Is there any difference? what does "reading random" and "educated guessing" mean anyway?
Spike said in another thread:
QuoteWhat are systems if not attempts to fool yourself
into thinking you have something when in reality
you have nothing. Or not much, anyway.
When I see the rules for a new system and it starts
with 'chart past spins', I say, yup. Then it says 'wait
for'.... As soon as I see the word 'wait', I know the
system won't work. There is no waiting with random
outcomes, either you know what's going on at any
specific time or you don't.
Waiting for conditions, waiting for triggers, waiting
for anything means your system is doomed. You have
to be able to look and what's unfolding and know what's
happening or you shouldn't be playing.
Practice is the only thing that lets you do this. Its oh
so much like going to a monastery to learn zen. The
teacher will tell you that he can't teach anybody anything,
all he can do is point. And the student has to do the work,
no shortcuts, they just waste your time.
Same for learning about the nature of random. Can't
be taught, only learned. If that sounds like mumbo jumbo,
oh well.
My response:
Ok, but if you're using past spins to make your bets then you must be using triggers, even if you're not waiting for them. SOMETHING in the past spins determines which way you bet; what's that if not a trigger? You can call it something else, but it's still a trigger. If you have enough triggers so that you can always make a bet without waiting, how is that different, essentially, from using a system where you DO wait for the trigger?
If you deny that you use triggers, then you're basically guessing - which means playing random against random, and you've already said that doesn't work. The fact that you use past spins means that there are triggers or indicators which guide your next bet. There's no way to avoid that conclusion without being inconsistent. If you think there is, I'd like to hear it.
Bayes,
My signature should be an answer to this. No offence meant.
Mod edit: "Nothing can perfectly beat a random session but luck. If someone claims perfection in every session, he is either a fool himself or think all to be fools."
KR,
None taken. So you mean it's ALL down to luck? Ok, but the point I'm trying make is that there isn't ultimately any difference between using systems and reading randomness. This is what emerges if you look more closely at what "reading randomness" means, at least, as far as I understand the term. Spike & Gizmo claim there IS a difference, and one that make the difference between winning and losing.
It's very simple for me. I take a complete proactive approach. Everything depends on the result of the next spin. It is the only way to determine effectiveness. A string of reds does not give you all the available information needed to make a really smart guess. There is always a context. There is the current state of the global effect and there is the current state of the effectiveness to consider on each bet. There is never a consideration to use a mindless simple rule or trigger. Everything you need to know comes from the single most recent spin. It tells you if anything, trend, context, or effectiveness has changed. In a way it's like considering the presence of many triggers at once and also considering the absence of many others at the same time. If I were to best describe this I would call it a decision. A decision is almost never mindless. In my opinion it's too complex to call this a complex set of rules. I also think that people that have not mastered the craft are going to struggle as they attempt to describe or even criticise it.
It's completely possible to deliberately win every session you attempt to play. All it takes is skill and perseverance based on experience. How can unskilled and inexperienced people to be fairly considered as fools? It could never be a real consideration.
Gizmo,
You say that 'everything you need to know comes from the single most recent spin' but also talk about context, trends and global effects, which suggests that it's not simply the last spin you're looking at?
I take it that by 'effectiveness' you mean the string of W/L as opposed to R/B (or whatever). So it means your results as opposed to what outcomes the wheel is producing. Does this effectiveness also have context and global effects which you take account of?
Quote from: Bayes on December 12, 2012, 03:46:01 PM
You say that 'everything you need to know comes from the single most recent spin' but also talk about context, trends and global effects, which suggests that it's not simply the last spin you're looking at?
It's actually very simple. After making a decision I place the bet. The next spin tells me if the conditions for bet selection continued and if the conditions for effectiveness continued. If both of those conditions continued then I would continue to bet the logical condition and trend or pattern.
Quote from: Bayes on December 12, 2012, 03:46:01 PM
I take it that by 'effectiveness' you mean the string of W/L as opposed to R/B (or whatever). So it means your results as opposed to what outcomes the wheel is producing. Does this effectiveness also have context and global effects which you take account of?
I can guarantee that you can have great trends or patterns to make choices with and you will have sessions that would have killed you. Like a string of straight down losses. You won't be able to avoid it. Now if you are prepared to deal with this when it happens then you can minimise your losses. Things will change. They always do. The effectiveness will move to one of the other two conditions. As far as a global effect for the effectiveness condition goes, you would be wise to consider session difficulty. Some sessions are so difficult that it takes forever to get a decently sized prize. With full knowledge that other sessions will allow you to kill the casino, why bother with the difficult ones.
Quote from: Bayes on December 12, 2012, 10:04:32 AM
SOMETHING in the past spins determines which way you bet;
Its like listening to music. Is the last note a trigger for the
future notes? When you listen, do you just hear the last
note? Your brain hears all the notes flowing together and
makes sense of them. The past notes make music what it
is, the past outcomes make roulette what it is. I don't see
any triggers, all I see is the flowing and changing of random
and from that I make educated guesses.
Quote from: Bayes on December 12, 2012, 12:21:18 PM
KR,
None taken. So you mean it's ALL down to luck? Ok, but the point I'm trying make is that there isn't ultimately any difference between using systems and reading randomness. This is what emerges if you look more closely at what "reading randomness" means, at least, as far as I understand the term. Spike & Gizmo claim there IS a difference, and one that make the difference between winning and losing.
It is. It is called game of chance and no one can make it a game of skill. A smart player can only take chances in smart manner like not playing martingale type of thing and stop loss and profit target etc. There can not be an "educated guess". This is the most uneducated way to handle randomness. You can ofcourse read the past but by no mean take any inference out of those regarding future.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 13, 2012, 03:27:20 AM
no one can make it a game of skill... There can not be an "educated guess"... This is the most uneducated way to handle randomness... You can of course read the past but by no mean take any inference out of those regarding future.
From your mouth to the casinos ear. If only everybody
had your attitude, I would be very happy. This fits
perfectly into my 'never wise up' philosophy. I love it. :applause:
QuoteIt's completely possible to deliberately win every session you attempt to play. All it takes is skill and perseverance based on experience.
This is the boldest stuff I can ever read or hear regarding a random game. These so called randomness experts claim to win every session. Joke of the millenium. :))
Everybody has got a right to speak and voice his opinions but this statement reminds me of Iceman/snowman........
He had "hidden maths" to handle randomness and here "educated guessing" is used.
In reality, all the "reading randomness" concept and "educated guessing" concept is as much a failure as any other random system is.
All these so- called great concepts can be made as a system and be tested by making a tracker. Are you ready Mr. Randomness expert?
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 13, 2012, 03:27:20 AM
It is. It is called game of chance and no one can make it a game of skill. A smart player can only take chances in smart manner like not playing martingale type of thing and stop loss and profit target etc. There can not be an "educated guess". This is the most uneducated way to handle randomness. You can ofcourse read the past but by no mean take any inference out of those regarding future.
How would you know? You have presented nothing. If you don't back it up with facts then this is nothing more than personal attacks.
My knowledge regarding roulette is a game of chance and one should not play martingale and use stop loss and win target is something that even the basic players know and no one can deny them.
But your out of the world claim:
QuoteIt's completely possible to deliberately win every session you attempt to play. All it takes is skill and perseverance based on experience.
requires to be proved.
Can you dare to have a test-ride upon a million spins or you will keep talking of your "hidden skills" only? Come up with a well defined approach/system that can be tested as winner or failure. All of us can then learn how far your "educated guessing" work over other known methods.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 13, 2012, 05:33:47 AM
Can you dare to have a test-ride upon a million spins or you will keep talking of your "hidden skills" only? Come up with a well defined approach/system that can be tested as winner or failure. All of us can then learn how far your "educated guessing" work over other known methods.
Hey. I don't think there is a single person here stopping you from testing it. I've pretty much given the entire thing away. Even of those that are attempting to learn this have expressed difficulties in understanding it. I've given a brief outline of information that took me years to perfect into a method. If you can't figure it out in a few hours that is not my problem. It takes years of real playing experience with real money on the line to grasp the importance of the experience needed to execute this properly. If that's to much of a demand on you and your followers that's not my fault. I didn't have to share this. Frankly, I'm only doing to prove that almost everyone will reject it
QuoteEven of those that are attempting to learn this have expressed difficulties in understanding it.
You may take it as a matter of pride but I think this is failure at your part or your concepts are vague and ambiguous.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 13, 2012, 05:04:14 AM
In reality, all the "reading randomness" concept and "educated guessing" concept is as much a failure as any other random system is.
Dude, as I said, music to my ears. If only you were a
casino consultant, it would be the icing on the cake.
If only every casino had your insight and clarity of
vision.. My hats off to you, sir..
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 13, 2012, 06:23:07 AM
I think this is failure at your part or your concepts are vague and ambiguous.
You say that like vague and ambiguous is a bad thing..
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 13, 2012, 06:23:07 AM
You may take it as a matter of pride but I think this is failure at your part or your concepts are vague and ambiguous.
Kingsroulette, it's a waste of time. They apparently know better than us. Yet will offer no clear cut model to test. Best to leave it.
KR, you seem to like monumental statements. So you should love this one. I'll be dead in a few years. I still enjoy going to the casinos. That charting program that I provided to anyone at this forum is about half way to being my validation of concept. When I turn that version loose I will notify the entire world of its existence. I will also notify everyone of my four favorite Roulette forums where I handed it out on a platter to people that clearly rejected it. Once that happens the proverbial s*** will hit the fan. My computer program will prove that negative outcome casino games can easily be mastered and beaten. You are now and will be then an insignificant contribution to best wisdom and sense of my effort to make things clear. Go ahead. Warn everyone that will listen to you. See if I care.
Quote from: spike on December 13, 2012, 06:27:40 AM
You say that like vague and ambiguous is a bad thing..
Really! I just helped spend six years being deliberately vague and ambiguous.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 13, 2012, 06:35:53 AM
Really! I just helped spend six years being deliberately vague and ambiguous.
Like I said, what makes anybody think it's a bad thing.
QuoteYou say that like vague and ambiguous is a bad thing..
No buddy. We expect these traits in so-called experts, because they are self-proclaimed experts.
QuoteGo ahead. Warn everyone that will listen to you. See if I care.
Nobody is caring for your "randomness reading" and "educated guessing" either because they can not be used for any gain in real world.
For those of you that might find anything remotely interesting in this thread, I intend to make educated guessing a mechanical based computer algorithm. When I came up with the list of attributes and characteristics it was easy to see that these could be used by a computer to isolate conditions. Then I upgraded the software to easily accept bets and to display telemetry. All that is left to do is put a layer for global effect and the effectiveness layer. All this can be programmed. And to make it as truthful as possible as a validation of concept, I've built it to use entered spins from any real source. I can't wait to put my brain in a hammock and let the slave do all the work. This should be a real interesting year. I get to write my entire bet selection process into a computer program.
Do that and thewold will see your expertise, if any.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 13, 2012, 06:45:50 AM
.We expect these traits in so-called experts, because they are self-proclaimed experts.
"Nothing can perfectly beat a random session but luck."
Translation:
You mean YOU can't beat a random session except thru luck. Please
don't apply what you do to me. You have no idea what I do when I
play roulette.. Thanks in advance.
Quote from: spike on December 12, 2012, 07:52:04 PM
Its like listening to music. Is the last note a trigger for the
future notes? When you listen, do you just hear the last
note? Your brain hears all the notes flowing together and
makes sense of them. The past notes make music what it
is, the past outcomes make roulette what it is. I don't see
any triggers, all I see is the flowing and changing of random
and from that I make educated guesses.
Well, yes, in a way the last note IS a trigger for the future notes. I sort of get the analogy and understand that you can look at past spins and see the "gestalt", as it were, but it's still a trigger in the sense that you need those past spins in order to make your best guess.
There's nothing wrong with vagueness and ambiguity per se, but it would be a problem (according to the rules of this forum) if you made big claims for a method described in those terms - which admittedly you haven't done, although both you & Gizmo imply that reading randomness/educated guessing is far superior to any mechanical system.
That's why I think it's a bit rich for you (both) to be on JL's case. He admits to hyping his systems, but IMO that's just his personality and it doesn't mean he's a scammer or has shills (where is the evidence for this?). He has given us something concrete which can be tested AND he's actually trying to show us that it's not all hot air.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 13, 2012, 07:05:30 AM
For those of you that might find anything remotely interesting in this thread, I intend to make educated guessing a mechanical based computer algorithm. When I came up with the list of attributes and characteristics it was easy to see that these could be used by a computer to isolate conditions. Then I upgraded the software to easily accept bets and to display telemetry. All that is left to do is put a layer for global effect and the effectiveness layer. All this can be programmed. And to make it as truthful as possible as a validation of concept, I've built it to use entered spins from any real source. I can't wait to put my brain in a hammock and let the slave do all the work. This should be a real interesting year. I get to write my entire bet selection process into a computer program.
Gizmo, good for you. I have the same intention but keep putting it off because it's a daunting task. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of educated guessing/reading randomness because I use a certain amount of intuition in my bet selections. But unlike Spike, I don't entirely agree that it can't be taught, or more specifically, programmed. FAR more complex "systems" have been successfully coded, models for weather prediction, for example.
Spike may verywell be right. I've done everything I can think of to teach this. There's only one thing that I haven't done. I have not done a step by step explanation of each bet, as it occurs. That is also a tedious use of my time. There might be two or three people here really interested. Anyone that learns this must bring their own acquired experiences to the process. There is no other way. All the computer program is going to do is start the mad scramble. It will be like opening a gate. The yes sign will go on. After the madness the story of how it was discussed openly for years will come out. That will be real interesting.
Quote from: Bayes on December 13, 2012, 09:54:48 AM
Gizmo, good for you. I have the same intention but keep putting it off because it's a daunting task. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of educated guessing/reading randomness because I use a certain amount of intuition in my bet selections. But unlike Spike, I don't entirely agree that it can't be taught, or more specifically, programmed. FAR more complex "systems" have been successfully coded, models for weather prediction, for example.
Hello Gizmotron,
This really sounds amazing!
Will your computer program be available in the new year?
Will it indicate when to place a bet or will it be able to place bets automatically?
Please give a heads up when it is ready.
Thanks
It will not operate as an online bot. It will show the next bets that it selects before the next spin is entered. It also runs in practice mode with a fair internal RNG based on the real layout of either the American Wheel or the European Wheel. I might put it out there where it will only run for one day. If it works I might hire an agent to sell it to several millionaires and billionaires. If you ever get your hands on it you will be just one of a throng stampeding towards the doors of every casino on planet earth. Just for the record. Its all there in my attacking trends thread. I will still answer questions. The human brain is for more powerful than a computer that only gets to make choices from the smaller list of possibilities. The task of pattern recognition is going to be difficult. Do I teach the computer to recognize any pattern or just a limited list of possibilities? This is going to be an interesting winter. I'm going to share customized functions that I create. Some here will find it interesting. I prefer my 4th generation language that looks like commentary and yet still compiles as a stand alone application. Even though it probably won't be a scripting language or a third gen language like C++,
... it will be easy for most programmers to pick up on what is happening.
Quote from: Bayes on December 13, 2012, 08:56:05 AM
it doesn't mean he's a scammer or has shills (where is the evidence for this?).
He admits to being Fender1000 and Fender had
more shills that could be counted. But you're
right, test his system till the cows come home,
idle hands and all that..
I don't use triggers. I have no idea what the next
outcome is, that's why I guess. Using triggers with
random outcomes is a disaster waiting to happen.
I grind. I play till I reach my goal and I leave. I
make the best guess I can on every spin and let
the chips fall where they may.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 13, 2012, 02:44:49 PM
Spike may very well be right. I've done everything I can think of to teach this.
I've asked you in the past, Gizmo, do not equate what
you do with what I do. I let you go on and on, implying
we have some kind of connection, but from what I've
seen we have none. 98% of the time I have no idea
what you're talking about. People constantly refer to
us like we're twins. We are not. that's all your doing, I
have never EVER said 'me and Gizmo this' or 'me and
Gizmo that'. Somewhere along the line you have learned
to talk and sound like me, but you don't have even the
vaguest idea what I do in roulette.
So people, if you think by listening to Gizmo, you're in some
way listening to me, don't be fooled. I don't have any idea
what he does or what he's talking about. All I know is that
when he enters challenges he fails miserably. That should
tell you something about how good his method is.
Quote from: spike on December 13, 2012, 08:11:00 PM
He admits to being Fender1000 and Fender had
more shills that could be counted. But you're
right, test his system till the cows come home,
idle hands and all that..
I don't use triggers. I have no idea what the next
outcome is, that's why I guess. Using triggers with
random outcomes is a disaster waiting to happen.
I grind. I play till I reach my goal and I leave. I
make the best guess I can on every spin and let
the chips fall where they may.
Spike would you care to name these so-called Shills?. Because this is news to me. If you are going to attempt to drag someones name through the mud. You need irrefutable PROOF. Not blind allegations AND fabrications. To support your wishful thinking.
You don't agree with my method of play as MANY don't. I can live with that. But that doesn't mean you have the right to make stuff up either.
Quote from: Bayes on December 13, 2012, 08:56:05 AM
Well, yes, in a way the last note IS a trigger for the future notes. I sort of get the analogy and understand that you can look at past spins and see the "gestalt", as it were, but it's still a trigger in the sense that you need those past spins in order to make your best guess.
I'm sorry, but no, that's not correct. There is no trigger, no 'aha!', I
have to bet such and such. Just because I need the past spins doesn't
mean a trigger is involved. If you think this can be programmed, you're
doing something vastly different than me. You have to teach yourself
to think randomly, that's what's happening. Its not 100% accurate, but
that's the beauty of gambling, you only have to be right more often than
wrong. If you can teach a computer to think in a random fashion, more
power to you.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 13, 2012, 08:28:48 PM
Spike would you care to name these so-called Shills?. Because this is news to me.
Uh Huh. Go here: http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=11347.msg100104;topicseen#msg100104 (http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=11347.msg100104;topicseen#msg100104)
As you can see, Steve erased most of the evidence when he
deleted Fender's and Fender's shills posts. But you know that,
don't you.
Quote from: spike on December 13, 2012, 08:41:30 PM
Uh Huh. Go here: http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=11347.msg100104;topicseen#msg100104 (http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=11347.msg100104;topicseen#msg100104)
As you can see, Steve erased most of the evidence when he
deleted Fender's and Fender's shills posts. But you know that,
don't you.
I know nothing because I never had any shills period. If you consider enthusiastic members shills then that's your mistake and problem. But not anything to do with me. Steve is Mr overeaction. And the first person who will be proven out of line and flawed in his beliefs next year.
Quote from: spike on December 13, 2012, 08:21:01 PM
I've asked you in the past, Gizmo, do not equate what
you do with what I do. I let you go on and on, implying
we have some kind of connection, but from what I've
seen we have none. 98% of the time I have no idea
what you're talking about.
YOUR POINT IS WELL MADE. You clearly have no idea what I mean when I say reading randomness. So why are you so upset. You don't own any rights to my work. You share almost nothing. You keep telling people that I fail in competitions and demonstrations. That's all you have. It's not enough as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 13, 2012, 09:03:11 PM
YOUR POINT IS WELL MADE. You clearly have no idea what I mean when I say reading randomness. So why are you so upset. You don't own any rights to my work. You share almost nothing. You keep telling people that I fail in competitions and demonstrations. That's all you have. It's not enough as far as I'm concerned.
John, keep out of the way, I think the 'Twins Coalition' is about to implode..! This is the most entertained I've been for weeks...
Spike, I believe it's your go..?
Quote from: topcat888 on December 14, 2012, 07:05:02 AM
John, keep out of the way, I think the 'Twins Coalition' is about to implode..! This is the most entertained I've been for weeks...
Spike, I believe it's your go..?
TC your are right.
Come on guys. Come out of these false ego clashes. Be it JL or spike or Gizmo, nobody has proved anything better than that hundreds of systems do. First come out with proof of your claims of any superiority, then boast.
Quote from: spike on December 13, 2012, 08:11:00 PM
I don't use triggers. I have no idea what the next
outcome is, that's why I guess. Using triggers with
random outcomes is a disaster waiting to happen.
Not necessarily. Only if you stubbornly persist when the results are suggesting that the trigger hasn't worked. The trigger is one thing, whether you play it out to the bitter end is another. Having constant awareness of what the wheel is giving you and making adjustments gives more reliable results than mindlessly plodding on in the face of adversity. You could think of it as using negative feedback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback):
QuoteNegative feedback occurs when the result of a process influences the operation of the process itself in such a way as to reduce changes. Negative feedback tends to make a system self-regulating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis); it can produce stability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability) and reduce the effect of fluctuations. Negative feedback loops where just the right amount of correction is applied in the most timely manner can be very stable, accurate, and responsive. Negative feedback is widely used in mechanical and electronic engineering, but it also occurs naturally within living organisms, and can be seen in many other fields from chemistry and economics to social behaviour and the climate.
How to learn about negative feedback the Redneck way:
Go into a biker bar, find the biggest, meanest S.O.B. in the place and go spit in his beer.
TCH
DISCLAIMER: THAT WAS HUMOR!! FOR GOD'S SAKE, DON'T DO IT!!
Quote from: TwoCatSam on December 14, 2012, 02:37:49 PM
How to learn about negative feedback the Redneck way:
Go into a biker bar, find the biggest, meanest S.O.B. in the place and go spit in his beer.
TCH
DISCLAIMER: THAT WAS HUMOR!! FOR GOD'S SAKE, DON'T DO IT!!
Worse steel the S.O.Bs Harley. Or do an Arnie T2 Style I want your boots your jacket and your motorcycle. Were talking murder she wrote.
I was in a bar in Texas a few years back. When about 25 hells angels came in. The nicest one looked like Chewbackas brother. Not to be messed with.
Quote from: Bayes on December 14, 2012, 09:36:57 AM
Not necessarily. Only if you stubbornly persist when the results are suggesting that the trigger hasn't worked.
The use of the term trigger defeats the explanation of what
random is. It traps you into thinking its something it isn't.
To deal with random effectively, you need to understand
it as well as possible, and that means not trying to make it
do things that aren't possible.
Quote from: spike on December 14, 2012, 10:40:15 PM
The use of the term trigger defeats the explanation of what
random is. It traps you into thinking its something it isn't.
To deal with random effectively, you need to understand
it as well as possible, and that means not trying to make it
do things that aren't possible.
To beat random you don't need it to do anything. You simply need it to be poor at doing something. And a TRIGGER is PURE GOLD when it comes to identifying the start of that.
Random has VIRTUAL LIMITS. Points it can not pass very often. FIND one of these virtual limits. And forge a PLAYABLE method around it. And the games beaten.
That's exactly what Ill prove by July. No mathematician, detractor or negative thinker will be able to refute this.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 14, 2012, 10:54:58 PM
To beat random you don't need it to do anything. You simply need it to be poor at doing something. And a TRIGGER is PURE GOLD when it comes to identifying the start of that.
Not suprizingly, I have no idea what this means. Does anybody?
"Random has VIRTUAL LIMITS. Points it can not pass very often."
Really? Name some limits. Go ahead, you can do it. Right?
"That's exactly what Ill prove by July."
that's what you said about The Zone, and we waited
and waited and we're still waiting. You have a track
record on predictions, you never make good on them.
Quote from: spike on December 14, 2012, 11:12:26 PM
Not suprizingly, I have no idea what this means. Does anybody?
"Random has VIRTUAL LIMITS. Points it can not pass very often."
Really? Name some limits. Go ahead, you can do it. Right?
"That's exactly what Ill prove by July."
that's what you said about The Zone, and we waited
and waited and we're still waiting. You have a track
record on predictions, you never make good on them.
I was never in a position to conduct a test for real money back then. I am now.
The zone was/is a good method that I will prove is profitable in time.
PATTERN BREAKER is very good. FIVE and 7 ON 1 semi grails. All will be proven money makers and roulette defeaters.
I am putting myself on the.line with real working methods. Can you do the same?
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 14, 2012, 11:24:36 PM
I am putting myself on the.line with real working methods. Can you do the same?
By making statements you can't back up? Why would I want to do that?
You just said "random has virtual limits". Like what? Name some
limits, explain what you mean. Why do so many people here love
to make statements they can't back up? They act offended when
you ask them to explain something.
Any statement I make here I will gladly explain till the cows come
home. I never make a statement I can't back up.
Quote from: spike on December 14, 2012, 11:39:52 PM
By making statements you can't back up? Why would I want to do that?
You just said "random has virtual limits". Like what? Name some
limits, explain what you mean. Why do so many people here love
to make statements they can't back up? They act offended when
you ask them to explain something.
Any statement I make here I will gladly explain till the cows come
home. I never make a statement I can't back up.
One of randoms VIRTUAL LIMITS. Is it struggles to keep a dozen under producing a 5 Gap I.E a dozen that hits sleeps for 4 spins then hits again or greater a 6 gap or more for more than 30 consecutive spins.
This is what 7 On 1 deals with. And played H.A.R you can win several thousand times to every loss. Making it a semi grail. Basically a.method that will always produce a profit.
I am not into endless theories, this will be proven beyond doubt. The play strategy coupled with H.A.R. Is a powerful pairing.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 14, 2012, 11:47:41 PM
One of randoms VIRTUAL LIMITS. I struggles to keep a dozen under producing a 5 Gap I.E a dozen that hits sleeps for 4 spins then hits again for more than 30 consecutive spins.
"I struggles to keep a dozen producing a 5 gap"
HUH? What on earth does this mean???
"a dozen that hits sleeps for 4 spins than hits again
for more than 30 spins"
And what the heck does THIS mean? Seriously, I
have no idea.
Quote from: spike on December 15, 2012, 12:04:46 AM
"I struggles to keep a dozen producing a 5 gap"
HUH? What on earth does this mean???
"a dozen that hits sleeps for 4 spins than hits again
for more than 30 spins"
And what the heck does THIS mean? Seriously, I
have no idea.
Example this is a 5 gap for DOZEN ONE---11--13--24--33--22--12.
That should be straight forward to understand.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 15, 2012, 12:10:30 AM
Example this is a 5 gap for DOZEN ONE---11--13--24--33--22--12.
A dozen doesn't hit for 5 spins and that's a virtual limit on
random outcomes? How so? Its just a dozen not hitting
for 5 spins, it doesn't mean anything.
How is it a limit on random?
Quote from: spike on December 15, 2012, 12:25:12 AM
A dozen doesn't hit for 5 spins and that's a virtual limit on
random outcomes? How so? Its just a dozen not hitting
for 5 spins, it doesn't mean anything.
How is it a limit on random?
What I am saying is go and see how many times you can count over 30 CONSECUTIVE SPINS. Without seeing a dozen produce a 5 gap or more.
7 ON 1 takes advantage of this weakness in random. You think you are the only person who knows anything about random behaviour. Think again. The difference is im not merely talking. This is going to be proven with real money.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 15, 2012, 12:31:29 AM
What I am saying is go and see how many times you can count over 30 CONSECUTIVE SPINS. Without seeing a dozen produce a 5 gap or more.
Let me get this straight. You think in every 30
spins, every dozen sleeps for at least 5 in a row.
Is that correct?
Quote from: spike on December 15, 2012, 12:38:04 AM
Let me get this straight. You think in every 30
spins, every dozen sleeps for at least 5 in a row.
Is that correct?
No to be precise as you will find out when Victor finishes the tracker/tester for 7 ON 1. RANDOM struggles to produce more than 3 or 4 gaps like this 1--23--32--27--3. Before it MUST then produce a gap like this 1--23--32--27--30--3 or more. It could on occasion total more than 30 spins because of repeaters and shorter gaps of 2 or three. But seven 4 gaps in a row playing H,A,R. Will be rare.
This is a by product of playing the ZONE for many years. I noticed that random simply cannot stay under 5 or more for too long. And played H.A.R its scarey. I might go years without loss.
For 7 ON 1 to lose random at the PRECISE time I decide to play a game. Has to show me seven 4 gaps without producing a 5 gap or more. And using H.A.R that's very, very, very hard to lose.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 15, 2012, 12:45:52 AM
RANDOM struggles to produce more than 3 or 4 gaps like this 1--23--32--27--3. Before it MUST then produce a gap
"Random struggles" and "it MUST". Random doesn't do anything
deterministically, it just is. There's a lot I could say at this point
about what you think you have and the amount of actual experience
behind it, but it would have the censors going berzerk, so I won't
bother.
You don't have to attempt to explain anything more, I now know exactly
where you're coming from.
Quote from: spike on December 15, 2012, 01:54:51 AM
"Random struggles" and "it MUST". Random doesn't do anything
deterministically, it just is. There's a lot I could say at this point
about what you think you have and the amount of actual experience
behind it, but it would have the censors going berzerk, so I won't
bother.
You don't have to attempt to explain anything more, I now know exactly
where you're coming from.
Spike no need to get excited. This is the point to be proven. You have your theory, I will have proof to support what I say.
And that's all there is to it.
"...but it would have the censors going berzerk..."
No chance of that. The affliction doesn't exist!
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 15, 2012, 02:58:29 AM
This is the point to be proven.
But you've already proven the point. You prove it every
time you try and explain it. Its just not the point you're
expecting, that's all. But it's a nice hobby, gives you
something to do. Kind of like a religion where people
wear those cool foil hats and they say things like
'This July, you'll see. You'll all see! You won't be laughing
at me then!"
I understand completely now..
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 15, 2012, 12:45:52 AM
No to be precise as you will find out when Victor finishes the tracker/tester for 7 ON 1. RANDOM struggles to produce more than 3 or 4 gaps like this 1--23--32--27--3. Before it MUST then produce a gap like this 1--23--32--27--30--3 or more. It could on occasion total more than 30 spins because of repeaters and shorter gaps of 2 or three. But seven 4 gaps in a row playing H,A,R. Will be rare.
This is a by product of playing the ZONE for many years. I noticed that random simply cannot stay under 5 or more for too long. And played H.A.R its scarey. I might go years without loss.
For 7 ON 1 to lose random at the PRECISE time I decide to play a game. Has to show me seven 4 gaps without producing a 5 gap or more. And using H.A.R that's very, very, very hard to lose.
There is already a tester for dozens made by Stef on other forum. It shows how often 4 gaps occur within randomly generated 500 spins. You can choose a single zero and no zero options. You just press F9. 7 gaps are rare but 3 gaps don't happen that often too. Its the line of thinking that its easier to win 3 step Marty after you saw 15 Reds in a row than right from the beginning. Yesterday for the first time i saw more than 20 pattern of EC's. Chops of R/B for 21 times in a row on BVNZ. And i won 10E on a first bet ;) Just a unintelligent luck.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 15, 2012, 05:17:37 AM
Just a unintelligent luck.
Just the nature of random outcomes.
Quote from: spike on December 14, 2012, 10:40:15 PM
The use of the term trigger defeats the explanation of what
random is. It traps you into thinking its something it isn't.
To deal with random effectively, you need to understand
it as well as possible, and that means not trying to make it
do things that aren't possible.
Spike, you seem to be undermining your own case here whether you realize it or not. You deny that random has limits, but winning consistently flat betting by looking at past spins necessarily entails that it does. If it was all chaos and no order, then you wouldn't be able to understand random at all and "not trying to make it do things that aren't possible" would be meaningless, because ANYTHING would be possible.