Quote from: Mike on August 02, 2016, 04:15:43 PM
Albalaha is correct and only stating the obvious. Of course bet selection (whether complex or simple) doesn't help in a random game of independent trials.

Shut your eyes and scatter chips randomly over the table, or get your pet monkey to do it, and your results will be no better or worse than someone who has spent years researching and developing a system.

Anyone who denies this has either been fooled by short term results or is deliberately trying to deceive the gullible.

Mike, I have already confirmed for myself that your generalization is only true some of the time. If I'm using the characteristics of randomness, based on placing bets after 4 repeating characteristics, then there are times when those bets lose continuously. It's one of the three phases of effectiveness. To deny that these three states exist is like going into outer space without bringing an oxygen supply. If I'm in an effectiveness phase that is working extremely well, for the time being, if I change to a mindless random bet selection, what you are suggesting, and ignoring what is already working, then almost every time I have done so the winning streak transforms into a losing state.


This knowledge and experience is a repudiation of your opinion. I'll suggest that because you are the one thinking from a position of denial you need to look at something you have placed boundaries from seeing.


Do you get it? I've tried random on random. It changes states faster than the global effect when it's working great. My experience with you, Mike, is that you are a constant state too. You won't look where you think you already know the answer. The world is not flat Mike.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 02, 2016, 01:54:21 PM

Playing at the right time is only part of it. What you play is equally important too. It probably doesn't occur to you that providing proof only serves a superfluous purpose. I don't need to prove what works for me in the practical application of using my technique in a real casino.


That does not mean that I need to write a software program that beats the game though. All I need to do is get enough people using it properly and the throng that follows will have the same effect. When I decide to do that, I have not yet determined. I do this out of the spirit of the inventor and a desire someday for recognition. Non-believers are a prerequisite necessity of this method of disclosure. Discovering the world is not flat is like a mathematician that will  need to throw out the probability books.

                 If something works merely for you but that fails in an empirical test, it has nothing to do with logic. MB claimed the same. He said that he has won his entire life with the method but when we simulate that, it comes nowhere closer to reality. Harsh but truth.
When I and Ophis tested over 10 millions spins with his bot, the win was sure as it had an irrefutable logic that has to win. If we could have got 10 millions more spins we could have beaten that too. Only thing that did not appeal to me was that was a pure bot stuff and bot need to run 24x7 with that way.
               Anyways, I am not denying your claim as I have no idea how that works. May be you can prove to those whom you need to.

Quote from: Albalaha on August 03, 2016, 03:16:29 AM                 If something works merely for you but that fails in an empirical test, it has nothing to do with logic. MB claimed the same. He said that he has won his entire life with the method but when we simulate that, it comes nowhere closer to reality. Harsh but truth.When I and Ophis tested over 10 millions spins with his bot, the win was sure as it had an irrefutable logic that has to win. If we could have got 10 millions more spins we could have beaten that too. Only thing that did not appeal to me was that was a pure bot stuff and bot need to run 24x7 with that way.               Anyways, I am not denying your claim as I have no idea how that works. May be you can prove to those whom you need to.

If I wanted to wreck everything and cause a total disruption in gambling opportunities for everyone I would create and share an open source version of an algorithm that proves everything. That mechanical based artificial intelligence would be mathematical proof that coincidental change occurs just like Variable Change occurs. I have coined the concept of Coincidental Change from the logic in economics, Coincident Indicator, and from the pragmatic approach to moments of advantage caused from Variable Change and counting cards in 21 being opportunistic if the right conditions exist.

In 21 the game is exploited because of mathematical advantage. I'm just positing that Coincidental Advantage exists and is easily exploitable by computer algorithms, especially in the game of Roulette.

Gizmo,

What you call "coincidental change" is just another name for random. System addicts don't understand statistical independence (and blackjack isn't a game of independent trials) which is why they endlessly try to create systems which attempt to plug the gaps. The trouble is, every hole you plug just opens up another hole somewhere else. It's endless. Every sequence is equally likely so no matter what you use as your trigger there is a corresponding sequence which will cause the system to lose. That's a fact and not merely my opinion. I hope for your sake that someday enlightenment will dawn.

There is no algorithm which will achieve more wins than losses. All a bet selection does is to select parts of an infinite random stream (a sub-sequence from a sequence), but it has been shown that this cannot result in improved odds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system

Presumably you have actually written this algorithm to at least prove to yourself that it works? If so what are the results? What is your edge?

Show me the math!

Quote from: Mike on August 03, 2016, 08:01:01 AMGizmo,What you call "coincidental change" is just another name for random. System addicts don't understand statistical independence (and blackjack isn't a game of independent trials) which is why they endlessly try to create systems which attempt to plug the gaps. The trouble is, every hole you plug just opens up another hole somewhere else. It's endless. Every sequence is equally likely so no matter what you use as your trigger there is a corresponding sequence which will cause the system to lose. That's a fact and not merely my opinion. I hope for your sake that someday enlightenment will dawn.There is no algorithm which will achieve more wins than losses. All a bet selection does is to select parts of an infinite random stream (a sub-sequence from a sequence), but it has been shown that this cannot result in improved odds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_systemPresumably you have actually written this algorithm to at least prove to yourself that it works? If so what are the results? What is your edge?Show me the math!

You acknowledge the existence of variable change, like in the game of Blackjack. That's the basis for coincidental change. Variable change occurs because the game has a memory so to speak. It mathematically offers small streaks to take advantage of it. While in a state of favorable advantage a known strategy to raise the bets is well known. Because there are perfect sequences in randomness that appear to defeat the variable change advantage there is no guarantee that you will win every time you use it. In the long run though, you should win.

Your argument is that my method doesn't actually change the odds. That's true too. So why use odds to beat a random game if you already know you can't count on odds as an advantage? I'm satisfied that using coincidences of randomness also offer stretches of advantage even if they are not changes in the path of independent events. You claim that they can't work to your advantage over the long run. For example, 40 sleeping dozens in a row is more powerful than a single deck advantage in Blackjack. Knowing how to strategically take advantage of these kinds of opportunities is a skill based craft. It requires reasonable expectation and a form of situational money management.

Proving it to you is not my plan. My plan is to show the world what actually works and have people like you as documented naysayers of a once believed truth. Perhaps one day there will be an algorithm for every high school math teacher to marvel at. I'm still having fun treating the casino like an ATM machine. When I have more than I need, and that's not to far off, I will fully and publicly disclose proof. Just because you think that a discussion forum needs it proved when you say so doesn't mean that it is the best method to disclose inventive progress. I'm no longer intimidated by the requests of those that demand proof. I know what I have discovered. All I have discovered is something that has already been the truth. I just did it first.

There are others that have made the same claims. Spike, Gr8player, John Patrick, and others have laid claim to exploiting trends. This is not new. They didn't program it as a basis for it being true though. They didn't discover a charting method to see it as a simplified visual dexterity process. They never saw it as characteristics. They never referred to it as reading randomness.

So please resign yourself as to being patient as to when I will fully disclose everything. When I do it, it will be a free open source example. It will be fun watching the throng scurry around like they once did before when Edward Thorp wrote "Beat The Dealer." That's my plan.

Posted by: Gizmotron
on: Today at 01:05:51 pm

QuoteThere are others that have made the same claims. Spike, Gr8player, John Patrick, and others have laid claim to exploiting trends. This is not new. They didn't program it as a basis for it being true though. They didn't discover a charting method to see it as a simplified visual dexterity process. They never saw it as characteristics. They never referred to it as reading randomness.

With all due respect, that's a pretty bold statement. There are people who know more that you think.

Personal check list:

-programmed as a basis for it being true
-discovered (developed) a charting method to see it as a simplified visual dexterity process
-saw it as characteristics, published books in 2005, 2007- page 59 (American), page 33 (European)
-referred to it as reading randomness, fighting random with random, "organized" random.

-established a "university" for professional roulette players
-successful graduates dating as far back as 1986, this year alone, 14 graduates from all over the world.
-personal teams active in Las Vegas

QuoteSo please resign yourself as to being patient as to when I will fully disclose everything. When I do it, it will be a free open source example. It will be fun watching the throng scurry around like they once did before when Edward Thorp wrote "Beat The Dealer." That's my plan.

Really?, in the name for fame. Good luck with that.

Kimo Li

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 03:27:18 PM
Really?, in the name for fame. Good luck with that.

Kimo Li

Oops! and Kimo Li too.

Sorry about that. To be fare, all I've ever looked at of yours is your pet groupings, sections of the wheel. I knew that your methods are beyond just observing these groups. That's an impressive list of milestones. So you charge $2000 for the tutoring or training, is that right?

I know that you have been doing this for a long time. I didn't know that you had more information available beyond your published books.

I became aware of randomness characteristics back in 1992. That is when I specialized in hot number characteristics and pet groupings of my own. That's why I liked what you were writing about and what others were looking at of yours. I never heard about you until 2006. Obviously, your teaching has not wrecked the game in all that time, so you must be teaching in a way that students keep their advantages to themselves. It's true, if you have randomness and tactical advantages figured out, your way, then some day the truth will come out regardless of what I teach. I've watched you defend yourself for the past decade. Keep up the good fight.

One of the best ideas that came from you is the root numbers for 10.
I give credit to you every time I teach your concept to my students, Base 10.
I tell them I got the idea from Gizmotron on a forum.

The way I organize the concept allows the players to see numbers in a totally different light, most used for 12 number betting and Even Chances.
Thank you for your contribution.

Gizmo,

I didn't ask you to prove anything, I was only asking for the win rate.

Trending has been used in roulette since the game was invented, but unlike in trading (the herd effect) it has no basis in reality. The reality is that trends in a random game can only be recognized AFTER they've occurred. See a trend and jump on it, fine, but of course there is no tendency for it to continue, and there is no tendency for it to break.

You can get lucky for a while of course, but luck runs out. The only valid form of bet selection for roulette is betting on biased numbers, or maybe some form of visual ballistics. Most casinos make a big effort to keep the wheels unbiased (why would they not?), and an unbiased wheel is a random wheel. Those who advocate some form of bet selection for a random wheel fall into two camps. They are either sincere but deluded because they lack an understanding of the correct methodology to test whether their results are significant (curve fitting, selective attention, etc), or they know perfectly well they have nothing but have vested interests (directly or indirectly, they're exploiting the ignorance of others).

I don't know which camp you fall into, but I suspect Kimo Li is in the latter.

I suppose though, there is a another group. Some "characters" just like to be contrary and enjoy the attention. It's just a giggle for them trying to wind people up on forums. They probably don't get much attention anywhere else, and it feed their egos.

If anyone is persuaded by the "argument" that searching for a winning bet selection in the random game of roulette is a reasonable enterprise, ask yourself what the force is which compels outcomes to conform to your selections with any greater probability than the odds dictate (remember, all sequences are equally likely). What magic is at work? Do any of the answers you come up with seem plausible?

I suspect that even those who are more or less convinced that there there is no winning bet selection have niggling doubts that maybe there is something, but they're just not smart enough or hard working enough to figure out what it is. If that's you, it means you haven't understood what independent trials really means. The concept is simple enough, but it's amazing how many really don't get it.

Quote from: Mike on August 03, 2016, 06:14:04 PM
Trending has been used in roulette since the game was invented, but unlike in trading (the herd effect) it has no basis in reality. The reality is that trends in a random game can only be recognized AFTER they've occurred. See a trend and jump on it, fine, but of course there is no tendency for it to continue, and there is no tendency for it to break.

Trends can be observed at the very beginning, the middle , and the end of their occurrence. An experienced player knows how to live with the results of all three conditions. I assure you that you can bet that the next spin continues the trend and that you can win or lose based on what happens in the future. The trick is in knowing how to exploit the unknown future.

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 04:36:55 PM
One of the best ideas that came from you is the root numbers for 10.
I give credit to you every time I teach your concept to my students, Base 10.
I tell them I got the idea from Gizmotron on a forum.

The way I organize the concept allows the players to see numbers in a totally different light, most used for 12 number betting and Even Chances.
Thank you for your contribution.

I came up with these on my own, but apparently, the automated air-ball machines offer it as a quick bet option.

"Final Bet (Finale) The Final Bet or Finale (from French) is made on the last digit of a number. For instance Finale Four means that you bet on the numbers 4, 14, 24 and 34. The bet on Final 1–6 requires 4 chips, while Final 7–9 gets along with just 3 chips."

QuoteThey are either sincere but deluded because they lack an understanding of the correct methodology to test whether their results are significant (curve fitting, selective attention, etc), or they know perfectly well they have nothing but have vested interests (directly or indirectly, they're exploiting the ignorance of others).

I don't know which camp you fall into, but I suspect Kimo Li is in the latter.

In your defense, you cannot properly assess the concepts mentioned because your point of view comes from an ethnocentric point of view and values that you have been taught. I get it. Without this knowledge, you can only state what you know.  For that, you are correct. For others that know, their reality is a humble one.

QuoteI came up with these on my own, but apparently, the automated air-ball machines offer it as a quick bet option.

"Final Bet (Finale) The Final Bet or Finale (from French) is made on the last digit of a number. For instance Finale Four means that you bet on the numbers 4, 14, 24 and 34. The bet on Final 1–6 requires 4 chips, while Final 7–9 gets along with just 3 chips."

Interesting, I wish they had it with American air-ball machines.

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 07:53:23 PM
Interesting, I wish they had it with American air-ball machines.

One of my favorite casino's air ball does have it here in the USA, Thunder Valley Casino just north of Sacramento. They call it Finale. You press the Finale button and the ten options come up. I've never seen it offered on a table layout before. That would be way-cool to the Max Daddio.

QuoteTrending has been used in roulette since the game was invented, but unlike in trading (the herd effect) it has no basis in reality. The reality is that trends in a random game can only be recognized AFTER they've occurred. See a trend and jump on it, fine, but of course there is no tendency for it to continue, and there is no tendency for it to break.

You can get lucky for a while of course, but luck runs out.

                I believe this to be truth too. Any magical formula defying the house edge and giving better than average prediction for sure in random gaming is like telling what will come in megamillion tomorrow. If it can be done in random games like RNG, I believe that would end casinos' days. AP guys on real wheel claim to do that with cloaking devices and bias analysis. Never heard of an AP for RNG. Gizmo, are you serious?

             Regarding Kimo Li, he claims to teach the exclusive art to exclusive students and he is having a university of professional gamblers of his own. Interesting.
             To me, Gizmo's claim is something out of world. If he has any student of him here, I would like to hear from him too.