What Does a Trend Look Like?

[bombus]

Betting on or avoiding a "trend" is just a way of communicating that which you are comfortable investing in or not investing in. So in roulette terms a trend/fad/pattern/swarm/packet/whatever, is just something you see or feel happening on the wheel at a particular time. It could be anything at all that takes your fancy. For instance, number 13 arrived 4 times in the last 37spins... Now he says wow bet on 13 it's hot, and she says wow avoid 13 it's done... 2 completely opposite reactions to the same (very simple) trend. The same goes for red black, this wheel section that wheel section, this dozen that dozen, and so on in infinite variety.

As for rule play, there are always rules whether you're aware of them or not.  Like my wife says I can't go to the casino on Thursdays & Fridays 'cause those are her days off, and we need quality time together.... That's a rule! It affects my play! I never break it!

If you spend a long time at the wheel and crunching numbers, and you have identified a ridiculously complex "trend" that seems indefinite, then a set of rules to guide you through the maze you have envisioned might be quite useful. So they're not so much rules as guidelines. What about laws? Maybe that's the word? In society laws are challenged all the time, and a big aid to this is precedence. Trends, etc, is all about precedence.

What about a set of rules that allow you to shunt from one trend to another as they become apparent?  There you go, my new term for roulette players... shunting! Came up with that one thanks to cactus juice (only joking).

The ONLY thing that is constant is change, so why would you expect something different from the roulette wheel? I say, "shunting" your play to conform to the never-ending stream of change that manifests itself at each session of play is your "holy grail", and you're gonna need some major guidelines to help you find it. Do not dismiss trends, do not dismiss rules, do not dismiss cactus juice (only joking).

 

[lucky_strike]

As for rule play, there are always rules whether you're aware of them or not.  Like my wife says I can't go to the casino on Thursdays & Fridays 'cause those are her days off, and we need quality time together.... That's a rule! It affects my play! I never break it!

Amen, i agree to that.

Cheers Lucky Strike

[Arteinvivo]

The ONLY thing that is constant is change, so why would you expect something different from the roulette wheel? I say, "shunting" your play to conform to the never-ending stream of change that manifests itself at each session of play is your "holy grail", and you're gonna need some major guidelines to help you find it. Do not dismiss trends, do not dismiss rules, do not dismiss cactus juice (only joking).

Very true bombus,

The game is simple, we don't need to complicate it by using terms like swarms just to show off.

[bliss]

So in roulette terms a trend/fad/pattern/swarm/packet/whatever, is just something you see or feel happening on the wheel at a particular time. It could be anything at all that takes your fancy.

Ok then. But why should "anything that takes your fancy" be more likely to win than anything else which takes your fancy? IMO there has to some objective criteria, otherwise it's just luck, right? If anything can be a trend, the whole concept is meaningless.

It would be a start if someone could even explain how they would go about testing whether a perceived trend is likely to continue. All I'm getting is smoke and mirrors.

For example, quoting again from Louis G. Holloway's book:

"On split roulette numbers (17-1) the cycle is about half of the longer ones. They should hit three times within ten in order to follow five. Strips of three numbers in row should hit within eight to follow four times. Six blocks should hit three within 5 to be considered hot, then follow twice. Dozens or columns must hit three in a row to attract my attention. Follow twice and then drop off. Even money shots on isolated straight runs are fair at five, better at six. Follow one time only. All bets that win are continued on any warmed-up cycle"


Here are statements that can be tested, and proved one way or the other. He doesn't give a reason why numbers should behave like this, elsewhere in the book he says:

"Mathematicians will say a roulette number always has one chance in 38 (American wheel) or a dice longshot like 12 is always a 35-1 shot. Here is where L.G.H. and the mathematicians part company. I say the longshots get a whisker better when they are "warmed up" or "bunching". I can't say why. Call it "law of attractions" or whatever you like, but my research indicates this attraction works."

But it doesn't matter, because anyone can test the theory for themselves.

[gizmotron]

The game is simple, we don't need to complicate it by using terms like swarms just to show off.

That is very telling Arte. Your standards for understanding a thread must be about as good as your ability to explain your own ideas in your own threads. Funny, you think by me sharing something I know that is valuable to me, and useful to anyone that wants to consider its existence is so that I can show off. Then what is it that you are doing now? You are the perfect example of illustrating the general lack of understanding in the nature of randomness. Just to be perfectly clear here Arte, do you think it is a personal attack if I point out that you appear to lack a general understanding of randomness? You think that "swarm" is a useless descriptive term for a phenomenon easily seen in watching past spins? All I see is you not looking at what is easily seen and then declaring it worthless. That makes you terribly closed minded to others while handing out your own confused efforts to communicate your own ideas. What do you call that Arte? Isn't it called Arte's world. What simple term describes that? Is the term arrogance simple enough?

[gizmotron]

"bunching".

Now there's a term that describes swarming real well. In fact I like it better than swarms. I'm sure that Arte will be relieved, it communicates simpler.

Have you ever seen streaks of trends of Black & Red bunch together while also seeing, before or later, chop acting as the buffer between that bunching? I hope that was simple enough for Arte.

[Ulysses]

The way I interpret possible emerging trends in online roulette is when observing numbers that are developing which I have witnessed in past games to emerge as a likely group of numbers that may show up over the next 30 spins. Many players see or notice reoccuring groups of numbers and bet accordingly when they recognize the possible start of that number group. Is this how anyone else see's emerging trends?

If so, what groupings have you witnessed that reoccur with a chance gamble that would prompt you to bet them in future games.

Uly

[Arteinvivo]

It would be a start if someone could even explain how they would go about testing whether a perceived trend is likely to continue. All I'm getting is smoke and mirrors.

Bliss, this is the right question to ask and you are right no one has come up with an explanation about how we could go about testing whether a perceived trend is likely to continue. For example, take streets of three numbers at Roulette, there are twelve streets. Each time one is leading or dominates then bet on it until you win then stop. Repeat that and after say 1000 times you'll see your score is not better than betting randomly. Gizmo does exactly this by traking multiples chances and we can easily simulate this with a computer and it is not better than any other ways of betting. So what's left ?

[Arteinvivo]

what groupings have you witnessed that reoccur with a chance gamble

Asian people gathering around a bac table. 

[gizmotron]

It would be a start if someone could even explain how they would go about testing whether a perceived trend is likely to continue. All I'm getting is smoke and mirrors.

Bliss, this is the right question to ask and you are right no one has come up with an explanation about how we could go about testing whether a perceived trend is likely to continue. For example, take streets of three numbers at Roulette, there are twelve streets. Each time one is leading or dominates then bet on it until you win then stop. Repeat that and after say 1000 times you'll see your score is not better than betting randomly. Gizmo does exactly this by traking multiples chances and we can easily simulate this with a computer and it is not better than any other ways of betting. So what's left ?

Bliss, all you have to do is bet one bet to see if it holds up. Have you missed reading that I have stated that? All you have to do is keep betting it if it keeps working. Does that sound like smoke and mirrors to you?

Arte, you conveniently left out conditional awareness through the use of bunched together trends and testing as you go. You know, more of that complex stuff you insist that is not necessary. So you go ahead and program that with your tinker toy. That is what is left. Thanks for asking.  

Thanks to both of you for contributing to this thread. Spike and I have been trying to confirm for ourselves that generalized terms and generalized conceptions about meaning are the cause of miss communication among those that post on gambling forums. You guys are excellent examples of illustrating the topic and possible problem.

[Ulysses]

Arte the comic genius.

[Arteinvivo]

you conveniently left out conditional awareness through the use of bunched together trends and testing as you go

Not at all. I remember once i created an app. with 60 types of douzens. I would bet only when one was ahead by using different criterias. It works for a while and then bing bang bong it does not work. Porblem with guys like Spike and You is that you have not done any tests except maybe testing 100 or 1000 spins in all. You have won these short sequences and think you have discovered America. I have got news for you, some of my best systems have beatun up to 100000 spins but at one point they have all failed. As i said you and spike just use what is convenient, Spike tests a system on 100 spins, wins 8 bets out of 8 and think he has 100% win rate. Funny realy.

[gizmotron]

Not at all. I remember once i created an app. with 60 types of douzens. I would bet only when one was ahead by using different criterias. It works for a while and then bing bang bong it does not work. Porblem with guys like Spike and You is that you have not done any tests except maybe testing 100 or 1000 spins in all. You have won these short sequences and think you have discovered America. I have got news for you, some of my best systems have beatun up to 100000 spins but at one point they have all failed. As i said you and spike just use what is convenient, Spike tests a system on 100 spins, wins 8 bets out of 8 and think he has 100% win rate. Funny realy.

Arte, you are completely blind. You said it yourself only a few minutes ago. Remember this: "It works for a while and then bing bang bong it does not work." ?  It's not me and my communication skills that prevents you from understanding me and how I have explained clearly how to deal with this. Only you have blinders on like the Matrix, Forex, your vast experience, and your toilets. You can't beat roulette in a long sequence of rule following, system following, or fixed guessing techniques if you try that for 10,000 spins. You must beat roulette on the next spin only. You must beat randomness on the next decision only. There are no 10,000 decisions ahead. The long term odds can't predict or prevent conditional awareness from keeping you from making smart decisions. So you go ahead and keep testing your BS in your grandmother's basement. You are completely wrong in your description of what I do. In fact you are a lier. You have no evidence to back up your claims.

[Arteinvivo]

Bliss, all you have to do is bet one bet to see if it holds up. Have you missed reading that I have stated that?

We have all read this. Let me describe a plausible scenario, your tactic is to use a conditional awereness framework (complex one with multiple chances) then you see an opportunity, you test it by betting a small bet say 10$ you win so you increase say 200$ (a huge increase to make it worthwhile) you lose the second attempt. You go home because to day is a bad trending day. Next day you apply the same approach, you see a nice trend emerging, you bet once so you say in yourself wow i have identified a real trend so you increase by 20 and bet 200$ (10$ x 20) and you lose that bet. Now you are getting nerveous, should i stay and keep losing or go home and come back tomorrow. You stay there as you have big balls between your legs, another opportunity emerges, you wait and then bet one coup and win once again at 10$/bet so you increase your small bet to 400$ to recover and bing bang bong you lose a third time this big bet. So in all, you have won 3 times and lost 3 times for a grand total of -800$+30$ = -770$ not bad for a swarm aware guy.

Bliss, i hope you won't read this to keep the dream alive.

[gizmotron]

We have all read this. Let me describe a plausible scenario, your tactic is to use a conditional awareness framework (complex one with multiple chances) then you see an opportunity, you test it by betting a small bet say 10$ you win so you increase say 200$ (a huge increase to make it worthwhile) you lose the second attempt. You go home because to day is a bad trending day. Next day you apply the same approach, you see a nice trend emerging, you bet once so you say in yourself wow i have identified a real trend so you increase by 20 and bet 200$ (10$ x 20) and you lose that bet. Now you are getting nervous, should i stay and keep losing or go home and come back tomorrow. You stay there as you have big balls between your legs, another opportunity emerges, you wait and then bet one coup and win once again at 10$/bet so you increase your small bet to 400$ to recover and bing bang bong you lose a third time this big bet. So in all, you have won 3 times and lost 3 times for a grand total of -800$+30$ = -770$ not bad for a swarm aware guy.

Although you addressed Bliss with this I must assume that when you say "your tactic" you are actually addressing me. You once again attempt to imply that I would never have seen a draw-down before. You also made a monster mistake. You blow the win on a cheap bet by testing it first at a low price. But let's change the scenario to your downfall, sad story, and say many of my first big bets lose for many days. You don't think I have a plan for that do you? You think that that is the end of me and my method don't you? All you have done is cherry pick what you want and you then turn it into the big picture. I have no doubt that you don't play much in real casinos. What you described is one of the first things you must deal with if you intend gambling much. I've never seen swarms, bunching, end every time I've attempted to use them. By their nature they tend to go on for a while. Don't ask me why. You would do way better here if you would set out to discover the longevity of swarms. Show us all the times that it ends after you recognize them and compare that to how many times it continues. That's a scenario that would be right up your sleeve, all that time to run sims on your computer that is.

[gizmotron]

-