@Six


Thanks for the comments. I am proposing to observe a sample of outcomes independently monitored comparing WF3 results against live dealer spin data and RNG sourced data. That will be interesting and I have suggested, if possible the sample size be at least say 50 games, preferably 100 games where a game will average most probably over 20 spins, being thus some 2000 spins.


I accept totally that in small samples such as this I may not notice any difference between sample A or B, but let us see anyway.


I do not doubt your personal success with the black box stuff and that is heartening, but I do not want to relinquish the opportunity to further experience live the really extreme events which can provide table maximum payouts for the opportunist, and those events to me are the consecutive spin repeats 4 or more.


Maybe it's a bit romantic and who knows after the early cluster experiences I will now have to wait and wait, but somehow I think not. The last four outcome was late last year so now due to experience more (lol).


I apologise to the original initiator of this thread for being rather off the main topic of the most interesting RWD and single target play which is a subject I would like to explore further as it potentially ( given careful pre-selection criteria) really is a most efficient bet. That in itself will be a source of debate.


I thought it opportune to discuss the random issues and am also reviewing a lot of the very interesting work from Gizmo, and a colleague Sqzbox.

@Xander


Thanks for your reply. My view now is that every little bit helps in the sum of knowledge and who am I to say one view is better than another. There seems to be a physical, material approach here and some observation of dealer behaviour/ attitude as well, both suggested by you with some analysis as well. I am also advocating working on all levels including some thinking and feeling. Yes emotions are important too you know as in anticipating success or failure with some intent. Some people behave like losers and some like winners, and of course it shows on the outer level in body language and in speech. Have a look at a recent film by Derren Brown in the UK on the Experiments, and how expectation can really dramatically impact results. It is quite a beautiful experiment the one set in the little town in Wales.

QuoteHave a look at a recent film by Derren Brown in the UK on the Experiments, and how expectation can really dramatically impact results. It is quite a beautiful experiment the one set in the little town in Wales. -XXVV

Report


XXVV,

Derren Brown is a fake.  Why would you cite him?  He's nothing more than a magician, and illusionist.  In a way, a huckster.



http://sabotagetimes.com/reportage/don't-believe-in-derren-brown/


Roulette is not a mental game.  Having a positive or negative attitude has no effect on the game whatsoever. 


-Xander

XXVV

I would love to discuss the logic or lack thereof concerning RWD's idea.  I have ratted out what he meant, I'm just not sure I agree with it. 

As to the experiment in Wales, I cannot find it.  Yes, I Googled!  Any link would be appreciated.  I find it hard that an expectation can affect the outcome of an experiment unless those with expectations are conducting said experiment.  Then the subconscious could rule a bit, no?

Sam

Xander


well....OPERA found a flaw in their technical setup....and neutrinos don't go faster than the universal speed limit (speed of light... as it is coined) so I won't hold my breath on casualty being reversed.


OPERA released the "bombshell" without full scrutiny.


You would get over excited I guess


As for Derren Brown, he isn't a fake. his an entertainer...an illusionist



(De Nero didn't turn round to camera during Raging Bull and say "Im only acting, you know")


Its like saying De Nero is a fake because he isn't really Jake LaMotta

QuoteAs for Derren Brown, he isn't a fake. his an entertainer...an illusionist-Turner

Well duh!   


That's my point.  (XXVV was pointing to his experiements, as though they had some kind of scientific merit.)

@Xander

In citing quantum mechanics and the uncertainty therein, you seem remarkably sure of certain points that you want to make, it is very amusing and inconsistent, in fact quite entertaining. Well done.

All my efforts are an ongoing experiment and I close no doors as, being the dark, that might be foolish.


On not such a lighter note....
In response to my mention of meditation ( do you know anything about this principle) you posted an image of one of the most offensive and dangerous individuals of his time who lived in Britain ( born 1875-1947). The image was so offensive it was taken down by the Moderator. The fellow you posted used meditation but he used it to harm others. Are you aware of this?


You would do well to conduct more research before making such fixed statements and illustrating your views with inappropriate material.

Sputnik,

Where does RWD's definition of a hot number come from? I mean originally was there anything to back it up or was it just observation? I suppose this theory could be tested quite easily to see if it has any merit at all.

Franky,

I played some airball a bit a while ago at one particular casino, but since then it got replaced with something else. I'm not sure if it's RNG or some live feed game, or in fact a different airball set up. I never bothered looking. Plus they moved all the terminals to another part of the floor. They were in a corner before near the TV, so I could play and watch tennis or football at the same time. Never had a problem with airball, didn't do that well against it to be honest. But usually I'd just put in whatever shrapnel I had in my pockets.

Never really had a problem with online RNGs, one or two suspicions maybe. But I would certainly avoid the RNG machines in casinos and bookies.

6

RWD decided a hot number was a hot number by his own research.  Whether it works or not, that is the question. 

I will be the first to admit, some of his writings fail to pass the smell test.  Then again, my nose may be to sensitive.  What interests me about Roy is--we're on a "first name" basis now--that I posted such an idea to his long before I ever heard of him.  Naturally, I'm looking for someone who thinks like I do.

Human, and all that.....

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on February 12, 2014, 02:56:53 PM
What interests me about Roy is--we're on a "first name" basis now--that I posted such an idea to his long before I ever heard of him.  Naturally, I'm looking for someone who thinks like I do.

Roy used to be a game show host! You can tell that reading his book.

[attachimg=1]

Not as smarmy as this guy however!

Cool tie 


I think we have to take his results in the book with a pinch of salt Sam.

This quote in his book is an example:

'With hot number play alone, you can expect, on the average - although not necessarily on any given day - to clear about $50 for every $3 the casino normally expects to take from you.'



I just couldn't get anywhere near the results he described.


cheers

Quote from: XXVV on February 11, 2014, 05:13:18 PM
be at least say 50 games, preferably 100 games where a game will average most probably over 20 spins, being thus some 2000 spins.

I doubt whether it would be enough to draw any satisfatory conclusions about any differences bwteen the origins. Besides, if you considered each game individually you would still have a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly between RNG and live anyway, regardless of how the results of the system test panned out.

I remember a member of an old forum called Mr Chips who tried something similar but honestly just gave up. In purely random and distribution terms, there really is probably no discernable difference. People only tend to talk about RNGs being different when they think they've been conned (which in some cases is probably true). But we also have to consider that an RNG delivers the outcomes much faster than a live dealer, which may account for some perceived unusual behaviour (faster and harder variance, for example).

Makes you wonder if such a test is worth it really, even merely from a research perspective.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on February 12, 2014, 02:56:53 PM
6

RWD decided a hot number was a hot number by his own research.  Whether it works or not, that is the question. 

Thanks, I wondered if there was anything more concrete to it than "experience", such as some mathematical support.

Randomness is a pretty good bamboozler. I doubt I'll give his hot number definition much credence. The problem is, it might have been hot then, doesn't mean it's hot when you start to bet on it. I'm not sure really why people aren't trying to predict new hot numbers instead of betting on old ones.

"and dive into real biased wheel play" >> If it was 1923, I might agree with you but not today.

Ken

Yes, it's definitely not for everyone, especially you Mr. J.  You should stick with your little systems.  And no, it's not 1923.

I don't play systems, I play methods. As for yourself, all you preach is THEORY, nothing more.

In your perfect world, B happens after A,
C happens after B etc., but in REAL WORLD CASINO SITUATIONS, your thoughts hold nothing but hot air.

Don't believe this guy fellas, he's leading you down a dark and lonely road. Try putting more than 9 hours into the STUDY of methods, you would be surprised what you MAY come up with.

Ken

Gambler's Fallacy is a TERM coined by UNSUCCESSFUL gamblers to validate their 
reasons for losing ! ! ! !

Ken