What Does Reading Random Mean

[cheese]

I don't get the joke. I am using it on Roulette. I've been advocating using it for more than two years. "Calculating conditional probabilities"

Yet another concept Gizmo blatantly ripped off from me. He never talked about this before I did, and then acted like he knew about it all along. Look here: nolinks://nolinks.  gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8404&forum=Roulette_Message_Board

"The reason using past spins works is called conditional probability, which is "the probability of A occurring, given that B has occurred." "Conditional probability is the probability of some event A, given the occurrence of some other event B." Done correctly, it gives you huge advantage over general probability. Its not supposed to work on independent outcomes, so what you need to do is invent a scenario (a game inside the game) where the independent outcomes can be connected to the future outcomes and go from there."

"To beat the math, you need to make up parameters that don't exist, and pretend they do. I said a long time ago that I made up a game I play within the existing game of roulette. In that game, conditional probability works on roulette."

"The thing about discussing all these types of probabilities is, in gambling you can be wrong and still make money. You just have to be right more often than wrong. Thats why its ok to invent parameters that don't exist to play against. 2+2 doesn't have to add up to 4 every time, it just has to be close often enough to make a profit. ."

[gizmotron]

Yet another concept Gizmo blatantly ripped off from me. He never talked about this before I did, and then acted like he knew about it all along. Look here: nolinks://nolinks.  gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8404&forum=Roulette_Message_Board

"The reason using past spins works is called conditional probability, which is "the probability of A occurring, given that B has occurred." "Conditional probability is the probability of some event A, given the occurrence of some other event B." Done correctly, it gives you huge advantage over general probability. Its not supposed to work on independent outcomes, so what you need to do is invent a scenario (a game inside the game) where the independent outcomes can be connected to the future outcomes and go from there."

"To beat the math, you need to make up parameters that don't exist, and pretend they do. I said a long time ago that I made up a game I play within the existing game of roulette. In that game, conditional probability works on roulette."

"The thing about discussing all these types of probabilities is, in gambling you can be wrong and still make money. You just have to be right more often than wrong. Thats why its OK to invent parameters that don't exist to play against. 2+2 doesn't have to add up to 4 every time, it just has to be close often enough to make a profit. ."

What a cry baby. Whaaah! Hey Father Roulette the topic is frequentist vs bayesian probability and I ripped it off from you. That's almost as funny as your claimed hit rate of 72%. What I think now is that you've been drinking straight 72% grain alcohol. Get a real life. This has become the theater of the absurd.

[mr.ore]

If you play a progressions you might not notice the three or more states, because you are winning even if a chance is slowly losing. Without testing, I would not know that a chance can be in a "clearly losing" state for several hundreds or even thousands spins, and the other having a huge advantage. They are often long enough to thing of using some method to catch them. I do not believe in bet selections, but I want to prove myself that NOTHING can be done. I have ignored them for a long time, because there is no reason for them to work, game is perfectly random. There are some people on forums who claim that bet selection can make losing trends shorter. I want to find a good bet selection and measure if it really works. There are instruments how to partially deal with fluctuations - moving average can help to avoid quick and long downturn, same with rolling stoploss and another trading indicators. Now I wonder, if it is possible to create an indicator, that with a high degree of certainity works, and from time to time completely fails to make up for expected value. Like slowly winning for 5000/+0.0324 units per spin, then a quick loss for 1000 spins/-0.162 units loss per spin to make up for expectation, and then again slowly winning.

Math says that advantage cannot be overcomed and roulette beaten. Then I wonder - can a graph of this game be controlled in such a way so that it is always contained in a certain area, within certain boundaries? If it would be possible, then the more a graph would be near a low boundary, the lower a chance of a long losing streak. Then a system could wait for a small losing streak within that, and on barrier it would start playing, maybe with a progression. Such a play would be a conditional probability, supposing you could really force graph say into +-1 SD. It is probably impossible to make losing strike shorter without creating new ones within derived games though.

What I am looking into is either to make up for house edge with catching an upward fluctuation, or to force a graph as near expected value as possible, so that it never deviates too much. Even if it was losing flat betting, then as long as amount_won/amount_bet = 36/37 math condition is satisfied, even if a bankroll balance is in a profit. In an infinity it will certainly lose, but in the same way we will never see 100 reds, could there be a system that won't lose in a finite number of spins?

[cheese]

bayesian probability and I ripped it off from you.

All I know is, you NEVER talked about it before I did in 2009. You glom onto other peoples work and claim it was your idea all along. Thats my major issue with you. You never ever discussed conditional probability before I started talking about it.

[cheese]

If you play a progressions you might not notice the three or more states

Of course you'll notice them, you don't win more often when using a progression.

[mr.ore]

You might ignore them until your progression fails Or at least do not thing of them too much, especially if a progression is marty-like something, but just a little mellower than that. If you know that nothing can be done to avoid them, you do not even try.

How did you created a game within game where conditional probability works?

[gizmotron]

Yet another concept Gizmo blatantly ripped off from me. He never talked about this before I did, and then acted like he knew about it all along. Look here: nolinks://nolinks.  gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8404&forum=Roulette_Message_Board

Your link shows that you posted this on "Posted: 17-Nov-09 20:00"

You will notice in the same thread at (Posted: 19-Nov-09 15:32) that I mention bayesian probability. BTW, it was first brought up by me much earlier.

In a discussion of fuzzy logic:
from here: nolinks:// nolinks.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=898&forum=Roulette_Archive_2007

The fact that fuzzy logic allows for iterative adaptation gives it some closeness to Bayesian probabilities (see that phrase), but it cannot be confused with them as it is more ..."fuzzy", approximate

"

That was (Posted: 01-Nov-07 22:41) two years and 16 days before you Father Roulette. You really need to get a grip there bub.

[gizmotron]

All I know is, you NEVER talked about it before I did in 2009. You glom onto other peoples work and claim it was your idea all along. Thats my major issue with you. You never ever discussed conditional probability before I started talking about it.

I talked about it two years and 16 days before you did. That makes you a baloney festival promoter.

I didn't get it from you. I got it from Artinvivo / ipsumlorem.

[cheese]

You will notice in the same thread at (Posted: 19-Nov-09 15:32) that I mention bayesian probability. BTW, it was first brought up by me much earlier.

I connected conditional probability to roulette and you glomed onto it like you do with everything I come up with. You have nothing of your own except 'elegant patterns', whatever the heck those are.

[gizmotron]

I connected conditional probability to roulette and you glomed onto it like you do with everything I come up with. You have nothing of your own except 'elegant patterns', whatever the heck those are.

I guess I'd be nothing without you. That explains why my students have no clue what to bet next. You are one big conflicted, fat weirdo. You came up with Reading Randomness too didn't you? I wrote my first hot number analyzer more than 12 years before I ever heard of you. It has the ability to hunt the hottest numbers and to change to them in a 300 spin cycle. It actually checks for conditional situations to make its choices. It looked for the hottest 6 numbers and selected the hot three when ever any of the previous three had cooled off. You were never on my mind back then. Now you are nothing but a full blown joke.

[gizmotron]

But this is meaningless. Its what every roulette player experiences, whether he has a system or not. You're always in one of these three states. Winning, winning and losing, and clearly losing. Watch people randomly betting, you can see it happening right in front of you. To trumpet this as some kind of 'discovery', as Gizmo has done, is ludicrous. Its an integral part of roulette, so what. It tells you nothing you can use to beat the game.

I don't get this. You claim that all my ideas come from you. Father Roulette, how could you have missed this one?

[cheese]

You came up with Reading Randomness too didn't you?

Yup, sure did. And you proved your understanding of random in your 'demo', where you claimed afterwards that something was 'supposed' to win.

[cheese]

I don't get this. You claim that all my ideas come from you.

They did. Up until I started complaining recently, you couldn't get thru a post without mentioning me. Now all my ideas are crap. Make up your mind.

[gizmotron]

I don't get this. You claim that all my ideas come from you.

They did. Up until I started complaining recently, you couldn't get thru a post without mentioning me. Now all my ideas are stuff. Make up your mind.

Is that why you are so mad? I started teaching others and you want all the credit for it. You never shared with me what you do. Does that sound familiar? You don't like Elegant Patterns so you won't claim that one. You do like "Reading Randomness," but you can't prove that you used it first. Now you take the past four years and try to say you were the only authentic reason on any forum we were both at. I just got done proving I had heard of Bayesian Probability before you mentioned it. You only have one thing. You were talking about Educated Guessing. That's all you have on me. I came up with everything else on my own. You made that clear as a bell that you don't share with anyone. You can't have it both ways.

[cheese]

You can't have it both ways.

You can tap dance all you like and try to rewrite history. Everybody knows what the truth is.

6 bets and -$360. You'll never live that down.

[cheese]

-