+ Register

[spike]

Humans are linear thinkers, we tend to think in a straight
line. We even try to beat roulette that way, by reason and
logic. But random doesn't happen in a linear fashion, so it
can't be beat with linear thinking.

"Lateral thinking is solving problems through an indirect and
creative approach, using reasoning that is not immediately
obvious and involving ideas that may not be obtainable by
using only traditional step-by-step logic." Wiki

Using lateral thinking on random outcomes is a different
matter. It changes the game entirely. If you learn to teach
yourself how random 'thinks', you're then playing on its
level. It will never come down to where you are, you must
meet it on it own terms.

[The Crow]

There is another approach which does not entail linear thinking, which drives the math guys crazy, synchronistic events.

"Synchronicity refers to those random yet seemingly meaningful coincidences that enrich our lives, sometimes to our amazement, sometimes to our distress, and sometimes to our delight," a foreword by Alan Combs to Dr. Kirby Surprise's book called Synchronicity.

There are many roulette players who experience these events as they are deciding what numbers to choose. It's almost like they know what numbers are coming in. I'm sure at one point or another many have experienced such an event. You say to yourself, number seven is coming in and the dealer says no more bets. The number seven come in.

I believe lateral thinking combined with synchronistic events offers the roulette player an advantage over randomness.

TC

[Ralph]

There is another approach which does not entail linear thinking, which drives the math guys crazy, synchronistic events.

"Synchronicity refers to those random yet seemingly meaningful coincidences that enrich our lives, sometimes to our amazement, sometimes to our distress, and sometimes to our delight," a foreword by Alan Combs to Dr. Kirby Surprise's book called Synchronicity.

There are many roulette players who experience these events as they are deciding what numbers to choose. It's almost like they know what numbers are coming in. I'm sure at one point or another many have experienced such an event. You say to yourself, number seven is coming in and the dealer says no more bets. The number seven come in.

I believe lateral thinking combined with synchronistic events offers the roulette player an advantage over randomness.

TC

This guy on the picture was the "inventor" of Synchronicity, and roulette number streams are similar to this, but more in our minds than in the wheel.

[VLS]

Very interesting thread. Equating "roulette thinking" with linear thinking is certainly how the bulk of players tend to approach it.

X number spins Z

10 reds, it must spin Black now.

Linear Thinking
Definition: a process of thought following known cycles or step-by-step progression where a response to a step must be elicited before another step is taken.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linear+thinking

This is exactly how trigger-based games approach the numerical stream.

- This triggers that.
- That triggers such.
- Such triggers this again.

It is spot-on to think we must get out of stiff linear thinking as it has been proven not to work. In this case we could lean to be more like an "analytic engine".

I like the concept of "future modelling" since it equates what's happening to one of many possible models. Keeping it malleable. Switching models as reality approaches one with bigger accuracy.

This might be one way of leaving trigger-based methods, but -sadly- the Future Modelling field hasn't touched paths with gambling seriously enough in the academia. One might say because the odds are fixed and it is accepted everything which could have been said about a fixed-odds game is thought to have already been discovered/debated.

It's been used mostly in such scopes as the engineering and climate fields:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans#Future_modelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modeling_and_simulation#Academic_Modeling_and_Simulation_Programs

Of course, if we were to model possible futures for a random stream of roulette numbers, we would need to leave a number of possibilities out. More like matching a fraction of possible paths rather than the whole; if not due to the sheer amount of processing power required to account for all futures/paths, due to accounting for the nature of the game, where you can't eliminate with a 100% level of confidence the possibility of losing, you can only aim at increasing your chances to win.

[VLS]

Interesting application of future modelling at NATO:

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-073///MP-073-$$ALL.pdf

I like this "multi-path" approach with the concept of "Proximity" (as in how close the predicted result matches).

Of course, first impression is it can be used to model the physical device. Yet since we have a short-circuited scenario in the numerical game itself, proximity could possibly be related to the raw numerical value too. Or to pocket distance should we order the numbers on a disc and model that.

It's an open field at this stage.

[Razor]

Spike posted:
"""If you learn to teach
yourself how random 'thinks', you're then playing on its
level."""

The reason why no method-way-system has won randomness(game) so far, is because RANDOM DOES NOT THINK

If someone claims the opposite ,then he has to be a millionaire..

[The Crow]

Most roulette players lose often because of trigger based systems and progressions. When a set of numbers, say dozens, do not come in within the one of three average, a string of misses of 10 or more when chasing with a progression, will kill your bank roll.

However, using the same scenario one can implement random consciousness by simply choosing a different set of random dozens after three spins, while maintaining the chosen progression. What this does is prevents you from staying on a long bad streak. It actually increases you chances of winning, especially if the original dozen continues to stay on the missed streak. Instead of 37 numbers, you have 25 to choose from.

Stay in tune with your randomness and apply mathematical principles. Who made the rules that you cannot do both at the same time? I believe it moves toward proximity.

TC

[Bally6354]

One of the best books I have read is Edward De Bono's 'Parallel Thinking' (His whole collection is great reading material)

He suggests we shift from Socratic thinking - the search for truth- to De Bono thinking - design forward for value.

Those problems that can be solved by analysis have been solved. Now the rest can only be solved by 'design'.

Accept possibilities without judging and lay them down in parallel.

Accept both sides of a contradiction and lay them down in parallel.

Then design forwards from parallel possibilities.

My view is that our Western thinking system based on analysis, judgement and argument holds a lot of us back. It is evident reading the roulette forums that this is the case.

It's a bit of an old cliche but there is definately more than one way to skin a cat.

cheers

[spike]

Spike posted:
"""If you learn to teach
yourself how random 'thinks', you're then playing on its
level."""

The reason why no method-way-system has won randomness(game) so far, is because RANDOM DOES NOT THINK  

that's why I put thinks in quotes, to point out
that it doesn't 'think' in the way we're accustomed
to. A roulette wheel has intelligence in the same
way fine crystal will always ring with the same note
when struck. The science community even calls it
intelligence. There's a kind of intelligence behind
outcomes produced in roulette, but its not what
we're used to thinking of as 'intelligence'.

[spike]

It is spot-on to think we must get out of stiff linear thinking as it has been proven not to work.

Linear plotting gets you nowhere with random outcomes.
How could it when random doesn't happen in a linear fashion.
The one other person on this forum who might have beaten
roulette said to me the other day, you really can't talk about
how to beat roulette, its too difficult to describe. Its something
you do, not talk about. Like playing the piano.

[Razor]

Linear plotting gets you nowhere with random outcomes.
How could it when random doesn't happen in a linear fashion.
The one other person on this forum who might have beaten
roulette said to me the other day, you really can't talk about
how to beat roulette, its too difficult to describe. Its something
you do, not talk about. Like playing the piano.

When you play the piano,you know how you are playing it.
You just read the notes.

[spike]

When you play the piano,you know how you are playing it.
You just read the notes.

And when you play roulette, you read random. Same thing.

[Gizmotron]

And when you play roulette, you read random. Same thing.

Here we are again. You never describe the meaning. You never give examples. We know that it's just a guess. To read music notes, you have quarter notes, time signature, keys, all making up the characteristics making reading possible. There is a proper syntax that makes reading music possible. What is your syntax for regarding reading randomness, that makes that possible?

[spike]

What is your syntax for regarding reading randomness, that makes that possible?

Experience, its all about paying attention and just doing
it. Its all about breaking it down so it can be read.

I can't show you, I have a rule against wising up, well,
you know. I'm sure you understand..

[Gizmotron]

There's no evidence that you have anything. Even JohnLegend had the guts
to share what little he had. Claiming something, without backing it up, might
be considered a violation of the standards set forth in this forum's charter.