Is there any difference? what does "reading random" and "educated guessing" mean anyway?

Spike said in another thread:

QuoteWhat are systems if not attempts to fool yourself
into thinking you have something when in reality
you have nothing. Or not much, anyway.

When I see the rules for a new system and it starts
with 'chart past spins', I say, yup. Then it says 'wait
for'.... As soon as I see the word 'wait', I know the
system won't work. There is no waiting with random
outcomes, either you know what's going on at any
specific time or you don't.

Waiting for conditions, waiting for triggers, waiting
for anything means your system is doomed. You have
to be able to look and what's unfolding and know what's
happening or you shouldn't be playing.

Practice is the only thing that lets you do this. Its oh
so much like going to a monastery to learn zen. The
teacher will tell you that he can't teach anybody anything,
all he can do is point. And the student has to do the work,
no shortcuts, they just waste your time.

Same for learning about the nature of random. Can't
be taught, only learned. If that sounds like mumbo jumbo,
oh well.

My response:

Ok, but if you're using past spins to make your bets then you must be using triggers, even if you're not waiting for them. SOMETHING in the past spins determines which way you bet; what's that if not a trigger?  You can call it something else, but it's still a trigger. If you have enough triggers so that you can always make a bet without waiting, how is that different, essentially, from using a system where you DO wait for the trigger?

If you deny that you use triggers, then you're basically guessing - which means playing random against random, and you've already said that doesn't work. The fact that you use past spins means that there are triggers or indicators which guide your next bet. There's no way to avoid that conclusion without being inconsistent. If you think there is, I'd like to hear it.

Bayes,
         My signature should be an answer to this. No offence meant.



Mod edit: "Nothing can perfectly beat a random session but luck. If someone claims perfection in every session, he is either a fool himself or think all to be fools."

KR,

None taken. So you mean it's ALL down to luck? Ok, but the point I'm trying make is that there isn't ultimately any difference between using systems and reading randomness. This is what emerges if you look more closely at what "reading randomness" means, at least, as far as I understand the term. Spike & Gizmo claim there IS a difference, and one that make the difference between winning and losing.

It's very simple for me. I take a complete proactive approach. Everything depends on the result of the next spin. It is the only way to determine effectiveness. A string of reds does not give you all the available information needed to make a really smart guess. There is always a context. There is the current state of the global effect and there is the current state of the effectiveness to consider on each bet. There is never a consideration to use a mindless simple rule or trigger. Everything you need to know comes from the single most recent spin. It tells you if anything, trend, context, or effectiveness has changed. In a way it's like considering the presence of many triggers at once and also considering the absence of many others at the same time. If I were to best describe this I would call it a decision. A decision is almost never mindless. In my opinion it's too complex to call this a complex set of rules. I also think that people that have not mastered the craft are going to struggle as they attempt to describe or even criticise it.

It's completely possible to deliberately win every session you attempt to play. All it takes is skill and perseverance based on experience. How can unskilled and inexperienced people to be fairly considered as fools? It could never be a real consideration.

Gizmo,

You say that 'everything you need to know comes from the single most recent spin' but also talk about context, trends and global effects, which suggests that it's not simply the last spin you're looking at?

I take it that by 'effectiveness' you mean the string of W/L as opposed to R/B (or whatever). So it means your results as opposed to what outcomes the wheel is producing. Does this effectiveness also have context and global effects which you take account of?

Quote from: Bayes on December 12, 2012, 03:46:01 PM
You say that 'everything you need to know comes from the single most recent spin' but also talk about context, trends and global effects, which suggests that it's not simply the last spin you're looking at?

It's actually very simple. After making a decision I place the bet. The next spin tells me if the conditions for bet selection continued and if the conditions for effectiveness continued. If both of those conditions continued then I would continue to bet the logical condition and trend or pattern.

Quote from: Bayes on December 12, 2012, 03:46:01 PM
I take it that by 'effectiveness' you mean the string of W/L as opposed to R/B (or whatever). So it means your results as opposed to what outcomes the wheel is producing. Does this effectiveness also have context and global effects which you take account of?

I can guarantee that you can have great trends or patterns to make choices with and you will have sessions that would have killed you. Like a string of straight down losses. You won't be able to avoid it. Now if you are prepared to deal with this when it happens then you can minimise your losses. Things will change. They always do. The effectiveness will move to one of the other two conditions. As far as a global effect for the effectiveness condition goes, you would be wise to consider session difficulty. Some sessions are so difficult that it takes forever to get a decently sized prize. With full knowledge that other sessions will allow you to kill the casino, why bother with the difficult ones.

Quote from: Bayes on December 12, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
SOMETHING in the past spins determines which way you bet;

Its like listening to music. Is the last note a trigger for the
future notes? When you listen, do you just hear the last
note? Your brain hears all the notes flowing together and
makes sense of them. The past notes make music what it
is, the past outcomes make roulette what it is. I don't see
any triggers, all I see is the flowing and changing of random
and from that I make educated guesses.

Quote from: Bayes on December 12, 2012, 12:21:18 PM
KR,

None taken. So you mean it's ALL down to luck? Ok, but the point I'm trying make is that there isn't ultimately any difference between using systems and reading randomness. This is what emerges if you look more closely at what "reading randomness" means, at least, as far as I understand the term. Spike & Gizmo claim there IS a difference, and one that make the difference between winning and losing.

It is. It is called game of chance and no one can make it a game of skill. A smart player can only take chances in smart manner like not playing martingale type of thing and stop loss and profit target etc. There can not be an "educated guess". This is the most uneducated way to handle randomness. You can ofcourse read the past but by no mean take any inference out of those regarding future.

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 13, 2012, 03:27:20 AM
              no one can make it a game of skill... There can not be an "educated guess"... This is the most uneducated way to handle randomness... You can of course read the past but by no mean take any inference out of those regarding future.

From your mouth to the casinos ear. If only everybody
had your attitude, I would be very happy. This fits
perfectly into my 'never wise up' philosophy. I love it. 

QuoteIt's completely possible to deliberately win every session you attempt to play. All it takes is skill and perseverance based on experience.

This is the boldest stuff I can ever read or hear regarding a random game. These so called randomness experts claim to win every session. Joke of the millenium.
       
            Everybody has got a right to speak and voice his opinions but this statement reminds me of Iceman/snowman........
He had "hidden maths" to handle randomness and here "educated guessing" is used.

            In reality, all the "reading randomness" concept and "educated guessing" concept is as much a failure as any other random system is.
              All these so- called great concepts can be made as a system and be tested by making a tracker. Are you ready Mr. Randomness expert?

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 13, 2012, 03:27:20 AM
               It is. It is called game of chance and no one can make it a game of skill. A smart player can only take chances in smart manner like not playing martingale type of thing and stop loss and profit target etc. There can not be an "educated guess". This is the most uneducated way to handle randomness. You can ofcourse read the past but by no mean take any inference out of those regarding future.

How would you know? You have presented nothing. If you don't back it up with facts then this is nothing more than personal attacks.

My knowledge regarding roulette is a game of chance and one should not play martingale and use stop loss and win target is something that even the basic players know and no one can deny them.
           But your out of the world claim:

QuoteIt's completely possible to deliberately win every session you attempt to play. All it takes is skill and perseverance based on experience.

requires to be proved.
      Can you dare to have a test-ride upon a million spins or you will keep talking of your "hidden skills" only? Come up with a well defined approach/system that can be tested as winner or failure. All of us can then learn how far your "educated guessing" work over other known methods.

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 13, 2012, 05:33:47 AM
      Can you dare to have a test-ride upon a million spins or you will keep talking of your "hidden skills" only? Come up with a well defined approach/system that can be tested as winner or failure. All of us can then learn how far your "educated guessing" work over other known methods.

Hey. I don't think there is a single person here stopping you from testing it. I've pretty much given the entire thing away. Even of those that are attempting to learn this have expressed difficulties in understanding it. I've given a brief outline of information that took me years to perfect into a method. If you can't figure it out in a few hours that is not my problem. It takes years of real playing experience with real money on the line to grasp the importance of the experience needed to execute this properly. If that's to much of a demand on you and your followers that's not my fault. I didn't have to share this. Frankly, I'm only doing to prove that almost everyone will reject it

QuoteEven of those that are attempting to learn this have expressed difficulties in understanding it.

You may take it as a matter of pride but I think this is failure at your part or your concepts are vague and ambiguous.