What of this method?

[Bateman]

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

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

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

[Tangram]

I think it is more than enough to say you can beat roulette without physics.

With that I agree. 

The bet selection is not event-driven

What does an "event" mean to you?

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

[Bateman]

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

[rjeaton1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rjeaton1]

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

[rjeaton1]

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

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

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

[gizmotron]

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

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

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

[TwoCatSam]

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

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

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

Sam

[gizmotron]

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

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

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

Sam

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

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

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

[gizmotron]

-