Is it possible to learn how to "read" random?

[Bayes]

Not sure if a poll on this has been done before, it's certainly been talked about a lot though.

[superman]

I think it is, although it can probably only help you 2% or 3%, how many times do you watch the number clicking past, R/B is obviousley what you see in the marquee, how often do you say red or black in your head as you are following a trend? I do many times, that shows that after years of watching, subconsciously something has registered, or if your counting, for a trigger, how many times does the number in your count get hit, let's say you count 1 to 25, often a number in your count matches what the last number was!

Back to reading random, my latest research has, as you know, a limited marty progression, well, over 5000 attacks up to now and the losses still 'keep you honest' best gap between losses, 374 no losses in a row, smallest gap between losses, 11 attacks, so I think with many hours studying the results, watching it unfold, you do see things.

[Noble Savage]

Yes it can be "read", you can assign whatever meaning to what you see and, well, "read" it.

The real question of course is: Can you guess future results better than expectancy? The answer is no, because whatever your interpretation of past results is, the odds for the next spin remain the same. This is not an "opinion", it's a fact.

I think it is, although it can probably only help you 2% or 3%

Can you prove it, or are you just assuming?

[superman]

I think it is

Assuming your honor, it's still random in the end, that's why I said eventually the losses appear and keep you honest.

[gizmotron]

Yes it can be "read", you can assign whatever meaning to what you see and, well, "read" it.

This is the best description of reading randomness I've seen yet. People would be well advised to accept it as a very good description.

The real question of course is: Can you guess future results better than expectancy? The answer is no, because whatever your interpretation of past results is, the odds for the next spin remain the same. This is not an "opinion", it's a fact.

What a conflicted set of assumptions that is. I wonder if you have the guts to debate that? The odds to get a guess correct is exactly 50/50 no matter what the odds for the bet are. It could be two 2/1 bets both bet at the same time. That would be at least 60% in your favor. But the odds of getting the guess right or wrong are still just 50/50. By your own admission above, reading random is whatever you make it to be. If I have a 50/50 chance, no matter what the odds are, then I can chose to bet anything to win or to lose, the opposite. If you understand that then there is no expectancy. And there should never be an expectancy, at least the way that I see it should be done. What I use is not expectancy. I use what has been happening recently. I bet on the current state, not the odds of a bet selection. It does not matter what the odds are. They have almost nothing to do with what is currently happening. So I'm always faced by other opinions that "expectancy" is what I'm doing, when it is refuted by me.

Can you prove it, or are you just assuming?

Yes, I can prove it. But will I prove it, no. I will not disclose my exact playing method. I don't want any casino to tell me no, you can't do that here. So, what are those that want it all for free willing to do for me? I suggest that anything you discover that works, you keep it to yourself. That's just plain common sense.

[Spike!]

because whatever your interpretation of past results is, the odds for the next spin remain the same.>>>

But thats a good thing. If the odds changed on every bet, it would screw everything up. The fact that theres a 50/50 chance is the bedrock of the bet. True random is why reading random works. Thats why I can't use RNG's, they aren't true random in the very short term.

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

Bayes, I would vote for "I believe it's possible to learn"

The more I read what Gizmo & Spike say,
the more I see that my mechanical trend seeking system is
'like' what they are 'claiming' to be able to do.

As in they are able to FLAT BET at over 50% looking at the results ------------They're in a plane!

I use my formula to find when a trend is going to start and am
correct 40%, then I use my PROGRESSION to pick up the slack--------------------I'm in a balloon!

The people who can't see that there are OTHER PARAMETERS
than just basic math that can be applied to the idea of 50/50-------------------Feet stuck in cement!

Glenn.

[Spike!]

I'm in a balloon!>>>

No, you ARE a balloon..

[bombus]

So what does that make Herb?

Just askin' is all...

[RedKing]

read random? Not if you understand what the word "random" means.

[RedKing]

-