VLS Roulette Forum

What of using an 'educated guess' as a selection method? I'm aware of one poster who uses it. There could be others.

I'm only interested in answers that take the question seriously -- if you want to make stupid remarks or naysay then kindly DON'T, please   :)

Many fields of human activity use educated guesses -- meteorology comes readily to mind. Playing the stock market. You'll think of others.

To my mind a guess is a form of prediction.

In the context of roulette, the adjective 'educated' could refer to the player's past experience of observing patterns and trends. Or it could refer to something quite different.

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

Perhaps the concept defies definition?

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

Is a degree of creativity involved?

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

What is the role of 'gut feeling'?

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

And so on...

I'd like to see some serious discussion as to how this method could work...over to you.

Is it something you're born with, something you develop, or both?

I sometimes find it hard to trust mine.


Ron.

esoito

I'd love to discuss this without the vitriol.

Are you guessing after having looked at the marquee?  Or could you be totally blindfolded with me placing your bets?

It has been my experience that "educated" guesses are based on "gut feelings" which come from years of experience.  I told Dr. Hunter my symptoms.  He told me he would xray but also told me what the xray would show before we took it.  Educated guess from 30 years of seeing arthritis patients.

Let's liken me to a roulette wheel.  My telling him of my pain was the marquee.  Had I just walked in and said, "Doc, I'm ailin'", he might not have been so good with his diagnosis.  We walk up to a wheel and "guess" red.  Is that an educated guess?  What in our past gives us the "gut feeling" red will hit, especially if we have not seen the marquee?  I know; all spins are independent trials so no marquee is needed.

Suppose it's a brand new wheel never been spun.  Would it be possible to make an educated guess as to where the first ball would land?

Frankly, I find it hard to believe.

Sam

Yes you could use educated guess work but it has an mechanical element.
The only thing that has not on mechanical element is a blind man who put hes chips on the green carpet.

Educated guess work is based upon some thing like when you play with the wheel there is a reason why you do so and if you play aginst it is the same thing or you use bouth.
Demonstration.

I have black and i know there will be more of 123 so i pick 2 and 3 and follow black to become 2 black in a row.
It fails and i get red.
Then i know i bet black again to hit two singles in a row it fails.
Two bets on what is most common and it fail.

Now i have Black Red Red and will guess.
Play with or against and why.

Well i might say i want get 4 x BRRR or 4 x BRRB
If i guess different every time this situation happens i play random.

Random against random stand for it self.
Educated guess is mechanical.

A blind man can not out guess 50/50 and no way with educated guess with out an mechanical element.

Cheers

Hello all  :)

As for educated guessing, I think this is the only tool we ever use. As far as roulette is concerned, defenders of advantage play use also a form of educated guessing, because it is all based on past outcomes.

When you do visual ballistics, you make an educated guess, because you have observed in the last n outcomes that when the ball passes under this diamond at this time, then it falls on that pocket.
If you use dealer signature, you've detected that with this particular dealer, the ball tends to fall on this sector.
So advantage play observes first, then try to get results based on conditions built on the past.

When you try to design a mathematical system, what I would rather call a statistical - probability model, you - again - use educated guessing, based upon trends and patterns detection. We see the same idea in the background : relying on past events to decide what should be the move.

The edge of the advantage play over the mathematical - statistical way is that, especially in the case of VB, the laws of newtonian physics come to the rescue : not many variables to take into account, much less need for confidence intervals.

With statistical - probability models, the whole point is to detect the right trends, patterns, correlations. In that case, roulette is nothing but a RNG, so nothing tangible, therefore newton is of little help.

It seems to me that humanity uses a great deal of statistics - probability for predicting purposes in a vast diversity of fields : weather, animal or human behaviour, medicine, insurance, you name it. For example (forgive me for being trivial here), it has been observed many many times that there is a strong correlation between summertime and hot temperatures, so that we can make correct choices when that particular time of the year happens.

The particularity or roulette as an RNG is that we cannot lean on something that we can physically grasp, so we have yet to find the right elements that explain the number generation process.  To this time, I know of only two ways of thinking that seem serious :
- the so called "law of the third", a phenomenon that can be observed over and over.
- the people that pretend to get the relationships between numbers : Enygmista - Gamlet, and G. T. Hushion (Cracking pi . com). Based on the few clues they give us, I for one, have not come with anything worth it yet. I even wonder, in the case of the former, what is the point in leaving so little evidence.

Cheers  :)

Stepydan.

The Free Dictionary defines it as: "a guess that is likely to be correct because you have enough knowledge about a particular subject"

For me, in the context of roulette the knowledge is knowledge of probability, and what patterns represent the limits within which any given chance can operate. Someone without this knowledge may "guess" at what the next outcome (or series of outcomes) may be, but it isn't "educated" if the guess is based on nothing (except hope).

To a maths dogmatist, a guess is as good as an educated guess, ie; no amount of "education" will increase the likelihood that your guess is any better than random (as per the doctrine of random, independent trials).

If you're not using physics, then all you have is past results, so your guess is educated by these, (both "immediate" past results of what you are currently playing, and experience of many other past results, and the probability of these).

Suppose you were given 2 sets of past results, you could use your knowledge and experience of roulette to make an educated guess as to which set came from a even chance, and which came from a dozen:

set1: - WWLWLLLWWLLWLWWLWLWLLLLWLWLLWLWWL
set2:   WLLLWLLLLLWLLLWWLLLLLLLWLLLWLLWLLLLWLL

Most people might guess that set1 = EC and set2 = Dozen, but in fact the reverse is true. If you want to become a good educated guesser, you need to know how to "read" past results and be able to answer questions such as: "how long is set2 going to continue in this way before I can be 99% sure that the decisions did NOT come from an EC?

If you study enough decisions (or learn enough probability theory) you will know the answers to this and many other questions, which will educate your guessing to the degree that you are able to do consistently better than mere chance would dictate (maths dogmatists not withstanding).  :clapping:

Quote from: I have cookiesEducated guess is mechanical.

I agree. All this talking about mechanical and non-mechanical is just semantics. Even if you are making bets in an "adaptive" way you have a reason to bet one decision rather than another, and your decisions are worked out in advance. They must be, otherwise how would you know that the decision to bet one way or another is any better than "blind" guessing? so it's mechanical.

Thanks Tangram for a nice reply.

Cheers

Quote from: I have cookiesThanks Tangram for a nice reply.

You're welcome.  :)

Quote from: StepydanAs for educated guessing, I think this is the only tool we ever use. As far as roulette is concerned, defenders of advantage play use also a form of educated guessing, because it is all based on past outcomes.

Stepydan,

Yes, but I suppose you could say that of any speculative activity (forex, sports betting etc). I think esoito was talking about "educated guessing" purely as a statistical/mathematical method.

QuoteI agree. All this talking about mechanical and non-mechanical is just semantics. Even if you are making bets in an "adaptive" way you have a reason to bet one decision rather than another, and your decisions are worked out in advance.

That was an excellent statement that is absolutely true...

Here is why I agree with it:

Let's say over the course of 10 minutes you played a set of 20 spins...you waited until the first 3 spins were over then bet every spin thereafter betting only on red or black.

After those 10 minutes were over, you're memory of the past 10 minutes was erased (without your knowledge) and then you were give the same 20 spins over the next 10 minutes...

You would bet EXACTLY the same way...this is because your "educated guessing" is based on past experiences.  If you didn't bet EXACTLY the same way, then you're not using "educated guessing" you're just guessing.

The only reason people say "adaptive" or "non-mechanical" or "educated guessing" strategys are such is because they are using way more triggers than they realize...but they are triggers all the same.

Let's say the above example happened again, but this time they didn't erase your memory, and then you were given the same ten spins again to play...you would bet differently...because you just had the experience with those same spins.

As your "experiences" change...so does "why" you bet the way you do...but their will always be a reason.

If you stop playing after being up 100 units one day because "your gut" says you should stop...it's because you know that often times it is unlikely to get much higher than that without going down.

The next time you play you might try to make it to 110 units before you stop because (without you actually saying this to yourself) last time you played you made it to 100 successfully...still, again, a trigger...but different than the last time.

The human brain is capable of holding thousands of triggers and using them all while playing...but if you EVER make a decision that is based on looking up at the marquee and then making an "educated guess" you've in fact, just used a trigger...you might think it's a guess because you didn't take the time to quantify why you made that decision, but there IS a reason.

So, next time you're playing use the "guessing" method...but everytime you make a guess wait 10 seconds and REALLY think about why you made that "guess"...you'll come up with a reason why I can assure you.

Each time you come up with a reason why, write it down.  Do this for say...100 bets...see how triggers you've written down.

You'll probably have...roughly...100 DIFFERENT triggers...some going 3 spins back...some 60 spins back...but again...all triggers just the same.

So, what looks like "adaptive play" is just the use of WAY more triggers than most "systems" are ever programmed with which makes it look as though it bets without triggers.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again...

If the way you play is based on anything other than blind guessing it can be programmed...this is because you're playing based on "making decisions" using past spins.

So, in closing:

There is no such thing as "educated guessing" that isn't using triggers as to why you bet the way you did.  There will always be a reason why you bet the way you did...that reason is the trigger...it might (and probably will) change every spin, but it is a trigger all the same.

Good post rj, you fleshed out my earlier reply very nicely.  ;)

Call it a "favourable situation", "opportunity", "trigger" etc - they all amount to the same thing.

It's the same with the word "System". Those who say no system works, but "educated guessing" or "adaptive strategies" do are also just playing with words in my opinion. To me a system is money management + bet selection, no matter if the bet selection is very complex or "dynamic". What the system nay-sayers mean is that no simple system works. And with that I agree. Of course, you have to define what "simple" means, other than "any system which fails".  ;D And of course, just because a system is complex and/or has many triggers doesn't of itself necessarily mean it will win.

I haven't used Mr Chips' 4selecta, but by all accounts it makes a consistent profit. It is complex, but could certainly be coded (as could any method, only the non-programmers deny this can be done).

QuoteAn adaptive strategy has no mechanics. But you do have to look at past outcomes to determine how the flow is going, sometimes as few as three or four, sometimes ten or fifteen. How else are you supposed to adapt? You can't do it on one spin because you can't get a clear picture.

QuoteYou can't do it on one spin because you can't get a clear picture.

Yes you can.
I know one way and developing one more but need help.

2 <<< 1 spin      
2 W             
2 L             
1 W          
1 W    
2 W                
2 W                
2 L    
1 W                            
1 W    
2 W           
2 W    
1 W       
2 L       
1 W       
1 L   
2 W                   
1 L         
2 W                              
2 L   
1 W                          
2 L            
2 L                
2 L
1 <<< 1 spin
2 L                   
1 W             
1 L       
2 W              
2 W    
1 W    
2 L             
1 W             
2 W    
2 L    
1 W       
1 W       
1 L       
2 W    
2 W    
1 W   
1 W            
1 L    
2 W     
1 L       
2 W       
2 L   
1 W   
2 L          
1 W     
1 L   
1 L    
2 W             
1 L    
1 L          
2 W     
2 W
2 L
2 L   
2 L   
2 <<< 1 spin
1 L
1 L    
2 W    
2 W    
1 W    
2 L       
1 W              
2 W    
1 W     
1 L     
1 L     
1 L  
1 <<< 1 spin
2 L          
1 W       
1 L    
1 L        
2 W
2 W    
2 L    
1 W          
2 L       
1 W     
1 L
2 W    
2 W  
2 L
1 W
1 W
2 W
1 L
2 W                
1 W    
1 L    
2 W    
2 W
2 L
2 L    
1 W
2 L                
1 W    
1 L
1 L    
2 W
1 L
2 W    
2 L
1 W       
1 W
1 L
1 L    
2 W       
1 L
1 L    
1 L
2 <<< 1 spin   
2 W    
1 W    
1 W    
1 L
1 L       
1 L      
2 <<< 1 spin
2 W    
2 L    
1 W        
2 L
2 L
1 W    
1 W
1 L
2 W
1 L
2 W
2 L   
2 L   
2 L
1 <<< 1 spin
1 W    
2 W   
2 W   
1 W   
1 W      
1 L
1 L    
2 W    
2 W   
2 L   
1 W      
2 L   
2 L   
2 L
2 <<< 1 spin
2 W
2 L
2 L   
2 L   
2 <<< 1 spin   
2 W
2 L
2 L   
1 W    
1 W
1 L   
2 W    
2 W
2 L
2 L
1 W
1 W
2 W      
1 L
1 L
1 L
2 <<< 1 spin
2 W
2 L   
2 L       
2 L    
2 <<< 1 spin
2 W
1 W
1 W   
2 W   
2 W
1 W
1 W
2 W
2 W
2 L
1 W       
1 W
1 L
2 W
1 L
2 W      
1 W
1 L
2 W
2 W
2 L
2 L
2 L
2 <<< 1 spin
2 W
2 L
2 L   
2 L   
1 <<< 1 spin
2 L
1 W       
2 W     
2 L
1 W    
2 L
2 L
2 L

There is so many ways.
Templating and pick 16 trails it should take over 1024 trails before that sequense hit again.
You divide and pick 4 referens points with mirror and straigt image of past become the key word.

Can be a good strategie for tournement play.

Cheers

@ bateman >>  Just so you know, this is not me arguing...I think this is a good healthy debate.

Anyway, my point...er, question...

When you place a bet...do you have a reason for placing it?

QuoteYou can't get an idea of the random flow by looking at one spin.

Why not it is 50/50.
It does not matter what pattern you use.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

What come next Red or Black?

R

What comes next Red or Black?

Cheers

@ Bateman >>  For you to say "there are no pre-defined triggers" that would mean you would have to walk up to the table everytime as if you'd never played roulette before...because if you have played before and you don't allow yourself to ignore that information, that means when you place your very first bet and any bet thereafter, you're basing it on something....that something is a trigger...whatever that something is....and however many of those somethings there are....and however many somethings you "invent" while you're playing...

Just because a bet is placed with reasoning developed "on the fly" doesn't mean it isn't a trigger...it is...it's just a trigger that you decided upon whilst playing...but again, next time you're playing, EVERY SINGLE TIME you place a bet, write down why you placed it...

If you CAN'T write anything down, then you're simply guessing...not educated guessing...but guessing the same as a blind/deaf man would.

However, if you write ANYTHING down...anything at all...that/those are triggers...it doesn't matter that didn't have any "reasons" about why you would place a bet when you were walking up to the table...what matters is that you had a "reason" when you actually placed a bet on the table.  

That reason is a trigger...doesn't matter when you come up with it or when you decide to use it...it's a trigger...a reason for betting is a trigger...

In fact, conversely, a reason for NOT betting is also a trigger...

When you first walk up to the table, if you look up at the marquee and then DON'T place a bet...you've already used your first trigger...you had a REASON why you didn't place a bet...again...a reason is a trigger...doesn't matter when, why or how you come up with it or how many different ones there are...it's a trigger all the same.

Quote from: BatemanA system is destroyed by fluctuation because it is a fixed entity with rules and is dependent on one or a few events.

Most systems are like this, but they needn't be. Ditto rj's question - you have to base your bet on something, whether it be constantly changing or not. You may have "meta-rules" (rules about when to use other rules), but it doesn't mean they aren't rules (or "guidelines", if you prefer).

How does your method give you an advantage if you haven't found out what gives you an advantage?

My last comment before I wait for a response from Bateman...

I'll put the whole thing out in one post about how I understand you're way of playing...

I've got a blank piece of paper...that piece of paper is my "situational system, variable betting strategy, method, educated guessing system"...whatever you want to call it.

I walk up to the roulette wheel, I look at the Marquee...I choose not to bet...why?  I write down why I didn't bet.

Next spin...I choose not to bet...why?  I write down why I didn't bet.

Next spin...I place my first bet...why?  I write down why I did bet.

So on and so forth..

I walked up to the table with a blank piece of paper...("no system")...then I ended up with a piece of paper full of things written on it.  Those things are all reasons...reasons are triggers...triggers make up systems...that piece of paper you end up holding at the end is a system.  

QuoteHow does your method give you an advantage if you haven't found out what gives you an advantage?

Yes i agree.

Yes every one use static triggers i can show you how.

Cheers

i can see why bateman says we have no exact triggers but of course there is a reason for the bet to be placed.
when playing we dont know if we are going to see

a run of 10 reds in a row,
a colum or dozen hit only 3 times in 30 spins,
a street hit 6 times in 12 spins,
a 6 sector on the wheel hit 5 times in the last 6 spins
or even half of the wheel hit 15 times in a row...
the list is endless

maybe we decide the bets when we are at the wheel and taking agvantage of these examples above that will happen. so if we see an oppatunity early we should keep an eye on it until the signal is stronger then take advantage from that flatbetting.

mattjono

The only one who does not use a static element is a blind man who put chips on the carpet.

Cheers

QuoteI haven't used Mr Chips' 4Selecta, but by all accounts, it makes a consistent profit. It is complex, but could certainly
be coded (as could any method, only the non-programmers deny this can be done)

Tangram, I would never cast doubt on your programming skills, but you would have to incorporate into any program the exit strategy
that is central to the system. As a session develops it provides information both positive and negative, which will lead to an informed
decision when to exit a session.
 
I will give an example of the difficulty a programmer would encounter. The session could start favourably with an early win, then after
a certain number of spins it's showing a loss. A positive sign is that the bets are still low, but most of the hits not wins are from the
M available numbers. Only two numbers are are showing in the H available numbers and three for L. The C section group in the Main
Table is in the lead, which accounts for the low bets. HC in the Main Table hits and is second leader if it had been leader it would
have won, therefore activate the 'C' Table. After a few more spins h, which is the leader in the 'C' Table wins and therefore is a valid
bet for C section group in The Main Table. The session is at spin 75 showing -7 units. The question now is should the session end now
with a just about break even -7 result or continue?
 
Experience of such decisions and the information gained throughout the session will provide an informed decision. How will a program
come to such a decision. I will be very impressed if a program can match my decisions or even improve on them ;) :biggrin:
 
Mr Chips

QuoteOK, Lucky Strike. I'm talking about betting triggers. I don't use triggers I use indicators to keep an overall picture of what is happening now, what has happened and what I think will happen. Then I decide how and what to attack. Sometimes I will attack systematically, with rules, for example for 3 or 5 spins. Other times I will pull the attack only when the trend has faded. Sometimes I will use set indicators to signify a certain condition, but they are the only static element I use and only because they are part of a technique for observing patterns and trends. Still, they don't always influence my bet selection.

Bateman that is very good to use indicators much more powerful then patterns and I name them static element for indicators that can be one singles outcome or a pattern with a static element and there is more variations.
Even as you mention 16 past trails can become an indicator and you can pick to follow the random flow or play against it and if you fail it would be the same as hitting 32 red or blacks in a row.
I don't say this to give any one ideas I am testing and explore this kind of stuff because I enjoy it.

Cheers

Quote from: BatemanAll you lot are doing is arguing that certain words mean the same thing. They don't.

Quote from: BatemanA betting indicator is not a trigger. With trigger betting, you may as well be purely guessing.

I can't see any difference between "betting indicator" and "trigger", but you seem to think there's all the difference in the world.  ::)

Your description of how you choose your bets is the way I go about it too. I really think we're singing from the same hymn sheet, but I'm not offended if someone calls me a "system" player. :D

I believe that roulette is a game of skill, and like all skills, it must be learned. You have to put in the hours to find out what works and what doesn't. However, as a programmer I perhaps have a different insight into the decision making process. If you write code you get into the habit of translating informal descriptions into more precise form which a computer can understand. I know that I could write a program which emulates my skill, it's just that it would be a ton of work and I don't see any point in doing it. Have you never heard of expert systems? nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system)

Quote from: Mr ChipsExperience of such decisions and the information gained throughout the session will provide an informed decision. How will a program
come to such a decision. I will be very impressed if a program can match my decisions or even improve on them

Mr Chips,

The only challenge lies in being able to pass your experience into a form that the computer can understand.  ;) If you know what decisions to make under any particular circumstances, then you should be able to instruct a computer to do the same thing. It may be difficult and take a lot of work, but in principle it could always be done because playing roulette only involves processing data and making decisions. There's a quote I like from the designer of modern computer architecture, Jon Von Neumann. I think it sums up the problem nicely:-

"You insist that there is something that a machine can't do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that."

If you don't know what to do, but are just guessing, then you can't expect a computer to do any better (or worse for that matter). A Computer has no initiative or innate intelligence whatsoever (so if anyone says you have a mind like a computer, don't feel flattered.  ;D) and without a program it's just a box of microchips - a doorstop.

@ Bateman,

I understand what you're saying; an indicator "points to" the possibility of a bet together with the trend signals. I still think we're talking about the same thing really, because in the end you have to make a bet (a decision), and you make this on the basis of previous successes using similar signals. If there is currently a "history" which doesn't fit one of your indicators, then this is itself an indicator, or a trigger to not bet.

QuoteThe only challenge lies in being able to pass your experience into a form that the computer can understand

A computer program is no match to the complexity of the human brain. A human can make intelligent decisions, a computer
simply follows a set of routines.
 
Consider the following: We are in a plane, which is on autopilot and there are a number of very advanced computers on board
controlling every part of the plane. They have been programmed with every known situation relating to faults, therefore the
experience of failures in other aircraft makes this a formidable and safe aircraft.
 
The plane suddenly loses power 5 minutes from landing. The computer relays on the screen that the fault will be rectified at
the estimated time of 4 minutes. The plane is severely vibrating, there is a slight crosswind, which adds to the instability of
the aircraft.
 
The choice now is should the pilot take full control of the aircraft or keep it on autopilot and rely on the experience programmed
into the computer. No surprises what or rather who I will chose :thumbsup:
 
Mr Chips

Mr Chips,

Can you clarify for me the difference between your so called 'intelligent' (or 'educated' as some refer to it) decisions that do not follow a set of specific routines, and a pure random decision? Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Lupo

Lupo,

I haven't a clue what educated guessing is about, as people who claim to use it never produce results, in fact they don't produce
anything. If they said when there is a full moon it's easier to identify Red and Black, that would at least give us something to work
on ;D
 
With a well designed system providing a wealth of info and a minimum loss and exit strategy it's possible then to make intelligent
decisions. In the 4Selecta system, it is possible up to a point to write a program, which will take account of the positive and
negative aspects of a session. It could be that there are slightly more positive signs than negative ones after a certain number of
spins. The program would have to come to a logical decision to continue. I on the other hand will also be aware, that there is a slight
plus to continue, but it has been a difficult session ( how do you program difficult). As a human do I want to continue with such a
difficult session, maybe I can exit at -5, almost a break even result and start another session somewhere else.
 
Such considerations as "difficult", "no real advantage", "up and down", "tendency", there are probably many others as well. Humans
will always make a variety, sometimes irrational decisions, but they could well be advantageous and no program can come close
to matching a human decision.
 
Regards

Mr Chips

Well the only thing I have to say is that some things will happen every week and some thing wont happen in a life time  ;D
Then you might ask would you put our money on tendency, static indicators, patterns, triggers and what else is there?

Cheers

@Bateman you are cool in my book mate :)

Cheers

Lucky Strike, you are cool too  8)

Quote from: Mr Chips on July 12, 2009, 10:09:40 AM

I haven't a clue what educated guessing is about, as people who claim to use it never produce results, in fact they don't produce anything.

With all do respect to those that require respect, what gives you the right to categorize the value of this when you openly admit that you know nothing about it. Sharing does not give you a prerequisite right to control discussion. You have consistently been told how to get knowledge of it. All you have to do is pursue it on your own. In the end you will have your believable evidence and your required results. Others have. That's the result you will one day, perhaps,  be curious enough to investigate.

QuoteWith all do respect to those that require respect, what gives you the right to categorize the value of this when you openly admit that you know nothing about it. Sharing does not give you a prerequisite right to control discussion. You have consistently been told how to get knowledge of it. All you have to do is pursue it on your own. In the end you will have your believable evidence and your required results. Others have. That's the result you will one day, perhaps,  be curious enough to investigate.

Well I have to agree with that.

Cheers

Quote from: Bateman on July 12, 2009, 10:17:26 AM
Indicators are used to identify what is happening. That is all. They don't tell you what to bet or what not to bet. The bet selection and the attacking tactics to be used are down to the player and cannot be coded by anyone. To code it would would mean there is set criteria and there isn't. That's why it is called adaptation. Nothing is done automatically, as it is with a system. How is that using triggers? Triggers are event-driven and prompt other events. Something happens and you automatically do the opposite etc. If you can't understand that then I think you're just a devil's advocate.

See Spike. It can be discussed openly and it still has a quality of mystique to it. It all comes down to experience in how to use "indicators" and attack scenarios, as Bateman has revealed. So two years go by and we arrive at this point. You all have what you wanted from me in Bateman's revelations. I'm sorry if it is not enough but it is not a system, it's a method. It's always been described as a method.

QuoteIt all comes down to experience in how to use "indicators" and attack scenarios, as Bateman has revealed.

He has not revealed any thing that we not alredy know.
We have been talking about what is a blind man and what is a static momentum and what is mechanical regarding educated guess work.

Spike and Bateman is not saying the same thing.
I think Bateman is cool because I can grasp what he say and I can't say the same about Spike.

Cheers

Quote from: Lucky Strike on July 12, 2009, 11:24:09 AM
Spike and Bateman is not saying the same thing.
I think Bateman is cool because I can grasp what he say and I can't say the same about Spike.

Spike is not openly talking. That's an obvious difference. Spike is deliberately being cryptic. Bateman is telling you. That's why he is cool I guess.

Just remember this. On this ninth day of the 2009 Tour De France, educated guessing has a cool advocate.

QuoteIn the end you will have your believable evidence and your required results

What absolute nonsense!!!
 
What has believable to do with evidence. Evidence should be there for us all to see. Either evidence exists or it doesn't.
There is nothing to believe in. What is it some roulette cult :skull:
 
I may get some stick for producing a complex system, but I produce verifiable results and I reply often in detail to any
questions that are put to me. Has anyone of your "believing" followers produced any verifiable results. I will take an
"educated guess", NO.
 
Mr Chips

Chips, you can do whatever you want and believe whatever you want. You don't have to try to understand it. You can go ahead and make fun of it too. Only remember this. I offered to program your system if it were just explained well enough so that I would not have to go back a rewrite the software over and over again. I just want the sim to be done right the first time. Nobody has stepped forward to describe your system yet. So you have a phantom in your own camp that has not been well explained either. I would not wish to work that hard only to have it be explained away as not being properly executed. Up till now educated guessing was not being openly described. What are you going to do when many understand it? You are declaring that there is nothing there. I've known all along that systems fail and that this works. I can't drag you to the truth. If you want to reject it as a cult then you are just believing your own propaganda. As your group grows smaller this group takes greater appreciation.

QuoteThat's why he is cool I guess

No you are wrong he is not telling any one any-thing new or talk about any secret, that is what I see but I can't know what you grasp.
He agree on some things in the begining in this post that made me start to like him and that is why I think he is cool.
Not for telling me some-thing that I did not know.
I am open for new stuff but so far there is none of that in this post.

Cheers

I have never requested 4Selecta to be programmed, people have taken it upon themselves and suggested it be programmed.
 
Unlike your mythical "educated guessing", the people who have put themselves out to understand 4Selecta, have a system with
substance and a years results as proof and a number of detailed examples.
 
When someone produces verifiable results from so called "educated guessing" I will take notice and check it out otherwise it
belongs, with all the other hotch potch believe this or a hint that garbage.
 
Mr Chips
 

 

Bateman,
 
4Selecta is far from irrelevant, as it is one of many systems on this forum that produces verifiable results. There is nothing to believe in
or requires a hint here or suggestion there. There are many of us who are getting increasingly fed up with those individuals, who try to
make out they have something special and in fact have nothing.
 
Well 4Selecta does maintain an edge and it may not suit your belief and imagination, but it makes serious money in a casino, can you say
the same for whatever you believe in. Produce some verifiable results and we will all take an interest.
 
Mr Chips

Well you made a point there Mr Chips we do have many who claim this and that and show us empty words, I agree.
In the begining we talk abot what is a blind man and what is a static momentum and what is mechanical regarding educated guess work.

Now this topic change and become some-thing else.


Cheers

Quote from: Lucky Strike on July 12, 2009, 03:45:40 PM
Well you made a point there Mr Chips we do have many who claim this and that and show us empty words, I agree.

Cheers

I second that .

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

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

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

Quote from: Mr Chipshow do you program difficult

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

Quote from: Tangram on July 12, 2009, 04:14:21 PM
OK, I see the difference between an indicator and a trigger, but it seems to me that an indicator becomes a trigger at some point (much in the way that a speedometer in a car is an indicator, and when it "indicates" a certain value, it becomes a "trigger" to apply the brakes).
I'm not being a devil's advocate, and frankly I'm baffled that you don't see what I'm getting at (or choose not to). I repeat - sooner or later you have to make a bet, some combination of events or set of circumstances "points" to a bet (or series of bets) being advantageous (based on previous experience or research), correct?

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

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

However, I can't stop myself anymore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I'll ask another question...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well said rj.  :thumbsup:

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

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

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



So, my next question to you is:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps the concept defies definition?

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

Is a degree of creativity involved?

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

What is the role of 'gut feeling'?

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

And so on...


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

Quote from: esoito on July 12, 2009, 08:53:30 PM
I wonder if I can 'trigger' some more responses to the topic of the thread, namely:

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

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

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

Quote from: rjeaton1 on July 12, 2009, 08:57:30 PM
I didn't mean to appear to hijack your thread esoito.  I was actually giving my input.  Educated guessing as a selection method is just the same as a system.  Albeit infinitely more complicated (in most cases) it is the same.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Gizmotron on July 06, 2009, 02:06:22 AM
People are stupid until they learn & stop being stupid. I've given enough. I've shared enough. I'm done with this forum crap. I no longer wish to share talk about roulette. Goodbye sports fans. Don't be stupid. It's embarrassing.

He's ba-ack!

Not quite done yet, apparently.

Hahaha!

Quote from: Gizmotron on July 13, 2009, 12:13:37 AM
I'm sorry if that is inconvenient but adaptation is part of knowing original unseen before situations require an agility to adjust the attack method so as to fit the unique adaptation............The only system there is is knowing it works if you attack it..................It's not important to cast disparaging remarks on the claimers by use of semantic reasoning.................If you are threatened by this method and acquired skill experience then don't be.

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers :drinks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: BatemanIn plain English I explained the difference between indicators and triggers. It was met with blatant disbelief.

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion was interesting until it degenerated into system-speak.

The predominant issue is that people want proof you can play roulette without rules and you can decide bet selection without triggers. Yes, there is always a reason to bet. It is not dictated by a trigger. The bet selection is not event-driven. The substance to claims you can play that way is simply that you CAN, that it is possible. I think it is more than enough to say you can beat roulette without physics. How someone decides to go about taking that statement in is their prerogative. They can choose to believe it and go about finding out how on their own, by studying randomness, or they can choose to dismiss it. The methods and techniques shouldn't be made public. Just like no one talks candidly about physics-based methods. It is simply enough to know they exist.

I believe "educated guessing" is an umbrella term someone coined to mask the techniques they use to track the random flow. Because those techniques are a secret, people don't believe they are real. They are also frustrated that educated guessing is not discussed openly. Frankly, you'd be crazy to talk about it on a public forum. The information everyone needs is out there on the net. Most people are more than capable of finding it and adapting it to suit their needs.

Quote from: BatemanI think it is more than enough to say you can beat roulette without physics.

With that I agree.  :)

Quote from: BatemanThe bet selection is not event-driven

What does an "event" mean to you?

@ Mr Chips, I will respond to your previous post in another thread.

Delving into what an event is will cause problems and this will simply end up being a dispute about the interpretation of words. Like when I defined the difference between an indicator and a trigger. They are categorically not the same thing. Some people think they are, mainly because they can't comprehend how to bet without rules. Suffice to say that an event to me is part of a trigger-based system. It could be anything, small or big, but it is something, a real occurrence that the system is based on, relies on. You are waiting for something specific to happen within a set rotation of spins; either you are betting for it to happen, you are tracking and when it happens you bet against it repeating etc. There is a system called GUT with "crossings" of hit and unhit numbers. A crossing is an event. It is something you depend on to generate profits. It's illogical. Things like trends are not events, they are real-time inclines or tendencies, which is why there are no triggers related to them.

Alright, I think what would really put an end to the bickering would be this:

Bateman, Gizmo, Anybody that believes their betting style doesn't have triggers...give us ONE example of the last time you placed a bet on a roulette table (whether it was online or B&M) and provide the spins that made your "indicators" become favorable and made you place a bet.

I'm not asking for you secrets as all I'm asking for is ONE bet...ONE.

Post where you placed your bet (on what number, color, even chance, wherever you placed your bet) and the 30 spins previous to it.

Then, simply type out why you placed that one bet...explain what indicators said you should place that bet.

Again, I'm not asking for your secrets, simply ONE example.  After you've typed it out and explained it, THEN, if you're not using a trigger to place a bet, we should all clearly understand and stop arguing with you.

If this "method" is as complicated as you say, then you giving us one example certainly will not ruin all your hard work as we won't be able to figure out why any other bet would be placed based on why you placed that bet.

I also forgot to mention that at no point have I said what you're doing doesn't work.  In fact, I haven't said anything as to the efficacy of the way you play. 

All I've been talking about is how what you're doing is trigger based.  That's it. 

Now, all I'm waiting for is for you to type out one example of why you placed ONE bet on a roulette table.  All I'm asking for is just one single time you placed a bet on the table.  Then, for you to explain why you placed that one bet and for you to post the spins that illustrate the explanation you've given.

Quote from: rjeaton1 on July 13, 2009, 03:27:43 PM
Alright, I think what would really put an end to the bickering would be this:

Bateman, Gizmo, Anybody that believes their betting style doesn't have triggers...give us ONE example of the last time you placed a bet on a roulette table (whether it was online or B&M) and provide the spins that made your "indicators" become favorable and made you place a bet.

You are in fact asking for an example that you can dissect to fit your own expectations. The only problem is that it's an intelligent answer that you are asking for. The example would reveal the bet selection process. I have already given just one example before and it was interpreted by closed minded individuals that lack experience, direction, and the ability to see it the way that I play it. But that never stopped them from using it to spin their own version of what it means to them. So, I would not bother these people with real evidence. They will only throw it back in your face with their own interpretation of what gambler's fallacy means. That's why, specifically, it is not being shared. People won't take the time to learn how it works. They want the quick solution. So far all they have is their hands out as beggars, trying to convince us that if we don't give it up we will be considered liars by them. So all we have is a stand off with them as beggars and us as liars.

I have a question:  If a person even looks at the tote board, isn't he saying that what has happened in the past few spins will affect his "educated guess"?  If that is true, then the past spins affect the future.  Yet we are told that each spin is an "independent trial" and those spins that came before it have no bearing on it.

So the "really big" question:  Does an educated guessmeister believe the wheel has a memory?

You can't eat your cake and have it, too! (Well, you can in one sense, but let's not have potty talk!)

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on July 13, 2009, 06:42:39 PM
I have a question:  If a person even looks at the tote board, isn't he saying that what has happened in the past few spins will affect his "educated guess"?  If that is true, then the past spins affect the future.  Yet we are told that each spin is an "independent trial" and those spins that came before it have no bearing on it.

So the "really big" question:  Does an educated guessmeister believe the wheel has a memory?

You can't eat your cake and have it, too! (Well, you can in one sense, but let's not have potty talk!)

Sam

Educated guessing has nothing to do with prediction or expectation fulfillment. It's based on the ability to read randomness and to investigate the context of the current situation. Then, by experience on observation of the discovered context, the use of experience can then give you a selection process, based on past experience, an advantage. So try it this way. Past experience has a memory. Observation of context has a memory. Situational awareness has a memory. The wheel does not have a memory. Randomness does not have a memory.

Do you get it? You are applying your own experience and your own conclusions to try to describe this. It's what everyone else is doing. It's exactly what I said that most people would do with it. With your own words you have confirmed that you don't get it. Why should you? So far you have only looked for your own understanding to fit something that makes sense to you.

It's just my opinion but you might be looking for an easy answer. I said it takes practice and experience. That takes work. It took me years. I spent many years learning to dismiss the system game. There is a reason for moving beyond simple games.