Quote from: Rolex-Watch on May 11, 2014, 09:02:13 PM
Can you post a link please, I would like to read this stuff..

Watched a Professional Aussi roulette player many years ago in Canberra (we everybody told me he played for a living), he gave the dealers serious sh1t all night, which was very enjoyable to witness. He was up some serious money as well.

Refer to my Blog section on BetForum.cc and you will see several threads that involve and include Martin Blakey. Despite the shocking and ill informed nonsense written by Xander here about MB, Martin is a true gentleman, joined BFcc to assist and answer any questions, and clarified many issues regarding his winning strategy.


MB has a great working relation with the casinos where he plays always in the private Members Room, and I don't think you will find him at all aggressive toward casino personnel. He has played Roulette as a professional for over 40 years.


If you have questions or need more information please contact me.
Best
XXVV

Quote from: Mike on May 11, 2014, 07:52:50 PM
XXVV,

As far as I'm concerned there are 3 possible approaches for anyone who is seriously interested in making a success at playing roulette.

I'm assuming, even if you don't take this avenue, that you recognize that the physical approach to roulette is a viable one? The game consists of a number of physical components which all contribute to which pocket the ball ends up in. If you know at least some of the 'initial conditions' (as Physicists call them) of these components, then you can predict with better than random accuracy where the ball will land. That's cause and effect. If you knew every initial condition perfectly then you would be able to predict the exact number every time. There is nothing random about roulette for someone with that kind of knowledge, although it's admittedly theoretical. It's just an application of physical laws (Newton's laws and dynamics) which have been known and used for centuries and which apply to any physical system, including roulette. The mathematics is complicated but a rough approximation is good enough for practical purposes.

Secondly, there is probability and statistics, or using what is understood statistically about the game either from gathering your own data or using the laws of probability and various statistical techniques. 

I know there are some who also believe in numerology, astrology and the like. Your mention of 'inner derivation' and 'force' makes me think that perhaps you are signing up to this? If so, I don't see much benefit in continuing the discussion, but I wish you all the best.

I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from, because it's not clear to me at the moment.

@ Xander,

'why should it work?' Yes that seems like the natural question to ask anyone who proposes a method. I'd like to hear XXVV's answer to it. The physics approach seems best because it works for everything else, that's how we got to this modern technological world. That doesn't make me closed-minded, just practical. Why try to reinvent the wheel (excuse the pun) and posit some strange 'force' as the explanation?

Thanks Mike for your very clear and well worded response. I will be pleased to go into this and you may be interested and surprised that it is not option #3. This is interesting and will continue during the next 24 hours.

Quote@ Xander,

'why should it work?' Yes that seems like the natural question to ask anyone who proposes a method. I'd like to hear XXVV's answer to it. The physics approach seems best because it works for everything else, that's how we got to this modern technological world. That doesn't make me closed-minded, just practical. Why try to reinvent the wheel (excuse the pun) and posit some strange 'force' as the explanation?

Mike,

What probably drives me the craziest is when people attempt to make up blarney as to why their "system" should work in a vein attempt to sound more intelligent.  Using bs terms such as "eb and flow", "reading randomness", and other real terms like "fluid dynamics" and "quantum movements"  out of context simply makes whatever the person is attempting to share sound ridiculous and amusing.

I wish some of the system players would turn off the metaphysical nonsense and the blarney and return to the real world of cause and effect. 
They need to form a hypothesis as to why a system should work, and then test it,  rather than just making it up as they go along.


-Xander

Quote from: Xander on May 11, 2014, 10:17:40 PM
Mike,

What probably drives me the craziest is when people attempt to make up blarney as to why their "system" should work in a vein attempt to sound more intelligent.  Using bs terms such as "eb and flow", "reading randomness", and other real terms like "fluid dynamics" and "quantum movements"  out of context simply makes whatever the person is attempting to share sound ridiculous and amusing.

I wish some of the system players would turn off the metaphysical nonsense and the blarney and return to the real world of cause and effect. 
They need to form a hypothesis as to why a system should work, and then test it,  rather than just making it up as they go along.


-Xander

Okay Xander because of your standard cynical response and 'blockhead mentality' attitude this discussion is permanently closed in this context. Responses such as you have posted will be removed from any thread that I host. I have better uses for my time than responding to your rubbish.
xxvv

Quote from: Xander on May 11, 2014, 10:17:40 PM
What probably drives me the craziest is when people attempt to make up blarney as to why their "system" should work in a vein attempt to sound more intelligent.  Using bs terms such as "eb and flow", "reading randomness", and other real terms like "fluid dynamics" and "quantum movements"  out of context simply makes whatever the person is attempting to share sound ridiculous and amusing.

Actually this is quite funny as well as a good and accurate observation.  XXVV you shouldn't be offended by this. I won't mention names, but there has been some total nonsense floating around over the years, oops it still continues today.

XXVV can you provide a link to these blogs, is it on this site, somewhere else?  I had a quick gander here and couldn't see any blog pages.       

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on May 12, 2014, 04:34:33 PM
Actually this is quite funny as well as a good and accurate observation** XXVV you shouldn't be offended by this. I won't mention names, but there has been some total nonsense floating around over the years, oops it still continues today.

XXVV can you provide a link to these blogs, is it on this site, somewhere else?  I had a quick gander here and couldn't see any blog pages.       

Blogosphere on this Forum or XXVV Blog on BetForum.cc


** if you believe facile 'what you see is what you get' 'science' then you have much to learn - roulette is a great

    microcosm of life experience on many levels both for wheel and player

Quote from: Mike on May 11, 2014, 07:52:50 PM
XXVV,

As far as I'm concerned there are 3 possible approaches for anyone who is seriously interested in making a success at playing roulette.

I'm assuming, even if you don't take this avenue, that you recognize that the physical approach to roulette is a viable one? The game consists of a number of physical components which all contribute to which pocket the ball ends up in. If you know at least some of the 'initial conditions' (as Physicists call them) of these components, then you can predict with better than random accuracy where the ball will land. That's cause and effect. If you knew every initial condition perfectly then you would be able to predict the exact number every time. There is nothing random about roulette for someone with that kind of knowledge, although it's admittedly theoretical. It's just an application of physical laws (Newton's laws and dynamics) which have been known and used for centuries and which apply to any physical system, including roulette. The mathematics is complicated but a rough approximation is good enough for practical purposes.

Secondly, there is probability and statistics, or using what is understood statistically about the game either from gathering your own data or using the laws of probability and various statistical techniques. 

I know there are some who also believe in numerology, astrology and the like. Your mention of 'inner derivation' and 'force' makes me think that perhaps you are signing up to this? If so, I don't see much benefit in continuing the discussion, but I wish you all the best.

I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from, because it's not clear to me at the moment.

@ Xander,

'why should it work?' Yes that seems like the natural question to ask anyone who proposes a method. I'd like to hear XXVV's answer to it. The physics approach seems best because it works for everything else, that's how we got to this modern technological world. That doesn't make me closed-minded, just practical. Why try to reinvent the wheel (excuse the pun) and posit some strange 'force' as the explanation?

@Mike


I will open a thread on my Blog sites on both Forums to deal with some of the very valid and important questions you have raised Mike. You will appreciate, that neither of us can afford to waste time arguing in circles. My response to Xander was caused by his defamatory and ludicrous remarks regarding Dr Martin Blakey who holds a doctorate in applied mathematics and has been a professional roulette player, based mainly in Melbourne, for over 40 years now. The effect is the end of this discussion in this context.


Until Xander learns to listen , understand and show respect to fellow Forum members ( such as MB) he is not welcome in my blog section, and appears to have learned nothing over the past six months with his cliche over-simplifications bringing any hope of worthwhile discussion, debate or learning to nil or less. That is what I mean by 'block -head mentality'. His remarks were erased by the Moderators but this is the attitude the fellow expresses as Snowman/ Xander et al, and his reputation is well known.


I will open the new threads in due course as this is an excellent theme subject.


XXVV
May 2014
Chch NZ

Quote from: Archie on May 12, 2014, 04:54:30 PM

Saying that it all boils down to physics and chemistyisn't necessarily suspect.  It does.  But not enough of us have been trained to work in such an environment to off hand recognize how on a daily basis.

Archie, the physics and chemistry terms are the 'boxes' into which we self consciously attempt to organise aspects of our observations of what is 'nature', or 'natural phenomena'.


Increasingly medicine, complex technologies, design and media attempt to avoid the separation caused by the knife cutting analysis of self conscious study by looking at the bigger picture, holistic medicine for example and you may find your friendly GP/MD increasingly tries to link and bridge previously separated departments to assess  your 'health'.


Just so, the way we analyse data needs both detail unit observation and larger cycle observation. If the use of big and unfamiliar words challenge the 'blockheads' among us, well that is the price you pay for wanting to explore. Progress is made by searching for new connections and new links, not stereotype cliches.


So goodbye to this thread and this context.


This theme will be continued in my various blog sections where there will be strict editorial control over content.


Thanks Archie for your true observation that has enabled a discussion to open, and not to shut down. Do you see what I am saying?


Regards
XXVV