GG. Don't get too big for your britches, Lucky Strike.
Quoteany one can achive that - if they increase there bets ...>>
I never use a progression, flat bet only.
masse égale>>>
Is that a car or the name of a sandwich?
Sorry - back to kindergarden level - Spike does not flat betting and achive the minimum to gain +1 to overcome the amount of attempts to do so - it is an false positive - illusion ...
Any one can do what Spike and Gizmo does - as at some moment during the play they increase there bet size - that is not flat betting ...
Cheers
Taste this word - Basics ...
Cheers
as at some moment during the play they increase there bet size ->>>
Prove it. You can't because you're clueless as to what I do. This conversation is stupid.
QuoteThis conversation is stupid.
Yes it is - as you dont dear to say it - exampel - I claim I have an 72% to gain at least +1 with only 3 attempts wish not overcome the amount I succed to gain +1 ...
Taste this word - flat betting ...
Cheers
QuoteAnd the past spins are a visual representation of where the random has recently been. There are all kinds of maps, this is just one more.
The PURPOSE of a map is to tell you where you need to go, or to relate different areas and distances to each other. What use would a map be which doesn't cover the location you're moving towards? With random you are always in uncharted territory - you are always off the map.
QuoteHence the immunity against ever being proven wrong.>>>
I have no idea what that means. You think because your because your 3rd grade teacher can do long division, and you can't, that makes her an idiot and you brilliant.
It doesn't.
More gibberish. Nobody denies that long division is possible, even if they can't do it. That's because there is logical and empirical evidence that it exists! On the other hand, there is no evidence of what you claim, other than you merely telling us over and over. The very notion of "reading random" is an oxymoron.
The burden of proof is on those who make the claims.
I.e. Put up or shut the hell up.
And don't you two convince yourselves that you are sharing anything. All you are sharing is your arrogant claims and silly oxymorons.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 22, 2010, 01:28:12 AM
Reading randomness is never predictable.
So "reading randomness" (lol) gives 0% predictability as to what will happen next. And YET, you two win consistently, flat betting. (I.e. masse égale, I.e. sandwich)
Of course you do. :lol:
What I don't get with Spike and Gizmotron is that they claim to have these great secrets, which they will keep tight to their chests until they die, at which point the secrets go to the grave with them. Every argument to rebuke their claims is logical, yet they can't offer a logical counter-argument other than "you just haven't figured it out". Who NEEDS to? Who wants to spend 35 years studying randomness like Gizmotron apparently did? In the grand scheme of things it is a chronic waste and a clear symptom of addiction.
So what is the purpose of bringing the existence of these secrets into the public domain at all? Why even bother? Surely you're supposed to be protecting your secrets and yourselves. For all the abuse you get on GG, the constant challenges that you evade, the overwhelming evidence that you are pulling everyone's legs, why don't you just simply disappear and enjoy the fruits of your discoveries? Is it really worth posting on forums?
Spike, I don't get why you came back here. After you got banned you spent months mercilessly slating VLS, the owner, the moderators, the whole membership. Yet you begged Steve to be allowed back. It seems that Snowman pulled the carpet from beneath your feet at GG, but VLS is obviously way below you since no one here knows what they are talking about. So what gives?
I have to say I agree with Noble Savage. Most of your posts are about how good you are. There really isn't anything else to them. I'm surprised people even bother replying to you any more.
Quote from: Bayes on April 22, 2010, 05:59:44 AM
The very notion of "reading random" is an oxymoron.
The burden of proof is on those who make the claims.
You have failed to kill the concept. All you are attempting is to theorize that it does not exist.
BTW, where is the rule book for begging? What page number says that "The burden of proof is on those who make the claims." ?
When I see people that can't read randomness, that think that it is about changing the odds, that have no idea what the characteristics of randomness are, then I tell myself that I don't need to take orders from these same kinds of people.
In your case it gets almost to the point of absurdity, "The very notion of "reading random" is an oxymoron." I would say that you don't even have a syntax to begin with. It must be hard attempting to describe something that you have no idea what it might be. Isn't taking advice from the blind person a poor idea if you plan on reading a map in order to get there? You are lost in the dark. There is nothing that you can suggest that should make sense. Perhaps you might bump into it by accident.
Quote from: Noble Savage on April 22, 2010, 10:19:37 AM
I.e. Put up or shut the hell up.
And don't you two convince yourselves that you are sharing anything. All you are sharing is your arrogant claims and silly oxymorons.
So "reading randomness" (lol) gives 0% predictability as to what will happen next. And YET, you two win consistently, flat betting. (I.e. masse égale, I.e. sandwich)
Of course you do. :lol:
OMG, you can't tolerate somebody that admits to having a working method but that same person won't hold your hand and drag you to understanding it. That's right. Those who can owe you a living.
The way I see it is that you need to try something far more persuasive like telling me all the wonderful philanthropic things that you intend to do once you are very rich. Try laying a guilt trip on me. That might work.
Whaaah, prove it or shut up, whaaah. Someday you will know that you were the crybaby in all this.
Quote from: Number Six on April 22, 2010, 11:01:17 AM
So what is the purpose of bringing the existence of these secrets into the public domain at all? Why even bother? Surely you're supposed to be protecting your secrets and yourselves. For all the abuse you get on GG, the constant challenges that you evade, the overwhelming evidence that you are pulling everyone's legs, why don't you just simply disappear and enjoy the fruits of your discoveries? Is it really worth posting on forums?
There is no better amusement than to tell the Flat Earthers that the world is round. So many clues have been dropped over the past two years that it is completely there and exposed to those that begin to see it. And they have. The purpose is to let those that get it to know that it must be protected from the lazy ones that would wreck it. If you earn the right to understand this then keep it to yourself or the casinos will shut it down. You earned it on your own. Let Spike's example of keeping it to himself show you how to resist the poor and unfortunate ones. They are just beggars. They don't want to do the work needed. Even when they say they did the work they really just made the same mistakes for all that time. They admit that. This is not charity. They will never respect something given to them on a platter. They will wreck everything. In fact I'm sure that that is all they think about it. They must be angry for it being held from them. It's just human nature. To bad too. If they could be trusted they might get some help. No way though. Don't wise up the chumps.
Don't flatter yourself Gizmo.
No body here is "begging" you for your imaginary goldmine. (oh and FYI, nobody learned and discovered anything from your and Spike's "clues" either)
I only wish we could play together at a real table and a real dealer with the forum watching. Just me and you, and maybe Spike, Snowman, Kelly, Laurence, Lucky Strike...
Then we'd see who the real players are and who aren't.
Until that happens, all your bragging and self-flattering in forums mean absolutely nothing. :)
Quote from: Noble Savage on April 21, 2010, 01:57:32 PM
Oh I bothered, probably more than anyone here did.
I am not a math academic (I only know what I need to know, and what I do know I taught myself). I like out-of-the-box thinking and I did investigate possibilities for "reading randomness". I even looked into some chaos theory and tested more approaches than I cared to count. Trends, dominances, pattern-mining, ecarts, correction, law of the third, law of averages, binomial distribution, moving averages, stochastic oscillators, subjective non-rule-based guessing, staking-plans (which I investigated for a while as well), you name it.
Wrong again. "Until that happens, all your bragging and self-flattering in forums mean absolutely nothing."
It means nothing to you you mean. Did it ever occur to you that I might have long ago accepted the fact that there would be those that try for a while and give up. That those people would become angry and blame others for what they didn't figure out. You have no idea how to read randomness yet you make these unsubstantiated statements. It's you that is wasting my time.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 22, 2010, 12:48:24 PM
It means nothing to you you mean.
No. Thinking 1+1=2 or the sky is blue is not my "opinion".
"I only wish we could play together at a real table and a real dealer with the forum watching. Just me and you, and maybe Spike, Snowman, Kelly, Laurence, Lucky Strike..."
That would be fun. I would imagine Gizmotron and Spike could pick out any table and do their stuff, how long would it take the VB guys to find a suitable table?
Actually, I am not really anti VB, but it is not something that you can just apply to almost any wheel you may come across. You could put me in front of any B+M casino roulette wheel or fair live online wheel and I can play my game.
So it seems to me that a lot of VB is hyped up the same as card counting was. A lot of talk about it, but not a lot of action. Finding the right conditions and having countermeasures applied is all time consuming and time is money.
I am certainly not envious of any VB players. In fact, if several VB players knew what some discreet AP people know, it is them who would be envious.
Quote from: Noble Savage on April 22, 2010, 01:11:16 PM
No. Thinking 1+1=2 or the sky is blue is not my "opinion".
Things like that might be fact but that does not make your opinion of reading randomness informative. You hold a groundless position in all this. Just because you have not been tutored to your satisfaction does not mean you get to make up factless opinion. I mean you can all you want to but it's worthless opinion. You just can't get anyone but other losers to believe it. That's the ground you hold.
Quote from: sherminator on April 22, 2010, 01:16:36 PM
That would be fun.
It sure would. 8)
Spike and Gizmo would chicken out of it with some excuse though. They're good at that.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 22, 2010, 11:54:37 AM
They will never respect something given to them on a platter.
My question is: why even allude to the existence of the platter in the first place - especially here? Most members of VLS cannot even begin to comprehend what you are talking about. Some of them even think random is non-random. They don't understand the difference between a characteristic and a coincidence. Ironically, it is the advantage players who understand you best since it is they who have tended to do the most research into the game, have the most knowledge of randomness and so can relate best to the concept of what you claim to do.
Not many people are inclined to accept your claims and in fact the majority simple aren't interested anyway - that is their prerogative, right? You owe them nothing and they in turn don't owe you a real attempt to follow in your footsteps because you have never proved anything. So what do you get out of trying to convince the masses that you have something powerful? And now you have another "stalker" Sherminator. Still, all your words are basically cheap. I could drop hints for 10 years about how I built my own TARDIS but it would essentially be pointless. In fact I'll just nip into the future to see how long you and Spike and your new puppy keep stomping over this old ground.
@ number six,
I have enjoyed reading Gizmotron and Spikes posts for ages. They are a rare breed in the fact that they don't
suck up to anybody looking for anything. Why do you think that is?
I try not to read the negative posters and I soon work out who still has the L plates on.
It is a case of sifting through the dirt to find anything that can get me to think.
Ultimately, I do this for myself. You are just another faceless poster who seems to have plenty of spare time on their hands.
Number 6 is spot on.
Quote from: sherminator on April 22, 2010, 02:51:39 PM
It is a case of sifting through the dirt to find anything that can get me to think.
I learned from Spike. I needed to take what I already knew and to focus it strictly on EC's and flat betting. I had extensive experience with hot number guessing. Spike gave it a name. He pointed me in a direction that rapidly became what I know now. I took it and spread it out into everything. Funny thing though. It's better to stick to the EC's. You can take any bet selection premise and use it to track the randomness of effectiveness. In other words you can read effectiveness. Only experienced players are going to know how to deal with that.
Quote from: sherminator on April 22, 2010, 02:51:39 PM
@ number six,
I have enjoyed reading Gizmotron and Spikes posts for ages. They are a rare breed in the fact that they don't
suck up to anybody looking for anything. Why do you think that is?
I try not to read the negative posters and I soon work out who still has the L plates on.
LOL! You don't seem to understand that I am not interested in what Spike or Gizmotron do and they don't suck up to anyone because no one has has anything offer, real pros don't constantly allude to the fact that they are a pro or what they do because it isn't worth their time or the attention. The most successful ones slide through time unnoticed. The truth is, there are no secrets here. Gizmotron is right, nobody wants anything unless it is handed to them wrapped up in a ribbon. You'll soon work this out and you'll be off back to GG. Just look around. Which threads get the most hits - the system threads. Where discussion is required, these threads flounder at the bottom of the pile and are dead within days. All the best members have long gone.
There is a difference between truth and "negativity". What is negativity anyway? It's an excuse.
By the way, are you the same Sherminator who was system selling on RF a few months back while pretending to be German?
Number 6,
I withdrew my offer on RF because I soon realised that nobody really was interested and everybody does want everything handed to them on a plate.
I also said clearly that I play roulette in Germany. Some of the mods asked me and I answered them.
If you want to speak to me, get your facts right. It would appear you are a very bitter person. Maybe you have being scammed throughout your life and now you like to think of yourself as some kind of beacon of truth, lol.
Quote from: sherminator on April 22, 2010, 03:25:55 PM
Number 6,
I withdrew my offer on RF because I soon realised that nobody really was interested and everybody does want everything handed to them on a plate.
I also said clearly that I play roulette in Germany. Some of the mods asked me and I answered them.
If you want to speak to me, get your facts right. It would appear you are a very bitter person. Maybe you have being scammed throughout your life and now you like to think of yourself of some kind of beacon of truth, lol.
Well what is selling a system? You give the plate in return for money, right? That still isn't enough, well some people clearly have problems. BTW, it was well documented that when you started your threads on RF the posts were in broken English and you claimed to live in Germany. When it was revealed by the moderators that your IP was NOT German, you then changed the story and suddenly your English improved over night. And then....poof, the thread is gone. And honestly, do I sound like the sort of person that will allow himself to be scammed by some lowlife? Just because I don't like scammers doesn't mean I myself was scammed. How did you come up with that? Believe it or not, there is a real world outside of your bedroom. You should get out there sometime. Amazingly, in this world, 1+1 doesn't always equal 3 LOL
Number 6,
I am calling you a liar because I never said I lived in Germany, you don't excactly go around telling people where you live on the internet.
My conscience is clear, I did the right thing by removing my offer and I ignored all the emails and still ignore emails to this day from anyone asking about my methods.
It is apparent that you are some kind of troublemaker who is intent on disrupting roulette forums.
With random you are always in uncharted territory - you are always off the map.>>
Until you learn to read the map. Every map looks confusing until you learn to read it. The map of random is always changing, the best you can hope for is to keep up with it, you'll never understnd it fully because by then its changed again. All you can do is lay down a bet and hope you read it correctly.
The very notion of "reading random" is an oxymoron.>
So are most things until you understand them.
<The burden of proof is on those who make the claims.>
Do you know how Zen masters teach? They don't actually teach anything, they point. Its because what they know can't be taught, it can only be understood by looking at it differently. People think Gizmo and I talk all the time and we seldom do. And we never discuss the details of reading random, never have.
Who NEEDS to? Who wants to spend 35 years studying randomness like Gizmotron apparently did? >>
Then why worry about it? Why does it piss you off so much? Who is it harming? If somebody decided to investigate it, they won't go running off to the casino because they have nothing to run with. All they'll do is perhaps waste their time (or not), and thats better than wasting their money with the newest sure fire scheme they just bought from Joe Bob Scammer for $300.
why even allude to the existence of the platter in the first place>>>
You act like this is a church and you won't tolerate anything outside your close minded dogma. If it doesn't involve a steep progression and killer draw downs, you want nothing to do with it.
The reason this ticks so many people off is, they instinctively know it works, and they also know they'll never take the time to learn it. So they get mad and try and kill the messenger. Story is as old as time..
It is a case of sifting through the dirt to find anything that can get me to think. Ultimately, I do this for myself.>>>
I've been saying that for ages. I only post for my own edification. It makes me think to post, and once in awhile somebody will say something that makes me have an epiphany. Learning is hard work, it never stops.
Funny thing though. It's better to stick to the EC's. >>>
The EC's are the heart of roulette. Study them and master them and the entire layout is yours. The EC's are like the old skeleton key they used at hotels that opened every door. All you needed was one key and you had access to the whole hotel.
You don't seem to understand that I am not interested in what Spike or Gizmotron do>>
Then what are you so upset about? You seem to have worked yourself up into a lather over something you don't even care about. View people who read random as eccentric crackpots if you wish, who are they harming? You act like I'm encouraging somebody to jump off a bridge or something. Settle down, dude.
Quote from: Spike! on April 22, 2010, 06:22:59 PM
The reason this ticks so many people off is, they instinctively know it works
(Keep flattering yourselves.)
Actually quite the contrary. It's knowing for sure that it DOESN'T work, that it's nonsense and YET seeing you two gamblers (with apparent ego issues) spend years living in these forums acting like you know something the whole world doesn't.
My mistake was leaving room for a very small possibility that you might somehow be right, and I urge anyone new to never make the same mistake. It's a waste of time and energy (and perhaps money, for some).
Quote from: Spike! on April 22, 2010, 06:25:58 PM
Learning is hard work, it never stops.
Learn this:
1) There is a post quote function in nowadays' forums.
2) You don't have to make 7 posts in a row, unless you're deliberately trying to grow your post count.
My mistake was leaving room for a very small possibility that you might somehow be right,>>>
And now you can move on to something else, thats cool. Happy trails..
>>You don't have to make 7 posts in a row>>
Its faster to do it that way. Is it against the rules? Why on earth would I give a damn about post counts, I have 15,000 at GG, did it win me any awards?
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 22, 2010, 03:11:40 PM... You can take any bet selection premise and use it to track the randomness of effectiveness. In other words you can read effectiveness...
Can you elaborate on this statement?
Quote from: Spike! on April 22, 2010, 06:36:05 PM
Then what are you so upset about?
I am not upset in the least. I'm curious to know what you get out of posting on public forums, especially this one after you spent months slating it on GG. Every instinct says that when you have something as powerful as you, you protect it, not brag about it. But, hey, if waffling makes you happy I'm glad for you.
I am not upset in the least.>>
Coulda fooled me...
>>I'm curious to know what you get out of posting on public forums>>
What does anybody 'get out' of posting on forums? What do you 'get out' of it? It makes me think when I start threads and write posts. Forums is the only place you can find like minded people. Why does somebody who likes butterflies post on butterfly forums? Thats where all the people who love butterflies are.
Spike,
But the cuckoos are nesting all over. They do not discriminate . :ok:
Hey Nathan, is there a cuckoo forum? There must be..
Quote from: bombus on April 22, 2010, 07:17:31 PM
Can you elaborate on this statement?
Effectiveness follows the same Kind of states that reading randomness does. It's important to know the differences when a perfectly good premise passes through the three states. It's important to make rapid adjustments. Change is the key to improving effectiveness results.
Randomness seems to come in waves, interspersed by chaos. I track randomness in EC's because the waves are closer together, and the highs and lows of the waves are reasonable. Tracking the randomness for all 37 or 38 numbers seperately would be almost impossible, the waves aren't managable.
No it doesn't
No what doesn't?
Seriously,
You and Gizmo need to stop pretending that you understand randomness as it pertains to roulette. ;D
<<You and Gizmo need to stop pretending that you understand randomness>>
Seriously, you need to answer if its possible to do better than 50/50 on coin flips. Seriously, you need to convince me why I can't read randomness to exploit roulette. Seriously, you need to show us the math that says trends and patterns can't and don't happen.
Seriously....
Spike,
If you and Gizmotron don't already know the answer to the above question, then there's very little chance that either of you will ever comprehend randomness.
Um, what above question? Which post is it in?
Quote from: GizmotronBTW, where is the rule book for begging? What page number says that "The burden of proof is on those who make the claims." ?
Sorry to disappoint, but it's nothing to do with begging. Think about it, how can anyone possibly show that yours and Spike's methods (if they even exist) do
not exist? You would have to try every possible roulette strategy or system devised or yet to be tried, then report back to you or spike. You would then say "Nope - that ain't it, keep trying!.
What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof to others who have made no claim. It's like saying "bigfoot exists, prove that he doesn't!". Then if I go out and look for bigfoot but don't find him, you will then say "you must have just missed him - try looking over there!"
So no-one can prove that your 60%/72% methods
don't exist (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), only
you can prove that they
do. Since you won't do that (and you also reject the mathematical proof that they can't work), then we are left with empty words which signify nothing.
QuoteThe very notion of "reading random" is an oxymoron.>
So are most things until you understand them.
So are
most things??? :sarcastic: :lol:
Quote from: SpikeDo you know how Zen masters teach? They don't actually teach anything, they point. Its because what they know can't be taught, it can only be understood by looking at it differently.
Yes, I did know that actually. But what does this have to do with picking 72% winners? zen meditation and practice may have a lot of benefits, but predicting the future isn't one of them! :lol:
You sure are a hoot Spike, keep up the good work!
lol he sure is.
I'm glad there are a few intelligent people here.
Quote from: Bayes on April 23, 2010, 10:28:59 AM
What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof to others who have made no claim. It's like saying "bigfoot exists, prove that he doesn't!". Then if I go out and look for bigfoot but don't find him, you will then say "you must have just missed him - try looking over there!"
What I'm trying to do is to make people place a value on something shared with them in a way that they will value in the end. The point is to protect the opportunity. As long as the skeptics like you over react like you do I'm almost assured that it's safe. You are like a weather balloon at Roswell, New Mexico back in the 50's. You make us out to be KOOKs. You provide us the perfect cover. Thanks.
Quote from: Noble Savage on April 23, 2010, 10:56:57 AM
lol he sure is.
I'm glad there are a few intelligent people here.
Yep, finely, you noticed that Spike and me are intelligent. Genius is pain.
Quote from: Spike! on April 22, 2010, 07:50:59 PM
Forums is the only place you can find like minded people. .
No one here reads randomness thus there is no like minded people according to your definition. Perhaps you and Gizmo should start your own forum where you can chat happily to each other until the end of time, maybe you could even tailor-make your own audience?
Quote from: Spike! on April 22, 2010, 07:50:59 PM
I am not upset in the least.>>
Coulda fooled me...
You ARE easily fooled, Spike. You are thoroughly perplexed by randomness. It has you bamboozled and you enjoy pretending otherwise for unknown reasons. You only have to read back through some of your posts on GG to see the holes and contradictions in your story. Remember when you said you could guess 9-number sectors at a consistent rate of 50%? Pretty much says it all.
Quote from: GizmotronYou provide us the perfect cover. Thanks.
The perfect cover would be to not bring it up at all at any forums. And yet you do. I wonder why that is?
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 23, 2010, 02:34:25 PM
Yep, finely, you noticed that Spike and me are intelligent. Genius is pain.
Um, actually I was referring to Bayes (and N6).
Quote from: Bayes on April 23, 2010, 03:09:39 PM
The perfect cover would be to not bring it up at all at any forums. And yet you do. I wonder why that is?
I stayed out of discussing it for more than 11 years of my own internet activity before beginning to look into other opinions. I consider myself lucky. I discovered someone else that was willing to discuss something that I was interested in already. It looks like there might be another now too. You skeptics have been the best in all this. It was Spike that convinced me to discuss it cryptically and to never prove it in public. His reason I happen to agree with. Anyway, what makes you think you deserve proof?
What do I have to do to deserve proof? :whistle:
Quote from: Bayes on April 23, 2010, 03:46:49 PM
What do I have to do to deserve proof? :whistle:
Prove it to yourself. Do the work.
but predicting the future isn't one of them!>>
I never predict anything, I've only said this about 1000 times. No wonder you never learn anything, you can't read.
You are thoroughly perplexed by randomness. It has you bamboozled and you enjoy pretending otherwise for unknown reasons.>>>
The casino is bamboozled too, they pay me every time I play.
>>Remember when you said you could guess 9-number sectors at a consistent rate of 50%?>>
Still can, did you think I forgot?
(and you also reject the mathematical proof that they can't work)>>>
I never saw the math for short term probability. Can you post it here, you seem to b the expert. I'm not not talking about the math for long term, I want the math for the next spin and why it can't be red, etc. You must have it, you just said I rejected it.
Spike, I think you need to go back to the JP board.
:sarcastic:
Typical non-answer from Herb. He still hsn't figured out if we can ever do better than 50/50 on a coin toss.
I think there's something in the water up there in Michigan.
Herb, its April in Kansas, shouldn't you be out in your pickup with a case of beer chasing tornados like all the other High School kids? :thumbsup:
Yes indeed! I am a Tornado chasing fool! Tomorrow should be a good day for it. :)
nolinks://nolinks.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/day2otlk.html (nolinks://nolinks.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/day2otlk.html)
Don't forget a case of Coors and your beanie spinner hat. And don't get caught like last year giving all those 16 year olds that ride with you beer.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fcache3.asset-cache.net%2Fxc%2F78457487.jpg%3Fv%3D1%26amp%3Bc%3DIWSAsset%26amp%3Bk%3D2%26amp%3Bd%3D82EB172C4407816C6207522A40D0C64C4677CFDAFA85879C0D26211D14F357FC&hash=e5fe1a3f437023b1264b699464f0621d92805472)
That's right! :)
QuoteI never predict anything, I've only said this about 1000 times. No wonder you never learn anything, you can't read.
predict, guess, what to you is the difference?
QuoteI never saw the math for short term probability. Can you post it here, you seem to b the expert. I'm not not talking about the math for long term, I want the math for the next spin and why it can't be red, etc. You must have it, you just said I rejected it.
18/37
If you think this is wrong, please tell me why and give an alternative.
predict, guess, what to you is the difference>>
Ever see a weatherman make a weather guess? A prediction holds more weight, its well thought out, its respected. A guess can go either way. An educated guess is one step up from a regular guess, but its far from a prediction.
18/37>>
And this manifests itself evenly every 37 spins? Actually, it takes thousands of spins for this to even out. 18/37 is the long term probability, there is no short term math thats close to being reliable.
What an exemplary, well-coordinated and logical assalt on all things Spike/Gizmo. . . as useless as that could be, of course.
Psychiatry comes down to first determining that the patient "makes no sense", presenting in the form of "nothing to show for it". At which point, it's no longer about "talking it out", but of the more-potent interventions. . . most commonly in the form of "stage-1" psyco-active drugs, egs, prozac, and ritalin. (It's really not about the math, eg. )
Scamming comes down to fostering just such an atmosphere of contagious misexpection. . . for the "next generation" of "suckers" necessary to fill the void left by the ones who have run that course, and "unexplicably" departed.
Enter the real Scamopolous, with all the "trimmings and hallmarks". . . in the form of pop-ups; special privileges for also the other scammers; propaganda-style censorship; more "fairy tales"; and the same-old "take it or leave it" attitude.
So look, EVERYONE. . . IF YOU WANT TO REALLY HURT THAT "PIECE OF GARBAGE", but can't let this thing alone, try logging in ONLY once a week, then ONLY once a month.
Let's "get'er done"!.
Why does this 'Scamopolous' sound just like Garnabby? Maybe its because Garnabby just posted the whole thing on GG. Now why would he do that.
QuoteWhat an exemplary, well-coordinated and logical assalt on all things Spike/Gizmo. . . as useless as that could be, of course.
Is the truth useless? I'm not on a crusade to silence the anti-reason brigade, reality has a habit of doing that eventually.
I'm not on a crusade to silence the anti-reason brigade>>
So its reason and logic that beats roulette, then. Do you even have a clue what reason is regarding roulette?
There isn't reason "regarding roulette", there is only reason. But tell me what you think it is anyway.
Reason is a coping mechanism.
But, to cope with roulette you need a mechanism that is beyond reason.
:girl_wacko:
>>There isn't reason "regarding roulette", there is only reason. But tell me what you think it is anyway.>>>
I have no idea, I didn't bring it up, you did. You think random outcomes are 'reasonable'? Thats news to me..