Quote from: james on June 10, 2018, 03:15:43 PM
Can you elucidate "Global Effect"? Can you illustrate the "occurrence of global effect" with an example of baccarat or roulette. I tried many search engines to know about "global effect", and I could not come with any answer. Perhaps this is a new Science that is being developed by you.

Well, it's sort of right underneath your nose:


https://betselection.cc/gizmotron/the-global-effect-what-is-it/

https://betselection.cc/gizmotron/proof-of-the-global-effect/

OMG, reading my old thread on the global effect I see that Xanadu is in fact Snowman from GG, and Dr Sir AA from another forum. He goes by several other names elsewhere too. Snowman is the destroyer of Gambler's Glen.


Cage that deplorable and keep him locked up. He has one obnoxious opinion that always runs and hides from real debate or contribution, no matter what forum he is on. He doesn't really want proof. He wants to Troll.

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 10, 2018, 04:58:16 PM
OMG, reading my old thread on the global effect I see that Xanadu is in fact Snowman from GG, and Dr Sir AA from another forum. He goes by several other names elsewhere too. Snowman is the destroyer of Gambler's Glen.

Cage that deplorable and keep him locked up. He has one obnoxious opinion that always runs and hides from real debate or contribution, no matter what forum he is on. He doesn't really want proof. He wants to Troll.

"In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea."

Such is the beginning to a wonderful poem by Coleridge.

You probably meant Xander, the author of a sunless sea of often derogatory and divisive one-liners.

Interesting info you provided about his/her/its various noms de plumes.

Yes, the troll is caged and contained for now.

But should it show up under yet another false flag  it will soon give itself away by its behaviour as you so accurately describe, and draw unto itself hot coals of consequence.

Rinse and repeat...rinse and repeat...   

As Hank Williams puts it: "Life gets tee-jus don't it?"

Quote from: owenslv on June 08, 2018, 03:07:36 AM
Hi Mike;

"Trends are meaningless in a random game, and can only be identified after the event. "

Of course you are technically correct, but practically in a random game like Baccarat, what else to do we have but past results to make an intelligent, informed guess ?

If you take for example a set of combination tables covering 8 ~ 12 hand, you will see it is more likely a trend will not continue than continue. However what constitutes a trend is very subjective, I would also lie to add, to bet for the continuous of something, is exactly the same as betting for something not to happen.

Quote from: owenslv on June 08, 2018, 03:07:36 AM
Mike, I also believe it is totally true that you can not predict with mathematical certainty the next event of a random game. However it is also true that the random game creates a series of outcomes that do arrange themselves in patterns which may be useful in bet selection.

Perfect predictions --NO. Helpful indicators -- PERHAPS.

in reality we only have to increase our bet selection process ever so little to become profitable and if random patterns can be utilized then it makes sense to use them, wouldn't you agree ? 

Not really, if it is not predicting with absolute certainty, then what is it achieving?  60/40, 55/45? that is not possible.  Only on very rare occasions have I throw in speculation bets, for example wierd shoes where there has been a strange abundance of a streak length, so I might bet that say the 10th streak of 3won't stop at 3, generally I try not to, but occasionally get sucked in when I once such thing.

Quote (Now if we could create a mathematical algorithm..)

Seriously? 

It already exists (honestly), it was posted on either the GG site or defunct Project Sydney forum by a fellow called Sam Redman.  The SO method it was called, it captures every possible trend a shoe throws up, it takes 1 or 2 hands before it self-adjusts to capture whatever the trend is, then you win everyhand so long as the trend continues.  Before you get overly excited, recap what I posted above, a trend is less likely to continue than continue.

Gentlemen, my 1cent,

In double dozens bet,
Bet last dozen and next dz to the right,
Eg,
Last =dz1, then bet dz1&2,
Last =dz2, bet dz2&3,
Last =dz 3, brt dz3&1, zero disregard, and unfortunate losses...


When you make a long history bet as a long 300spins, you will see long sequence of streaks,
The double hit will be as long as 20 to 30 hit continuos hit, or 30spin  with only few losses in between,
We can't predict, but we can see after long streaks of dd hit, then , the other side will hit too, thus after 300 ispins, the flatbet result, mostly always within math HE EXPECTATION. ...Try it, you may like it...

That selection, dd, a quite stable bet in long run, because, it not static, 66% minus HE, and always jumping around,  and mathboys can't dispute,
It always try to rtm, and with long variance occurance,  which the chart line move southeast in a  wave, thus 300 will result in 10+- losses, and 10000, 300+- losses flatbet...


We will see very long hits, an d long line of losses streaks, which  I believe this what GIZTMOTRON   found long ago...

The programmer savvy please do a few long testing chart, and we may see, since I a dummy here.
Thanks.

It's not programming, but I did program my student #1 in just three short weeks. He won 43 sessions and lost 9 for a win ratio of 4.77:1 . A player using my method needs to win 2.333 times to make up for any lost session, for it to reach balance at 2.333:1 . My student is getting better also. My second student is just starting to practice. He does not want to use the practice software so he is doing all this training the hard way. The more the three of us work on this the more we will know about the win to loss ratio as it pertains to money. If I lower the win ratio to 4:1 then I will win four sessions to every 1 lost session. This should completely destroy the fallacy (1:1) known as the accepted mathematical truth. The house's edge will be the end of that "flat world" thinking. 


In case you can't figure this out, my stop win goal is lower than my stop loss point.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 11, 2018, 02:58:20 PM
It's not programming, but I did program my student #1 in just three short weeks. He won 43 sessions and lost 9 for a win ratio of 4.77:1 . A player using my method needs to win 2.333 times to make up for any lost session, for it to reach balance at 2.333:1 . My student is getting better also. My second student is just starting to practice. He does not want to use the practice software so he is doing all this training the hard way. The more the three of us work on this the more we will know about the win to loss ratio as it pertains to money. If I lower the win ratio to 4:1 then I will win four sessions to every 1 lost session. This should completely destroy the fallacy (1:1) known as the accepted mathematical truth. The house's edge will be the end of that "flat world" thinking. 


In case you can't figure this out, my stop win goal is lower than my stop loss point.

Mark,

I am not discounting anything you said/say, same as w/Lugi and some others to a certain point.

I cannot and do not and never took the time to learn the math and conversion to figures/stats with wins and losses, etc.

I have attempted to described and detail out my effective wager selections NOT so much based on guessing and trends/patterns and other influences, etc., but on other things such as;  Money Management, my unique (1 + 4 Side Parlays) my positive progressions mixed along with flat betting, wins and pull downs or an outright press up for once or twice, etc. 

Attempting to only lose or risk some of the win capital or limit myself to a 'at risk' buy in, etc.  But of equal importance is the player's 'Level', 'Plateau', time management merged with his emotional, vision, focus and all of that.  Problems come about no matter whom you are with false perceptions of bank rolls, increasing wagers, that million dollar pot at the end of the rainbow most everyone thinks is there for the easy picking---just wager 4 to 8 shoes a day and make several easy thousand consistently, times 30 days and 12 months and BOOM, they are instant millionaires, etc.  That is what really hurts some of the best players and best thought out strategies, really. 

But, lots of the things you mention and Lugi mentions, I have Incorporated and have been or did, etc., with positive results.  Reference: 'Win to loss ratios',  and other things along those very lines interfaced with the extreme short term of taking advantage of the weak/strong/chop-chop/doubles/ with or against or whatever it might be that somehow fits into the balancing act and numbers of overall shoes.  The latter statement is the one members like Lugi, (the previous Xander-Soxfan and Jimske) will twist and turn and destroy and state that I stupidly attempt to read the trends and patterns and then wager for or against them.  And that is not exactly correct by any means. 

Just so people won't get confused here. I'm talking about sessions won or lost, not bets won or lost. I now play for short sessions where one good enough trend makes up a good session. I'm still swing trading the Roulette table. This is all about micro movements in small bites, like at a table for no more than an hour if you get into a war to win a session. And more often than not, a session is won with only 15 spins, where only five or six bets were placed on five or six spins of those 15. Most of the great players wait for that sequence where they can kill the casino with a monster trend. I know you advocate that Glen. So do other people here that play for favorable sequences and huge returns on the effort. For that you need to play for hours waiting for the hot spot to start.

Some of the things we are parallel exactly and some of the things we are not. In baccarat not talking about the roulette game in anyway,  but you can walk up to the table and you could could knock them dead, if it's already a third to two-thirds of the shoe out and you know a little history of that game you can do it in 5 to 10 to 15 hands  with a $300.00 to $1,000 on the buy in, for example.