Removing unproductive members

[Steve]

I'm going to start removing nuisance members that:

1. Just criticize people without offering anything constructive

2. Waffle on in circles to lead people on (people like wendel, who is now gone)

3. Repeatedly disregard the rules, in particularly pertaining to language and offensive behavior

If you believe a particular member meets any of the above criteria, please let me know via PM. The forum was clean of such people for a while, and now they seem to have crept back on and productivity was reduced. Probably the same people under different names. This all leads to vls being just a mess, and it loses good and productive members.

To the members who just want to kick of crap and argue with people they dont like, GG is more what you want as it is less moderated.

[Spike!]

negatory party for instance they set it all off>>>

Saying why something won't work is not being negative. In fact, its very positive. If a person has a valid argument as to why something is doomed, and all you have for an answer is 'quit being a hater', then you have no agument at all. Thats why we don't have to rediscover how to build cars and airplanes every few years, the people who know how to do it show the people who don't know how.

Listen very carefully: The only way to beat roulette is by having the edge. The only way to have the edge is thru VB play, or a roulette computer, or by reading the random well enough to make an accurate guess. Anything else is flying too close to the sun with wings of wax..           

[Spike!]

What you want is control over who says what in a thread you're in. You'd be the first one to squeal like a banchee if anybody told you to be quiet.    

[Steve]

I guess im down for number 3 but I will stop if I dont get prevoked by number 1's

negatory party for instance they set it all off

Understand I dont distinguish between who started it, who provoked who etc etc. I dont have time to read all the details - who does. If someone provokes you and breaks the basic rules, REPORT THEM. If you retaliate, or act negatively from being provoked, all I will see is your post - not the reasons behind it which are irrelevant.

This might mean I may ban some people but neglect to ban others who actually are more of a problem, but those bigger problems wont last either if their behavior continues.

[Spike!]

If someone provokes you and breaks the basic rules>>>

This is what Stack is talking about. If he's in a thread and somebody posts and says this or that won't work and here are the reasons, he resents it and thinks they shouldn't be allowed to do it. He thinks any kind of input except positive 'you can do it, rah rah rah' is negative and the person should be banned for just expressing their informed opinion. I know this because he's said as much.

[Steve]

People of course arent always going to agree on forums. But when it comes to something like mathematics, there is only one truth. It is not open to interpretation - it is black or white. When people tend to disagree about things like maths, there is someone right and someone wrong. The wrong person just doesnt see it yet.

With #1 I'm talking only about people who unjustly attack, bully or whatever. When someone states rubbish, the perfect thing to do is present facts, without emotion. But many people "get off" on sticking it to people - that's plain bullying which is essentially "offensive" behavior, and it should not be tolerated. In the end, the members know who they do or dont like and why. If a member is generally not liked, and members dont want them around, we remove them.

In simplest terms, I posted this thread to ask members to let me know who brings the forum down - who the dickheads are - so we can ban them.

[Spike!]

I posted this thread to ask members to let me know who brings the forum down>>>

The people who are disliked the most here are me, Herb, Gizmo, Six, Danger Man and a few others. We throw the cold water of facts on things and are called negative because of it. Its not being negative, its being realistic. Also, the ones who complain the most are young and were brought up in the environment of PCism and they were rewarded for losing in school. They were never critisized or told anything was wrong. Every thought they had was rewarded and so when they got out in the real world, and discovered some things they said would meet opposition, they call those people 'haters' and 'negative'. Welcome, as they say, to the real world. The Force has two sides, you know.

[kav]

If he's in a thread and somebody posts and says this or that won't work and here are the reasons, he resents it and thinks they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

The problem is that the naysayers never give any reason. They just monotonously keep repeating something everyone knows: that there is a house edge. As if it were impossible to win at th stock market just because there are trading fees.

This is negativity. Furthermore it is boring. And non-constructive. It is like being in a discussion where people try to create a airplane and some people keep repeating again an again that it is impossible to create one, because it would be heavier than the air, and physics say that anything heavier than the air will fall down.

But the negative people, due to the fact that they repeat themselves,, do not have to think something original in order to post. So they are heavy posters. And the admin is afraid to ban them, because the posting activity of the forum will drop. Though the quality will increase. But who cares for quality? Quality cannot be measured while activity can. Bu in the long run quality is the only way to make a forum stand out.

[Spike!]

They just monotonously keep repeating something everyone knows: that there is a house edge.>>>

Be fair, there is a heck of lot more said then 'there is a house edge'.

>>where people try to create a airplane and some people keep repeating again an again that it is impossible to create one>>

If you're trying to build it out of concrete, yup, people will tell you it won't work.

>But the negative people>>the admin is afraid to ban them>>

So it should be all people here who know nothing about roulette or how its played, just people who are 'positive', whatever the heck that means. If it there were just you guys, then The Zone would be the Grail? It only loses because of the 'negative' people? You really believe that?

[TwoCatSam]

Steve

I refer you to #2 and to Fender1000.  All this person has done is waffle!  He was challenged to prove his system on Dublin and he refused.  (Had he tried and lost, I would have been the first to say it was no test as it was too small a sample.  Same if he won.)  At least he could have taken the challenge!

Telling me that Dublin is a rigged wheel or (whatever he believes) is a cop-out, to use an old Hippie phrase.

A semi-proper test of Fender would be for someone to suggest an advance date and time to begin at Dublin (or anywhere) and have a couple of guys monitor the spins.  Better yet, Fender could spend a few bucks and buy into Motion Box and WM Capture and make us a two-hour video.  

The test itself would prove nothing, but the taking of the test would prove Fender's resolve!

I sure wouldn't want the guy banned, but don't you agree that he sells more waffles than The Waffle House?

Sam

[Bayes]

The problem is that the naysayers never give any reason. They just monotonously keep repeating something everyone knows: that there is a house edge. As if it were impossible to win at th stock market just because there are trading fees.

Kav,

It's not merely that there's a house edge which makes roulette hard to beat, it's the randomness of the game.

randomness + house edge =  one hell of a hard nut to crack!

You can't really compare trading with roulette, because there are elements of non-randomness in trading which enable you to get an edge. Trends in markets can actually mean something, because they're based on psychology. The game of roulette is synonymous with randomness and unpredictability, however, the wheel is not necessarily a perfect RNG 100% of the time. That's why Herb says you can beat the wheel, but not the game.

It's a well established fact that the game cannot be beaten. Not only that, but there is cast-iron proof that this is the case. If anyone claims that they can beat the game, and I keep saying this, they are the ones who need to provide some evidence.  Do you realise what an extraordinary claim it is?

If any of the claimants could  provide even a single reason, why, in principle, the game can be beaten, I'd love to hear it. And I'm not talking about meaningless gibberish like "random can be read", I mean a real, testable principle.

The APs have Physics - the wheel is a physical device and as such is subject to wear and tear, imperfections.
Traders have psychology, as do poker players and to some extent sports bettors.

Apart from luck, what does a player of the RANDOM GAME of roulette have?

[gizmotron]

It's not merely that there's a house edge which makes roulette hard to beat, it's the randomness of the game.

randomness + house edge =  one hell of a hard nut to crack!

I'm living proof that that assumption is incorrect.

You can't really compare trading with roulette, because there are elements of non-randomness in trading which enable you to get an edge. Trends in markets can actually mean something, because they're based on psychology. The game of roulette is synonymous with randomness and unpredictability, however, the wheel is not necessarily a perfect RNG 100% of the time. That's why Herb says you can beat the wheel, but not the game.

Actually you can apply your own meaning to stretches of continuous spins and form your own predictability psychology on your own. And, you can do this without the hoard mentality component that effects the stock market.

It's a well established fact that the game cannot be beaten. Not only that, but there is cast-iron proof that this is the case. If anyone claims that they can beat the game, and I keep saying this, they are the ones who need to provide some evidence.  Do you realise what an extraordinary claim it is?

There is cast iron proof that letting a well known advantage out to the general public causes the casinos to take direct action against players attempting to use that advantage too. Therefore it is essential not to prove it publicly. Otherwise it will be lost forever. Perhaps the person that blows it should be forced to eat a cast iron frying pan. You can't trust people to keep their mouths shut.

If any of the claimants could  provide even a single reason, why, in principle, the game can be beaten, I'd love to hear it. And I'm not talking about meaningless gibberish like "random can be read", I mean a real, testable principle.

The science of clustering analysis through pattern recognition has a proven track record in establishing a known advantage in other fields using random data. To date no scientist has published a correlation of that to gambling. Perhaps there are a few scientists that amuse themselves by winning. The argument here is the subject of proof. You suggest that you hold the right to have a temper tantrum if this advantage is not in effect destroyed, just for your pleasure.

The APs have Physics - the wheel is a physical device and as such is subject to wear and tear, imperfections.
Traders have psychology, as do poker players and to some extent sports bettors.

What does the RANDOM GAME of roulette have?

It has patterns, dominances, global effects, and effectiveness statistics. It's advantage comes from using implied experience psychologically. It concerns itself completely with the now state in placing bets at the most effective time of the now state, now.

[Bayes]

So what can a player do?

• He can choose when to stop playing
• He can choose when to start playing
• He can choose what to bet on
• He can choose how much he stakes

None of these affect the randomness of the game.

If you don't know what's random and what isn't, you're going to have a hard time winning consistently. That's why you need maths. It can help you to determine when you're dealing with random outcomes, and when you're not. If you're playing against random outcomes, you can still win - for a while. The maths will tell you that too. It would be remarkable if you never won, even playing against random outcomes. If you're using some kind of progression and don't have terrible luck, you could even win for long periods, perhaps even your lifetime if you don't play very often.

[Bayes]

The science of clustering analysis through pattern recognition has a proven track record in establishing a known advantage in other fields using random data.

Name one field in which this track record has been proved. If it exists, I think you'll find there are other, non-random factors involved.

[gizmotron]

So what can a player do?

• He can choose when to stop playing
• He can choose when to start playing
• He can choose what to bet on
• He can choose how much he stakes

None of these affect the randomness of the game.

Once again your misconceptions are incorrect. I'm coming to the conclusion that it's a quality of mentality that many math oriented researchers are stuck on this exact point. You are implying that I do something that attempts to affect randomness. I don't. I just use the current data stream to draw conclusions that help me to make decisions like the ones found in your list above. It's fare to say that you are stuck at the same assumption point that Herb is stuck at. You have one quality that he lacks though. You don't have a monotonous phrase to brow beat others with.

[gizmotron]

-