Please give an example of Winkel's G.U.T strategy

[gizmotron]

Please explain, step by step, how Winkel's G.U.T strategy works. After that please give a working example of the strategy.

[winkel]

Go to download-area and download track4.exe

or search for KonFuSed´s GUTCBA

There is all you need.

[Landis]

According to Konfused's simulation, the Gut doesn't work.

[winkel]

According to Konfused's simulation, the Gut doesn't work.

KonFuSed  didn´t simulate the strategy.
He just took every possible crossing and brought it to -2,7% by running it through 10million spins.
Didn´t they come up with that result, we wouldn´t have a random game.
We couldn´t be sure, that there are winning streaks after losing streaks after winning streaks etc.

As everybody should know: There are waves, winning and losing.

To make G.U.T a perfect loser it would need that all crossings at every possible point of appearance would lose and the idiot that is playing at that time doesn´t jump because he is to stupid to see he is in a losing streak.
G.U.T wins because it uses the swings of many possible crossings to eliminate the lost ones through winning ones.

This is the neccessary "gambler´intelligence"

That you don´t have that is proofed by yourself.

[gizmotron]

To make G.U.T a perfect loser it would need that all crossings at every possible point of appearance would lose and the idiot that is playing at that time doesn´t jump because he is to stupid to see he is in a losing streak.
G.U.T wins because it uses the swings of many possible crossings to eliminate the lost ones through winning ones.

This is the neccessary "gambler´intelligence"

That you don´t have that is proofed by yourself.

So you use an educated guess. When I explain that process at GG I get the Great Wall of China too. I'm not going to argue the merits of a system that has "intelligence" as the important factor in making selections. If a contraption of specified mechanical results leads you to the need to make an intelligent guess then there is no difference in what I do while using visual dexterity in my own charts. I have many opportunities and they occur all the time while playing. I refuse to program intelligent guessing in a long winded contraption. I thought your system was mechanical and strictly rule based. Perhaps you added some common sense after all this time?

[winkel]

Perhaps you added some common sense after all this time?

No, I told it from the beginning.

See "Jumping Tutorial" and you will see, that the strategy gives you the hint, when to jump!
All is result of "watching what is going on" and the resulting experience.

If you know all the rules of chess (bridge, poker and others) you don´t win neccessarily, do you? You need experience and training and intelligence!

[gizmotron]

...See "Jumping Tutorial" and you will see, that the strategy gives you the hint, when to jump!
All is result of "watching what is going on" and the resulting experience.

If you know all the rules of chess (bridge, poker and others) you don´t win neccessarily, do you? You need experience and training and intelligence!

This is my exact argument. I have been doing this all along. I completely understand it. So does Spike. For that my concepts are the scourge of the universe. We may use different concept to form out intelligent decisions but the process has the same end result. I win more than I lose because of what I see that is currently happening in my grouping that I'm observing. BTW, Spike uses a completely different set of groupings than I do. Yet he has come to the same conclusions. You must adjust for what you are seeing.

[gizmotron]

This topic is no longer relevant. I agree with Winkel's intelligent concepts of awareness.

[Tangram]

If you know all the rules of chess (bridge, poker and others) you don´t win neccessarily, do you? You need experience and training and intelligence!

I'm playing the Devil's advocate here for a moment; can the best chess players defeat the best chess computers?

The answer is no (I just looked it up). Up until the late 90's computer's didn't have the processing power, now they can beat the likes of Gary Kasperov. Anyway, my point is, any gambler's intelligence can be coded - although I wouldn't like to be the programmer doing it. 

[Landis]

In this case, the fundamental basics of the system are flawed.  It's dependent on previous outcomes. 

[winkel]

In this case, the fundamental basics of the system are flawed.  It's dependent on previous outcomes.  

Could there be a bi-/multi-nomial distrubution or a "Law of Third" without previous outcomes?
And there is still this question open: What about Kolmogoroff and Markov-theories?

As long as you are refusing to answer this you are banned (by yourself) from being allowed of any further statement!

btw: G.U.T is a strategy not a system. there is no system at chess or bridge, is it?

[Landis]

Winkel,

It's as simple as calculating the odds of what the next spin will be.  For example:  For a column the odds will be 12/37 and for a single number they will be 1/37.  Therefore, the house edge remains intact.

[winkel]

Winkel,

It's as simple as calculating the odds of what the next spin will be.  For example:  For a column the odds will be 12/37 and for a single number they will be 1/37.  Therefore, the house edge remains intact.

Bad Blue Print

And what about my questions?
I think you can´t answer because you are to dump stupid and uneducated to answer


keep on banging that steelball to your head. Perhaps it helps in any future. I ´m afrid it won´t

[bombus]

KonFuSed  didn´t simulate the strategy.
He just took every possible crossing and brought it to -2,7% by running it through 10million spins.
Didn´t they come up with that result, we wouldn´t have a random game.
We couldn´t be sure, that there are winning streaks after losing streaks after winning streaks etc.

As everybody should know: There are waves, winning and losing.

I would have thought the vast majority of systems would be brought to -2.7% by running them through 10 million spins.

Virtually every one of them will have winning streaks after losing streaks after winning streaks etc.

So this "gambler's intelligence" should in effect be applicable to any and every system?

[gizmotron]

What a problem for the long termers.

Markov chain

"In mathematics, a Markov chain, named after Andrey Markov, is a random process where all information about the future is contained in the present state (i.e. one does not need to examine the past to determine the future). To be more exact, the process has the Markov property, meaning that future states depend only on the present state, and are independent of past states. In other words, the description of the present state fully captures all the information that could influence the future evolution of the process. Being a stochastic process means that all state transitions are probabilistic (determined by random chance and thus unpredictable in detail, though likely predictable in its statistical properties).

At each step the system may change its state from the current state to another state (or remain in the same state) according to a probability distribution. The changes of state are called transitions, and the probabilities associated with various state-changes are called transition probabilities. An example of a Markov chain is a random walk on the number line which starts at zero and transitions +1 or −1 with equal probability at each step."

What a bummer. Spike's concepts are backed by math. That will give a head ache to the flat earthers. Mathboyz, don't remember this. It's too hard to handle. You will get another headache.

[gizmotron]

-