If I see 8 reds in a row, another red isn't due just because there were 8 in a row. Neither is black due, just because 8 reds is enough. Nothing is due, nothing is expected. If I choose to bet red and follow the streak, its a game I'm forcing on the game of roulette, and not something the wheel itself is doing.
So what I do is pretend the wheel is playing a game with its outcomes, when its really not. I'm the one who's playing and inventing and sometimes the wheel co-operates with my game, sometimes it doesn't. The wheel itself isn't doing anything except spitting out unconnected random events.
How's that for an explanation.
I'm going to pretend I didn't read that Crudola... :sarcastic:
I didn't read that Crudola...>>
Explain in detail why its 'crudola'. You can't do it. Its exactly how every system works.
Quote from: Spike! on June 03, 2010, 06:50:32 PM
...sometimes the wheel co-operates with my game, sometimes it doesn't...
That really is the crux of it.
In effect, this is what Gizmotron keeps saying. How you select the next bet is not exactly paramount. Whether the wheel co-operates or not, is just as, if not more vital to your success.
So how can you trust the wheel to co-operate when it's a damned snake in the grass?..
Maybe VB/AP is one answer.
wheel to co-operate when it's a damned snake in the grass?..>>>
Its only that way if you use a system that doesn't go with the flow of what the wheel is producing. It goes mostly in your favor if you play on a spin to spin basis. Its only against you 25% of the time instead of 60%.
Sorry, that's just impossible.
So what I do is pretend the wheel is playing a game with its outcomes,>>
>>Sorry, that's just impossible.>>
So its now impossible to PRETEND? Wow, you must have no imagination whatsoever.. :lol:
Quote from: bombus on June 03, 2010, 09:50:15 PM
In effect, this is what Gizmotron keeps saying. How you select the next bet is not exactly paramount. Whether the wheel co-operates or not, is just as, if not more vital to your success.
What happens to your effectiveness patterns and trends is what matters more than getting one trend based guess right. I bet low during downturns and I bet up during win streaks. I just use trends to give myself a consistent frame of reference to test as I go. I'm testing the waters as I go. I'm looking for anything that is happening. If that causes wins then I bet up during trends of that. It's so simple that what matters the most is patience, awareness, and knowing when to bet up and when to drop down.
It's all there in R.D. Ellison's book 'Gamble To Win Roulette'; First Printing April, 2002
Quote from: Spike! on June 03, 2010, 10:11:51 PM
Its only against you 25% of the time instead of 60%.
Please explain?...
G'day,
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2010, 12:27:10 AM
What happens to your effectiveness patterns and trends is what matters more than getting one trend based guess right. I bet low during downturns and I bet up during win streaks. I just use trends to give myself a consistent frame of reference to test as I go. I'm testing the waters as I go. I'm looking for anything that is happening. If that causes wins then I bet up during trends of that. It's so simple that what matters the most is patience, awareness, and knowing when to bet up and when to drop down.
This is what I'm ALWAYS saying, my mechanical progression trend (based) system finds trends and then bets more as the trend continues and if it hasn't covered the outstanding amount by the time the trend stops it just waits for the next run and starts again!
Glenn.
Quote from: Spike! on June 04, 2010, 12:18:30 AM
So its now impossible to PRETEND? Wow, you must have no imagination whatsoever.. :lol:
"Pretend" winnings don't count. lol
I was talking about this:
Quote from: Spike! on June 03, 2010, 10:11:51 PM
Its only against you 25% of the time instead of 60%.
Sorry, but unless you change the physical parameters of the wheel (like block/remove some pockets) that's just impossible.
But then again, it's your specialty to pretend. ::)
"Pretend" winnings don't count. >>>
The winnings are real, thats not the pretend part.
>>Sorry, but unless you change the physical parameters of the wheel>>
No need to keep apologising for what you don't know. Not only is it not impossible, its extremely doable. Extremely..
Quote from: bombus on June 04, 2010, 12:28:54 AM
Please explain?...
The wheel is pretty much against any system a player uses, about 55% to 60% of the time. You can turn this to 70% to 75% in your favor if you learn how random works on a spin to spin basis on the EC's.
This is nonsense. If you really have studied randomness you'd know that it doesn't matter what you imagine/pretend to see. Your subjective judgement on randomness won't change "what it is". It won't turn the odds in your favor (that's what the casinos want you to think). It is not an edge, nor is it the doorways to one.
I highly recommend N. Taleb's "Fooled by Randomness (nolinks://nolinks.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-Markets/dp/1400067936/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275623253&sr=8-1)" to anyone really interested in this.
I also recommend some reading on human psychology as it pertains to gambling/trading.
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on June 04, 2010, 12:36:01 AM
This is what I'm ALWAYS saying, my mechanical progression trend (based) system finds trends and then bets more as the trend continues and if it hasn't covered the outstanding amount by the time the trend stops it just waits for the next run and starts again!
Glenn.
What you are doing might be a little different. I'm betting minimum risk at minimum table limits. Only when I come out of downturns and see a winning streak starting up do I increase to a high flat bet. I played for hours today at a casino. I went through both types of stretches and left after I reached my goal. The first thing that happened was a big loss streak. I lost every bet for at least seven spins in a row. But that turned around.
Now you might be saying that you attempt to use your progression at targeted times, because of acceptable conditions. Randomness treats progressions very badly. Having two flat bet levels is easier on the variance.
Quote from: bombus on June 04, 2010, 12:50:37 AM
I'll do you, Jimmy!
You're confusing VLS with your other forum, Bombus, 'Real Men in Leather'. :haha:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F230%2F476078957_e26de5fd06.jpg%3Fv%3D1204932504&hash=835c1cb9801475f49776cfae0b7e127d48ce04f0)
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on June 04, 2010, 12:36:01 AM
G'day,
This is what I'm ALWAYS saying, my mechanical progression trend (based) system finds trends and then bets more as the trend continues and if it hasn't covered the outstanding amount by the time the trend stops it just waits for the next run and starts again!
Glenn.
Glenn, mate, I tried the bicycle clips... Unfortunately I got carried away and tried to stuff way too many Minties down there. Anyway I got busted, so they turfed me out and took my card!
I don't suppose you could sign me in next time you go upstairs? lol.
Cheers.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 04, 2010, 12:54:00 AM
This is nonsense. If you really have studied randomness you'd know that it doesn't matter what you imagine/pretend to see. Your subjective judgement on randomness won't change what it is. It won't turn the odds in your favor (that's what the casinos want you to think). It is not an edge, nor is it the doorways to one.
I highly recommend N. Taleb's "Fooled by Randomness (nolinks://nolinks.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-Markets/dp/1400067936/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275623253&sr=8-1)" to anyone really interested in this.
I also recommend some reading on human psychology as it pertains to gambling/trading.
The problem never goes away. What you think you know has very little to do with this. You still have your thinking wrapped around the imagination changing what will happen. It's a straw man argument. It's a tired and worn out argument. You are completely stuck on it. Nobody needs to attempt try and understand your errant thinking. We don't need to answer your misconceptions. When are you going to hear this. We are not attempting to change the odds or to cause anything to be predictable. When are you going to hear that? You are the one claiming that it's what we do. It's you with the problem.
Randomness will just happen. If it appears as a streak or bunches of streaks it will do it without permission from Noble Savage.
Quote from: Spike! on June 04, 2010, 12:55:27 AM
You're confusing VLS with your other forum, Bombus, 'Real Men in Leather'. :haha:
Link please, Spike!
Thanks.
Quote from: bombus on June 04, 2010, 01:03:42 AM
Link please, Spike!
Thanks.
Never mind.
Davey-Jones just PM'ed it to me.
Thanks, Davey. lol.
>>When are you going to hear this. We are not attempting to change the odds or to cause anything to be predictable. When are you going to hear that? You are the one claiming that it's what we do. It's you with the problem.>>
Yup. If the outcomes are independent, unconnected and don't influence each other, its up to us to be clever and make sense out of them, isn't it. Cleverness comes easier to some than to others, apparently. :P
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2010, 01:03:38 AM
We are not attempting to change the odds or to cause anything to be predictable.
When Spike bets on Red, the latter has 72% chance of appearing, even though Red pockets cover only 47% of the wheel.
If that is not "changing the odds" then what is it? Black magic? ;D
Quote from: Spike! on June 04, 2010, 01:21:52 AM
Yup. If the outcomes are independent, unconnected and don't influence each other, its up to us to be clever and make sense out of them, isn't it. Cleverness comes easier to some than to others, apparently. :P
Let's simplify this so that any retarded moron can see it. If you only place bets on red then what will happen. At some point you are going to come into longer and longer stretches of just reds. The rest of the time it won't be bunches of reds dominating. Now for all the tards & rons, You bet higher during streaks of reds. So where are all the odds now? They don't mean jack crap. It's the odds that can't predict or influence the outcome.
When Spike bets on Red, the latter has 72% chance of appearing>>
They do? Nice try. If a weatherman has a 75% accuracy rate guessing the next days weather, does that mean when he makes his next guess, the weather has a 75% chance of being what he guessed? Hardly. You're confusing a guess with actual probability. The probability of the wheel never changes, just like the weatherman has no influence over the weather.
Quote from: Spike! on June 04, 2010, 01:32:31 AM
When Spike bets on Red, the latter has 72% chance of appearing>>
They do? Nice try. If a weatherman has a 75% accuracy rate guessing the next days weather, does that mean when he makes his next guess, the weather has a 75% chance of being what he guessed? Hardly. You're confusing a guess with actual probability. The probability of the wheel never changes, just like the weatherman has no influence over the weather.
I'll bet this goes right over his head, again.
What I really wonder about is your true motives. Why would you two spend years preaching on an almost daily basis about this, sending people in a wild goose chase?
If it's not to sell something, then it must be an ego thing.
You wouldn't be the first though. James Wendel, Charles Hampshire, and Richard (Mr. Chips) are examples of individuals who share the same problem.
I know most of you dislike each other, but I think you'd make a cute special team.
lol, kids these days..
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 04, 2010, 01:37:33 AM
What I really wonder about is your true motives. Why would you two spend years preaching on an almost daily basis about this, sending people in a wild goose chase?
If it's not to sell something, then it must be an ego thing.
You wouldn't be the first though. James Wendel, Charles Hampshire, and Richard (Mr. Chips) are examples of individuals who share the same problem.
I know most of you dislike each other, but I think you'd make a cute special team.
lol, kids these days..
Yep, completely clueless.
sending people in a wild goose chase?>>
I'll be the first to testify there are no geese in what I do. That I know of.. Ever write a book? You learn more about the subject you're writing about than anybody who reads it will. I post because it makes me think about what I'm doing, its really as simple as that.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fweenotions.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fmother%2520goose.jpg&hash=0f53226f55bb7fe893f84f93135662b3ef758f3d)
Any of you that are here that want to win at gambling, while playing Roulette? Just do yourself a big favor. There are people that can't do this. They are angry in various ways. Some act like the forum police. Some try to erect straw man arguments in hopes of saving you from researching the truth. It's funny too. Because every one of them thinks it's about defying the laws of arithmetic and math. So do yourselves a big favor. Don't bother being dragged into senseless and useless arguments about things that have nothing to do with trend playing. Just let them flail in the wind.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2010, 01:46:23 AM
They are angry in various ways.
You sound more like the angry guy.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2010, 01:46:23 AM
Some act like the forum police.
No police, just moderating your BS when I'm that bored. :)
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2010, 01:39:52 AM
Yep, completely clueless.
I love it when you write a short response.
Sometimes your posts are so pointlessly long and boring that I only read the first and last sentence, enough to get the gist of it. You two are too predictable.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 04, 2010, 01:53:57 AM
Sometimes your posts are so pointlessly long and boring that I only read the first and last sentence, enough to get the gist of it. You two are too predictable.
... and he was actually holding the excrement from an elephant while rubbing it on his face. Oops! You were listening. Like I was saying. These people think they have a purpose. They conduct themselves like it's a crusade. Watch out for them. They only start arguments and disrupt threads. And on top of that they are wrong in their assumptions and never attempt to correct their mistakes.
You two are too predictable.>>>
Not half as predictable as you, NS. You're always the same. Through lack of real experience, you run out of credible arguments very quickly and ALWAYS resort to demeaning comments, like you're doing now. You're a kid, its not your fault. You actually have a lot of potential if you just get your head out of your southern food exit. Bombus, you want the link to this pic too? :lol:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fimagecache2.allposters.com%2Fimages%2Fpic%2FGDF%2FGANO213%7EMan-Bending-Down-Over-Sink-Posters.jpg&hash=d2cc6a4ef45eb2779d1f664d9b5ecae24095b2c9)
QuoteSpike said: "... If a weatherman has a 75% accuracy rate guessing the next days weather, does that mean when he makes his next guess, the weather has a 75% chance of being what he guessed? Hardly. You're confusing a guess with actual probability. The probability of the wheel never changes, just like the weatherman has no influence over the weather."
I'll bet this goes right over his head, again.
Insert anything you want here. Noble Savage chickened out here.
QuoteYep, completely clueless.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 04, 2010, 01:53:57 AM
I love it when you write a short response.
Why bother? just get on with it.
G'day,
@ Gizmo, thanks again,
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2010, 12:54:07 AM
<<...............Randomness treats progressions very badly. Having two flat bet levels is easier on the variance.
Good point, but I have to substitute the Progression / Regression / Flat Bet / Progression system in lieu of, the Ability to Read Random, luckily the system is WELL WITHIN the parameters of the min / max!!!
@Bombus,
Quote from: bombus on June 04, 2010, 01:01:08 AM
Glenn, mate, I tried the bicycle clips... Unfortunately I got carried away and tried to stuff way too many Minties down there. Anyway I got busted, so they turfed me out and took my card!
I don't suppose you could sign me in next time you go upstairs? lol.
Cheers.
Ha Ha, I don't go upstairs, I 'blend' in with the Asians, standing behind the
50/25,000 or 100/50,000 Baccarat Tables and just lean over when my system says to bet.
Though now they have put in an Airball 10/5,000,
which I'm allowed to use the PDA on & make 500+ per hour.
@ NS, you would have been one of the people saying "don't sail over the horizon, you'll fall off"
& then when the sailors came back saying the "the Earth's round" you'd have said
"no It's not, they're just lying, it can't be, the people underneath would fall off"
Glenn.
Quote from: SpikeIf a weatherman has a 75% accuracy rate guessing the next days weather, does that mean when he makes his next guess, the weather has a 75% chance of being what he guessed?
Um. . yes, that's exactly what it means. How do you know you have a 75% accuracy rate without looking at reality? If the prediction doesn't correspond with the actual weather 75% of the time then you don't have a 75% accuracy rate do you?
Quote from: SpikeHardly. You're confusing a guess with actual probability. The probability of the wheel never changes, just like the weatherman has no influence over the weather.
The wheel doesn't have any probability, just like the weather. The weather is going to do what it does, the ball is either going to fall in a particular slot or not. 'Probability' is only concerned with the
information you have about an event.
Regarding roulette, the only information which can make a difference to your success rate relates to the physical state of the wheel/ball/dealer. If you believe otherwise, why?
Wait, don't tell me - it's because the casino pays you. ::)
Your basic contradiction, Spike, is that you keep repeating over and over that outcomes are at the same time independent and can also be "read" (and indeed, you assert that independence is
necessary for successful reading). You then try to make out that this simple gibberish is really a deep and mysterious truth which us mortals have no hope of comprehending, and the more confusing you are, the cleverer you must be. Isn't that what you're trying to get over here?
Um. . yes, that's exactly what it means.>>
Um, no it doesn't. You're confusing the weather with the forecaster. They aren't the same thing, you know.
>>'Probability' is only concerned with the information you have about an event.>>
Yes, but saying 'probability of the wheel' or 'probability in roulette' and everybody knows what you mean.
>> If you believe otherwise, (reading random) why?>>
Have you ever proven to yourself that it can't be done? Of course not, you couldn't have.
>>You then try to make out that this simple gibberish is really a deep and mysterious>>
Nothing mysterious about it at all. Simple yes. But its gibberish like Polish is gibberish to a person who speaks only English. Other Polish people understand immediately whats being said.
>>the cleverer you must be>>
Oh, you must be clever, no doubt. But thats always in short supply, isn't it...
QuoteUm, no it doesn't. You're confusing the weather with the forecaster. They aren't the same thing, you know.
Spike, read again what I wrote. The missing link is the accuracy rate. No, they're not the same thing, but there has to be a relation between the two for you to have a
true accuracy rate.
This is all academic anyway. No evidence will ever be forthcoming, but you're a genius in your own mind. And that's what really matters. :lol:
but there has to be a relation between the two for you to have a true accuracy rate.>>
No, they aren't connected in any way.
>>No evidence will ever be forthcoming>>
I'm not coming to your house to show you, if thats what you mean. Between Gizmo and me, we've given you everything you need, you just won't see it. Too much erroneous training and too much work to change your ways now..
G'day,
Quote from: Bayes on June 04, 2010, 06:23:26 AM
This is all academic anyway. No evidence will ever be forthcoming, but you're a genius in your own mind. And that's what really matters. :lol:
NO, what really matters is that Spike gets paid by the casinos, who seem to believe him!
Glenn.
QuoteNo, they aren't connected in any way.
Get some sleep mate, I think you need it. :lol: :haha:
QuoteNO, what really matters is that Spike gets paid by the casinos.
He SAYS he does, big difference. The sad thing is that there are plenty of suckers who believe him.
Remember the claim: 72% win rate on the even chances! :lol:
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2010, 12:27:10 AMIt's all there in R.D. Ellison's book 'Gamble To Win Roulette'; First Printing April, 2002
Gamble To Win Roulette is organized around the author's main betting system
3Q/A Reverse Select, which was extensively discussed here (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/full-systems/r-d-ellison's-3qa-quads-and-angels-system/) and on GG. (nolinks://nolinks.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=195&forum=Roulette_Archive) The remainder of the book does not offer anything new, however it is not a bad read.
Ellison claims that 3Q/A has been independently verified to yield a 7.94% player advantage, in a sampling of over 7,500 live roulette spins. This figure represents a spread of 13.20% over the established house edge of 5.26% for American roulette. So far so good. But why does it work? In essense, "
you're looking for a trend that is occurring inside of a non-trend." "Because of the way the numbers of each respective group are spaced along the wheel itself, the two form a symbiotic relationship, by virtue of the effects of the dealer signature."
Are 7,500 results adequate to pin down a reliable percentage representing the player advantage? Why wasn't a computer simulation of perhaps a million spins performed? Answer: "
The short-term nature of this approach is not adaptable to computer trials, which are designed to process nearly infinite strings of numbers. Such cannot duplicate the effect of moving from table to table, and 'qualifying' each one before the start of play." Yes. According to the author's rules you must change wheels after a brief win or loss.
Do you
really think Ellison's method has any merit?
G'day,
I only win 40% of my bets but I ALWAYS win my sessions!
I KNOW this is the truth, you probably doubt me, so who am I to doubt Spike.
You Flatearthers say that random is unpredictable but then want to quantify what we can & can't do!
Glenn.
QuoteAre 7,500 results adequate to pin down a reliable percentage representing the player advantage?
Absolutely not, that's no-where near enough - try at least 100,000.
Quote"The short-term nature of this approach is not adaptable to computer trials, which are designed to process nearly infinite strings of numbers. Such cannot duplicate the effect of moving from table to table, and 'qualifying' each one before the start of play. " Yes. According to the author's rules you must change wheels after a brief win or loss.
Bullshit. Remember this guy is trying to sell books! Any programmer worth his salt can simulate all the things which Ellison says is missing from computer trials.
Same tired old drivel. What is the "effect" of moving from table to table? you are just as likely to miss a great winning streak by leaving the current table, and just as likely to hit the sequence from hell at the new one, and vice-versa. This should be blindingly obvious.
QuoteI'm not coming to your house to show you, if thats what you mean.
And how could you do that anyway? You say what you do can't be taught!
The truths in Spike's world change according to the whim of the moment. Nothing is fixed, it just depends on whether you need to be put in your place. Are you starting to see the pattern dear readers? Get used to it.
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 04, 2010, 01:37:33 AM
You wouldn't be the first though. James Wendel, Charles Hampshire, and Richard (Mr. Chips) are examples of individuals who share the same problem.
With people like this it's a self-esteem problem. They create a scenario whereby they are wholly dependent on pretending that their fantasy is true. That way they feel special and that others are interested in them. By constantly preaching the same thing over and over and over, it keeps older members in the discussion (albeit the same one) and sucks in the new members. Spike and Gizmo live in the blubber world with Fender, Wendel and Wankshire. The blubber world is where the maths of the real world does not apply.
Quote from: mistarlupo on June 04, 2010, 07:18:36 AM
Gamble To Win Roulette is organized around the author's main betting system 3Q/A Reverse Select, which was extensively discussed here (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/full-systems/r-d-ellison's-3qa-quads-and-angels-system/) and on GG. (nolinks://nolinks.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=195&forum=Roulette_Archive) The remainder of the book does not offer anything new, however it is not a bad read.
Ellison claims that 3Q/A has been independently verified to yield a 7.94% player advantage, in a sampling of over 7,500 live roulette spins. This figure represents a spread of 13.20% over the established house edge of 5.26% for American roulette. So far so good. But why does it work? In essense, "you're looking for a trend that is occurring inside of a non-trend." "Because of the way the numbers of each respective group are spaced along the wheel itself, the two form a symbiotic relationship, by virtue of the effects of the dealer signature."
Are 7,500 results adequate to pin down a reliable percentage representing the player advantage? Why wasn't a computer simulation of perhaps a million spins performed? Answer: "The short-term nature of this approach is not adaptable to computer trials, which are designed to process nearly infinite strings of numbers. Such cannot duplicate the effect of moving from table to table, and 'qualifying' each one before the start of play." Yes. According to the author's rules you must change wheels after a brief win or loss.
Do you really think Ellison's method has any merit?
That's all very interesting. Only one problem though. I don't consider his 3Q/A Reverse Select worthy of even looking at. And I have not gotten that far into the book yet. So far the book is about the pitfalls of playing Roulette and how to avoid losses. In my opinion that is as important as anything that needs to be learned firsthand. It talks briefly about what must be known and acted on every time you go into a casino. It's the most important part of the book, not the system. What are the chances that the 3Q/A Reverse Select system is a red herring? Could this author being clever in his publishing a working method while providing cover with a half assed system? Would that be a confirmation that those who work for this are the only ones that will reap the benefits? Tell but don't show.
It might have worked on you if he was that clever.
Quote from: Bayes on June 04, 2010, 07:27:09 AM
Absolutely not, that's no-where near enough - try at least 100,000.
Bullshit. Remember this guy is trying to sell books! Any programmer worth his salt can simulate all the things which Ellison says is missing from computer trials.
Same tired old drivel. What is the "effect" of moving from table to table? you are just as likely to miss a great winning streak by leaving the current table, and just as likely to hit the sequence from hell at the new one, and vice-versa. This should be blindingly obvious.
Yeah right. Are any of you sure you want to take this advice? This person has no clue what is going on here. He makes assumptions like the stats for what the weather does is the same stats for the accuracy of the weatherman's educated guesses. The weather is an independent machine that has variables that have cause and effect. The weatherman gathers information regionally from what has happened before when conditions were similar and from experience with history. The weatherman then makes a guess. But the machine, the weather, occurs based on the changes, as they evolve. And the weather evolves independent of the opinion of the weatherman.
You don't want to take the advice of someone that has little experience of this topic. He is just making it up. He's invested himself in this idea that the weatherman analogy is an equivalent argument that supports his opinion. He even has that assumption wrong.
Quote from: Bayes on June 04, 2010, 07:53:28 AM
And how could you do that anyway? You say what you do can't be taught!
The truths in Spike's world change according to the whim of the moment. Nothing is fixed, it just depends on whether you need to be put in your place. Are you starting to see the pattern dear readers? Get used to it.
Your only big deal is seeing some proof. You can wait forever as far as I'm concerned. Proof is there for anyone willing to prove it to themselves. In mountain climbing it's the adventure of getting to the top, not the being at the top, that is why climbers climb. You could have your hand held for you and each step of the way of learning could be done for you. Only one problem. You are not a person I would want to help. I would put grease on the stairway I thought you would use next. You can just sit there in your own arrogance and enjoy your own rewards. You are the enemy of good. I regard you as the kind of person that scams. Your advice is nearly worthless and damaging. You have not made a compelling argument and you don't deserve an apprenticeship in gambling.
Quote from: Number Six on June 04, 2010, 08:18:16 AM
With people like this it's a self-esteem problem. They create a scenario whereby they are wholly dependent on pretending that their fantasy is true. That way they feel special and that others are interested in them. By constantly preaching the same thing over and over and over, it keeps older members in the discussion (albeit the same one) and sucks in the new members. Spike and Gizmo live in the blubber world with Fender, Wendel and Wankshire. The blubber world is where the maths of the real world does not apply.
Yeah right. More advice from a person that can't do it. To top that off he now has his comfortable excuse to never try. Perfect. The retribution of informed people is that people like this have the resolve to never try. They make zero sense. I'll bet he can't read Ellison's book and relate to the good advice. I wonder if he is another person here that never plays? Anyone can include him with flat earthers and Global Warming freaks. He is wrong. He has lied. Perhaps he just needs attention?
The blubber world is where the maths of the real world does not apply.>>>
It always comes down to this, doesn't it. The math never lies. In point of fact, thats true. However, if you get the smallest part of your foot in the door, and turn the edge from the houses favor to yours, the 'real world' math now shifts to you and away from the casino.
Bayes says its 'sad' that only suckers will believe that random can be exploited. Has he ever proven it can't be exploited? All he has is speculation, because in truth he can't prove anything. Glen is right about the flat earther thing. All the math boyz can do is repeat what they've heard, don't sail your ship too far or you'll fall off. They could prove this isn't true, but then their faulty world view would be shattered, and who needs that.
Sheesh, I didn't think I would have to explain this.
If:
A weatherman has a correct forecasting rate of 75%
Then:
His AVERAGE probability of a correct forecast is 75%.
It does not mean that his probability of a correct forecast for one particular day MUST be exactly 75% (you simply assumed that that's what I meant, nice try), it just means that the average probability is 75%. It might be 55% one day, 87% another, 68% another, and 90% another. Eventually the average would be 75%, hence the 75% long term "hit-rate".
This would be a case of variable probability with a constant long-term average. It's what a VB player or a weatherman would be dealing with. In the case of an average roulette player however, or say a bias player betting on a bias sector that has a constant 60% probability of hit, they would be dealing with constant probability, not one that varies on a spin to spin basis depending on the quality and accuracy of the prediction.
Now based on what you said, you must be dealing with variable probability with a constant long-term average. You said that your next bet might not necessarily have 72% prob. but hardly so. 72% merely represents your long-term hit rate.
You then contradict yourself by saying that you don't "change the odds". lol then what do you call this? Just because your probability is variable (as opposed to constant, on a spin to spin basis), it's still higher than the normal odds on average. You claim to have a physical edge. Having a physical edge IS changing the odds in your favor.
The problem is not with the "what", it's with the "how". The reason why no one with enough intelligence in these forums ever takes you seriously (as you might have noticed) is because of what your claimed method/edge is based on. It is merely based on looking at past results of outside bets (something that is absolutely guaranteed to yield no advantage whatsoever) and make a guess *cough*. It doesn't matter what you see in such past spins because no matter what you think you see and no matter what your bet (based on such observation) is, Red or Black, the next outcome has exactly 50% probability of showing (minus the house edge).
The only way towards a physical edge is, as Steve says, increasing the accuracy (probability) of predictions. The only way to increase such accuracy in the game of roulette is to attack the physical process creating the outcomes with a method that tracks the physical variables/agents involved in producing the outcome, seeks non-randomness in behavior (that others don't see) and exploits it by targeting high probability pockets/sectors in real time.
You (Gizmo and Spike) accuse everyone else of ignorance, stupidity, assumptiousness, being a loser (in roulette), having no clue, and resorting to demeaning comments; when clearly these things apply more to you than anyone else.
spins no
1 5
2 3
3 30
4 32
5 3
6 10
7 22
8 29
9 21
10 29
11 23
12 22
13 20
14 7
15 18
16 19
17 3
18 17
19 31
20 0
21 8
22 7
23 7
24 0
25 18
26 13
27 18
28 31
29 12
30 29
31 29
32 4
33 17
34 14
35 1
36 11
37 16
Spike and Gizmo: the first 37 numbers
Try to analyze them; give some remarks or bets you should have done..
and what would you do or bet the next spin ?
european wheel..
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe8%2FEuropean_Roulette_wheel.png%2F600px-European_Roulette_wheel.png&hash=3be3b684b0cc9bea9afa9fb53401af3247aa4676)
Quote from: Noble Savage on June 04, 2010, 02:52:04 PM
Sheesh, I didn't think I would have to explain this.
If:
A weatherman has a correct forecasting rate of 75%
Then:
His AVERAGE probability of a correct forecast is 75%.
It does not mean that his probability of a correct forecast for one particular day MUST be exactly 75% (you simply assumed that that's what I meant, nice try), it just means that the average probability is 75%. It might be 55% one day, 87% another, 68% another, and 90% another. Eventually the average would be 75%, hence the 75% long term "hit-rate".
There's the proof I needed. Thanks. BTW anyone here can call you the correct pejorative for this.
The weather has an occluded front and depending on where pressure from the east hits it, and when, the front will either pass north of the region or it will hit the region with threats of a string of tornadoes popping up in the area. The percentage for the two scenarios is 100%. It has a 20% chance of missing the area. That percentage is based on randomness. It is unknown what will cause the pressure from the east to act the way it will. Now those are the known conditions that currently exist. Now you are making an argument that the weatherman can't read the known conditions because every day's weather is an independent trial and that it would defy mathematics. And yet you insist that the weatherman, that can't read randomness, can conclude that there is an 80% chance that the area will be hit by a string of tornadoes. You math people use selective assumptions.
Quote from: Rheti on June 04, 2010, 03:11:55 PM
Spike and Gizmo: the first 37 numbers
Try to analyze them; give some remarks or bets you should have done..
and what would you do or bet the next spin ?
lol :)
Spike and Gizmo will talk the talk to the point of boring us all, but will come up with a million excuse not to walk the walk.
Otherwise I would have challenged them in a real betting contest, right here. We start with the same bankroll and we see who ends with more money. 8)
Would they take it? Nah. They always chicken out of real challenges.
Quote from: Rheti on June 04, 2010, 03:11:55 PM
Spike and Gizmo: the first 37 numbers
Try to analyze them; give some remarks or bets you should have done..
and what would you do or bet the next spin ?
I noticed a pet set of numbers that went from almost inactive to an above statistical average after the inactivity ended. I would have won with that method. By the way. The numbers I use for that pet set of numbers are based on pie sections of the wheel. That's sections of the American wheel. Yet the numbers worked excellently for the European wheel where the pie shapes don't exist. That's because exploiting randomness doesn't require cause and effect data in order to exploit it.
@Noble, it is pretty pointless challenging people who you know for whatever reason (right or wrong) will decline.
Anyway, let's leave the kids out of it and you can challenge me if you have the fortitude for it.
By "reading random" I amassed +57 units by playing on spins 19, 31, 34 and 36 of Rheti's example. 3 winning spins out of 4 flat betting.
ready and waiting. . . . . . . .
@charlie: lol, yes let's leave the kids out. ;D
Nice win there. Let's do it, should be fun. 8)
I'll start a new thread later tonight.
looking forward to it and wishing us both good luck. It would be great if we both come out showing a nice profit over the length of the contest.
Quote from: Gizmotron on June 04, 2010, 02:03:52 PM
Yeah right. More advice from a person that can't do it. To top that off he now has his comfortable excuse to never try. Perfect. The retribution of informed people is that people like this have the resolve to never try. They make zero sense. I'll bet he can't read Ellison's book and relate to the good advice. I wonder if he is another person here that never plays? Anyone can include him with flat earthers and Global Warming freaks. He is wrong. He has lied. Perhaps he just needs attention?
Sorry, Gizmo, we still don't believe you. No need to get pissy about it...as usual ;D
Sorry, Gizmo, we still don't believe you. >>>
But thats fine, this isn't a religion anybody is trying to convert you to. Its a discussion about roulette. If I gave you a demonstration, you still wouldn't believe it. The point is, there is more outside your mathmatical parameters than you are willing to admit to. Thats all..
Quote from: Spike! on June 04, 2010, 06:50:50 PM
The point is, there is more outside your mathmatical parameters than you are willing to admit to. Thats all..
They are not MY parameters, they are THE parameters. Since, as you say, each spin is a separate event, on the ECs your bet selection will always fall within the real parameters of the game, you can't change them spin to spin and still expect to be winning months and years down the line. The only way you could ever have a better chance of winning than what probability says is by removing numbers from the game.
What if he pretends to remove numbers, is that good enough? :biggrin:
Quote from: bombus link=topic=16403. msg110816#msg110816 date=1275696014
What if he pretends to remove numbers, is that good enough? :biggrin:
It could be a starter for ten. I would liken winning at roulette to having come up with a very good recipe.
Everything blends to perfection. That is why I believe that the sum can be greater than the parts.
That is where I think people are going when they say they can read random. You can't read it from a very crude operating manual. You have to have something pretty sophisticated as a base and work from there.
A ferarri can get you from 0-60 in about 3 seconds. An old clapped out banger is still in the starting blocks.
on the ECs your bet selection will always fall within the real parameters of the game>>>
UNLESS you get clues from the previous spins that give you a better advantage than the casino has. Then the math is in your favor and not the casinos.
They are not MY parameters, they are THE parameters. >>>
And THE parameters are based on the faulty conclusion that the best you can ever do is make random guesses in a random game. As soon as thats changes, the parameters change too.