I thought this was a non-selling site, no matter how the poster tries to dress it up.

Gizmo, let's indulge in a flight of fancy for a moment and assume that your algorithm really is a money-making machine. What would I do with it? Keep schtum like any sensible person and quietly milk the casinos. 

If you're looking for recognition and this isn't just a joke, then I suggest submitting your research to Open Science Journal. You've missed the deadline for submission but this will give you about a year to work on your algorithm and manuscript.

You don't need to be an academic or even have a college education.

http://osjournal.org/about.html

Quote from: Mike on August 05, 2016, 06:37:50 PM
Gizmo, let's indulge in a flight of fancy for a moment and assume that your algorithm really is a money-making machine. What would I do with it? Keep schtum like any sensible person and quietly milk the casinos. 

If you're looking for recognition and this isn't just a joke, then I suggest submitting your research to Open Science Journal. You've missed the deadline for submission but this will give you about a year to work on your algorithm and manuscript.

You don't need to be an academic or even have a college education.

http://osjournal.org/about.html

I will seek validation by real peer review in my own way. The only reason I would seek any attention from the Open Source community, and they bother me every year to make a submission and a presentation at their annual conference, is if I wanted to sell something and to attract a lot of attention from the Open Source community in the first place. It's the Gambling community I wish to impress. The open source format of delivering the proof serves as one purpose only, to validate that no cheating is going on. An algorithm that beats Roulette by calculated guessing is in fact a mathematical proof that independent events, seen as clusters of coincidental advantage, are in fact real as apposed to just claimed as real. That would force the math professors to rewrite the school books.


http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon OSCON

BTW, I am milking the casinos. It's just that it takes a lot of time and driving too. Imagine if I could sell it for ten bucks and sell a million copies. That might be cool. Maybe I could sell an eBook and give the algorithm away in a free app. The book supports the app, and the app supports the book.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 05, 2016, 07:33:54 PM
BTW, I am milking the casinos. It's just that it takes a lot of time and driving too. Imagine if I could sell it for ten bucks and sell a million copies. That might be cool. Maybe I could sell an eBook and give the algorithm away in a free app. The book supports the app, and the app supports the book.

Highly unlikely, because you would be camped out within range of a few casino's, paying for accommodation out of your winnings, you're not and you can't.  However Imspirt or Nickmsi could test it for you.  As soon as you sell a few copies, things get passed around, so you wouldn't even sell a 100 copies never mind a million.   You're fooling nobody.

Dear Gizmo,
With respect  ,

One pertinent question.
You may choose, not to answer, and I understand.

After reading some of your postings, 

I deducecd that,
Your bet selection, alway reverting to rtm.
You wait for EXTREME VARIANCE,
AND THEN
" RIDE THE VARIANCE WAVES CORRECTING TO RTM"?

Quote from: MarkTeruya on August 05, 2016, 08:36:52 PM
Highly unlikely, because you would be camped out within range of a few casino's, paying for accommodation out of your winnings, you're not and you can't.  However Imspirt or Nickmsi could test it for you.  As soon as you sell a few copies, things get passed around, so you wouldn't even sell a 100 copies never mind a million.   You're fooling nobody.

I already taught 10 students the rudimentary basics of what I do. I've basically disclosed here what I do also. The casinos are still here. Roulette is as popular as ever. What's missing is a Watson Computer simulation that actually beats the game without cheating and the publicity of that scenario and how the simulation does it. If I've learned anything from these forums it's that when anyone comes up with a so called HG the thread it's disclosed in goes ballistic. I can make my free computer app go viral in just a few days. It will be a news story it's such a break through. There once was this gambling paperback book that made it into the grocery store racks one summer. It sold 200,000 copies that summer alone. If it gets the right publicity it will sell huge. I just need to figure out how to sell it without it getting widely pirated in the first few months. I'll look into licensing it as shareware or something like that.

Quote from: MarkTeruya on August 05, 2016, 05:54:14 PM
I thought this was a non-selling site, no matter how the poster tries to dress it up.

Why haven't you read the Rules?    http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/our-forum's-very-straightforward-*rules*/

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 06, 2016, 12:10:17 AM
Dear Gizmo,
With respect  ,

One pertinent question.
You may choose, not to answer, and I understand.

After reading some of your postings, 

I deducecd that,
Your bet selection, alway reverting to rtm.
You wait for EXTREME VARIANCE,
AND THEN
" RIDE THE VARIANCE WAVES CORRECTING TO RTM"?

I ride a multi-faceted set of bets up from one win to seven wins in a row where I take off profit after each win. It's based on seven separate steps of a positive progression. It's is very common to have the global effect running concurrent with a strong randomness characteristic at the same time. One seven step win is enough to make up for grinding out all the attempts that don't work all the way to the big win. You should know from my writings that it is common in 200 spins for a sleeping dozen to occur at least once for at least 15 consecutive spins. This is what is funny to me regarding the absolutist faction of the probability class that frequent these forums. They are clueless as to what sleeping dozens typically do. They don't know how to grind out playing close to even while making attempts at these positive progressions. They can't figure it out for themselves. They don't actually have real playing experience when it comes to sleeping dozens and singles in a streak. You can configure your 24 numbers from any pet grouping that you wish to place your bets from. It doesn't matter. All you need to do is catch a win streak, all based on an educated guess. All based on reading the randomness flow. I can teach a computer to do what I do. That's easy. My experience is what is the hard part. I have to teach it that. It's just a real sophisticated set of rules.

Quote from: esoito on August 06, 2016, 01:41:58 AM
Why haven't you read the Rules?    http://betselection.cc/general-discussion/our-forum's-very-straightforward-*rules*/

To Victor: "So my basic question is on advertising or mentioning a school and a price?"

Quote from: VLSMark, others are using our pages to peddle their products in their blogs, so feel free to do it too. At this point -with our current set of rules- it is the community who says what's the limit with their reports.We are going to change the rules when the new BetForum.cc site is up, so you get Gizmotron.betforum.cc as your own personal space to do as you please, including selling, while we streamline the sections/blogs here at BetSelection to feature systems/methods. BetForum.cc is a "pet project" at this point, but we'll get there. In the mean time, feel free to mention your offering in your blog.Cheers!Vic

QuoteOne seven step win is enough to make up for grinding out all the attempts that don't work all the way to the big win. You should know from my writings that it is common in 200 spins for a sleeping dozen to occur at least once for at least 15 consecutive spins.

          Can you please elaborate this part a bit more?

Quote from: Albalaha on August 06, 2016, 03:51:40 AM
          Can you please elaborate this part a bit more?

A single dozen sleeps for about 8 to 10 spins when it's a good one. A great one happens most times I play at a casino. These great ones last from 14 to 16 times in a row. The Elegant Pattern version of a sleeper will go on for 20 to 40 spins in a row.

You can write your own tracker that shows you sleepers. My free training software here at this forum shows you the trends. Look for it in my section.

@Gizmo,
After a quick look at a few 200spins,
of mine selection.

It really awe me to see that streak of 4,5,6..very common,
And streak of 7,8,9 even 12, hit too!

If streak of 10, happen every 200, then that huge killing!!!

Streaks do come but the size and frequency is still as uncertain. What is the certainty of getting a 15 step in 200 spins? I do not think it is even regular or 1/2 i.e. even 1 in 2x200 is possible. Can Gizmo put some more stats in this regard?

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 06, 2016, 04:38:11 AM
@Gizmo,
After a quick look at a few 200spins,
of mine selection.

It really awe me to see that streak of 4,5,6..very common,
And streak of 7,8,9 even 12, hit too!

If streak of 10, happen every 200, then that huge killing!!!

Now all you need to do is get good at staying even while trying to exploit the big streaks. Experience doing this is the key.

Quote from: Albalaha on August 06, 2016, 04:43:29 AM
Streaks do come but the size and frequency is still as uncertain. What is the certainty of getting a 15 step in 200 spins? I do not think it is even regular or 1/2 i.e. even 1 in 2x200 is possible. Can Gizmo put some more stats in this regard?

I sent you a PM with some more in it.

It's not stats that your need. It's the skill at learning when to strike and for how much. You get this by detecting opportunities in my charting system technique. Visual dexterity, the ability to see a characteristic that you can use is the trick.

Look at this to see what I mean:


|       X |    X    |    X    |    X    | -- 9
| X       |       X |       X | X       | -- 6
|       X |       X | X       | X       | -- 7
| X       | X       | X       | X       | -- 1
| X       |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 2
|       X |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 0
| X       |       X | X       |       X | -- 9
|    X    |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 4
| X       |    X    |    X    |    X    | -- 1
|    X    |    X    | X       |       X | -- 4
| X       |       X |       X | X       | -- 6
| X       |       X |       X | X       | -- 6
|-------------------| X       | X       | -- 0
|    X    | X       |       X |       X | -- 9
|    X    |       X |       X | X       | -- 8
| X       | X       | X       | X       | -- 1
| X       |    X    |       X | X       | -- 5
| X       |    X    |    X    |    X    | -- 8
|    X    | X       | X       |       X | -- 3
|       X |    X    | X       |       X | -- 6
|-------------------| X       | X       | -- 0
|       X |    X    |       X | X       | -- 2
|-------------------| X       | X       | -- 0
| X       |       X | X       |       X | -- 9
|    X    |    X    | X       |       X | -- 4
|       X |    X    | X       |       X | -- 5
|       X |       X | X       | X       | -- 7
|    X    | X       |       X |       X | -- 9
|    X    | X       |    X    |    X    | -- 6
|       X |       X | X       |       X | -- 6
|       X |       X | X       | X       | -- 7
| X       |    X    |    X    |    X    | -- 8
| X       |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 2
|       X | X       | X       | X       | -- 8
|       X |    X    | X       |       X | -- 5
| X       | X       |    X    |    X    | -- 7
|    X    |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 4
| X       |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 3
|       X | X       |       X | X       | -- 1
| X       |       X |    X    |    X    | -- 3
| X       | X       |    X    |    X    | -- 7
| X       |    X    |    X    |    X    | -- 1
|       X | X       |       X |       X | -- 4
|    X    |       X |       X | X       | -- 8
|       X | X       | X       | X       | -- 8