Quote from: Bayes on February 05, 2013, 07:11:37 AM
Gizmo,

Can you spell it out for us dumbos? 

I get the whole trend thing, and it's true that every big opportunity starts as a micro opportunity, but the problem is, why should the amount you lose while jumping on all all the micro opportunities be less than what you win when finally the big opportunity comes along? In other words, each false start eats into your bankroll, so you might be down 20 units before the winning run arrives. When it does arrive, will it be long enough to pay off your debts and make a profit? not in my experience trying this approach. But maybe I'm doing something wrong.

It makes the day, but all other "minor" losses before will often eat it. If you are lucky to be able to go to the table limit, and not lose before, you may have got a proper win, the chance that happen is small, but we can all be lucky. It has happen to me,it is rare cases. Positive is not worse than negative, the last gives win, small a lot of times, before it can all go, the first eats slowly your money, but can give a big win.  Somehow can a positive progression experience feel better, the smaller losses can be replaced over time week by week, the big loss feels something harder, a (large) bankroll in one or a few spins. Both ways can win or lose, in the longer run the loss is very likely.

Bayes & Ralph, I've tried to suggest that this is much easier the simpler it gets. The simple rule is this. You can't attack with big bets unless you already have that money to attack with. I have that money before I sit down. My entire strategy is to gain that position while at least staying even. I take the top bets knowing that it might fail. If it does I make smaller moves to get back to that positive position where I can attack. It's always a war to gain position. If I have some disastrous session I will have never allowed myself to lose past more than one attacking loss. I fight to get back position that matters. I hope you guys can see the difference between trying to get lucky and making your own luck. Wishful thinking is for suckers.

It is really easier to talk than do! Some talk some do!

Quote from: Ralph on February 05, 2013, 09:08:04 AM
It is really easier to talk than do! Some talk some do!

Well if you don't mind me saying, but you are the one talking about not being able to use trends. I don't see where that is my problem.

Quote from: Gizmotron on February 05, 2013, 09:13:43 AM
Well if you don't mind me saying, but you are the one talking about not being able to use trends. I don't see where that is my problem.

You may not see it. The game is a game of chance, denying the part of luck in success is GF, you do not need a brain to win, you have better use of luck. Trends is a creation of the mind not the wheel, and it is hard to make anyone understand that. It is in fact one of the properties of addiction to think anything else. You can use any but the worse methods and win. If it is a skill game, everbody will win after buying or finding the knowledge, and that is not the case.

Well one thing is easy to see. You are a waste of my time. I mean I'm incapable of teaching my methods. Spike would say there nothing to teach. He's right. He wants to expose me. He's the one with the most pathetic playing method. He's a recreation gambler with his pissant hit and get out, Barney Fife and his bullet, ride the tour bus, eat the buffet, talk like an expert, ride a white horse, lone ranger mylarky spoof - dog poop, tranvestite, lying dirt bag. You can have him.

Quote from: Gizmotron on February 05, 2013, 10:28:58 AM
I mean I'm incapable of teaching my methods. Spike would say there nothing to teach. He's right.

Giz,

Since when have you been incapable of teaching your methods? what do you mean by that? didn't you teach some people on the VLS forum a couple of years ago - and charged them for it?

Bayes, I consider you one of a very few on this website that are smart. But I realized that in just one example of attempting to teach that it is impossible to teach wisdom. I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but I don't seem to get across describing the process for limiting damage. I hinted at it for many years. I told everyone years ago to "test as you go." Back then I was cryptic about it. It means to test the waters as you go. If you understood this you would know that I would never stick around and allow myself to get 20 units down, as you suggest. I would like you to consider methods for mitigating damage. I know that I risk two units down when I attack. Now please hear this. I don't attack until I have that back. I never give up ground I have already won. It makes no sense to allow yourself to be dug into a great big hole.

I can't teach anything to people that can't get past this concept. It only took one basic example to find out why. Most people don't know how to control what happens to them. It's an eye opening experience. I can't imagine plodding along blindly, not knowing what to do, expecting wishful thinking to work for them. Until this phase is dealt with, nothing seems to matter.

Quote from: Gizmotron on February 05, 2013, 05:16:50 PM
Now please hear this. I don't attack until I have that back. I never give up ground I have already won. It makes no sense to allow yourself to be dug into a great big hole.

It's a good strategy, but sometimes it's tough, nay, impossible to avoid draw-downs, otherwise you wouldn't need a bankroll. Even if you have a true and significant advantage it can't be avoided. When you say "I don't attack until I have that back", does that mean you never raise your stakes until you're back at break-even? If that's the case, then it means you're relying on flat-betting at times, but if you can climb back when you need to by flat betting, why not do it all the time?

Like I said before. I have to place a bet on every spin. I have my small bankroll and my attacking bankroll. If the session looks like it will be easy then I use a regressive method  to get back in the game. That means I use a one quarter to one half value of my original losing bet to get a few wins. If that proves difficult then I'm out. I can stick around on minimum bets for hours. There's always huge opportunities lurking around. You just have to be prepared to take some educated risk. You don't have to take the elevator down.

Gizmo much respect.  You taught me alot about trends and for that im grateful.  Trends do have their place and they can be very effective.  My downfall was always staying even or getting into a hole and having a hard time getting out.  There is no doubt that you have the experience to use it effectively.

I've been doing something a little differently, instead of hopping on the trends, i play how i think a random stream might behave.  I know there are usually tons of singles, less doubles, even less triples, and hardly any quads or more.  I play for these times while also playing the streak or trend just as much as the anti-trend or anti-pattern.  Random does both equally, so i have to be on both sides, not just the trend. 

The law of series, and the amount of switching usually behaves in a typical fashion.  This is how i have come to understand random.

You see deeply into what's currently happening like I do. That's obviously beyond the scope of these basic discussions of randomness.You have learned to find your own way through it. I'm glad to hear you have found a way to make it work for you.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 31, 2013, 07:41:34 PM
Just for the record, there has never been a trigger based system that ever proved to be economically viable in the past 200 years of attempting to find one. All rule based systems encounter more sequences that kill them off than can be avoided by any known creative discovery.

You are sadly mistaken there buddy.
Some trigger based systems do have the potential to be economically viable, but as you say too many losing sequence kill them off.

The mistakes people make are to try and avoid the killer sequences, or try and push through with firebrand progressions, both are exercises in futility.

Well what if you can flat line all the killer sequences and let the winning sequences roll on unimpeded? This is similar to what you advise, bet small when things aren't clear and attack when they are. Well you can do this with triggers, absolutely.

That's what my trigger based system does very effectively. It doesn't lose much money but it does lose time. It can take a thousand spins or more to come through some bad dispersions, but it comes through will relatively small bankroll fluctuations or drawdowns. Then the profits roll in until the next flat line.

Think of trigger based systems like a game of snakes & ladders, now cut out all the snakes, lay them flat and paste them back on the board. That's how you make a trigger based system economically viable. It's not easy to do, and takes an enormous amount of calculation & configuring, but it can be done.

If you listen to yourself you will see that all you are suggesting is potential possibilities. To some of us that's the same as wishful thinking. If you have a trigger based system to try out then please start a thread. There might still be a few experts around here that might like to power simulate it. Thanks

Quote from: billion loudspeaker on February 14, 2013, 09:54:24 PM

You are sadly mistaken there buddy.
Some trigger based systems do have the potential to be economically viable, but as you say too many losing sequence kill them off.

The mistakes people make are to try and avoid the killer sequences, or try and push through with firebrand progressions, both are exercises in futility.

Well what if you can flat line all the killer sequences and let the winning sequences roll on unimpeded? This is similar to what you advise, bet small when things aren't clear and attack when they are. Well you can do this with triggers, absolutely.

That's what my trigger based system does very effectively. It doesn't lose much money but it does lose time. It can take a thousand spins or more to come through some bad dispersions, but it comes through will relatively small bankroll fluctuations or drawdowns. Then the profits roll in until the next flat line.

Think of trigger based systems like a game of snakes & ladders, now cut out all the snakes, lay them flat and paste them back on the board. That's how you make a trigger based system economically viable. It's not easy to do, and takes an enormous amount of calculation & configuring, but it can be done.

Quote from: Gizmotron on February 14, 2013, 11:31:31 PM
If you listen to yourself you will see that all you are suggesting is potential possibilities. To some of us that's the same as wishful thinking. If you have a trigger based system to try out then please start a thread. There might still be a few experts around here that might like to power simulate it. Thanks

Ok, I might just do that.

Thanks.