This is how any serios attempt beat an random game - the challange at GG.

[lucky_strike]

nolinks://nolinks.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8340&forum=Roulette_Message_Board

LS

[lucky_strike]

Kelly is in, now we only wait for Snowman and Bliss to reply.

LS

[Number Six]

It is easy to follow trends in real time...if you know what a trend is and what you're looking for. The common consensus by so-called "experts" is that a trend isn't a trend until it's over. That, of course, is nonsense, and these people have no concept whatsoever of random populations and the mechanics of how they are generated. There are many principles of statistical dispersion you can use to gauge what is happening on a spin by spin basis. The hard part is estimating the strength of the trend, how long it will last, and recognising when it is ending and when it has died. By default another trend begins, or has already begun, somewhere else. Then you switch to the active dominance. You use markers to measure the random flow, they are statistics, but it isn't about the numbers themselves it's about how they are behaving and, importantly, how they are changing. The law of series is an interesting notion but I don't see how it would ever yield an advantage to the player. It's much more effective to attack with a time lag, rather than being governed by a law that you can't really exploit. You have no idea what series will become what. Will RR become RRR? Will RRR become broken by a B? It's just pure guesswork and there is no adapting to the flow. I think I know how this challenge will turn out, though I admire you for actually putting your money where your mouth is.

[Marven]

The law of series is an interesting notion but I don't see how it would ever yield an advantage to the player. It's much more effective to attack with a time lag, rather than being governed by a law that you can't really exploit.

In my experience, this is true.

I don't see how the law of series has any significance to the player in the short term.

PS. For those here who don't know it already, Snowman is Herb.

[lucky_strike]

What I know and the challenge is what it is no one can change that and the only truth you will find is the "significant statistical results" that will be posted.

We will post 50.000 placed bets.
Flat betting.

We will use 1 milion from random.org and 1 milion from Spielbank Hamburg files.

I have nothing to say about your opinions.

LS

[bliss]

LS,

I'm up for this challenge, but do you want this coded specifically in RX? (I don't know it).

[lucky_strike]

No need for RX and we can continue this via email from now on.

LS

[Marven]

I just hope this really gets done.

Nice effort by the way Lucky. Looking forward to the results of the challenge.

[Number Six]

I have nothing to say about your opinions.

LS

Actually they are more like facts. How can the law of series give the player advantage? I just don't see it. In the end the hit rate is likely to be around the expected value, give or take for minor fluctuation. If you peel away and dissect the theory, what you're left with is wait for 10 reds, then bet black. Following the law of series can't be any better or any worse. What I mean is, how will it give you enough of an edge to turn profits flat betting? At the moment the only reason I can see is if you're lucky you win, if you're not you lose. There is no way of knowing what the next series will be, or what the current series will turn into. Sorry, I don't think it has any credibility. If you don't want to talk about this method or entertain other people's opinions I really don't know why you're even bothering with the challenge.

[lucky_strike]

I will have the significant statistical results and you only speak with words and claims things with nothing to put up with.
Fact and fiction can be measuring and we can measuring your claims if you show us significant statistical results.

That is why I don't care about opinions, just hard core facts.

And the point of the challange is to show every one if you can beat the game flat betting with the very best knowledge there is about the subject.

I think there is many members here that would like to gain that knowledge, if it can be done and that some one can prove it with statistics and not with words.

LS

[Marven]

How can the law of series give the player advantage?

I'm not sure but from what I know, he tracks the SD for the singles/series, waits until it reaches +3 SD and bets that it will fluctuate back... Or something like that.

I have messed with such concept a while back and it didn't work for the reasons you mentioned. I'm not sure if the method used for this challenge will be something similar. In any case, I'm expecting that it won't work but if it does, I, among many others out there (including mathematicians and statisticians), would be truly surprised and would take my hat off to Lucky.

[Number Six]

I will have the significant statistical results and you only speak with words and claims things with nothing to put up with.
Fact and fiction can be measuring and we can measuring your claims if you show us significant statistical results.

That is why I don't care about opinions, just hard core facts.

And the point of the challange is to show every one if you can beat the game flat betting with the very best knowledge there is about the subject.

I think there is many members here that would like to gain that knowledge, if it can be done and that some one can prove it with statistics and not with words.

LS

Well I respect you for doing the test. But I sort of resent the fact that you're subtly implying I'm a liar. I haven't claimed anything. I know what a trend is. I know enough about statistical dispersion and randomness to be able to identify one when it's active. So what? It's not exactly neurosurgery. I'm not going to talk about it, someone taught me it. If that makes my opinion about YOUR test invalid, then whatever. Anyway, all I wanted to know was why...well, forget it. Good luck.

[lucky_strike]

It has not been my intention to offend you.
I use the word opinions and not use the word lie.
And i talk about significant statistical results to back up any claims or statements.

So if i offend you i truly apologies for that.

LS

[Number Six]

I'm not offended.
I'm interested but I don't understand what the test will achieve if you aren't prepared to talk about the method involved. But that is your prerogative.

[lucky_strike]

There is.

Kelly, Snowman, Bliss will get all the material and there is one more but I don't think he want me to mention hes name.
I trust them and they will verify if the concept will fail or not.

And I will post the results for every one to read no matter the outcome.
It will show if it can be done or not.

LS

[lucky_strike]

-