Not only have we lost Mr Chips......

[bliss]

You see 3 B's in a row and want to bet. Where is the trigger? A trigger would mean you make the same bet every time you see 3 B's in a row. If your bet is based on other criteria, no trigger is involved. Has a light bulb gon on over your head yet?

Spike, you don't get it. To use your example, seeing 3 B's in row doesn't necessarily mean that you bet each and every time you see it, it could mean you bet if and only if some other criteria are fulfilled as well.

For example, if 3 B's in a row have occurred, and:

• There haven't been 3 B's in a row in the last X spins
• There have been 3 B's in a row in the last X spins
• B's outnumber R's by X amount in the last Y spins
• etc, etc

If your next decision is based on past spins, and if you're winning more than you're losing, and it's not just down to pure luck, then there must be some patterns which occur more often (or less often) than probability predicts, given that some pattern has already occurred.

That is what I mean by a "trigger".

If you haven't identified these circumstances or patterns  (and they may be many and complex), then how do you know how to bet in a way that gives an advantage?

If your bet is based on other criteria, no trigger is involved.

The criteria IS the trigger. Has a light bulb gone on over your head yet?

[Spike]

The criteria IS the trigger.>>>

Good god, now a trend is anything we say it is and a trigger is whatever we say it is. Is there any subject in gambling where we aren't comparing apples to oranges?

[gizmotron]

The criteria IS the trigger.>>>

Good god, now a trend is anything we say it is and a trigger is whatever we say it is. Is there any subject in gambling where we aren't comparing apples to oranges?

I have an idea Spike. Let's get together and illustrate the point with baloney. 

[gizmotron]

For example, if 3 B's in a row have occurred, and:

• There haven't been 3 B's in a row in the last X spins
• There have been 3 B's in a row in the last X spins
• B's outnumber R's by X amount in the last Y spins
• etc, etc

What about these conditions:

• There have not been any 4 B's in the last X spins
• 6 B's have been swarming with 6 R's in the last X spins
• 3 B's have been followed by 2 or 1 R's in the last X spins

There are many conditions that come from recognition that are not listed as a trigger. What about combined conditions?

I understand that at some point you must place a bet. The trigger could be that the dealer is about to say "No More Bets." You must use something to place your bet. Calling the information you use, to guess with, "a trigger" could also be nothing more than comparing the sum of the positive triggers with the sum of the negative triggers. There must be a point when what is being recognized is more easily related to if it weren't classified as just another sub-set of the general category of "trigger." Now we have generalized trends triggering generalized guesses. That doesn't tell the story. All that does is classify the concept down to its largest generalized classification. What about recognition? Isn't recognition of unseen before patterns a concept too? Triggers are mostly understood as following a rule following function. How can you have a rule for an original recognition? You must have an original one time rule to deal with it. So is there a classification for the original one time triggers? A construct language for discussion might be helpful.

[bliss]

Good god, now a trend is anything we say it is and a trigger is whatever we say it is. Is there any subject in gambling where we aren't comparing apples to oranges?

Spike, tell me which are the apples and which are the oranges?

What do you understand by "criteria"?

You said "if your bet is based on other criteria". What did you mean by that?

There are many conditions that come from recognition that are not listed as a trigger. What about combined conditions?

Gizmo, that's why I put "etc, etc" in the last bullet point, there are too many possible conditions to list. I also said: "other criteria are fulfilled as well." by that I meant "combined conditions".

There must be a point when what is being recognized is more easily related to if it weren't classified as just another sub-set of the general category of "trigger." Now we have generalized trends triggering generalized guesses. That doesn't tell the story. All that does is classify the concept down to its largest generalized classification.

You guys are so systems oriented that you think the concept of a trigger must cover every possible reason why, not only what you choose to bet on, but the very reason why you're in the casino in the first place. That's not what I meant at all. Obviously, if everything is a trigger then it tells you nothing about what a trigger is, because there's nothing that's not a trigger. But most casino players don't use triggers at all, at least not in the way I understand them.
Is betting on your favourite numbers a trigger? what about scattering your chips at random over the table? these aren't triggers, the marquee means nothing to these guys, they wouldn't even glance at it. Also, physical methods, bias wheels etc, don't fall into the trigger category. You give yourself away by saying "what is being recognized". Suppose there was no marquee, and no way of recording past spins? what then?

I'm talking specifically about using past spins as a guide to making your next bet. Somewhere, or something in the "history" makes you bet (1) one selection in preference to another, and/or (2) not bet continuously on every spin, but selectively. It needn't be "raw" data, it could be some pattern derived from it (like Mr Chips' 4selecta).

So, restricting the meaning to that, what do you define as "criteria"?

So is there a classification for the original one time triggers?

There could be, I don't know. I'm no expert on educated guessing (trigger recognition). 

Why is "practice" necessary? what are you actually doing when you practice?

I'd really like to know.

[Spike]

Obviously, if everything is a trigger then it tells you nothing about what a trigger is, because there's nothing that's not a trigger.>>>

Thats what I said. Triggers and trends are apparently whatever you want them to be.

>>Why is "practice" necessary? what are you actually doing when you practice? I'd really like to know.>>

I've been saying I practice for hours a day since I came to GG. It drove Turbo nuts because he couldn't figure it out. Gizmo knows, even though we've never talked about it. Figure it out and you're almost there.

[gizmotron]

... by that I meant "combined conditions".

...You give yourself away by saying "what is being recognized". Suppose there was no marquee, and no way of recording past spins? what then?

I'm talking specifically about using past spins as a guide to making your next bet. Somewhere, or something in the "history" makes you bet (1) one selection in preference to another, and/or (2) not bet continuously on every spin, but selectively. It needn't be "raw" data, it could be some pattern derived from it (like Mr Chips' 4selecta).

So, restricting the meaning to that, what do you define as "criteria"?

There could be, I don't know. I'm no expert on educated guessing (trigger recognition). 

Why is "practice" necessary? what are you actually doing when you practice?

I'd really like to know.

There is so much there, and many terms too. You have made some headway here: "combined conditions." You have recognized or acknowledged my drum beat for "conditional awareness" by chance. You are making it a part of "criteria" I think. I have stated that past spin data passes through times of "swarms," bunching. When I see that I'm then seeing conditions that I like to bet larger amounts in. Times like that come to an end too. Sometimes they act like 90% pure of that quality. That is just one observation of the nature of randomness. It's all an illusion in my mind. Seeing formations, patterns, and swarms is the same as the clustering illusion. It's just telling yourself that you have meaning because of recognition of characteristics that tend to happen from time to times. I have referred to this as a premise. I use the premise, a process of recognition, to make a guess.

I practice, in order to practice recognizing things I've seen before, what I see in the nature of randomness, and from practicing patience. The nature of randomness is to show you something new most of the times. You can't relive a new pattern that you have never seen before. You have to practice adjusting, changing, holding back, and attacking. There is no way that saying trends and criteria is all that I'm doing. But that's what you want to know isn't it?

This is not about proving anything. It's about willingness to share it. Winning is all about being smart about what you are looking for. That's why I just roll my eyes back at the naysayers. All they are doing is showing me that they don't know what I'm looking for. That's the point where I draw the line too. You must find out what you are looking for from the nature of randomness and why it's important to you.

[Spike]

>>That's why I just roll my eyes back at the naysayers. All they are doing is showing me that they don't know what I'm looking for.>>

Thats the truth, isn't it. I'm constantly mocked and derided and they think they are really 'getting to me', when I don't even see it most of the time. I just write them off as ignorant and not worth of my time. Kinda like knowing the world is round and the flat earthers laugh at you. Who is really the fool?

>>You must find out what you are looking for from the nature of randomness and why it's important to you.>>

And that takes practice. Bliss asked a very important question, one of the few I've ever seen on these boards. I studied zen for years. The zen masters made you ask questions and you could go years before you thought of a good enough question that they would actually answer. The point was to make you do all the work, thats the only way you'll learn. If you ask the right question, you might be ready for the answer.

[bliss]

There is no way that saying trends and criteria is all that I'm doing. But that's what you want to know isn't it?

This is not about proving anything. It's about willingness to share it. Winning is all about being smart about what you are looking for. That's why I just roll my eyes back at the naysayers. All they are doing is showing me that they don't know what I'm looking for. That's the point where I draw the line too. You must find out what you are looking for from the nature of randomness and why it's important to you.

Gizmo, I'm not saying it's all baloney, nor am I asking for a simple set of criteria (or triggers) that tell you when to bet, and on what. All I'm saying is that it seems to me that there is no clear distinction between a "mechanical" system and a "non-mechanical" one. At what point does a mechanical system become "educated guessing"?

Let's say that someone new to roulette learns of a simple bet selection on R/B. For example: "whenever you see at least 2 R's or B's in a row followed by a switch to the other side, you bet the same side as the switch" This means whenever you see RRB (or a longer string of R) you bet B once, and when you see BBR, you bet R once, then wait for the next opportunity. This seems to work pretty well for while, but then the inevitable long string of losses comes along, so he decides to try something else (sound familiar?). This too, seems promising at first, until it isn't... The guy goes on in this way for some time, trying many approaches, only to eventually discard them.

He learns, slowly, that everything can work for a while, but nothing is infallible. What seems to be needed is flexibility, the ability to switch effortlessly to the ever changing whims of the wheel. Stubbornly clinging to any strategy will spell disaster, he knows this from experience, and he will never fall into that trap again. Now, during this period of studying and testing, he's got to know the stream of R/B pretty well, because that's what he works with in the process of testing his bet selections. It's not that he's consciously analyzed the patterns, it's more a kind of unconscious absorbing of them. The will and intention to succeed has tuned him into to what bet selection works with whatever pattern is showing at the moment, a sensitivity to match a selection with the wheel, if you like. None of these bet selections are any good as exclusive strategies - they are all losers, every one of them. But what he has developed, over maybe 100's of hours of testing and looking at patterns, is the ability to - more often than not - at least stay close to even, if not make a profit.

Is this what you mean by "practice"?

Now, although this is a complex process and quite a demanding activity for the player - more of an art than a science, and to that extent a "non-mechanical" process, it could, in principle, be "mechanized" in the form of a computer program, don't you agree?

[gizmotron]

Gizmo, I'm not saying it's all baloney, nor am I asking for a simple set of criteria (or triggers) that tell you when to bet, and on what. All I'm saying is that it seems to me that there is no clear distinction between a "mechanical" system and a "non-mechanical" one. At what point does a mechanical system become "educated guessing"?

...
Is this what you mean by "practice"?

Now, although this is a complex process and quite a demanding activity for the player - more of an art than a science, and to that extent a "non-mechanical" process, it could, in principle, be "mechanized" in the form of a computer program, don't you agree?

Your example of concept & practice is basically correct. The actual example that you used is a worst case scenario for me. It's more like where I was when I first started guessing as a strategy. That point about abandoning a trigger was very important. The complexity of what triggers a decision is more complicated than just pattern following rules. Conditional awareness includes global changes to the data flow in combination with simpler effects. So yes, a very complex and extensive computer program could do this too. Now add to that triggering mechanism, game flow conditional awareness and for me two level betting and two step parlays. I don't play my A game until my A game is playable. How many systems depend of perfect timing and are triggered by walking up to a table expecting that timing to be right? That would be the dumb trigger. Too many people gamble with the dumb trigger.

Every time I read about a system that uses the dumb trigger I want to jump right off the page and warn them that it will lose more than it will win because timing is an integral part of using it. You can't learn the lessons of gambling by telling people about the pitfalls and mine fields. They need to experience what does not work for themselves. That is the only way for them to become true believers. So I don't warn them. I always prove to myself that I understand a concept and prove to myself that I'm ready to jump on stage and perform properly. It's a lesson from show business that I have as an experience. Perhaps you have seen American Idol auditions? Many gamblers here think they can sing good enough to be the next American Idol. I'm completely like anyone that thinks that telling someone to give up that singing career dream is the right thing to do. Because that is the kindness treatment for that person. Everyone in their family has said to them that they could sing and all it ended up doing was to make a fool out of them. Why is betraying trust the kindest form of sabotage? It's more like sibling rivalry and hatred. It's actually mean. Imagine suckering your brother into doing a live audition. Pretty funny.

[Spike]

it could, in principle, be "mechanized" in the form of a computer program, don't you agree? >>>

I totally disagree. There are too many decisions involved and experience is the biggest factor.

Ever go hunting? You can show somebody how to hunt, show them everything about it. What you can't teach is all the little decisions you learn how to make by getting the actual experience of hunting. You can't program it or teach it. You can only get it by doing it. By practicing it, if you will.

[ryan08]

All I'm saying is that it seems to me that there is no clear distinction between a "mechanical" system and a "non-mechanical" one. At what point does a mechanical system become "educated guessing"?

you have the answer in the sentence, mechanical is a term used when you take all the decision making out of a system, leaving just the rules to follow, the reason why mechanical systems are popular is because you dont really need to think about what your doing, just stick to the rules, easy and simple, although im yet to see anything mechanical that works. when you put decision making into the equation then the system becomes non-mechanical system, or as you put it "educated guessing".

[J.Daniels]

Imagine you get get the same set of numbers twice in 2 sessions, and with "educated guessing" you play them the same way?->then you got rules that makes your playing mechanical, with the exception that you have more quantity of rules and more complex.

Or... do you play both sessions in a different way?  Then, would it be any better than random playing?...NO

There are always rules, more or less complex, but every non-mechanical playing could be explained by setting up some RULES.

Unless you are playing by your "feelings"...= RANDOM

JD

[lucky_strike]

There are always rules, more or less complex, but every non-mechanical playing could be explained by setting up some RULES.

Unless you are playing by your "feelings"...= RANDOM

Nice JD.

Well this is what i have to say.

a) 100% random play is when you close you eyes and play like an blind man, so no matter where you put your units on the green carpet, win or lose.
b) Educated guess following at least one static rule based upon experience in that momentum when you place you bet, win or lose.
c) Mechanical you use a set of static rules to follow, win or lose.

There is more but i have post them into other boards and are a littel more complex.
Its about how to explore a time-line, the distribution of trails.
Then it comes to frame play.
Momentum frame.
Tendency frame.
The law of series.
And so on...

Cheers LS

[bliss]

when you put decision making into the equation then the system becomes non-mechanical system, or as you put it "educated guessing".

If a non-mechanical system is one in which you make decisions, it begs the question - what is the basis for your decisions? If the difference between mechanical and non-mechanical is only the complexity and number of rules, then there must come a point in the evolution of your game where you abandon the fixed rules because they are too numerous and/or complex, and by doing so step into "educated guessing" territory. But the rules are still there, they're just not explicitly spelled out. To use a Psychologist's term, you play by the "gestalt". It doesn't mean that there are no rules though, it just means they are more "fuzzy".

Imagine you get get the same set of numbers twice in 2 sessions, and with "educated guessing" you play them the same way?->then you got rules that makes your playing mechanical, with the exception that you have more quantity of rules and more complex.

Exactly. But Spike has said that he never plays the same way, even if he were to get the very same sequence. Go figure. 

[bliss]

-