Quotethis is actually what Life is all about - growth and development.
XXVV
"As long I'm living I'm learning'' Plato
I'd like to personally thank you for your support against the ridiculous claims of Caleb Johnson.
However, it wasn't necessary because I've encountered his situation numerous times across different forums and I've learned that such person cannot be considered seriously.
Every time I'm reading his posts which are directed against what I'm doing and what I believe, I'm laughing so hard that tears rolling on my cheek! ;D
Dear Rich, I want you to know that there are people who admire your work, so encourage you to contribute further and eventually leave a heritage of knowledge for the generations to come.
The General/Caleb/Real is allowed to break rules left and right on Roulette.cc because Steve uses him as an attack dog/sh*t stirrer to get more attention for the forum. Kav has a similar relationship with Reyth on Roulette30.
Steve has shown that the forums are his primary stream of income with Roulette, and not the "computers" that he claims to sell.
To this day, nobody has come forward with a review of any of Steve's hardware or software..........and he owns most of the Roulette forums.........
Quote from: TheLaw on September 03, 2016, 12:40:24 AM
Steve has shown that the forums are his primary stream of income with Roulette, and not the "computers" that he claims to sell.
It would be more accurate to say that the forums are what he uses to 'capture' prospective purchasers of his computers and systems. He doesn't get income directly from forums. And I agree, it's odd that there have been no reviews of his wares, although it could be that he asks clients to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
@ XXVV,
I think it's unfair to characterize members as 'cynical', 'nihilist', 'children' etc because they happen to agree with the universally recognized mathematical facts regarding roulette and are merely asking for some evidence that they don't exclusively apply. You, Gizmo, and other 'enlightened' members on the forums may well have 'overthrown' the accepted wisdom, but it's merely an assertion; there is and never has been the slightest evidence that any of these theories actually have any merit or reflect reality.
What gets me is that you continually drag in 'scientific' concepts in an attempt to confer some kind of validity by association. A case in point:
QuoteSuch is the case regarding Cluster Analysis in roulette where individual spin outcomes, although independent, are also inter-connected. Both - this seems hard for some to grasp, yet such is a characteristic of Quantum Mechanics in our real world.
What, in the name of Jehovah, does Quantum Mechanics have to do with roulette and independent outcomes? Just how can outcomes be simultaneously independent and inter-connected?
Answers to basic questions are always evaded by you guys. Such questions always put you either on the defensive or the offensive. Is it any wonder readers are suspicious of your motives, even when you're not openly touting for business? (as Gizmo and Albalaha both are).
QuoteTo this day, nobody has come forward with a review of any of Steve's hardware or software
QuoteAnd I agree, it's odd that there have been no reviews of his wares, although it could be that he asks clients to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
1. Yes all my players submit NDAs.
2. Perhaps you arent aware of this:
Not everyone is able to visit me for a personal demonstration. So I had my roulette computer openly tested by a well-respected, trusted and neutral member of the roulette community who everyone knew would give an honest evaluation.
The requirements of the person doing the test were:
* Competent and knowledgeable enough to conduct testing. The tester needs to understand how to conduct proper testing
* Well known and widely trusted. The purpose of the test is for a widely trusted individual to report findings.
Initially the roulette community chose two particular individuals who were both sent a free roulette computer for testing, but neither had time to do the testing. So the computers were sent back, and everyone selected another individual named Ronjo.
The full forum thread with all details of the public demonstration is at www.rouletteforum.net/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1220826187/ – it is a long read but you can read the summary of Ronjo's findings below:
Ronjo's Comments About The Testing:QuoteSteve's claims are correct about the Diamond hits and I had predictions within a three pocket arc several times and within a six pocket arc as well,and hits more than 50% on one half of the wheel. I did not have a direct hit on one number, but I had a hit on the next pocket to the predicted number three times in fifteen plays,in my opinion that is close enough. So to recap in fifteen spins I had a three pocket arc hit three times, a seven pocket arc hit five times the rest were losses or they were out of the three and seven pocket range but in half the wheel. This pattern kept on repeating in my testing.quote2
Steve's explanation is correct on my testing. The different diamond test was done and is correct and that the prediction was within a three pocket arc, the first spin and several others as the sample spin gets updated and deals with errors, as below as per quote that there were no predictions as the tolerance got tighter which is better than getting a poor prediction. I tested the whole DVD and as the sample was updated I got the same results. I was very impressed with the accuracy of the predictions, where I got predictions in a three pocket arc and a seven pocket arc and over 50% of half the wheel within the three pocket arc.
facts are facts and some people find it a problem to accept them.
everything Steve says in his explanation is correct.you guys need to read his post carefully as it must be kept in mind that we only focused on one particular diamond and we are getting a 1 in 5 hit rate and it was not only the fifteen spins that has been mentioned, this pattern repeated over the 100 spins and was consistent.
everyone, Steve is no scammer and has contributed a lot on RR a few years back and helped me a lot.
I can assure you that what I tested was legit, and keep in mind that I was testing on one particular diamond for testing purposes, I could have tested any other diamond but we tested only one,and the test was not to test predicted numbers but only a diamond,and sorry to say the test was accurate.quote2
And to cap it all, Steve Hourmouzis put me in contact with one of his players here in my country and we met up and discussed the computer and he was getting very good results. I can not let out what we discussed, but I can tell you that you would have to be very serious about playing this way and if applied correctly with timing in placing your bets you would do very well, that's all I can tell you.
So unless you have had first hand experience I think it would be wise and best to stay out of the politics concerning Steve's computer. So guys let's let the man get on with his business,and unless you have the computer let's get on with this challenge. Jackal check this out my testing is there read it carefully.
As I have said I have met up with one of Steve's players and he is not this imaginary player we have created, he is for real, and we have results from real casino plays and discussed the computer in length and I am satisfied if applied properly we have a good edge against the casinos and that is final.
So I have done group public demos (even recordings on my site), given my computer for free testing to a respected forum member, offer a free trial at www.roulette-computers.com/free-trial/
Plus anyone can even test all they want for free, or even see a demo via live webcam, on any wheel they want. What else am I supposed to do to demonstrate honesty?
I don't deal with anything other than direct proof and verifiable physics. It is very easy for anyone to find the truth. It's just that most people don't bother to look. Besides its easier to believe rubbish from people who have a personal vendetta against me. I have better things to do than to constantly refute lies about me. For every 20 attacks against me, I respond to perhaps one of them. Again the facts are easy for anyone to find, if you look.
Quote from: Mike on September 03, 2016, 08:53:04 AM
What, in the name of Jehovah, does Quantum Mechanics have to do with roulette and independent outcomes? Just how can outcomes be simultaneously independent and inter-connected?
Answers to basic questions are always evaded by you guys. Such questions always put you either on the defensive or the offensive. Is it any wonder readers are suspicious of your motives, even when you're not openly touting for business? (as Gizmo and Albalaha both are).
I've have boldly put a price on something that actually works, because it's worth it a hundred times over. In a way that is a kind of free. It's just free if you can see that an education that returns far more in rewards must come at a price. My fee of $200 is just high enough to weed out the non-interested. It also serves the other purpose of answering your question. A small army of successful players using it, thus proving that more than one person can master the skill, is the way I wish to let the truth be known. And once that happens it will have always been the truth.
Now to your, so called scientific question. I'm sure once you get my answer you will ignore the fact that you ever asked it. In the game of Blackjack the cards are connected because the deck is reduced in size after each hand. This is known scientifically as variable change. There are less cards for the next hand, and the cards that are missing can be known if you pay attention to them as they are used. Some refer to this, clumsily, as the game having a memory.
That brings us to the game of Roulette that does not throw out slots on the wheel after each spin. The mechanical random number generator has the same number of slots for each spin. It has the exact same odds for each spin. It's funny how independence minded neo-pseudo-scientists around here hang their hats on independence and then come right at everyone with the non-independence minded conglomeration of multiple events, spins, that are combined to form a notion of an iron clad probability declaration. How do you get to use combined spins to extort the existence of the long term odds if there is no such thing beyond independence? Your kind thinks that probability is an exact science and so you tend to be dogmatic referring to it. It's convenient for you, so you lean on it heavy, but when it turns on you with your biased confirmation skills you always find a way to do a pretzel maneuver and escape the argument as if it never occurred. I have found that to be a consistency that never seems to stop happening on these gambling forums over the past ten years. Perhaps they are connected by some cause too.
A 30 spin perfect pattern is a combination of 30 perfectly executed independent outcomes of a balanced and fair mechanical random number generator. But did it ever exist if it was never observed? If it did happen it was a coincidence of randomness and by no outside cause and nothing more. Because it happened, and was observed by a person skilled enough to exploit it, that person, by only existing, made it real. Those 30 combined spins became a single thing in the mind of the skilled craftsman. The odds of it occurring have no effect on the fact that it did in fact occur. Odds can't predict the future in the next 150 spins. They can only suggest a value that borders on infinity in the long run. Remember, the notion of long termed odds, based on probability studies, they are the combinations of independent events, if this science is to be forever ensconced in stone that is.
If your argument is that independent events are the proof that Roulette spins are not connected, then why connect them to prove that the odds are connected? It's just a convenient argument when it suits you and is to be ignored when it does not, is that it? Your post-modern attitude does not impress me at all. Your subjective reasoning does not support the facts. Try to give me an objective example that challenges what I just showed you in this post. Stand up for your beliefs this time. Don't run and hide like they all do.
If anyone has a system that worked, the best way to profit is have others use it for you, and you split profits. But it must be done in a way to keep the actual system secret, if it's at all possible. That's exactly what I do with my best method (hybrid computer). Any serious player can get it free, and pay only later from winnings and IF they win. They don't actually receive the computer - they access it remotely. The calculation server runs via the internet.
Anyway my point is everyone assumes someone with the HG will just use it themselves. There's a limit to what one person can win. The limit is much larger when there are teams of players.
Quote from: Steve H on September 03, 2016, 10:33:46 AM
1. Yes all my players submit NDAs.
2. Perhaps you arent aware of this:
Not everyone is able to visit me for a personal demonstration. So I had my roulette computer openly tested by a well-respected, trusted and neutral member of the roulette community who everyone knew would give an honest evaluation.
The requirements of the person doing the test were:
* Competent and knowledgeable enough to conduct testing. The tester needs to understand how to conduct proper testing
* Well known and widely trusted. The purpose of the test is for a widely trusted individual to report findings.
Initially the roulette community chose two particular individuals who were both sent a free roulette computer for testing, but neither had time to do the testing. So the computers were sent back, and everyone selected another individual named Ronjo.
The full forum thread with all details of the public demonstration is at www.rouletteforum.net/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1220826187/ – it is a long read but you can read the summary of Ronjo's findings below:
Ronjo's Comments About The Testing:
So I have done group public demos (even recordings on my site), given my computer for free testing to a respected forum member, offer a free trial at www.roulette-computers.com/free-trial/
Plus anyone can even test all they want for free, or even see a demo via live webcam, on any wheel they want. What else am I supposed to do to demonstrate honesty?
I don't deal with anything other than direct proof and verifiable physics. It is very easy for anyone to find the truth. It's just that most people don't bother to look. Besides its easier to believe rubbish from people who have a personal vendetta against me. I have better things to do than to constantly refute lies about me. For every 20 attacks against me, I respond to perhaps one of them. Again the facts are easy for anyone to find, if you look.
Why the demonstration didn't took place inside a casino?
Why there were not more than one individuals to test it?
Who is this Ronjo anyway?
Quote from: Mike on September 03, 2016, 08:53:04 AM
I think it's unfair to characterize members as 'cynical', 'nihilist', 'children' etc because they happen to agree with the universally recognized mathematical facts regarding roulette and are merely asking for some evidence that they don't exclusively apply. You, Gizmo, and other 'enlightened' members on the forums may well have 'overthrown' the accepted wisdom, but it's merely an assertion; there is and never has been the slightest evidence that any of these theories actually have any merit or reflect reality.
And once my Ai, artificial intelligence, machine is fully validated by inspection of the open-source supplied source code and is publicly peer reviewed by experts, that evidence will then exist. And once it is accepted as the truth, it will have always been the truth.
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 03, 2016, 11:17:21 AM
And once my Ai, artificial intelligence, machine is fully validated by inspection of the open-source supplied source code and is publicly peer reviewed by experts, that evidence will then exist. And once it is accepted as the truth, it will have always been the truth.
Even Spike could confirm this, he has 72% prediction accuracy for EC's, the fact that he doesn't fully comprehend how he's achieving this it's irrelevant.
If he has some kind of psychic powers, like precognition for example, could probability condemn him too as a loser?!
QuoteWhy the demonstration didn't took place inside a casino?
Why there were not more than one individuals to test it?
Who is this Ronjo anyway?
Ronjo was around way before you. He was well known & respected by the roulette community.
Read what Ronjo said about meeting with one of my players from his country, and results from real casinos.
Well originally I sent a free computer to TWO people but neither had time to test. But how many people do you want me to send free computers to? How much time do you want me to waste refuting garbage about me and my computers...especially when anyone can just see and test them free for themselves. How many more group public demos should I do? I have better things to do, like manage my teams. Again the information and proof is all out there. All anyone needs to do is just look at it.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 03, 2016, 11:39:08 AM
Even Spike could confirm this, he has 72% prediction accuracy for EC's, the fact that he doesn't fully comprehend how he's achieving this it's irrelevant.
If he has some kind of psychic powers, like precognition for example, could probability condemn him too as a loser?!
Spike had nothing but a bluff.
He was only ever looking for suckers.
How do I know?.. I'm greenguy, that's how.
Initially the roulette community chose two particular individuals who were both sent a free roulette computer for testing, but neither had time to do the testing. So the computers were sent back
LOL!..what a cock up!
...everyone selected another individual named Ronjo.
LOL! Ronjo is ancient history. The friggin' cheat computer has been reversed engineered a whole lot since then. Probably needs a new test. Also, Ronjo was a bit of a drop kick in the end.
Greenguy, hows it goin?
Basic computers have been studied by casinos, and even the basic ones are recognized as a threat. Why do you think they watch you closely if you bet late? You can even beat wheels with basic visual ballistics if you know what you'er doing. No casino staff has ever evaluated my hybrid. I have full control over it because I can see where it is being used, who is using it, the wheel, results etc. I see the live video feed always.
Anyway, the mk7 wheel model is exactly the same when the tests were done. It's still the huxley current model. Besides like i said, anyone can test for free. Do you really want to argue the point? Anyone can test easily with my permission
Quote from: greenguy on September 03, 2016, 11:52:18 AM
Spike had nothing but a bluff.
He was only ever looking for suckers.
How do I know?.. I'm greenguy, that's how.
Even Coco the gorilla knows it... ;D
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvlsroulette.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D19369.0%3Battach%3D7179%3Bimage&hash=4da863df7093773b22694cbacb7f21866a74acaa)
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 03, 2016, 11:39:08 AM
Even Spike could confirm this, he has 72% prediction accuracy for EC's, the fact that he doesn't fully comprehend how he's achieving this it's irrelevant.
If he has some kind of psychic powers, like precognition for example, could probability condemn him too as a loser?!
We all know that he got caught in his wild claim and could never back down and admit it. That was the most telling of all. Math was never his strong point. He bragged about being a debating expert. The truth was never the point of his banter. He lived for the confrontation and in agitating others. You must know that. He's a classic Narcissist. Just look at the traits and look at his reactions to confrontations and crises that he created and fed on. He was there for one thing and one thing only, Narcissistic supply. All he needed was that 72%. When I did the one thing that he didn't approve of he turned on me to destroy me, a common reaction for a Narcissist. If you encounter him you need to know how to arm yourself. Look it up. You will see that I'm correct.
Quote from: Steve H on September 03, 2016, 12:06:35 PM
Greenguy, hows it goin?
It's goin good, mate.
Quote from: Steve H on September 03, 2016, 12:06:35 PM
Basic computers have been studied by casinos, and even the basic ones are recognized as a threat. Why do you think they watch you closely if you bet late?
When I bet late I'm too busy to see who's watching.
Quote from: Steve H on September 03, 2016, 12:06:35 PM
No casino staff has ever evaluated my hybrid. I have full control over it because I can see where it is being used, who is using it, the wheel, results etc. I see the live video feed always.
That's a very astute set up, and I'm not surprised to hear it. Nice effort Steve.
Quote from: Steve H on September 03, 2016, 12:06:35 PM
Anyway, the mk7 wheel model is exactly the same when the tests were done. It's still the huxley current model. Besides like i said, anyone can test for free. Do you really want to argue the point? Anyone can test easily with my permission
No point in further discussion or arguing as this will all likely be deleted as off topic soon enough.
Quote from: Steve H on September 03, 2016, 12:30:57 PM
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvlsroulette.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D19369.0%3Battach%3D7179%3Bimage&hash=4da863df7093773b22694cbacb7f21866a74acaa)
:) Haha..how'd you find that? lol!
This is actually on topic, because this thread is about recognising trolls, and that's a troll pictured right there for easy identification.
Disclaimer: Any similarity between the inserted picture and the user's avatar is purely coincidental.
Yes we had some fun times roadkill cactus
Quote from: Steve H on September 03, 2016, 12:49:54 PM
Yes we had some fun times roadkill cactus
Have you heard the other with the Bigfoot...?!
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 03, 2016, 12:32:35 PM
We all know that he got caught in his wild claim and could never back down and admit it. That was the most telling of all. Math was never his strong point. He bragged about being a debating expert. The truth was never the point of his banter. He lived for the confrontation and in agitating others. You must know that. He's a classic Narcissist. Just look at the traits and look at his reactions to confrontations and crises that he created and fed on. He was there for one thing and one thing only, Narcissistic supply. All he needed was that 72%. When I did the one thing that he didn't approve of he turned on me to destroy me, a common reaction for a Narcissist. If you encounter him you need to know how to arm yourself. Look it up. You will see that I'm correct.
Awww, he wasn't all that bad. Never ripped me of nuffin'. Quite a lovable character after all's said.
QuoteAwww, he wasn't all that bad. Never ripped me of nuffin'. Quite a lovable character after all's said.
GG
Perhaps because he didn't have the chance to do otherwise.
I'm glad we are setting things straight, keep the ball rolling, or should I say spinning.
So as an example of a "review" or "testimonial" Steve posts links from 2008-09..........thank god computers haven't changed much since then.
As a counter argument to my point, I have also never seen any personal negative reviews of his hardware/software on any boards.
Finally, this idea that a NDA would hinder someone from reviewing hardware/software is ludicrous.........just give proof of purchase, and whether or not it worked as described.
Once again.......too much political maneuvering going on here to appear legit. Maybe it's really just bad optics............maybe..... ::)
Quote from: Steve H on September 03, 2016, 12:49:54 PM
Yes we had some fun times roadkill cactus
Yeah, pity you wiped me for pencil dick, of all people :o
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 03, 2016, 10:52:52 AM
Now to your, so called scientific question. I'm sure once you get my answer you will ignore the fact that you ever asked it. In the game of Blackjack the cards are connected because the deck is reduced in size after each hand. This is known scientifically as variable change. There are less cards for the next hand, and the cards that are missing can be known if you pay attention to them as they are used. Some refer to this, clumsily, as the game having a memory.
Actually it's called sampling without replacement.
QuoteThat brings us to the game of Roulette that does not throw out slots on the wheel after each spin. The mechanical random number generator has the same number of slots for each spin. It has the exact same odds for each spin.
Yes, this is called sampling with replacement. So far so good.
QuoteIt's funny how independence minded neo-pseudo-scientists around here hang their hats on independence and then come right at everyone with the non-independence minded conglomeration of multiple events, spins, that are combined to form a notion of an iron clad probability declaration. How do you get to use combined spins to extort the existence of the long term odds if there is no such thing beyond independence?
This is where you go off the rails. No no no a thousand times no! Do you think it's only possible to calculate the probability of a sequence of outcomes only if each is not independent? How then would it be possible to come up with the binomial distribution which can tell you the chance of getting exactly, or at most/at least X wins in Y spins?
There is an analogous distribution for outcomes (like Blackjack) where outcomes are dependent. Whether outcomes are independent or not, the probability of a sequence of trials can be calculated, you just need to know the probability of success for a single outcome.
Because roulette is a 'sampling with replacement' type of game, it means the odds are FIXED. Therefore the chance of red after 20 blacks is the same as after one red. In doesn't mean you can't calculate the chance of 20 blacks in a row in advance. And just because you CAN do that doesn't give you the right to demand that suddenly the game is of the 'sampling without replacement' type.
QuoteIf your argument is that independent events are the proof that Roulette spins are not connected, then why connect them to prove that the odds are connected? It's just a convenient argument when it suits you and is to be ignored when it does not, is that it?
I'm not 'connecting' them, you are. Gizmo, you really don't need to learn any probability theory to understand that spins aren't connected. In fact you've already acknowledged it. You know the difference between sampling with and without replacement. That's all you need to know. From that you can easily deduce that virtual bets and waiting for triggers is ineffective. If you deny it and say they ARE effective, on what basis are they effective? is there another kind of 'connection' we don't know about? and why doesn't it seem to hold whenever we do any empirical testing? No matter what fancy triggers and virtual bets you can come up with, the results will ALWAYS be as if none had been used. They make no difference. None, zilch, nada, rien, zip, diddlysquat.
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 03, 2016, 12:32:35 PM
We all know that he got caught in his wild claim and could never back down and admit it. That was the most telling of all. Math was never his strong point. He bragged about being a debating expert. The truth was never the point of his banter. He lived for the confrontation and in agitating others. You must know that. He's a classic Narcissist. Just look at the traits and look at his reactions to confrontations and crises that he created and fed on. He was there for one thing and one thing only, Narcissistic supply. All he needed was that 72%. When I did the one thing that he didn't approve of he turned on me to destroy me, a common reaction for a Narcissist. If you encounter him you need to know how to arm yourself. Look it up. You will see that I'm correct.
100% correct. Spike was just an attention junkie.
QuoteIf you deny it and say they ARE effective, on what basis are they effective? is there another kind of 'connection' we don't know about? and why doesn't it seem to hold whenever we do any empirical testing?
Mike
On Law Of Thirds basis.
There are, the fact you are not aware of them doesn't equates with the fact that they don't exist.
Gravity existed long before humanity realized that we are not living at a flat planet, didn't need human's appreciation to faction.
Because you see only what you want to see, aka confirmation bias.
One day we'll eventually realize that there are much more to learn and embrace which, right now, are beyond our field of perception.
A theory's lifespan ends with the beginning of a new one, that's what history has taught us this far.
In other words, it's correct as long as we don't evolve our knowledge.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 03, 2016, 01:55:22 PM
On Law Of Thirds basis.
I never understood why the law of the third gets the attention it does. There's nothing special about it, it's just a probability like any other and doesn't warrant the almost mystical status it has. It's something that's only ever talked about on roulette forums and perhaps online casino or systems sites, but no statistician or mathematician knows about it. Try bringing it up on any math forum and you'll draw a blank. Why do you think that is?
Any system based on the law of the third is also based on the usual fallacy.
http://onlineroulette.org.uk/systems/law-of-the-thirds/
QuoteSo is this science or just gobbledeegook?
Well, the bottom line is that the roulette wheel has no memory. And this system is hinting that the result of a spin is affected somehow by a historical event. So there is your big flaw. There are other "hot zone" strategies out there like the Quadrant roulette strategy, with which you will run in to the same problems.
The problem with these kinds of distribution modelling systems, is that they are modelling a group of spins (in this case 37) whereas you are betting on an individual spin. And therein lies the problem. If you were making a bet on whether 24 numbers would hit over the next 37 spins, then it has more legs.
Quote
Because you see only what you want to see, aka confirmation bias.
I'm glad you brought up the subject because it's exactly what system players aren't aware of. They ASSUME that their strategies have merit but never do any tests which disconfirm this assumption. That's confirmation bias. If they did they would realize the systems don't have any effect on their chances of winning.
It's not enough just to glibly state 'you only see what you want to see', and proving me wrong would be much more satisfying, wouldn't it?
Give me ANY system based on the law of the third and I'll show you it's no better than betting randomly.
Trolls add to the bottom line of a forum. They are just as valuable as any serious poster.If one does not care for a troll`s post just ignore it
Mike, thank you for your very well thought out and coherent reply. We are discussing tangentially the same ground that the two camps of probability have been arguing about for more than 100 years.
QuoteDo you think it's only possible to calculate the probability of a sequence of outcomes only if each is not independent?
I'm not suggesting that at all. It never goes to a state where each spin is not independent. I'm saying that a coincidence of randomness some times presents a state of opportunity irregardless of the over all probability and the odds for an independent spin. Knowing the odds has nothing to do with opportunity recognition. Furthermore, the odds can't predict the outcome of the next spin.
QuoteIf you were making a bet on whether 24 numbers would hit over the next 37 spins, then it has more legs.
I agree with that statement Mike, by the way, are you Michael Sackleford?
QuoteGive me ANY system based on the law of the third and I'll show you it's no better than betting randomly.
Mike
Could you please check the attachment?
QuoteI'm saying that a coincidence of randomness some times presents a state of opportunity irregardless of the over all probability and the odds for an independent spin.
Gizmotron
If you perceive it as mere coincidence, then you are just lucky when you are winning, thus you possess no skill of ''reading'' randomness as you claim.
In order to be valid what you are claiming for years, there have to be consistent tendencies instead of coincidental random events.
Coincidence suggests luck/random, consistent tendencies suggest reliable patterns.
So Gizmo, you cannot claim any skill unless there is something more than random coincidences.
@ Blue_Angel,
No I'm not the Wizard of Odds. Different Mike.
Thanks for the system, I'll get back to you later with the results of my tests.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 04, 2016, 09:48:22 AM
In order to be valid what you are claiming for years, there have to be consistent tendencies instead of coincidental random events.
Coincidence suggests luck/random, consistent tendencies suggest reliable patterns.
So Gizmo, you cannot claim any skill unless there is something more than random coincidences.
I agree with this. If Gizmo's strategy attempts to take advantage of 'coincidences' then results should be no better than expectation. Only if it identifies and exploits consistent patterns can it claim to get results BETTER than expectation.
Quote from: Mike on September 03, 2016, 02:42:39 PM
Give me ANY system based on the law of the third and I'll show you it's no better than betting randomly.
It is my experience that if that is true of mindless Law of Third based systems, it is not true of opportunity exploitation's derived from coincidences that are based on randomness recognition methods. It can easily be shown that while betting randomly will produce phases of extreme success or demise, the effectiveness states that I suggest need to be watched, that those conditions will not occur at the same time that coincidence based opportunity bet selections occur. Furthermore, It is my experience that because coincidence based opportunity bet selections are not mindless activities and that betting randomly is, that I see better organized opportunities in those characteristic states of effectiveness, in the opportunity based choices. It's just what I have seen when I build sims that makes me say this.
Quote from: Mike on September 04, 2016, 11:17:40 AM
I agree with this. If Gizmo's strategy attempts to take advantage of 'coincidences' then results should be no better than expectation. Only if it identifies and exploits consistent patterns can it claim to get results BETTER than expectation.
That's it in a nut shell. That is all that I'm claiming that it does. It's a skill of identification of conditions and strategic caution. My playing experience tells me to calculate risk based on what is currently happening to my session at the table. You need to jump in in order to see how the water is. You have to know that you can adjust to what ever the conditions are. That includes both bet selection and how much each bet's amount should be. It's a teachable as well as a learnt skill. To more clarify this. It will go through times where it gets results "BETTER than expectation," nothing more than that. It won't do this BETTER condition all the time, consistently, and I'm not attempting to claim that is does. I hope you are beginning to see that I'm executing a skill based on experience and craftsmanship. The probability statistics don't have an effect on these conditions, limitations, or decisions.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 04, 2016, 09:48:22 AM
Gizmotron
If you perceive it as mere coincidence, then you are just lucky when you are winning, thus you possess no skill of ''reading'' randomness as you claim.
In order to be valid what you are claiming for years, there have to be consistent tendencies instead of coincidental random events.
Coincidence suggests luck/random, consistent tendencies suggest reliable patterns.
So Gizmo, you cannot claim any skill unless there is something more than random coincidences.
Wow, so you possess the skill to define what I'm suggesting for years is an advantage. Doing so gives you what? You have nothing. I'm sort of impressed by how impressed you are with yourself though. That's somewhat entertaining.
Try this: "there have to be consistent tendencies instead of coincidental random events." Does it ever occur to you that both exist at the same time and that magic Elves are never the cause of these coincidences that can be easily observed to the trained eye? I've dealt with mathboys for years that there can't be a cause for patterns or trends to exist and that they never predict any future results. So I always classify opportunities as coincidence. I can claim skill no matter what you say I can't do.
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 04, 2016, 01:21:40 PM
Wow, so you possess the skill to define what I'm suggesting for years is an advantage. Doing so gives you what? You have nothing. I'm sort of impressed by how impressed you are with yourself though. That's somewhat entertaining.
Try this: "there have to be consistent tendencies instead of coincidental random events." Does it ever occur to you that both exist at the same time and that magic Elves are never the cause of these coincidences that can be easily observed to the trained eye? I've dealt with mathboys for years that there can't be a cause for patterns or trends to exist and that they never predict any future results. So I always classify opportunities as coincidence. I can claim skill no matter what you say I can't do.
The cause for patterns is randomness and random consists of all the unknown variables.
If we knew all variables which affect every outcome there would be not random, thus just a lack of knowledge.
The true nature of randomness is that there is no random at all, quite paradox but true, only because of our gap of perception exists.
Perception evolves as knowledge grows.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 04, 2016, 01:49:03 PM
The cause for patterns is randomness and random consists of all the unknown variables.
If we knew all variables which affect every outcome there would be not random, thus just a lack of knowledge.
The true nature of randomness is that there is no random at all, quite paradox but true, only because of our gap of perception exists.
Perception evolves as knowledge grows.
Try starting with this, this makes me a mathBoy I guess, there are no variables that effect any outcome. You might be talking about physics though, but I don't think that you are. Nothing causes randomness to occur other than chance. I suspect that you have some kind of magical belief regarding the unknown.
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 04, 2016, 02:09:47 PM
Try starting with this, this makes me a mathBoy I guess, there are no variables that effect any outcome. You might be talking about physics though, but I don't think that you are. Nothing causes randomness to occur other than chance. I suspect that you have some kind of magical belief regarding the unknown.
You may assume what you want.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 04, 2016, 02:20:45 PM
You may assume what you want.
I'm beginning to form the opinion that you are at least a borderline Troll. :'(
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 04, 2016, 02:52:37 PM
I'm beginning to form the opinion that you are at least a borderline Troll. :'(
You may assume what you want.
One more thought:
On can leave Dodge City but there is no escape from Trollhatten
Borderline Troll or Patrol I don't give a dime!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 04, 2016, 03:14:17 PM
Borderline Troll or Patrol I don't give a dime!
Of course Patrol. It rhymes with Control, like as in Spandex Freak. I can see it now, Spandex Freak, with his one bullet in his secret shirt pocket, leaps to save women and children and the very weak.
written by a geek.
Quote from: Mr J on September 03, 2016, 04:03:18 PM
You have a ways to go kid.
Ken
I'm pretending I didn't see that.
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 04, 2016, 06:18:00 PM
Of course Patrol. It rhymes with Control, like as in Spandex Freak. I can see it now, Spandex Freak, with his one bullet in his secret shirt pocket, leaps to save women and children and the very weak.
written by a geek.
So you want to save the gambling world, is this what you are trying to say?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 04, 2016, 06:25:56 PM
So you want to save the gambling world, is this what you are trying to say?
Wrong again you "neo maxi zoom dweebie." Is the spandex too tight around your head? I've said for years that this would destroy almost all of the table games in casinos. I guess you are about as late to the party than first realized.
Troll somebody else.
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 04, 2016, 07:54:13 PM
Wrong again you "neo maxi zoom dweebie." Is the spandex too tight around your head? I've said for years that this would destroy almost all of the table games in casinos. I guess you are about as late to the party than first realized.
Troll somebody else.
So why are you educating them??
Casinos in one form or another will always be around but the days of gambling forums are limited .
Quote from: NathanDetroit on September 04, 2016, 08:28:10 PM
Casinos in one form or another will always be around but the days of gambling forums are limited .
Why?
Are you native American?
Quote from: NathanDetroit on September 04, 2016, 08:28:10 PM
Casinos in one form or another will always be around but the days of gambling forums are limited .
Not true.........as Beat-the-Wheel, Gizmotron, The General, Kimo Li, Mr J, Reyth, etc have shown........all it takes it a good scam to keep forums alive and kicking.
John Legend could return tomorrow........and have members eating out of his hand!!! 8)
Like any cult........it's the promise of something for nothing. ::)
Although, the days of serious critical debate on the subject are behind us.......so, in a way......you are correct. :'(
QuoteJohn Legend could return tomorrow........and have members eating out of his hand!!! 8)
How about Rolex and Garnaby?
Are they doing well?
Will they return?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 04, 2016, 07:58:42 PM
So why are you educating them??
I've clearly answered that question..
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 04, 2016, 10:23:30 PM
I've clearly answered that question..
Sorry, I should have missed it.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 04, 2016, 08:31:21 PM
Why?
Are you native American?
Reply:
What prompted you to ask if I am native American?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 04, 2016, 10:51:17 PM
Sorry, I should have missed it.
So what are you going to do when you move out of your Mom's and Dad's house when you are 40?
Quote from: NathanDetroit on September 04, 2016, 11:20:20 PM
Perhaps you were casino owner, taking ideas from gamblers and using them at other casinos where you play in order to make up losses on your own.
Quote from: Gizmotron on September 04, 2016, 11:28:10 PM
So what are you going to do when you move out of your Mom's and Dad's house when you are 40?
I'm going to charge 200 for teaching how to read randomness.
Might have to cut him a little bit of slack, he's getting a really rough ride at the gamblingforums web site
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 05, 2016, 12:03:55 AM
I'm going to charge 200 for teaching how to read randomness.
It's too late, that horse has left the barn. Why don't you teach tolerance to math Nazis instead. There is the world before my revelations are known and the world after that, where you can let everyone in on your secret recipe for Crow à la Mode.
QuoteReply:
What prompted you to ask if I am native American?
ND
There are plenty native American casino owners at USA thanks to US compensation plan.
You could be one of them, just a wildguess.
Quote from: Mike on September 04, 2016, 11:17:40 AM
@ Blue_Angel,
No I'm not the Wizard of Odds. Different Mike.
Thanks for the system, I'll get back to you later with the results of my tests.
I agree with this. If Gizmo's strategy attempts to take advantage of 'coincidences' then results should be no better than expectation. Only if it identifies and exploits consistent patterns can it claim to get results BETTER than expectation.
By the way, this system is from TurboGenius.
Don't underestimate it because of its simplicity.
Quoteeverything Steve says in his explanation is correct.you guys need to read his post carefully as it must be kept in mind that we only focused on one particular diamond and we are getting a 1 in 5 hit rate and it was not only the fifteen spins that has been mentioned, this pattern repeated over the 100 spins and was consistent.
everyone, Steve is no scammer and has contributed a lot on RR a few years back and helped me a lot.
Ronjo
@ Steve
1) In roulette you don't get paid by finding which diamond the ball will hit.
2) Don't you think 115 spins are just a tiny sample?
How do you expect
1,000,000 spins evidence for a winning method when your proof is just
115 spins?!
3) I don't Ronjo but he admits that you ''helped'' him...
4) You said that the ''free'' version runs through a web server, what if there is a blackout?
What if the server get hacked?
What if the video feedback delayed latency and is choppy?
What if casino staff get you video-streaming the wheel, what excuse your clients should tell, doing it for having casino's memorabilia?
5) What if the dealer spins the ball and the rotor softer and harder for each spin?
6) What if they apply a new rule that no bets allowed after the release of the ball?
7) Regardless of a device's effectiveness, I don't use any, it's just a matter of principle.
By the way, I consider Jafko's ''Pred7'' the best in roulette computers.
I could mention many more issues for you, but these are the basics.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 05, 2016, 11:16:29 PM
By the way, this system is from TurboGenius.
Don't underestimate it because of its simplicity.
Actually it's not that simple, at least coding it isn't. Since you're betting a variable number of outcomes at different times, I suggest using the same triggers but then betting on two random numbers instead of the numbers in the street. Then if this alternative system generates the same results as Turbo's system it will show there is no advantage in it.
Generally speaking, this is what systems players don't do. They just ASSUME that their strategy has merit, but don't check whether the opposite or random bets work just as well. If betting some random selection after a trigger (whether it's a 'trend' or 'clumping' or whatever) gives the same results as betting on the selections which the system requires, then you have shown that the strategy is worthless. Basic logic.