.........but he deleted all his posts. I can't find a single word the man wrote.
But I gots me notes!!
I have e-mailed the gentleman asking him to return. I know of one other who has also. Frankly, I doubt he will.
So I will volunteer to answer any questions anyone has about the 4Selecta. I feel this was a very good system and I have faith it will always win. So, why am I not playing it? Well, the G.U.T. really peaked my interest and I am there for a while--maybe a long while.
Did anyone ever think of this? While playing the 4Selecta, you only bet every third spin at most. That leaves two spins for the dreaded zero to appear and not hurt you. That alone should peak some interest.
Once you learn the system, it is very easy to play--far easier than the G.U.T. Someone should continue with this important work.
Bliss, are you still writing the program?
Sam
Guys
I have better than "me notes". I have the entire thread in .rar format. It is attached.
Sam
What happened exactly, why did he leave ?
I would like to know the same thing - I never knew the man or had a convo with him... but he seemed like a guy with a level head toward positive opinions, which is what this forums all about...
Anybody care to offer an explanation?
He was offended by the presence of a section based on advantage play methods and the mathematics of gambling.
He basically said that if such a section was allowed on the forum, then he would leave.
He went as far as to say that the people there were cheaters, and that he would point them out to pit supervisors whenever he suspected them of playing with an advantage. Of course, this didn't go over very well with some people. So, in the section we promptly decided to label him as "Nark."
He had his own section, but the idea of us having our own section was simply too much for him to bare.
-Herb
Hi all,
Whether I agree with Mr. Chips' reaction to the presence of that particular section or not ,I would just say that I that I always found the man to be very helpful in his teachings and I found the 4selecta to be a good,solid profitable system.
So ,to that end,I too would like to offer my assistence to any one who needs it with this system.
As Sam quite rightly states it is nowhere near as hard as GUT to get your head around.
Sam,I trust that is ok with yourself?
regards TSK
He was offended by the presence of a section based on advantage play methods and the mathematics of gambling
So again it's a matter of ego. Some may be good with gambling's matters but when egos enters the scene they have no skills at all. Refusing to see a section on AP is a non sense. What the heck ?
Quote from: SamBliss, are you still writing the program?
Sam, yes, my limited manual testing has shown a good profit, but in my experience a simulation sorts out the men from the boys. >:D
Quote from: SamDid anyone ever think of this? While playing the 4Selecta, you only bet every third spin at most. That leaves two spins for the dreaded zero to appear and not hurt you. That alone should peak some interest.
IMO this is questionable at best. It also happens that if you had bet during those spins where you were waiting for a section to form, you would have got a winner, so missing spins is a double-edged sword. There is no reason to suppose that the number of zeros, taken as a proportion of the total hits, will be less if you are missing spins.
Forum
One of the places (and there were more) where Chips and I disagreed was on VB being cheating. I say if you can do it, power to you!
Arte: I suppose it was ego or pride.
TSK...Yep, fine with me.
Bliss,
Yes, I suppose you could argue the zero your way. Here's how I see it: Two out of three spins you don't bet. When the zero comes on one of those spins, it has fulfilled (perhaps) its obligation to hit and will stay away awhile. I know that is not "real" reality, as it hits when it hits--but I still like the idea that the extra number that can get me may have come a lot during the "dead" spins. I've seen it happen.
From Bliss: manual testing has shown a good profit
From TSK: I found the 4selecta to be a good, solid, profitable system.
My hope is we'll get a newcomer who takes this up with a passion and we can all learn from his/her studies.
After it's all said and done, perhaps I should have stayed with the system and made tutorial movies like I did with the G.U.T. He worked so hard to teach me and I just switched horses in the middle of the race! If his ego is as big as is said, that must have bothered him.
Sam
Hi
Sam....The very first time I played 4selecta the HG number 34 was my very first bet..........single number and all that.. and it hit!!! :)
The point im trying to make is that without these good ratio hits Im not sure quite how well the 4selecta would stack up as a system as they help to make ground on the over 50 unit loss.
So if i hadnt bet for the first 2 spins(or missed any spins) that session may have been a loser.
Also according to Mr Chips' teachings you bet for around 150ish spins(sic) which if your betting 1 every 3 would also take out some of the sysytems built in safeguards.
Just my thoughts mate
regards TSK
but he deleted all his posts. I can't find a single word the man wrote.>>
OH NO! LOL! Forget him, he's a bunch of hot air looking for a baloon to inflate. Anybody else notice that his command of English went from real bad to Harvard grad in last few months? He was somebody pretending to be somebody else. Turbo?
You should NOT have the option of deleting past posts, its ruins the archives, as they found out on VIP.
Spike
Check out reply#1 on this page
TSK
That leaves two spins for the dreaded zero to appear and not hurt you. >>
Good grief. If you play roulette and have to give even the slightest, smallest passing thought to the zeros, you're playing the wrong system. With a winning system, the zeros don't matter a whit, they are just something that slows down an already too slow game..
Also, by betting every 3rd spin, you'll get exactly the same number of zeros, it will just take 3 times longer. I take it you were speaking tongue in cheek. I hope..
Maybe you should get an Avatar Spike :)
Cheers LS
Quote from: Lucky Strike on January 16, 2009, 06:10:06 AM
Maybe you should get an Avatar Spike :)
Cheers LS
Yes feels more...well not like GG :D :D
How about this for Spike's avatar?
"Spike" from Tom & Jerry, I think it fits. ;)
[attachimg=#]
QuoteGood grief. If you play roulette and have to give even the slightest, smallest passing thought to the zeros, you're playing the wrong system. With a winning system, the zeros don't matter a whit, they are just something that slows down an already too slow game..
How many zeros would you consider a problem then? Could you still when if there were four zeros? How about ten?
QuoteHow many zeros would you consider a problem then?
Herb, the problem is not the zero, it's when you lose. The guy never loses or if he loses this is just a momentarily disturbance in the Force, a glitch in the Matrix ;D
Let me add this, everything Spike has learned in gambling has cost him a lot money. Now with his findings, he finally makes money euh! i mean he is just recovering what he losts in the first part of his life so that in the end he will be at zero. That is the power of a single zero. :P
How many zeros would you consider a problem then?>>>
How many do you see on average per 100 spins? If you're playing a double zero wheel, I'll bet its the same number I see. And if its a single zero wheel and you're STILL complaining about zeros, find a different game..
Spike
Yes, I know if you only bet every third or every tenth or every hundredth number, the zero would be proportionate. I play for fun as well as hoping to make money. I get a kick out of seeing the zero in the penultimate spin and thinking it can't get me cause it just hit. When it gets me, I just say...can you believe that? To me it's fun. It's a fun thing to do.
Like Jakk's reverse numbers or my repeaters. It's a fun thing to do.
Sam
But thats not what you SAID. You acted like it was a brand new idea and now you act like it was a joke. I don't for a minute believe you weren't serious in your first post.
Spike
You're wanting--what?--some sort of apology?
Mr Chips is a good and decent man who tried to help people. I read the man's writings from the first word he ever wrote to the last and I saw no sudden education. It was always there. Sometimes he explained things in a way I found quite confusing. That is not unusual. Communication is difficult.
I say again to any new person reading this forum: The 4Selecta is a worthwhile system to study.
Sam
The 4Selecta is a worthwhile system to study.>>
Study it, just don't make the mistake of playing it..
Spike
Have you actually had a look at the 4selecta,,,do you understand it....have you played it????
TSK
Of course he hasn't, he's a wizard, he doesn't need to do either.
Reading Spike's posts you'd be forgiven for putting him in the "all systems lose at a rate of -2.7%" category, like Herb or the wizard of odds. That is, if you didn't know about his claim of winning at a rate of 72% on the even chances.
The trick, he would have you believe, is to really understand random numbers. ::)
QuoteThe 4Selecta is a worthwhile system to study
Where is it located on VLS's forum so that i can have a look at it ?
Hi Arteinvivo
As per Sams earlier post it would appear that Mr Chips has removed all his posts.But check out Sams #06 post in this thread for he has a rar file to download of it.
Regards
TSK
can someone zip it as i don't have a rar app.
Hi hopefully this will work Arte.
TSK
the_spiders_kiss, i got it, thanks a lot.
Arte,
No problem mate.Will be interested to see what you think of it.
TSK
I have openned this thread in order to deepen our understanding of this system. I am curious:
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/bet-selection/4selecta-system-the-sequel/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/bet-selection/4selecta-system-the-sequel/)
Have you actually had a look at the 4selecta,,,do you understand it....>>
I saw enough of it to realize its a long term loser, and even a short term loser. Its just one more system that depends on the board being just right for it to work. If I'm wrong, please show me.
Spike,
Yes you may lose a session or two using 4selecta,but if you play it using the proper stop loss as identified by Mr Chips for this strategy then ,in my experience,you will win more than you lose.
TSK
using the proper stop loss as identified by Mr Chips for this strategy then ,in my experience,you will win more than you lose.>>
No, you won't. Prove it with math. Should be easy, right? My bet is, you don't have a clue how to prove it or disprove it.
Quote from: Spike on January 19, 2009, 07:24:34 AM
My bet is, you don't have a clue how to prove it or disprove it.
do you have this clue?
No you don´t! You are just sitting on your horse named: nothing works.
If you don´t like people thinking and searching for new ideas, just go away.
:) Winkel, enough said. Amen! We can only hope that ol' spike takes a tumble from his horse "nothing works" ;D
Spike doesn't think that nothing works, only that nothing "mechanical" works. "educated guessing" is the one and only true way. This raises contradictions, because "educated guessing" must involve some "triggers", which Spike emphatically denies. If the guessing is "educated" then you have to ask: "educated by what?", and the answer to this must be something like: "educated by experience of what works and what doesn't work". So if you have that knowledge, it amounts to a trigger, and if we have triggers, we have a mechanical system...
Spike will have none of it though. He says "no triggers - every spin is a new event".
Ok, but sooner or later you have to make a bet, make a decision. On what basis do you make that decision? again we are led back to a mechanical selection process. If the guessing was not "educated", it would be purely random selection, which would result in the expected loss as per the house edge. A non-random selection (if effective) must conform to a repeatable pattern which can be differentiated from the many other patterns which are available, and one which has been shown to give an advantage.
QuoteThis raises contradictions, because "educated guessing" must involve some "triggers", which Spike emphatically denies.
It's because he likes to play with words and he never wet his toe. Anyway, no matter the triggers and how educated our guess might be, there is always a risk associated with a bet. However, i think we can adopt a set of behaviors to reduce our risk. I have talk about it in the thread How do you gauge the...
Spike
Whether i can disprove it with math is neither here or there.I have played 4selecta along with others in this forum and it works for me and them.
So off you go and play with your non trigger- triggers. :-\
In fact you could tell us all what works for you, and maybe we could all have a look into that with you ?
TSK
Whether i can disprove it with math is neither here or there.>>>
Exactly as I thought..[smiley=3D-Smil-gros/36_12_6.gif]
So are we gonna be able to discuss your way of playin spike?............As your obvously the man with the plan here and all us others who have succesfully played and won with 4 selecta are liars.
Just because I havent explained it with math doesnt mean it hasnt worked for me and others and you are just an arrogant so and so to suggest other wise.So come on .....put up or shut up!
TSK
Ok, but sooner or later you have to make a bet, make a decision. On what basis do you make that decision?>>
You see 3 B's in a row and want to bet. Where is the trigger? A trigger would mean you make the same bet every time you see 3 B's in a row. If your bet is based on other criteria, no trigger is involved. Has a light bulb gon on over your head yet?
Hi spike,
why are you here?
Why don´t you go back to GG?
No audience for your sefishness?
Why don´t you go back to GG?>>
I'm here and at GG, I'm multi tasking. Don't be nervous, I won't hurt you..[smiley=3D-Smil-gros/36_4_16.gif]
Quote from: SpikeYou see 3 B's in a row and want to bet. Where is the trigger? A trigger would mean you make the same bet every time you see 3 B's in a row. If your bet is based on other criteria, no trigger is involved. Has a light bulb gon on over your head yet?
Spike, you don't get it. To use your example, seeing 3 B's in row doesn't necessarily mean that you bet each and every time you see it, it could mean you bet if and only if some other criteria are fulfilled as well.
For example, if 3 B's in a row have occurred, and:
- There haven't been 3 B's in a row in the last X spins
- There have been 3 B's in a row in the last X spins
- B's outnumber R's by X amount in the last Y spins
- etc, etc
If your next decision is based on past spins, and if you're winning more than you're losing,
and it's not just down to pure luck, then
there must be some patterns which occur more often (or less often) than probability predicts, given that some pattern has already occurred.That is what I mean by a "trigger".
If you haven't identified these circumstances or patterns (and they may be many and complex), then how do you know how to bet in a way that gives an advantage?
Quote from: SpikeIf your bet is based on other criteria, no trigger is involved.
The criteria
IS the trigger. Has a light bulb gone on over
your head yet?
The criteria IS the trigger.>>>
Good god, now a trend is anything we say it is and a trigger is whatever we say it is. Is there any subject in gambling where we aren't comparing apples to oranges?
Quote from: Spike on January 23, 2009, 06:51:14 PM
The criteria IS the trigger.>>>
Good god, now a trend is anything we say it is and a trigger is whatever we say it is. Is there any subject in gambling where we aren't comparing apples to oranges?
I have an idea Spike. Let's get together and illustrate the point with baloney. :o
Quote from: Bliss on January 23, 2009, 02:24:04 PM
For example, if 3 B's in a row have occurred, and:
- There haven't been 3 B's in a row in the last X spins
- There have been 3 B's in a row in the last X spins
- B's outnumber R's by X amount in the last Y spins
- etc, etc
What about these conditions:
- There have not been any 4 B's in the last X spins
- 6 B's have been swarming with 6 R's in the last X spins
- 3 B's have been followed by 2 or 1 R's in the last X spins
There are many conditions that come from recognition that are not listed as a trigger. What about combined conditions?
I understand that at some point you must place a bet. The trigger could be that the dealer is about to say "No More Bets." You must use something to place your bet. Calling the information you use, to guess with, "a trigger" could also be nothing more than comparing the sum of the positive triggers with the sum of the negative triggers. There must be a point when what is being recognized is more easily related to if it weren't classified as just another sub-set of the general category of "trigger." Now we have generalized trends triggering generalized guesses. That doesn't tell the story. All that does is classify the concept down to its largest generalized classification. What about recognition? Isn't recognition of unseen before patterns a concept too? Triggers are mostly understood as following a rule following function. How can you have a rule for an original recognition? You must have an original one time rule to deal with it. So is there a classification for the original one time triggers? A construct language for discussion might be helpful.
Quote from: SpikeGood god, now a trend is anything we say it is and a trigger is whatever we say it is. Is there any subject in gambling where we aren't comparing apples to oranges?
Spike, tell me which are the apples and which are the oranges?
What do
you understand by "criteria"?
You said "if your bet is based on
other criteria". What did you mean by that?
Quote from: GizmoThere are many conditions that come from recognition that are not listed as a trigger. What about combined conditions?
Gizmo, that's why I put "etc, etc" in the last bullet point, there are too many possible conditions to list. I also said: "other criteria are fulfilled as well." by that I meant "combined conditions".
Quote from: GizmoThere must be a point when what is being recognized is more easily related to if it weren't classified as just another sub-set of the general category of "trigger." Now we have generalized trends triggering generalized guesses. That doesn't tell the story. All that does is classify the concept down to its largest generalized classification.
You guys are so systems oriented that you think the concept of a trigger must cover every possible reason why, not only what you choose to bet on, but the very reason why you're in the casino in the first place. That's not what I meant at all. Obviously, if everything is a trigger then it tells you nothing about what a trigger is, because there's nothing that's not a trigger. But most casino players don't use triggers at all, at least not in the way I understand them.
Is betting on your favourite numbers a trigger? what about scattering your chips at random over the table? these aren't triggers, the marquee means nothing to these guys, they wouldn't even glance at it. Also, physical methods, bias wheels etc, don't fall into the trigger category. You give yourself away by saying "what is being recognized". Suppose there was no marquee, and no way of recording past spins? what then?
I'm talking specifically about using past spins as a guide to making your next bet. Somewhere, or something in the "history" makes you bet (1) one selection in preference to another, and/or (2) not bet continuously on every spin, but selectively. It needn't be "raw" data, it could be some pattern derived from it (like Mr Chips' 4selecta).
So, restricting the meaning to that, what do you define as "criteria"?
Quote from: GizmoSo is there a classification for the original one time triggers?
There could be, I don't know. I'm no expert on educated guessing (trigger recognition). :)
Why is "practice" necessary? what are you actually doing when you practice?
I'd really like to know.
Obviously, if everything is a trigger then it tells you nothing about what a trigger is, because there's nothing that's not a trigger.>>>
Thats what I said. Triggers and trends are apparently whatever you want them to be.
>>Why is "practice" necessary? what are you actually doing when you practice? I'd really like to know.>>
I've been saying I practice for hours a day since I came to GG. It drove Turbo nuts because he couldn't figure it out. Gizmo knows, even though we've never talked about it. Figure it out and you're almost there.
Quote from: Bliss on January 23, 2009, 10:52:32 PM
... by that I meant "combined conditions".
...You give yourself away by saying "what is being recognized". Suppose there was no marquee, and no way of recording past spins? what then?
I'm talking specifically about using past spins as a guide to making your next bet. Somewhere, or something in the "history" makes you bet (1) one selection in preference to another, and/or (2) not bet continuously on every spin, but selectively. It needn't be "raw" data, it could be some pattern derived from it (like Mr Chips' 4selecta).
So, restricting the meaning to that, what do you define as "criteria"?
There could be, I don't know. I'm no expert on educated guessing (trigger recognition). :)
Why is "practice" necessary? what are you actually doing when you practice?
I'd really like to know.
There is so much there, and many terms too. You have made some headway here: "combined conditions." You have recognized or acknowledged my drum beat for "conditional awareness" by chance. You are making it a part of "criteria" I think. I have stated that past spin data passes through times of "swarms," bunching. When I see that I'm then seeing conditions that I like to bet larger amounts in. Times like that come to an end too. Sometimes they act like 90% pure of that quality. That is just one observation of the nature of randomness. It's all an illusion in my mind. Seeing formations, patterns, and swarms is the same as the clustering illusion. It's just telling yourself that you have meaning because of recognition of characteristics that tend to happen from time to times. I have referred to this as a premise. I use the premise, a process of recognition, to make a guess.
I practice, in order to practice recognizing things I've seen before, what I see in the nature of randomness, and from practicing patience. The nature of randomness is to show you something new most of the times. You can't relive a new pattern that you have never seen before. You have to practice adjusting, changing, holding back, and attacking. There is no way that saying trends and criteria is all that I'm doing. But that's what you want to know isn't it?
This is not about proving anything. It's about willingness to share it. Winning is all about being smart about what you are looking for. That's why I just roll my eyes back at the naysayers. All they are doing is showing me that they don't know what I'm looking for. That's the point where I draw the line too. You must find out what you are looking for from the nature of randomness and why it's important to you.
>>That's why I just roll my eyes back at the naysayers. All they are doing is showing me that they don't know what I'm looking for.>>
Thats the truth, isn't it. I'm constantly mocked and derided and they think they are really 'getting to me', when I don't even see it most of the time. I just write them off as ignorant and not worth of my time. Kinda like knowing the world is round and the flat earthers laugh at you. Who is really the fool?
>>You must find out what you are looking for from the nature of randomness and why it's important to you.>>
And that takes practice. Bliss asked a very important question, one of the few I've ever seen on these boards. I studied zen for years. The zen masters made you ask questions and you could go years before you thought of a good enough question that they would actually answer. The point was to make you do all the work, thats the only way you'll learn. If you ask the right question, you might be ready for the answer.
Quote from: GizmoThere is no way that saying trends and criteria is all that I'm doing. But that's what you want to know isn't it?
This is not about proving anything. It's about willingness to share it. Winning is all about being smart about what you are looking for. That's why I just roll my eyes back at the naysayers. All they are doing is showing me that they don't know what I'm looking for. That's the point where I draw the line too. You must find out what you are looking for from the nature of randomness and why it's important to you.
Gizmo, I'm not saying it's all baloney, nor am I asking for a simple set of criteria (or triggers) that tell you when to bet, and on what. All I'm saying is that it seems to me that there is no clear distinction between a "mechanical" system and a "non-mechanical" one. At what point does a mechanical system become "educated guessing"?
Let's say that someone new to roulette learns of a simple bet selection on R/B. For example: "whenever you see at least 2 R's or B's in a row followed by a switch to the other side, you bet the same side as the switch" This means whenever you see RRB (or a longer string of R) you bet B once, and when you see BBR, you bet R once, then wait for the next opportunity. This seems to work pretty well for while, but then the inevitable long string of losses comes along, so he decides to try something else (sound familiar?). This too, seems promising at first, until it isn't... The guy goes on in this way for some time, trying many approaches, only to eventually discard them.
He learns, slowly, that everything can work for a while, but nothing is infallible. What seems to be needed is flexibility, the ability to switch effortlessly to the ever changing whims of the wheel. Stubbornly clinging to any strategy will spell disaster, he knows this from experience, and he will never fall into that trap again. Now, during this period of studying and testing, he's got to know the stream of R/B pretty well, because that's what he works with in the process of testing his bet selections. It's not that he's consciously analyzed the patterns, it's more a kind of unconscious absorbing of them. The will and intention to succeed has tuned him into to what bet selection works with whatever pattern is showing at the moment, a sensitivity to match a selection with the wheel, if you like. None of these bet selections are any good as exclusive strategies - they are all losers, every one of them. But what he has developed, over maybe 100's of hours of testing and looking at patterns, is the ability to - more often than not - at least stay close to even, if not make a profit.
Is this what you mean by "practice"?
Now, although this is a complex process and quite a demanding activity for the player - more of an art than a science, and to that extent a "non-mechanical" process, it could, in principle, be "mechanized" in the form of a computer program, don't you agree?
Quote from: Bliss on January 24, 2009, 01:00:53 PM
Gizmo, I'm not saying it's all baloney, nor am I asking for a simple set of criteria (or triggers) that tell you when to bet, and on what. All I'm saying is that it seems to me that there is no clear distinction between a "mechanical" system and a "non-mechanical" one. At what point does a mechanical system become "educated guessing"?
...
Is this what you mean by "practice"?
Now, although this is a complex process and quite a demanding activity for the player - more of an art than a science, and to that extent a "non-mechanical" process, it could, in principle, be "mechanized" in the form of a computer program, don't you agree?
Your example of concept & practice is basically correct. The actual example that you used is a worst case scenario for me. It's more like where I was when I first started guessing as a strategy. That point about abandoning a trigger was very important. The complexity of what triggers a decision is more complicated than just pattern following rules. Conditional awareness includes global changes to the data flow in combination with simpler effects. So yes, a very complex and extensive computer program could do this too. Now add to that triggering mechanism, game flow conditional awareness and for me two level betting and two step parlays. I don't play my A game until my A game is playable. How many systems depend of perfect timing and are triggered by walking up to a table expecting that timing to be right? That would be the dumb trigger. Too many people gamble with the dumb trigger.
Every time I read about a system that uses the dumb trigger I want to jump right off the page and warn them that it will lose more than it will win because timing is an integral part of using it. You can't learn the lessons of gambling by telling people about the pitfalls and mine fields. They need to experience what does not work for themselves. That is the only way for them to become true believers. So I don't warn them. I always prove to myself that I understand a concept and prove to myself that I'm ready to jump on stage and perform properly. It's a lesson from show business that I have as an experience. Perhaps you have seen American Idol auditions? Many gamblers here think they can sing good enough to be the next American Idol. I'm completely like anyone that thinks that telling someone to give up that singing career dream is the right thing to do. Because that is the kindness treatment for that person. Everyone in their family has said to them that they could sing and all it ended up doing was to make a fool out of them. Why is betraying trust the kindest form of sabotage? It's more like sibling rivalry and hatred. It's actually mean. Imagine suckering your brother into doing a live audition. Pretty funny.
it could, in principle, be "mechanized" in the form of a computer program, don't you agree? >>>
I totally disagree. There are too many decisions involved and experience is the biggest factor.
Ever go hunting? You can show somebody how to hunt, show them everything about it. What you can't teach is all the little decisions you learn how to make by getting the actual experience of hunting. You can't program it or teach it. You can only get it by doing it. By practicing it, if you will.
QuoteAll I'm saying is that it seems to me that there is no clear distinction between a "mechanical" system and a "non-mechanical" one. At what point does a mechanical system become "educated guessing"?
you have the answer in the sentence, mechanical is a term used when you take all the decision making out of a system, leaving just the rules to follow, the reason why mechanical systems are popular is because you dont really need to think about what your doing, just stick to the rules, easy and simple, although im yet to see anything mechanical that works. when you put decision making into the equation then the system becomes non-mechanical system, or as you put it "educated guessing".
Imagine you get get the same set of numbers twice in 2 sessions, and with "educated guessing" you play them the same way?->then you got rules that makes your playing mechanical, with the exception that you have more quantity of rules and more complex.
Or... do you play both sessions in a different way? Then, would it be any better than random playing?...NO
There are always rules, more or less complex, but every non-mechanical playing could be explained by setting up some RULES.
Unless you are playing by your "feelings"...= RANDOM
JD
QuoteThere are always rules, more or less complex, but every non-mechanical playing could be explained by setting up some RULES.
Unless you are playing by your "feelings"...= RANDOM
Nice JD.
Well this is what i have to say.
a) 100% random play is when you close you eyes and play like an blind man, so no matter where you put your units on the green carpet, win or lose.
b) Educated guess following at least one static rule based upon experience in that momentum when you place you bet, win or lose.
c) Mechanical you use a set of static rules to follow, win or lose.
There is more but i have post them into other boards and are a littel more complex.
Its about how to explore a time-line, the distribution of trails.
Then it comes to frame play.
Momentum frame.
Tendency frame.
The law of series.
And so on...
Cheers LS
Quote from: ryano8when you put decision making into the equation then the system becomes non-mechanical system, or as you put it "educated guessing".
If a non-mechanical system is one in which you make decisions, it begs the question - what is the basis for your decisions? If the difference between mechanical and non-mechanical is only the complexity and number of rules, then there must come a point in the evolution of your game where you abandon the fixed rules because they are too numerous and/or complex, and by doing so step into "educated guessing" territory. But the rules are still there, they're just not explicitly spelled out. To use a Psychologist's term, you play by the "gestalt". It doesn't mean that there are no rules though, it just means they are more "fuzzy".
Quote from: J.DanielsImagine you get get the same set of numbers twice in 2 sessions, and with "educated guessing" you play them the same way?->then you got rules that makes your playing mechanical, with the exception that you have more quantity of rules and more complex.
Exactly. But Spike has said that he never plays the same way, even if he were to get the very same sequence. Go figure. ::)
It doesn't mean that there are no rules though>>
But there are no rules. I played 2 shoes on Dublin tonight, bet 26 times, lost 6. I was thinking about what I was doing as I was playing. Not once did I say to myself "ABC has happened, time to bet." I bet most of the time without really knowing why. It comes from practice, from looking at hundreds of thousands of outcomes. Random often has a certain rhythm to it that you can spot if you have a lot of experience. It doesn't always work, but thats OK. Its like the experienced cops you hear about that can spot criminal types without really knowing the reason. Its just instinct that comes from experience. Thats all. Educated guessing.
QuoteIf a non-mechanical system is one in which you make decisions, it begs the question - what is the basis for your decisions? If the difference between mechanical and non-mechanical is only the complexity and number of rules, then there must come a point in the evolution of your game where you abandon the fixed rules because they are too numerous and/or complex, and by doing so step into "educated guessing" territory. But the rules are still there, they're just not explicitly spelled out. To use a Psychologist's term, you play by the "gestalt". It doesn't mean that there are no rules though, it just means they are more "fuzzy".
put it this way, VB requires you to use your judgement alone, there are no rules, just ways to calculate your bet so there are no complexities really, but its classed more as a method than a system. victors lw's uses rules to follow, but also has exit strategies that the player decides at his descretion, that would make it a non mechanical system as its down to the player when to attack and when to lay off. the martingale system is fully mechanical because you follow a set of rules and dont deter from them.
hope that makes sense but yours efforts should be used on trying to win money rather than disputing what makes a system mechanical or non mechanical as it doesnt really have any relevance in the way you would play your game.
Quote from: Ryan08the martingale system is fully mechanical because you follow a set of rules and dont deter from them.
I'm talking about how you select your bets, the martingale isn't a system in that sense, just a staking plan or MM.
Quote from: Ryan08yours efforts should be used on trying to win money rather than disputing what makes a system mechanical or non mechanical as it doesn't really have any relevance in the way you would play your game.
People talk about mechanical and non-mechanical systems, I'm interested in what they mean by it, that's all. They claim that mechanical systems can't win but non-mechanical systems can, so it would seem that it does have some relevance if you're interested in winning money.
QuoteI'm talking about how you select your bets, the martingale isn't a system in that sense, just a staking plan or MM.
im just using it as a simple example, i know its not classed as a system.
QuotePeople talk about mechanical and non-mechanical systems, I'm interested in what they mean by it, that's all. They claim that mechanical systems can't win but non-mechanical systems can, so it would seem that it does have some relevance if you're interested in winning money.
the theory behind a working mechanical system is that it can be played exactly the same anytime you join the game so its basically a set mold for all eventualities and situations, i know this doesnt exist, some people think differently but its just simply not possible. a non mechanical system has the basic rules but they have extra sets maybe which are variable depending on the situation.
simple way to look at what i mean is think of mechanical as a 2 dimensional system, and a non mechanical system as 3 dimensional, the non mechanical you have more room to move etc,
Quote from: ryan08 on January 27, 2009, 08:46:30 AM
im just using it as a simple example, i know its not classed as a system.
the theory behind a working mechanical system is that it can be played exactly the same anytime you join the game so its basically a set mold for all eventualities and situations, i know this doesn't exist, some people think differently but its just simply not possible. a non mechanical system has the basic rules but they have extra sets maybe which are variable depending on the situation.
simple way to look at what i mean is think of mechanical as a 2 dimensional system, and a non mechanical system as 3 dimensional, the non mechanical you have more room to move etc,
So you are saying that if i play the same event, with more rules then one, depence on the situation, then this is non mechanical system.
Example:
Mechanical = 2 dimensional
123 -->rule 1
231 -->rule 1
312 -->rule 1
132 -->rule 1
321 -->rule 1
Non mechanical = 3 dimensional
123 -->rule 1
231 -->rule 2
312 -->rule 3
132 -->rule 4
321 -->rule 5
So correct me if im wrong, but for me these are both mechanical selections, because you always follow the same rules and non mechanical system is guessing.
Cheers
Gavioli, I agree with you that they are both mechanical systems.
Quote from: SpikeRandom often has a certain rhythm to it that you can spot if you have a lot of experience.
How many past decisions do you look at before you make your next bet? or does it vary?
Quote from: Bliss on January 27, 2009, 12:34:14 PM
How many past decisions do you look at before you make your next bet? or does it vary?
Let's look at it in reverse. If I see a certain condition, then simply put, I go ahead and bet the recommended way. If it makes less than it should then the condition did not exist. What's more important, the condition or the trigger?
Quote from: GizmoWhat's more important, the condition or the trigger?
You seem to be making a distinction between a "condition" and "trigger", but I don't see it, because you said:
Quote from: GizmoIf I see a certain condition, then simply put, I go ahead and bet the recommended way.
That's why I said in a previous post: "The criteria
IS the trigger."
What is the "recommended" way?
So the number of spins you look back is irrelevant, it could be 50 spins or 10, it all depends on what pattern presents itself?
Quote from: Bliss on January 27, 2009, 01:11:35 PM
You seem to be making a distinction between a "condition" and "trigger", but I don't see it, because you said:
That's why I said in a previous post: "The criteria IS the trigger."
What is the "recommended" way?
So the number of spins you look back is irrelevant, it could be 50 spins or 10, it all depends on what pattern presents itself?
The quality, context, and duration are only part of the traits or characteristics of criteria. If "criteria" is the focus then what is "the recommended way?" Strategy comes from an obvious understanding of the phenomenon being observed. Many times the simplest approach is the best approach. I can attempt to put all that into a computer program. It should capture every exact conditionality but it would miss all close similarities to the exact conditions. The human brain has no trouble with this. The more conditions that are part of an expert system then the more exacting functions can execute the desired result. So a computer would be a trigger based system and a human brain would be capable of minor adjustments while evaluating the quality, context, and duration of any criteria. So criteria and the recommended way are a moving target and a loosely constructed set of suggestions to implement a plan based on experience. When Spike says "practice practice practice" he is not leading you off course. I know. I did it. I took my experience and honed it into a working method.
Success comes from changing after every spin. If you continue then that is because the criteria and the recommended way suggest to continue. Brainless rule based systems can be used this way too. If you have a system that can utilize interruptions and some kind of step recovery methods then you can use such a system by discovering favorable times for continuing or interrupting. In that way you have combined triggers with what you might call awareness & decisions? It's pretty funny because it sounds like the difference between being human or being a robot. Do I want to bet by awareness & decisions or like a robot expecting one day to be rich? I believe I have covered the later under the heading of baloney festivals. I hope you don't begin to think that this a chase around the forest stumbling into new terms. I'm clearly sharing concepts. If being able to relate to those concepts causes difficulty in those reading it then I have accomplished my goal. You must earn your knowledge. I'm sure that this is not too difficult for you Bliss. Now, can you contain it? There is a value in having an opportunity to execute your plan. Gambling should not be a government sponsored program where everyone gets a chunk of the pie. It should be for those that earn it.
What trigger is everyone knowing a secret system that beats the casinos? That would be Russian Roulette wouldn't it?
Gizmo, nice post. :)
I do, in fact, know exactly what you're saying. I think my problem (if you can call it that) is that I'm experiencing some kind of tug-of-war between the left brain and the right brain. :o
The fact is, I've been receptive to Spike's approach for quite a while, almost as long as he's been around the forums. There's something in it, of that I'm certain, but the logical, analytical side (left brain) is very very suspicious of this. That's why I find the idea of validating the right brain's "discovery" by writing a computer program to "prove it", very appealing. I think I used to be more of a "right-brainer" than a "left-brainer", but I had much of it "educated" out of me when I went to Uni. Since then, life hasn't been nearly so much fun, lol.
This is interesting: nolinks://nolinks.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html (nolinks://nolinks.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html)
No matter how hard I try, I can't see the dancer turning anti-clockwise. Also, I'm left-handed (the right brain is supposed to control the left side of the body, and vice versa). Any other lefties here? - Spike?
Quote from: GizmoWhat trigger is everyone knowing a secret system that beats the casinos? That would be Russian Roulette wouldn't it?
But if success comes from practice, and practice alone, how can you give anything away? you can't practice
for someone.
Watch the players on Dunlin. Last night there was 15 bankers in a row and from the 8th on, the table was packed with Asians. After every win they would all immediately thrust their hands out to Banker again. When the run was over and it went back to chops, they were all confused. There was no confidence, the bets were mixed, they wandered away. You could see the change in their attitude and demeaner. They have trained themselves on a very small part of random, that sometimes it streaks. So when the streak isn't present, they can barely stay even. There is a lot more to random than streaks.
I'm left handed and upside down.
No matter how hard I try, I can only see the clockwise dancer.
All........
The dancer is quite a mind-bender. I am able to switch her, but not at will.
What I do is focus concentration on her right foot only. When it seems she is not really turning 360, but 180 and back, she seems to switch from CW to CCW. Watch her toes; she seems to be just twisting her foot from right to left and suddenly from left to right and that's when the rotational switch occurs.
She is always CW when I open the program.
I can't wait to show this to other people. How interesting would this be for two people to see two different motions? Can't be both----can it?
Sam
Quote from: Bliss on January 27, 2009, 07:30:55 PM
But if success comes from practice, and practice alone, how can you give anything away? you can't practice for someone.
There it is. But I could tell my preferred strategy and I haven't. That could be practiced. I'm moving all over the table and the outside bets to mask my play and my logic. If I win, the pits are watching. If I can do that to many times and to high amounts then it will lead to me being asked to play elsewhere. If 20 people come in and do the same thing then the casinos around the world are going to have a discussion. They have proved that too, in practice.
It's what you practice. You do know that this discussion ends here for me don't you? This is as far as Spike or I have ever gone. It's been at this point for about a year. You must find for yourself the working bet by bet strategy. I did try the ECs, as Spike recommended. Practicing that taught me my strategy. I applied that to what I had the most experience at in the last 30 tears. Now, I have what I just absolutely love.
Looking at the feet is the solution to changing her.
Quote from: Bliss on January 27, 2009, 07:30:55 PM
No matter how hard I try, I can't see the dancer turning anti-clockwise. Also, I'm left-handed (the right brain is supposed to control the left side of the body, and vice versa). Any other lefties here? - Spike?
I'm like Sam. I got her going both directions always facing you, clockwise, and counter clockwise. The trick is to watch the foot and the shadow.
Giz
At least we're in the same boat on something!! :thumbsup:
Peace
Sam
QuoteSo you are saying that if i play the same event, with more rules then one, depence on the situation, then this is non mechanical system.
Example:
Mechanical = 2 dimensional
123 -->rule 1
231 -->rule 1
312 -->rule 1
132 -->rule 1
321 -->rule 1
Non mechanical = 3 dimensional
123 -->rule 1
231 -->rule 2
312 -->rule 3
132 -->rule 4
321 -->rule 5
So correct me if im wrong, but for me these are both mechanical selections, because you always follow the same rules and non mechanical system is guessing.
Cheers
no, thats not what i ment you have sort of missed the point completely, for a mechanical system to work it would have to profit in any and every situation (i dont think such a thing exists). a non mechanical system can only profit in certain situations and you cannot have a rule to tell you when its ok to play and when not to, so you cant call it mechanical as you only have your intelligence to go on to decide whether its good to play at that time or not.
all you have done above is have 5 mechanical systems rather than one.
so to put it simply in the dimensions of the system again, the 2 dimensional represents the rules of the system and the 3rd dimensional part represents the gamblers intelligence. and i dont believe a '2 dimensional' system can work.
hope that makes it abit clearer for you
There's something in it, of that I'm certain, but the logical, analytical side (left brain) is very very suspicious of this. >>>
You should try betting it in a casino. You are basing your bet on nothing you can point to, its all a matter of trusting your experience and instinct. I've tried and tried to translate it to mechanical betting and it just doesn't work.
Quote from: Spike on January 27, 2009, 11:17:12 PM
...its all a matter of trusting your experience and instinct.
I think that a person hones that instinct by winning in real play, when it can emotionally effect you if you get side tracked by your own internal dialog. It comes down to executing your plan & by remaining focused too. All that is reinforced by your experience. I have discovered that every rule has a breaking point. Perhaps there is an instinct to avoid the breaks. I certainly have a gift for not walking into bad downturns.
How many past decisions do you look at before you make your next bet? or does it vary?>>>
There Are No Rules
Like squirrel hunting, no rules. Except I'm hunting P's and B's.
Are using a shotgun when you hunt those suckers?
How are you cookin em?
Two Okies went squirrel hunting. Jim noticed Bob had no .22 rifle.
"What do you hunt with?", he asked.
"I ugly 'em down.", replied Bob.
Soon they came upon a squirrel.
"Watch this", said Bob. He then made a face so ugly the squirrel died and fell from the tree.
"Good Lord!", said Jim. "I've never seen anything like that. Can anyone else do it?"
Bob spat a mouthful of tobacco juice. "Yeah, the wife can but she tears 'em so bad there ain't much left to eat."
He then made a face so ugly the squirrel died and fell from the tree.>>>
Thats exactly how I beat bac..
Spike
I may have seen you at a table in Tunica, Mississippi!
>:( <------------?
Sam
Maybe, but everybody in MS is ugly as a board fence.. ;D ;D
The dancer goes clockwise for me. My wife see's it switching every 10sec or so. I saw it switch a couple times but it made me dizzy to try.
So now we are experienced in visual, left and right or left or right spins of a silhouette of a naked dancer. We never discussed left brain or right brain leanings. What about how that tends to lead a person's ability to see the clustering illusion?
Right brain people:
Holisitc: Processing information from whole to part; sees the big picture first, not the details.
Random: Processing information with out priority, jumps form one task to another.
Concrete: Processes things that can be seen , or touched - real objects.
Intuitive: Processes information based on whether or not it feels right know answer but not sure how it was derived.
Nonverbal: Processes thought as illustrations.
Fantasy-Oriented: Processes information with creativity; less focus on rules and regulations
Try your whole brain, get back on track.
nolinks://nolinks.singsurf.org/brain/rightbrain.php (nolinks://nolinks.singsurf.org/brain/rightbrain.php)
Left Brain, Right Brain, Whole Brain?
>>>"Brain scientists will tell you that the idea of a rigid divide is a popular myth. They even have a word for the public's enthusiasm for the subject: 'dichotomania'. Like 'modern phrenology' the word is a put-down, intended to imply that the real situation is far too complex for simple conclusions to be drawn." , emphasis mine.<<<
When asked if I would rather write a paper on the planets of the solar system or a story about an ant that saved the ant farm. I chose to write about the ant that pushed the planets back into orbit, to save the world of the ants.