Guess Who’s Coming to Winner?

[bombus]

Guessing is not for the feint of heart...

Well that's me gone then...  

I would try for two in a row at most. You can learn to work your eight steps with one or two at a time. Things change rapidly. Two steps is more in line with what currently happens. That's why I flat bet. It's simpler to stay as close to balance as possible. Two wins is the balance point.

Yes, yes, one two or three in a row at a time with gaps in between or even flat bets in between, but there's no escaping the progression needs to strike eight winners in a row to complete. I have done it a handful of times already, but not with the cash down yet. In my first session posted above, I hit 14 winners in succession but only progressed as far as step 6.

What I can see will be a problem with this progression is lost opportunities. Holding off while the winners keep coming and jumping in when the losers start up. This would have less effect on flat betting.

Guessing against the method's selections while the method's selections keep winning - guessing to go with the method's selections while the method's selections keep losing – this guessing game if fraught with peril.

-------------------------------

This I have already learnt...

Question: What does a gorilla do when set loose in your house?

Answer: Anything he bloody well wants to.


For me that sums up randomness in regard to roulette. I have to learn to let it do whatever it bloody well wants to.

Cheers.

[Spike!]

this guessing game if fraught with peril.>>

Its takes years to get good at it. Get started today..

[gizmotron]

bombus:

For me that sums up randomness in regard to roulette. I have to learn to let it do whatever it bloody well wants to.

Well that must be one of those allusive characteristics that many describe as non existent. Now you own that knowledge and experience. Welcome to the real world. Breaking yourself free of the wishful thinking trap is a huge step forward. Congratulations.

[bombus]

Nothing currently happens...

I think you are right.

Betting like this is like swinging a pendulum between the charted results you have in front of you, and a fresh start every spin, but somewhere within the arc you must make a choice. ... Very easy to get bamboozled!

[Jakkalsdraai]

Just have a bottle of Jack ................... then you will have 4 possible outcomes to choose from instead of 2   ..............

When sober again 2 possible outcomes will be a breeze!    That or ask Sylvester Stallone to choose. Apperently he is the worst when it comes to playing roulette. Whatever Sly chooses you choose the opposite!

[Spike!]

Very easy to get bamboozled!>>

You eventually make all the mistakes and learn what works and what doesn't. Hence all the practice required.

[Bayes]

Assuming you don't know what 'independent trials' means, how would go about trying to show that EG has some merit? A systematic approach would be to write an algorithm which exhaustively eliminates all the possibilities.

Assume that your EG is based on the last 10 spins. There are 2¹⁰ = 1024 such sequences. Get a file of a few million spins, then find each of the 1024 sequences, and bet for 1,2,3... spins following the sequence and record the results.

Of course, there may be other criteria, in which case you'll have to use trial and error. Whatever you do, don't waste any time on 'practice', get a computer to do the work. 

[Bayes]

Ok, so for 100 bets with 3 winners, what would be the best way to divide up the 97 losses amongst the 8 steps of the progression?

Would it be like 128-64-32-16-8-4-2-1 = 97/255 x 100? If so, not good.

Or could I divide the 97 losses evenly amongst the 8 steps? Is so, good.

Cheers.

I'll write some code to check this and get back to you.

[Noble Savage]

First, Spike admits that every spin is completely unique and independent, nothing is due as the odds are the same every spin, no pockets are blocked and the ball may land in any of them with every trial.

-------------------------

Let X be the entire set of criteria that Spike needs to look at in order to make one bet decision.

Spike said that if he saw an X yesterday he might have bet something, but if he sees the exact same X today, he might bet on something entirely different.

What made the difference? Certainly not something external/observable (since X is the same here). It must be something internal/subjective.

Therefore Educated Guessing is not really "based on past spins" but rather based on "subjective interpretation of past spins". This begs the question again: What made the difference between Spike's own subjective interpretation of X today and Spike's own subjective interpretation of X yesterday?

His mood? His gut feeling?

At this point Spike would say something like "experience coming from practice".

Such answer is clearly absurd for the simple reason that experience can't apply to completely independent/unconnected/unique outcomes. It brings us back to the first point (that each spin is independent) and closes the circle of self-contradiction.

"Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through past involvement in or exposure to that thing or event."

If you practice as an attempt to gain "experience", and one day encounter X and notice that it led to Red, then the day after you re-encounter the same X but this time it led to Black, then the day after you re-encounter the same X but this time it led to Red, it does not mean that the next time you encounter X betting on Black will turn the odds in your favor, because no matter what your subjective interpretation of X (based on "experience") is, you haven't changed anything (I.e. you still haven't gained yourself any edge/info about what the next spin might be) Red/Black has the exact same chance of showing/not showing. Don't believe me? Go ahead and spend the next few years of your life doing nothing but practicing looking at past things and making "educated guesses" à la Spike, and tell me if that ever gives you any edge.

That's right, you will inevitably fail; and the next thing you might (or might not) think about after you fail is to pay Spike a significant amount so that he teaches you in private. Although Spike will (naturally) deny it, this was exposed by Laurence Scott in GG not too long ago. (and yes, Laurence and Herb are two genuine guys whom I believe)

No matter what he says, Spike was literally willing to accept a significant amount of money from Laurence to teach him his educated guessing in private. That says it all for me.

[Jakkalsdraai]

Easiest way to predict Red and Black outcomes Spike's way is to see what happened the day before. Thus using EDUCATED guessing

If Spike had a bottle of Scotch .... he'll have red eyes so red would be the choice of today.

If however Spike had two bottles of Scotch ........ he would of pissed someone off and ended with a blue-black eye, thus black would be his choice. Then again if he was drunk and beaten on one side then it depends which eye was open for that specific "educated" guess. ................. it's all in the eyes ..... and educated guessing......

Example left eye red .........right eye black..........

Through left eye we choose red and through black eye we choose black! ................... No in this case the brown eye has no place in this educated guessing thing.

[Noble Savage]

lmao@Jakk

[Bayes]

Well said Noble. As far as I'm concerned, Spike is no better than Wendel, and should be treated accordingly.

[bombus]

Just have a bottle of Jack ................... then you will have 4 possible outcomes to choose from instead of 2   ..............

When sober again 2 possible outcomes will be a breeze!    That or ask Sylvester Stallone to choose. Apperently he is the worst when it comes to playing roulette. Whatever Sly chooses you choose the opposite!

Not sure about whisky helping things, but a few cups of peyote juice would have me guessing pretty good I guess...

[Spike!]

Spike would say something like "experience coming from practice".>>

Indeed. Thats it in a nutshell. Lots and lots of practice. How else?

>>Spike was literally willing to accept a significant amount of money from Laurence>>

Actually, it never got to that point, so I'll guess we'll never know what really would have happened. Does it matter? I know you like your hero's shiny and untarnished, so I guess its important to you. Make up an ending, whats the difference to me. The rest of your theories had me nodding off with typical MathBoyz fuzzy logic and foot stamping 'It must be so!' bravura. Nice try though, its good to see you're at least thinking..

[gizmotron]

Noble Savage, - "you still haven't gained yourself any edge/info about what the next spin might be"

Congratulations to you too. You just made the point that math has nothing to do with reading randomness or educated guessing. Any fixed set of rules will fail to win in the long run. Your computer program would be a failure unless it has options to make decisions that would lead it to different outcomes for similar situations. It would need a component for global trends and the ability to deal with it differently.

[gizmotron]

-