Humans are linear thinkers, we tend to think in a straight
line. We even try to beat roulette that way, by reason and
logic. But random doesn't happen in a linear fashion, so it
can't be beat with linear thinking.
"Lateral thinking is solving problems through an indirect and
creative approach, using reasoning that is not immediately
obvious and involving ideas that may not be obtainable by
using only traditional step-by-step logic." Wiki
Using lateral thinking on random outcomes is a different
matter. It changes the game entirely. If you learn to teach
yourself how random 'thinks', you're then playing on its
level. It will never come down to where you are, you must
meet it on it own terms.
There is another approach which does not entail linear thinking, which drives the math guys crazy, synchronistic events.
"Synchronicity refers to those random yet seemingly meaningful coincidences that enrich our lives, sometimes to our amazement, sometimes to our distress, and sometimes to our delight," a foreword by Alan Combs to Dr. Kirby Surprise's book called Synchronicity.
There are many roulette players who experience these events as they are deciding what numbers to choose. It's almost like they know what numbers are coming in. I'm sure at one point or another many have experienced such an event. You say to yourself, number seven is coming in and the dealer says no more bets. The number seven come in.
I believe lateral thinking combined with synchronistic events offers the roulette player an advantage over randomness.
TC
Quote from: The Crow on March 08, 2013, 10:48:25 AM
There is another approach which does not entail linear thinking, which drives the math guys crazy, synchronistic events.
"Synchronicity refers to those random yet seemingly meaningful coincidences that enrich our lives, sometimes to our amazement, sometimes to our distress, and sometimes to our delight," a foreword by Alan Combs to Dr. Kirby Surprise's book called Synchronicity.
There are many roulette players who experience these events as they are deciding what numbers to choose. It's almost like they know what numbers are coming in. I'm sure at one point or another many have experienced such an event. You say to yourself, number seven is coming in and the dealer says no more bets. The number seven come in.
I believe lateral thinking combined with synchronistic events offers the roulette player an advantage over randomness.
TC
This guy on the picture was the "inventor" of Synchronicity, and roulette number streams are similar to this, but more in our minds than in the wheel.
Very interesting thread. Equating "roulette thinking" with linear thinking is certainly how the bulk of players tend to approach it.
X number spins Z
10 reds, it must spin Black now.
Quote
Linear Thinking
Definition: a process of thought following known cycles or step-by-step progression where a response to a step must be elicited before another step is taken.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linear+thinking (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linear+thinking)
This is exactly how trigger-based games approach the numerical stream.
- This triggers that.
- That triggers such.
- Such triggers this again.
It is spot-on to think we must get out of stiff linear thinking as it has been proven not to work. In this case we could lean to be more like an "analytic engine".
I like the concept of "future modelling" since it equates what's happening to one of many possible models. Keeping it malleable. Switching models as reality approaches one with bigger accuracy.
This might be one way of leaving trigger-based methods, but -sadly- the Future Modelling field hasn't touched paths with gambling seriously enough in the academia. One might say because the odds are fixed and it is accepted everything which could have been said about a fixed-odds game is thought to have already been discovered/debated.
It's been used mostly in such scopes as the engineering and climate fields:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans#Future_modelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans#Future_modelling)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modeling_and_simulation#Academic_Modeling_and_Simulation_Programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modeling_and_simulation#Academic_Modeling_and_Simulation_Programs)
Of course, if we were to model possible futures for a random stream of roulette numbers, we would need to leave a number of possibilities out. More like matching a fraction of possible paths rather than the whole; if not due to the sheer amount of processing power required to account for all futures/paths, due to accounting for the nature of the game, where you can't eliminate with a 100% level of confidence the possibility of losing,
you can only aim at increasing your chances to win.
Interesting application of future modelling at NATO:
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-073///MP-073-$$ALL.pdf (http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-073///MP-073-$$ALL.pdf)
I like this "multi-path" approach with the concept of "Proximity" (as in how close the predicted result matches).
Of course, first impression is it can be used to model the physical device. Yet since we have a short-circuited scenario in the numerical game itself, proximity could possibly be related to the raw numerical value too. Or to pocket distance should we order the numbers on a disc and model that.
It's an open field at this stage.
Spike posted:
"""If you learn to teach
yourself how random 'thinks', you're then playing on its
level."""
The reason why no method-way-system has won randomness(game) so far, is because RANDOM DOES NOT THINK :)
If someone claims the opposite ,then he has to be a millionaire..
Most roulette players lose often because of trigger based systems and progressions. When a set of numbers, say dozens, do not come in within the one of three average, a string of misses of 10 or more when chasing with a progression, will kill your bank roll.
However, using the same scenario one can implement random consciousness by simply choosing a different set of random dozens after three spins, while maintaining the chosen progression. What this does is prevents you from staying on a long bad streak. It actually increases you chances of winning, especially if the original dozen continues to stay on the missed streak. Instead of 37 numbers, you have 25 to choose from.
Stay in tune with your randomness and apply mathematical principles. Who made the rules that you cannot do both at the same time? I believe it moves toward proximity.
TC
One of the best books I have read is Edward De Bono's 'Parallel Thinking' (His whole collection is great reading material)
He suggests we shift from Socratic thinking - the search for truth- to De Bono thinking - design forward for value.
Those problems that can be solved by analysis have been solved. Now the rest can only be solved by 'design'.
Accept possibilities without judging and lay them down in parallel.
Accept both sides of a contradiction and lay them down in parallel.
Then design forwards from parallel possibilities.
My view is that our Western thinking system based on analysis, judgement and argument holds a lot of us back. It is evident reading the roulette forums that this is the case.
It's a bit of an old cliche but there is definately more than one way to skin a cat.
cheers
Quote from: Razor on March 08, 2013, 01:02:11 PM
Spike posted:
"""If you learn to teach
yourself how random 'thinks', you're then playing on its
level."""
The reason why no method-way-system has won randomness(game) so far, is because RANDOM DOES NOT THINK :)
that's why I put thinks in quotes, to point out
that it doesn't 'think' in the way we're accustomed
to. A roulette wheel has intelligence in the same
way fine crystal will always ring with the same note
when struck. The science community even calls it
intelligence. There's a kind of intelligence behind
outcomes produced in roulette, but its not what
we're used to thinking of as 'intelligence'.
Quote from: VLS on March 08, 2013, 12:35:50 PM
It is spot-on to think we must get out of stiff linear thinking as it has been proven not to work.
Linear plotting gets you nowhere with random outcomes.
How could it when random doesn't happen in a linear fashion.
The one other person on this forum who might have beaten
roulette said to me the other day, you really can't talk about
how to beat roulette, its too difficult to describe. Its something
you do, not talk about. Like playing the piano.
Quote from: spike on March 08, 2013, 04:36:47 PM
Linear plotting gets you nowhere with random outcomes.
How could it when random doesn't happen in a linear fashion.
The one other person on this forum who might have beaten
roulette said to me the other day, you really can't talk about
how to beat roulette, its too difficult to describe. Its something
you do, not talk about. Like playing the piano.
When you play the piano,you know how you are playing it.
You just read the notes. :)
Quote from: Razor on March 08, 2013, 07:42:24 PM
When you play the piano,you know how you are playing it.
You just read the notes. :)
And when you play roulette, you read random. Same thing.
Quote from: spike on March 08, 2013, 08:14:45 PM
And when you play roulette, you read random. Same thing.
Here we are again. You never describe the meaning. You never give examples. We know that it's just a guess. To read music notes, you have quarter notes, time signature, keys, all making up the characteristics making reading possible. There is a proper syntax that makes reading music possible. What is your syntax for regarding reading randomness, that makes that possible?
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 08, 2013, 08:39:21 PM
What is your syntax for regarding reading randomness, that makes that possible?
Experience, its all about paying attention and just doing
it. Its all about breaking it down so it can be read.
I can't show you, I have a rule against wising up, well,
you know. I'm sure you understand..
There's no evidence that you have anything. Even JohnLegend had the guts
to share what little he had. Claiming something, without backing it up, might
be considered a violation of the standards set forth in this forum's charter.
I hate to be the devil's advocate but are we not all sharing what we feel like it? We keep what we feel like it too.
If so this would be the only forum that implements such a rule. What will they do? Send a moderator to the house or the casino of the person posting to see what is keeping to himself?
Let's face it. Nobody can actually know what is kept secret or forcing someone to say.
Spike my opinion is that your every post is a contradiction.
In some posts you are saying that random can be read and in other posts you say that random can not be read.You have to chose,otherwise you seem like a fool.
You are also describing piano with randomness read...
Gizmotron don t force Spike to tell you something that he doesn't know...why are you falling into his trap anyway?This is what he neeeds...ATTENTION.
Spike has a lot of years in the forums posting "I know how to read randomness and I m making money but I can t explain how I do it" etc.
Do you think that a person that would be able to do such a thing , he would be an active member in 3-4 forums and posting all day and night for so many years?
Wannawin if someone had the real money maker method he wouldn't be here...so no one is keeping secrets here. :)
If someone has the character to keep secrets then the only place he wouldn't be ,is a roulette forum that all the Planet can read what he is posting.
I would suggest everybody in here to cooperate and try to find a nice method that is relying on roots that have never been explored before. :thumbsup:
And please stop posting BS...it s like an old fart that doesn't smell nice anymore. It's really boring.
Like VLS says: "Be productive"
This was my last post that I am trading words with Spike...
If in the future he will post a serious and productive post he will have my attention again..and I suggest all of you to do the same...let's keep this forum clean.
Bother with people that matters.
Quote from: Razor on March 08, 2013, 10:41:43 PM
in other posts you say that random can not be read.
Please point to a post where I said random can't
be read. I would never say that, you misread or
misunderstood.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 08, 2013, 09:11:30 PM
There's no evidence that you have anything.
The casino see's the evidence every time I play, that's
enough verification for me. And they pay dearly for
it.
Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on March 09, 2013, 01:31:55 AM
Often linear thinking is more than enough to win. Perhaps the best balance would be to flutter between the two.
Nobody can totally abandon linear thinking, its not possible.
Its always a combination of the two. If you try and explain
it, you end up sounding stupid. Whatever you say, its never
quite right.
Contradiction is a state of mind. If you state it, I don't mind. It just goes to show that contradiction and randomness are the same. It's not linear, nor lateral. It's a cyclical, because it repeats itself. So, if you contradict yourself, don't worry, it's cyclical. It will happen again.
TC
Quote from: The Crow on March 09, 2013, 07:21:49 AM
It's not linear, nor lateral. It's a cyclical, because it repeats itself.
TC
No, it not linear at all. Ever. If it were, it would
be easily beaten. Where is it cyclical? Please
give an example where 50 spins repeats in a
cycyle and is the same as another 50 spins. I've
never seen it. Again, if a cycle could be identified,
it would make the game easily beaten.
Please point out where I contradicted myself.
While you guys arguing some of us including me made some bucks playing!! :P
Spike,
I was not referring to you. The contradiction claimed by your nemesis is a contradiction in itself. I admire the fact that you can call someone out when it comes to original thought, or lack there of.
Original thought, I have yet to see on this forum from people who claim to be experts. My concession to those who think there are experts is that they do a wonderful job explaining other people's original thoughts and claiming it their own.
This section is about gambling philosophy. Philosophically speaking, claiming to be an expert in anything while preaching other people's original thoughts is just that, preaching.
On the flip side, bashing other people's original thought without having the capacity to understand their concepts does not make that person a qualified critic.
Spike, I too want to expose gambling philosophical fraud.
Welcome to the Darkside.
TC
" 1. A combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
2. A person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present."
Whether Spike can win or not is irrelevant. His ridicule of the concept of a
global effect tells me that he is not qualified to determine if I can win or
not. When I referred to contradiction, I was referring to definition #1.
My validation of concept algorithm will be a contradiction of just about
every gambling book authored and every explanation given by math
experts. That will be a tangible revelation for change. It will be proof
of my claims. I have vehemently opposed the explanation that everyone
must experience the inevitable same bad results when faced with a
transition of large numbers. In view of that contradiction Spike's
opinion is irrelevant.
Spike should set out to disprove the existence of the concept of a global
effect. His attempts to discredit the messenger are nothing more than
feeble excuses for not presenting an argument in the first place. It
appears that Spike would rather experience for himself a contradiction
that is best defined by example number two.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 09, 2013, 05:17:04 PM
Spike should set out to disprove the existence of the concept of a global
effect.
I would if I had even the foggiest idea what it is. You
started a thread about it, then abandoned it without
ever explaining what global effect is.
Tell me and I'll disprove it. Until then I'm afraid I can't
help you.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 09, 2013, 05:17:04 PM
Whether Spike can win or not is irrelevant.
Oh Au contraire. Roulette is a game about results, not theory.
Roulette is about winning money from a casino. They don't
care what your theories are, just if you can win or not.
I doubt that you will understand this, but there is no such thing as the Spike Theorem.
There is no evidence that you can do anything other than voice your opinion. What I have presented so far is substantive. All you have demonstrated is your stumberness or your capacity to perceive in ignorance. That does not give you the ability to judge. You can say whatever you want. But you have no clue what the global effect is. You can't verify or validate it because you clearly don't understand it. So you avoid it.
Quote from: Gizmotron on March 09, 2013, 10:35:18 PM
There is no evidence that you can do anything
Sure there is, just not here on a public forum. Here we
discuss theory, in the casino we put it to the test.
The recipe for Coca Cola is a deep dark secret, locked
in a vault somewhere. They never discuss it. Yet evidence
that it works is everywhere. Would you fault them for
never revealing their secrets? I doubt it.
My evidence manifests itself every time I play. How else?
Well testing systems is a waste of time if you think they will win in the long run ...
All you need to do is one educated guess based upon what is current and present in front of you ...
That is a kind of methodology, but i don't know what some one would name it ...
Quote from: Sputnik on March 09, 2013, 11:25:35 PM
Well testing systems is a waste of time if you think they will win in the long run ...
All you need to do is one educated guess based upon what is current and present in front of you ...
That is a kind of methodology, but i don't know what some one would name it ...
I use to test, during play, and do not get any news from longer simulations. Still I use some classic methods.
We win when the ball fall on our bets however we chose them.
Quote from: Ralph on March 09, 2013, 11:41:04 PM
I use to test, during play, and do not get any news from longer simulations. Still I use some classic methods.
We win when the ball fall on our bets however we chose them.
Well i still think you better of using what is last and present ... then chasing for things that has no show ...
We know that one number can sleep for 400 and more and we know several numbers can sleep for 100 and so on ...
We know that one dozen can sleep for 32 times in a row and we know nothing is due to happen ...
So it keeps on going ...
Let's meet in Las Vegas sometime in May, the first two weeks of May.
I'm sure you professionals can make it. Prove that there are professional in this world. The challenge can be determined collectively.
Qualifications: Expert in single zero and double roulette tables, must be able to win equal amounts, not just one wheel.
TC
I hope Spike accepts The Crow's challenge.
He's been asked several times on this forum to substantiate some of his claims. Not to give away his secrets, mind. Simply to provide proof.
After all, words are cheap and easy to drop on the table.
He wriggles every time, and cites some spurious reason for failing to do so. [His reply #30 above to Gizmotron's request is a classic example.]
Now's his chance to prove just how good, how professional he really is...
Quote from: The Crow on March 10, 2013, 06:16:29 AM
I'm sure you professionals can make it. Prove that there are professional in this world.
Yeah, um, prove it to who, exactly. What's the point, I don't
get it. Does the winner get a trophy and a pat on the back?
Please give details on why anybody would do this.
Quote from: esoito on March 10, 2013, 06:34:41 AM
Now's his chance to prove just how good, how professional he really is...
You really have to help me out here. Do I see any
of you across the table from me at Thanksgiving?
Do you make decisions on what casinos I play at?
Am I involved with any of you on some financial
level I'm not aware of?
Please explain why I have to 'prove' anything to
you. Who are you, exactly..
Beggars, what else?
Professional poker players can actually meet and can sit at a table, match wits, exchange banters, and determine who will be the best player, that day.
Roulette players sit at the table and challenges the casino. But, they don't want any roulette players knowing their secrets.
So what happens when you gather all of these roulette players to one table to beat the house. Can you imagine?
Here's some examples.
"What are you doing? You can't beat roulette by playing outside bets."
"That's b___s___, progression will kill you"
"Man you don't have enough BR."
"You call yourself a professional."
Most roulette players do not get any respect from other professions, because they are children in adult bodies.
All they want to do is argue all the time. Hell, if I want that, I would have found me a crazy woman.
My point is there is nothing to prove, only that roulette players are solitary animals and will protect their territory by pi**ing every where they can, not with urine, but by hurtful words.
TC
Quote from: spike on March 09, 2013, 10:43:37 PM
Sure there is, just not here on a public forum. Here we
discuss theory, in the casino we put it to the test.
The recipe for Coca Cola is a deep dark secret, locked
in a vault somewhere. They never discuss it. Yet evidence
that it works is everywhere. Would you fault them for
never revealing their secrets? I doubt it.
My evidence manifests itself every time I play. How else?
Some are victims of urban myths. Coke is not a secret, it should not be allowed to be sold without a declaration. Anybody can copy the stuff easy, but they can not compete with the trade mark. All trying to copy Coke may make the same product, but will not be able to make any good business. The asset of Coca Cola Company is 98% the trade mark.
Quote from: The Crow on March 10, 2013, 01:31:26 PM
So what happens when you gather all of these roulette players to one table to beat the house. Can you imagine?
TC
It has no reason to happen, just like a meeting of
BJ card counters will never happen. Its pointless,
it would accomplish nothing. Advantage players are
not known to hang out together. They usually avoid
each other like the plague, with good reason. A meeting
in Vegas to have a pi**ing contest is silly, roulette
players have nothing to prove to each other, like poker
players do. The casino is our enemy, not the guy next
to us at the table.
QuoteA meeting in Vegas to have a pi**ing contest is silly, roulette
players have nothing to prove to each other, like poker
players do.
Roulette players, philosophically speaking, have nothing to prove at the tables. But, here, and other forums, they manage to try and prove each other wrong or misguided.
Go figure.
TC
Quote from: The Crow on March 10, 2013, 05:16:47 PM
But, here, and other forums, they manage to try and prove each other wrong or misguided.
TC
that's for entertainment only, has nothing to do with
real playing.
What is the purpose? Nothing to learn here then, only entertainment. Entertainment it is.
Who here can turn 500 units into 4000 units in 8 hours or less of playing roulette?; that would be entertaining, of course playing for fun only.
TC
Quote from: The Crow on March 10, 2013, 08:29:51 PM
What is the purpose? Nothing to learn here then, only entertainment. Entertainment it is.
Who here can turn 500 units into 4000 units in 8 hours or less of playing roulette?; that would be entertaining, of course playing for fun only.
TC
I have done better than that, the odds are small, but it was done in minutes. You do not need a brain to do it, just some surplus money, and luck. Go for a parlay. Nowdays I aim for smaller gain.
I am sure many have achieved much higher goals with different circumstances. Try doing it at Celtic casino where you are given 500 credits to start, maximum bet on even chances, 200.00, red, black, odd, even, high, low. and 2 to 1 payoffs, rows and dozens.
maximum bets of 10 straight up on a number.
Now, that's a challenge and fun to achieve. I have never lost on that site.
TC