A very accurate and true post by an other forum member!

[Jean-Claud]

ok thanks.

[NS]

Its not a system, its a method. ... its not a HG but does well.

I love it when they say this.

It's not a system, it's a "method" (cough).

It's not a HG, but it does well. - Translation: It doesn't make money consistently but it makes money consistently.

[Spike!]

I love it when they say this.

It's not a system, it's a "method" (cough).

It's not a HG, but it does well. - Translation: It doesn't make money consistently but it makes money consistently.

Watch out Ken. Now that you're a mod, Noble Savage is trying to bait you into getting angry. Don't fall for it, he's not worth it..

[NS]

No. Whether he's a mod or the president of the world is irrelevant, my opinion is the same. But I'm glad he's a mod, somehow it made him nice.

I'm not a political hypocrite like you are. If it were Gizmo or Mr. Chips or Wendel that said what Ken said, you would have ridiculed it.

[Jean-Claud]

I love it when they say this.

It's not a system, it's a "method" (cough).

It's not a HG, but it does well. - Translation: It doesn't make money consistently but it makes money consistently.

I have the same opinion

[Mr J]

"Watch out Ken. Now that you're a mod, Noble Savage is trying to bait you into getting angry" >>> Yep, I agree. I posted this would happen, so I'm ready for it. Its a shame I have to be 'ready', but whatever.  Ken

[Mr J]

"I love it when they say this.

It's not a system, it's a "method" (cough).

It's not a HG, but it does well" >>> I answered this ALREADY but can do so again, is that cool? What I have stated is NOTHING tricky, so I'm unsure why you made a comment? In my *OPINION*, a system implies that you do not lose (or rarely lose), thats MY definition of a system. I'm in the minority calling something a 'method', I think you would agree. Using the term method (IMO) CLEARLY states that a person DOES (or can) lose. I dont see an arguement here, maybe I missed something. Its like you calling AP.....TQ, what the heck do I care what you call it? 

Your other point/question. WHY would I call ANY method a holy grail? Are you WAITING for me to use the term 'holy grail'? If so, you'll be waiting for a long time. I say 'it does well', again, I dont see the controversy? It does do well. Is that bad? What would make you (NS) more comfortable, how would you like me to describe a 'good' method? I don't follow.  Ken

[NS]

It's simple.

Either a system/method wins consistently in the long run, or it doesn't.

If it does win consistently, then it's a "HG", it "works", it "does well", it "makes money", it "beats roulette", it's "better" than other systems, etc.

If it doesn't then it's useless. Period.

[Jean-Claud]

AGREEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Mr J]

"Either a system/method wins consistently in the long run, or it doesn't" >>> Ok NS, you made a statement and your buddy agreed, neat. The issue with your wording is, 'long run'. I THINK we agree that a HG can only be a HG if its still winning after maybe....10 million spins (perhaps less depending on your definition).

Sooo, if I have not played 10 million *LIVE* spins at the casino, how can I answer you OR put a label of HG on a method? I cant. So the NEXT best thing at THIS time is saying that it 'does well'. Its all in the wording and the WHY of the wording. I will NOT count RNG spins as part of the 10 million. You might but I won't. If I had to estimate, I would say I played around 40K spins on one particular method that is 'DOING GREAT' to this point. A HG at 40K spins? No way.  Ken

[pins]

you could win every time you played just by luck.i have not lost in a long time. no system just pick numbers win a couple of hundred and leave.  remember one number puts you in front.  you have to gamble to make money..
think big. only back single numbers. or splits.

[Mr J]

"only back single numbers. or splits" >>> Pretty damn nice, I like the way you think.  Ken

[NS]

Sooo, if I have not played 10 million *LIVE* spins at the casino, how can I answer you OR put a label of HG on a method? I cant. So the NEXT best thing at THIS time is saying that it 'does well'. Its all in the wording and the WHY of the wording. I will NOT count RNG spins as part of the 10 million. You might but I won't. If I had to estimate, I would say I played around 40K spins on one particular method that is 'DOING GREAT' to this point. A HG at 40K spins? No way.  Ken

Ken,

You obviously are unfamiliar with the concepts of statistical significance, COR (chance of randomness), and the related statistical tests (and seem to delight in your ignorance of such extremely useful tools thanks to that idiotic "mathb0yz sUckz" attitude).  You will understand the "long run" better once you grasp those.

Just some quick remarks before I log out:

- 10 million spins are far from being needed.

- 40k spins CAN be quite enough to prove a HG, it all depends on the type of the bet along with the achieved COR.

- Tests of significance are objective, proven (as in 1+1 is proven to equal 2), and can be conducted on flat bets, progressive bets, or anything involving random outcomes. They can't provide a 100% certainty, but they can for example tell you that you have a HG with 99.9999% certainty (I.e. 0.0001% COR).

[Mr J]

I ALREADY said 10 million may be too many. 40K spins for a HG?  Anyone who would agree with you on that is just being bias in your direction. Here is your point NS, as if I dont see it. You WANT me to call something a HG so you can blast it out of the water. No person has or ever will have a HG but like we talked about before....it really depends on your definition. I can't and won't call something a HG after ONLY 40K spins. In the past, I have had a few other methods that kicked serious a** out of the gates.

Sure as heck, lost lost lost lost. (thats called being honest BTW). Has this happened for ALL my methods to this point? No, because we then wouldn't be having this conversation.  "You will understand the "long run" better once you grasp those" >>> The only thing I'm grasping these days is my thick wallet but thanks for looking out for me, much appreciated.  Ken

[NS]

Example:

An EC system that, after 40k spins (betting every spin), yields +22 SD; giving a virtually nonexistent COR.

This system is a consistent winner, I.e. a HG.

Your argument is invalid.


PS. When did you quit school? For a native speaker, your writing style is poor and annoying to read. I can't believe I'm trying to explain statistics to you.

[NS]

-