No.6 is a good guy and I respect him.


Trouble is that he is suggesting I break mental habits formed over years. I'm trying ....but its hard.


He basically says that even if its raining outside, and I can see it through the window, it isn't actually raining unless I go out and stand in the rain. If I come back in, and I can see I am wet, and I can see it is still raining out of the window....it isn't raining!


That's a hard concept to grasp.

Quote from: Turner on February 21, 2014, 10:21:56 PM
No.6 is a good guy and I respect him.

Trouble is that he is suggesting I break mental habits formed over years. I'm trying ....but its hard.

He basically says that even if its raining outside, and I can see it through the window, it isn't actually raining unless I go out and stand in the rain. If I come back in, and I can see I am wet, and I can see it is still raining out of the window....it isn't raining!


That's a hard concept to grasp.

As I cannot resist such leads, please as they say in the UK, 'come again?'


If its hard to grasp it seems even harder to explain. I think this calls for a new thread!
XXVV

Lol...an analogy too far.
I mean forgetting past spins...only relevant when you actually place a bet...personal permenance.
Its hard to grasp...more so...its hard to reprogram old habits.

After having Six's words rumbling round my head for a few weeks, I actually get the analogy!

Quote from: Turner on February 22, 2014, 08:19:27 AM
Lol...an analogy too far.
I mean forgetting past spins...only relevant when you actually place a bet...personal permenance.
Its hard to grasp...more so...its hard to reprogram old habits.

Ah yes. I totally understand what you were describing now.


There is some truth in this.


But I do not agree literally. I think 'more' is needed to make this a working model.


For practical, and demonstrable reasons. But that will not convince Mr No.6.


Thanks for clarifying. No need for thread, or....? XXVV


23Feb32014/0630

Quote from: Turner on February 22, 2014, 08:19:27 AM
Lol...an analogy too far.
I mean forgetting past spins...only relevant when you actually place a bet...personal permanenzen*
Its hard to grasp...more so...its hard to reprogram old habits.

This to use the quotation from Turner but is directed to #6 and I have taken the liberty of using the German term * ( as an aside -they have the ability to much more accurately describe subtleties and shades of meaning than usual English usage because they just block another few letters like an abacus and form longer words).


This neat mathematical theory of us all walking around the casino with our personal bubbles of unique collected experience and that this is modified only when the player makes a 'real' bet rather than an imaginary bet or a virtual bet or even a virtual observation may be partly true but I suspect , with respect #6, that it is nonsense. It derives from a materialistic observation that 'what you see is what you get'. It makes no room for subtleties of observation, or shades of observation. It is black and white. no shades of grey. It is box thinking. I will give a simple example of how I believe I can shatter this illusion.


This is a live spin example from a recent game where I gave more detail in a recent post in the Blog.


I was observing/playing/observing/playing/observing a session that overall went for 61 spins, about an hour.


The first game of WF3 went for 27 spins and included 7 targets.


I had observed the first 20 of those spins from screen data ( verified as correct). By the time I came to play live already 4 targets were observed and I saw no point in chasing, so just observed for a few more spins but noted my old friend 13 was a target.


Now, call me superstitious or silly or a fool, but whenever I see 13, I see 31 and neighbours, and vice versa usually for a next spin then a penultimate spin , and then one more as a trio of attempts to ensnare this frequent opportunity. Sometimes the black odds first col do overlap, as do the finales group I utilise.


There is an efficient bet I use which is the corner 10/14 and the corner 28/32 corner and a few other attachments to trap this sometimes ping -pong resonance. Laugh you may but look at the Wiesbaden permanenzen and see the times 31/13 reverse and the usual suspects 22/9/14/20 with 11/36/27/6.


So after 4 spins watching I placed a bet and 27 came in and became a target (WF5), so I carried on and on the penultimate cycle then came 14 which also became a further WF target, and then guess what on the next penultimate cycle spin the ringleader 13 was hit.


I then stopped and observed a new game and from the spacing of fresh numbers clearly the looseness, or lack of clustering and clumping was evident ( what is the German for this phase). However eventually two targets came about but it took 17 spins already for this. So as the two targets were 35 and 36 I thought it sensible to place an efficient bet- a split on the two. It hit first spin with a hit on 36 as a consecutive repeater - the first for a long time.


So where is this heading?  Well there were no  further qualifying numbers in WF but I had observed the repeating numbers noted on the screen data and I noted the side of the wheel with numbers moving from 30 through to 28 ( ie what I term the CD sections of the wheel were dominant) but my old friend 33 had not showed but 9 and 31 were frequent repeaters.

So, intuitively I launched a virtual attack and in 3 consecutive spins (28,23,16) I had 3 hits so went aggressive live with 5 further spins for especial hits on 9 which became a WF target, but particularly  33 and 31, and at that time I took profit. The next four spins I observed would have provided 3 hits from 4 attempts.

The session was most successful with  a gain of +208 units on a RB of 120 units.

Most of that gain came from the final 2 spins as I pressed the bets.

It was a happy ending but the principle I am trying to illustrate is that I skipped in and out of live play throughout the session conserving most effort for a closing final coup but used data that was historic and I also used virtual play to observe continuity of sectional wheel play. Then went live when the dominant was being signaled for continuity.

Sure it could have all immediately failed but it did not. Evidence of dominant continuity can be a worthwhile short cycle strategy.

The true value of such a strategy is that it enables a MM strategy as well of pressing bets or parlay, but setting aside some profit should the streak not continue.

Here the streak crosses from virtual to live play and in the final 13 spins there were 3 dealers.

They certainly did not provide any signature unless the sisters were in harmony.


8
31
9
32
28
23
---
16
5
7
---
9   9
33
31
------  took profit
30
6
28
33


XXVV
23Feb2014/1540

And as for 13 follows 31.....

http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=11293.msg99351#msg99351


(still sad seeing Ralph post in this)

Quote from: Turner on February 23, 2014, 11:01:00 AM
And as for 13 follows 31.....

http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=11293.msg99351#msg99351

(still sad seeing Ralph post in this)

Thanks Turner, and by default Orochi, in that. Excellent work.


I know it sounds contrary but that 'resonance' is more frequent in my personal permananezen. It is not just that it is noticed more. It is my presence, my expectation now that makes a difference, like I attract and expect zero, and that I always have a parking space available wherever I need. This is the -fuzzy-  stuff that does work.


Testing of course would never register that, because you are 'not there'. It needs to be factored in but of course is an individual choice, and would not appeal or function with others, especially those of 'concrete linear' patterns of thought and feeling. They of course would rationalise that this is a rationalisation! Only way to tell is to measure your own experience. That is where the personal 'bubble' is valid.

Sure, of course ghosts exist. I grew up as a child in a house dating back to the 1600's and a ghost from the time of the civil war was evident to some, complete with sounds, but certainly feelings. These are locations where there has been very strong past emotion and an earthbound energy seeking eventual release.

There are wonderful energies to be experienced especially in natural settings. Why do you think you feel so wonderful in such settings. Resonance at work.

Most interesting link thank you Turner.


By the way Orochi and the 9 factors - 9.18.27.2.36 - all these are in the 13/31 milieu and the two corner bets I mentioned  10/14  and 28/32 are efficient in mopping up the core of these links together with the neighbour plays. So I will often play, once triggered the neighbours as straight up bets with a strong 2 corner bet  stake and most on 13/31. it's a personal thing.

XXVV
24 Feb 2013/0222
XXVV

Hmmm...I don't believe in Ghosts....after-worlds, Gods, Ouija boards. They only become into existence after  they hit your brain processes.


I think we do the same with roulette. See Ghosts that are not there. Patterns that are not there.


After all, a ball falls into the same sector (33.16.24.5 3) 3 times with 33,24,10


1st man says a wheel sector is hot
2nd man says Black has hit 3 times
3rd man says Col.C has hit twice
4th man says that all 3 Dozens hit
And Orochi says....well...who knows what he would say. His head is full of magic.


what actually happened was 33 came out, then 24, Then 10. That's it.


Of course, I see the shape of a Poodle in the clouds. can't help it. Im programmed that way..


So I will keep struggling with Xander and No.6's concepts.

Fair enough Turner.


As a student of Buddha I am sure you have access to the widest of understandings, some of which will touch and enter the spiritual levels. My own view is that all levels are here and now with us at all times and I try not to make separations, and that requires much effort and practice. That puts trying to understand or interpret a philosophical point from #6 or Xander into some perspective.  Thanks for your many contacts and links which are always thought provoking and your preparedness to respond, even if not in agreement.


Meanwhile my little canoe will continue on with my own wide eyed investigations into some of life's mysteries particularly those pertaining to roulette and the nature of randomness, and how it all fits. Yes we are hard wired to see patterns.


KInd Wishes
XXVV
24FEb 2014 0815

Quote from: Turner on February 23, 2014, 03:07:45 PM

After all, a ball falls into the same sector (33.16.24.5 3) 3 times with 33,24,10

1st man says a wheel sector is hot
2nd man says Black has hit 3 times
3rd man says Col.C has hit twice
4th man says that all 3 Dozens hit

what actually happened was 33 came out, then 24, Then 10. That's it.

Turner,
I'm not sure about the 1st man, but men 2-4 are correct, aren't they? It's not like seeing Poodles in clouds, because that's subjective (what if you've never seen a Poodle?), but the numbers 33,24,10 are members of larger sets, so that if the numbers hit, the subsets necessarily have too. The proof is that the casino pays you if you've bet on them (without having bet on the specific numbers 33,24,10).

Bayes....I can't remember what my point was myself...lol


But back on subject....and I think this is a loaded question


Which has the most merit...out of these 2


Paul says " I ran 2000 spins from wiesbaden on RX playing "super system 4" and it didn't do well.
Dave says" I played "super system 4" in the casino for 2 weeks...around 2000 spins and doubled my bankroll

I assume by "merit" you mean which scenario tells you more about whether super system 4 is a loser or winner? You'd really need more information before making that decision. "It didn't do well" is a bit vague, and also it depends on how many numbers you're playing, whether you use a progression, etc.

Bayes...and this is where some schools of thought differ
I don't know where I sit 100% but some will discount Paul because they are past spins....some believe Paul because there are no possible mistakes or tiredness etc
Some think Dave because they were his PP and he was actually placing bets.
Then we get into more trusting a bad result on merit than someone BS'ing how well he did.

Quote from: Turner on February 25, 2014, 10:47:37 AM
Bayes...and this is where some schools of thought differ
I don't know where I sit 100% but some will discount Paul because they are past spins....some believe Paul because there are no possible mistakes or tiredness etc
Some think Dave because they were his PP and he was actually placing bets.
Then we get into more trusting a bad result on merit than someone BS'ing how well he did.

Laurance say that playing the game change the game.