+ Register

[Jimske]

Rainy day, I'm bored.  So I copied this conversation form the other forum.  McVince, a serious guy, IMO, and a member of BTC stated and I opined.  I thought maybe Mike and Glen might put their two cents in.

Mcvince said: ↑
I agree with you somewhat. In certain circumstances the past will dictate the future. I have found one thing that will occur 95% of the time and another 100% of the time in the shoe. It is similar to card counting. The issue is that I know it will come out but will it come out in the time that you want it to. The Pavlov's Dog scenario in this game is that it is a guessing game. Those who have played it enough and have invested a lot of time researching will tell you that it is the furthest of a guessing game.

Jimske responded:  These back and forths become a little tedious. Maybe it's just a matter of definition or not taking the time to make clear statements. But words mean something.

When you make such claims (95%, 100%) one can only assume that you are referring to a condition that exists in time (quantifiable) that will produce a specific result 95 times or 100 times out of 100 such occurrences, respectively. The only practical concern, as you allude to, is the wait time for such a condition to appear. (If we are waiting for Pluto to reach its apex in relation to the sun we will have to wait a lifetime so it matters little!) OTH, it's reasonable to assume that given enough data we can calculate the wait time for your unproven hypothesis. Similar to BJ you state? Depending on the rules and penetration we know that we will get approx. eight advantage occurrences per 100 hands - on average. Of course the outcome of such is nowhere close to 95 or 100%. In fact, the most we can expect is a 2% advantage.

(Yup, this is getting boring! It's so academic!) I can only assume that you are NOT claiming such advantage. Because if you were and said advantage was anywhere close to the 95, 100% Keith wouldn't be living in Mechanicsburg "selling" subscriptions! So I can only ask earnestly, "What the hell are you talking about?" Nobody knows.

The basic criteria as to whether these methods are guessing or not is very simple. Can it be quantified, measured, taught, etc. If it can't be measured then it is, using the vernacular, just guessing. I get that we are not talking about random choice and are using some structure to make decisions for 1) bet placements and 2) wager amounts. But without the ability to quantify that structure it is really just guessing.

So please tell me you have measured it and can show data that has a SD with a low risk of ruin that would be acceptable to most gamblers. After that it is just a matter of calculating bankroll requirements.

Thanks

[alrelax]

Part of what McVince was saying, no matter which way--is correct, IMO.  As well, I do not and have never seen or can never ever agree with the 95%-100%, no matter what he is attempting to quantify and designated as the repeating and always appearing event(s).

You are pretty much correct, IMO, but I interpret the numbers as, a very high percent probably without definitive records of everything that does come around in bac presentments, around 65--70% of the time, but (BUT) a player does not know what grouping of 100 sessions those will be in.  Do you understand what I am attempting to say?

Take that partial list of my 'identifiable events' in bac I have found.  The will often come about.  Maybe out of the next 100 shoes or sessions, 15%, another 100 sessions 85%, another 100 sessions 40%, etc., etc. They are frequent at times, yet infrequent at times. 

That is exactly my reasoning for the emotional understanding and adherence, the psych understanding, the complete and monotonous confessions, the strict MMS I adore with my 1/3rd's, etc., etc., and so on.  Correlate with your wagering what works, when it is working.  Not always easy, yet other times--very easy.

So to attack Mike and Xander and their downgrading and chastising to the 100th degree my wins, experiences and findings, do not lose 100% of my buy-ins to 100% of my sessions.  I lose about 35% or so of my buy-ins on average, but I win many times well over my buy-ins those other times. 

And BTW, complete agreement to the 110th power! QUOTE: "(Yup, this is getting boring! It's so academic!) I can only assume that you are NOT claiming such advantage. Because if you were and said advantage was anywhere close to the 95, 100% Keith wouldn't be living in Mechanicsburg "selling" subscriptions! So I can only ask earnestly, "What the hell are you talking about?" Nobody knows."  He would be on a tropical island living what they all dream, including having numerous daily happy endings from the X-NYC Korean massage parlor girls while sipping those tropical Tiki drinks.  What is so hilarious over there, is how they claim and self-admit with each other's swearing up and down they are actually multi-million dollar winners and professional full time bac gamblers.  But then they also admit, 'it just didn't happen this trip' and another flaw in their claims, is looking at those little piles of red and green chips and a bunch of 'tired/frustrated' players at their crawl sessions.  They have tons of other stuff that is indicative to fallacy turned into commercial sales attempts, but I don't go on the website since Keith had his local police department call and threaten to arrest me (LOL) because  I had text him 4 times and demanded him to take down a few posts I had placed on his website after being invited by one of his loyal members there.  Then, as with every other single newcomer that does not immediately join their monthly elite circle of gamblers, the berating--the assault and the collective ganging-up started immediately. 

Problem being most cannot conquer Bac and never will because : When we frequently see two unique things (eg, reality presented over and over again and the correlations of interpretation of the human mind to positive results or possibilities) occurring together, they become paired in our minds, creating what is termed an illusory correlation.  Unfortunately, there are numerous other factors and understanding that has to be factored into with experience and loss results before a player can truly understand how to handle what bac is all about.  And, guys--try not to confuse what I am saying with guaranteed winning secrets, discovery of holy-grails, etc., etc., but it is not, not in anyway. 

[Gizmotron]

Rainy day, I'm bored.  ...

The basic criteria as to whether these methods are guessing or not is very simple. Can it be quantified, measured, taught, etc. If it can't be measured then it is, using the vernacular, just guessing. I get that we are not talking about random choice and are using some structure to make decisions for 1) bet placements and 2) wager amounts. But without the ability to quantify that structure it is really just guessing.

Is guessing somehow bad? What if it can be measured and taught? I know I need to give an simple to understand example to actually qualify the question. So I will try.


So I watch for characteristics in trends. I specifically watch for 4 in a row trends. If I want to risk a first bet on a fifth in a row I need to know if there is a swarm of 4 in a rows occurring. If so, I'm going to get killed jumping into that mess. Now the bet itself is a guess. So how can I measure it? How can I explain it to someone that has never looked for it?


If I guess that a fifth occurrence of a trend will give me a win, and there has been no 5's that have occurred in the past 20 spins then I am making a huge leap kind of a guess. On the other hand if I have observed swarms of 5's, 6's. 7's etc... all occurring in the last 20 spins across all of my 12 sets of dozens or my 12 sets of 18's then I have a stronger chance of betting into a continuing trend. Now this is not a probability chance. This is a coincidental chance. It's not a statistical reason for making the guess. It's speculating on a guess.


So now you see how it is possible to measure a guess based on a bet selection technique. But that is only explained to you so that you can be taken to the next level of learning in this teaching. The point is not to count on a conditional response to what you are currently seeing. The point is to teach you to see the result. Your focus must be on the result and the data stream that comes from the results of your guesses. You will get a stream of wins and losses measured as wLwwLwwLwwwLLLwww type lists. Now this next example happens too. You will have a stream of wL's that when a loss occurs it will always just be a single loss. That is a noticeable characteristic of random guessing too. I have just taught that guesses can  be both measured and taught. I have not taught all the characteristics I see in correlation to random characteristics combined with win/loss combinations that are there to exploit. But I hope I have made my point. wL lists can come in all kinds of consistent forms or patterns. If you use a same set of trend guidelines to make bet selections from you will be able to see if you are in a winning dominance or a losing dominance in your wL lists. All this win/loss stuff is quantifiable and teachable.  The win/loss list is real data. It can be used to quit while you are ahead.






It's not raining here but I liked this method of asking for questions and answers. It's discussion and not trashing of the other's point of views.

[soxfan]

I wish that I could guess at a clip better than 50 percents but then with my style I can win well and regular winning just 16.666666666 percent of my placed wager, hey hey.

[Mike]

Soxfan,

The problem with that is you must be making very large bets at times. If your bankroll and the house limits allow it then you have only my admiration.

[Mike]

Mcvince said:
I agree with you somewhat. In certain circumstances the past will dictate the future. I have found one thing that will occur 95% of the time and another 100% of the time in the shoe. It is similar to card counting. The issue is that I know it will come out but will it come out in the time that you want it to.

The statement I highlighted in red implies that there is causality, but there is always that "issue" of WHEN the expected event will occur.

The problem is that many system players merely observe that some event A is followed by event B, apparently invariably, but they just ASSUME that there is causality, they never actually test the assumption. To test the assumption, you need a "control" group. If event B also follows any OTHER event, C, D, .... Z, then there is no causality; if A is going to occur ANYWAY then it can't be that A is CAUSING B, can it? Unless you say that events C, D,.... Z also cause B, but that would be meaningless. The assumed connection is merely the result of selective attention and confirmation bias.

[Mike]

if A is going to occur ANYWAY then it can't be that A is CAUSING B, can it?

Sorry, mistake here. It should be "if B is going to occur anyway..."

[Jimske]

So reading the responses it seems that we all are basically on the same page - even Mike.  With some nuanced differences.

Part of what McVince was saying, no matter which way--is correct, IMO.  As well, I do not and have never seen or can never ever agree with the 95%-100%, no matter what he is attempting to quantify and designated as the repeating and always appearing event(s).

Agreed,  and until such time that data can be presented and documented this is nonsense and represents the scam aspect of BTC.

You are pretty much correct, IMO, but I interpret the numbers as, a very high percent probably without definitive records of everything that does come around in bac presentments, around 65--70% of the time, but (BUT) a player does not know what grouping of 100 sessions those will be in.  Do you understand what I am attempting to say?

Take that partial list of my 'identifiable events' in bac I have found.  The will often come about.  Maybe out of the next 100 shoes or sessions, 15%, another 100 sessions 85%, another 100 sessions 40%, etc., etc. They are frequent at times, yet infrequent at times. 

I think I get what you're saying.  Said in another way: observing an existing condition (an identifiable event) and speculating with 65-70% accuracy that some other condition will follow.  Yes?  So maybe somewhere you have presented such events?  However it seems that due diligence could reveal the efficacy of such events.  It would be a simple matter to pick one condition and document the results to obtain % accuracy.  I think that is where McVince is coming from.  (sidebar: I ran a small test by hand of several hundreds of shoes from my database looking for two identifiable events to produce an outcome greater than 50%.  Nope. 50%)  So how come my guessses are greater than 50%?

Is guessing somehow bad? What if it can be measured and taught? I know I need to give an simple to understand example to actually qualify the question. So I will try.


So I watch for characteristics in trends. I specifically watch for 4 in a row trends. If I want to risk a first bet on a fifth in a row I need to know if there is a swarm of 4 in a rows occurring. If so, I'm going to get killed jumping into that mess. Now the bet itself is a guess. So how can I measure it? How can I explain it to someone that has never looked for it?


If I guess that a fifth occurrence of a trend will give me a win, and there has been no 5's that have occurred in the past 20 spins then I am making a huge leap kind of a guess. On the other hand if I have observed swarms of 5's, 6's. 7's etc... all occurring in the last 20 spins across all of my 12 sets of dozens or my 12 sets of 18's then I have a stronger chance of betting into a continuing trend. Now this is not a probability chance. This is a coincidental chance. It's not a statistical reason for making the guess. It's speculating on a guess.

So this is more like the page I work from.  I assume that your example of keying off the "swarms" is just one of many "swarm" possibilities you might key off of within 20 events?

So now you see how it is possible to measure a guess based on a bet selection technique. But that is only explained to you so that you can be taken to the next level of learning in this teaching. The point is not to count on a conditional response to what you are currently seeing. The point is to teach you to see the result. Your focus must be on the result and the data stream that comes from the results of your guesses. You will get a stream of wins and losses measured as wLwwLwwLwwwLLLwww type lists. Now this next example happens too. You will have a stream of wL's that when a loss occurs it will always just be a single loss. That is a noticeable characteristic of random guessing too. I have just taught that guesses can  be both measured and taught. I have not taught all the characteristics I see in correlation to random characteristics combined with win/loss combinations that are there to exploit. But I hope I have made my point. wL lists can come in all kinds of consistent forms or patterns. If you use a same set of trend guidelines to make bet selections from you will be able to see if you are in a winning dominance or a losing dominance in your wL lists. All this win/loss stuff is quantifiable and teachable.  The win/loss list is real data. It can be used to quit while you are ahead.

It's not raining here but I liked this method of asking for questions and answers. It's discussion and not trashing of the other's point of views.

You've made your point.  Your perspective is not unfamiliar to me.  Correct me if I am wrong but simply put you are observing dominance.  And that dominance can come from a variety of combinations - "swarms" of similar repeat lengths, wlwlwl; otbl/tbl; etc.

I do object to your statement that it can be measured.  Again, it is a simple matter to choose a "swarm" and identify a result to ascertain a success %.  But teachable?  Okay.  I'll grant that .  But to guarantee a greater success than 50%?

The statement I highlighted in red implies that there is causality, but there is always that "issue" of WHEN the expected event will occur.

The problem is that many system players merely observe that some event A is followed by event B, apparently invariably, but they just ASSUME that there is causality, they never actually test the assumption. To test the assumption, you need a "control" group. If event B also follows any OTHER event, C, D, .... Z, then there is no causality; if A is going to occur ANYWAY then it can't be that A is CAUSING B, can it? Unless you say that events C, D,.... Z also cause B, but that would be meaningless. The assumed connection is merely the result of selective attention and confirmation bias.

Quite correct, IMO.  He has stated it better than me.  None of us can show that our techniques are anything more than guessing.  Speculating if you will.  My definition is working off the bias or the dominance.  That's how I was introduced to the game (by ECD) some years ago.

We don't want to leave out soxfan

I wish that I could guess at a clip better than 50 percents but then with my style I can win well and regular winning just 16.666666666 percent of my placed wager, hey hey.

With enough bank and balls you don't need to win more than 50% BUT you'd better be good at picking those doubles which, I assume, comes from speculating on the bias.
[quote soxfan]It ain't rocket science, baby![/quote]

Thanks for all your responses!

[Gizmotron]

(to Gizmo)
You've made your point.  Your perspective is not unfamiliar to me.  Correct me if I am wrong but simply put you are observing dominance.  And that dominance can come from a variety of combinations - "swarms" of similar repeat lengths, wlwlwl; otbl/tbl; etc.

I do object to your statement that it can be measured.  Again, it is a simple matter to choose a "swarm" and identify a result to ascertain a success %.  But teachable?  Okay.  I'll grant that .  But to guarantee a greater success than 50%?

Yes, I am observing dominance in the trends. I'm also observing dominance in the win/loss lists. I know that perfect sleeping dozens are sometime very long lasting. I also know that they can be a not perfect dominance that also pays well too. The same for singles. I see long streaks of singles in the 12/24 number groupings too. You see them in the Even Chance bets too.


There can never be a guarantee that this will work to your advantage. In fact I will guarantee that it will lose for you. It just won't lose all the time. That is why I observe my guessing effectiveness in a measurable data stream of wins and losses, the wL list. I can see a dominance of wins to losses as a ratio. I can see what side dominates. I can tell myself that I'm in a very difficult session. I can see an easy session. I can see a session of death. I want to know how it is going as it happens. So, that is how I consider it measurable.


I have posted all of the characteristics that are common to my take on "reading randomness." I did not post them just to tick off the loyal opposition. I did it to open people to the capability of observing them as they go through their typical changes. John Patrick says "Trends." But he never really explains what they are. I did. Sleepers, singles, patterns, dominance, swarms, global patterns, percentage to perfection, and effectiveness all make up my technique for observing changing conditions in a session of Roulette play. From all that I guarantee that I will lose. Hence my avocation of quitting while I'm ahead. I'm almost always ahead by enough at some point in 30 minutes to 4 hours. I'm never so invested deep that ending a difficult session will end my playing career. Funny how the mathBoyz all insist that I can't do what is simple for me to actually do. It's self awareness and conditional awareness working together at making an educated guess. It is not a claim of magical capability.