An intriguing sentence
anybody care to enlighten me
Quote from: zippyplayer on March 21, 2011, 08:55:55 AM
An intriguing sentence
anybody care to enlighten me
Sure, random numbers.
By definition the random numbers are random and have no meaning to future random numbers.
If there are 37 numbers on the European Roulette wheel then EVERY number stands the same chance of coming out in the next spin. The odds are 1 in 37 for ANY number coming out. The game of Roulette says that Green 0 or 00 means the casino wins, since it places a bet on every spin - the cost of running Roulette. Additionally the payouts are always short of the true odds since that's another way the casino makes money. A single number has a 35 to 1 payback when the odds are 1 in 37 on a European wheel.
That's all statistics tells us, the odds.
If you read more into this then you've got to use voodoo/junk math and science; which the vast majority of gamblers seem to do. So listening to the crowd will simply have you lose money in the long run.
Remember, Roulette is all about making the casino money and never forget that........
If you use a device to keep track of what is going on then you can find the beginnings of very long lasting trends. Without a method to see what is happening all you have is blind guessing. Long term statistical odds only serve one valuable point of reference. They work great as a baseline value. So when a trend of reds goes on for 20 spins you have a reference that what the wheel is throwing is far outside that baseline value. So in effect, odds are useful to any smart trend player.
It is clear as a bell that I just showed you something that statistics tells you. There is far more information there than just the odds of a single spin.
Beware of name calling neophytes. "If you read more into this then you've got to use voodoo/junk math and science; which the vast majority of gamblers seem to do. So listening to the crowd will simply have you lose money in the long run."
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 21, 2011, 01:31:08 PM
If you use a device to keep track of what is going on then you can find the beginnings of very long lasting trends. Without a method to see what is happening all you have is blind guessing. Long term statistical odds only serve one valuable point of reference. They work great as a baseline value. So when a trend of reds goes on for 20 spins you have a reference that what the wheel is throwing is far outside that baseline value. So in effect, odds are useful to any smart trend player.
It is clear as a bell that I just showed you something that statistics tells you. There is far more information there than just the odds of a single spin.
Beware of name calling neophytes. "If you read more into this then you've got to use voodoo/junk math and science; which the vast majority of gamblers seem to do. So listening to the crowd will simply have you lose money in the long run."
That is an example of voodoo science - someone, don't know just who, is keeping track of that Roulette wheel and the fact that red showed up in the last 20 spins means they owe you something.
I don't know who these creatures are that keep track of 20 reds - maybe inter dimensional beings born into a lifetime of keeping score of Roulette wheels?
As you see voodoo math/science requires you to leave the rational universe and journey into a land of fairy tails.
That Roulette wheel has only one allegiance - to the casino.....
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 21, 2011, 02:59:07 PM
That is an example of voodoo science - someone, don't know just who, is keeping track of that Roulette wheel and the fact that red showed up in the last 20 spins means they owe you something.
I don't know who these creatures are that keep track of 20 reds - maybe inter dimensional beings born into a lifetime of keeping score of Roulette wheels?
As you see voodoo math/science requires you to leave the rational universe and journey into a land of fairy tails.
That Roulette wheel has only one allegiance - to the casino.....
Yes. One will not know if or when Red will trend for 20 times or not. One will not know when colors will chop or run or go in two's for a while. Yes you might think you can follow the game but off course that is nonsences. It is a fully random negative expectancy game. My view is that you have no chance in beating roulette except if you utilize the physical aspect of the game. That off course would be VB, DS and Bias. Not looking for an argument or attack. That is just my view.(Which I know is correct)
I have no problem though with individuals believing they can see the future. As long as they don't pull in newbies into their believes. Which off course would just be a huge loss of time and money for such newbies.
Warm regards
Z
"If there are 37 numbers on the European Roulette wheel then EVERY number stands the same chance of coming out in the next spin. "
You're just off a little. Actually, 1 number has a 100% chance of coming out on that spin and the other 36 have a 0% chance. Surely you don't think, that because you don't know which one will hit, that your lack of knowledge of that somehow gives all the numbers the same chance. You might want to consider changing your thinking about that.
VKM
Quote from: VKM on March 21, 2011, 03:27:29 PM
"If there are 37 numbers on the European Roulette wheel then EVERY number stands the same chance of coming out in the next spin. "
You're just off a little. Actually, 1 number has a 100% chance of coming out on that spin and the other 36 have a 0% chance. Surely you don't think, that because you don't know which one will hit, that your lack of knowledge of that somehow gives all the numbers the same chance. You might want to consider changing your thinking about that.
VKM
;D Here we go again...
The wheel has 37 degree of freedom for most players and for some it has less - that is not so difficult to understand.
For MauiSunset it will allways be 37 degree of freedom and if i stand next to him at the same wheel i would face less ;D
Quote from: VKM on March 21, 2011, 03:27:29 PM
"If there are 37 numbers on the European Roulette wheel then EVERY number stands the same chance of coming out in the next spin. "
You're just off a little. Actually, 1 number has a 100% chance of coming out on that spin and the other 36 have a 0% chance. Surely you don't think, that because you don't know which one will hit, that your lack of knowledge of that somehow gives all the numbers the same chance. You might want to consider changing your thinking about that.
VKM
Gobbledygook won't help you at the Roulette table - the future is totally unknown to any of us.
At least to those of us on the 4th dimensional plane we call our universe - the future has not occurred yet. nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension)
There is NO record, that can be verified, of anyone actually seeing into the future. That's 6,000 years of recorded history.
So folks, those who claim they have more than a 1 in 37 chance of guessing the next Roulette number just don't operate on the same laws of science and math that the rest of us do. They use Voodoo science and math to make their world go around.
Roulette is 300 years old and there has never been a verifiable record of someone beating Roulette - none.
Just your typical rumors, like UFO rumors, of folks breaking a casino with Roulette. No casino has ever thrown out Roulette because Roulette was beatable. You can bet your last dollar the casinos keep track of what goes on in each Roulette pit 24/7 and Roulette still keeps making the casino money....
You must beat randomness not roulette.
The built in solution is a trend.
The inventers of roulette were not all that clever they just came up with a way for poeple to bet on a RANDOM event.
SO ITS RANDOMNESS WERE UP AGAINST NOT ROULETTE.
TRENDS OCCUR BECAUSE THE WHEEL HAS NO MEMORY.
SINCE IT HAS NO MEMORY ITS LIKELY TO REPEAT ITSELF AND THATS WHERE TRENDS ARE BORN.
There are so much (/(&¤&/ in this thread that it is almost unbelieveable. But actually VKM is partly right, because around 9 seconds before the ball drops, the probabilitys for the different numbers has changed at this point. Some has smaller and some has higher probabilitys. On absoloutely perfect wheels, the point is closer to 6 seconds before the ball drops.
But i dont think that was what VKM meant.
Typical MauiSunset comment. Name calling makes him think he's mature. It's real easy to do. He just calls everything voodoo science. Did you notice that he thinks following trends is about predicting the future. Just read the crud on this page. It's that same old tired out argument. That unimaginative thinking is stuck glued to probability and statistics. Did you know that nobody on planet earth is allowed to take advantage of a coincidence. That's because they will get called voodoo science by one of the most immature neophytes to ever grace this forum.
Voodoo Neophyte, math Nazi, commander of his own personal mountain of shit. Anyone can call others names.
Imagine that, according to the Neophyte Voodoo Nazi, you are not allowed to win. You can't have a winning streak. And if you do you are just another voodoo scientist.
We should get Obama to drop cruise missiles on his command post compound. MauiSunset is the self riotous dictator of the math Nazis. He's a math terrorist. Like in the movie Good Will Hunting, "you mathematical dick."
Actually Kelly, that is a perfect example of the reality, that on a given spin the 37 numbers do not have an equal chance of coming out. To think that they do is an illusion.
VKM
If you don't believe random means random then how about a demo of any of these concepts?
I'm not asking for a Roulette system demo, just a small test, that we can each run and duplicate your concept.
For instance:
If you believe that 20 Reds in a row means that Black has more than a 50/50 chance (forget Green 0) why not set up a demo, in real time, for us to verify this?
Or, if you see patterns in Random numbers that give you some kind of edge, just demo one of those patterns.
Again, I'm not asking you do demo your trading system but actually prove that you have something unique.
Just go to nolinks://nolinks.smartlivecasino.com/live-roulette.html# (nolinks://nolinks.smartlivecasino.com/live-roulette.html#) and click the "Live Auto Roulette Wheel"'s "Free Play"
Once the wheel is up and you can bet you will see a tab, in the lower left corner, that says "Stats" - just click that.
Now click "Last 185" and you will see the last 185 spins - do a screen print to capture the numbers and attach that to a post here.
Simple as pie - show us just one concept that violates the laws of statistics and back up your claims.
We can then repeat your experiment and follow it in real time.
You all know what statistics says about the next number - 1 in 37 chance for ANY number on the wheel. You would have to show proof that statistics is wrong.
My guess is that no one will do this - you will see that statistics is correct.....
SmartLive Casino is a fun place to play their Live European Wheel (televised in Great Britain).
About three weeks ago I went to the site to play (for free). When I looked at the 185 past spins I immediately noticed a long trend. Because of the way they show the past spins, it's easy to spot what's been happening with the Reds & Blacks, not so easy for the Odds and Evens or Highs and Lows. For the entire 185 spins there were no more than 3 blacks in a row. Red had been slightly dominating but there were plenty of blacks.
So based on what had been happening for the last 185 spins I decided to bet that the current trends would continue. I chose to wait for a Black to appear and then play a 3 stage Martingale on Red. For the next 37 spins the trends of "not more than 3 Blacks in a row" & "Red Dominating" continued. I won every betting series. I stopped after a few wins and left the site, so I really don't know how much longer those particular conditions lasted.
It's the truth, but I have no verifiable record of it.
VKM
i think to play roulette. you have to play hunches. and past spins. i know its crazy but i think its the way we are made. playing the even money chances you are sure to get a high number of wins. but i have found the you lose more then you win in the long run. sit down at a table with no record of past spins what do you do. as long as you know when to stop its a good past time. do not believe that you are infallible. good betting.
I actually did what you said to do:
| L M H | 1 2 3 | | B R | L H | O E | -- ## -- Line
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 1 -- 1
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 30 -- 2
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 11 -- 3
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 31 -- 4
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 4 -- 5
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 2 -- 6
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 17 -- 7
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 28 -- 8
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 30 -- 9
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 34 -- 10
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 18 -- 11
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 12
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 15 -- 13
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 26 -- 14
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 13 -- 15
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 21 -- 16
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 31 -- 17
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 13 -- 18
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 34 -- 19
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 20
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 22 -- 21
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 14 -- 22
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 31 -- 23
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 12 -- 24
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 27 -- 25
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 19 -- 26
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 15 -- 27
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 4 -- 28
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 33 -- 29
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 34 -- 30
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 19 -- 31
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 4 -- 32
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 12 -- 33
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 5 -- 34
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 9 -- 35
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 23 -- 36
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 7 -- 37
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 12 -- 38
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 2 -- 39
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 33 -- 40
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 27 -- 41
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 35 -- 42
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 19 -- 43
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 21 -- 44
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 13 -- 45
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 25 -- 46
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 32 -- 47
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 8 -- 48
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 36 -- 49
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 15 -- 50
|---------------------------------------| - 0 -- 51
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 24 -- 52
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 30 -- 53
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 8 -- 54
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 5 -- 55
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 17 -- 56
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 2 -- 57
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 28 -- 58
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 21 -- 59
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 20 -- 60
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 61
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 5 -- 62
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 24 -- 63
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 22 -- 64
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 7 -- 65
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 15 -- 66
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 30 -- 67
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 1 -- 68
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 19 -- 69
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 27 -- 70
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 32 -- 71
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 28 -- 72
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 22 -- 73
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 17 -- 74
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 20 -- 75
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 27 -- 76
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 35 -- 77
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 78
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 19 -- 79
|---------------------------------------| - 0 -- 80
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 33 -- 81
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 82
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 13 -- 83
|---------------------------------------| - 0 -- 84
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 33 -- 85
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 5 -- 86
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 14 -- 87
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 22 -- 88
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 27 -- 89
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 22 -- 90
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 8 -- 91
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 25 -- 92
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 4 -- 93
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 13 -- 94
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 95
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 5 -- 96
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 25 -- 97
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 32 -- 98
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 10 -- 99
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 17 -- 100
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 5 -- 101
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 17 -- 102
|---------------------------------------| - 0 -- 103
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 10 -- 104
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 26 -- 105
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 10 -- 106
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 10 -- 107
|---------------------------------------| - 0 -- 108
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 34 -- 109
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 26 -- 110
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 13 -- 111
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 17 -- 112
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 5 -- 113
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 114
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 31 -- 115
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 33 -- 116
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 20 -- 117
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 19 -- 118
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 19 -- 119
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 18 -- 120
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 11 -- 121
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 27 -- 122
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 28 -- 123
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 10 -- 124
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 2 -- 125
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 8 -- 126
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 14 -- 127
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 128
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 1 -- 129
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 11 -- 130
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 28 -- 131
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 17 -- 132
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 18 -- 133
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 11 -- 134
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 17 -- 135
|---------------------------------------| - 0 -- 136
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 137
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 11 -- 138
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 7 -- 139
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 31 -- 140
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 35 -- 141
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 13 -- 142
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 32 -- 143
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 7 -- 144
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 35 -- 145
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 30 -- 146
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 9 -- 147
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 6 -- 148
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 23 -- 149
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 15 -- 150
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 14 -- 151
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 5 -- 152
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 28 -- 153
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 18 -- 154
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 4 -- 155
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 20 -- 156
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 8 -- 157
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 34 -- 158
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 25 -- 159
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 10 -- 160
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 17 -- 161
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 19 -- 162
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 11 -- 163
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 19 -- 164
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 7 -- 165
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 7 -- 166
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 5 -- 167
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 35 -- 168
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 17 -- 169
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 35 -- 170
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 171
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 11 -- 172
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 4 -- 173
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 30 -- 174
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 10 -- 175
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 11 -- 176
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 2 -- 177
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 30 -- 178
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 10 -- 179
|---------------------------------------| - 0 -- 180
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 27 -- 181
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 14 -- 182
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 12 -- 183
Here is the spin list, taken from a screen shot:
1,30,11,31,4,2,17,28,30,34,18,29,15,26,13,21,31,13,34,29,22,14,31,12,27,19,15,4,33,34,19,4,12,5,9,23,7,12,2,33,27,35,19,21,13,25,32,8,36,15,0,24,30,8,5,17,2,28,21,20,29,5,24,22,7,15,30,1,19,27,32,28,22,17,20,27,35,29,19,0,33,29,13,0,33,5,14,22,27,22,8,25,4,13,29,5,25,32,10,17,5,17,0,10,26,10,10,0,34,26,13,17,5,29,31,33,20,19,19,18,11,27,28,10,2,8,14,29,1,11,28,17,18,11,17,0,29,11,7,31,35,13,32,7,35,30,9,6,23,15,14,5,28,18,4,20,8,34,25,10,17,19,11,19,7,7,5,35,17,35,29,11,4,30,10,11,2,30,10,0,27,14,12,
This is a comma delimited list taken by hand from reading a screen shot at the online casino.. It's about ten minutes old.
Here is an example of a dozen going to sleep and then waking up later:
| L M H |
| X | -- 1
| X | -- 2
| X | -- 3
| X | -- 4
| X | -- 5
| X | -- 6
| X | -- 7
| X | -- 8
| X | -- 9
| X | -- 10
| X | -- 11
| X | -- 12
| X | -- 13
| X | -- 14
| X | -- 15
| X | -- 16
| X | -- 17
| X | -- 18
| X | -- 19
| X | -- 20
| X | -- 21
| X | -- 22
| X | -- 23
| X | -- 24
| X | -- 25
| X | -- 26
| X | -- 27
| X | -- 28
| X | -- 29
| X | -- 30
| X | -- 31
| X | -- 32
| X | -- 33
| X | -- 34
| X | -- 35
| X | -- 36
| X | -- 37
| X | -- 38
| X | -- 39
This is the same first 39 spins from above. What are the mathematical statistics for this short termed phenomenon? And please don't give me the odds for one spin. All long term probability is done over long periods of spins factored in. You just can't deal with the fact that there are people that do the math for short periods and have outcomes that are different than the long termed statistics. I know there are long termed odds for a sleeping dozen. The low dozen is an example of true randomness. Nothing else.
You must ask yourself a simple question. Could you take advantage of 17 same sleeping dozens in a row? If you can't then nothing else matters. All the Voodoo Math Nazi remarks won't get it for you either.
Gobbledygook that means absolutly nothing.
Future spins from a wheel or a RNG are totally random.
If you "see" patterns you are simply fooling yourself and will just give money to the casinos.
I sometimes wonder if Gizmo doesn't have a deal with casinos to drive folks there simply to lose money....
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 21, 2011, 09:21:33 PM
Gobbledygook that means absolutly nothing.
Future spins from a wheel or a RNG are totally random.
If you "see" patterns you are simply fooling yourself and will just give money to the casinos.
I sometimes wonder if Gizmo doesn't have a deal with casinos to drive folks there simply to lose money....
Spoken like a true totalitarian. The joke is on you. You can't figure out how to beat this game. I don't care. I doubt if anyone here cares about your tired out broken record.
I did a lot of work for you. You've thrown it right back in my face. You are nothing but a neophyte troll. You do nothing but chant your sick and totally misguided mantra.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 21, 2011, 09:42:07 PM
Spoken like a true totalitarian. The joke is on you. You can't figure out how to beat this game. I don't care. I doubt if anyone here cares about your tired out broken record.
I did a lot of work for you. You've thrown it right back in my face. You are nothing but a neophyte troll. You do nothing but chant your sick and totally misguided mantra.
Have no idea what you are talking about - maybe in your mind you did something for me but in the real world I just here gibberish that makes no sense at all.
There is nothing to your theories because there is nothing in random numbers.
But you are entertaining - I can't stop laughing.....
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 21, 2011, 10:16:56 PM
Have no idea what you are talking about - maybe in your mind you did something for me but in the real world I just here gibberish that makes no sense at all.
That's because you lack any real playing experience other than making donations to a casino. When you walk in the door they see a fool that is willing to pay $100 for well drinks. Do you know what that means funny boy? That means you are the biggest sucker on this forum. You have your very own abacus shoved all the way up your head protector. You know, that place where your head resides. Do you know what that means? That means when you add things up you always come out with gobbledygook all over your face. You are nothing but this week's internet troll. To bad that you don't know what that means.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 21, 2011, 10:43:29 PM
That's because you lack any real playing experience other than making donations to a casino. When you walk in the door they see a fool that is willing to pay $100 for well drinks. Do you know what that means funny boy? That means you are the biggest sucker on this forum. You have your very own abacus shoved all the way up your head protector. You know, that place where your head resides. Do you know what that means? That means when you add things up you always come out with gobbledygook all over your face. You are nothing but this week's internet troll. To bad that you don't know what that means.
Gizmo, all you do here is pick fights with all kinds of folks - I said it before and I mean it - you have an anger management problem and believe you can get help here - you are in the wrong forum. You either talk in total nonsense or are fuming mad - seek help.
You can't debate your crazy concepts since there is nothing on this earth that can add any credence to your insane ideas....
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 21, 2011, 10:55:00 PM
Gizmo, all you do here is pick fights with all kinds of folks - I said it before and I mean it - you have an anger management problem and believe you can get help here - you are in the wrong forum. You either talk in total nonsense or are fuming mad - seek help.
You can't debate your crazy concepts since there is nothing on this earth that can add any credence to your insane ideas....
I have no idea what you are talking about. Can anyone? But I really feel sorry for anyone that can't figure out how to win against 17 of the same dozens that don't hit in a row (sleeping dozens).
I do see a big problem. You are not in any classification of "all kinds of folks" that I have ever seen before. That probably explains why you are so hard to understand.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 21, 2011, 11:02:53 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. Can anyone? But I really feel sorry for anyone that can't figure out how to win against 17 of the same dozens that don't hit in a row (sleeping dozens).
I do see a big problem. You are not in any classification of "all kinds of folks" that I have ever seen before. That probably explains why you are so hard to understand.
You're talking time travel again.
You can't travel forward, in time, and find out that there were 17 same dozen and then travel back in time to the first time the dozen occurred.
So yes, I don't time travel and neither do you Gizmo, sad to be the person to break the news to you.
There is no way to know that 17 dozen starts on #1 of the "trend". Not on this planet.
To folks who believe in this nonsense, the reason you leave the Roulette table with less cash than you came in with is because you believe in this nonsense - there is no way to forecast the next spin of the wheel.
No one in this chatroom can demonstrate the ability to see into the future and that goes for any chatroom where folks say they can....
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 21, 2011, 11:11:43 PM
You're talking time travel again.
You can't travel forward, in time, and find out that there were 17 same dozen and then travel back in time to the first time the dozen occurred.
So yes, I don't time travel and neither do you Gizmo, sad to be the person to break the news to you.
There is no way to know that 17 dozen starts on #1 of the "trend". Not on this planet.
To folks who believe in this nonsense, the reason you leave the Roulette table with less cash than you came in with is because you believe in this nonsense - there is no way to forecast the next spin of the wheel.
No one in this chatroom can demonstrate the ability to see into the future and that goes for any chatroom where folks say they can....
I have no idea what you are talking about.
"There is no way to know that 17 dozen starts on #1 of the "trend". Not on this planet. "
That is correct.
But if Gizmo had been keeping tract of what was going on at the table, then by spin number 10 he would know that the 1st dozen was sleeping. Then he could have risked ONE bet to see if the "trend" continued. And it did. So he could have risked another bet to see if the "trend" continued. And it did. And it did. And so on until it ended.
In this case Gizmo would have taken advantage of the conditions of that unique stream of numbers and made a nice profit.
Someone who wasn't paying attention wouldn't have noticed.
VKM
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 12:06:31 AM
"There is no way to know that 17 dozen starts on #1 of the "trend". Not on this planet. "
That is correct.
But if Gizmo had been keeping tract of what was going on at the table, then by spin number 10 he would know that the 1st dozen was sleeping. Then he could have risked ONE bet to see if the "trend" continued. And it did. So he could have risked another bet to see if the "trend" continued. And it did. And it did. And so on until it ended.
In this case Gizmo would have taken advantage of the conditions of that unique stream of numbers and made a nice profit.
Someone who wasn't paying attention wouldn't have noticed.
VKM
What is a streak? How many things make up a streak?
If you say a streak is 5, for example, then look at historical spins and you will see that #6 is 50/50 as to whether it is going to be part of the streak - it's totally random.
Where Gizmo, and folks like him, get it all wrong is that they think they have special powers, kind of like Superman, that tell them when random numbers will do things.
It's all bunk out of a comic book.....
OK if you want to add all of the spins that have happened in the history of Roulette and all of the spins that will happen, to the spins in Gizmo's example, then some of the time after the first dozen was absent for 10 spins, Gizmo would have lost ONE bet on the next spin.
VKM
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 22, 2011, 12:10:29 AM
What is a streak? How many things make up a streak?
If you say a streak is 5, for example, then look at historical spins and you will see that #6 is 50/50 as to whether it is going to be part of the streak - it's totally random.
Where Gizmo, and folks like him, get it all wrong is that they think they have special powers, kind of like Superman, that tell them when random numbers will do things.
It's all bunk out of a comic book.....
I think that's UFO voodoo baloney. But I'm not sure. I can't understand a word you said. Nobody could. On one day you say that trends don't exist and on this day you do say they exist after all. You need to get professional help. I would make an appointment with a proctologist that specializes in cranial rectal inversions. That one would be right up your ally.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 22, 2011, 12:33:14 AM
I think that's UFO voodoo baloney. But I'm not sure. I can't understand a word you said. Nobody could. On one day you say that trends don't exist and on this day you do say they exist after all. You need to get professional help. I would make an appointment with a proctologist that specializes in cranial rectal inversions. That one would be right up your ally.
Gizmo, your arguments make no sense at all - you've made insane claims that you can do things that no other human can do yet you can't seem to offer any proof except lashing out at others.
I don't claim anything except that what's at work is just the odds, the next number spun out is going to be ANY of the 37 numbers on the wheel.
You claim to be able to read the wheel, yet you've never shown us a single example of that ability.
One must then assume that you are your own reference and that there isn't anyone else left on this planet that can support your insane claims.
Gizmo, you can't read random numbers and there isn't anyone here that can back up your crazy claims - no "students" have come forward, you duck my $25 challenge, yet you infest every thread here with your insanity.
I don't believe you Gizmo for one second, is there anyone here that believes in any of Gizmo's insanity? That you and Gizmo can read random numbers and use that ability to pick the next number spun? I'd be curious to see that ability demonstrated by anyone but Gizmo....
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 22, 2011, 12:43:43 AM
Gizmo, your arguments make no sense at all - you've made insane claims that you can do things that no other human can do yet you can't seem to offer any proof except lashing out at others.
I don't claim anything except that what's at work is just the odds, the next number spun out is going to be ANY of the 37 numbers on the wheel.
You claim to be able to read the wheel, yet you've never shown us a single example of that ability.
One must then assume that you are your own reference and that there isn't anyone else left on this planet that can support your insane claims.
Gizmo, you can't read random numbers and there isn't anyone here that can back up your crazy claims - no "students" have come forward, you duck my $25 challenge, yet you infest every thread here with your insanity.
I don't believe you Gizmo, is there anyone here that believes in any of Gizmo's insanity?
This makes no sense at all. Are you from a UFO website? Are you kidding, $25. This is a gambling forum not the welfare office. You want food stamps with your drink tokes then why don't you learn about player services?
I was wrong about you all along. You couldn't possibly belong to the mathboyz. You are from the boyzboyz.
Stop trying to impress people. You are way out of your league here.
I believe that Gizmo, by being aware of what is currently happening at the table, can recognize conditions when they are favorable and bet accordingly. If the favorable conditions continue he wins. When those conditions change he stops betting. I also believe that if you, Maui, gained experience in this, then you could do it too.
VKM
The original question posed, in this thread, is "knowing" what the wheel is going to throw out in the next spin.
Statistics says that the next number will be between 0 and 36 and that ALL numbers have an equal likelihood of being spun out.
If you believe in something different then you've using voodoo math and science to backup your claims - traditional science can't help you.
The result is lunacy folks just crazy folks running around making no sense at all.
Does that mean that you can't win at Roulette?
Of course not, there are plenty of other avenues that use real science and math. Personally I'm not into the physics of the wheel, I'm into Money Management techniques. Do I have anything that "works", no; I'm doing research and conducting experiments of my own systems. Do I think I will eventually have something that "works" - maybe but I won't know unless I spend time, money, and effort in doing so...
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 12:57:47 AM
I believe that Gizmo, by being aware of what is currently happening at the table, can recognize conditions when they are favorable and bet accordingly. If the favorable conditions continue he wins. When those conditions change he stops betting. I also believe that if you, Maui, gained experience in this, then you could do it too.
VKM
Gambling is no different than investing in the stock market - you can't forecast the future. No person has ever demonstrated that ability to my knowledge.
There is luck, which I believe in, and there are skillful gamblers, which I've never seen in Roulette but have in poker and Black Jack.
I don't believe that skill makes any difference in Roulette - luck does.....
All this is so simple to verify - just play in real time on a live TV wheel - my $25 challenge to anyone - the prize is still unclaimed after 6 weeks - that says more than all this drivel about secret abilities and powers.....
All of this kind of reminds me when kids learn that there isn't a Santa that has the ability to visit 6 billion folks in 6 hours - everyone tells you he exists - grown ups wouldn't lie would they????
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 22, 2011, 01:06:12 AM
The original question posed, in this thread, is "knowing" what the wheel is going to throw out in the next spin.
Statistics says that the next number will be between 0 and 36 and that ALL numbers have an equal likelihood of being spun out.
If you believe in something different then you've using voodoo math and science to backup your claims - traditional science can't help you.
The result is lunacy folks just crazy folks running around making no sense at all.
Does that mean that you can't win at Roulette?
Of course not, there are plenty of other avenues that use real science and math. Personally I'm not into the physics of the wheel, I'm into Money Management techniques. Do I have anything that "works", no; I'm doing research and conducting experiments of my own systems. Do I think I will eventually have something that "works" - maybe but I won't know unless I spend time, money, and effort in doing so..
Once again you fail to make much sense. It's really terrible to see this happen in public. Take this for instance: "The original question posed, in this thread, is "knowing" what the wheel is going to throw out in the next spin."
The thread title says nothing about the next spin. Here it is: "It is just a matter of knowing what the wheel is throwing at the time." Now that could be of interest to those that prefer physics for their answers. It's also interesting to me because I like to know what's currently happening too. So that's just one thing that I see. This MauiSunset dude is obsessed with future spins. He sounds kind of like a KOOK if you know what I mean.
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 22, 2011, 01:09:13 AM
Gambling is no different than investing in the stock market - you can't forecast the future. No person has ever demonstrated that ability to my knowledge.
There is luck, which I believe in, and there are skillful gamblers, which I've never seen in Roulette but have in poker and Black Jack.
I don't believe that skill makes any difference in Roulette - luck does.....
All this is so simple to verify - just play in real time on a live TV wheel - my $25 challenge to anyone - the prize is still unclaimed after 6 weeks - that says more than all this drivel about secret abilities and powers.....
All of this kind of reminds me when kids learn that there isn't a Santa that has the ability to visit 6 billion folks in 6 hours - everyone tells you the exists.....
Wow, what a bunch of UFO website baloney. This poor fellow is a newbie gambler. That's obvious. I have no idea what you are rambling on about. Do you have a point?
The thing that I have a hard time understanding is:
Anyone here would agree that if you gave someone 100 past spins, they would be able to, based on the information contained in those past spins, reverse engineer ways to win against those 100 past spins.
So, why do some people appear positive that there isn't ANY information, that could possibly be useful, present in the first 80 of that 100?
VKM
Take the reoccurring coincidence. Did you know that sometimes the same thing just keeps happening? Of course you need a road map to see it. But that's OK too. Some people think that no map is the only truth there is.
And yes MauiSunset, we know you have kooky ideas too. So please share some more.
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 01:33:14 AM
The thing that I have a hard time understanding is:
Anyone here would agree that if you gave someone 100 past spins, they would be able to, based on the information contained in those past spins, reverse engineer ways to win against those 100 past spins.
So, why do some people appear positive that there isn't ANY information, that could possibly be useful, present in the first 80 of that 100?
VKM
This has been tried for 300 years now and not one person has done this.
This is all related to Gamblers Fallacy nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy)
The idea that somehow past random numbers mean something. They are just the numbers the wheel or RNG spit out and did not depend on the 100 numbers before that and the 100 numbers before that.
All of these crazy ideas require that a memory be kept somewhere - maybe Roulette gremlins keep track of all those numbers.
And just how accurate are the past 100 numbers in forecasting the future spins? Is it 100% accurate or 90% or 5% or 0% (Correct answer).
Like I said, you have to throw out traditional math and science and start to use UFO technology to make these crazy ideas work.
They don't work....
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 22, 2011, 01:46:55 AM
This has been tried for 300 years now and not one person has done this.
This is all related to Gamblers Fallacy nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy)
The idea that somehow past random numbers mean something. They are just the numbers the wheel or RNG spit out and did not depend on the 100 numbers before that and the 100 numbers before that.
All of these crazy ideas require that a memory be kept somewhere - maybe Roulette gremlins keep track of all those numbers.
And just how accurate are the past 100 numbers in forecasting the future spins? Is it 100% accurate or 90% or 5% or 0% (Correct answer).
Like I said, you have to throw out traditional math and science and start to use UFO technology to make these crazy ideas work.
They don't work....
Boy you're almost becoming the spokes person for all UFO concepts. What was that you tried to say about 300 years? Are you that old? Do you have any idea what you are trying to say? You really need to get some professional help.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 22, 2011, 01:55:32 AM
Boy you're almost becoming the spokes person for all UFO concepts. What was that you tried to say about 300 years? Are you that old? Do you have any idea what you are trying to say? You really need to get some professional help.
Monkey see, monkey do.
I still think your mommy and daddy won't let you go to the casino.....
Sorry Maui... This has nothing to do with Gambler's Fallacy. It's not predicting which number is next. It's not thinking something is "due".
This is about being aware of the current conditions, and, if favorable, being willing to risk a bet to see if those conditions continue. Please try to understand this. It's not as hard as you're making it.
VKM
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 22, 2011, 02:07:37 AM
Monkey see, monkey do.
I still think your mommy and daddy won't let you go to the casino.....
Jeez, did you say you want your mommy and daddy? Did you know that you were always seen as a neophyte whelp by all your betters here? Do you even know what that means? It really doesn't matter because nobody understands you anyway. Nice going. You and Frank Burns are like symbiotic soul mates.
Imagine not knowing how to target an advantage in the game of roulette. It must be wonderful to pretend to be a gambling expert without that. But even more lame is claiming that $100 well drinks are owed to you for an entertainment concept. All you have to do is pay for them. That is the mindset of MauiSunset. He even pretends that he can't understand it when his own points are fed back to him paraphrased. So if you don't understand this, it's a mirror of you. What you don't understand is you. Like I said. It's a terrible thing to see in public.
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 02:09:35 AM
Sorry Maui... This has nothing to do with Gambler's Fallacy. It's not predicting which number is next. It's not thinking something is "due".
This is about being aware of the current conditions, and, if favorable, being willing to risk a bet to see if those conditions continue. Please try to understand this. It's not as hard as you're making it.
VKM
How do you know if conditions are "favorable"? That's the contradiction you keep repeating. You can only know conditions are favorable if past spins have indicated that certain patterns will continue.. or not. But past spins never do give any such indication, that's the fallacy...
I understand what Gizmo is saying regarding not trying to predict future spins. Yes, you can play for "coincidence" and just guessing that a trend may continue, but the reality is that sometimes it will and sometimes it won't, and the number of times you get it wrong and lose 1 unit, vs the number of times you get it right and make a profit, will eventually balance out so that you win/lose the expected amount.
It's like the discussion regarding which is better - positive or negative progressions? Ultimately there is no difference. Using one or another changes the distribution of your wins and losses, that's all. With a negative progression you have a lot of small wins and occasionally a big loss which wipes out all your profits and more, and with a positive progression you have a lot of small losses and an occasional big win (but not enough to cancel the many small losses).
Quote from: Mike on March 22, 2011, 03:50:11 AM
How do you know if conditions are "favorable"? That's the contradiction you keep repeating. You can only know conditions are favorable if past spins have indicated that certain patterns will continue.. or not. But past spins never do give any such indication, that's the fallacy...
That is so close to the truth that you should know that it's not the fallacy I'm counting on. If it's something else I wonder if you can figure it out on your own? Conditions are favorable because of something else. Something else gives the indication. I wonder if you can figure it out.
Quote from: Mike on March 22, 2011, 03:50:11 AM
I understand what Gizmo is saying regarding not trying to predict future spins. Yes, you can play for "coincidence" and just guessing that a trend may continue, but the reality is that sometimes it will and sometimes it won't, and the number of times you get it wrong and lose 1 unit, vs the number of times you get it right and make a profit, will eventually balance out so that you win/lose the expected amount.
That's not true. It does not balance out. You don't know what the global effect is. You can't see how it also applies. And I won't teach it on this forum. I've learned that lesson the hard way.
Quote from: Mike on March 22, 2011, 03:50:11 AM
It's like the discussion regarding which is better - positive or negative progressions? Ultimately there is no difference. Using one or another changes the distribution of your wins and losses, that's all. With a negative progression you have a lot of small wins and occasionally a big loss which wipes out all your profits and more, and with a positive progression you have a lot of small losses and an occasional big win (but not enough to cancel the many small losses).
Like I said there is another reason that does not fit with your conclusion. Progressions are mindless rule based methods that require blind bet selections. This is not blind bet selections. By its very nature this outperforms any mathematical balance. You win more times than the balance allows for.
Quote from: Mike on March 22, 2011, 03:50:11 AM
How do you know if conditions are "favorable"? That's the contradiction you keep repeating. You can only know conditions are favorable if past spins have indicated that certain patterns will continue.. or not. But past spins never do give any such indication, that's the fallacy...
I understand what Gizmo is saying regarding not trying to predict future spins. Yes, you can play for "coincidence" and just guessing that a trend may continue, but the reality is that sometimes it will and sometimes it won't, and the number of times you get it wrong and lose 1 unit, vs the number of times you get it right and make a profit, will eventually balance out so that you win/lose the expected amount.
It's like the discussion regarding which is better - positive or negative progressions? Ultimately there is no difference. Using one or another changes the distribution of your wins and losses, that's all. With a negative progression you have a lot of small wins and occasionally a big loss which wipes out all your profits and more, and with a positive progression you have a lot of small losses and an occasional big win (but not enough to cancel the many small losses).
Exactly what I meant. Thanx Mike.
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 02:09:35 AM
Sorry Maui... This has nothing to do with Gambler's Fallacy. It's not predicting which number is next. It's not thinking something is "due".
This is about being aware of the current conditions, and, if favorable, being willing to risk a bet to see if those conditions continue. Please try to understand this. It's not as hard as you're making it.
VKM
Give me an example.
You use the term "aware of the current conditions" - what does that mean? An example please.
Also, the term "if favorable, being willing to risk a bet to see if those conditions continue" what the heck does that mean?
You're using Gizmo psychobabble speak - this is just gibberish.
A couple of examples will expose this nonsense for what it is - Gizmo talk.
No matter what that marquee shows, the next number spun will be between 0 and 36 and ALL numbers have the same probability of appearing - ALL of them.
There is NO way to be "aware of the current conditions" and then to "if favorable, being willing to risk a bet to see if those conditions continue" - this is Gizmo speak - insanity.
Nothing Gizmo says is true, nothing he says is backed up by any science or math, its just the ramblings of a very disturbed and angry mind.
Prove me wrong - give me an example in real time on a live spinning wheel - show me what you mean.
You can't you've just been infected with crazy thoughts from a disturbed mind - Gizmo.
Gizmo simply makes insane claims, and refuses to prove anything he says - he claims to have students, none have come forward to verify Gizmo's claims - unless you'd like to.
This is all insanity run a muck - don't get sucked into the delusional thoughts that have no grounds in any reality.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 22, 2011, 04:12:49 AM
That is so close to the truth that you should know that it's not the fallacy I'm counting on. If it's something else I wonder if you can figure it out on your own? Conditions are favorable because of something else. Something else gives the indication. I wonder if you can figure it out.
That's not true. It does not balance out. You don't know what the global effect is. You can't see how it also applies. And I won't teach it on this forum. I've learned that lesson the hard way.
Like I said there is another reason that does not fit with your conclusion. Progressions are mindless rule based methods that require blind bet selections. This is not blind bet selections. By its very nature this outperforms any mathematical balance. You win more times than the balance allows for.
More Gizmo psychobabble speak.
Gizmo, just admit it, you can't prove any of your wild claims - you can't give a demo, you can't explain it in English you can only use psychobabble speak to explain what does not exist.
You make insane claims, refuse to back up any of your claims, and then go postal when folks challenge you.
I will donate $100 to any charity you want if you can offer ANY verifiable proof - something that we can reproduce and get the same results you claim to be able to "see". That's how confident I am that you can't back up your insane claims with anything but Gizmo speak.
I await your grand unavailing.....
The sad truth is you crave attention, to the point of insanity.
Would you also donate to the " Revival of the DEAD SEA Charity" chaired by Clem kleddiddlehopper ?
Quote from: Nathan Detroit on March 22, 2011, 09:10:19 AM
Would you also donate to the " Revival of the DEAD SEA Charity" chaired by Clem kleddiddlehopper ?
Any charity Gizmo want's - UFO charities, the alliance of random number readers, even the Gizmo foundation.
I truly believe Gizmo sees things in random numbers - that's the problem.
Here's a test I would be glad to run for you random number clairvoyants:
I will show you 4 sets of random numbers:
1) One set will be copied from a live spinning wheel from weeks ago that I have
2) One set will be from a RNG
3) Another set will be numbers I pulled out of my head
4) The last set will be from a RNG from 0 - 37 (double Green 00) with any Green 00 deleted
If you read random numbers for a living you should be able to find the set from the live spinning roulette wheel.
If you are a gifted clairvoyant then you should easily identify the other sets of numbers.
We all know Gizmo can't tell the difference, nor can anyone else on this planet....
P.S.
I will do just that - I will gather the data today and post a poll - you pick out the real set of numbers. Look for it sometime today.
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 22, 2011, 08:14:16 AM
Give me an example.
You use the term "aware of the current conditions" - what does that mean? An example please.
Also, the term "if favorable, being willing to risk a bet to see if those conditions continue" what the heck does that mean?
You're using Gizmo psychobabble speak - this is just gibberish.
A couple of examples will expose this nonsense for what it is - Gizmo talk.
No matter what that marquee shows, the next number spun will be between 0 and 36 and ALL numbers have the same probability of appearing - ALL of them.
There is NO way to be "aware of the current conditions" and then to "if favorable, being willing to risk a bet to see if those conditions continue" - this is Gizmo speak - insanity.
Nothing Gizmo says is true, nothing he says is backed up by any science or math, its just the ramblings of a very disturbed and angry mind.
Prove me wrong - give me an example in real time on a live spinning wheel - show me what you mean.
You can't you've just been infected with crazy thoughts from a disturbed mind - Gizmo.
Gizmo simply makes insane claims, and refuses to prove anything he says - he claims to have students, none have come forward to verify Gizmo's claims - unless you'd like to.
This is all insanity run a muck - don't get sucked into the delusional thoughts that have no grounds in any reality.
Again you make almost no sense whatsoever. Many many examples were already provided to you. All it has proven is that you are not only an imbacile but a neophyte imbacile at that. All you do now is to rant and rave like a demanding little tyrant with your big fat bullhorn of a mouth. You must grow beyond your safety zone. You know, that you think you are entertaining yourself as a roulette loser. You are just a dumb loser.
Quote from: VKM on March 21, 2011, 06:12:06 PM
SmartLive Casino is a fun place to play their Live European Wheel (televised in Great Britain).
About three weeks ago I went to the site to play (for free). When I looked at the 185 past spins I immediately noticed a long trend. Because of the way they show the past spins, it's easy to spot what's been happening with the Reds & Blacks, not so easy for the Odds and Evens or Highs and Lows. For the entire 185 spins there were no more than 3 blacks in a row. Red had been slightly dominating but there were plenty of blacks.
So based on what had been happening for the last 185 spins I decided to bet that the current trends would continue. I chose to wait for a Black to appear and then play a 3 stage Martingale on Red. For the next 37 spins the trends of "not more than 3 Blacks in a row" & "Red Dominating" continued. I won every betting series. I stopped after a few wins and left the site, so I really don't know how much longer those particular conditions lasted.
It's the truth, but I have no verifiable record of it.
VKM
Was I able to recognize what was happening at the table? Yes.
Did I think that those conditions were favorable to risk betting. Yes.
Did the success of my play depend on those conditions continuing? Yes.
Did those conditons continue? Yes.
Did I know for certain that those conditions would continue? No.
@Mike,
Assuming that you're a serious roulette player, surely you know when the table conditions are favorable to play your particular method of play.
@Maui,
My favorite Albert Einstein quote is "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
What happens in each unique roulette session that you play is reality. You should know by now that it's an extremely rare session that matches the long term mathematical probabilities and statistics.
VKM
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 22, 2011, 08:26:39 AM
More Gizmo psychobabble speak.
Gizmo, just admit it, you can't prove any of your wild claims - you can't give a demo, you can't explain it in English you can only use psychobabble speak to explain what does not exist.
You make insane claims, refuse to back up any of your claims, and then go postal when folks challenge you.
I will donate $100 to any charity you want if you can offer ANY verifiable proof - something that we can reproduce and get the same results you claim to be able to "see". That's how confident I am that you can't back up your insane claims with anything but Gizmo speak.
I await your grand unavailing.....
The sad truth is you crave attention, to the point of insanity.
Not bad for an idiot. Now you are trying to answer me when I'm clearly answering intelligent questions from others on this forum. But you don't understand anything about forum etiquette. Mike is on the verge of understanding it. You are not. What are you going to do to him? Are you going to whip him with your wet noodle? Are you going to call him names and have another temper tantrum? You are ridiculous. You make no sense whatsoever.
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 22, 2011, 09:21:11 AM
Any charity Gizmo want's - UFO charities, the alliance of random number readers, even the Gizmo foundation.
I truly believe Gizmo sees things in random numbers - that's the problem.
Here's a test I would be glad to run for you random number clairvoyants:
I will show you 4 sets of random numbers:
1) One set will be copied from a live spinning wheel from weeks ago that I have
2) One set will be from a RNG
3) Another set will be numbers I pulled out of my head
4) The last set will be from a RNG from 0 - 37 (double Green 00) with any Green 00 deleted
If you read random numbers for a living you should be able to find the set from the live spinning roulette wheel.
If you are a gifted clairvoyant then you should easily identify the other sets of numbers.
We all know Gizmo can't tell the difference, nor can anyone else on this planet....
P.S.
I will do just that - I will gather the data today and post a poll - you pick out the real set of numbers. Look for it sometime today.
Like I said yesterday, it's a terrible thing to see on an open forum. I do what this neophyte requests and he always throws it back in my face. He can't relate to anything. He's really a moron. It's easy to call someone that but MauiSunset really is one. I guess he's the Special Olympics version of a satisfied gambler.
It's too bad too. He seems like a nice enough fellow. His only problem is that he gets into these rants and waves his arms in a rage. It's clear to anyone that reads this thread that he can't make sense of anything here. He can't communicate sense, even when he tries his very best. All he has is this childish " I know your are but what am I" game he keeps trying. Now he wants his mommy and his daddy. It's all very sad.
VKM, great answer. Nice job too.
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 12:37:32 PM
Was I able to recognize what was happening at the table? Yes.
Did I think that those conditions were favorable to risk betting. Yes.
Did the success of my play depend on those conditions continuing? Yes.
Did those conditons continue? Yes.
Did I know for certain that those conditions would continue? No.
@Mike,
Assuming that you're a serious roulette player, surely you know when the table conditions are favorable to play your particular method of play.
@Maui,
My favorite Albert Einstein quote is "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
What happens in each unique roulette session that you play is reality. You should know by now that it's an extremely rare session that matches the long term mathematical probabilities and statistics.
VKM
You have no idea how long I've been waiting to use Albert's most famous quote:
You cannot beat a roulette table unless you steal money from it. ~Albert EinsteinThank you, that made my day....
When I sit at the Roulette table I play a totally random game - just Red and Black. I can use your exact quote to represent me:
Was I able to recognize what was happening at the table? Yes.
Did I think that those conditions were favorable to risk betting. Yes.
Did the success of my play depend on those conditions continuing? Yes.
Did those conditions continue? Yes.
Did I know for certain that those conditions would continue? No.So your answers mean nothing - they work for totally random play too.
The correct answers would have to deal with much more specific replies.
Sounds like you do what I do - play totally random....
Don't feed the troll.
@ Maui,
Based on your reply #59 to my post #55,
I have to conclude that the difference between you and me is, that I believe what I'm saying, and not only do you not believe what I'm saying... You don't even believe what YOU are saying.
In post #55, I gave you specific information of an actual session. There is nothing hidden there. By your replies,
I understand that you just don't see it. Sorry man, at this point in time, I don't have a cure for your blindness.
Best of luck at the casinos.
VKM
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 03:05:53 PM
@ Maui,
Based on your reply #59 to my post #55,
I have to conclude that the difference between you and me is, that I believe what I'm saying, and not only do you not believe what I'm saying... You don't even believe what YOU are saying.
In post #55, I gave you specific information of an actual session. There is nothing hidden there. By your replies,
I understand that you just don't see it. Sorry man, at this point in time, I don't have a cure for your blindness.
Best of luck at the casinos.
VKM
Try this experiment:
Look at any output from either a RNG or a wheel and look for 3 red/black and then see how many "trends" continue on to 4 in a row. Then repeat for 5, etc.
You will find that to go from 3 in a row to 4 in a row is 50/50 (not counting 0's).
If you can find ANY list of numbers that are not 50/50 I'd like to see them.
There is no such thing as a "trend" in random numbers. Sure you might see them but you can't use them to your advantage - the next color spun will be 50/50 red/black (not counting Green 0).
If you see a list of spins, other than 50/50, I'd sure like to see them.
Additionally, I've never seen ANY study that shows anything but a 50/50 outcome....
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 12:37:32 PM
@Mike,
Assuming that you're a serious roulette player, surely you know when the table conditions are favorable to play your particular method of play.
Yes, and I know WHY conditions are favorable. Do you know why conditions are favorable to YOUR method of play?
"If you can find ANY list of numbers that are not 50/50 I'd like to see them."
Well Maui,
In the session I have been talking about in 222 spins (past 185 and the 37 I played) 3 Blacks didn't go to 4 Blacks once... I'm pretty sure that's not 50/50.
VKM
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 03:33:22 PM
"If you can find ANY list of numbers that are not 50/50 I'd like to see them."
Well Maui,
In the session I have been talking about in 222 spins (past 185 and the 37 I played) 3 Blacks didn't go to 4 Blacks once... I'm pretty sure that's not 50/50.
VKM
That's not the test.
Find 3 black/red in a row and keep track how many of them go to 4 in a row - now you have to find hundreds of these, which I have done, but 3 in a row will go to 4 in a row 50% of the time, the other 50% of the time the "trend" ends at 3.
Repeat this for numbers 4 - 20+ and you will see that there is NOTHING magical about "trends" - you can start to bet on them if you want but betting the opposite is just as profitable....
@ Mike,
I was pretty sure that you did know when the conditions were favorable for your method... that's why I said that.
The table conditons were favorable for the method that I used in my example... that's why I used it.
I only use that particular method some of the time.
VKM
No Maui, the test is the roulette session that you actually play.
The test isn't to prove that the long term mathematical statistics are close to accuate.
VKM
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 03:47:22 PM
No Maui, the test is the roulette session that you actually play.
The test isn't to prove that the long term mathematical statistics are close to accuate.
VKM
In a night of playing Roulette, say 300 spins, statistics is going to be predominant.
Sure if you play once, then you can see 20 Reds in a row and then decide:
1) Bet Red since we are on a Trend
2) Bet Black since the Trend is way over due for a correction
So what do you do?
Even on just 1 spin, statistics is your guiding light, not your enemy.
When I play Black Jack, ALL the published BJ statistical tables (those little plastic cards) have one HUGE problem - they only word for card #3 dealt to you.
If you need card #4 then those tables mean nothing and give you the wrong statistics,
I can't imagine playing a casino game ignorant of the odds and statistics involved....
I have to disagree with you, Maui. In my years of experience, when it comes to Roulette sessions, statistics are not at all reliable. If probabilities could be counted on in a Roulette session, then I'd have a much bigger bankroll.
If someone uses statistics as their guiding light for their bet placement with the expectation of a statistical ballance, then I'm pretty sure that's Gambler's Fallacy.
VKM
@ Mike,
Sorry, I reread your post and realized that the emphasis was on that you know "Why" the conditions are favorable when you play.
VKM
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 04:15:51 PM
@ Mike,
Sorry, I reread your post and realized that the emphasis was on that you know "Why" the conditions are favorable when you play.
VKM
VKM, I also asked you if you knew WHY conditions are favorable when you play your method, are you able to give me an answer?
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 04:09:12 PM
I have to disagree with you, Maui. In my years of experience, when it comes to Roulette sessions, statistics are not at all reliable. If probabilities could be counted on in a Roulette session, then I'd have a much bigger bankroll.
If someone uses statistics as their guiding light for their bet placement with the expectation of a statistical ballance, then I'm pretty sure that's Gambler's Fallacy.
VKM
Everyone has their own style of gambling - if you are happy with yours, then I am in no position to argue.
The goal in life is happiness....
@ Mike,
"VKM, I also asked you if you knew WHY conditions are favorable when you play your method, are you able to give me an answer?"
In the example we are talking about, I chose to play the method that I played because of the results the table (wheel) in that particular session had been consistantly producing. Because of those results, I thought that the Conditions looked Favorable. I was hoping for at least one win and I was fortunate that I started my betting while the conditions continued. Winning the bets that I won confirmed that the Conditions were indeed Favorable. As to WHY that unique stream of numbers resulted in those conditions at that specific time... I do not know.
Thank goodness I didn't have to understand everything about it in order to take advantage of the situation.
VKM
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 06:56:35 PM
@ Mike,
"VKM, I also asked you if you knew WHY conditions are favorable when you play your method, are you able to give me an answer?"
In the example we are talking about, I chose to play the method that I played because of the results the table (wheel) in that particular session had been consistantly producing. Because of those results, I thought that the Conditions looked Favorable. I was hoping for at least one win and I was fortunate that I started my betting while the conditions continued. Winning the bets that I won confirmed that the Conditions were indeed Favorable. As to WHY that unique stream of numbers resulted in those conditions at that specific time... I do not know.
Thank goodness I didn't have to understand everything about it in order to take advantage of the situation.
VKM
Sorry VKM,
you thought you saw 'good conditions'
I'm sure Mike as myself are referring to different kind of conditions as in the physical aspect of the game. Those conditions are real conditions that can be measured. Streams of numbers whether chopping or running might seem to create a 'good condition' for your play but unfortunately it is just luck.
Nobody on this forum shall deny the 50/50 chance for the next spin for EC.It is so many times said the next spin we cannot predict.After 10 times Red/Black I expect that in the next 10 spins the Color shall repeat.The chance I am wrong is more than 1M.20 R/B happens in 2^20 spins. A successful player does not wager on the next spin but on what happens in a couple of spins.The large of the couple depends on the kind of the chance and the calculated risk
Quote from: schoenpoetser on March 23, 2011, 07:32:17 AM
Nobody on this forum shall deny the 50/50 chance for the next spin for EC.It is so many times said the next spin we cannot predict.After 10 times Red/Black I expect that in the next 10 spins the Color shall repeat.The chance I am wrong is more than 1M.20 R/B happens in 2^20 spins. A successful player does not wager on the next spin but on what happens in a couple of spins.The large of the couple depends on the kind of the chance and the calculated risk
Wait a minute - there are folks here who "see" things and claim that they don't work with 50/50 odds anymore. You see them bragging about their superhuman ability all the time; they are wrong of course.
If Red/Black shows up 10 times in a row, that means nothing to the next 10 spins - zip, zilch, nothing.
If you want to say that Red/Black just showed up 10 times in a row and thus I believe that the next 10 spins favor the same or opposite color, then that is Gambler's Fallacy.
The next 10 spins have NOTHING to do with the 10 spins before it. The reason there is a Marquee at the Roulette pit is because the casino knows 95% of the folks betting believe in Gambler's Fallacy in one form or the other. The casino simply wants to help the gamblers lose money with their fantasies....
Quote from: MauiSunset on March 23, 2011, 09:32:24 AM
Wait a minute - there are folks here who "see" things and claim that they don't work with 50/50 odds anymore. You see them bragging about their superhuman ability all the time; they are wrong of course.
If Red/Black shows up 10 times in a row, that means nothing to the next 10 spins - zip, zilch, nothing.
If you want to say that Red/Black just showed up 10 times in a row and thus I believe that the next 10 spins favor the same or opposite color, then that is Gambler's Fallacy.
The next 10 spins have NOTHING to do with the 10 spins before it. The reason there is a Marquee at the Roulette pit is because the casino knows 95% of the folks betting believe in Gambler's Fallacy in one form or the other. The casino simply wants to help the gamblers lose money with their fantasies....
You are correct. Every spin is a new event.
Quote from: VKM on March 22, 2011, 06:56:35 PM
@ Mike,
"VKM, I also asked you if you knew WHY conditions are favorable when you play your method, are you able to give me an answer?"
In the example we are talking about, I chose to play the method that I played because of the results the table (wheel) in that particular session had been consistantly producing. Because of those results, I thought that the Conditions looked Favorable. I was hoping for at least one win and I was fortunate that I started my betting while the conditions continued. Winning the bets that I won confirmed that the Conditions were indeed Favorable. As to WHY that unique stream of numbers resulted in those conditions at that specific time... I do not know.
Thank goodness I didn't have to understand everything about it in order to take advantage of the situation.
VKM
So your reason for betting the way you did was because of "the results the wheel had consistently been producing". Why would you expect the wheel to continue to produce those results? Just because the wheel had produced a particular pattern doesn't mean anything unless you have some OTHER reason for believing that the pattern was the way it was. The mere existence of the pattern doesn't indicate a favorable opportunity unless you believe that those previous spins you observed somehow indicate what will follow:
"The reversal is also a fallacy, the inverse gambler's fallacy, in which a gambler may instead decide that tails are more likely out of some mystical preconception that fate has thus far allowed for consistent results of tails; the false conclusion being: Why change if odds favor tails? Again, the fallacy is the belief that the "universe" somehow carries a memory of past results which tend to favor or disfavor future outcomes."If you had some evidence that the wheel was tending to favor red (or the non-continuation of blacks beyond 3) then it might indeed be a favorable bet, but the mere fact of seeing the pattern that you did doesn't constitute evidence, because random numbers will produce those outcomes at times without any external causes. It might indeed be the case that there was some influence which you weren't aware of which was causing the pattern, but without any knowledge of it, you are relying solely on luck.
Quote from: Mike on March 23, 2011, 10:34:56 AM
1.) ...Why would you expect the wheel to continue to produce those results?...
2.) ..."Why change if odds favor tails?" ...
3.) "If you had some evidence that the wheel was tending to favor red (or the non-continuation of blacks beyond 3) then it might indeed be a favorable bet, but the mere fact of seeing the pattern that you did doesn't constitute evidence, because random numbers will produce those outcomes at times without any external causes. It might indeed be the case that there was some influence which you weren't aware of which was causing the pattern, but without any knowledge of it, you are relying solely on luck."
Answers:
1.) It's a fallacy to insist that following trends is about expectation. Apparently it's the only way you can relate to the concept of following an existing trend. Why do you do that? Everyone that objects to this method always gets stuck on that expectation thing. I really don't know how to get around it. It's like a straw man argument and the straw man is somehow made of steal. Could it be that it's easy to assume that it's about expectation and so disagreement on subjective terms is an easy point? We are here to discuss beating this game. It's hard enough to deal with real concepts. People can't learn in a vacuum. At this point all I see are rose colored glasses and blinders. I hope you get this this time. It's not about expectation.
2.) The odds never favor tails. Again, that's the expectation argument. At least I think that was what was implied.
3.) Is it luck allowing yourself an opportunity to form in front of you? At first it's just a mirage, but when it forms up it becomes real. It does this completely by luck. But was it luck to take the chance in the first place? What would it be if you never took the chance? I'm mostly fascinated by those that believe the better strategy is to never take the chance. To never attack the mirage so that it can never become real. If you don't have a method or reason to attack the casino when it is vulnerable, real or not, then you are missing out on the most effective way to win at this game. People that count cards know this. They even bring in the teams with their best attacker all ready to go. Once they have a reason to see an advantage they attack. The reason does not have to be backed up by mathematical advantage. The reason can be a mirage and their is also nothing that can prevent the mirage from becoming real.
Can you see the difference between any reason for a perception of an advantage and expectation?
Quote from: Zindrod on March 23, 2011, 09:39:26 AM
You are correct. Every spin is a new event.
Great. Now let's do the math.
Spin number one is a new event. It's red, odds were 50/50.
Same for the next nine spins. They were all new events. All Red. Odds were 50/50 for each spin.
So when the next ten spins did the same thing, you got it. New events, Red, and 50/50 for each new event.
The only conclusion must be that 20 reds in a row is a 50/50 chance. That's wonderful.
G'day,
Following a trend is no better or worse than following a mirage.
But sometimes the mirage is right in line with the real thing.
- Gizmotron.
So true, risk the initial bet.
Glenn.
@ Mike,
Your post was well thought out and well presented.
"So your reason for betting the way you did was because of "the results the wheel had consistently been producing". Why would you expect the wheel to continue to produce those results? Just because the wheel had produced a particular pattern doesn't mean anything unless you have some OTHER reason for believing that the pattern was the way it was. The mere existence of the pattern doesn't indicate a favorable opportunity unless you believe that those previous spins you observed somehow indicate what will follow."
Being aware of the results that the wheel was producing in that particular session, and even without having any idea why the wheel was producing those results, I had no reason to believe that the current conditions would change.
Information, that I noticed in those past spins, created in my mind, what appeared to be favorable conditions to win at least one bet. I acted on that information and as a result I won several bets, which confirmed that in that particular session, what appeared to be favorable conditions were favorable conditions.
VKM
Gizmo,
Your post #79.
Very good.
VKM
so after ten reds i put my bet on red . its easy to be wise after the event.
Capt. here's some more. It doesn't matter what your bet selection process is based on. You can have any consistent reason for making it. You can use anything. All it has to do is produce win streaks. I don't mean you can use a huge expensive progression. I mean something simple. In the end you play bigger bets on your win streaks and the lowest allowable bets when it's not a win streak.
Now that includes a domination of blacks with a few sparsely occasioned reds. You are seeing 80% blacks in a big streak. That of course is using a trend to make a choice. But it's also a good time to attack.
Here is another perfectly good system to play roulette with. Let's say there are 16 table games surrounding the area where you are playing your Roulette at. So you look at each table. If there are an even number of people playing at table #1 then you bet even on the next bet. Then for the next bet you go on to table #2 and bet odd or even on that next bet at your Roulette table. You do this until you have all 16 tables played. People come and go so it changes a little all night from odd or even. Like I said. The reason for the bet selection does not have to be about trends. It's just that I use them to detect win streaks. So with this simple odd/even bet selection process you can detect win streaks too.
In the end it's not about money management. It's about attack management. I said so two weeks ago. This game is about play management. If you can't tell you are in a win streak then I don't know where to start. I suppose it does need to be taught some how. I learned it the hard way. I sure can tell when I'm not in a win streak. I was told more than 30 years ago to "bet big when you are winning." This is not a revelation discovered by me. It's been around for ages.
Quote from: pins on March 23, 2011, 04:03:27 PM
so after ten reds I put my bet on red . its easy to be wise after the event.
It's not as hard as you think. So after ten reds you get ten more. That happens or you get a black on the eleventh spin. But it works like this too. You lose $500 or you get $5000.
At some point you must use play management. You ask your self questions like is the session going well? Are my guesses keeping up with a consistent winning strategy? If you get ten $500 losses in a session then guess what. You should have gotten out of that bad session. You must use your mind and your memory like a well oiled tool. This is not about having fun. This is about war.
You just demonstrated a simple guess. You need to add context to your guessing. There's far more to this than just simple bet selections. Two years ago I suggested that you need to test the waters as you go. I was disclosing my secrets all the way back then. Now you have context for that.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 23, 2011, 12:37:22 PM
Can you see the difference between any reason for a perception of an advantage and expectation?
Gizmo, yes I can. We've had this discussion earlier in the thread. In reply #48 you said (your reply in blue):
QuoteI understand what Gizmo is saying regarding not trying to predict future spins. Yes, you can play for "coincidence" and just guessing that a trend may continue, but the reality is that sometimes it will and sometimes it won't, and the number of times you get it wrong and lose 1 unit, vs the number of times you get it right and make a profit, will eventually balance out so that you win/lose the expected amount.
That's not true. It does not balance out. You don't know what the global effect is. You can't see how it also applies. And I won't teach it on this forum. I've learned that lesson the hard way.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "global" effect but assuming it means the pattern over a longer spin history, then why should this "global" effect not be subject to the same laws as a "local" effect (meaning the more recent pattern) - what reason is there for me to believe otherwise?
But really, there isn't much point in this endless back and forth, it beats me why you don't just shut us all up by giving a demo. If you did that we would all be put in our place and you would be proved right. Notice that I'm not asking for a full revelation of your method, just a demonstration of its effectiveness. If you don't want to do it publicly maybe we could arrange something privately?
Quote from: VKM on March 23, 2011, 02:26:59 PM
Being aware of the results that the wheel was producing in that particular session, and even without having any idea why the wheel was producing those results, I had no reason to believe that the current conditions would change.
Information, that I noticed in those past spins, created in my mind, what appeared to be favorable conditions to win at least one bet. I acted on that information and as a result I won several bets, which confirmed that in that particular session, what appeared to be favorable conditions were favorable conditions.
VKM
Ok, well you had no reason to believe the current conditions would CONTINUE either, so rationally, the decision to bet or not should have been 50/50. The fact that you won several bets doesn't confirm that the bet was favorable; you haven't considered the alternative explanation: that it was pure luck.
Naturally, if you've been playing like this for years and winning (I'm talking at least several thousand placed bets) then luck as an explanation doesn't seem very plausible.
Are you claiming that you win consistently playing this way?
Very interesting gentlemen i thank you
i believe Zindrod & Mike have it
Quote from: Mike on March 23, 2011, 06:08:23 PM
Gizmo, yes I can. We've had this discussion earlier in the thread. In reply #48 you said (your reply in blue):
I'm not really sure what you mean by "global" effect but assuming it means the pattern over a longer spin history, then why should this "global" effect not be subject to the same laws as a "local" effect (meaning the more recent pattern) - what reason is there for me to believe otherwise?
But really, there isn't much point in this endless back and forth, it beats me why you don't just shut us all up by giving a demo. If you did that we would all be put in our place and you would be proved right. Notice that I'm not asking for a full revelation of your method, just a demonstration of its effectiveness. If you don't want to do it publicly maybe we could arrange something privately?
The global effect can permeate the trend tracking for several hours. It just does that. I've seen very strange global effects work on four different tables in Cesar's Lake Tahoe. It went on for more than five hours. I bet against it because I was thinking this had to stop. It didn't and I lost my pay check for that week. Sharing information with others when it clearly cost me to learn it is kind of a pet peeve for me.
Regarding a demo. That was going to happen until people started throwing all this back in my face. I even started one over at GG when Spike came busting in to interrupt it. I don't deal with rude people with something that is actually worth something.
I tried to tell you what you would see in a demo. I would play, we would see three types of situations, works real well, works real badly, or is choppy chaos. In all that, if the opportunity rises, I would attack my win streaks.
That would leave people like you to interpret what happened. I can predict that too. Have you ever heard of the blind leading the blind? I would have to drag every one of you through a full explanation of each bet and how it effected the win streak. My suggestion to you is to go lose several pay checks. You owe it to yourself to get a true perspective of this game. I don't need to prove anything to you. Your demands to end debate because I won't bottle feed a bunch of demanding beggars is going to always fall on def ears. Why do I have to publish proof? Why do I have to kill off my own opportunity by causing a gold rush? It makes no sense. Take what I have or leave it.
I told you years ago. Prove it to yourself. And buster you have had the years. You said no way. That's your choice. Now live with it. I'm not your mother. I'm not going to choose your clothes for you. I'm not going to drag any of you kicking and screaming to the truth.
is there any moderating on this forum
Quote from: Mike on March 23, 2011, 06:20:44 PM
Ok, well you had no reason to believe the current conditions would CONTINUE either, so rationally, the decision to bet or not should have been 50/50. The fact that you won several bets doesn't confirm that the bet was favorable; you haven't considered the alternative explanation: that it was pure luck.
Naturally, if you've been playing like this for years and winning (I'm talking at least several thousand placed bets) then luck as an explanation doesn't seem very plausible.
Are you claiming that you win consistently playing this way?
No, I haven't played this way for several thousand placed bets. It's just one of a few ways that I play. I'm satisfied with the results.
So let me get this straight...
You don't think that winning several bets is a confirmation that the conditions were favorable to win at least one bet.
What do you think would be a better way to confirm that the conditions were favorable to win at least one bet?
I took a few minutes and considered the alternative explanation: that it was pure luck.
I concluded that it was not pure luck because for that to be true it would have required too many coincidences.
Then I considered another alternative explanation: that the conditions were favorable for many coincidences to occur, causing pure luck to affect my bets, resulting in expected but at the same time unexpected wins...
VKM
Quote from: VKM on March 24, 2011, 03:24:24 AM
No, I haven't played this way for several thousand placed bets. It's just one of a few ways that I play. I'm satisfied with the results.
So let me get this straight...
You don't think that winning several bets is a confirmation that the conditions were favorable to win at least one bet.
What do you think would be a better way to confirm that the conditions were favorable to win at least one bet?
I took a few minutes and considered the alternative explanation: that it was pure luck.
I concluded that it was not pure luck because for that to be true it would have required too many coincidences.
Then I considered another alternative explanation: that the conditions were favorable for many coincidences to occur, causing pure luck to affect my bets, resulting in expected but at the same time unexpected wins...
VKM
VKM. If you play EC's. Say you bet on Red for no particular reason. Red wins........ That was one win right? So that was luck.
You see it isn't so difficult to win a unit or two BUT in the longterm you will be held accountable by the 2,7% house edge. So yes you will win your fair share. Eventually though you would be down by the house edge. You see certain days you won't get it right from the get go. Does not matter what you do. So if we assume you have stop-loss and a huge bankroll eventually you should be down 2,7% in the longrun. Personally I think it might be worse than that. Why? Well how many stop-loss, stop-win have you seen being equal to each other? For instance my br is $5000. My stop on a win target is 20% which is $1000. My lose cut off is 40% (or more but never equal to the win cut off) is $2000. Now in the short term you have a good chance to reach any of those two on a particular day. The thing is that by not having your two cut offs the same value you are increasing the odds against yourself in the longterm.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 23, 2011, 07:40:23 PM
Regarding a demo. That was going to happen until people started throwing all this back in my face. I even started one over at GG when Spike came busting in to interrupt it. I don't deal with rude people with something that is actually worth something.
I tried to tell you what you would see in a demo. I would play, we would see three types of situations, works real well, works real badly, or is choppy chaos. In all that, if the opportunity rises, I would attack my win streaks.
That would leave people like you to interpret what happened. I can predict that too. Have you ever heard of the blind leading the blind? I would have to drag every one of you through a full explanation of each bet and how it effected the win streak. My suggestion to you is to go lose several pay checks. You owe it to yourself to get a true perspective of this game. I don't need to prove anything to you. Your demands to end debate because I won't bottle feed a bunch of demanding beggars is going to always fall on def ears. Why do I have to publish proof? Why do I have to kill off my own opportunity by causing a gold rush? It makes no sense. Take what I have or leave it.
I told you years ago. Prove it to yourself. And buster you have had the years. You said no way. That's your choice. Now live with it. I'm not your mother. I'm not going to choose your clothes for you. I'm not going to drag any of you kicking and screaming to the truth.
Gizmo, YOU decided to make all these wild claims, and when people naturally question them you throw a hissy fit. You seem to think that everyone should treat you with awe and reverence without any kind of proof? Grow up.
All these strategies are variations on the same theme, which is why I know they can't work - the PRINCIPLES are flawed.
Therefore, there's no need to test each and every permutation or combination of possible methods (which would be impossible anyway) because they are all members of the same class, they are all built on quicksand.
GMT Your conclusion in reply 80 is wrong.After 19 red in a row it is 50/50 to get a 20 red in a row.If you start the sequence the expectation of a 20 red in a row it is 1/2^20 .
Quote from: Zindrod on March 24, 2011, 04:33:40 AM
VKM. If you play EC's. Say you bet on Red for no particular reason. Red wins........ That was one win right? So that was luck.
You see it isn't so difficult to win a unit or two BUT in the longterm you will be held accountable by the 2,7% house edge. So yes you will win your fair share. Eventually though you would be down by the house edge. You see certain days you won't get it right from the get go. Does not matter what you do. So if we assume you have stop-loss and a huge bankroll eventually you should be down 2,7% in the longrun. Personally I think it might be worse than that. Why? Well how many stop-loss, stop-win have you seen being equal to each other? For instance my br is $5000. My stop on a win target is 20% which is $1000. My lose cut off is 40% (or more but never equal to the win cut off) is $2000. Now in the short term you have a good chance to reach any of those two on a particular day. The thing is that by not having your two cut offs the same value you are increasing the odds against yourself in the longterm.
Zindrod, I really can't relate to "betting on Red for no particular reason".
As for your other statements, I'm not interested in discussing money mangement methods in this topic. I also don't want to get involved in a debate where I have to spend time and effort trying to prove my thoughts about how the expectation that an individual Roulette Player will conform to the "longrun" mathematical statistics is a fallacy. (By the way, even though I think it's true, I don't think that I can prove it.)
VKM
Quote from: Mike on March 24, 2011, 04:40:48 AM
Gizmo, YOU decided to make all these wild claims, and when people naturally question them you throw a hissy fit. You seem to think that everyone should treat you with awe and reverence without any kind of proof? Grow up.
All these strategies are variations on the same theme, which is why I know they can't work - the PRINCIPLES are flawed.
Therefore, there's no need to test each and every permutation or combination of possible methods (which would be impossible anyway) because they are all members of the same class, they are all built on quicksand.
First of all it's you reacting to my claims. You are the one with the problems and the issues. Have you ever heard the phrase "it's hard to soar with eagles while you are surrounded by turkeys?"
Think about this too. Whenever someone thinks of something for the first time others tend to call that person a genius. What that person discovered had always been the truth all along though. It was that nobody ever thought of it before. So when skeptics come around with their old claims they were never the truth either, ever. So I have every right to call them retards. They have always been wrong. I know it. That's just the way it is.
I don't care how long you remain a skeptic and I don't care when the math experts get off their asses and grab that Nobel prize for mathematics. When all that happens I'll enjoy the moment and there you will be with your pathetic demands. You are wrong, I know it. What you really don't like is that I don't respect you. You have only earned the right to be burned. You have not earned the right to be heard. I'm just doing my part. This is the time that all the truth comes out. I'm doing this my way. I discovered it. I've disclosed enough to take credit for it. I've even used people like you as pawns in my methods of madness. You are incredibly comical. I've put it right in your hands for everyone to see. And you want to touch t**ds in the toilet and play with your little plastic boats there too. If I was you I'd be so embarrassed I'd quit posting. I set you up on purpose. You geniuses ticked me off. This is me getting even with you. I want you to suffer on the spit and cook some more before I put you out of your misery.
BTW you just contradicted yourself after seeing that I have you surrounded. What's up with that? First you demand a demonstration. Now it's not necessary because of your superior logic. What a pathetic argument.
Quote from: schoenpoetser on March 24, 2011, 11:01:01 AM
GMT Your conclusion in reply 80 is wrong.After 19 red in a row it is 50/50 to get a 20 red in a row.If you start the sequence the expectation of a 20 red in a row it is 1/2^20 .
I knew that. Thanks for confirming the basis of my sarcasm.
More bluster from Gizmo the clown.
I know damn well you don't have anything, and you know it too. It's kind of funny seeing you trying to wriggle out of doing the demo you promised a few weeks ago. You also said you were going to spill the beans on your strategy; all we have so far is "follow the trend" which is as old as the hills.
I get your number now; bait people into "begging" and then run away giggling. That's pretty sad behaviour for a grown man, you really should get a life. :'(
So that's 0/10 for originality and 10/10 for being a dickhead.
Quote from: Mike on March 24, 2011, 02:47:37 PM
More bluster from Gizmo the clown.
I know damn well you don't have anything, and you know it too. It's kind of funny seeing you trying to wriggle out of doing the demo you promised a few weeks ago. You also said you were going to spill the beans on your strategy; all we have so far is "follow the trend" which is as old as the hills.
I get your number now; bait people into "begging" and then run away giggling. That's pretty sad behaviour for a grown man, you really should get a life. :'(
So that's 0/10 for originality and 10/10 for being a dickhead.
It doesn't surprise me one bit that all you have seen is "follow the trend." Yeah, I put you down and it stuck too. You are just a pathetic mathboyz wannabe.
What happened the last two weeks was me teaching and some people disrupting the threads. People like Cheese and MauiSunset did not stop a few people here from getting more than you have ever taught them. You think this game can't be beaten. That means any time you do play it you are a loser. That's a pathetic existence. Beggars can't be choosers. That's as old as the hills too.
If you have a winning method, it should go like this.
Average balls spun per hour when its busy is about 30.
Your goal should be to win between 5 and 10 units. Lets say its 7.
There should be no drawdowns longer than 2. You should never be away from
breaking even for longer than 2 losses.
The average time at the table should be less than an hour before you reach your goal.
Flat betting only.
If you have big drawdowns of 5 or 10 losses below breaking even, your method is not a winner. If it takes you hours of playing to make 7 units, its not a winner. If there are big spaces in between bets, its not a winner. If you have to use a progression EVER, its not a winner. If you make bets where the wager is bigger than the payout, its not a winner. If you have sessions where you lose, its definitely not a winner.
So I'm starting a demo in the general section. All it needs is someone to call out spins. I've even provided a way to verify any tampering if you need that too.
Spike wanted this at GG. Well I'm doing it here. No rules. I'll play to win and I'm betting wherever it looks good. I may set a goal. I always play that way anyway.
Quote from: Mike on March 24, 2011, 04:40:48 AM
Gizmo, YOU decided to make all these wild claims, and when people naturally question them you throw a hissy fit. You seem to think that everyone should treat you with awe and reverence without any kind of proof? Grow up.
All these strategies are variations on the same theme, which is why I know they can't work - the PRINCIPLES are flawed.
Therefore, there's no need to test each and every permutation or combination of possible methods (which would be impossible anyway) because they are all members of the same class, they are all built on quicksand.
You are just digging your self a deeper hole and You know it, you realise now its to late to turn back.
You really are going to make your self look like an idiot. You realy have no idea who you are messing with. He will destroy you. You are an ant to him.
Before you disrespect some one, you should do your research first, maybe you do, but in this case i can tell you haven't.
James.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on March 24, 2011, 09:32:23 PM
You really are going to make your self look like an idiot. You realy have no idea who you are messing with. He will destroy you. You are an ant to him.
Who are you talking about? Who's going to destroy who?
Quote from: cheese on March 24, 2011, 08:54:50 PM
If you have a winning method, it should go like this.
Average balls spun per hour when its busy is about 30.
Your goal should be to win between 5 and 10 units. Lets say its 7.
There should be no drawdowns longer than 2. You should never be away from
breaking even for longer than 2 losses.
The average time at the table should be less than an hour before you reach your goal.
Flat betting only.
If you have big drawdowns of 5 or 10 losses below breaking even, your method is not a winner. If it takes you hours of playing to make 7 units, its not a winner. If there are big spaces in between bets, its not a winner. If you have to use a progression EVER, its not a winner. If you make bets where the wager is bigger than the payout, its not a winner. If you have sessions where you lose, its definitely not a winner.
I should add, knowing when not to bet is a big part of a winning method. Just as important as knowing when to bet.
Quote from: cheese on March 24, 2011, 09:44:34 PM
Who are you talking about? Who's going to destroy who?
Who is mike talking about? That's your awnser.
James.
Quote from: ReDsQuaD on March 24, 2011, 09:51:40 PM
Who is mike talking about? That's your awnser.
James.
Destroy? Like ants? Thats cool, always something to look forward to around here.
Quote from: cheese on March 24, 2011, 09:55:27 PM
Destroy? Like ants? Thats cool, always something to look forward to around here.
I don't get what you mean.
James.
Quote from: cheese on March 24, 2011, 09:44:34 PM
Who are you talking about? Who's going to destroy who?
I'm not going to destroy Mike. He's just a typical mathboyz kind of a guy. Proof is actually his demand. So be it.
Quote from: cheese on March 24, 2011, 08:54:50 PM
If you have a winning method, it should go like this.
Average balls spun per hour when its busy is about 30.
Your goal should be to win between 5 and 10 units. Lets say its 7.
There should be no drawdowns longer than 2. You should never be away from
breaking even for longer than 2 losses.
The average time at the table should be less than an hour before you reach your goal.
Flat betting only.
If you have big drawdowns of 5 or 10 losses below breaking even, your method is not a winner. If it takes you hours of playing to make 7 units, its not a winner. If there are big spaces in between bets, its not a winner. If you have to use a progression EVER, its not a winner. If you make bets where the wager is bigger than the payout, its not a winner. If you have sessions where you lose, its definitely not a winner.
Go ahead, open up a Paypal account and teach ten students. You will discover what I discovered. You can try to teach this. But if they won't practice like you have, then they will not do very well. You were right all along. In fact it was your idea. They would not be able to do this even if you showed them step by step. It's funny, six months go by and nothing has changed. Now that's not to say that some of my students are off to the races with it. But I do know this. This is very hard to do. I thought it would be easy to teach.
A demonstration in front of everyone will have no effect whatsoever. They will not believe their eyes.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 24, 2011, 10:33:36 PM
Go ahead, open up a Paypal account and teach ten students.
Wising up chumps isn't my thing. Knock yourself out..
Right...
Quote from: VKM on March 24, 2011, 12:27:41 PM
Zindrod, I really can't relate to "betting on Red for no particular reason".
As for your other statements, I'm not interested in discussing money mangement methods in this topic. I also don't want to get involved in a debate where I have to spend time and effort trying to prove my thoughts about how the expectation that an individual Roulette Player will conform to the "longrun" mathematical statistics is a fallacy. (By the way, even though I think it's true, I don't think that I can prove it.)
VKM
ok.
Quote from: cheese on March 24, 2011, 08:54:50 PM
If you have a winning method, it should go like this.
Average balls spun per hour when its busy is about 30.
Your goal should be to win between 5 and 10 units. Lets say its 7.
There should be no drawdowns longer than 2. You should never be away from
breaking even for longer than 2 losses.
The average time at the table should be less than an hour before you reach your goal.
Flat betting only.
If you have big drawdowns of 5 or 10 losses below breaking even, your method is not a winner. If it takes you hours of playing to make 7 units, its not a winner. If there are big spaces in between bets, its not a winner. If you have to use a progression EVER, its not a winner. If you make bets where the wager is bigger than the payout, its not a winner. If you have sessions where you lose, its definitely not a winner.
This can easily be accomplished by playing inside the chop, betting against not the biggest, but the smallest trends and streaks.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 24, 2011, 10:04:10 PM
I'm not going to destroy Mike. He's just a typical mathboyz kind of a guy. Proof is actually his demand. So be it.
Destroy? ;D
Come on guys, why the melodrama? this is an internet forum, chill out...
Quote from: Mike on March 25, 2011, 03:24:12 PM
Destroy? ;D
Come on guys, why the melodrama? this is an internet forum, chill out...
It's not my idea. People are going to react to these demos. Those that believe what they see will say the mathboyz are wrong. I can't see that solving or proving anything. Nothing will change until a math person actually sets out to explain why targeting opportunities of coincidence actually work long term. That's the only argument I'm presenting anyway. I just have no interest in learning all that math. I did my part learning how to program. That's enough brain cells for this. If I produce a working algorithm that beats roulette with my concepts then that would be validated proof. That I might set out to do some day. But this live demonstration is far easier to accomplish.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 25, 2011, 11:13:20 AM
This can easily be accomplished by playing inside the chop, betting against not the biggest, but the smallest trends and streaks.
How do you know when a trend will be small and not large?
Quote from: cheese on March 25, 2011, 06:43:03 PM
How do you know when a trend will be small and not large?
I don't. I can only go by what has been happening in the past and bet it will continue to happen in the future.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 25, 2011, 07:59:44 PM
I don't. I can only go by what has been happening in the past and bet it will continue to happen in the future.
What does that mean? There is no clue as to how long a trend will be, if there were everybody would be playing trends.
Quote from: cheese on March 25, 2011, 11:57:43 PM
What does that mean? There is no clue as to how long a trend will be, if there were everybody would be playing trends.
You know what ticks me off more than anything? That was one of the most intelligent questions ever asked about trends. I mean that you could look back in the archives of two forums for many years back and not find a better one. Don't think for a second that this is some kind of sarcasm. I'm completely serious. Why doesn't anyone ask questions like this?
The answer is there are no clues that will determine how long a trend will last. That's a known fact. At least it has been for me. I just spent telling people for four years that it's not about prediction. I've been trying to say that there are no clues as to how long a trend will last for years.
The secret to playing trends must be something else. What makes you think you must have clues or prediction in order to beat this game? It must be something else. Well, it is at least for me.
@ ll l ll l lll ll ,
"This can easily be accomplished by playing inside the chop, betting against not the biggest, but the smallest trends and streaks."
Would you mind giving an example?
VKM
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 26, 2011, 02:22:36 AM
The secret to playing trends must be something else.
Who says trends are anything worth looking at. Everybody in roulette and bac plays trends. What does that tell you.
Quote from: cheese on March 26, 2011, 03:14:22 AM
Who says trends are anything worth looking at. Everybody in roulette and bac plays trends. What does that tell you.
It tells me that they play right into losing streaks and don't know why it doesn't work. That's because most people are comfortable with losing and are expecting it anyway.
Quote from: VKM on March 26, 2011, 02:27:55 AM
@ ll l ll l lll ll ,
"This can easily be accomplished by playing inside the chop, betting against not the biggest, but the smallest trends and streaks."
Would you mind giving an example?
VKM
When there is active chop, continue to play chop, as soon as it starts to streak or trend get off it and look for something else where chop is active.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 26, 2011, 02:22:36 AM
It must be something else. Well, it is at least for me.
So what is it then Giz? Gut instinct?
QuoteWhat does that mean? There is no clue as to how long a trend will be, if there were everybody would be playing trends.
This is how I define a trend.
A trend can be any kind of formation or event - witch one attempt to capture - it can end or continue in any manner as all other selections that exist.
I notice with experiments that if some one have the option to jump on two different waves of events - then the success to ride at least one of them will succeed in most cases or with a better hit ratio then just play one common formation.
Note I don't play roulette systems this is just my observations.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 26, 2011, 07:46:17 AM
When there is active chop, continue to play chop, as soon as it starts to streak or trend get off it and look for something else where chop is active.
But a chop is just another trend. There is no difference between BBBBBBBBB and RBRBRBRB. What you're saying is, when you see a trend, follow it. And when it stops, find another trend. Isn't that what everybody in bac and roulette has been doing for 100 years? The problem with this is, and always will be, how do you know when something is trending? You don't, till its almost over.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 26, 2011, 07:00:21 AM
It tells me that they play right into losing streaks and don't know why it doesn't work.
It tells me nobody knows when a streak will end or if its a streak at all.
Quote from: cheese on March 26, 2011, 09:09:31 AM
But a chop is just another trend. There is no difference between BBBBBBBBB and RBRBRBRB. What you're saying is, when you see a trend, follow it. And when it stops, find another trend. Isn't that what everybody in bac and roulette has been doing for 100 years? The problem with this is, and always will be, how do you know when something is trending? You don't, till its almost over.
Wrong. I consider both BBBBBB and BRBRBR trends. BBBBB is a streak and BRBRBR is also a streak of singles. Both are very easy to see and follow. They are both not chop. BBrrBBrrBBrr is a streak of doubles. BBBrBBBrBBBr is a domination of B or domination of B triples or r singles, all very easy to see and follow trends.
Chop is a little bit of everything with no clear trends or patterns, its virtually unreadable. Such as BrBBrBrBrrrBrBBB. By playing the Chop you are essentially betting against anything that you would see as readable or a forming trend. When you walk around a casino, the majority of the time you see nothing but chop on the roulette marquee, so doesn't it make sense to continue to play chop?
I analyse the random rows in excel programs.The graphs tell me a lot.A line diagram with a wave pattern shows on average the amplitude and the wave length.Blaise pascal has learned me the average events.All together I build up a knowledge about the features of the trends in random rows.No special mathematics knowledge is necessary and everybody can learn it.The skill depends on how much you practice.
The different trends in EC rows are more easy recognizable then from other chances.You can better break a trend than predict a trend.This is apart of my strategy
QuoteIt tells me that they play right into losing streaks and don't know why it doesn't work.
Quote from: cheese on March 26, 2011, 09:11:31 AM
It tells me nobody knows when a streak will end or if its a streak at all.
Nobody 'does' know when a streak will end. More importantly they don't have an educated guess on when one starts. It's because they don't practice getting good at guessing. They try this until they hit the eventual sequence that almost always fails on their first bet into it. Then they tell themselves and everyone else that it doesn't work.
All that does is perpetuate more stupidity. Of course there is a sequence that has all first bets that go up against perfectly formed trends ending as soon as you try them. What almost all people do is they give up. They wanted an ATM machine that works all the time. So what I find funny is that they gave up. If it acts like an ATM machine only part of the time you think that would be good enough. It's the mind set of the system player. They are still believing that one day they will find a Holy Grail that acts like an ATM machine. It's a huge mistake. Card counting only works when the advantage condition is present in the deck count. That was good enough for them. Bias wheel tracking was a real advantage when it was detected. This is no different. This method is protected by stupidity. That stupidity is a common trap for most people to fall into. So based on what you just wrote you fall into that same category. If you are Spike that won't sit well with you. He is a master of playing chop and a disaster at playing chaos. For an explanation of that try to get wised up by him. Sure, that will work...
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 26, 2011, 09:28:26 AM
BBBrBBBrBBBr is a domination of B or domination of B triples or r singles, all very easy to see and follow trends.
If it keeps going like that. But just like BBBBBBBB, you have no idea its a trend till its almost over. This is a very common way to play and has been discussed to death on the gambling forums.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 26, 2011, 12:59:39 PMSo based on what you just wrote you fall into that same category. If you are Spike that won't sit well with you. He is a master of playing chop and a disaster at playing chaos.
You seem to be an expert on all things Spike. Which is odd, considering he didn't tell you anything of any significance.
Quote from: cheese on March 26, 2011, 07:43:23 PM
If it keeps going like that. But just like BBBBBBBB, you have no idea its a trend till its almost over. This is a very common way to play and has been discussed to death on the gambling forums.
I don't think you are following. I'm not talking about following trends, just the opposite. I'm talking about as soon as you recognize something as beginning to resemble any type of trend to start betting against it for one bet. The anti-trend.
Quote from: cheese on March 26, 2011, 07:47:41 PM
You seem to be an expert on all things Spike. Which is odd, considering he didn't tell you anything of any significance.
And just how do you know what he shared with me? Are you the little neighbor girl from next door that used to spin his wheel for him, no double entendre intended?
@ ll l ll l lll ll,
"I don't think you are following. I'm not talking about following trends, just the opposite. I'm talking about as soon as you recognize something as beginning to resemble any type of trend to start betting against it for one bet. The anti-trend." Quote by ll l ll l lll ll.
I was going to suggest the term "anti-trend" in place of "chop", but you're one step ahead of me. "Chop" in roulette usually refers to BrBrBrBr, OeOeOeOe or hLhLhL. So "Chop" can be a trend in itself, but "anti-trend"
represents any results that the individual player doesn't recognize as a trend. Is that how you see it?
VKM
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 26, 2011, 08:38:23 PM
And just how do you know what he shared with me?
It sure wasn't anything about trending. Go and look at Spikes 16,000 posts on GG and see how many of them are about trends. Without a crystal ball, trending wouldn't be my choice of play.
Quote from: cheese on March 26, 2011, 09:18:54 PM
It sure wasn't anything about trending. Go and look at Spikes 16,000 posts on GG and see how many of them are about trends. Without a crystal ball, trending wouldn't be my choice of play.
All he ever said about trends was exactly what you say now about trends. You can go read all 16,000 of his posts. BTW, I already did. I don't have that bad of a memory. There is no way on planet earth for you to undo four years of posting history. You say the same thing he has been saying for years when it comes to trends. But you have not said jack shit about educated guessing. That's a Spike-ism. And that has been discussed ad nauseam too.
You don't get it Cheese. You don't know how to use trends to your advantage. That can't possibly make you qualified to condemn it. I'm trying to tell you that you are just like most people. You can't get past being stuck. I'll bet you can describe what happened when you gave up on it and why. Everyone seems to have that moment emblazoned on their memories.
Quote from: VKM on March 26, 2011, 09:09:39 PM
@ ll l ll l lll ll,
"I don't think you are following. I'm not talking about following trends, just the opposite. I'm talking about as soon as you recognize something as beginning to resemble any type of trend to start betting against it for one bet. The anti-trend." Quote by ll l ll l lll ll.
I was going to suggest the term "anti-trend" in place of "chop", but you're one step ahead of me. "Chop" in roulette usually refers to BrBrBrBr, OeOeOeOe or hLhLhL. So "Chop" can be a trend in itself, but "anti-trend"
represents any results that the individual player doesn't recognize as a trend. Is that how you see it?
VKM
Yes, play the anti-trend.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 26, 2011, 09:48:04 PM
You don't know how to use trends to your advantage. That can't possibly make you qualified to condemn it.
Spike and I are very close, we sometimes use each others underwear. I've never learned how to identify a trend or streak till its almost over. I'm waiting for somebody to show me how. So far it hasn't happened. I'm not 'stuck', I've just moved beyond trends.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 26, 2011, 09:48:04 PM
You can go read all 16,000 of his posts. BTW, I already did. .
I read them all shortly after they were written. I envy you, though, I don't know if I could read them all again.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 12:28:04 AM
I've never learned how to identify a trend or streak till its almost over. I'm waiting for somebody to show me how. So far it hasn't happened. I'm not 'stuck', I've just moved beyond trends.
The point is to discover what is currently happening. You don't need to follow trends to do that. You can make the positive conditions come to you. Just use a template that lets favorable conditions come to you. Use BrBrBrBrBrBr as a template. Just wait until that starts a win streak. If you have a few other templates, like the reverse of that, then you will see more favorable conditions come to you. You will also have to figure out when to bet. Some times after 2, 3, or 4 times where it fits the template you are considering you will need to place a bet. You go for one win only. You always lose when you get greedy. Now do you think you can forget about following trends? It takes playing practice to develop an intuition as to when to bet effectively, when to use 2, 3, or 4 spins where a template fits.
Please don't tell me that you are waiting for someone to come along and show you that. It's a complete method. There is nothing more to show you with it. Only experience can give you experience. You must show yourself.
BTW, this is not trend following. It's sequence matching.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 03:05:32 AM
Use BrBrBrBrBrBr as a template. Just wait until that starts a win streak.
Its a haphazard way of playing. I don't have all night for the wheel to sync up with my templates, if indeed it ever does. I need a bet for 98% of the situations I see.
With excelprograms it is easy to make the trends visible.For example .After 37 spins you see one zero ,12 reds and
24 blacks.The last 7 numbers are black.Now you have two trends.A trend in black and a trend in 7 black in a row.The law of balance say red will fall more in the following spins.A 13 in a row will fall once in 2^13=8192 spins on average.Start betting 1-2-4-8-16-32 on red and I predict with a very small risk a hit. Is the hit after bet 32 your profit is 1,59%.
Another example: On the display you see R-B-R-B-R-B-R-B-R-B. This row falls on average once in 512 spins.This is a trend and I expect the trend will be broken in the next 10 spins.This principle I use in my SSB program.
In the sequences of the ECs the trends are faster visible.This is the reason ECs are more suitable for systems and strategies.The smaller house edge for the ECs is also an important advantage
Quote from: schoenpoetser on March 27, 2011, 06:53:07 AM
The law of balance say red will fall more in the following spins.
Unfortunately, no such law exists in the short term. In the extreme long term, the two sides will try feverishly to balance themselves, while actually drawing further apart the whole time.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 07:56:18 AM
Unfortunately, no such law exists in the short term. In the extreme long term, the two sides will try feverishly to balance themselves, while actually drawing further apart the whole time.
It's quite obvious you are playing the chop, playing for a change &/or playing the anti-trend. The majority of the time you see chaos on the roulette marquee, so it makes sense to live there and exploit it.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 03:05:32 AM
The point is to discover what is currently happening. You don't need to follow trends to do that. You can make the positive conditions come to you. Just use a template that lets favorable conditions come to you. Use BrBrBrBrBrBr as a template. Just wait until that starts a win streak. If you have a few other templates, like the reverse of that, then you will see more favorable conditions come to you. You will also have to figure out when to bet. Some times after 2, 3, or 4 times where it fits the template you are considering you will need to place a bet. You go for one win only. You always lose when you get greedy. Now do you think you can forget about following trends? It takes playing practice to develop an intuition as to when to bet effectively, when to use 2, 3, or 4 spins where a template fits.
Please don't tell me that you are waiting for someone to come along and show you that. It's a complete method. There is nothing more to show you with it. Only experience can give you experience. You must show yourself.
BTW, this is not trend following. It's sequence matching.
In my opinion, Gizmo, your post was Perfectly Stated.
VKM
I am the only one on the forum who offer his free study programs I am specialised in study small samples up to 250 spins.Diagrams tell a lot more than all the words and not studied jargon.Is seems nobody has read about the studies of BLaise Pascal.There are a very few people who can compute the Expected Value of the complicated systems.My conclusion is the knowledge of the roulette play is very poor.
I do not believe in AP,DS,VB and tilted or biased wheels.I respect all rouletteplayers what methods they use.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 04:19:15 AM
Its a haphazard way of playing. I don't have all night for the wheel to sync up with my templates, if indeed it ever does. I need a bet for 98% of the situations I see.
I tried to tell you that you fit most system player's mentality. You want Roulette to act like your very own personal ATM machine. No matter what system you use you will need to be able to deal with losing streaks. Most people lack the self control to do that. You will be no different. There is no way for you to avoid this. Without much work and practice you will not find a workable solution. Beating Roulette is an acquired skill. Even Spike admits that. He openly admits that there are time of chaos when he can't find consistent winners. You should try on those underwear, skid marks and all.
Quote from: schoenpoetser on March 27, 2011, 11:14:48 AM
I am the only one on the forum who offer his free study programs I am specialised in study small samples up to 250 spins.Diagrams tell a lot more than all the words and not studied jargon.
How about a screen shot of one of your free programs? It might be nice to see one of those.
Here is an example of extracted data from my free training software:
| L M H | 1 2 3 | | B "R"| L H | O E | -- ## -- Line
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 10 -- 1
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 13 -- 2
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 35 -- 3
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 30 -- 4
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 4 -- 5
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 26 -- 6
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 8 -- 7
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 21 -- 8
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 28 -- 9
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 29 -- 10
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 31 -- 11
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 32 -- 12
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 27 -- 13
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 20 -- 14
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 31 -- 15
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 1 -- 16
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 18 -- 17
| X | X | | X | X | X | -- 35 -- 18
As you can see, this is more than just a simple screen shot. It's real data. My free software has line number groupings in specific extractions and individual columns (single section) extraction that gets cut to your computer's clipboard. This was done so that discussion could take place looking at the same data. My free software also includes automatic loading. You can share an exact same sequence of spins and it loads in less than a second. Every spin has a line number so that referencing spins is easy to communicate. It represents a lot of work to be given away for free.
Quote from: schoenpoetser on March 27, 2011, 11:14:48 AM
There are a very few people who can compute the Expected Value of the complicated systems.My conclusion is the knowledge of the roulette play is very poor.
Is it necessary to be able to compute the expected value of a complicated system? apart from an academic exercise, I don't see the point. The simple negative expectation proof is enough because it applies to all systems. The only knowledge of probability you need is that the game DOES have a negative expectation.
I think that it's very important to be able to compute the expected value of a complicated system and at the same time be ever aware that roulette is a negative expectation game. How else will the winning player know how much money to return to the casinos?
VKM
Quote from: Mike on March 27, 2011, 01:37:12 PM
Is it necessary to be able to compute the expected value of a complicated system? apart from an academic exercise, I don't see the point. The simple negative expectation proof is enough because it applies to all systems. The only knowledge of probability you need is that the game DOES have a negative expectation.
Negative expectation is a fallacy. It's based on expectation. That expectation does not exist in a perpetual state. The zeros sleep for hours at a time. That is a well documented fact. While that happens the outside bets are a true 35/1 payoff. The EC's are true 50/50 odds. But you must check the bone density of your skull to see if any zeros have hit in any recent spins. Oh, that's right, past spins have no effect on future events. Don't be a bone head.
Quote from: VKM on March 27, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
How else will the winning player know how much money to return to the casinos?
VKM
That's right. I'm expected to give back my winnings.
Gizmo, you're reading too much into the word "expectation". The mathematical expectation is just the average ( a weighted average). So on average, you lose; that's what negative expectation means and it's determined entirely by the unfair payout. The unfair payout exists no matter how complex and convoluted the system. Am I right or am I right? :)
Quote from: Mike on March 27, 2011, 02:00:39 PM
Gizmo, you're reading too much into the word "expectation". The mathematical expectation is just the average ( a weighted average). So on average, you lose; that's what negative expectation means and it's determined entirely by the unfair payout. The unfair payout exists no matter how complex and convoluted the system. Am I right or am I right? :)
You are wrong. I'm right. Frequentist inference is no better than Bayesian inference around here. You are just being stubborn. I don't care if you can't win. I can, whenever I want to. Soon you will see that. I'll of course get tired of showing you. I can do all kinds of demos. I can bet every bet just so you will see that I can't win if I bet every bet. But when I go into a casino I hunt for when the casino is in a defenseless state. When I get that I always win. So I'll have to demo reaching my goal and quitting. I know you are so stubborn that none of this will matter. You are invested in your beliefs. Until someone with the Nobel prize comes along and bongs you on the head with it you will be a skeptic. There is no open mindedness in you.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 02:59:12 PM
You are invested in your beliefs. Until someone with the Nobel prize comes along and bongs you on the head with it you will be a skeptic. There is no open mindedness in you.
I AM open minded, but my mind isn't so open that my brain falls out. If you're a bayesian you should know that evidence is required to update beliefs, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Minds are like parachutes in order to function they should be open. :ok:
Repeated by:
N.D.
Quote from: Mike on March 27, 2011, 03:59:30 PM
I AM open minded, but my mind isn't so open that my brain falls out. If you're a bayesian you should know that evidence is required to update beliefs, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
I'm working on it Beanie Boy. You know that a working computer algorithm is as good of proof as any mathematical explanation is. At least where new ideas are credited or validated that is. It's like proving that Einstein was right with a solar eclipse. I can prove my opinions with a working computer algorithm.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 04:29:05 PM
I'm working on it Beanie Boy. You know that a working computer algorithm is as good of proof as any mathematical explanation is. At least where new ideas are credited or validated that is. It's like proving that Einstein was right with a solar eclipse. I can prove my opinions with a working computer algorithm.
Agreed. I'll believe it when I see it. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 12:37:27 PM
No matter what system you use you will need to be able to deal with losing streaks.
I don't use a system, I use a method. Systems don't work. Educated guessing is god, I but worship at the alter.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 12:49:42 PM
Here is an example of extracted data from my free training software:
One guy offers free training, another offers free software. With all the freebies around here, seems like somebody should be able to beat roulette. I don't give nuttin away for free, except instructions to the casino every time I play. But they never pay attention.
Quote from: Mike on March 27, 2011, 01:37:12 PM
The simple negative expectation proof is enough because it applies to all systems. The only knowledge of probability you need is that the game DOES have a negative expectation.
To all systems, not to all methods. It has a general negative expectation at its base, which very few ever get beyond. Look at the house edge as the starting point, not the ending.
Cheese, just wait for the disaster. You will be able to chronicle the moment. You at least deserve that for wearing Spike's underwear
Quote from: VKM on March 27, 2011, 01:52:55 PM
I think that it's very important to be able to compute the expected value of a complicated system (or method)
You're right. Thats where practice come in. You must know what your method of play is capable of, and to do that, you must see it in action under every possible scenerio. This can take years of hand testing. But at the end, you'll know exactly what the EV is and where you stand when you walk into any casino on the planet.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 01:54:13 PM
The zeros sleep for hours at a time.
So what? If you have a true winning method with a positive EV, the zero's are meaningless.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 08:13:07 PM
You're right. Thats where practice come in. You must know what your method of play is capable of, and to do that, you must see it in action under every possible scenerio. This can take years of hand testing. But at the end, you'll know exactly what the EV is and where you stand when you walk into any casino on the planet.
If you can talk me out of this then now is the time.
Quote from: Mike on March 27, 2011, 02:00:39 PM
The unfair payout exists no matter how complex and convoluted the system
Thats why you practice till you leave it in the dust. You practice till you have the edge over the casino, not the other way around. The EC's are the only thing that accomplishes this, everything else is a waste of time.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 02:59:12 PM
But when I go into a casino I hunt for when the casino is in a defenseless state.
You need to expand your playing scenario's, the roulette wheel is always defenseless if you've done your job correctly. If you go to the casino and have to wait, you haven't practiced enough.
Quote from: Mike on March 27, 2011, 03:59:30 PM
and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
But the claims don't seem extraordinary if I'm doing it everyday. In fact, they seem somewhat mundane.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 04:29:05 PM
I can prove my opinions with a working computer algorithm.
Why take the short route when you can take the lonnnnnng way around something.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 08:11:54 PM
Cheese, just wait for the disaster.
Thats a bit like waiting for a glacier to get to Miami Beach, apparently. I don't think anybody is holding their breath.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 08:25:37 PM
But the claims don't seem extraordinary if I'm doing it everyday. In fact, they seem somewhat mundane.
Spike, I mean Cheese...
It's obvious you play the chop, what is the most amount of spins you sit out if not playing every single spin?
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 08:16:59 PM
If you can talk me out of this then now is the time.
Talk you out of what? I don't think for one minute you have any idea what the EV of your system is, because you have no idea whats going to happen session to session. If you can't accurately calculate EV, you don't have a winning system. When I played BJ, we always knew what our EV was counting cards. Thats because we had the edge over the casino. If you don't have the edge, there's no positive EV to calculate.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 27, 2011, 08:33:38 PM
It's obvious you play the chop, what is the most amount of spins you sit out if not playing every single spin?
I don't even know what chop is, there are so many definitions. I play 98% or more of the spins. My goal is always to get in, get it done, and get out. Leave the smallest footprint possible. Sitting there for hours staring at the marquee is for chumps and people who haven't practiced enough.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 08:38:30 PM
I don't even know what chop is, there are so many definitions. I play 98% or more of the spins. My goal is always to get in, get it done, and get out. Leave the smallest footprint possible. Sitting there for hours staring at the marquee is for chumps and people who haven't practiced enough.
Rather than focusing on the 3 different streams of the even chances with pen and paper on one wheel, why not just focus on R/B on multiple wheels? Since R/B is so much easier to see on the marquee, why not walk around and observe R/B from multiple wheels in the same vicinity? Then simply reach in and place your bet.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 27, 2011, 08:45:03 PM
Since R/B is so much easier to see on the marquee, why not walk around and observe R/B from multiple wheels in the same vicinity? Then simply reach in and place your bet.
Been there done that. On paper its a great idea, in the casino it sucks. Say you find a cluster of 4 wheels. You watch the marquees and place a bet. Invariably, while you're waiting for the spin, you see another bet on another wheel. Most casinos won't let you bet more than one wheel at a time and they get real snotty when you do. So the bet you just made loses and the one you missed wins. You make another bet and while you're waiting for the slow dealer to make the payouts, another bet appears and wins on another wheel. Its a cluster FuXk and not worth it. Try it and see.
You are a real player, yet another coincidence trait of Spike.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 27, 2011, 10:39:22 PM
You are a real player, yet another coincidence trait of Spike.
I don't believe in coincidences.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 10:54:15 PM
I don't believe in coincidences.
I'm tired of all this debating effort over the years. It's time for a mind boggling effort. I'll see all of you in the funny papers.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 09:11:16 PM
Been there done that. On paper its a great idea, in the casino it sucks. Say you find a cluster of 4 wheels. You watch the marquees and place a bet. Invariably, while you're waiting for the spin, you see another bet on another wheel. Most casinos won't let you bet more than one wheel at a time and they get real snotty when you do. So the bet you just made loses and the one you missed wins. You make another bet and while you're waiting for the slow dealer to make the payouts, another bet appears and wins on another wheel. Its a cluster FuXk and not worth it. Try it and see.
Sorry, but this method works great for me.
I don't have my bets on the tables at the same time, but there is a few others that do.
Ron.
Quote from: hoper35 on March 27, 2011, 11:12:22 PM
Sorry, but this method works great for me.
Every time I tried it I always got my bets pulled for betting two tables at once. They can really get nasty about it.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 11:21:26 PM
Every time I tried it I always got my bets pulled for betting two tables at once. They can really get nasty about it.
I play two tables with one my favourite methods and the casino has never bothered me about it. In fact they let me put my rewards card in one table and leave it in there earning points while I walk and play between the two.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 11:21:26 PM
Every time I tried it I always got my bets pulled for betting two tables at once. They can really get nasty about it.
If your method is a consistent winner on the E/C's, you should be able to consistently win based just on red/black. Observe an opportunity and place your bet. Don't worry about what's going on at the other 4 tables next to you. If you lose, then move to find the next opportunity. This style of hitting and moving seems far more efficient than sitting at one table with a piece of paper recording results.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 27, 2011, 11:29:47 PM
This style of hitting and moving seems far more efficient than sitting at one table
Its not. If you have a winning method, sitting at one table is exactly the same as moving around. I used to think it wasn't, I used to track 3-4 tables at once. I've since learned a better way.
There are a couple of tricky parts playing multiple tables:
- keeping track of both dozens & columns
- table access
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 08:38:30 PM
I don't even know what chop is, there are so many definitions. I play 98% or more of the spins.
Chop meaning you bet the change from black to red, seldom betting with the streak or tend such as from black to black.
Quote from: hoper35 on March 27, 2011, 11:53:39 PM
There are a couple of tricky parts playing multiple tables:
- keeping track of both dozens & columns
- table access
Its a nerve wracking way to play in a real casino. Nothing ever goes right, you can make mistakes very easily.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 28, 2011, 01:08:08 AM
Chop meaning you bet the change from black to red, seldom betting with the streak or tend such as from black to black.
Thats the classic version of chop. But to others it seems to mean when nothing at all is going on, it all looks like chaos. We should have a glossary of terms so we are all on the same page.
I'v been reading this topic from the beginning
this is a statement by Gizmotron
That is so close to the truth that you should know that it's not the fallacy I'm counting on. If it's something else I wonder if you can figure it out on your own? Conditions are favorable because of something else. Something else gives the indication. I wonder if you can figure it out.
it is so hard to stop yourself sometimes
feel free to put me straight Gizmotron
In my house casinoI observe the displays of all the tables.Sometimes I have bets on three tables.All dealers know me and I have never problems.I visit my casino 35 years.All french roulettetables are replaced by pseudo American tables.
The problem is you can withdraw your winning insidebets after the payout
A
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 01:12:49 AM
Thats the classic version of chop. But to others it seems to mean when nothing at all is going on, it all looks like chaos. We should have a glossary of terms so we are all on the same page.
What are the terms according to you? To me, Chop is betting for the change from red to black never betting the same such as black to black. Chaos is when there are no clear trends, patterns or streaks....its unreadable.
Your main focus is when to play the chop.
Do you agree?
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 28, 2011, 09:47:31 AM
Your main focus is when to play the chop.
Do you agree?
Not at all. Unlike Gizmo, I believe there in no 'favorable' time to play. If you think its favorable, it means you think you know whats coming in the next sequence of spins. And you can't possibly know.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 09:30:35 PM
Not at all. Unlike Gizmo, I believe there in no 'favorable' time to play. If you think its favorable, it means you think you know whats coming in the next sequence of spins. And you can't possibly know.
Point is, whenever you do play, it is the chop you play and not the streak.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 28, 2011, 10:42:04 PM
Point is, whenever you do play, it is the chop you play and not the streak.
I don't play either in that I don't look for either one. I guess its hard to ignore 12 reds in a row, but how often does that happen.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 09:30:35 PM
Not at all. Unlike Gizmo, I believe there in no 'favorable' time to play. If you think its favorable, it means you think you know whats coming in the next sequence of spins. And you can't possibly know.
There it is again. You think I 'm assuming some kind of prediction here. I'm not. I never think I know what's coming next. But I do know that there is no evidence that a change has occurred yet. The last spin still confirms that the trend is still consistent. Can you see the difference? I can. Perhaps I can't communicate it? My evidence that the trend has not changed is 100% accurate. There is no chance for error.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 28, 2011, 11:30:10 PM
There it is again. You think I 'm assuming some kind of prediction here. I'm not. I never think I know what's coming next. My evidence that the trend has not changed is 100% accurate. There is no chance for error.
Yesterday, in the other thread, you're excuse for losing was the bet should have won, it was a rare circumstance. Thats prediction, thats thinking you know the next outcome and being blown away when you're wrong. You should listen more to Yogi Bera, who said: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
@ Gizmo,
Spike believes that there is no 'favorable' time to play and if he thinks it's favorable, it means he thinks he knows what's coming in the next sequence of spins. And he can't possibly know.
He also believes that if he continues to play like he currently plays then he will continue to win.
I know that not every one is going to recognize the depth of the inconsistency there, but I'm pretty that sure you will.
Gizmo, you said... "There it is again. You think I 'm assuming some kind of prediction here. I'm not. I never think I know what's coming next. But I do know that there is no evidence that a change has occurred yet. The last spin still confirms that the trend is still consistent. Can you see the difference? I can. Perhaps I can't communicate it? My evidence that the trend has not changed is 100% accurate. There is no chance for error."
I understand what you're saying and I agree with it. Your ability to communicate it is fine. I know that sometimes it seems like you're beating your head against a wall, (but it's actually the outside of the box... if you know what I mean.) Hang in there.
VKM
Spike believes that there is no 'favorable' time to play and if he thinks it's favorable>>
But its never favorable, the whole notion is silliness.
Gizmo, you said... "There it is again. You think I 'm assuming some kind of prediction here. I'm not. I never think I know what's coming next.
Sure you do, you just said so yesterday, when you flunked your own test.
VKM said: I know that sometimes it seems like you're beating your head against a wall, (but it's actually the outside of the box... if you know what I mean.) Hang in there.>>>
Yes, he'll hang in there, he has no choice. He'll keep trying till he finally beats the game. Or doesn't.
Quote from: bombus on March 27, 2011, 11:29:07 PM
I play two tables with one my favourite methods and the casino has never bothered me about it. In fact they let me put my rewards card in one table and leave it in there earning points while I walk and play between the two.
;D Bombus, he most probably played color (one table) on both tables! Should play cash chips. Then there is no problem except of course if someone else is playing cash chips too. Then they might frown about it and not allow your bet. If so and the other guy is playing cash 5's then just play cash 10's.
Quote from: Zindrod on March 29, 2011, 04:14:05 AM
;D Bombus, he most probably played color (one table) on both tables!
Have you ever tried to take roulette chips away from the table you're on and bet them on another table? Try it sometime and let us know what they did to you.
That is exactly my point Cheese.
If you play color usually each table's number is on that color. So you are not allowed to play table 1's $5 color chips on Table 2 for instant. That is why I say you should play cash chips which is allowed on all tables except if there already is a player playing with the same cash chips on the same table you want to place on.
Quote from: Zindrod on March 29, 2011, 04:34:42 AM
That is why I say you should play cash chips which is allowed on all tables
I don't mean to be rude, but who exactly do you think doesn't already know this? If you've played any casino games at all, you know the difference between casino chips and roulette chips. At least I think you would...
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 05:03:46 AM
I don't mean to be rude, but who exactly do you think doesn't already know this? If you've played any casino games at all, you know the difference between casino chips and roulette chips. At least I think you would...
lol, exactly, I also thought everyone knew! Funny thing is I have seen people bet with color on 2-3 tables! And the dealers miss it until payout has to be made and there are two pink chip players! ;D
My point is though that no casino will stop you from playing as many tables as you wish as long as it's cash chips and usually as long as other players are not playing cash chips already. They do allow more than one guy with cash chips sometimes but they sure a shell do not like it. >:D
Quote from: Zindrod on March 29, 2011, 04:14:05 AM
;D Bombus, he most probably played color (one table) on both tables! Should play cash chips. Then there is no problem except of course if someone else is playing cash chips too. Then they might frown about it and not allow your bet. If so and the other guy is playing cash 5's then just play cash 10's.
Colour chips - yes that would do it.
I only ever play cash chips.
Quote from: Zindrod on March 29, 2011, 07:09:29 AM
My point is though that no casino will stop you from playing as many tables as you wish
They just don't let you play them at the same TIME, thats the point. They won't let you make a bet on one table and run over and make a bet on another table. Most casinos will pull your bet if you leave the table at all, if you have a bet placed. I know, it happened to me all over Vegas and in most local casinos.
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 07:19:52 AM
They just don't let you play them at the same TIME, thats the point. They won't let you make a bet on one table and run over and make a bet on another table. Most casinos will pull your bet if you leave the table at all, if you have a bet placed. I know, it happened to me all over Vegas and in most local casinos.
Haven't happened to me. I suppose it depends where you play.
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 01:15:12 AM
Yesterday, in the other thread, you're excuse for losing was the bet should have won, it was a rare circumstance. Thats prediction, thats thinking you know the next outcome and being blown away when you're wrong. You should listen more to Yogi Bear, who said: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
Yeah right. You are almost as smart as a fence post. I had a 98.5 percent chance of getting that win. That's rare enough for me when it lost. Perhaps there are stats for ("pic-a-nic baskets"). I'll bet they are always 72%. Way to go Boo Boo Bear. ;D
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 05:03:46 AM
I don't mean to be rude, but who exactly do you think doesn't already know this? If you've played any casino games at all, you know the difference between casino chips and roulette chips. At least I think you would...
Yeah, that's a great idea. You can't guarantee that the casino will allow more than one player inside with the same $1, $5, $25 etc... chips at the same time. The first one inside with $5 chips has the only permission to place those bets. The others are asked to bet outside only. But then that means buying in a color each time you do this walk up trick. Yeah, you are an expert all right.
hello everybody
In 1 million spins highest ever recorded # of spins of any event in even money bets:24.
If u observed this would u bet against it 4 the next spin? How about putting some nice
progression on the next 4 spins?
Just the food 4 thought.
Hello half of you,
I'm for four when 4 is being used. Especially when I'm playing golf and I have to yell "for" which is short for forward.
That is all.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 12:41:20 PM
I had a 98.5 percent chance of getting that win.
So you calculate there are times when a 66% bet is really a 98% bet? Are you sure thats the story you want to stick with? That would mean the wheel is no longer following the laws of random outcomes, its now following your laws. Please explain how thats possible.
Ths 1 mil spns mst v tkn it all out of u . I wud hve the brn clls chckd in cse sme wnt astry whle wtchng th spns. :diablo:
N.D.
Hppy Wnngs
is this necessary
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 07:49:04 PM
So you calculate there are times when a 66% bet is really a 98% bet? Are you sure thats the story you want to stick with? That would mean the wheel is no longer following the laws of random outcomes, its now following your laws. Please explain how thats possible.
Well there's this obvious thing to deal with first. You don't know jack shit about odds. It was a three step progression. The odds alone for it to fail were only 5%. So that's 1 in 20 that it would fail. But that's not all. There are odds for it to occur in the first three spins it's tried of 100. That's a 1 in 33 chance for that. When you multiply the two separate sets of odds with each other you get the real odds for that to fail. That's for the one time that I tried it. This was an already agreed test to go 100 spins so don't weasel out like a coward. That's absolute proof that you are a bone headed farm tool. Why don't you clean the cow t**ds out of your teeth?
ied it. This was an already agreed test to go 100 spins so don't weasel out like a coward. That's absolute proof that you are a bone headed farm tool. Why don't you clean the cow t**ds out of your teeth?
why dont the mods do anything about this troll behaviour
Quote from: zippyplayer on March 29, 2011, 08:19:49 PM
ied it. This was an already agreed test to go 100 spins so don't weasel out like a coward. That's absolute proof that you are a bone headed farm tool. Why don't you clean the cow t**ds out of your teeth?
why dont the mods do anything about this troll behaviour
You are more the troll than anyone here. This has been going on for more than a year. The context is that I decided to share my secrets and Spike went nuts. He's been attempting to do damage control ever since that time. Now here you are acting like a den mother for cub scouts. We don't need your mothering. Here is some more information for you. It became OK to say "SHIT!" on this form a little more than a month ago.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 08:14:51 PM
It was a three step progression. The odds alone for it to fail were only 5%. So that's 1 in 20 that it would fail. But that's not all. There are odds for it to occur in the first three spins it's tried of 100. That's a 1 in 33 chance for that.
So thats your method? Thats what you've done, calculated odds and applied progressions and thats how you expect to win? All your talk of educated guessing and reading random, what was that all about? You don't think that maybe, oh, a MILLION other players have tried exactly what you just explained and it never worked for them? Why is that, do you think.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 08:25:12 PM
The context is that I decided to share my secrets and Spike went nuts.
What Spike didn't like was you constantly link him and you together, like you share the same thoughts and ideas, and you don't at all. You have no idea what Spike does, yet you act like you do. He could care less what twaddle you try and foist off on others, just leave his name out of it.
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 08:40:42 PM
What Spike didn't like was you constantly link him and you together, like you share the same thoughts and ideas, and you don't at all. You have no idea what Spike does, yet you act like you do. He could care less what twaddle you try and foist off on others, just leave his name out of it.
Hey pooper scooper behind a tractor? Are you like the secret spokesperson for all things Spike? You must be. But you sure are dumb when you try it. I'm connected to Spike by Educated Guessing, Reading Randomness (my idea), and other concepts discussed like situational awareness and seeing what the game is currently playing. I don't need to know what Spike does to have all those Skills. Now try if you can to delete four years of open discussion on the internet where 100's of people saw what really happened. The Spike's reaction is like another face added to MT Rushmore.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 08:50:33 PM
I'm connected to Spike by Educated Guessing, Reading Randomness (my idea), and other concepts discussed like situational awareness and seeing what the game is currently playing.
Then why not stand on your own? Quit trying to drag Spike down to your level, its really annoying.
Your a very uneducated troll gizmotron
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 09:31:42 PM
Then why not stand on your own? Quit trying to drag Spike down to your level, its really annoying.
I'm sure it's annoying. That you are his sycophant, it must be a real burden to carry. :dance1:
Back to ignoring you.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 09:39:02 PM
I'm sure it's annoying.
If you're going to shut down roulette as you claim, why not do it on your own? You've stolen enough of Spike's ideas and concepts, time to stand alone and be you're own authority, I would think.
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 08:36:47 PM
So thats your method? Thats what you've done, calculated odds and applied progressions and thats how you expect to win? All your talk of educated guessing and reading random, what was that all about? You don't think that maybe, oh, a MILLION other players have tried exactly what you just explained and it never worked for them? Why is that, do you think.
Calculating odds and using progressions doesn't work, as you found out in your demo thread. Are you going to persist in this folly or will you go back and see if you can understand educated guessing and reading random? Thats what I'd advise.
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 10:04:43 PM
Calculating odds and using progressions doesn't work, as you found out in your demo thread. Are you going to persist in this folly or will you go back and see if you can understand educated guessing and reading random? Thats what I'd advise.
Cheese pest, the internet pest, the Spike Spokesman, all things Spike. The guy that only hates Gizmotron on a daily basis. Why don't you get a life?
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 10:28:12 PM
The guy that only hates Gizmotron on a daily basis. Why don't you get a life?
I don't hate anybody. You mention Spike so often, like you're the expert on him. I'm just here to defend his position, somebody has to. I asked Steve long ago to cancel the Spike account and I opened one under the name of Cheese. I post as Cheese here and Spike on GG. We're almost the same person. I don't have multiple accounts, Cheese is it here. I'm breaking no forum rules.
Quote from: cheese on March 29, 2011, 11:01:29 PM
I don't hate anybody. You mention Spike so often, like you're the expert on him. I'm just here to defend his position, somebody has to. I asked Steve long ago to cancel the Spike account and I opened one under the name of Cheese. I post as Cheese here and Spike on GG. We're almost the same person. I don't have multiple accounts, Cheese is it here. I'm breaking no forum rules.
You are still desperate. Nothing has changed.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 29, 2011, 11:22:25 PM
You are still desperate. Nothing has changed.
I'm just waiting for you to stand on your own and stop using Spike as a crutch for everything.
Have u guys tested "possible holy grail" - yeah I know the title method by turbogenius? Its about playing sleeping numbers after watching 3 cycles of spins. Somebody posted link on one of the forums.
hxxp: turbogenius. webs. com/possibleholygrail. htm
After 20k spins (140 sessions) 1200units ahead betting 1unit.
Looks very constant with upward trend. Just changed stop loss 2 150 units.
Quote from: cheese on March 30, 2011, 01:43:09 AM
I'm just waiting for you to stand on your own and stop using Spike as a crutch for everything.
I decided to teach my own students in private. That was standing on my own. Both you and Spike thinks it's your duty to act like Barney Fife and dog me where ever I go on the internet. When are you going to stand on your own?
For the record, and you can try to figure this out using the internet if you want to. I was already aware of features of randomness that were readable. In fact I built computer programs that both targeted and selected the best three hot numbers is 300 spin cycles. It also graphed these selections. It also re-selected after about 100 spins.
I published on the internet back in 1997. I used a topic header that included beating Roulette with Brute Force. One of you guys found something about that in the very old archives of GG. That was long before you were there. That is where I became aware of the characteristics of randomness. The only reason I started posting was to see what the big world thought of Roulette methods. I already had my opinions firmly concluded. Spike was the only one talking about guessing as a skill. That does not make me his apprentice. I'm the one that builds computer simulations. I'm the one that has gained the experience from all that. I've built many systems that include computer performed guessing. That include avoidance rules. None of this has been done by Spike.
Now that Spike rides a white horse and wears a white hat he thinks it's his duty to attempt to wreck my internet experience. Everyone suspects that Spike is a narcissist. So I ignore him too.
gizmotron - Posted: 08-Nov-07 20:10 "I get it now."
Spike said it best this time:
Quote"I used to play a lot of golf, don't have time anymore. I have been wracking my tiny brain to figure out a good analogy for the method I use in roulette.
In golf, you usually play on the same course all the time. 18 holes and you get to know every hole pretty well. For every stroke, you must make a decision based on your experience with the hole. How far is it, is the wind blowing, where is the ball laying, and you choose what you think is the best club to use. After a lot of experience on the course, although you rarely have the same score twice in a row, its usually within a few strokes of your average. Thats because you play here all the time and make a lot of the correct decisions and not very many bad ones.
Thats how I play roulette. I practice and practice and become intimately familiar with the patterns and what came before and whats likely to come next. Its just like playing the same golf course all the time. I make my betting choice on my familiarity with what I've seen and done before. And like golf, I have an average and if I stay in practice, the average is consistent.
When I choose a club from my bag, I'm comparing this shot to all the other shots I've made that were similar. When I place a bet, I'm comparing what I see on the marquee to all the other 1000's of similar marquee outcomes I've seen. It doesn't matter that the last spin has no influence on the next spin. There is consistency here and it is predictable, up to a point. You are really playing against yourself, just like in golf. And thats exactly how it feels, too. I never think the casino or the golf course is my enemy. They are just obstacles I can overcome if I keep practicing and paying attention to every shot and every bet.
This probably just confuses you all even more, but its the best I can do."
gizmotron - Posted: 08-Nov-07 20:10 -
QuoteI actually get this explanation. Spike is referring to the pattern of play not so much the patterns that I search for. He could have said that he has practiced so much that he understands the nature of Roulette and knows how to exploit that by experience.
That is exactly what I'm going to do with regards to the treading water. I have my answer and I understand Spike much better now.
My search for a method to break even does not mean that I learned everything I know from him. But that has not stopped him from thinking he's the big deal that he thinks he is. Histrionics is only good if you can hide the evidence or count on others to believe you. The Archives prove Spike is ego centric. The good news is that it's been four years and he is still stuck on himself. I can do this all day. Just read where I first started posting back in 2007 at GG. Spike and I disagreed back then.
Gizmotron
I decided to teach my own students in private.
how come none of them have come online to say how wonderful you are then
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 30, 2011, 01:50:33 PM
My search for a method to break even does not mean that I learned everything I know from him.
Whew, thats a relief. What a burden that would be for me. When are you going to share something you came up with on your own? And I don't mean something you stole from Spike and claimed as your own.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 09:30:35 PM
I believe there in no 'favorable' time to play. If you think its favorable, it means you think you know whats coming in the next sequence of spins. And you can't possibly know.
Then how do you know when to play and when not to? You already said, "knowing when not to bet is just as important as knowing when to bet." If there are no favorable times to play then this is a contradiction.
I dont think it is a contradiction. I would like to repeat what the great rouletteplayer Christian Kisan once said:
sometimes it is better to forego a win than to realize a loss****CH. Kaisan.
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
Quote from: cheese on March 30, 2011, 07:58:42 PM
Whew, thats a relief. What a burden that would be for me. When are you going to share something you came up with on your own? And I don't mean something you stole from Spike and claimed as your own.
You were nowhere to be seen when I taught my students. You weren't there when I worked out hot number betting methods. You were not there when I realized that randomness applies to hot numbers and EC's the very same way. I know this because I never ever discussed this with you. I didn't think you were smart enough to relate to it. So it never got much attention in the past four years. You clearly know nothing about Elegant Patterns. You only have one thing. Educated Guessing. And you never ever told me what that meant to you with regards to how you use it. Now you want credit for your BS. I'd love to see what you think I have claimed as my own that I got from you. In fact there are ten people that would love to read your shit.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 30, 2011, 09:35:09 PM
You weren't there when I worked out hot number betting methods. You were not there when I realized that randomness applies to hot numbers and EC's the very same way. I know this because I never ever discussed this with you.
And I still have no idea what you're talking about, you could be making it all up.
Quote from: cheese on March 30, 2011, 10:07:02 PM
And I still have no idea what you're talking about, you could be making it all up.
Well it's simple stupid. You are a moron. You have always had that deficiency. I'm a computer programmer and I have decades of real playing experience. All we have from you is your 72% claimer. But don't worry. I have a simple tool that makes winning a very easy process. All you do is make the bets it tells you to. Maybe I should dedicate this thing the Ed Thorpe. He's been a real hoot for the gaming industry.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 30, 2011, 10:35:58 PM
Well it's simple stupid. You are a moron. You have always had that deficiency. I'm a computer programmer and I have decades of real playing experience.
Translation: You're making it all up. Thanks..
Guys it is ok to disagree, but still try to be civil.
Quote from: cheese on March 28, 2011, 11:04:51 PM
I don't play either in that I don't look for either one. I guess its hard to ignore 12 reds in a row, but how often does that happen.
You talk about avoiding chaos. Give an example of what chaos is to you. Not a definition, an example. Using R/B.
Quote from: Steve on March 30, 2011, 11:04:50 PM
Guys it is ok to disagree, but still try to be civil.
I am being civil, Steve, I have only presented facts, not once have I called Gizmo a foul name.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on March 31, 2011, 12:34:03 AM
You talk about avoiding chaos.
Where did I say I avoid anything? Please point it out to me.
Quote from: cheese on March 31, 2011, 01:47:01 AM
Where did I say I avoid anything? Please point it out to me.
Same old 16,000 and counting. You never answer any questions you dodge them. It was a clear question with context.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 01, 2011, 01:57:57 AM
Same old 16,000 and counting. You never answer any questions you dodge them. It was a clear question with context.
I never said I avoid chaos, I never avoid anything.
Quote from: cheese on March 27, 2011, 08:38:30 PM
I play 98% or more of the spins. My goal is always to get in, get it done, and get out. Leave the smallest footprint possible. Sitting there for hours staring at the marquee is for chumps and people who haven't practiced enough.
You play 98% of the spins, so 2% of the time you are not playing, WHY? If no time to play is more favorable than any other time, why are you not playing 100% of those spins?
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 01, 2011, 09:35:58 AM
You play 98% of the spins, so 2% of the time you are not playing, WHY? If no time to play is more favorable than any other time, why are you not playing 100% of those spins?
Its usually because I let my mind wander or I was talking and didn't get the bet down or something like that. 2 times out of 100, does that worry you?
Quote from: cheese on April 01, 2011, 08:10:47 PM
Its usually because I let my mind wander or I was talking and didn't get the bet down or something like that. 2 times out of 100, does that worry you?
No it does not. I was under the impression you were intentionally sitting out spins. What does Chaos look like to you? Show an example using R/B.
I never said I avoided chaos. All the spins in roulette produce chaotic results. Its all chaos.
Something is wrong with the reply function, where did the big reply box go? I can't read what I quoted.
I'm
sure that
Quotethis
is a full test of the posting functions.
Test
Not working for me. Look how my letters are cut off at the top.
I have a question for Gizmotron and cheese.
In looking at this thread it looks like the two of you have spent many hours posting in an internet forum discussing, well I couldn't actually figure out what you are talking about. But, instead of wasting time on here doing all of this posting, why are you not at the casino winning money at roulette?
If I knew I could beat roulette I wouldn't be here talking about it, I would BE AT THE FREAKING CASINO MAKING MONEY.
Quote from: curious on April 05, 2011, 01:34:12 AM
If I knew I could beat roulette I wouldn't be here talking about it, I would BE AT THE FREAKING CASINO MAKING MONEY.
I'm afraid being there 15 hours a day isn't what I do. Thats Gizmo's thing, not mine. I hit my goal and leave as soon as possible.
Quote from: cheese on April 05, 2011, 01:54:30 AM
I'm afraid being there 15 hours a day isn't what I do. Thats Gizmo's thing, not mine. I hit my goal and leave as soon as possible.
Can I ask, how many units is your goal?
bombus,
I think you meant ..."How many POSTS is your goal?" lol
VKM
Quote from: bombus on April 07, 2011, 01:32:19 AM
Can I ask, how many units is your goal?
5-7. And you?
Quote from: cheese on April 07, 2011, 01:52:07 AM
5-7. And you?
I don't normally set a goal.
Most of my play is closed ended. Something akin to tennis, with a game-set-match type structure.
I either win or lose the match. I admit I do stop early sometimes for different reasons.
So for you it's 5-7 units in 40 or so spins playing the EC's...
I'll buy that for a dollar!
Quote from: bombus on April 07, 2011, 02:17:48 AM
So for you it's 5-7 units in 40 or so spins playing the EC's...
No. I usually write down the 15 spins on the marquee, so its more like 25-30 spins.
5-7 units in 30 spins flat betting the EC's.
That can be done time and time again, but not every time.
How often do you miss your goal within the 30 spins?
Would you play on or leave short of your goal?
If you play on, what would be the longest session you have experienced to achieve plus 5-7?
Quote from: bombus on April 07, 2011, 03:23:01 AM
That can be done time and time again, but not every time. If you play on, what would be the longest session you have experienced to achieve plus 5-7?
No, its every time. Its always within an hour, usually much less. Its often 5 in a row. The zeros can slow it down when they gang up. I once saw 15 spins that contained 7 zeros. That was a slow day. But I still did it in an hour. Thats if the dealer is spinning at least 30 per.
We can`t know what the wheel or dealer is throwing.I am convinced you take account into the results of the last spins for your decision.I do not think you play completely random.
Quote from: schoenpoetser on April 07, 2011, 05:39:07 AM
I am convinced you take account into the results of the last spins for your decision.I do not think you play completely random.
Good god. I've only been saying I look at past spins for the past five years. And Iggiv wonders why I don't 'share' more.
Quote from: cheese on March 24, 2011, 09:48:29 PM
I should add, knowing when not to bet is a big part of a winning method. Just as important as knowing when to bet.
How do you know when not to bet? If there are no better times to bet than any other times as you say, then like you said, waiting for the "right time" is pointless. Anything can happen at anytime in a chaotic game, so isn't "waiting" counterintuitive?
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 12, 2011, 01:16:11 AM
If there are no better times to bet than any other times as you say, then like you said, waiting for the "right time" is pointless.
I have a bet for every situation, but I didn't always. I still had a winning method, but I did have to know when not to bet. Only bet when you have a bet, never bet when you don't. Most people bet anyway and 'hope' they're right and its their downfall.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 01:34:01 AM
Only bet when you have a bet, never bet when you don't.
Ah, that clears it up then.
Guys, can't you see that cheese is messing with your heads? It's just a brainf*ck.
- all spins are independent and random
- use past spins to guide your future bets
These two statements are total contradictory. Cheese is having a giggle at your expense, that's all there is to it.
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 04:01:54 AM
- all spins are independent and random
- use past spins to guide your future bets
Its you thats stuck. Just because events are random doesn't mean you can't use them. I used this here a few days ago. Clouds are random events. But you can play a game called 'find a face in the clouds' and you will see faces. Is the face there? Nope. But you used random formations to successfully play your game. Now you'll say "Oh, its not the same at all! Roulette is totally different!" No, its not.
You can find patterns in past spins just like you can find faces in clouds, so I don't say that they are different. If your "game" is to find faces or patterns then you've succeeded, but the cloud game IS different from roulette in that with roulette you're not merely seeking to identify a static pattern; the goal is to find patterns which will either continue or change with some reliabiltiy, given some state of history. In the "faces in clouds" game it would be like seeing Mark Twain in a cloud and then guessing successfully that it will change to Abraham Lincoln. You're claiming that you can do just that (or the analogous situation in roulette).
To give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you're using "random" and "independent" in ways other than the standard definitions. What do you understand by these terms?
Independent outcomes means that the past has no relevance to the future, which means that taking past data into account cannot have any use - it simply isn't relevant. You deny this, so you can't at the same time say that spins are independent and you use past results to get a better result than expectation predicts - at least if you are using the standard definition of independence. That much should be clear to everyone.
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 04:29:40 AM
the goal is to find patterns which will either continue or change with some reliabiltiy,
Why do you assume I play patterns? If you play patterns, its like an American football team with only one play, instead of a book of plays. I used the cloud thing as an example of a game to play with clouds, not roulette. You have to have a book of plays to beat roulette, not just rely on one strategy.
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 04:37:16 AM
Independent outcomes means that the past has no relevance to the future, which means that taking past data into account cannot have any use
Independent means unconnected to another spin, random stands alone. Thats why I can take results from two different wheels at the same time and get the same results. Random clouds have no connection to faces, but you can see faces there if you want. I never predict, I guess. Past spins have no obvious relevance, unless you find an out of the box way to make them relevant. You're far better off approaching something with an "I wonder if" attitude, instead of an "I know it can't be done" mindset. Thats what I did.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 04:38:37 AM
Why do you assume I play patterns?
Use whatever word you prefer instead of "patterns". You just said in a previous post that you have a bet for every situation. What is a "situation"? it isn't too much of a stretch to call a situation a "pattern".
QuoteI used the cloud thing as an example of a game to play with clouds, not roulette.
And you just said that "Now you'll say "Oh, its not the same at all! Roulette is totally different!" No, its not."
So now you are backtracking and say it ISN'T like roulette?
See what I mean people? it's a complete brainf*ck. :)
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 04:46:31 AM
Past spins have no obvious relevance, unless you find an out of the box way to make them relevant. You're far better off approaching something with an "I wonder if" attitude, instead of an "I know it can't be done" mindset. Thats what I did.
Ok, so now I know where you are. You are saying that past spins are NOT independent and that they can point to future outcomes (but you have to think out-of-the-box). Then why do you attack every system player by pointing out that nothing is predictable? it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 04:48:49 AM
So now you are backtracking and say it ISN'T like roulette?
A 'situation' is the next bet. Either you have blinders on, or I don't explain very well. The only thing clouds have in common with roulette is they are both random. You say past spins are useless and can't be used. I say I invented a game inside the game of roulette. Like you can invent a game inside random cloud formations called Finding Faces. Random events (like clouds) CAN be used for a game, and so can random roulette spins.
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 04:55:52 AM
You are saying that past spins are NOT independent and that they can point to future outcomes
I'm saying no such thing. In fact, I say over and over that spins are TOTALLY independent. They're so independent I can take unconnected spins from two unconnected wheels and put them together and get the same results. They don't point to anything, they point to nothing. Its what you do with them, its the game you concoct, that allows you to make a guess (never a prediction) as to the next outcome. Like everybody else, you have a concept in your head that in order to make accurate guesses, things have to be connected. They don't. One of the longest lessons I had to learn about roulette was, that spins are totally unique and independent from each other. Lots of people say it, but they don't really believe it.
I post for my own edification, not yours or anybody else's. I'm not messing with you, I'm not kidding around. When I write about this stuff it helps me get better at it. If you get something out of it, or not, is your business. Either is fine with me.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 05:00:59 AM
A 'situation' is the next bet.
So what does it mean when you say you have a bet for every situation? it doesn't make sense. :-\
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 05:08:08 AM
In fact, I say over and over that spins are TOTALLY independent. They're so independent I can take unconnected spins from two unconnected wheels and put them together and get the same results. They don't point to anything, they point to nothing.
Then why bother to look at past spins? you could make a game which doesn't depend on looking at the history, and because spins are totally unconnected, you should get the same results.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 04:38:37 AM
Why do you assume I play patterns? If you play patterns, its like an American football team with only one play, instead of a book of plays. I used the cloud thing as an example of a game to play with clouds, not roulette. You have to have a book of plays to beat roulette, not just rely on one strategy.
That is the most you have ever posted about this in five years. It's also way to much to go hunting for with a computer program. I'll bet I can list most of all my plays and it would not give anything away. It would be far too much to learn in a few days. Almost everyone would give up. There is no way that you taught me my book. I know this because you never share anything much. You know it too.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 04:46:31 AM
You're far better off approaching something with an "I wonder if" attitude, instead of an "I know it can't be done" mindset. Thats what I did.
That's what I did too. I don't recall you guiding me to do that. Could you please explain that to me? I'll admit you taught me to do this if you can show me where you shared it with me. You claim you have always been suspicious of me and my motives. That tells me that you would have not taught me this.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 05:08:08 AM
I post for my own edification, not yours or anybody else's. I'm not messing with you, I'm not kidding around. When I write about this stuff it helps me get better at it. If you get something out of it, or not, is your business. Either is fine with me.
So what edification do you get out of having taught me everything I know about Roulette while at the same time keeping that mantra, "never wise up a chump?"
I learned everything I know by practicing, playing, and thinking about things I've written and also seen in discussion forums. The exact same thing you did. By your own admission you have improved in the past five years yourself.
Mike,
You've made your conclusions based on past information....
Important information that you do not know is, what the game within the game that cheese plays is, and how does he play it.
It appears to me that you are so comfortable with your conclusions that you are willing to argue your points even though you lack that and possibly other important information.
It's not working.
VKM
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 08:33:56 AM
So what does it mean when you say you have a bet for every situation? it doesn't make sense. :-\
Want to see a monster sized list?
Monster List:
Does the doz group continue to single?
Does a bet on the doz group for singles keep losing when tried?
Does the doz group singles break at 4,5,6,7,8 with a global repetition?
Does the doz group have a domination at 80% or better?
Does the doz group have a possible sleeper?
Does start bets on doz group sleepers always lose?
Does one section of the doz group only hit as a single, double?
Is there a global effect evident for any of the above conditions?
Is there a string of singles while there is also a sleeper in the doz group?
Is there any repeating pattern in the doz group?
Is the doz group absent from any formations?
Is there a swarm of doubles in the doz group?
It there a single dozen in the doz group that is dominant 80% or more?
What happened in the last three spins?
Did the very last spin win or lose?
Does a global effect in the doz group also occur in the col group?
Was the last two spins in the doz group single or double?
Was the last two spins in the doz group still a sleeper on one section?
Was the last three spins in the doz group single or double?
Was the last three spins in the doz group still a sleeper on one section?
Is there a streak of lost bets?
Is there a streak of winning bets?
Did I lose the last bet?
Did I win the last bet?
Did I reach my goal on the last bet?
Now do this for the columns group, and for each of the EC's groupings also.
Do it for each spin.
If you lose doing this then you are missing something.
You are failing to consider something.
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 04:29:40 AM
You can find patterns in past spins just like you can find faces in clouds, so I don't say that they are different. If your "game" is to find faces or patterns then you've succeeded, but the cloud game IS different from roulette in that with roulette you're not merely seeking to identify a static pattern; the goal is to find patterns which will either continue or change with some reliabiltiy, given some state of history. In the "faces in clouds" game it would be like seeing Mark Twain in a cloud and then guessing successfully that it will change to Abraham Lincoln. You're claiming that you can do just that (or the analogous situation in roulette).
No one can do this. If I see 6 reds in a row on the electronic board that doesn't mean that the next spin will be red. It also doesn't mean that the next spin will be black.
Quote from: VKM on April 12, 2011, 10:57:26 AM
Mike,
You've made your conclusions based on past information....
Important information that you do not know is, what the game within the game that cheese plays is, and how does he play it.
It appears to me that you are so comfortable with your conclusions that you are willing to argue your points even though you lack that and possibly other important information.
It's not working.
VKM
This is really easy to clear up. If cheese would actually explain what he is talking about in a way that others can understand it.
Cheese?
Quote from: VKM on April 12, 2011, 10:57:26 AM
Mike,
You've made your conclusions based on past information....
Important information that you do not know is, what the game within the game that cheese plays is, and how does he play it.
It appears to me that you are so comfortable with your conclusions that you are willing to argue your points even though you lack that and possibly other important information.
It's not working.
VKM
No VKM,
If you read my posts in this thread you'll see that I'm trying to understand what cheese is saying; so far he's not making much sense. It isn't necessary for me to ask WHAT game he's playing, I'm still trying to find out whether he uses past spins or not and all I'm getting is double talk. It's not my fault if he's sitting on the fence and not committing himself to a straight answer. This is what he has said:
QuotePast spins have no obvious relevance, unless you find an out of the box way to make them relevant.
So past spins CAN be relevant.
and then:
QuoteI say over and over that spins are TOTALLY independent. They're so independent I can take unconnected spins from two unconnected wheels and put them together and get the same results. They don't point to anything, they point to nothing.
And this makes sense to you VKM?
Cheese certainly isn't using "independent" in the way I understand it or the way that it's understood in statistics. So what does he mean?
I've no idea. :)
Quote from: curious on April 12, 2011, 11:33:28 AM
No one can do this. If I see 6 reds in a row on the electronic board that doesn't mean that the next spin will be red. It also doesn't mean that the next spin will be black.
But it does mean that it might be the sixth spin of reds that is part of twenty reds in a row. In a game where you have a 50/50 chance with a 50/50 payoff you would expect to lose bets. But with your logic you get to guarantee that you will not win 14 reds in a row. That's a craft too. The deliberate avoidance of a winning streak caused by not jumping on a trend streak. That's all this arguing over the years is really about. If you can't try a risk on the huge long shots then there is no reason to take chances on the smaller short shots too.
You can win enough if you just chip away at it slowly. All you have to do is find out anything that continues just one more spin. You put enough wins like that together in a short while you will have your 5-7 wins. It's not easy to find things that are continuing if you aren't looking for them in the first place. Like I said, that's a craft.
So you see VKM, I have not come to any conclusions, neither have I argued any points which could be refuted by any rational person.
I'm just interested in Cheese's responses, so far I'm of the opinion that it's all a big wind up.
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 12:26:54 PM
Cheese certainly isn't using "independent" in the way I understand it or the way that it's understood in statistics. So what does he mean?
I've no idea. :)
He might be trying to say that his game within the game is independent of the sequence of spins coming from the wheel. He did say that he could use the data of two wheels to produce his game from within the game and that it still works.
This might be like my case of attempting to say it's not about prediction. I've tried to explain that for many years now. Some still don't get that point. Perhaps cheese will have to keep trying for years with this point.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 12, 2011, 12:35:41 PM
But it does mean that it might be the sixth spin of reds that is part of twenty reds in a row. In a game where you have a 50/50 chance with a 50/50 payoff you would expect to lose bets. But with your logic you get to guarantee that you will not win 14 reds in a row. That's a craft too. The deliberate avoidance of a winning streak caused by not jumping on a trend streak. That's all this arguing over the years is really about. If you can't try a risk on the huge long shots then there is no reason to take chances on the smaller short shots too.
You can win enough if you just chip away at it slowly. All you have to do is find out anything that continues just one more spin. You put enough wins like that together in a short while you will have your 5-7 wins. It's not easy to find things that are continuing if you aren't looking for them in the first place. Like I said, that's a craft.
I am not guaranteeing anything. I did not say what play to make. I said that knowing what happened the previous 5 plays tells me nothing about the next play.
What you are saying it complete and total nonsense. The fact that 5 reds in a row appeared just now tells me nothing about what the next spin will be. Nothing. Yes, if I play red, I will be correct 18/37 times and if I play black I will be correct 18/37 times. And the house edge will grind me away.
You aren't telling anyone anything that helps them, you are just spouting nonsense. Just like you have in every thread I have ever seen you in over the years.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 12, 2011, 12:46:48 PM
He might be trying to say that his game within the game is independent of the sequence of spins coming from the wheel. He did say that he could use the data of two wheels to produce his game from within the game and that it still works.
Maybe that's it then. I think bombus said something the other day about using outcomes as 'inputs' to a game of tic tac toe, in which case there is no assumption that there is any connection between spins, but you're still using past spins to select your bets.
curious - "I said that knowing what happened the previous 5 plays tells me nothing about the next play."
So change your name to clueless. It clearly tells me that a beautiful woman will walk into the room in the next ten seconds.
curious - "What you are saying it complete and total nonsense. The fact that 5 reds in a row appeared just now tells me nothing about what the next spin will be. Nothing. Yes, if I play red, I will be correct 18/37 times and if I play black I will be correct 18/37 times. And the house edge will grind me away."
So change your name to clueless.
curious - "You aren't telling anyone anything that helps them, you are just spouting nonsense. Just like you have in every thread I have ever seen you in over the years."
So change your name to clueless.
There is no point in discussing anything with you.
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 01:07:03 PM
Maybe that's it then. I think bombus said something the other day about using outcomes as 'inputs' to a game of tic tac toe, in which case there is no assumption that there is any connection between spins, but you're still using past spins to select your bets.
I think you've got it. My monster list of considerations is nothing more than applying identifiers to meaningless past spins. I then use this meaningless information to produce an independent game of my own. When I make a guess from it, it's based on meaningless figure formations, meaningless effectiveness trending, and meaningless data streams of everything that still continues in all of it. When I apply that to the next spin as a guess the result is also meaningless. But coincidentally, the game within the game might have produced a win and so might my real game of Roulette. I call it a mirage. Here it is again: "Following a trend is no better or worse than following a mirage. But sometimes the mirage is right in line with the real thing."
Quote from: curious on April 12, 2011, 12:48:08 PM
I said that knowing what happened the previous 5 plays tells me nothing about the next play.
If you are saying that the previous 5 spins do not gauranty what the next spin will be, then you are 100% absolutely Right! Everybody knows that.
If you are suggesting that there is NO POSSIBILITY of ANY useful information contained in the recent past spins of
a roulette session, then you are 100% absolutely Wrong! But you are not alone.
VKM
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 12:45:27 PM
I'm just interested in Cheese's responses, so far I'm of the opinion that it's all a big wind up.
You're not interested in my responses, you just want to show you already know the answers. You say it in every post. You're just anothe flat earther.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 12, 2011, 12:46:48 PM
He might be trying to say that his game within the game is independent of the sequence of spins coming from the wheel. He did say that he could use the data of two wheels .
If I can use data from another wheel, it shows that the next spin is totally independent.
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 12:26:54 PM
No VKM,
If you read my posts in this thread you'll see that I'm trying to understand what cheese is saying; so far he's not making much sense. It isn't necessary for me to ask WHAT game he's playing, I'm still trying to find out whether he uses past spins or not and all I'm getting is double talk. It's not my fault if he's sitting on the fence and not committing himself to a straight answer.
Mike,
I disagree (mildly) with you. I think unless you do know how cheese plays his game within the game, then you can't discuss it rationally. It's not because you're not rational (you're alot more rational that I am or choose to be).
It's just that you (and everyone else here) lacks that important info. Without it, no correct conclusions can be made other than that "It doesn't make sense yet".
VKM
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 12, 2011, 01:19:47 PM
I call it a mirage. Here it is again: "Following a trend is no better or worse than following a mirage. But sometimes the mirage is right in line with the real thing."
Its an illusion. Everything about past spins is an illusion. Whats the only thing about past spins thats not an illusion? They're dependable, thats what. Because there are only two outcomes possible in the EC's, you're dealing with a very narrow set of parameters. Make it three outcomes, like three dozens, and the parameters expand greatly. You don't want that. Because all bets are equal in roulette, the EC's are just as good a bet as anywhere on the layout. I can't use an RNG because its not dependable, its not true random.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 02:26:15 PM
Its an illusion. Everything about past spins is an illusion. Whats the only thing about past spins thats not an illusion? They're dependable, thats what. Because there are only two outcomes possible in the EC's, you're dealing with a very narrow set of parameters. Make it three outcomes, like three dozens, and the parameters expand greatly. You don't want that. Because all bets are equal in roulette, the EC's are just as good a bet as anywhere on the layout. I can't use an RNG because its not dependable, its not true random.
Can you give an example of how a RNG is not true random specifically? What differences do you notice specifically btw true random and fake pseudo random?
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 02:26:15 PM
Make it three outcomes, like three dozens, and the parameters expand greatly.
That's true. But things can be balanced out. It takes two bets, a win and a loss to balance the EC's. It takes three bets, two wins and one loss to balance the three dozens. I get some things that really tend to continue lasting a full third longer in the three dozens than I do in any of the EC's. I honed my skills in the dozens and columns. I couldn't get comfortable in the EC's, not like I am in the dozens. And there is no way I can get a computer to do it. I'm sick of looking at the code.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 12, 2011, 02:36:34 PM
Can you give an example of how a RNG is not true random specifically? What differences do you notice specifically btw true random and fake pseudo random?
My method is inconsistent on RNG's, and its not on real random. The numbers I get from random.org are fine, they aren't fine from a computer RNG. And numbers from an online casino are trash, they're a joke. Computer RNG numbers are inconsistent, they work for awhile and then they don't. In the long run they look identical, in the short term they're not.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 12, 2011, 02:52:34 PM
I honed my skills in the dozens and columns. I couldn't get comfortable in the EC's, not like I am in the dozens.
The dozens cover 24 numbers, thats a huge fat cushion to fall back on. It way easier to bet there than with 18 numbers. But the problem is, you can get into trouble so fast with the dozens that it makes your head spin, and thats flat betting.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 03:00:05 PM
The dozens cover 24 numbers, thats a huge fat cushion to fall back on. It way easier to bet there than with 18 numbers. But the problem is, you can get into trouble so fast with the dozens that it makes your head spin, and thats flat betting.
That's 100% true and can only be known by experience. I know this too. You can get killed off in just three losses. When the goal is only to win a few and quit you can get behind real fast. Unless you are good, very good.
Quote from: VKM on April 12, 2011, 01:59:34 PM
If you are saying that the previous 5 spins do not gauranty what the next spin will be, then you are 100% absolutely Right! Everybody knows that.
If you are suggesting that there is NO POSSIBILITY of ANY useful information contained in the recent past spins of
a roulette session, then you are 100% absolutely Wrong! But you are not alone.
VKM
Then explain how the past spins are useful information.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 12, 2011, 03:05:21 PM
That's 100% true and can only be known by experience. I know this too. You can get killed off in just three losses. When the goal is only to win a few and quite you can get behind real fast. Unless you are good, very good.
I would never play dozens in a casino, I would be afraid of the zeros. Always being able to recover quickly is a big part of roulette. Its very hard to remain upbeat when you're always trying to climb out of a hole. Staying around even is much easier flat betting EC's, and it beats the heck out of losing.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 03:12:20 PM
I would never play dozens in a casino, I would be afraid of the zeros. Always being able to recover quickly is a big part of roulette. Its very hard to remain upbeat when you're always trying to climb out of a hole. Staying around even is much easier flat betting EC's, and it beats the heck out of losing.
Why are you not afraid of the zeros on the EC bets?
Quote from: VKM on April 12, 2011, 02:25:47 PM
Mike,
I disagree (mildly) with you. I think unless you do know how cheese plays his game within the game, then you can't discuss it rationally. It's not because you're not rational (you're alot more rational that I am or choose to be).
It's just that you (and everyone else here) lacks that important info. Without it, no correct conclusions can be made other than that "It doesn't make sense yet".
VKM
I disagree. The statements cheese made stand on their own as logically inconsistent. You don't need to know what the game is to see that. What he has said is that spins are independent and at the same time spins are not independent. I think anyone should be able to see that this is meaningless.
And what a strange thing to say: "you're alot more rational that I am or choose to be"
It's as though you believe to be rational is to be closed-minded. Being rational doesn't mean that at all. It means you are sceptical and don't take a CLAIM to be a FACT; it means you require evidence before changing your beliefs.
I was open-minded to the possibility winning at roulette through some kind of non-physics based method, but in my search I never found any evidence that it was possible in the long run. No-one has unlimited time and resources so I widened my search to include physics and found a way to win, but that doesn't mean that I've closed my mind to the possibilty.
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 03:21:37 PM
I disagree. The statements cheese made stand on their own as logically inconsistent. You don't need to know what the game is to see that. What he has said is that spins are independent and at the same time spins are not independent. I think anyone should be able to see that this is meaningless.
And what a strange thing to say: "you're alot more rational that I am or choose to be"
It's as though you believe to be rational is to be closed-minded. Being rational doesn't mean that at all. It means you are sceptical and don't take a CLAIM to be a FACT; it means you require evidence before changing your beliefs.
I was open-minded to the possibility winning at roulette through some kind of non-physics based method, but in my search I never found any evidence that it was possible in the long run. No-one has unlimited time and resources so I widened my search to include physics and found a way to win, but that doesn't mean that I've closed my mind to the possibilty.
Mike,
If you are really just interested in the consistancy of what cheese thinks about the independence of individual spins,
then I was looking too far ahead, because I thought that what you were interested in was, how cheese manages to win. That would require that missing information that I was talking about.
Next: Sometimes I'm rational and sometimes I'm not. Sometimes I
choose not to be. (If you knew me better that would make more sense) I don't believe that to be rational is to be closed-minded, but I also don't place rational thought above other avenues to truth or knowledge, such as intuition. I never think for something to be true is dependent on my believing it's true. The truth also doesn't depend on my knowing why it's true.
I am sincerely happy that you have found a way to win using physics.
I don't think that everybody on the forums who says they have a way to win are really winning. I don't know what you actually do and I don't have any evidence how good you are at it, but I believe you when you say you've found a way to win.
I don't agree with everything cheese says, but I believe he has figured out a way to win and I'm happy for him. As for HOW he actually plays, I do not know.
VKM
Quote from: Mike on April 12, 2011, 03:21:37 PM
What he has said is that spins are independent and at the same time spins are not independent.
No I didn't, thats what you want to believe. You think if they're independent, they're worthless, and you can't wrap you're mind around anything else. The earth is flat and anybody who says it isn't is deluded, is what you think. Thats why you ask the same questions over and over, you're like a cop interrogating a suspect and trying to trip him up.
curious,
Quote from: curious on April 12, 2011, 03:10:22 PM
Then explain how the past spins are useful information.
In this topic read my following posts. #14 #28 #39 # 44 #55 #73 #82 #92 #96.
They give a good real life example.
VKM
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 05:42:48 PM
No I didn't, thats what you want to believe. You think if they're independent, they're worthless, and you can't wrap you're mind around anything else. The earth is flat and anybody who says it isn't is deluded, is what you think. Thats why you ask the same questions over and over, you're like a cop interrogating a suspect and trying to trip him up.
I read your same comments and I have no idea what you are talking about. So, explain it.
Quote from: curious on April 12, 2011, 06:28:23 PM
I read your same comments and I have no idea what you are talking about. So, explain it.
Why? All you want is to cause trouble.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 07:01:14 PM
Why? All you want is to cause trouble.
Where have I caused trouble? I have asked people to back up their claims with facts and have asked people to explain things that most do not understand.
Quote from: cheese on April 12, 2011, 05:42:48 PM
No I didn't, thats what you want to believe. You think if they're independent, they're worthless, and you can't wrap you're mind around anything else. The earth is flat and anybody who says it isn't is deluded, is what you think. Thats why you ask the same questions over and over, you're like a cop interrogating a suspect and trying to trip him up.
Not in so many words, but you said it.
reply #272
"Past spins have no obvious relevance, unless you find an out of the box way to make them relevant." reply #276
I say over and over that spins are TOTALLY independent. They're so independent I can take unconnected spins from two unconnected wheels and put them together and get the same results. They don't point to anything, they point to nothing.How is it possible to reconcile these two statements? that's all I'm asking.
Quote from: Mike on April 13, 2011, 03:39:00 AM
Past spins have no obvious relevance/I say over and over that spins are TOTALLY independent.
They mean exactly the same thing, there is nothing to resolve. Past spins are random and independent of each other and on their own, have no meaning.
Quote from: VKM on April 12, 2011, 04:54:59 PM
Next: Sometimes I'm rational and sometimes I'm not. Sometimes I choose not to be. (If you knew me better that would make more sense) I don't believe that to be rational is to be closed-minded, but I also don't place rational thought above other avenues to truth or knowledge, such as intuition. I never think for something to be true is dependent on my believing it's true. The truth also doesn't depend on my knowing why it's true.
I agree that intuition is useful as a working hypothesis, but if there's no evidence to back up the intuition then what use is it?
Sometimes it doesn't matter if lots of other people are also irrational, insofar as you depend on their irrationality to feed yourself. Did you know that there are many more astrologers than astronomers in spite of the fact that there is not the slightest evidence for any truth in astrology's claims?
Roulette is a tougher option because winning doesn't depend on other people's irrationality - if your method is based on a false intuition then you lose.
Quote from: cheese on April 13, 2011, 03:42:18 AM
They mean exactly the same thing, there is nothing to resolve. Past spins are random and independent of each other and on their own, have no meaning.
But you include the clause: "unless you find an out of the box way to make them relevant".
If it's possible to make them relevant, then there must be something hidden in the data which, if discovered, proves that spins aren't independent after all, yes?
Quote from: Mike on April 13, 2011, 03:56:04 AM
If it's possible to make them relevant, then there must be something hidden in the data which, if discovered, proves that spins aren't independent after all, yes?
They're only relevant to me and the game I made up, they have no relevance of their own.
Don`t waist your time.Watch a live demonstration on MIKOGO and perhaps your eyes go open.Next Sat**day I am free and I can do it
Quote from: cheese on April 13, 2011, 04:05:57 AM
They're only relevant to me and the game I made up, they have no relevance of their own.
But if someone else played the game you made up, they would win too, right?
Quote from: schoenpoetser on April 13, 2011, 05:35:56 AM
Don`t waist your time.Watch a live demonstration on MIKOGO and perhaps your eyes go open.Next Sat**day I am free and I can do it
Is the purpose of this demonstration just to show us poor pathetic losers that it can be done, or are you going to reveal the way you play? :)
Quote from: Mike on April 13, 2011, 01:38:28 PM
Is the purpose of this demonstration just to show us poor pathetic losers that it can be done, or are you going to reveal the way you play? :)
I guess I can show real play results for EC's only, flat betting.
All practice sessions loaded 12 spins from the marquee first, they don't count as bets.
Results:
22 spins, 10 bets, +5, draw down -0
61 spins, 48 bets, -5, draw down -7, hit a swarm of 4 zeros in 7 spins at 55-61, stopped
21 spins, 9 bets, +5, draw down -0
70 spins, 58 bets, +2, draw down -5, session difficult
38 spins, 26 bets, +5, draw down -0, two zeros
41 spins, 29 bets, +5, draw down -2, five zeros
19 spins, 7 bets, -5, draw down -5, steep downturn
21 spins, 9 bets, +5, draw down -1
Quote from: Mike on April 13, 2011, 01:32:20 PM
But if someone else played the game you made up, they would win too, right?
The spins are never relevant, how could they be. The spins by themselves don't mean anything, you make them mean something.
Quote from: cheese on April 13, 2011, 10:14:56 PM
The spins are never relevant, who could they be. The spins by themselves don't mean anything, you make them mean something.
So what your saying is, although you are playing your own game, someone else off the street cannot simply step in and play if you tell them what to do. It is more complex than that. It follows no rules, and relies on interpreting the results you are seeing based on your own experiences with reading random.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 13, 2011, 10:41:23 PM
So what your saying is, although you are playing your own game, someone else off the street cannot simply step in and play if you tell them what to do. It is more complex than that. It follows no rules, and relies on interpreting the results you are seeing based on your own experiences with reading random.
What do you mean 'tell them what to do'?
"It follows no rules, and relies on interpreting the results you are seeing based on your own experiences with reading random."
Thats why I keep saying its important to realize the spins are unconnected. Everybody says that, but how many really believe it? They'll say all day long that spins are independent, then try and make systems that act like they are connected.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 13, 2011, 10:41:23 PM
So what your saying is, although you are playing your own game, someone else off the street cannot simply step in and play if you tell them what to do. It is more complex than that. It follows no rules, and relies on interpreting the results you are seeing based on your own experiences with reading random.
For me it's like a developed form of intuition that is not formed from life experience formed from being around people and people's experiences. It's formed around life experience from playing live and practicing playing Roulette. There is an unwritten syntax based on familiarity. An almost unspoken ability to relate to randomness. When I see spins I see the Grand Canyon, I see Yosemite Valley. I see the grandeur of the game itself. It's always there. It's always alive with activity.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 13, 2011, 11:00:23 PM
For me it's like a developed form of intuition that is not formed from life experience formed from being around people and people's experiences. It's formed around life experience from playing live and practicing playing Roulette. There is an unwritten syntax based on familiarity. An almost unspoken ability to relate to randomness. When I see spins I see the Grand Canyon, I see Yosemite Valley. I see the grandeur of the game itself. It's always there. It's always alive with activity.
Then, with this great insight you should be a millionaire. So why are you wasting time posting hundreds of posts in an internet forum?
Quote from: cheese on April 13, 2011, 10:59:22 PM
What do you mean 'tell them what to do'?
"It follows no rules, and relies on interpreting the results you are seeing based on your own experiences with reading random."
Thats why I keep saying its important to realize the spins are unconnected. Everybody says that, but how many really believe it? They'll say all day long that spins are independent, then try and make systems that act like they are connected.
Meaning if you walk up to Joe shmo on the street, you can't simply give him instructions in how to play "your game," and expect him to win. Your game is more complex than black and white, it follows no rules, follows unconnected spins and is played through experience.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 14, 2011, 12:53:30 AM
Meaning if you walk up to Joe shmo on the street, you can't simply give him instructions in how to play "your game," and expect him to win.
Maybe, if he's got about 6 months, and doesn't have a degree in math to screw him up.
Quote from: curious on April 14, 2011, 12:45:06 AM
Then, with this great insight you should be a millionaire. So why are you wasting time posting hundreds of posts in an internet forum?
Curious said: "I won't be bothering you fellars any more."
That lasted what, 1 day? Congratulations..
Quote from: cheese on April 13, 2011, 10:14:56 PM
The spins are never relevant, how could they be. The spins by themselves don't mean anything, you make them mean something.
You're just repeating the same thing over and over. "past spins have no meaning", but you use them in a game which has nothing to do with roulette and yet results in you winning at roulette, so obviously there IS meaning in those spins which you use.
If past spins really had no meaning, then you could just play your game using spins you made up, or spins taken from another wheel which you're not playing. If you do that, would you win? if the answer is no then it proves that past spins DO have a meaning, although the connection is indirect because of the mapping between the spins and the way you use them to play your own game.
Quote from: Mike on April 14, 2011, 04:01:04 AM
or spins taken from another wheel which you're not playing.
Yes, I discussed that in another thread. I've taken spins from two different wheels at the same time and the outcome of the game is the same.
But you also say that you don't win when playing an RNG - it has to be a real wheel. But if spins have no meaning then why should that be?
Quote from: Mike on April 14, 2011, 04:19:55 AM
But you also say that you don't win when playing an RNG - it has to be a real wheel. But if spins have no meaning then why should that be?
The spins have to be true random, not faux random spit out by an RNG. You could make up a stream of numbers and I couldn't work with them. True random is important, the numbers have to be unique independent events.
I am very tired of this discussion.Cheese say all knowledge of maths or experience is worthless.Nothing is predictable.The outcome of the roulette is independent on any fact.So it is very easy to learn the method of cheese to a monkey.The truth is we cannot change the EV of the roulette.The EV can be computed with maths.Without maths we can learn the features of a roulette.The monkey knows nothing about the EV and he shall lose 2,7% on a European wheel.So it is not a good idea to let the monkey play
Quote from: cheese on April 14, 2011, 05:02:38 AM
The spins have to be true random, not faux random spit out by an RNG. You could make up a stream of numbers and I couldn't work with them. True random is important, the numbers have to be unique independent events.
Lets see, i spin my wheel at home and post the results here and some RNG result - and you would know witch one is from my wheel and witch one is RNG - ridiculous.
Quote from: schoenpoetser on April 14, 2011, 05:31:57 AM
.Cheese say all knowledge of maths or experience is worthless.
No I didn't and you can't find a place where I did. Don't make up false quotes to make your point.
Quote from: I have cookies on April 14, 2011, 05:34:34 AM
and you would know witch one is from my wheel and witch one is RNG - ridiculous.
Yup. But don't worry, I don't take tests, so you think what you like.
Quoteso you think what you like.
That is what we have in common.
Quote from: cheese on April 14, 2011, 01:46:15 AM
Maybe, if he's got about 6 months, and doesn't have a degree in math to screw him up.
Well, I have read a lot of what you have posted in here and as far as I can tell you just talk gibberish. I have asked you before and I will ask you again, explain your method so that we can understand it. Last time I asked you to do that you said I was a trouble maker, blah, blah, blah. I'm not sure how someone who asks people to back up what they say is "trouble".
Quote from: cheese on April 14, 2011, 02:09:47 AM
Curious said: "I won't be bothering you fellars any more."
That lasted what, 1 day? Congratulations..
How is what I do any of your business?
You still have not provided a description of your "method" for beating roulette that is understandable. You say that I am a trouble maker, all I have ever said to you is prove what you say. How is that "trouble"?
Quote from: Mike on April 14, 2011, 04:01:04 AM
You're just repeating the same thing over and over. "past spins have no meaning", but you use them in a game which has nothing to do with roulette and yet results in you winning at roulette, so obviously there IS meaning in those spins which you use.
Is it possible to make up meaning from a vague set of suggestions? Can a thing have no mathematical connection but still belong to an imagined connection by the use of created identifiers?
Posterior probability: "In Bayesian statistics, the posterior probability of a random event or an uncertain proposition is the conditional probability that is assigned after the relevant evidence is taken into account."
"Conditional probability is the probability of some event A, given the occurrence of some other event B. Conditional probability is written P(A|B), and is read "the (conditional) probability of A, given B" or "the probability of A under the condition B". When in a random experiment the event B is known to have occurred, the possible outcomes of the experiment are reduced to B, and hence the probability of the occurrence of A is changed from the unconditional probability into the conditional probability given B."
Your argument is that past spins have no effect on future spins. But they can in the imagination. You can imagine the connection that the conditional probability conclusions are working. So you use a game within the game that sees a conditional probability sequence turn into an imaginary set of past spins that conform to short term expectations. You are using the syntax of basic probability arithmetic as a language to relate to it. At no time has the past spins had any real effect on future spins.. But they did in your imagination.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 14, 2011, 12:59:32 PM
Is it possible to make up meaning from a vague set of suggestions? Can a thing have no mathematical connection but still belong to an imagined connection by the use of created identifiers?
Posterior probability: "In Bayesian statistics, the posterior probability of a random event or an uncertain proposition is the conditional probability that is assigned after the relevant evidence is taken into account."
"Conditional probability is the probability of some event A, given the occurrence of some other event B. Conditional probability is written P(A|B), and is read "the (conditional) probability of A, given B" or "the probability of A under the condition B". When in a random experiment the event B is known to have occurred, the possible outcomes of the experiment are reduced to B, and hence the probability of the occurrence of A is changed from the unconditional probability into the conditional probability given B."
Your argument is that past spins have no effect on future spins. But they can in the imagination. You can imagine the connection that the conditional probability conclusions are working. So you use a game within the game that sees a conditional probability sequence turn into an imaginary set of past spins that conform to short term expectations. You are using the syntax of basic probability arithmetic as a language to relate to it. At no time has the past spins had any real effect on future spins.. But they did in your imagination.
So, a person could win in their imagination but not at the roulette table? How does this help?
Quote from: curious on April 14, 2011, 01:12:50 PM
So, a person could win in their imagination but not at the roulette table? How does this help?
I was talking with Mike. Just look at your question. A person can win in their imagination that causes a win at the roulette table. How does that help? Try to notice that this was not a miss quote.
For someone who is "curious", and anyone else who is only thinking from inside the box, you will not understand what Gizmo or cheese is saying about some things. It won't make sense to you in there. As funny as it is to watch you keep asking the same questions over and over and trying to make everything fit with what you think or actually do already know, it is futile.
If you can't or don't want to climb outside of that box you are in, then at least look around for a bigger box...
Please... No REALLY... Please.
If you ask me any question that's even close to "How do I get out of the box?" I don't know if I will be able to keep control of myself.
VKM
Quote from: VKM on April 14, 2011, 02:44:33 PM
For someone who is "curious", and anyone else who is only thinking from inside the box, you will not understand what Gizmo or cheese is saying about some things. It won't make sense to you in there. As funny as it is to watch you keep asking the same questions over and over and trying to make everything fit with what you think or actually do already know, it is futile.
If you can't or don't want to climb outside of that box you are in, then at least look around for a bigger box...
Please... No REALLY... Please.
If you ask me any question that's even close to "How do I get out of the box?" I don't know if I will be able to keep control of myself.
VKM
Typical nonsense. I don't care if the explanation is in the box, outside the box, is the box. There has been no explanation, just post after post after post of nonsense.
And now you are saying that I am too stupid/ignorant to understand the explanation?
Typical.
Quote from: curious on April 14, 2011, 02:47:24 PM
And now you are saying that I am too stupid/ignorant to understand the explanation?
Typical.
Is that what you really believe that people typically think about you? You need to not be so hard on yourself.
VKM
Quote from: VKM on April 14, 2011, 03:00:19 PM
Is that what you really believe that people typically think about you? You need to not be so hard on yourself.
VKM
Whatever you say asshole.
MODERATOR!!! GET ME A MODERATOR!!!
Curious called me a name! I want to lodge a formal complaint.
But before I decide to move forward with these proceedings, I have a couple of questions for you Mr. Moderator...
Is the burden of proof on Curious as to whether I am what he called me? Or do I have to prove that I'm not?
One more question Mr. Moderator... Are you an "inside the box thinker", or an "outside the box thinker"?
VKM ;D
Quote from: VKM on April 14, 2011, 03:21:44 PM
MODERATOR!!! GET ME A MODERATOR!!!
Curious called me a name! I want to lodge a formal complaint.
But before I decide to move forward with these proceedings, I have a couple of questions for you Mr. Moderator...
Is the burden of proof on Curious as to whether I am what he called me? Or do I have to prove that I'm not?
One more question Mr. Moderator... Are you an "inside the box thinker", or an "outside the box thinker"?
VKM ;D
Thank you for proving my point.
Quote from: curious on April 14, 2011, 03:23:51 PM
Thank you for proving my point.
And thank you for bringing it to my attention that you actually had a point.
VKM :)
G'day,
Hey Clueless,
I understand Cheese (Spike, Steve) & Gizmo's 'Out of the Box Ideas Do Work' belief
as I am on record both here & GG as using one that has never lost a session.
I also 'think' I understand their 'attitude' to those of you that wish to stay 'challenged'!
Glenn.
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on April 14, 2011, 05:39:30 PM
G'day,
Hey Clueless,
I understand Cheese (Spike, Steve) & Gizmo's 'Out of the Box Ideas Do Work' belief
as I am on record both here & GG as using one that has never lost a session.
I also 'think' I understand their 'attitude' to those of you that wish to stay 'challenged'!
Glenn.
Asking someone to explain what they are talking about makes someone determined to stay "challenged"? So, instead of just explaining what they are talking about they have to go into every single thread and talk nonsense? And harass anyone who asks them to explain what they are talking about?
Excuse me but this attitude makes zero sense.
G'day,
I use a method that includes net betting, both positive & negative progressions, with martingale features,
covers every possible combination on an EC up to a 20 decision cycle resulting in it having to be a profit!
Glenn.
Quote from: curious on April 14, 2011, 06:33:17 PM
Asking someone to explain what they are talking about makes someone determined to stay "challenged"? So, instead of just explaining what they are talking about they have to go into every single thread and talk nonsense? And harass anyone who asks them to explain what they are talking about?
Excuse me but this attitude makes zero sense.
Quote
For me it's like a developed form of intuition that is not formed from life experience formed from being around people and people's experiences. It's formed around life experience from playing live and practicing playing Roulette. There is an unwritten syntax based on familiarity. An almost unspoken ability to relate to randomness. When I see spins I see the Grand Canyon, I see Yosemite Valley. I see the grandeur of the game itself. It's always there. It's always alive with activity.
it all sounds like alice in wonderland to me.
G'day,
Pins, you aren't talking to / about me I hope!
I have sent you private messages offering to meet and show you my method for nothing!
I've also made this offer to Bombus and a former administrator of this site, as the 3 of you also live in Sydney.
As of yet you and Bombus Esq have not taken me up on this offer.
Glenn.
the greatest brains in the world have said nobody can beat roulette in the long run. from playing the game i have come to the conclusion that they are right. you can win for a week a month . but one day you will go to the casino and the system does not work. if you had a h.g. why would you want to share it with people you do not know. if i had a h.g. i would be getting rich . all the systems in the world will fail in the long run. but we live in hope.
Pins, there are plenty of legitimate strategies that beat roulette long term - real wheels and in reasonable conditions. As for the HG, for RNG and all, I do believe it is possible - anything is. But I dont believe anyone has done it yet. You can spend your life chasing the HG and never find it. Is it abou the money?.. there are plenty of ways to make money, if you are creative. With or without roulette. Most of my income has nothing to do with roulette. For me before money it is love of the game - a challenge. If it were purely about money and if it was all I did, I'd focus on something much easier.
G'day Pins,
Quote from: pins on April 14, 2011, 08:42:41 PM
the greatest brains in the world have said nobody can beat roulette in the long run. from playing the game I have come to the conclusion that they are right.
Those original people didn't have access to computers, internet or skype,
The more recent people are most likely close minded (math focused) or those that just didn't find their way to a HG,
and now just follow the well worn self satisfying belief of the other unenlightened forerunners.
Steve, Cheese / Spike, Gizmo, Nathan Detroit and others have all written posts or parts of posts stating that certain things "don't work', "won't last" etc that are actually part of my method / system which can't lose and these are people that are long time winners, so when a self confessed loser comes along........how much credence should they be given?
Quote from: pins on April 14, 2011, 08:42:41 PM
you can win for a week a month . but one day you will go to the casino and the system does not work.
I have stated that mine works using both a negative as well as a positive progression,
therefore one has to at some stage overtake the other and negate all losses.
Quote from: pins on April 14, 2011, 08:42:41 PM
if you had a h.g. why would you want to share it with people you do not know.
Have you ever heard of charity? People give away money and then don't have it, I was offering you the idea, I was still going to possess it for myself, I was doing this to a stranger, WHO LIVES IN THE SAME GREAT CITY AS ME, 'BONDING'
I have a track record for giving it away to people for nothing, (coincidental, they're the sort of women I like)!
Quote from: pins on April 14, 2011, 08:42:41 PM
if I had a h.g. I would be getting rich .
I retired at the age of 43 before ever making a bet, I AM RICH!!
Quote from: pins on April 14, 2011, 08:42:41 PM
all the systems in the world will fail in the long run. but we live in hope.
Not much needed to be said here, LOSER,(not necessarily as a person,
but certainly overall or at lest sometimes at Roulette), DREAMER!! Lost that opportunity!!
Glenn.
methinks you protest too much.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 14, 2011, 02:00:37 PM
A person can win in their imagination that causes a win at the roulette table. How does that help? Try to notice that this was not a miss quote.
If the win in your imagination causes a win at the roulette table, it means that there is a link between past spins and future spins. Can you see that this must be true?
Cheese denies it, and there's no point in continuing a discussion if people can't even agree on a basic point like that. Either there is a link between past and future spins, or there isn't. It doesn't matter how remote the chain of correlation is, or what convoluted processes you put the raw spins through to arrive at your bet; if your bet selection is producing more wins than expectation and you're using past spins to arrive at your selection, it proves that spins aren't independent.
You both seem to be confusing the SUBJECTIVE process of choosing the bet (whether it be through "inventing another game", perceived trends etc) with the OBJECTIVE process of actually winning more than you lose, based only on observing past outcomes. If your subjective bet selection process results in objective wins (meaning that anyone would get the same results using the same process) then past results cannot be meaningless. If you can't acknowledge this basic logic, then any further discussion is pointless.
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on April 14, 2011, 06:40:55 PM
G'day,
I use a method that includes net betting, both positive & negative progressions, with martingale features,
covers every possible combination on an EC up to a 20 decision cycle resulting in it having to be a profit!
Glenn.
There are over 1 million permutations of 20 spins. Are you sure this is what you mean?
Quote from: Mike on April 15, 2011, 07:00:24 AM
Cheese denies it, and there's no point in continuing a discussion if people can't even agree on a basic point like that. Either there is a link between past and future spins, or there isn't.
I don't understand how there is confusion. The spins are independent, random events. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
YOU are "proving" otherwise because you claim to win more than expectation by using past spins to choose your next bet. That's the contradiction.
Using past spins is the "cause" of you winning. Never mind that the spins are "processed" before making your selection, the link must be there if what you claim is true.
Quote from: Mike on April 15, 2011, 07:18:39 AM
Never mind that the spins are "processed" before making your selection, the link must be there if what you claim is true.
I don't know what to tell you. The spins aren't connected, its an impossibility. Its like that puzzle you see in a kids book, where the face of an old man is in the branches. You can't see it for a long time, and when you finally do see it, you can't 'not' see it again. Its there everyhtime you look.
If you use past spins as a guide and win above expectation and if when you don't use past spins you win according to expectation, then it shows that past spins are a "cause" of you winning, therefore (if it's true that you win) future spins cannot be independent of past spins.
This is just common sense as used in everyday life and science. It's not my fault if you can't see the logic. This has nothing to do with whether you actually win or not, it just means that you can't consistently say spins are independent and also that you win by using past spins. Again, if you're not interested in being consistent I can't do anything about that, just don't expect to be taken seriously. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Mike on April 15, 2011, 08:37:10 AM
Again, if you're not interested in being consistent I can't do anything about that, just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Oh, I'm extremely consistent and have been for years. I never expect to be taken seriously and could care less if I am. I post here for me, not you. I learn when I'm challenged. I taught high school for one year after I graduated from college, and realized that I learned 10 times more in my class than any of my students did. Most teachers feel that way. Actually, you've asked me several questions nobody ever asked me and it really made me think. Thats great, from my standpoint. Mostly, I have to wade thru an army of mouth breathing cretins to get just one good question, and you asked me several.
G'day Mike,
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on April 14, 2011, 06:40:55 PM
I use a method that includes net betting, both positive & negative progressions, with martingale features,
covers every possible combination on an EC up to a 20 decision cycle resulting in it having to be a profit!
Quote from: Mike on April 15, 2011, 07:02:59 AM
There are over 1 million permutations of 20 spins. Are you sure this is what you mean?
This seems to be an ongoing problem for 'challenged people',
either not reading correctly or understanding said written words,
UP TO......................RESULTING in it having to be a PROFIT!,
If my selection is 2 units on Red / Black (though I prefer / play Baccarat) and Red / Black comes in, that is,
UP TO......................RESULTING in it having to be a PROFIT!,
or it might only take 10 - 14 decisions to make a 8 unit profit.
Where does the 1 million permutations come into the equation now?
No wonder Gizmo & Spike Cheese gets so antsy with the less knowledgable.
First the not following basic english, then misquoting (not in this case),
& the always popular condescending 'Are you sure this is what you mean?' idea!
Glenn.
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on April 15, 2011, 11:57:30 AM
No wonder Gizmo & Spike Cheese gets so antsy with the less knowledgable.
According to your previous posts regarding Spike and Gizmo, they count as the less knowledgeable too. Still, if it fits your agenda, that's what counts eh?
And yes, "up to" means you will eventually need a plan for each of the 20 million permutations.
Don't tell me; "I'm never going to play 20 million spins in my lifetime". :sarcastic:
Quote from: cheese on April 15, 2011, 08:53:22 AM
Oh, I'm extremely consistent and have been for years.
Not this time.
Quote from: MiniBaccarat on April 14, 2011, 11:59:44 PM
I retired at the age of 43 before ever making a bet, I AM RICH!!
And *modified by mod*, apparently.
.....
warning
(iggiv)
G'day Mike,
As far as Gizmo & Cheese / Spike are concerned, YES, I don't agree with some of their beliefs.
Quote from: Mike on April 15, 2011, 12:06:43 PM
And yes, "up to" means you will eventually need a plan for each of the 20 million permutations.
Don't tell me; "I'm never going to play 20 million spins in my lifetime".
There aren't 20 million permutations involved,
you are let down in your analisis by a combination of ignorance and misuse of sarcasm.
I'm a LOMBARD, - Lots Of Money, But A Real Dickhead!
Glenn.
Quote from: Mike on April 15, 2011, 07:00:24 AM
If the win in your imagination causes a win at the roulette table, it means that there is a link between past spins and future spins. Can you see that this must be true?
There's a greater link through Predictive Inference. But because a respected mathematician hasn't come forward and proven an advantage exists in Roulette yet the frequintists feel safe. But here is your linkage. Like it or not.
Predictive inference is an interpretation of probability that emphasizes the prediction of future observations based on past observations.
nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_inference (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_inference)
QuoteInitially, predictive inference based on observable parameters was the main function of probability, but it fell out of favor in the 20th century due to a new parametric approach pioneered by Bruno de Finetti. The approach modeled phenomena as a physical system observed with error (e.g., celestial mechanics). De Finetti's idea of exchangeability–-that future observations should behave like past observations–-came to the attention of the English-speaking world with the 1974 translation of his 1937 book Foresight: its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources
nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeability (nolinks://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeability)
Exchangeable random variables: "
QuoteIn statistics, an exchangeable sequence of random variables (also sometimes interchangeable) is a sequence such that future samples behave like earlier samples, meaning formally that any order (of a finite number of samples) is equally likely. This formalizes the notion of "the future being predictable on the basis of past experience."
A sequence of independent and identically-distributed random variables (i.i.d.) is exchangeable, but so is sampling without replacement, which is not independent.
The notion is central to Bruno de Finetti's development of predictive inference and to Bayesian statistics — where frequentist statistics uses variables (samples from a population), Bayesian statistics more frequently uses exchangeable sequences. They are a key way in which Bayesian inference is "data-centric" (based on past and future observations), rather than "model-centric", as exchangeable sequences that are not, cannot be modeled as "sampling from a fixed population".
Quote from: Mike on April 15, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
Not this time.
Not true. You just refuse to accept it, which is fine. Like I said, I'm here for me, not you.
Mike if u wanna stay in this forum u r not gonna call people like that even if they claim that that they yesterday walked on Mars.
i hope i make myself clear. in recent days i had to give lots of warnings to people and probably i have to talk to Steve and other moderators what to do about guys which try to turn this forum into some kind of a nest of snakes.
Quote from: cheese on April 15, 2011, 07:23:41 AM
I don't know what to tell you. The spins aren't connected, its an impossibility. Its like that puzzle you see in a kids book, where the face of an old man is in the branches. You can't see it for a long time, and when you finally do see it, you can't 'not' see it again. Its there everyhtime you look.
If you see RRRRR, what is your next bet?
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 15, 2011, 11:45:23 PM
If you see RRRRR, what is your next bet?
I bet I don't do tests. :haha:
If you see RRRRR while playing then you should know what to do. But if you walk up to the table and see those 5 Reds in a row that`s another matter and ones reaction shoukd be pre-determined.
It is better to forego a win than to create a loss. :ok:
Nathan Detroit
OK, let's try frustration this way. It does not matter what Bayesian or Frequentist math says. If you see RRRRR you should go to your ability to read the conditions. Without context this set of data is as worthless as probability is. To consider the context take experience. For instance you need to know if all trends have crapped out at five steps or less in the recent past. That's a contextual bit of information that effects the recent hour of play. It exists far beyond the information that comes from three or four spins back. There can be other data too. Reds might be the only trend going, the blacks might be chaotic. The blacks may be global and the reds are just a freak occurrence. You must consider the context of the moment. Math configuration has no context other than a perfect baseline or an inference of a localized baseline. The context of trends, patterns, dominances, series, and global effects is far more informative. If you are married to conclusions based on math then frustration only confounds this level of discussion as absurd. If you leave these useless conclusions behind then information from context can be your guide.
Quote from: cheese on April 15, 2011, 07:30:01 PM
Not true. You just refuse to accept it, which is fine. Like I said, I'm here for me, not you.
1. I win better than expectation by using past spins as a guide.
2. Spins are totally independent and point to nothing.
By any standard, this is gibberish, but you think what you like.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 16, 2011, 03:05:02 AM
Math configuration has no context other than a perfect baseline or an inference of a localized baseline.
That's the point. You can't make a judgement about a "condition" unless it's with reference to something, and that reference point is the average or expected outcome, no matter whether it's the number of streaks of 5 reds or whatever. Everything has its own distribution and standard deviation. If you claim to win using deviations from a baseline then we are back to assuming that outcomes are not independent. There is just no way out of this conundrum. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Mike on April 16, 2011, 04:11:01 AM
That's the point. You can't make a judgement about a "condition" unless it's with reference to something, and that reference point is the average or expected outcome, no matter whether it's the number of streaks of 5 reds or whatever. Everything has its own distribution and standard deviation. If you claim to win using deviations from a baseline then we are back to assuming that outcomes are not independent. There is just no way out of this conundrum. :thumbsup:
I'm not saying there is a connection caused by any deviations from a baseline. These are almost worthless indicators. They reveal very little in regards to any context. What you should be looking for is the connection to a context based on the characteristics of randomness. You should use those data structures to determine the "now state." The connection is to the "what's happening now conditions." I see you attempting to force the conversation toward a conclusion that is mathematically oriented. That's a choice in favor of the weaker set of data. In effect, the weaker connection, if one exists there at all. You can't make the leap. The mathematical data sample is the lesser optimism. In fact it resolves to a limit of nothingness. It does not exist in a vacuum though. There are two qualities to this observation and conclusion. One is a belief in complete independence and the other is in connected contextual dependence. My argument is in the later. Yours is not.
connected contextual dependence - what is that - just curios - fancy words ?
Quote from: Mike on April 16, 2011, 04:04:17 AM
2. Spins are totally independent and point to nothing.
On their own, they point to nothing. But they can be useful, if you're clever, and never think something is 'due'. There are no good bets in roulette, no better bets, no specific time to bet. All you can do is guess.
Quote from: I have cookies on April 16, 2011, 04:37:55 AM
connected contextual dependence - what is that - just curios - fancy words ?
Yes, it's way too fancy in fact. The discussion topic is independence with regards to having a connection. It's devolved to semantic deferences, and perhaps has lost all meaning altogether. The facts are that all spins are independent. Reading randomness uses past spins. So what or where is there a connection if one exists at all anyway?
Quote from: cheese on April 16, 2011, 04:43:24 AM
All you can do is guess.
You can get very good at guessing based on the experience of guessing.
Wake me up of my connected contextual sleep if it ever comes so far as to an explanation of how to transform this connected contextual word building into a bet placed on a roulette table.
Quote from: Kelly on April 16, 2011, 04:47:52 AM
Wake me up of my connected contextual sleep if it ever comes so far as to an explanation of how to transform this connected contextual word building into a bet placed on a roulette table.
That's simple Kelly. Make a bet on anything with no regard to winning.
Okey dokey, shouldn`t be too hard. For a second i thought i would have to move my mind into some sort of Zen self realization where me and the ocean would be a united thing
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 16, 2011, 04:32:48 AM
What you should be looking for is the connection to a context based on the characteristics of randomness. You should use those data structures to determine the "now state."
But what are "the characteristics of randomness" if not the expected outcomes - in other words, the averages?
Every bet on the table has its own characteristics, and you don't need any math to see that, just observation. The math is only a formal description of what actually happens, it's not the enemy as all you guys seem to think, that's absurd.
There's a guy on another forum touting a system called "pattern breaker" or something like that. They were all very excited when he posted the stats. Then he checked his past records looking for another bet which had an more impressive strike rate. Not really surprising that he found one which was then trumpeted as the final solution. This is classic back-fitting, he doesn't have a clue and neither does anyone else. No-one seems to learn any lessons or question what they're actually doing, it's just "oh well, that wasn't the holy grail, on to the next!". It would be quite hilarious if it wasn't such a waste of time and energy, it's really pretty sad. If you try to point this out to him you're dismissed as a "negative" or a "math boy".
Quote from: Mike on April 16, 2011, 04:56:04 AM
But what are "the characteristics of randomness" if not the expected outcomes - in other words, the averages?
Every bet on the table has its own characteristics, and you don't need any math to see that, just observation. The math is only a formal description of what actually happens, it's not the enemy as all you guys seem to think, that's absurd.
The maths are the lesser data. The characteristics are the greater data. You are invested in the lesser data. You ask what are "the characteristics of randomness?" That's a lesson almost impossible to teach. They are a bunch of things learned to relate to through playing experience. The answer is work for that experience. It's way more difficult to earn it. But that's the real price. I dare you. Anyone can use math as an excuse to do nothing.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 16, 2011, 03:05:02 AM
It does not matter what Bayesian or Frequentist math says.
The calculations involved are exactly the same. Bayes' theorem is the same formula in Bayesian and frequentist statistics, only the interpretations differ. If you take the bayesian viewpoint, which I agree is more sensible in general, because it doesn't assume any imaginary samples; only the data which you actually have, then you could make a "hypothesis" regarding current outcomes and let bayes' theorem guide your betting (in other words, confirm or deny your current hypothesis). That would be a way of using bayes' theorem to guide your betting in the short term.
However, unless outcomes actually are dependent on past spins, it won't work in the long term, although the bayesian approach does hold some promise for a physics based attack on the wheel.
Quote from: Mike on April 16, 2011, 05:15:30 AM
The calculations involved are exactly the same. Bayes' theorem is the same formula in Bayesian and frequentist statistics, only the interpretations differ.
My point is that the maths are the lesser data. The characteristics and the pattern recognitions are the greater data. Bayes stats can be used for the short term. But characteristics are a far better source of data for that. Here's the real dilemma. I know it from experience. The math is almost worthless and the current conditions are invaluable. I know this and use it. But I can't explain it. It's lost in translation. The binding necessity is playing experience.
Quote from: Mike on April 16, 2011, 04:56:04 AM
Every bet on the table has its own characteristics, and you don't need any math to see that, just observation. The math is only a formal description of what actually happens,
Math isn't an enemy, its just a way calculating whats happening. Its useful, to a point. Its not a brick wall, as many seem to think. Past spins aren't connected, but they're limited and dependable. Experience shows the dependability can be exploited.
Quote from: Gizmotron on April 16, 2011, 05:28:54 AM
The math is almost worthless and the current conditions are invaluable. I know this and use it. But I can't explain it. It's lost in translation. The binding necessity is playing experience.
Experience shows you things the math cannot possibly show. What people here want is to be able to paint like Michaelangelo without taking the time to learn how.
Hi guys.
I've just returned from holidays. :)
Quote from: cheese on April 16, 2011, 04:43:24 AM
...All you can do is guess.
If all you can do is guess, why couldn't rule based system guess for you?
Quote from: bombus on April 16, 2011, 06:07:33 AM
Hi guys.
I've just returned from holidays. :)
If all you can do is guess, why couldn't rule based system guess for you?
Sure. You first..
Quote from: bombus on April 16, 2011, 06:07:33 AM
Hi guys.
I've just returned from holidays. :)
If all you can do is guess, why couldn't rule based system guess for you?
I tried with a computer program that guessed. It's too complicated to do it right.
Quote from: cheese on April 16, 2011, 05:49:09 AM
Experience shows you things the math cannot possibly show. What people here want is to be able to paint like Michaelangelo without taking the time to learn how.
Painting by numbers can give a good approximation to the original.
I'm always amazed that every discussion I've had about roulette in the last 5 years on forums inevitably comes down to 'are spins independent or aren't they'. The 'law' is, if they're independent, which they are, then you can't exploit them. I've heard this so many times I should get it tatoo'd on my forearm. Herb used to say it 5 times a day till he was banned. Thats the brick wall nobody can get around. Its an assumption, not a law. But, talk is cheap...
Quote from: cheese on April 16, 2011, 07:42:10 AM
Its an assumption, not a law.
It's quite a reasonable assumption, considering that each number has an equal chance of hitting every spin, that's what "independent" means.
But it's true that it's not a law, and there is no way to prove mathematically that outcomes are independent. But every empirical test has shown that they are, and all systems which rely on dependence fail.
Quote from: Mike on April 16, 2011, 07:58:25 AM
But every empirical test has shown that they are, and all systems which rely on dependence fail.
Oh, they're independent, you can take that to the bank. When they aren't, like with an RNG, they can't be beaten. Weird, huh.
IF you are playing a system/method and NOT VB/Bias, what else is there APART from past spins to use to decide where to bet ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Quote from: xman1970 on April 16, 2011, 08:16:33 AM
what else is there APART from past spins to use to decide where to bet ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Birthdays and anniversaries, of course. Duh...
xman1970:Every random sequence have special features.One can use this features for a successful game.So start learning the random row, begin with the theory of Blaise Pascal.
You can`t use probability nor Pascals triangle to create an edge in roulette. You can actually use the triangle to show that you CAN`T have an edge. Its an old hat and has been turned and twisted 200.000 times in german message boards.
Kelly,
Which casino in BERLIN , Germany would you recommend ? End of October.
Thanks.
N.D.
Quote from: Mike on April 16, 2011, 04:56:04 AM
But what are "the characteristics of randomness" if not the expected outcomes - in other words, the averages?
Every bet on the table has its own characteristics, and you don't need any math to see that, just observation. The math is only a formal description of what actually happens, it's not the enemy as all you guys seem to think, that's absurd.
"The characteristics of randomness" (in any individual roulette session) will most likely NOT BE the "expected outcomes - in other words, the averages" of the mathematical long run.
The fact is, that what happens in the individual roulette session is not the same as what is expected to happen in the mathematical long run. Most roulette players learn from experience that almost anything can happen in an individual session. They don't feel like math is the enemy, but they do understand that the long run averages are of no value to them, when it comes to trying to win a session. (To be fair, there are players who haven't learned that, and blame the math for things not working out for them in their session. They are the players that expect what happens in their session to be the same as what is mathematically expected in the long run.)
VKM
Nathan, I would say you should go for the one at Potsdam Platz. (Not to be mistaken with Casino Potsdam which is in the outskirts of Berlin) Its a bit more classy than Alexander Platz. Personally I hatet the old blue interior at Alexander, but I think they have changed that lately I haven`t seen it though (after the change). Potsdam Platz is a bit more glamourous, but still maintain a reasonably free dress code. I went with a tie and jacket the first time which almost made me look like one of the staff :-).
Are you coming ? Its a 600 km drive for me but I might be able to drop by if I know in good time.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fimg543.imageshack.us%2Fimg543%2F5730%2Fpotsdamplatz.png&hash=193fc33ad4a1e16ed3446f5c8a4bc597b8c12c5a) (nolinks://img543.imageshack.us/i/potsdamplatz.png/)
Kelly,
Thanks for the reply . At the moment the rrip is in the early planing stages . What surpises me is the fress code there .At that time of the year I wear a Blazer with grey slacks and preppy tie.That`s not too formal. I shall keep you posted.
N.D.
ND.Perhaps you have time for a short stay in Zandvoort.We have the first legal casino in the Netherlands.Round the clock of17 00 from Monday to Friday you have mostly a private table.
Kelly:the triangle of BP is a very useful tool to learn the average rows in small sequences.It is not a system or a strategy.For the benefit of the roulette it is better to use the term EXPECTED VALUE.There is no connection between the EV and the triangle of BP.The roulette edge is the same as the EV.The edge or the EV of every system is similar.
In the pokorscene the edge is used for the skill of the pokerplayer.I do not like the word edge
Quote from: cheese on April 16, 2011, 04:43:24 AM
On their own, they point to nothing. But they can be useful, if you're clever, and never think something is 'due'. There are no good bets in roulette, no better bets, no specific time to bet. All you can do is guess.
I don't completely agree with this statement. As Mike noted, you contradict yourself, Cheese. I agree with it. If u can "guess" with a positive result consistently (as u claim, and as wanna believe u, have no reasons not to), it means that something is "due", and some specific bets are better than others.
Quote from: iggiv on April 16, 2011, 06:12:04 PM
it means that something is "due", and some specific bets are better than others.
Nope. I never see a bet and think 'better bet now', they're all the same. They all have the same probability of being correct. For a bet to be 'better' you'd have to change the probability, and how do you do that? I'm not playing the same game you're looking at, I'm playing a game I made up. Remember?
yes, but no game can coincide with roulette :). Even if u put side by side 2 identical tables and identical dealers, or identical slingshot machines, the results will be totally different. So how can some kind of game result point at right roulette results? impossible :)
Quote from: iggiv on April 16, 2011, 08:51:37 PM
So how can some kind of game result point at right roulette results?
It doesn't. I never know if its going to be right or wrong. Roulette results are random events, nothing can point to the next spin.
Quote from: VKM on April 16, 2011, 01:11:35 PM
The fact is, that what happens in the individual roulette session is not the same as what is expected to happen in the mathematical long run.
There is no math for the short term. You can short circuit the long term math by having a method that starts over on every spin. Nothing is due, there are no 'better' betting situations, the expectation for every bet is equal. You have to correctly determine where you are at all times, as far as reading the random is concerned.
Quote from: cheese on April 16, 2011, 11:54:53 PM
You have to correctly determine where you are at all times, as far as reading the random is concerned.
Everything makes sense except this. What does this mean exactly? What do you mean "determine where you are?"
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 17, 2011, 12:57:59 AM
Everything makes sense except this. What does this mean exactly? What do you mean "determine where you are?"
I can't play if I don't know where my game is compared to the game unfolding in the random outcomes. (no, the spins have no meaning, only what I give them)
Quote from: cheese on April 17, 2011, 01:27:12 AM
I can't play if I don't know where my game is compared to the game unfolding in the random outcomes. (no, the spins have no meaning, only what I give them)
I think I "may" have just figured out what kind of game you are playing.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 17, 2011, 02:24:12 AM
I think I "may" have just figured out what kind of game you are playing.
Sure you have..
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll on April 17, 2011, 02:24:12 AM
I think I "may" have just figured out what kind of game you are playing.
Nice so now you can reach 3 std flat betting and out-guess 50/50 - good for you :sarcastic:
Quote from: cheese on April 16, 2011, 07:41:54 PM
I never see a bet and think 'better bet now', they're all the same.
My good days, I think this a lot.
I will even abandon my method at times to follow or go against another bettor when I "know" he/she is going to do good or bad.
Ron.
Quote from: xman1970 link=topic=18432. msg134703#msg134703 date=1302952593
IF you are playing a system/method and NOT VB/Bias, what else is there APART from past spins to use to decide where to bet ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Quote from: cheese link=topic=18432. msg134704#msg134704 date=1302953918
Birthdays and anniversaries, of course. Duh. . .
Come on then Cheese explain yourself. Your implying with that comment that their is something else apart from past spins to decide where to place your next bet.
Quote from: cheese on April 16, 2011, 04:43:24 AM
On their own, they point to nothing. But they can be useful, if you're clever, and never think something is 'due'. There are no good bets in roulette, no better bets, no specific time to bet. All you can do is guess.
This is pure gold. I suggest all those who are really interested in beating this game to really take to heart what this man preaches. Cheese, aka SPIKE has figured it out, and believe it or not, thanks to him, I have come to that place as well. "Never think something is due, nothing is connected."
Quote from: cheese on April 14, 2011, 05:02:38 AM
The spins have to be true random, not faux random spit out by an RNG. You could make up a stream of numbers and I couldn't work with them. True random is important, the numbers have to be unique independent events.
True random is more "chaotic" in nature, faux random produced by an RNG produces results that you only see once with a real wheel in 100 visits to the casino. Learn to play the chaotic which I have adapted to my style of play.
Never think something is 'due.'
With practice, this is the most efficient way to play the game, flat betting. I can consistently earn 5+ units in approximately 40 spins, sometimes much less in as little as 5 spins. Spike, you have opened up my eyes, your words have "wised up this chump."
Quote from: cheese on April 16, 2011, 07:42:10 AM
I'm always amazed that every discussion I've had about roulette in the last 5 years on forums inevitably comes down to 'are spins independent or aren't they'. The 'law' is, if they're independent, which they are, then you can't exploit them. I've heard this so many times I should get it tatoo'd on my forearm. Herb used to say it 5 times a day till he was banned. Thats the brick wall nobody can get around. Its an assumption, not a law. But, talk is cheap...
100% correct. The very fact that they are independent is the very reason why and how the game can be beat! I have developed about 5 different ways to play within the random string of results in the even chances. As strange as it may seem, my thinking of chaotic results has evolved to the point where I now see perfect patterns such as RBRBRBRB as "chaotic" for my style of play and I avoid it.
In my opinion there are no special or chaotic sequences. On average every 8-event sequence will fall 2^8=256 spins.No account the zero.this principle uses the SSB-system.You have never to wait for a special row to start betting.
"Never think something is due, nothing is connected. "
This is not true at all. It's funny to me that people believe this.
Quote from: ll l ll l lll ll link=topic=18432. msg140833#msg140833 date=1318778498
100% correct. The very fact that they are independent
100% False. It is not a fact that they are independent. In fact, the opposite is true.
Spins are NOT independent and this fact is what makes the wheel great!
Don't talk about my wheel like that. :P
i have found that no matter what system you use sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. but if you play on a regular base. you will get a losing streak. no infallible systems . you think you can read the numbers. you are in for a rude awakening. good luck.
I don't read numbers.
I know the numbers that the wheel produces, most of the time. So it's not really about "a system. "
Quote from: PRP on October 21, 2011, 05:34:26 AM
"Never think something is due, nothing is connected. " This is not true at all. It's funny to me that people believe this.
I actually laughed out loud when I read this post. When asked
to explain how the connection works, they have nothing to say.
In the old days, the Mob called these guys 'casino oriented'. These
days, they call them losers....
Cheese, u r looking for simple answers, but u never give ones. that's not fair.
u were asked many times how your winning method works but never explained.
Anyone could call u "casino oriented" too. What difference is between your
opinion and other opinion? Nothing. they don't give exact details and u don't.
but u behave as if u r a winner and they are not. How they heck can u know about them?
u just can't. They can say the same about u. Period.
Quote from: iggiv on October 23, 2011, 10:25:29 AM
u were asked many times how your winning method works but never explained.
The only people I show it to is the casino. They're
the only ones paying to see it.
WE don`t gamble, the casino does by allowing US to play . :ok:
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
Quote from: cheese on October 23, 2011, 04:49:02 PM
The only people I show it to is the casino. They're
the only ones paying to see it.
that's OK. but the big question is why u demand from the others to show U?
and when they don't want to -- u consider them losers right away. Beats me.
u think u have the right not to, but the others don't. They are obligated to show u
everything or they are losers. As simple as that.
i think this is weird and funny :)
Quote from: cheese on April 16, 2011, 08:14:12 AM
Oh, they're independent, you can take that to the bank. When they aren't, like with an RNG, they can't be beaten. Weird, huh.
Independent is the ANTI-trend, the ANTI-pattern.
Quote from: iggiv on October 23, 2011, 07:59:08 PM
that's OK. but the big question is why u demand from the others to show U?
I don't from everybody and you know it. Just from
the obvious frauds who have an agenda, like selling
books. The rest I could care less about.
There is a winning system and i can proof it. I dont sell any books or something like that. The only thing is you'll have to see it live to believe it.
Average win 90%! I don't share my formula, but you can play along, my profit 20% of you're profit.
The only thing is you'll have to come to the Netherlands. No scam!
Quote from: cheese on October 24, 2011, 02:46:49 AM
I don't from everybody and you know it. Just from
the obvious frauds who have an agenda, like selling
books. The rest I could care less about.
PRP did not sell anything, but u counted him as a loser right away anyway. Not nice.
About "obvious frauds" it is a very bold statement. If a person has written some books and comes here to discuss and tell about roulette playing ways without promoting anything, u already declare him an "obvious fraud". Though many people declare the opposite. Many people state that whoever u called "obvious fraud" helped them one way or another. Some state the opposite. Some people have no clue but "tunnel vision". but it is one word against another. Basically it is unfair discrediting this person and others as well.
that's not nice, Cheese.
Quote from: iggiv on October 24, 2011, 07:57:41 AM
If a person has written some books and comes here to discuss and tell about roulette playing ways without promoting anything, u already declare him an "obvious fraud".
Why do you exaggerate everything? There are very very
few people I say anything about at all. If you can learn
to win more than you lose from the obvious frauds, good
for you. Personally, I think all they have to offer is hot air,
cloaked in mystery and evasiveness.
Cheese, u r too jumpy in your conclusions.
I found this thread a fascinating glimpse into the dynamics of how people talk to each other and how opinions are put across. From a standpoint as a psychologist and poker player who has recently dabbled in roulette, really interesting! In the end I learned virtually nothing about how to play roulette. The same opinions were blurted out a million times just in different guises and with escalating animosity.
There are 2 schools of thought in this thread, those who purport to some kind of system involving past trends of outcomes, and those who see only the cold hard facts of maths and thus deny any trends are meaningful in predicting outcomes. Now the reason 30 pages of back and forth ping-pong battles have taken place is that, those on the 'trends' side, either cannot or will not elaborate/prove how their system works. Those on the 'maths' side demand answers. If we could lose the personal insults of psychobabble, ufos, imbaciles and the like we might be able to get to the crux of the matter sooner than 30 pages. There is a lot of 'side-taking' in this argument. I prefer to take a completely objective view as far as possible, given I don't know any of you and my first ever game of roulette was 2 days ago.
I am a pragmatist, an empiricist if you will, and by training I am expert into how people think, how they form beliefs and how this influences behaviour. So, my first thought was that past trends in roulette cannot possibly be useful in deciding how to bet in future spins. If we take out any biasing factors and assume a perfectly random set-up this is of course 100% fact - no one can possibly know what is more likely to happen in the next spin (even if 20 reds have come in a row) - the fact that I have said the system is perfectly random, by definition means it has 50-50 chance regardless. At this point bear with me - I am not necessarily in the 'maths' group - stay objective and we all learn something!
The only way any favourable conditions may be at play is if there is any biasing of any sort. Any trend based on biasing may well be used advantageously. But the trend may not be based on biasing but on randomness. BUT - so what?! Whether an apparent trend is based on 'favourable conditions' or not - it DOES actually make sense to bet as if the conditions are favourable. This is because it can't hurt to bet this way as given that if this is not a meaningful trend but just random, then to bet as if it is favourable gives the same odds as not using such a system as it's 50/50 anyway.
Therefore the ultimate conclusion must be: If you have evidence that a wheel is biased and throwing up trends then play this. If you have no evidence of any bias, that is not the same as evidence of no bias, therefore again play as if favourable. If there happens to be no bias - and let's face it it stands to reason that in the vast majority of instances there is no actual meaningful bias/favourable conditions - then it doesn't hurt to play as if there are favourable conditions - and at least you are ready to take advantage if there are!
So the 2 opposing arguments on this thread in a way are BOTH right. The maths people are right to say you can't predict the future random number based on past perfectly random numbers. They are also right to ask for proof and a more explicit and eloquent response from the 'trend' school who simply shout them down. Both sides are guilty of making personal attacks to each other. The trend school I believe do have the practical reality of using this trends system and feeling it works for them, partly down to the explanation I give above - i. e. being ready to take advantage of any genuine favourable conditions even though most of the time the trend is randomly produced. Furthermore, when they hit on the next spin due to their system - they get a feeling of 'reinforcement' making them more likely to continue to adopt this strategy and believe their reasoning is right - despite their success often being luck (50/50). I feel this sense of reinforcement which is well understood in the field of psychology, may well be leading some to placing more emphasis on favorable conditions that is warranted. But as I say this doesn't matter as the worst case scenario for them is that they have 50/50 chance anyway. I also feel the 'trend' school would find it hard to explicitly elaborate on their 'system' as they realise deep down it's not based on anything more substantial than I describe above. I'm sure they want to give the impression of having mastered something esoteric, and they achieve this by not explaining and providing proof - or saying that even the proof would not be convincing if they did see it as somehow the maths school are not esoteric enough as people to get it!
In the end, simple maths and common sense suggest you play as if a trend is real even if it's not! Further common sense suggest do not spend too much time on this gambling game as only a few lucky people will show good profit, even those who manage bankrolls, playing time and tilting need luck above and beyond a coin flip to win short or long term. Without preaching, surely roulette by definition is a gamblers fallacy. Give it up and take up a game of skill/chance.
:rtfm: ;D
Red74 Quote: " and those who see only the cold hard facts of maths and thus deny any trends are meaningful in predicting out comes."
I think that the trend people say that trends are not about predictions. That's the argument that the math people want to have anyway. At least that's what they always complain about. This had been going on for many years. It's even a split argument among the math community.
Interesting observation Red74..........
The reason those who believe in past spins determining future spins generally won't explain is because they have come up with something that works pretty consistently.
To prove it at a very simple level, (and I'm giving something away here) go back through your history of past spins you've collected over the years........ and observe on a basic level whenever a number alternates, i.e. say 16 then number 8, then number 16 again as they come out in that order or say 17, 23, 17 (it doesn't matter which combination of alternating numbers) and even as an example 15, 30, 4, 15 (even a repeat of the same number two positions away spun in that order what you will see 8 to 9 times out of 10 spins, is that the ball will go to zero (or 26 or 32) on a European wheel within the next 6 to 12 spins after this.
So in the above example 16, 8, 16 then in the next 6 to 12 outcomes, going back to zero, (give or take one position either side of it). The same with the above example of 15, 30, 4, 15 ( a lot of times its zero next spin, but 8 to 9 times on average in the next 12 spins.
I don't know why it does this, but this is one pattern I've observed consistently over many years and have even gone to the casino, just tracking zero's this way to pay for my son's travel interstate one time, as I knew I would get the money needed at short notice.
Cheers Rocky
"So in the above example 16, 8, 16 then in the next 6 to 12 outcomes, going back to zero, (give or take one position either side of it). The same with the above example of 15, 30, 4, 15 ( a lot of times its zero next spin, but 8 to 9 times on average in the next 12 spins."
Rocky
Don't mean to be contrary and I hold the same belief: Certain numbers cause other numbers to come. Bear with me..........
How long would a body have to sit to see 15, 30, 4, 15 come in that exact order? Maybe days? Weeks? What if you went to pee?
Surely you must have a myriad of numbers and each of the combinations points to a different number. Otherwise you'd be sitting for years.
Also, in your first example of 12 outcomes betting 3 pockets.......well that's a hit on one of 3 numbers in 12 spins. That's 36. Is that guaranteed? Or does concentration and dispersion play into it?
Sam
Hi TwoCatSam
As I explained these are examples of the alternating pattern: it could be 2, 20, 2 in that order for example, it could be something like 26, 8, 25, 26, I'm showing the type of alternating pattern.
Its the same number alternating either 1st and 3rd spin (i.e. 2, 20, 2) or the same number coming out 1st and 4th spin, (26,8,25,26) hope this clarifies the two e.g.'s above).
Its not guaranteed, as I explained, though it does seem to have a high strike rate from my observance over the years. You're right, this pattern doesn't happen all the time, that's why you would be constantly moving around the casino watching the display boards. I'm showing at the basic level a corelation between prior numbers and how I have seen them in a percentage of cases follow these patterns.
That's all my point was, as I don't believe in randomness, I believe roulette to be a highly ordered and also at the same time incredibly complex in its inter-relationships between numbers and complex patterns. That's why it looks totally unpredictable. Within it lies, I believe pattern upon pattern upon pattern infinitum, all waiting to be discovered. What I shared was a very tiny example of that.
My purpose was not to give a "system", but my observation. It may turn out that 8 to 9 successes out of 10 similiar examples over a huge sample study of "like results" will prove, not as high. So don't go out and wager on it, as I said look at your history of past spin results (do your own due diligence on the matter) and see if it rings true from your own observance. We all need to take responsibility for our own decisions and actions and question everything!
I hope I have answered your concerns TwoCatSam.
Rocky
Magical beliefs are the direct result of confirmation bias. It's a prerequisite stage
that must be traversed. Randomness is usually not considered until after reaching
the conclusion that mechanical systems won't work in the long term. The first stage
of considering trend opportunities is in attributing meaning from circumstances. The
final stage is admitting that it's all coincidence. There is no meaningful cause. There
is no force that leads to a conclusion of expectation. Confirmation bias is a stage of
being stuck.
"It's just a coincidence. In trend play I make up a characteristic that best describes what I see in the randomness. In this case I see several "hot numbers." That doesn't mean that some unseen force has caused these numbers to get more active. It's just a coincidence of randomness. So targeting this syntactic coincidence with tag sets like "hot number" is only about executing a skill set. In no way is it ever a process of predicting. But talking about it drives math oriented readers nuts. It's just circumstance based on coincidence. There was never a reason to have a hissy fit."
Rocky
You've done a superb job of answering. I would have wrote it "2, any number, 2".
Don't think I'll rush out and bet money today on it, but I'll be watching for it.
I waver on my beliefs, but I do think there are numerical patterns on the wheel--even an RNG--that can be exploited.
Thanks for your great post!
TwoCat
Thanks TwoCat
Because of your kindness and respect, here's another stronger corelation of certain numbers in "Tracking Zero".
Once again from what I've observed; (again question and test everything I say, everyone has to make their own mind up about anything).
The numbers 7, 2, 20, 22, 34, 36, these six numbers in certain combinations, (of two and three mainly, not always), make their path back to zero. e.g. A combo of 7 and 2 is strong, also 20 and 2, even stronger is 7,2,20. Not so strong is 34 and 36 together. 7 and 22 and 2 together is strong, also 7,7,2 and start looking for zero big time. There are many combo's, look for yourself, I played for 5 hours once on the same wheel and in the last 15 minutes a combo of 5 of these numbers, it was something like 7,2,2,20,7 it was so strong IT WAS OBVIOUS, IT WASN'T LONG BEFORE ZERO CAME and I finished at that table.
Note: for some reason, when there are 4 numbers it seems to cancel this affect and zero doesn't come from what I've seen.
Check what I'm saying and see if there is not more than a thread of truth to what I've just revealed, this will help make you a winner more, with this knowledge!
My gift to all of you Roulette enthusiasts
From Rocky
Blessings and Shalom
Dublin, just now.........
27, 9, 7, 33, 27, 31,14,0
22,23,22,2,19,29,0
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting!!
Sam
Rocky
I posted the above on the wrong thread earlier.
Could I ask more questions on the forum, or should I PM you? Or contact me @ TwoCatSam@cox.net.
Thanks
Sam
Yes you can PM me Sam, most happy to hear from you.
Yes what you're showing there with 22, 23, 22, 2 (that's a Classic getting back to ZERO pattern) that's very Strong.
And it is in character to hit 1st or 3rd spin after a pattern like the one above, 22 and 2 together, I always get excited when I see them together, (as well as 7 and 2 together).
Cheers Rocky
P.S. If you're wondering from what I said last post, even though there is 4 numbers in the pattern, they are NOT all from the 6 numbers I listed earlier, i.e. (23 is between the repeat which is not one of the six) also you have a wonderful combo of 22 22 and 2, of the six listed numbers, that's a beauty! If you read this carefully and my previous Post it makes sense.
Rocky, ''I always get excited when I see them together''
Rocky, What excites me, is your posts. The numbers you use in your examples are most important to me. 2 20 22? YES PLEASE !! And there's more. I see those numbers and they have a totally different meaning to me than they do to you. I will not reveal how or why they are important to me on this or any other forum, but would receive a PM from you with great excitement. Or perhaps I could PM you?
wardy03
Rocky
When you use the word "together", what are you meaning? Is there a distance, like within the last five or six spins or the last ten spins.
Must your directing numbers--2 23 22--be a certain distance from each other? Example
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
22
Is that a pattern? Or do you need
2
x
x
22
I personally use the last ten numbers that came as my guide. If I see so many within 10, I'm good to go.
Sam
What a lot of black magic,when all know here it is all evenly balanced at the end.
You should look elsewhere to find a winner.
mcmonoco
For years I have theorized that certain numbers cause other numbers to hit. I called it "voodoo" roulette.
Now comes Ulysses and Rocky with the same theory.
Just because you have not seen a UFO is not conclusive proof there is no such thing.
Take two north pole magnets and push them together. Now, tell me exactly and with specificity why they repel Science cannot answer this simple question.
Let's not burn witches at the stake anymore, please!
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on April 27, 2012, 05:33:39 PM
Take two north pole magnets and push them together. Now, tell me exactly and with specificity why they repel Science cannot answer this simple question.
Quite a curious thing our understanding of magnets, eh:
nolinks://nolinks.lifeslittlemysteries.com/588-how-do-magnets-work.html
Victor
When you push the two north poles together, there is an invisible spring you are compressing. The closer they get, the harder they are to make touch. To my knowledge, there is not one human on the planet who can tell you why this phenomenon occurs. But they will bloviate and obfuscate a lot.
Yes, gang, I'm off topic. I merely state that we don't understand every phenomenon in the universe. Maybe there is something about numbers we don't know.
Sam
Hi Rocky . . Two Cat . .
I too love "voodoo roulette", patterns, trends et al, and of course I love to test systems, theories etc.
I have attached a Tracking Zero Tracker for you all to enjoy.
Every time a Zero is spun, it records the 10 previous numbers and then adds them up so you can see at a glance which of the 36 numbers appear most frequently.
Simply press Function Key F9 for another set of 1000 spins.
The numbers were generated via an internal RNG, however, if you wish to verify the results with live spins, simply cut and paste them into the program.
Cheers . . . Nick
Hi TwoCatSam and Forum
What I mean together when I said 7 and 2,.... is exactly that, 7 is spun first and straight after that is 2 spun.
I went through one of my old books with roulette card 2 Table AR02 date 18/9/10 and saw this, (this example help you understand what is actually going on here I believe.
okay first is 34, then 27, then 6, you might say "so what" look closer at their position on the wheel.
number 27 is only two positions from 34, number 6 is one away from 34, Thirty-four happens to be one of the six numbers I mentioned earlier in tracking zero's.
Can you see that for the sake of purposes you could "almost" say that 34 hit three times in row (even though it didn't literally) BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT NUMBER OUT, ITS 26 which is one position off Zero! So we have at this stage 34, 27, 6, 26.
Looking at the next seven numbers spun after that, is 17, 28, 20, 20, 23, 29, 0.
Once again, the 28 is one position from the 7 on the wheel, (if we say 7, 20, 20 instead for the sake of argument) that is a very Strong pattern indeed and the following result of "Zero" proves it to me.
Are you beginning to see, its the relationship of the position of where the ball lands associated with prior spins or "landings of the ball", that predict where the ball has a high probability of landing in the next 12 spins on average.
Cheers Rocky
TwoCatSam 2,23, 22 that I Wouldn't consider a pattern BECAUSE THERE'S NOT a repeat of a same number, if it was 2,23,2 or 22, 23, 22 I would. Your other example is different 2 x x 22, if one of the x positions was any number from the list of six numbers i.e. 2, 20, 7, 34, 36, 22 that's a definite strong pattern (e.g. 2, 7, x 22) or (2, x 20,22). As I said in a previuos post four of these numbers together seems to cancel this affect.
In an earlier post I gave a basic example that ALSO can track zero but was not related to the list of six specific outlined but can track Zero also and I gave an e.g. of 16 8 16 (an alternate repeat number pattern), hope this clarifies this for you TwoCatSam. All the Best Mate!
I didn't have to look far, in minutes of posting my last reply, I flicked through the same book and found this (when you know what to look for, it sticks out like the "proverbial").
12, 20, 9, 23, 0
I see these numbers as 7 (12 is two away from 7) then 20, then 22 (9 is one away from 22) then 23, then Zero.
7, 20, 22, 23, 0 that's how I see the above numbers!
Its exciting!
Cheers Rocky
seconds this time, I found one they may shatter my theory of four same from the list nullifying zero, BUT then when I TAKE A CLOSER LOOK maybe not, I'll explain.
15, 28, 18, 2, 21, 0
I looked at 28, 18, 2, 21, 0, okay obvious to me, 28 is one awy from 7 of the European wheel 18 is one away from 22 then 2 the 21 is one away from 2 then Zero. I thought there's four there, how come I'm getting ZERO?
Then I looked at 15 ahead of it and that's two away from zero, and thought wheel there's a strong case of five numbers in a row 0, 7,22,2,2, 0
You may ask quite legitimately why it seems I'm including a seventh number now, i.e. (0) I apologise, the reason is, the Zero is the basis of the other six numbers, if you haven't already worked it out by now, the other six numbers form a pattern around the wheel. I'm so used to working with the associated numbers I forgot to include the root number in set of seven.
I've opened your minds up now, and believe you'll discover many other patterns and inter-relationships that will help you master the wheel more and more!
All my Best
David
Remember the old"Spirograph set" we had as kids, depending on the size of the disc and what hole you put your pen in, and what size circle you had it revolving around in, caused you to produce a specific pattern from all those dynamics
.
I believe the patterns produced from where the ball lands one time after another, can produce infinite patterns that are waiting to be discovered!
The only thing is, it can become such an obsession and fascination in discovering these things, as I know, alot of time can be spent on it, seeking the thrill, but we need to have balance in our lives as to the things that are really important in life (i.e. other people for one, relationships), because before you know it, if you let it, you'll spent all your time on the subject of Roulette, as Kimo Li says, and hope he doesn't mind me repeating what he said, but its true, 'Roulette is a subculture'. I should know I was involved in another subculture for 30 years, its called bodybuilding.
Cheers Rocky
Guys I hope I'm not Posting too much, its just that I'm excited and wanted to share with you, I found another one from Card 1 date 18/9/10, certainly not to brag, hope its of some help to someone.
36, 13, 1, 13, 14, 10, 32.
This example is unique because it has the dynamics of both a repeat number and also the relationship of the list numbers, as I'll explain again;
36 (one of the seven list numbers) 13 is one position away from 36, then 1 is one position way from 20( a list number), then 13 again (which is also the reat number) and 14 which is one position away from 20 then 10 (the first number after the pattern) then 32 which is one position from the Zero.
Note: (Just to clarify, when hunting for zero wager on 26,0,32, I may have already mentioned this somewhere.) sometimes it misses by one position.
So this could be seen as ( 36, 36, 20, 36, 20 ) 10, 0 THAT'S A PRETTY STRONG PATTERN WOW!
Cheers Rocky
Its easy to go back through old cards and once you knwo what you're looking for the patterns seem to present very often. The ability is in identifying them as the spins come out. Here's some more from Table AR02 10/6/10
29, 20, ( 18, 33, 9, 18 ) 21, 34, 0, 3, 22, 7, 0
You could look at it,
7, 20, 22, 33, 22, 22, 2, 34, (0,) 3, 22, 7,(0)
Also from the same table and day, later in the night,
1, 18, (23, 5, 23 ) 14, 28, (32) 20 (26)
again adjusting for misses either side,
20, 22, (23, 5, 23 ) 20, 7, (32,) 20, (26)
In both these examples there is a natural repeat happening PLUS acombination of the seven list numbers, producing Strong patterns back to Zero (give or take one position either side of it.)
IN THIS E.G. FROM 11/9/10 CARD 3 ar02, it took a bit longer for the zero to surface,
22, 13, 22 (that's the zero signal) next 7 (well that could have been the signal as well i.e. 22, 13,22,7) after seven is (I JUST REALISED) 11, 34, 18, 24, 30, 0. I realised (11one off36) 34 (18one off 22). So once again you've got seven numbers straight that are all strongly pointing to zero. WOW!!!!!
22, 13, 22, 7, 11, 34, 18, 24, 30, (0)
the reason I put out so many posts on this is that I was trying to find in my many notebooks a card I drew up with combinations of strong signals I used to take into the CASINO with me to help me, I don't need to use it now, but thought it may be of some use, but I think you I need to now, you get the drift by now, as to what to look for, and I have given you all, some pretty awesome examples, so you would be getting pretty expert at it by now.
Its 1am, so I might go to bed soon.
Cheers Rocky
Each and every one of the examples given by Rocky are math based. And the most powerful of them as I see it is ''zero to the power of 2 and 7.'' To me, the game of roulette IS a Math base, and the Math is always uncomplicated simple Math.
About a year ago I started a thread entitled THE PERFECT TABLE, unfortunately I became ill and the thread was abandoned, which was sad really as plenty of interest had been shown. The thread was on the other forum and my username was different then. I revealed 'the perfect table' which was of course Math based.
My perception of Roulette is somewhat unorthadox, and for that reason is hard for others to accept as most are incapable of seeing past what is generally accepted.
Rocky, you are (although you may not recognize it just now) using Math to reach zero.
Earlier, I mentioned 'zero to the power of 2 and 7.' Other examples of the numbers you give are '4 to the power of 9'. '9 to the power of 5'. 'zero to the power of 1.' there are other Math Based equations also involved.
Sam mentioned the connection between numbers and he is absolutely spot on. There is a connection between numbers on the wheel. Also there is a connection between numbers on the table. It has been said more than once on this forum, and by more than one person, that the table has nothing to do with roulette. To me, that is total and utter rubbish. The wheel does nothing more than show which POSITION on the table has won. All bets are won and lost ON THE TABLE. The wheel is no more than an INDICATOR, it only shows which bet has won.
When a bet is placed it is placed in a POSITION on the table. Rocky's numbers are positions on the table. Their positions on the wheel are a totally different set of positions, but the two positions of every number (one on the wheel and one on the table) have a positive connection.
Thanks for your posts Rocky, and you too Sam. There is a DEFINATE connection, and it is Math Based.
wardy
I love confirmation bias and the necessary conclusion "magical thinking." It's a
prerequisite stage that everyone researching Roulette must at least consider
for a while. It's also a clear sign that these people are getting smarter. They
are moving away from and beyond systems. :yahoo:
Hello wardy03
There may be some connection between the numbers on the table and positions on the wheel.
But my numbers HAVE NO connection to the Table, my numbers have been deduced 100% from the connection and relationship to their position on the Wheel.
I mentioned in a previous Post, those smart enough will have already worked out the corelation and can work out many more patterns based on the seven numbers in the list I gave.
You are right on one point wardy03, (i.e.), it does turn out, to be based on simple maths in this case.
I've explained in great detail something that is of substance on this forum, more than most have ever done on this forum ever!!!, so if you can back up with substance what you say generally by "4 to the power of 9" and "9 to the power of 5" etc and be more specific about it, I'll be able to accept what you say with more credence! and you'll have my respect.
Many have made sweeping general statements of Grandreur on these Forums for years to make them seem Important so many times, and never back them up with anything other than with Hot Air. I'm sorry wardy03 but we have heard these statements all before, unless you can produce specific proof and evidence why bother teasing those on the forum. I look forward to hearing of your discoveries.
Respectfully Rocky
Hello Rocky, many thanks for your reply.!!
I can only agree with all of what you say, as I am not looking for an argument. (Give me reasoned debate every time.) You have indeed contributed more than most to this thread.
Sorry that you viewed my post as you did as I was only trying to say that there is a connection between wheel and table. I believe this so strongly, I find it hard to believe when others can not see it. Even though you say there is no connection between your seven numbers on the wheel and the table, I believe that the connection is irrefutable. But as I said, I am not looking for an argument on this, we will just have to agree to disagree. Every bet that is made is (in the eyes of the bettor) a guess at which pocket(s) the ball will come to rest. The guess may be a reasoned guess, or not.
'The perfect table' showed four sets of nine numbers, each set identical in size and shape. I explained and shown the Math and explained how to make 'the perfect table'. At the time, I was challenging something Steve had said, and stated that I felt like a schoolboy challenging the Master.
Perhaps Steve could help me out here? as I can't find the thread in question. My username was pascal back then. Perhaps some of the other forum members can help?
wardy
P.S. Rocky, you mentioned a book in one of your posts; something about a guy that was taken advantage of and finished up with nothing? I believe that you are the least person on this earth to be looking to take advantage of anyone, Rocky, but unfortunately not everyone is of the same mind.
Respect, wardy.
Thankyou wardy03
You pointed out something I said and I didn't clarify, with the statement I said, on the second line of my last post, I should have said "the pattern of the SEVEN numbers on the wheel " I believe has nothing to do witt the table.
If you look at my opening statement I said in my last post. "There may be some connection between the numbers on the table and positions on the wheel." As there are in many instances e.g. (1,13,25) (2,14,26) (3,15,27) etc to give one set of examples.
I neither want an argument and I apologise to you wardy if I have taken what you said in the wrong way.
Its just that so many people have come on these forums and make bold statements, and most times never back them up. I want people to be true and congruent and finish explaining what it is that they know, most times they start to elude to something then stop short as with you.
P.S. In your P.S. in your last post wardy03 you said "you are the least person on this earth to be looking to take advantage of anybody"
I think your grossly confused wardy13, I have freely given generously of my knowledge and haven't taken advantage of anyone, on the contrary I have been extremely helpful, hopefully to someone.
If anyone has taken advantage of anyones good nature on this forum its been you by eluding to some great knowledge you have, then stating a few facts and then not fully explaining yourself and leaving the Forum UP IN THE AIR, wondering what it is that you know "that's so important". Thus my reference to "HOT AIR".
Come on, be honest with yourself and us
Rocky
Rocky, I think your ''put up or shut up'' attitude is too aggressive and offensive for my liking. Especially as I asked could I pm you. Thanks for the insight, Rocky.
Goodbye and Good Luck to you.
wardy
wardy
Over the years---and I've been here a few---we have all faced the guys who had the answer, made the money, laughed at us and called us ignorant. Many are still on the forum.
I speak only for myself.
IF you have a method that wins you money, I am happy for you. I wish you the best. Travel the world. See Monte Carlo, England, Australia and New Zealand. Believe me, I would.
But to come on these forums and taunt people is simply not right. If you have no intention of sharing, what is your purpose for being here other than to rub someone's nose in it?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking someone to "put up or shut up" as you phrase it. I've always said, if you go around a bunch of rednecks claiming to walk on water, don't be surprised if they haul your arse down to the pond.
Sam
Hi zippyplayer
I hope this has answered your question "It is just a matter of knowing what the wheel is throwing at the time.''
...........concerning hunting a' Zero' down in the majority of cases, on the European roulette wheel, knowing what the wheel is throwing at the time.
Cheers Rocky
next time you might not be lucky.
people like pins never cease to amaze me with their negativity, it had nothing to do with luck as you call it.
Zippyplayer asked a question, someone gave him an answer, why do you call that luck?
If you persist long enough with most things you'll eventually receive the answer, its called never giving up, not luck!
Rocky
I've learn't, as much as you want to be generous and give of your valuable gold nuggets of knowledge in contributing to others prosperity, there will always be those who are unapprecheciative and actually some who will turn, and try and attack you, for giving them something valuable.
If you are wise and had the 'roulette grail' you would never post it for that reason, I guess that's why we're never really seen many real gems that stand up after all these years on the forums, (not being negative just realistic).
"Be careful not to throw your pearls in front of swine................................"
To all the rest, my very Best to you.
Over and out
Rocky
"If you persist long enough with most things you'll eventually receive the answer" Edison? Light bulb?
Rocky
I've tried to e-mail you but it comes back. Contact me at twocatsam@cox.net.
Sam
If you are wise and had the 'roulette grail' you would never post it for that reason, I guess that's why we're never really seen many real gems that stand up after all these years on the forums, (not being negative just realistic).
Rocky
[/quote]
--I have seen, and am constantly playing it ever since very succ.
a real holy grail on the long run.On other cc forum.The longest
thread overthere,version 8......PCWB
Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 03, 2012, 12:12:17 PM
"If you persist long enough with most things you'll eventually receive the answer" Edison? Light bulb.
--No Sam,no Edison but Nikola Tesla.
Ah, Tesla........
True genius. Was Edison a thief?
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 04, 2012, 01:21:58 AM
Ah, Tesla........
True genius. Was Edison a thief?
Sam
What a poser band. I had a meet with some of them. Truly gifted musicians with no chance of breaking out of the hit maker machine. But none of you are worthy of judging them. They were on the bus.
I know of no band. I do know of Nicoli Tesla. He invented the electric motor.
His genius has never been lauded properly.
"But none of you are worthy of judging them." Have no intention of judging them; couldn't work up the energy to care less.
Have a blessed day!
TCS
Congratulations mcmonaco
You have found one of the "gems" that stand up!
I had a quick look, (90 something pages, didn't read them all) works on dozens, can have substantial drawdowns, but as (is it) FLAT IMO said himself after loosing one day, came back the next day, and made up for previous losses and recovered in profit the next day.
If it is consistently winning as I believe it is for you and others, then yes you've found a grail and I say power to you and the inventor of it.
Well done and thankyou for bringing it our attention.
I don't play dozens, I like tracking down a number, for me its more of a challenge to pin down an exact number. That's not to boohoo other variations, the parameters I'm looking for in a grail are more precise and consistent, the PCWB and its large variations in play, though you're able to recover would not suit my style of play. But many would quite rightly say, who cares as long as you're winning, and logically I would have to agree, anyway we're all different!
Cheers Rocky
Just an update for those interested:
found this 4/6/10/ table AR06, card 3
four zero patterns all in a row, three of them overlapping, producing a zero. As opposed to my observations where four of the 7 listed numbers in a row seem to nulify producing a zero.
The four zero patterns do!
9 24 9 22 24, here can you see two overlapping patterns (9, 24, 9) and (24, 9, 22, 24) then 31 7 24
again another overlap (24, 31, 7, 24) followed by 6 19 6 0.
thus: 9 24 9 22 24 31 7 24 6 19 6 (0) so here eleven numbers with a combination of four zero patterns has produced on the twelth spin a zero.
This was followed for interests sake with 13, 32, (16, 24, 16) 0 then 16, thus another overlapping pattern of (16,0, 16) 4, 2, 31, and another 0.
the whole sequence is 13 32 16 24 16 (0) 16 4 2 31 (0) : so in twenty three successive numbers we have six zero patterns producing three zero's.
Nothing like hunting a zero down!
Cheers Rocky
I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if already been said. But of what use is there in identifying patterns after they have happened, many moons ago. How can they help you in the here and now? Are you saying that if you go hunting for patterns like the ones you present you are onto a winner? So there is some kind of trigger right? But then the old problem of random kicks in and makes the continuation of the pattern no more or less likely that probability would suggest. How do you argue against this point?
It seems to me all efforts to find a holy grail are only delaying the inevitable understanding that there is no such thing. In a funny way i think the true holy grail of roulette is just to forget about it all together ;)
Red
Don't want to start a fight, but sometimes trends continue.
You are right in your assessment. A wise man said of craps: "You can never truthfully say the table is hot, only that it has been hot." By the same token, you can only truthfully say of roulette: Red has been coming.
Still, trends are one of the only things you can depend on the wheel to produce.
Sam
Red74, thankyou for your honesty in saying you haven't read the whole thread, just read from page 30 onwards of this thread , and I believe your questions will be answered.
Cheers Rocky
Quote from: Rocky on April 26, 2012, 12:43:41 PM
Hi TwoCatSam
As I explained these are examples of the alternating pattern: it could be 2, 20, 2 in that order for example, it could be something like 26, 8, 25, 26, I'm showing the type of alternating pattern.
Its the same number alternating either 1st and 3rd spin (i.e. 2, 20, 2) or the same number coming out 1st and 4th spin, (26,8,25,26) hope this clarifies the two e.g.'s above).
Its not guaranteed, as I explained, though it does seem to have a high strike rate from my observance over the years. You're right, this pattern doesn't happen all the time, that's why you would be constantly moving around the casino watching the display boards. I'm showing at the basic level a corelation between prior numbers and how I have seen them in a percentage of cases follow these patterns.
That's all my point was, as I don't believe in randomness, I believe roulette to be a highly ordered and also at the same time incredibly complex in its inter-relationships between numbers and complex patterns. That's why it looks totally unpredictable. Within it lies, I believe pattern upon pattern upon pattern infinitum, all waiting to be discovered. What I shared was a very tiny example of that.
My purpose was not to give a "system", but my observation. It may turn out that 8 to 9 successes out of 10 similiar examples over a huge sample study of "like results" will prove, not as high. So don't go out and wager on it, as I said look at your history of past spin results (do your own due diligence on the matter) and see if it rings true from your own observance. We all need to take responsibility for our own decisions and actions and question everything!
I hope I have answered your concerns TwoCatSam.
Rocky
God bless the day I found you Mr. Rocky and bless the day I came across this your post. I have been thinking whether I am different as to be seeing these patterns and number relationships from my years of taking past play data and analyzing them before playing. I have been laughed and mocked by other roulette players when I am doing my usual writing work at roulette machines, they laugh at me yet I am the one that sees all the hidden number affinities that they are not seeing. I go to roulette forums like roulette30/roulettelife and I see roulette professionals make stupid talk about ball speed, ball revolution and roulette computers that measure spin rate and all kind of thing and I am amazed knowing that if you take past spins, analyze and watch the affinities that it can give you a 50% predictability. They all say that roulette results are random and that future spins are independent of past spin. My discoveries of number friendship have shown me that roulette numbers are not as rigidly random as people believe, the randomness is not much and occurs when the machine is adjusted to take from customers. Future spins of roulette numbers most times relate to past spins and it is only the patient ones like Mr. Rocky here that see that. I even wrote a book about roulette number relationship but kept it and did not publish it at Amazon after telling myself that people will not believe this and that I don´t want to help anybody lose their money. I am glad I found and registered at this forum really. I await people to come forward and dispute this and we can rub mind on this issue.
Double post...sorry. Had to delete the second one.
HI Two Cat Sam, been a while since I've posted on this site, I think you play the American 00 wheel whereas I play the European wheel. In Australia now where I play, for the last 6 months they have created a hybrid wheel (2 of them, $5 chip per number) a EURO WHEEL WITH 00 INSERTED BETWEEN THE 5 and 10 at the bottom. Even the croupiers are unimpressed at what this Casino has done. Just means adding a couple of more chips to cover the scatter in the area I'm targeting. I HAVE MOVED ON A LOT SINCE Targeting Zero's ( a basic strategy, although solid) Best Regards Rocky.
Hey, EXE it is m chazman17, if you remember, sorry I havent been on in a while Ive just been busy with other games. But I am woundring what time zone you are in so I can play along side with you. Thanks Chazman17, and how has my underground home been going?