Greenguy

That was brilliant. You completely get it. The secret to success in this game is to seek out and destroy the enemy. Only the enemy is us. We must decide how and when to strike. We must decide how much of the killer sequence is going to whittle us down. When I go to a casino near me I must drive for five hours just to get there. It almost always has only one table operating out of two tables offered. On weekends it gets busy enough to open the second table. So I have become an expert at waiting for the when to strike. When it comes to randomness you can never depend on wishful thinking to carry you through. You will get killed if you depend on that.

So the discussion of how to seek out the opportunities is about to begin online. It's not enough just to see the useful characteristics. The software that was created for this thread teaches the user to see some of the characteristics of randomness. How those changes come and go are the important lesson to be learned. Having those lessons learned are the tools of the trade for anyone expecting to beat Roulette and other games of chance. My school is about one thing only. I teach all about the opportunities and give the students lessons in how and when to exploit them.

Anyone can figure this stuff out on their own. I know because I did. It's just a craft, nothing more. Once the tools are basic nature to you then you get to the important stuff. You get to the when to attack stage. That's what greenguy is talking about. When and how to attack, and how much of your bankroll to use are the important questions and answers here.

I have decided that this information should be handed out slowly and quietly. So I have made it available at the price of a book. It comes with software that teaches the tools. It also teaches the student how to get good at waiting for the opportunities. You can figure all this out on your own. It's mostly common sense. It took me decades to figure out. You can really understand a thing once you stand outside of it and look at it from a bigger perspective. Greenguy is talking about the big picture. Great post greenguy.

Quote from: greenguy on October 12, 2016, 04:18:15 AM
I can absolutely state that MrJ could move off the troublesome table and not diminish the chances of whatever he's chasing showing up in same fashion.

True. But the question is, will it increase the chances of whatever he's chasing showing up? That's the important question. If it doesn't, he may as well stay where he is.

The odds haven't changed by merely moving to a different table.

Quote from: Mike on October 13, 2016, 11:13:02 AM
True. But the question is, will it increase the chances of whatever he's chasing showing up? That's the important question. If it doesn't, he may as well stay where he is.

The odds haven't changed by merely moving to a different table.

Nothing personal but your obsession, fundamentalism, or fascination with changing the odds in order to make a claim of winning is confining and controlling to me. Can't you see that it's possible, by timing alone, that claiming a winning method has nothing to do with any odds or probability?


I completely agree that by moving to a different table the odds don't change one bit. But the odds of finding randomness in a different state are higher if you move. There are five states or phases of conditions that define current possible conditions. If you leave a table in one state you have a four to one chance of finding a different state at another table. You like odds, -- explain that. Probability odds are not dogmatic enough to tell anyone when and how much the states of randomness will happen. Nobody knows what they will find if they move to another table. Not even the finest dramatizations of a controlling personality. Please try to grow from all this.

Quote from: Gizmotron on October 13, 2016, 02:45:45 PM

I completely agree that by moving to a different table the odds don't change one bit. But the odds of finding randomness in a different state are higher if you move. There are five states or phases of conditions that define current possible conditions. If you leave a table in one state you have a four to one chance of finding a different state at another table. You like odds, -- explain that.

Gizmo,

At first reading your explanation sounds quite plausible, even insightful. How can anyone argue against moving if indeed the odds are 4-1 in your favor?

But wait. What you're implying is that the "state" you have just abandoned (in the hope of finding greener pastures elsewhere) will continue, or at least "tend" to continue (in other words, more often than not it will continue). However, this in turn implies that outcomes are not independent. A state you deem as "terrible" might be fleeting, or persist for dozens of spins. You just don't know. But you're claiming there IS a way of telling, based on past spins, which puts you firmly back in the gambler's fallacy camp I'm afraid. So there isn't really any compelling reason to not stick it out at tough table after all.

Quote from: Mike on October 13, 2016, 07:26:00 PM
Gizmo,

At first reading your explanation sounds quite plausible, even insightful. How can anyone argue against moving if indeed the odds are 4-1 in your favor?

But wait. What you're implying is that the "state" you have just abandoned (in the hope of finding greener pastures elsewhere) will continue, or at least "tend" to continue (in other words, more often than not it will continue). However, this in turn implies that outcomes are not independent. A state you deem as "terrible" might be fleeting, or persist for dozens of spins. You just don't know. But you're claiming there IS a way of telling, based on past spins, which puts you firmly back in the gambler's fallacy camp I'm afraid. So there isn't really any compelling reason to not stick it out at tough table after all.

You almost have it all. When you go to another table you don't know what you will get. It doesn't matter. It's like prospecting for gold. You dig a while and see what you get. They are called test holes. That's exactly how you mine for opportunities in randomness too. You can stay because you don't no if the state will continue. If you do move you don't dig somewhere else because of fallacy. You do it because one of the tables might be in a state of winning. Now just make one more interesting leap here. What if you were a group of experts like myself and you could do what they did in the movie "21?" A randomness gambling team could kill a casino with several tables.


Do you get it? You or I don't know where and when the opportunities occur. You just have to find them. People don't know how to not get killed while they are looking. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out though.That's the holy grail that you have been waiting for. It's not about prediction, and it never was.

Gizmotron,
with respect,

You mean,
with the 2/1 staking ,
for "double dozens bet,"

at "average"  table, we lose little,
and at streaking table,
we make huge killing...

BTW, yes

Thanks Gizmotron, for your answer.

then, if we start the bet,
stake 2/1, aiming for say, 10streak or more,

when we hit 3win in row,
then change staking to 1/1,
and milk till the streaks end???
thanks in advance.

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on October 14, 2016, 03:06:43 AM
Thanks Gizmotron, for your answer.

then, if we start the bet,
stake 2/1, aiming for say, 10streak or more,

when we hit 3win in row,
then change staking to 1/1,
and milk till the streaks end???
thanks in advance.

For me, that would entirely depend on your comfort zones, and any personal win stop settings.

Quote from: greenguy on October 14, 2016, 07:30:00 AM
For me, that would entirely depend on your comfort zones, and any personal win stop settings.

My comfort zone is to not need a stop point. I need those super wins to break the math. If my bread and butter comes from 8 to 10 consecutive wins in a row, and that these kinds of short lived wins keep me in the black, then I want those super wins for my long termed profit. I have seen a 16 in a row almost every time I play for 200 spins. Every year I see some kind of 30 in a row and I'm always seeing joined 10's in the global effect. It is advisable to never quite a profitable global effect. Quit when the global effect quits. I just use the idea that a good win is a good place to quit. But I can understand if you don't agree with my comfort zone.

Well, in my personal case, it has been a journey from "numerical advantage" systems to one (1) number.

You just can't refine your bet selection further. (What's left? Zero numbers? ) This is the ultimate bet selection coverage for me.

I like the fact you have 35 times as room for your current picked method's timeline to match that of the game and still come out ahead.

An "L" is 36 misses while a "W" is any hit during this time-frame. It gives you a chance to ponder if what you're picking is right and change course dynamically without a huge dent to your bank.

You can't lose more than one unit per pick. You reduce human error to a minimum (if you prefer to bet manually). It's a set amount of units placed in only one spot.

Yes, you may need to be patient as the games can stretch when a single cycle can last up to 37 spins, but that's what bots are for.

All in all, I believe this is one way to play calmly, compound, and in general -with the right selection- it may be better than the "martingale on red" or other similar methods, especially for newcomers. This is my personal opinion, based on the fact betting only one number per spin teaches patience, discipline and can finally take the incessant feeling of desperately "*having* to hit the next spin to feel a winner", away from the psyche.

These days, if you ask me to play a massive bankroll with a negative progression versus a single number for real money, I'll take one number + compounding the unit.

Hey! People can grow and refine over time
Vic

Quote from: VLS on October 10, 2016, 06:39:20 PMI've learned the hard way you must not try to recover with negative progressions, not even soft ones.

In my humble opinion, the only way or room there is to use negative progressions would be as part of a hybrid compounding scheme, where you use the negative progression as a production unit.

For instance, say your system has a percentile distribution where it does large stretches without skipping 3 consecutive cycles, you can use your negative progression covering such 3 common cycles, always as a means of compounding in production, never as a means of trying to recoup.

A capped negative progression covering the most common percentile point can help in a hybrid MM scheme that compounds (mandatory in this framework), by being part of a bigger conscious strategy.

(We all know what happens when players do uncapped negative progressions as their only recovery means...)

This sounds interesting, but it's hard to follow your meaning.

Could you give a brief or simplistic practical example?

Quote from: greenguy on October 29, 2016, 08:33:20 AMCould you give a brief or simplistic practical example?

Sure.

What I mean is you use the percentile rank that covers a fair chunk of your tests (for your particular method) in order to calculate where to cap the negative progression that you'll use to compound.

It is a 2-stage MM.

1st, production:

Say you have a standard 1-number negative; you determine 3 cycles cover a proper percentile of your personal sessions. Then you choose to use a regular negative progression for one number for 111 spins. This is what you use for your production-stage "attacks".

2nd, compounding:

When you hit, you reinvest a percentage of you net gain into the progression bankroll to rise the unit.

Since you are covering a reasonable percentile as per your personal trials, you can expect long stretches of compounding cycles.

This way you win more when there are long stretches of successful attacks, thanks to the engorged unit, and lose minimal/base units at those times when TSHTF as the attacks fail closely, which is what wipes most progression users. Regular progression players experience the multiple bankroll busts in a short stretch together while always making the same minimal units all the time, wasting the true earning potential of those long positive stretches.

The concept is rather easy: you compound/increase your base unit after every progression hit (successful attack) to make the most of the positive runs, while giving minimal-units when things are the most-stormy (the concatenated busts).

You go by the "Win more when winning, lose less when losing" motto.

BTW, there is no "recovery mode". Under this framework losses are intended to be absorbed naturally by engorged-unit wins, hence the importance of setting the "sweet spot to cap" by means of your personal trials.

Quote from: VLS on October 29, 2016, 01:16:34 PM1st, production:

Say you have a standard 1-number negative [...]

This is a BETTING FRAMEWORK, hence it doesn't need to be strictly a standard negative progression on the 1st stage. It can be a cancellation or a limited parlay or anything that gives you sets of sufficient concatenated winning cycles, alternating with concentrations of losing ones as a regular distribution.

We are discussing this under this one-number thread because it is ripe to provide this clustering scenario.

It's actually a no-brainer when you look at it in hindsight. If you chart your bets in a time-line and notice your bets usually clump when winning and usually clump when losing then your most conscious money-management scheme gets to be betting more to maximize earnings in your winning trams while reducing your unit drastically to give back the minimum when in the losing tram.

Compounding takes care of this naturally. When your losses clump, the base unit flat-lines at the very minimum: there's simply nothing to compound there; on the other hand, when you wins clump the re-investing of units into the main/attacking bankroll makes it rise automatically. No stop-win when re-investing, so you always enjoy the true maximum potential of profits/wins when it's "your time" thanks to the continuous % re-investment.

While the percentage stays the same, with every new concatenated cycle, the actual value of the units being being re-invested increases. This drives things in order to create the "winning more when winning, losing less when losing" duality or effect.

It can place yourself in a better position of having a shot in the game than the traditional "always flat-line the same unit when winning, lose everything and the kitchen sink when losses concatenate". (One may argue if that's how casinos actually love people to play... -for a reason-)