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 ]


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.     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?