What It Is

[Noble Savage]

They are angry in various ways.

You sound more like the angry guy.

Some act like the forum police.

No police, just moderating your BS when I'm that bored.

Yep, completely clueless.

I love it when you write a short response.

Sometimes your posts are so pointlessly long and boring that I only read the first and last sentence, enough to get the gist of it. You two are too predictable.

[gizmotron]

Sometimes your posts are so pointlessly long and boring that I only read the first and last sentence, enough to get the gist of it. You two are too predictable.

... and he was actually holding the excrement from an elephant while rubbing it on his face. Oops! You were listening. Like I was saying. These people think they have a purpose. They conduct themselves like it's a crusade. Watch out for them. They only start arguments and disrupt threads. And on top of that they are wrong in their assumptions and never attempt to correct their mistakes.

[Spike!]

You two are too predictable.>>>

Not half as predictable as you, NS. You're always the same. Through lack of real experience, you run out of credible arguments very quickly and ALWAYS resort to demeaning comments, like you're doing now. You're a kid, its not your fault. You actually have a lot of potential if you just get your head out of your southern food exit. Bombus, you want the link to this pic too? 

[gizmotron]

Spike said: "... If a weatherman has a 75% accuracy rate guessing the next days weather, does that mean when he makes his next guess, the weather has a 75% chance of being what he guessed? Hardly. You're confusing a guess with actual probability. The probability of the wheel never changes, just like the weatherman has no influence over the weather."

I'll bet this goes right over his head, again.

Insert anything you want here. Noble Savage chickened out here.

Yep, completely clueless.

I love it when you write a short response.

[Steve]

Why bother? just get on with it.

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

@ Gizmo, thanks again,

<<...............Randomness treats progressions very badly. Having two flat bet levels is easier on the variance.

Good point, but I have to substitute the Progression / Regression / Flat Bet / Progression system in lieu of, the Ability to Read Random, luckily the system is WELL WITHIN the parameters of the min / max!!!

@Bombus,

Glenn, mate, I tried the bicycle clips... Unfortunately I got carried away and tried to stuff way too many Minties down there. Anyway I got busted, so they turfed me out and took my card!

I don't suppose you could sign me in next time you go upstairs? lol.

Cheers.

Ha Ha, I don't go upstairs, I 'blend' in with the Asians, standing behind the
50/25,000 or 100/50,000 Baccarat Tables and just lean over when my system says to bet.

Though now they have put in an Airball 10/5,000,
which I'm allowed to use the PDA on & make 500+ per hour.

@ NS, you would have been one of the people saying "don't sail over the horizon, you'll fall off"
& then when the sailors came back saying the "the Earth's round" you'd have said
"no It's not, they're just lying, it can't be, the people underneath would fall off"

Glenn.

[Bayes]

If a weatherman has a 75% accuracy rate guessing the next days weather, does that mean when he makes his next guess, the weather has a 75% chance of being what he guessed?

Um. .  yes, that's exactly what it means.  How do you know you have a 75% accuracy rate without looking at reality? If the prediction doesn't correspond with the actual weather 75% of the time then you don't have a 75% accuracy rate do you?

Hardly.  You're confusing a guess with actual probability.  The probability of the wheel never changes, just like the weatherman has no influence over the weather.

The wheel doesn't have any probability, just like the weather.  The weather is going to do what it does, the ball is either going to fall in a particular slot or not.  'Probability' is only concerned with the information you have about an event.

Regarding roulette, the only information which can make a difference to your success rate relates to the physical state of the wheel/ball/dealer.  If you believe otherwise, why?

Wait, don't tell me - it's because the casino pays you.   

Your basic contradiction, Spike, is that you keep repeating over and over that outcomes are at the same time independent and can also be "read" (and indeed, you assert that independence is necessary for successful reading).  You then try to make out that this simple gibberish is really a deep and mysterious truth which us mortals have no hope of comprehending, and the more confusing you are, the cleverer you must be.  Isn't that what you're trying to get over here?

[Spike!]

Um. .  yes, that's exactly what it means.>>

Um, no it doesn't. You're confusing the weather with the forecaster. They aren't the same thing, you know.

>>'Probability' is only concerned with the information you have about an event.>>

Yes, but saying 'probability of the wheel' or 'probability in roulette' and everybody knows what you mean.

>> If you believe otherwise, (reading random) why?>>

Have you ever proven to yourself that it can't be done? Of course not, you couldn't have.

>>You then try to make out that this simple gibberish is really a deep and mysterious>>

Nothing mysterious about it at all. Simple yes. But its gibberish like Polish is gibberish to a person who speaks only English. Other Polish people understand immediately whats being said.

>>the cleverer you must be>>

Oh, you must be clever, no doubt. But thats always in short supply, isn't it...

[Bayes]

Um, no it doesn't.   You're confusing the weather with the forecaster.   They aren't the same thing, you know. 

Spike, read again what I wrote.   The missing link is the accuracy rate.   No, they're not the same thing, but there has to be a relation between the two for you to have a true accuracy rate. 

This is all academic anyway.   No evidence will ever be forthcoming, but you're a genius in your own mind.   And that's what really matters.   

[Spike!]

but there has to be a relation between the two for you to have a true accuracy rate.>>

No, they aren't connected in any way.

>>No evidence will ever be forthcoming>>

I'm not coming to your house to show you, if thats what you mean. Between Gizmo and me, we've given you everything you need, you just won't see it. Too much erroneous training and too much work to change your ways now..

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

This is all academic anyway.   No evidence will ever be forthcoming, but you're a genius in your own mind.   And that's what really matters.    

NO, what really matters is that Spike gets paid by the casinos, who seem to believe him!

Glenn.

[Bayes]

No, they aren't connected in any way.

Get some sleep mate, I think you need it.   

NO, what really matters is that Spike gets paid by the casinos.

He SAYS he does, big difference.  The sad thing is that there are plenty of suckers who believe him.

Remember the claim: 72% win rate on the even chances! 

[mistarlupo]

It's all there in R.D. Ellison's book 'Gamble To Win Roulette'; First Printing April, 2002

Gamble To Win Roulette is organized around the author's main betting system 3Q/A Reverse Select, which was extensively discussed here and on GG. The remainder of the book does not offer anything new, however it is not a bad read.

Ellison claims that 3Q/A has been independently verified to yield a 7.94% player advantage, in a sampling of over 7,500 live roulette spins. This figure represents a spread of 13.20% over the established house edge of 5.26% for American roulette. So far so good. But why does it work? In essense, "you're looking for a trend that is occurring inside of a non-trend." "Because of the way the numbers of each respective group are spaced along the wheel itself, the two form a symbiotic relationship, by virtue of the effects of the dealer signature."

Are 7,500 results adequate to pin down a reliable percentage representing the player advantage? Why wasn't a computer simulation of perhaps a million spins performed? Answer: "The short-term nature of this approach is not adaptable to computer trials, which are designed to process nearly infinite strings of numbers. Such cannot duplicate the effect of moving from table to table, and 'qualifying' each one before the start of play." Yes. According to the author's rules you must change wheels after a brief win or loss.

Do you really think Ellison's method has any merit?

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

I only win 40% of my bets but I ALWAYS win my sessions!

I KNOW this is the truth, you probably doubt me, so who am I to doubt Spike.

You Flatearthers say that random is unpredictable but then want to quantify what we can & can't do!

Glenn.

[Bayes]

Are 7,500 results adequate to pin down a reliable percentage representing the player advantage?

Absolutely not, that's no-where near enough - try at least 100,000.

"The short-term nature of this approach is not adaptable to computer trials, which are designed to process nearly infinite strings of numbers.  Such cannot duplicate the effect of moving from table to table, and 'qualifying' each one before the start of play. " Yes.  According to the author's rules you must change wheels after a brief win or loss.

Bullshit.  Remember this guy is trying to sell books! Any programmer worth his salt can simulate all the things which Ellison says is missing from computer trials. 

Same tired old drivel.  What is the "effect" of moving from table to table? you are just as likely to miss a great winning streak by leaving the current table, and just as likely to hit the sequence from hell at the new one, and vice-versa.  This should be blindingly obvious.

[Bayes]

-