Randomness Effectiveness Versus Visual Ballistics Effectiveness

[Spike!]

Funnily enough, I didn't know this was 'impossible'!>>>

Its amazing what you can do if you don't know you can't and aren't supposed to even try.

[bombus]

Are there times when educated guessers are more confident with a guess than other times, and if so what action would you take?

Let's say I'm guessing on the EC's and I'm doing reasonably well hitting at around +55%.

But there are times when the choice seems as plain as day, so at those times I feel more confident with the choice, and these bets are hitting at around +60%.

Would you advocate an increased stake on the higher % bets, or would you keep the stakes level at all times.

[Spike!]

Are there times when educated guessers are more confident with a guess than other times>>>

Nope, not for me. Its all the same, I have the same chance on every bet of doing my hit rate. In fact it seems the obvious bets are usually the losers.

[Herb6]

Spike's life changed after this.

[Spike!]

Herb, back from a hard day beer drinking and tornado chasing, wonders why they've locked him out again.

[bombus]

That just about sums it up for me.

You see, Spike had a 50-50 chance of guessing which way that door opened...

[Spike!]

That just about sums it up for me.>>>

Your're dealing with random outcomes, how can one time be better than another time to bet. I have no idea whats coming next, all I can do is a make an educated guess. Thats what you do when you don't know, you guess. Most people would hate playing this way, they want a rigid system to tell them what do so they don't have to think.

[I have cookies]

Maybe you have a different set of decisions than we've ever see or played yet,
but as my system only needs anywhere in a 200 decisions block to have a r,r,r,r
OR b,b,b,b OR r,b,r,b OR b,r,b,r occur to win we'll just keep playing for now.

Hello here is an detail - just want to mention it ...

I assume when you use the exampels of four reds and four blacks that you aslo want to show us four singels ...
But there is an loop hole that you are missing.

RBRB or BRBR as your exampel above is wrong or did your intention being two strikes of four and two strikes of three - being what you want to show us with your exampel above?

You see if we have RBRB we only know there is three singels present - note - not four.
Visual - RBRBB ...
If you would want to use four singels you should have RBRBR ...

From here you could aim for five or that it should end or what ever it is you are doing

Cheers

[gizmotron]

You guys have no concept of the globaling effect and how it works in your favor. You denied the existence of perfectly formed patterns that last for 30 to 40 spins. You also don't know how to take advantage of all forms of dominance. You reject trends, for obvious reasons to yourselves. None of you are qualified to comment on anything but your errant view of something that has not been laid out for you to see clearly. It's you that needs tutoring. It's you that needs to get proper instruction. You are clueless and yet you attempt to advise others. What a joke. You expect suckers to follow you. It's everything you accuse me of doing. It's Pot, Kettle, Black. Just because someone can do something that you can't does not make you correct. Giving blind advice does not make you right either.

[I have cookies]

You guys have no concept of the globaling effect and how it works in your favor. You denied the existence of perfectly formed patterns that last for 30 to 40 spins. You also don't know how to take advantage of all forms of dominance. You reject trends, for obvious reasons to yourselves. None of you are qualified to comment on anything but your errant view of something that has not been laid out for you to see clearly. It's you that needs tutoring. It's you that needs to get proper instruction. You are clueless and yet you attempt to advise others. What a joke. You expect suckers to follow you. It's everything you accuse me of doing. It's Pot, Kettle, Black. Just because someone can do something that you can't does not make you correct. Giving blind advice does not make you right either.

Poor and your words and state of mind repeat it self with old boring things that we have read so many times.

Note - we alredy seen comments that make all of this rediculus - so let me remind you.

Here's a really good question and try to answer it honestly. You've decided to place a 100K bet on red or black and the casino has said OK. Would you just randomly pick R or B or wait till you see something like RRRR B RRR B RRRR B
and go with the trend and bet red? I would always bet red.

Be honest!

And you reply with the following - very intressting.

If my bankroll was 1,000,000 then I would bet red at 100,000.

Now we know that you know nothing about what you are talking about - it just become rediciulus.

The scale would be 10 attempts to gain minimum +1 and that does 10 attempts would overcome the amount of times you gain +1 or above.

I understand that not all see the significant point with this - I just say it again - it is ridiculus.

Cheers

[gizmotron]

doesn't have a full box of cookies, do you think that streaks of wins happen? Can you see streaks of wins?

Winning is just a coincidence.

[Herb6]

Streaks of wins can happen.  Unfortunately in the random game of roulette, the streaks of losses will consume the streaks of wins. 

[gizmotron]

Streaks of wins can happen.  Unfortunately in the random game of roulette, the streaks of losses will consume the streaks of wins. 

Only a fool like snowman/herb would take that. He thinks you can't avoid the losses.

[Herb6]

Gizmo,

You can't beat the EC's betting on trends. 

If you believe differently, then PROVE IT.

[gizmotron]

Gizmo,

You can't beat the EC's betting on trends. 

If you believe differently, then PROVE IT.

I'll prove it. You are my proof. Because you are so dumb I must be at least right a little more than you. You are the proof.

[gizmotron]

-