Two central elements in intelligent prediction and response are:
(1) how rapidly we can predict and respond to an event, and
(2) the amount and type of information we need for effective prediction and response.
The conventional wisdom has been that the best results emerge from the reflective analysis of a lot of relevant data.
[SOURCE: http://brainconnection.positscience.com/content/215_1 (http://brainconnection.positscience.com/content/215_1) ]
Quite so.
In other words, before anyone rushes to snap judgements and immediately posts this, that or the other won't work:
THEY SHOULD SET UP A TEST AND COMMUNICATE THEIR FINDINGS
OR WAIT FOR OTHER'S TEST RESULTS TO APPEAR
There's been too much negative posting thus far from those who seem to believe "there's my way and the wrong way".
That sort of belief is what underpins most of human conflict -- if you think about it.
Notice of Intent
So why shouldn't Moderators delete purely negative posts about others' ideas and methods, if those negative posts are NOT backed up by transparent,
verifiable test data?
I tried posting testing data. Once that was rejected because of h&r I added hit and run to the testing software. I Even used a telemetry based validation technique. I used a 6 million spin sample. All this was rejected and I was tagged a negative personal attacker. So I can't say that I am thrilled with your idea. At least I can say that I tried to post a lucid objection based on real data. I guess my next task is to wait a year to be proven wrong.
Very good topic. Perhaps it is because of a difference:
To make testers costs time and money.
Talking without study is free.
I think Gizmo makes a good point. I too, have done simulations which came out negative (or at least, they contradict the claims made), only to be told that a computer cannot "do" hit & run, so the simulations are deemed invalid. ???
I'd like to know just WHY, if the HAR strategy is coded to the letter, it's rejected. JL goes on about patience and discipline (the importance of the "human element"), but a computer program does EXACTLY what the programmer tells it to do; it has no human weaknesses, so why are simulations dismissed by some people?
I agree though that ideally, all opinions should be backed up with verifiable data and a report showing all bets made, but that's too much work for most people, especially non-programmers (the majority of the forum).
Computer H.A.R...................
"Hi, Computer! Now play this system and when you get a win, quit. Wait somewhere between 2 and 8 hours--oh, just pick a random time--and play it again. Repeat. Repeat."
Don't tell me a programmer couldn't make a computer do that. OK, you need a dedicated computer that just idles when not playing. I have one and I'll bet others do, too.
Where's the beef?
Sam
Yup been there too, coded ran tests reported results got shot down, not saying JL is full of it BUT in the land of the blind the one eyed monster is king, not so, the thing with most gamblers is they really want to believe, they enjoy reading positive posts, they actually think it is either their bad luck or the way they are playing that is wrong, not that the thread creator can't be right.
QuoteDon't tell me a programmer couldn't make a computer do that
Yes it can Sam, I've done it, Bayes has done it and now Gizmo has done it, we all get the same end results, which are all wrong of course!
Quote from: Superman on December 04, 2012, 09:43:22 AM
the thing with most gamblers is they really want to believe, they enjoy reading positive posts, they actually think it is either their bad luck or the way they are playing that is wrong, not that the thread creator can't be right.
Right. :thumbsup: Hence the popularity of JL's threads; you can have your little dream and it's cheaper than buying a lottery ticket.
Quote from: Bayes on December 04, 2012, 09:16:26 AM
I think Gizmo makes a good point. I too, have done simulations which came out negative (or at least, they contradict the claims made), only to be told that a computer cannot "do" hit & run, so the simulations are deemed invalid. ???
I'd like to know just WHY, if the HAR strategy is coded to the letter, it's rejected. JL goes on about patience and discipline (the importance of the "human element"), but a computer program does EXACTLY what the programmer tells it to do; it has no human weaknesses, so why are simulations dismissed by some people?
I agree though that ideally, all tests should be backed up with verifiable data and a report showing all bets made, but that's too much work for most people, especially non-programmers (the majority of the forum).
Bayes I take your points in, but if I agreed with the outcome of your tests or anyone elses. When what I attain tells another story.
Where do we stand? That is the exact reason I agreed to go on trial. To show I get results that are more positive than negative.
I've been acused of being everyone and the kitchen sink by Steve. Now im Pilot. Called a liar and fake. My goal is to prove im non of these things. Passionate and extremely enthusiastic about what I do yes.
July 2013 is the date I believe we turn a corner.
I want to add up something here. I feel that JL may be correct, as well. Let superman, speramus group, twisteruk and many others who are using it come up with their outcomes. PB is basically, "random vs random" and martingale clubbed. One may get more wins than losses for sure, if he enters random sessions. There are many guys who play martingale of 5 steps after getting 5-6 virtual losses on an EC and they do not lose ever. Unless a particular pattern (that has not come up yet)emerges in that very moment, he can't lose 7 units.
It is pertinent to mention here that a player playing PB may escape losing moments that comes up in data tests of a big data, while playing for real. Theoratically and mathematically no method can win but there are guys who are winning regularly from casino games for decades. I don't think that all who are winning with it or claiming to win with it are lying.
For the record, Superman is NOT playing any of JLs' methods, the only connection between JL and Superman are that Superman has loaned him his BV account
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 04, 2012, 04:12:42 PM
I want to add up something here. I feel that JL may be correct, as well. Let superman, speramus group, twisteruk and many others who are using it come up with their outcomes. PB is basically, "random vs random" and martingale clubbed. One may get more wins than losses for sure, if he enters random sessions. There are many guys who play martingale of 5 steps after getting 5-6 virtual losses on an EC and they do not lose ever. Unless a particular pattern (that has not come up yet)emerges in that very moment, he can't lose 7 units.
It is pertinent to mention here that a player playing PB may escape losing moments that comes up in data tests of a big data, while playing for real. Theoratically and mathematically no method can win but there are guys who are winning regularly from casino games for decades. I don't think that all who are winning with it or claiming to win with it are lying.
Good points Kingsroulette, if I wasn't winning with PB nobody wouldve ever heard of it.
And its because the majority who are mostly already jaded and indifferent to the chances of beating this game. Instantly go with the results of a simulated test, that I decided it was time to put myself on the line and show it can be done.
When a method doesn't work for me I will be the first person to say so. TRILOGY, VERTICAL 8 and THE MATRIX SLIDE all failed. I put my hands up. PATTERN BREAKER has been a success, and so has FIVE. 8 ON 1 is looking ridiculous. Like it doesn't know what losing is played H.A.R
I might report a loss in 2015. This is how I am. If it is really working I sing it from the rooftops. I am a positive thinker. I don't dwell on the negative. The reason I don't care too much for math, is I PERSONALY find it hinders creativity.
If we don't question anything, take the written word as the law of the land. We will sell ourselves short in my opinion. And end up just flowing with the masses. And their pessimistic view. Like Victor said we might die trying to find the HOLY ONE. But isn't it fun trying?
And some good methods will be forged along the way. There is no grail, but there are ways of getting the upper hand against this game. That's what I push.
There's always that ten ton gorilla in the room. You, or should I say pseudo you, always wins. Your claim is that for the past eight years you are always a winner. I wonder what happened to you that you have such a need for being approved? You are like the energizer bunny. You keep going and going.
I can't wait for your next grand achievements.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 04, 2012, 05:39:42 PM
There's always that ten ton gorilla in the room. You, or should I say pseudo you, always wins. Your claim is that for the past eight years you are always a winner. I wonder what happened to you that you have such a need for being approved? You are like the energizer bunny. You keep going and going.
I can't wait for your next grand achievements.
Gizmotron, I have been playing roulette for 19 years. I have been winning MOST OF THE TIME for 8. Why don't you ask me what happened in the first 11 years?
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 04, 2012, 05:42:37 PM
Gizmotron, I have been playing roulette for 19 years. I have been winning MOST OF THE TIME for 8. Why don't you ask me what happened in the first 11 years?
?
Don't feed the troll.
BASTA
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 04, 2012, 05:46:24 PM
?
I lost! I thought like everyone else, played like everyone else and lost like everyone else. Or I should say NEARLY everyone else. WHY DID THIS CHANGE?
I would like to add to the thread; For me, it's not about forming an opinion on anybody or the methods they play or the success claims they post. It seems that a great deal of energy is being spent on whether JL's claims are valid or not. And this is my opinion only, that when I see someone judging another person, regardless of the topic, they are not in any way defining that person, but rather they are defining themselves. And that's just more of an observation from me.
So when it comes to roulette, and all the claims by JL or anyone else, and the their methods, it makes no sense for me to debate about things I have no control over because there's nothing I can do about it anyways, and quite frankly, why should I even debate about things I do control? That activity of debating alone keeps my thinking immobilized and prevents me from reaching my ultimate goal of being a successful roulette player.
There are so many great methods out there and I play many of them every day, live at a casino, and I also just happend to play them Hit & Run style. It works for me, and it works within the framework of my current thinking.
Just a last observation: Everyone's post in this forum is valuable, -- not because anybody says so, or because they post successful results, not because they have been playing the game for 30 years, or because they are a math expert, and it's not because they claim they made a lot of money using their method or disclaiming another -- but it's because they decide to believe in a method that works for them and for no other reason than to believe in it! That in itself is the value for me and I take something away from it everytime. I enjoy JL's passion for the game as much as I enjoy observing the people who challenge him. So thank you to everyone for your contribution. You all have made me a better and much more successful roulette player :thumbsup:
Quote from: Chauncy47 on December 04, 2012, 06:29:56 PM
I would like to add to the thread; For me, it's not about forming an opinion on anybody or the methods they play or the success claims they post. It seems that a great deal of energy is being spent on whether JL's claims are valid or not. And this is my opinion only, that when I see someone judging another person, regardless of the topic, they are not in any way defining that person, but rather they are defining themselves. And that's just more of an observation from me.
So when it comes to roulette, and all the claims by JL or anyone else, and the their methods, it makes no sense for me to debate about things I have no control over because there's nothing I can do about it anyways, and quite frankly, why should I even debate about things I do control? That activity of debating alone keeps my thinking immobilized and prevents me from reaching my ultimate goal of being a successful roulette player.
There are so many great methods out there and I play many of them every day, live at a casino, and I also just happend to play them Hit & Run style. It works for me, and it works within the framework of my current thinking.
Just a last observation: Everyone's post in this forum is valuable, -- not because anybody says so, or because they post successful results, not because they have been playing the game for 30 years, or because they are a math expert, and it's not because they claim they made a lot of money using their method or disclaiming another -- but it's because they decide to believe in a method that works for them and for no other reason than to believe in it! That in itself is the value for me and I take something away from it everytime. I enjoy JL's passion for the game as much as I enjoy observing the people who challenge him. So thank you to everyone for your contribution. You all have made me a better and much more successful roulette player :thumbsup:
it's a challenge all around Chauncy47. 7 months from now everyone will know I am a man of my word. I intend to keep going to satisfy the likes of Robeenhutt (Matt) Who say hmm he can win for 1,000 games then he will lose it all.
No it has never worked like that. Im never giving it all back never ever. Random will grab, snatch at my bankroll and get a portion of that pot of gold. Then I will take it back with interest. There is no giving back, no collapse. If it takes ten years to prove this then ten years this will go on. I want the most diehard maths worshipper asking questions. Instead of sneering and saying math is the governor it never lies, it can't be overcome.
I am in no hurry. I am going to purposely test PADDYPOWER to breaking point. find out what their limit is before they close the door on me. That's how far I will take this. We are at the beginning of a very long journey that's going to absolutely revolutionize the thought process of alot of people.
Quote from: esoito on December 04, 2012, 12:17:37 AM
There's been too much negative posting thus far from those who seem to believe "there's my way and the wrong way".
If you know for a fact something doesn't work and say so,
how is that a negative post. It almost like people here want
to constantly discover gravity or the Martingale every other
day.
Punter A: Hey, I just found that if you double up after a loss
I always come out ahead!
Punter B: Yeah, Um, I discovered the hard way that doesn't
really work dude. Sorry.
Mod: Punter B, you are being banned for having a negative attitude.
How dare you kill the creativity of Punter A with your personal
claims. Just because you lost doesn't mean everybody
will lose. Take your horrible attitude somewhere else.
Ya know?
But as far as Punter A is concerned it works. He's happy. Until the bubble bursts.
Why burst it for him? (Or try to burst it for him?)
People seem to learn best when there's a bit of pain involved. Those are the lessons they really remember. >:D
Learning through experience... Can't beat it.
You can TELL Johnny 'til you're blue in the face not to do something because of the danger/risks involved.
But it's only when he finally cuts his finger, or discovers the water really IS hot , that he understands the message!
Punter A will be sooooo happy when the croupier tells him " that was you final bet, you have reached the Maximum of our table limits"
O LaLa-Land here we come.
Kumbaya .
Quote from: esoito on December 04, 2012, 11:42:08 PM
People seem to learn best when there's a bit of pain involved.
No, people learn best when they're showed the error
of their ways by those that have been there. That's
why there are textbooks and schools and tests
and diplomas. Just letting people flounder around on
their own until they learn the right way (when you can
show them they right way) is a colossal waste of time.
With that attitude nobody would ever learn to read or
write or do basic math.
After all that pontificating about "the bleedin obvious" a little clue was totally missed -- the little devil icon.
The Devil's Advocate is a useful device for drawing people out in discussions.
Quote from: esoito on December 05, 2012, 05:59:36 AM
After all that pontificating about "the bleedin obvious" a little clue was totally missed -- the little devil icon.
So you agree that if somebody posts a losing system, and
you can prove it loses, its far better just to show him the
error of his ways than let him go on for months thinking
he's really found something?
Depends on whether or not you perceive yourself as your 'brother's keeper'.
Sometimes it's best to let someone learn from their own mistakes (as long as it's not a life-threatening situation they're in)
Like I said -- painful lessons are generally the ones we tend not to forget.
Anyway, I'll leave you to continue to wander through the mulberry bushes if the fruit appeals that much to you.
Views have been civilly expressed and, for me, there the matter ends.
Edit: The word 'sometimes' has been clearly stated above. That means it's not an absolute statement.
Quote from: esoito on December 05, 2012, 10:20:55 PM
Sometimes it's best to let someone learn from their own mistakes (as long as it's not a life-threatening situation they're in)
Like I said -- painful lessons are generally the ones we tend not to forget.
I'm not understanding you. Why would you keep the truth a
secret? what's the point? that's how humanity has progressed,
we learn from the mistakes of those that came before us, because
they tell us about them. They say "Don't do that, it doesn't work,
and here's why." that's why every new generation doesn't have
to invent calculus and algebra, those who did invent it kindly showed
us what they did........
My humble view:
Sharing with a fellow human is an universally recognized value, but it stops at the toothbrush.
I think it's a matter of balance.
While I do agree we are moving forward by working upon other's previous work, it is undeniable there are some things that are irreplaceable as our personal experiences. Both 3rd-party knowledge and personal experience have a weight in our formation.
When dealing with gambling it is great to know the standard math of the game inside-out.
One must explore, be curious, and yes: make our own mistakes. Good thing is in gambling you don't need to lose your hard-earned money to learn from your own mistakes. If you are pragmatic and accept there's no difference in outcomes whether you are present or not, then you can accept trying out your ideas/methods on past actuals is just as valid as being there wagering.
Given people don't need to lose money to convince themselves about something working or not since that's what testing is there for, then there's no harm.
My advice is balance when dealing with this; Learn, use and enjoy the knowledge left by those before you, but also explore, make your own trials, get your own conclusions.
Quote from: spike on December 05, 2012, 08:49:21 PM
So you agree that if somebody posts a losing system, and
you can prove it loses, its far better just to show him the
error of his ways than let him go on for months thinking
he's really found something?
What sort of "proof" are we talking about here?
According to the standard math result, ALL systems are losing systems and there are NO loopholes (that includes ANY means by which you choose your bets; see impossibility of a gambling system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_system)). If that's your standard of proof, why single out a particular system for criticism? why should there not be a forum rule which says that no-one should be allowed to post any systems because it's been proved that they don't work?
According to the math, the search for a winning method of playing roulette is ultimately futile. On the other hand, if you insist that the game can be beaten, you are implicitly denying the math, so shouldn't you thereby forfeit the right to trash systems proposed by others?
If you've already thrown out the math, by what criteria do you judge a system to be a loser?
Keep in mind that "the math" is a STATISTICAL proof, meaning that, ON AVERAGE, the casino wins and the punters (taken as a GROUP), will lose. But statistics cannot say anything about an INDIVIDUAL case, measurement, data point or whatever, so some individual who plays a "losing" system may well win with it, for a time. You can't insist that anyone who posts positive results for a "losing" system must therefore be lying, any more than you can insist that a particular individual must be over 5 ft in height
merely because most people are over 5ft in height.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 04, 2012, 04:12:42 PM
I want to add up something here. I feel that JL may be correct, as well. Let superman, speramus group, twisteruk and many others who are using it come up with their outcomes. PB is basically, "random vs random" and martingale clubbed. One may get more wins than losses for sure, if he enters random sessions. There are many guys who play martingale of 5 steps after getting 5-6 virtual losses on an EC and they do not lose ever. Unless a particular pattern (that has not come up yet)emerges in that very moment, he can't lose 7 units.
It is pertinent to mention here that a player playing PB may escape losing moments that comes up in data tests of a big data, while playing for real. Theoratically and mathematically no method can win but there are guys who are winning regularly from casino games for decades. I don't think that all who are winning with it or claiming to win with it are lying.
Exactly, Bayes. I told the same thing. No one has right to prove or disprove any system. Those who are bashing it have not come up themselves with any winning idea. If there can be no winning idea and the guys who are sure of it, don't need to join this forum or any other forum.
Can Spike and Gizmo suggest an ambiguous and better approach to play that will give better results, in all sessions that PB can't? Mind it, I am not calling names or trying to defame anybody but to tell the truth. It is a hard fact that all of us are passengers of the same boat. If someone understand randomness or probability attached with this game, he will never claim that he has something that can work all the time or even most of the time.
It's funny, there seems to be an unwritten rule in these forums that you should be allowed to post any system you like, as long as you don't claim it wins. :P
Regarding esoito's first post:
QuoteNotice of Intent
So why shouldn't Moderators delete purely negative posts about others' ideas and methods, if those negative posts are NOT backed up by transparent,
verifiable test data?
On the flip side, shouldn't those who make
positive claims be prepared to back them up when challenged? If we're interested in the truth, and not just cleansing the forum of negativity, then why shouldn't mods delete purely POSITIVE posts about others' (and their own) ideas and methods, if those POSITIVE posts are NOT backed up by transparent, verifiable test data?
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 06, 2012, 09:29:52 AM
If someone understand randomness or probability attached with this game, he will never claim that he has something that can work all the time or even most of the time.
I am not a devout follower of John Patrick but he does repeat over and over in his books that gaining some experience and knowledge of the game can give you a 50/50 chance.
Heck, I wish I had a 50/50 chance when I first started playing roulette. :nod:
A system is merely someone's choice of playing anything. There can be no proof of its workability. I can see that there is a separate section in this forum, called "Test results" but most intelligent guys here, totally ignore that and keep on chit-chatting regarding one system with about half dozen topics, scattered all over the forum.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 06, 2012, 09:29:52 AM
Can Spike and Gizmo suggest an ambiguous and better approach to play that will give better results, in all sessions that PB can't? Mind it, I am not calling names or trying to defame anybody but to tell the truth. It is a hard fact that all of us are passengers of the same boat. If someone understand randomness or probability attached with this game, he will never claim that he has something that can work all the time or even most of the time.
Duh. Gee, I wonder. Ever heard of "educated guess" or "reading randomness?" Have ever noticed in the past six years of these topics that there has never been a shill to taught its grand achievements? System players and system searchers are still in their infancy periods. Like all apprenticeship upbringing, there always comes that rebellious period where teacher and student conflict. Yes, the apprentice must stub his toe or smash his finger. Still, you don't let an apprentice massacre a perfectly good pile of lumber. You can't ask an apprentice to get it right just because you hand them the blue prints. Its the same with Roulette and gambling. I don't need advice from a neophite pseudo expert on systems.
There's a thread on this forum that involves heavy lifting, experience, and the desire to deal with things that really work. When you are done with your fantasy, why not take a look. Sometimes there are those that actually try to help and raise the children.
With regards to winning every time you set out to win. It's so simple any unintelligent can do it. All it requires is basic tactical experience, the willingness to wait for the very best coincidental opportunities to come to you, and the nerve to attack the situation with an imbolden sense of skill. A well endowed bankroll helps too.
QuoteDuh. Gee, I wonder. Ever heard of "educated guess" or "reading randomness?" Have ever noticed in the past six years of these topics that there has never been a shill to taught its grand achievements? System players and system searchers are still in their infancy periods. Like all apprenticeship upbringing, there always comes that rebellious period where teacher and student conflict. Yes, the apprentice must stub his toe or smash his finger. Still, you don't let an apprentice massacre a perfectly good pile of lumber. You can't ask an apprentice to get it right just because you hand them the blue prints. Its the same with Roulette and gambling. I don't need advice from a neophite pseudo expert on systems.
There's a thread on this forum that involves heavy lifting, experience, and the desire to deal with things that really work. When you are done with your fantasy, why not take a look. Sometimes there are those that actually try to help and raise the children.
Nobody needs your page long tutorials over how to read pattern or recognize randomness because they are useless in real world. Can you please bother to mention a clean and unambiguous method that a person of ordinary world can think of playing? Come out with just one workable idea and let others post-mortem it with tests. You won't dare to show your expertise anywhere after that.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 06, 2012, 03:26:30 PM
Nobody needs your page long tutorials over how to read pattern or recognize randomness because they are useless in real world. Can you please bother to mention a clean and unambiguous method that a person of ordinary world can think of playing? Come out with just one workable idea and let others post-mortem it with tests. You won't dare to show your expertise anywhere after that.
Nice. Do you hold your breath if you don't get what you want?
Why don't you agree that you have nothing to offer? I challenge you to put a workable method here that wins more and loses less in long run. We can test it and everyone will accept your "out of the world capacity" to recognize randomness and beat the game. You can be a nice critique but not a randomness expert.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 06, 2012, 03:44:15 PM
Why don't you agree that you have nothing to offer? I challenge you to put a workable method here that wins more and loses less in long run. We can test it and everyone will accept your "out of the world capacity" to recognize randomness and beat the game. You can be a nice critique but not a randomness expert.
I have a much better idea. I'll post a working method to prove that most people are too lazy to work for it. Talent is usually the offspring of a lot of skill and practice. So thank you for confirming your desire to be persistent.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 06, 2012, 03:44:15 PM
Why don't you agree that you have nothing to offer? I challenge you to put a workable method here that wins more and loses less in long run. We can test it and everyone will accept your "out of the world capacity" to recognize randomness and beat the game. You can be a nice critique but not a randomness expert.
Gizmotron most certainly DOES HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER.
You obviously have not visited his section here: http://betselection.cc/gizmotron/ (//http://)
As a Moderator I suggest you do exactly that. AND that you then begin to work through what he is kindly offering there.
Only then can you form an opinion based on FACT, on experience, and not on ignorance.
I'll try to explain every concept until the communication process is understood and real examples are clearly identified and taught. In other words I don't want to fail at teaching this.
http://betselection.cc/gizmotron/ (http://betselection.cc/gizmotron/)
http://betselection.cc/meta-selection/the-simple-explanation-attacking-trends/ (http://betselection.cc/meta-selection/the-simple-explanation-attacking-trends/)