Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 06:20:41 AM
Food for thought...

With your method if you start having 12 reds in a row... you are losing consistently,
With my method you lose the half and you win the half

This really lost me

Each event will show R being dominant and we would be playing for a C

What are we supposed to do different

even if moglizu think that he gave crystal clear infos, there are some contradictions in his statements. I think to understand his method, anyway the statement you mentioned is pure b...stuff OR he released partial infos.
in any case I stop betting ANY system after 2-3 losses iar till 1-2 paper plus.

Quote from: moglizu on March 07, 2017, 07:08:13 AM
MY method are 5 people that understood it.

You don't have any evidence to suggest this is at all true.   

On the other hand, 4 out of 5 dentists agree with my explanation...and not one member has publicly disagreed with my explanation. 

I have explained YOUR method. 

The dread test is coming.   

Here is some music to enjoy while we are waiting. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tza0zaJUW9w

I have to agree with Still for 100% with his statment....until moglizu give us proof - his worksheet-the way he plays, Still is right here...

An other  for Hight and Low

plolp,

looking at your sheet

2   Black
34 Red
17 Black
35 Black
28 Black

event
1 2 3 4
R R C R


but you have it as

event
1 2 3 4
R C R C


Why?

You are asking for proofs...
I don t need to give any proofs because I never asked money.

The method you are gonna test isn t mine.
As I told you I read your understanding and the method you are gonna test will lose exactly at the disadvantage rate of -2,7.
Been there done that.
BUT this losing method , gave me the spark to crate my ORIGINAL method.

IF you will look the WHEN you are losing with YOUR method and convert the losses to wins ... then you will arrive at MY method.
Until then you are gonna test YOUR method.

Happy losing testing

Money T 

it's for  H and L

plolp ok i see it now...thnks

quote

Quote
Guys,
You're just throwing junk at the wall hoping that something will stick.
The first problem is that you're trying to beat a random game, rather than trying to exploit a gaming device/wheel. (Impossible.)
The second problem... you're ignoring the wheel, the playing conditions and are focusing on just numeric data. This increases the amount of data that you need 10 fold.
If you're going to rely on data, collect better data:

1. Wheel spin direction. Segregate your data by direction
2. Wheel speed matters. Make some approximations for it. Again segregate the data.
3. Use better tests to find relevant results, such as coefficient of restitution testing, use chi square, and standard deviation tests, limit the degrees of freedom by carefully definining your tests, do out of sample testing, and collect relevant amounts of data.

Focus on the wheel, not the layout.
1. Lose the pen and paper. You usually can't hand test enough spins to determine whether or not your systems work.
2. Carefully define what it is that you're testing in order to limit the degree of the freedom so that your test produces relevant results.
3. Attempt to form a hypothesis as to why your system should work in the first place. For example: What are the physics at work that could possibly make the system work. (Magic, randomness, the law of the third, and the law of large numbers are not reasons.
4. Conduct out of sample tests.

Random patterns are just that, random. Claiming that they are somehow predictable is an oxymoron. Consequently, you can't beat a "random wheel" in the long term. If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain the physics at work that would enable you to win on such a wheel.

unquote

BETJACK

P.S. This post is a joke

Quote from: moglizu on March 08, 2017, 04:44:17 PM
You are asking for proofs...
I don t need to give any proofs because I never asked money.

The method you are gonna test isn t mine.
As I told you I read your understanding and the method you are gonna test will lose exactly at the disadvantage rate of -2,7.
Been there done that.
BUT this losing method , gave me the spark to crate my ORIGINAL method.

IF you will look the WHEN you are losing with YOUR method and convert the losses to wins ... then you will arrive at MY method.
Until then you are gonna test YOUR method.

Happy losing testing

My policy is not to ask for anything...just observe. And if I contribute to the group, people might give me things.  I don't think I've gone beyond that policy. 

You're objections are well noted. People can make up their minds now about the information you've called a "whole system"...whether you've really done such a thing...or led ONLY as far as the most prevalent understanding leads us...and not a step beyond.

It's always up to anyone's generosity to disclose anything at all, in whole or in part.  My upcoming test is just a test of what you have called a "whole system".

If it goes farther, or deeper, than that, then it has something to do with the way you've used terms like "align", "linearity", and "deviation"...which have been left completely undefined for so long that it has to be a deliberate attempt to actually NOT disclose the whole system...except perhaps ONE outlying savant who will tell four friends under oath. 

If that's the kind of person who is considered deserving, so be it, more power to you and them.  We still have our own baseball cards to trade, or keep.

I will look beyond the data when I get there, per your suggestion.  Till then, I don't have any credible reason to believe I'm not testing your "whole system". 

The only possible variable is whether we are betting on a color predominance of 2 deviation points or greater, or less than two, as your instructions were vague, and not suited to the creation of software.

Meanwhile. Here's some music you might enjoy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI

Still, I really appreciate your efforts and also your patience in dealing with that thing with a name starting with M. In my more than 5 decades of life, I sometimes come across people as difficult to comprehend as M. And they take delight in other people struggling in their efforts. Is there a term for such .....?

Quote from: Lungyeh on March 08, 2017, 11:13:54 PM
Still, I really appreciate your efforts and also your patience in dealing with that thing with a name starting with M. In my more than 5 decades of life, I sometimes come across people as difficult to comprehend as M. And they take delight in other people struggling in their efforts. Is there a term for such .....?

Bureaucrat?  The one person who might know might be a CIA agent who bugged his IP in order to intercept other communications that would put the puzzle together. 

At times we throw out music to describe how we feel or enlighten the mood.  I have many times engaged in singing a few lyrics here and there at the bac table.  But this is the official song of this thread and everything related to it, hands down 1,000% !!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8StG4fFWHqg

Quote
My upcoming test is just a test of what you have called a "whole system".

Looking forward to your test and the results!

A.