Guess Who’s Coming to Winner?

[Spike!]

You just made the point that math has nothing to do with reading randomness or educated guessing.>>>

Don't hold it against them, they really can't help themselves..

Spike is no better than Wendel>>

I always know when somebody is out of ideas and arguments, they always drag out poor Wendel.. 

[shadowman]

Spike and Gizmotron

Quote by Noble Savage

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.




This appears to make sense to me,  could you please explain why it is wrong?

It seems that your methods are "out of the box thinking" as it seems to go directly over most of this forums members heads,  including myself.  Could you please assure me that your methods are not based upon seeing the emergence of a pattern and betting that it will continue,  as this seems to be the gist of recent conversations,  because mathematically this shouldn't work on its own.

Is it possible to give an overall premise as to why guessing should yield the results that you guys claim,  note I am not asking for your methods just the overriding idea.

Gizmotron,  I read the Ellison book a couple of years back and although he advocates trending etc I never felt that he gave a satisfactory reason as to why it works and how to use it,  does what he say make sense to you as an "educated guesser"?  One last point about Ellison, later in the book I recall he says that he doesn't like to win too often!!!! as he knows that it will be followed by a period of losses,  which implies that the material that he is teaching has an element of unreliability about it.

I look forward to your responses

Mike   

[gizmotron]

Gizmotron,  I read the Ellison book a couple of years back and although he advocates trending etc I never felt that he gave a satisfactory reason as to why it works and how to use it,  does what he say make sense to you as an "educated guesser"?  One last point about Ellison, later in the book I recall he says that he doesn't like to win too often!!!! as he knows that it will be followed by a period of losses,  which implies that the material that he is teaching has an element of unreliability about it.

I look forward to your responses

Ellison's book reveals the experience that he has. His book makes almost perfect sense to me. His only problem is the current system he was hot for. The truth about trending is knowing how it acts and changes. Ellison, for the most part, understands that. Perhaps the system was in the book to attract more readers.

Ellison would not be able to write this book if he did not have extensive experience at trend play. The book's most important points have to do with the pitfalls of gambling. He offers great advice regarding real play. It takes one to know one.

Ellison knows that there are always large groupings or bunches of losing stretches that will show up. These stretches can't happen during a winning streak. There are three states. Only one of them is doing very good.

[gizmotron]

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 is based on completely independent guessing. Each situation evaluates to it's own current state. The fact that coincidence has reoccurring themes, to the trend/pattern player, does not make the guess connected to past similar guesses. The next guess is a completely independent event.

[Bayes]

Mike,

It seems that your methods are "out of the box thinking" as it seems to go directly over most of this forums members heads,  including myself.

My advice is, don't feed the trolls!  

Seriously though, the chuckle brothers are endlessly repeating the same old contradictions, dressed up to look like they're not. Notice that they don't claim that spins are not independent any more (even they couldn't get away with that for long). However, claiming that they are (not independent) is more plausible than what they're reduced to now, which amounts to the two statements:

1) Spins are independent ✓ 
2) Spins are not independent ✓ 

2) cancels out 1) so nothing is said. Nothing is asserted at all, apart from meaningless 'noise'.  

Therefore, the chuckle brothers can safely be ignored. They're good for a chuckle, that's all.

[Spike!]

Is it possible to give an overall premise as to why guessing should yield the results that you guys claim>>

You mean the reason it works? Because all educated guessing is based on experience, thats what the 'educated' part means.

>>they don't claim that spins are not independent>>

I have ALWAYS always always maintained the outcomes are independent and random, its the key to beating roulette. Ever hear me say independent spins are the Achilles Heel of the game? Sure you have. The only contradictions around here come from the MathBoyz as they try and rewrite what is said so they can try and cram the square peg in the round hole.

[Bayes]

Sorry Spike,

You just don't understand the maths.

[Bayes]

As for R.D. Ellison, who can spot the flaw in his argument? - nolinks://nolinks.thegamblersedge.com/propensity.htm

Spike, you should know, because you disagree with him. 

[Spike!]

You just don't understand the maths.>>

Sorry, Bayes, you can't see the forest for the trees..

[Spike!]

As for R.D. Ellison, who can spot the flaw in his argument?>>>

I don't have time to read all that. Which argument? Lay it out.

[Bayes]

In a nutshell:

If every table game result is an independent event, how can we ever expect any particular number to come up at all? We can't, because there would be nothing to stop the wheel from selecting a different number, every time. And yet, the same people who say that these numerical events are immaculately independent, expect the numbers to conform with the probabilities. But if such events were truly independent, there would never be a moment, or even a sustained period, when any number could be expected to show up.

So, on the basis that outcomes conform to the probabilities, he is arguing that events cannot be truly independent.

[Spike!]

You say potato and I say potatoe, a spud is a spud. What the wheel produces is close enough to independent for me. You can get so hung up in the minutia that the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater. Again.

[bombus]

This is tough work!  

Once you learn your rules, mechanical selections are a piece of cake – and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Trying to guess your way through a session is very intense - and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Actually, I enjoy the intensity (no apologies) but it does not help when you see your mechanical method paying dividends while your guesses continually fail.


I find using past spins as a guide to influence your next guess is similar to using them as you would in a mechanical method, except that in a mechanical method you can follow the procedure through to the end and be served up the next bet - not so with the guessing, or maybe so, or maybe not so??? 

With guessing, I am struggling to figure out how many, or how much, or how far back, or how convoluted I should be considering the past spins. Sometimes it helps the decision making process if I can see the last 20something spins, and some times the last 20something spins becomes a completely bewildering clamor, much like a God damned vuvuzela, and I just want to go for the mute button and pick anything!

If things are working out there's no problem, but in a tough session I seem to be better able to cope when I only gaze back 5 or so spins. I'm sure this would end up being a very individualistic component within each player's game plan, but there has to be a range that can be relied upon to amalgamate profit with practicality.

Anyway, and my word is my bond, so far for this exercise I have taken $400 up to $2400 and subsequently lost $940, so now stand and fight with a $1460 bankroll.

Cheers.

[Spike!]

I wouldn't go back more than 5-7 spins, its pointless most of the time. It is difficult, thats why so much practice is needed. You have to think all the time and you want to get to a point where its almost automatic, because concentrating in the casino is far different than playing at home. I have a strategy that kills at home, but in the casino its too many decisions to make.

[bombus]

I wouldn't go back more than 5-7 spins, its pointless most of the time...

This would have to depend on your criteria, but yes, I get the feeling that looking too far back at the recent history of the wheel is pointless, even if it works sometimes.

I'm at a loss to fully explain the mechanics of the primary selection method that I'm using to then guess which way to pivot, but there have been occasions when considering more than 5 past spins will present up to 4 triggers from which to choose. And I've even had 4 triggers simultaneously for dozens & columns; that's 8 triggers to choose from – too much food on the plate so to speak.

I think I'd better go and contemplate my navel for a few hours.

[bombus]

-