Thank you, I really appreciate your straight forward reply.

Here's an updated version with the results sorted.




Buffster

Quote from: ll l lll ll l lll on March 17, 2013, 03:28:30 AM
i know that a correction is right around the corner. 

Or not. You must spend a lot of time waiting
in a real casino, because 'corrections' in whatever
form certainly don't obey a timetable. You're
doing what many players do, you've identified
a sequence of events that you have a small edge
on and you patiently await those events to manifest.
Much like Gizmo's method on dozens or his Global
Whatchamacallit. This can go very fast playing actuals
on a computer, and take many hours in a real casino
betting real money, even playing more than one table.

I love waiting for times when Spike contradicts himself without knowing it. This is one of those revealing moments. The most common occurring condition is a mix of singles and doubles, with a salting of a few triples. This is the ideal conditions being used here. Now Spike clearly states that you will do a lot of waiting to get to those ideal conditions. These conditions are the same conditions that I ignore. I deliberately seek everything above triples swarming and any repeating patterns of anything. So according to Spike's statement below, He is admitting that the conditions I prefer are frequent enough as to cause long waits for those that prefer these most common occurring conditions. Now watch the great debator wiggle out of this one. He complains that I have to wait forever while he does not. He admits to sitting out bets, that he gets his preferred sequences within 60 spins. Now he says this:

And another thing. It's called global effect. You can't tell everyone what something is if you, yourself, can't see it. That would be the blind attempting to lead the blind. Thank you Spike, for exposing your true self and your very limited capability to read randomness.

Quote from: spike on March 17, 2013, 02:07:53 PM

Or not. You must spend a lot of time waiting
in a real casino, because 'corrections' in whatever
form certainly don't obey a timetable. You're
doing what many players do, you've identified
a sequence of events that you have a small edge
on and you patiently await those events to manifest.
Much like Gizmo's method on dozens or his Global
Whatchamacallit. This can go very fast playing actuals
on a computer, and take many hours in a real casino
betting real money, even playing more than one table.

Quote from: spike on March 17, 2013, 02:07:53 PM

Or not. You must spend a lot of time waiting
in a real casino, because 'corrections' in whatever
form certainly don't obey a timetable. You're
doing what many players do, you've identified
a sequence of events that you have a small edge
on and you patiently await those events to manifest.
Much like Gizmo's method on dozens or his Global
Whatchamacallit. This can go very fast playing actuals
on a computer, and take many hours in a real casino
betting real money, even playing more than one table.

Your not paying attention and didn't read carefully.  I didn't say that is the whole picture, that is only part of it.  When a correction does come I am ready to take advantage but by no means am I waiting for it.  In the mean time, i am playing within the typical pure random stream of singles, doubles, triples, etc...  i can play inside a typical random stream for long long periods, and if im not winning, im breaking even, which is what most players can't do.  When the variance is in my favor with my bets, i win.

Marshall, please make note that in this thread "balance point" refers to a break even point, like in two even chance bets, you must win at least one of the two to balance, to break even.

Marshall, I have noted in other threads that there is a balance point for three step martingales and two to one bets as well. There is no rule that only even chance bets can have a break even point.

Many people refer to randomness with the concept of correcting, or in another word, balancing. Years ago I suggested that there is a baseline value for the point at which randomness can have a standard averaging point. That that point can be the statistical average of probability, and that it is only a selection made and not a real point. Anyone can use fixed, baseline values in order to see variations from an imagined norm. But as Spike says, there is no normal position of randomness, just not in those words.

Many thanks 11 1 111 11 1 111, Spike, Gizmotron,


Ironically I believe ("know") that all 3 of you are successful roulette players. It would make it easier if everyone saw this and tried to work together instead of against. This could lead to an even more effective playing style for everyone. It looks like 11 1 111 11 1 111 is ahead of the game and incorporating these different angles already.



However, it could very well be that this way of commenting is the best and only way forward.


For dedicated researchers and players alike it is more encouraging to see a sense of trying to understand anothers way of playing : ) I think each one of you is looking at the game in the right way.


There does not just have to be one way, a combination is always stronger.



To TC


"The method I posted wins all the time, but it's monotonous. You average only 500 units per hour. However, being in the "zone" can yield 1000 units in a few spins."TC


This is from another thread but which method are you referring to?

Here's one of my trade secrets : Most of you know that I prefer the dozens and columns, as well as any inside groupings that I also favor. But for the sake of explanations I use the dozens as an example. Whenever there is a sleeping dozen there are the two other dozens that are mostly active. Very rarely there are two sleeping dozens. So when one of the dozens sleep you have two choices to find the winning dozen. That means you have an even chance to win a two to one payoff. The same thing holds true for stretches of singles. Think about it. While a certain condition holds true, continues, there exists a mismatch in the payoff. Think about that for system builders.

Thanks you for sharing how you play Giz.


Could you try and show any visual examples? They are really useful and ofcourse different from describing them in text.


I tried but did not think I would give an example which did justice.


Its difficult from my perspective.

Quote from: Gizmotron on March 18, 2013, 09:18:31 PM
Very rarely there are two sleeping dozens. So when one of the dozens sleep you have two choices to find the winning dozen. That means you have an even chance to win a two to one payoff. The same thing holds true for stretches of singles. Think about it. While a certain condition holds true, continues, there exists a mismatch in the payoff.

It would be interesting for the aspiring member to chart those moments in a timeline, using this information with the ultimate purpose of attacking at the most benevolent times for the selection.

Some say there is no "timeline" in the game (the 1-spin-wonder side), but if we were to at least pretend there are better and worse times (concentration of hits / dispersion)... Who knows, knowing this information on when there are more favorable conditions for your groups as well as identifying when they are underperforming might be more beneficial in the short term for the player than scattering chips, using the same technique as the casino: pumping more and more time and bank until it evens out.

---

This particular technique reminds me about Guerrilla Warfare manrique mentioned:

"Since ancient times, formal and gigantic armies, were defeated by much small, less equipped armies. From African liberation wars and insurgencies in Latin America and other Third World countries, we began to talk of guerrilla warfare. Small armies in small highly skilled and specialized commands, giving accurate shots in moments of greatest weakness of the opponent. Strokes that occur one after the other resulting in the weakening of the enemy to the point of finishing his resistance and even reverse the balance of power through the attacks, continuous and systematic against their defenses.

The main features of these attacks, beyond that of surprising, is the condition for prompt withdrawal, quick jabs, which produce the greatest loss in the opponent with as few casualties as possible on our side. Hit and removal, if possible without casualties. Like water breaks the stone, this leads to Guerrilla War adversary -though we attack him in his own field- to a point that is not at all suitable for him, since there is not much he can do other than what already does.

We may change, he can not. That's a big advantage."

Quote from: VLS on March 18, 2013, 09:57:17 PM

Some say there is no "timeline" in the game (the 1-spin-wonder side),

If there was a timeline to random outcomes, they wouldn't
be random. They wouldn't be used in casino games if they
were at all predictable. One thing I never forget or lose
sight of, people far smarter than most of the people on this
forum have been trying to figure this out for a few hundred
years and none of them ever did. Just because you have
access to computers doesn't mean you're any better than
those old guys. All it means is you come to the same conclusions
they did much faster. What took them 5 years might only
take you six months. But the conclusions are the same, nevertheless.

AMK, all you need to do is use my practice software. It creates these charts. There are many features for isolation and discussion. Just pump out 150 spins. You are almost guaranteed to see some long sleeping dozen or column sections. Same goes for singles.

Quote from: spike on March 18, 2013, 10:35:26 PM
If there was a timeline to random outcomes, they wouldn't
be random. They wouldn't be used in casino games if they
were at all predictable.

The game is a 1-spin-only game to you then. I get it.

Quote from: spike on March 18, 2013, 10:35:26 PMWhat took them 5 years might only
take you six months.

6 months of processing power today can actually do a tad more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

[attachimg=1]

Peace.

Quote from: VLS on March 19, 2013, 12:59:42 AM

6 months of processing power today can actually do a tad more...

6 months was to make a point. It could be 6 nano seconds.

And the point was, these really smart dedicated men did the same
research that's done today and came to the conclusion there is no
timeline and random cannot be predicted.

This is not an evil thing. It just makes us look elsewhere.
for the answer.