Removing unproductive members

[gizmotron]

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.

No, you find it. You are the one demanding proof. You won't be satisfied until the research is about Roulette anyway. Just cherry pick the science that supports your opinion. The topic is Bayesian probability versus the frequentist view. You will find plenty of scientists to support your view. There are plenty that support mine too. Now go try to be honest to yourself. You depend on far too many assumptions. Your opinions don't pass the peer review process.

Bayesian probability interprets the concept of probability as "a measure of a state of knowledge", in contrast to interpreting it as a frequency or a physical property of a system. Its name is derived from the 18th century statistician Thomas Bayes, who pioneered some of the concepts. Broadly speaking, there are two views on Bayesian probability that interpret the state of knowledge concept in different ways. According to the objectivist view, the rules of Bayesian statistics can be justified by requirements of rationality and consistency and interpreted as an extension of logic. According to the subjectivist view, the state of knowledge measures a "personal belief". Many modern machine learning methods are based on objectivist Bayesian principles. One of the crucial features of the Bayesian view is that a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under the frequentist view, a hypothesis is typically rejected or not rejected without directly assigning a probability.

Are you a relative of Thomas Bayes?

[gizmotron]

Gizmotron

Do you actually have a method of play that you are winning in the long term?

If yes...is it on inside or outside bets?
Are you playing flat or not?

Thank you

Yes, I win in the long run because my expectation goal is so low compared to my risk that I usually leave the casino a winner every time. I flat bet a grinding method against the EC's, and the 2/1 ratio bets, be that combinations created from the inside layout or the outside bets. But I have an attack mode too. I attack the unusual pattern and/or dominances. I raise my flat bet to an attack level. Then I attack the current continuing state that is currently very effective. I end all attacks on the first loss. Or, I adjust to the pattern of the effect and play a combination of high and minimal bets that fits the pattern. It's so easy it's like riding a bike. I don't even think about it. I just use my energy to perceive things that are continuing. Odds never have an effect on the randomness. I mean that things happen irregardless of the probability suggested by scientists. The idea that something is due almost always leads to a time when it should have happened but it didn't. Set the goal very low, leave when you reach it.

[kav]

Bayes,

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!

Partly agree on that.
The main problem is not the house edge that's for sure.

Also please refer to an older post of mine where I explain that the word "randomness" causes more misunderstandings that it helps explain concepts.

The main problem in roulette is the deviation from the expectation, that is, from the theoretical normal distribution of outcomes.

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.

Yes I can compare trading with roulette. There are too many similarities to ignore. I don't know how familiar you are with the stock market. Three words: Efficient Market Hypothesis.

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?

Pease decide. Is there "cast iron proof" of the contrary or do the system players have to provide theirs?
No there is not ANY proof that roulette cannot provide profits to th player. This cannot be mathematically proved.

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?

Without any disrespect, I have to tell you that you are not ready to understand the concept of "winning system" as I see it.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them alredy; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

It's funny, but just yesterday I wrote a piece in my roulette blog (nolinks://roulette8.blogspot.com/p/is-it-possible-to-beat-roulette.html) relating to this issue. Its title is: Is there a Winning System? (and how to win without one)(I may repost it here when I find the time)

[Herb6]

Good lord Gizmotron,

You're just like James Wendell.  You talk in circles spewing so much BS in an effort to try and solicit offers for your system.
To date, you haven't offered a bit of proof, math, or even a sane explanation about your system.

Why should we let you get away with it, when we don't let James get away with it? 

[gizmotron]

Good lord Gizmotron,

You're just like James Wendell.  You talk in circles spewing so much BS in an effort to try and solicit offers for your system.
To date, you haven't offered a bit of proof, math, or even a sane explanation about your system.

Why should we let you get away with it, when we don't let James get away with it? 

Once again your misconceptions are incorrect. You are just like James Wendell. You can't see trends. You can't conceive of an advantage do to tracking past spins. From your blind perspective you expect others to take your view seriously. You are an obnoxious, interruptive, and disruptive individual that thinks only his opinions are constructive. You want proof, prove it to yourself, do your own hard work. I've never attempted to actually sell anything regarding randomness. I've only jokingly offered it for two million dollars, tax free. If you leave me alone I'll leave you alone.

[Herb6]

Gizmo just continually talks in circles without providing any examples.  It's pathetic.

[gizmotron]

Come on Gizmotron get sirious man!
You are just a person that don t play roulette...and you just need attention...

All the post with your kind of play is a complite gamblers fallacy!

Only if a member knows Roulette for 1-2 months can belive you.

If I were stuck with the limitations you call constructive advise, with your intellect and limited experience I wouldn't gamble either. I'm as smart as you can get regarding trends and playing experience. You are clueless to these techniques, yet you want to give everyone advice regarding me. You can go straight to hades. I'm doing fine and you are moaning and groaning that I exist in your little fiefdom of a imagined reality. I'm here because you people are the ones dragging others to losing. You are a loser.

[gizmotron]

Gizmo just continually talks in circles without providing any examples.  It's pathetic.

Where's your example of contributions to this forum, Pot Kettle Black?

At least I offer constructive advise regarding trending. You offer nothing. You have not contributed jack s**t in years.

In fact you are demonstrating that you are disliked for not contributing anything but hateful distractions. Funny, this is the one thread where you should have been useful to this forum. Perhaps Steve will reward you for your activity.

[Herb6]

Gizmo and James both just talk and talk about how great they are.   They never provide examples or proof of what they are doing, yet they expect us to worship them and buy their systems.

Gizmo,

Do you ever read what you've written from the readers view point? Most of what you write is just jibberish.  Half of the time people can't even tell if you're talking about roulette.  

[gizmotron]

Gizmo and James both just talk and talk about how great they are.   They never provide examples or proof of what they are doing, yet they expect us to worship them and buy their systems.

Gizmo,

Do you ever read what you've written from the readers view point? Most of what you write is just jibberish.  Half of the time people can't even tell if you're talking about roulette.  

Herb/snowman I see that others here are considering what I suggest as a tactically advisable approach to obtaining a real advantage. I'm suggesting that as Visual Ballistics tends to become more impractical an understanding of coincidental circumstances might offer times when it is far more effective. I know that that statement is like a dagger to your heart, but that's just too bad Herb. You will have to live with it. It's just too bad that there are people in this world that can see that you were once great but now you are just a bitter and tormented soul that expects others to suffer with you. Visual Ballistics in nearly dead and buried. So what's your big gripe? You demand a demonstration. I've never promised anyone that I would give one. What part of your expectation is really important? None of it. I never suggested a demonstration was a productive idea. That's your tormented contrivance. You live with it and your depleting investigation of life on earth.

[Noble Savage]

Yes I can compare trading with roulette. There are too many similarities to ignore. I don't know how familiar you are with the stock market. Three words: Efficient Market Hypothesis.

EMH is not the absolute truth of the markets.

Red/Black results are driven by randomness. Market prices are driven by supply & demand.

[Bayes]

Pease decide. Is there "cast iron proof" of the contrary or do the system players have to provide theirs?
No there is not ANY proof that roulette cannot provide profits to th player. This cannot be mathematically proved.

Kav,

The simple mathematical proof of expectation covers all systems and methods of selecting bets. Herb has posted it many times. It basically says that any positive number multiplied by a negative number (the expectation) must result in a negative number (your return). 

If there is mathematical proof that roulette can't be beaten, then is it unreasonable to require that someone claiming the contrary be asked to provide some evidence? In the same way, if someone claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine (which would defy the laws of physics) would they not be required to demonstrate it?

It's possible to write a mathematical proof for every system you can dream up which shows that it cannot possibly win. However this would be extremely tedious and would only be understood by a few people, but as I said, the "generic" proof  is very simple and covers all cases. There are plenty of sources on the net where you can find the proof. I think there's a book online by Thorp which gives the details.  Here is a general proof that no progression can work for the even chances:
nolinks://nolinks.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htm

Without any disrespect, I have to tell you that you are not ready to understand the concept of "winning system" as I see it.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them alredy; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Rather patronising, if you don't mind me saying so. What's necessary is not for me (or anyone else) to understand a concept, but to see some hard evidence that there is such a thing as a "winning system". Does it matter if I'm not "ready to understand" anyway? what does that even mean?

There seems to be an assumption that all the so-called "math heads" and naysayers have never even tried using systems - an assumption that they need to overcome their closed-mindedness before they can enter the glittering world which lies beyond. I can assure you that this isn't the case. Members like Number Six, Noble Savage, Kelly, Laurance at GG and others have all worked on systems and various approaches, sometimes for years. They came to the conclusion they don't work.

Feel free to share your concept anyway. I repeat what I said to gizmo - can you give me a principle by which it is, even theoretically, possible to gain an edge in the random game?

For example, gizmo said the key is clustering analysis. It's true that numbers tend to "clump" together. A number doesn't hit regularly every 37 spins. You tend to get clusters followed by long gaps. But the fact that a number has occurred a few times in short interval doesn't mean it will continue to. Cluster analysis is used for classification purposes, or to find related groups, it can't be used to predict the outcome of random events.

Incidentally, this approach is recommended by Louis G. Holloway in his book full-time gambler. I'll post some "gems" from the book later in another post - you can then draw your own conclusions as to whether they work.

The only other so called "principle" on which roulette systems are based is the gambler's fallacy.

[kav]

EMH is not the absolute truth of the markets.

Red/Black results are driven by randomness. Market prices are driven by supply & demand.

Of course it isn't. It is disproved every day. It is like the normal distribution in roulette. It tells us how things should be but never are exactly... see the analogy?

Markets are driven by too many things to mention

[gizmotron]

For example, gizmo said the key is clustering analysis. It's true that numbers tend to "clump" together. A number doesn't hit regularly every 37 spins. You tend to get clusters followed by long gaps. But the fact that a number has occurred a few times in short interval doesn't mean it will continue to. Cluster analysis is used for classification purposes, or to find related groups, it can't be used to predict the outcome of random events.

I never said it was the key. I suggested that it was an example of the concept.

"it can't be used to predict the outcome of random events."

Once again I'm forced to correct an assumption that concludes that I use randomness to "predict" outcomes. I never do that. I use randomness to detect circumstances of continuing phenomenons. Prediction is never considered. The observance of coincidence is about detecting circumstances that currently exist and that might continue to exist. At no time will it be a consideration of prediction or expectation.

NOW GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS!

Taking me out of context is becoming so common that your intelligence has become suspect. I'll bet you think that man made Global Warming is about social justice.

[Noble Savage]

Of course it isn't. It is disproved every day. It is like the normal distribution in roulette. It tells us how things should be but never are exactly... see the analogy?

Markets are driven by too many things to mention

There are things I see in a price chart that I wouldn't see on a random-generated chart. Example (without going into details): Price reaction to pivot zones in certain situations.

I really don't care to analyze any 'fundamentals' driving the price, it's all reflected in the charts already. But I digress. I know for a fact that a random generated chart and a price chart are two different things. Besides, let me ask you this:

If the markets where random number generators (in the way roulette is), do you think there would be such things as hedge funds?

[Noble Savage]

-