Let's start with making Spike angry. That is the pivotal point in the past ten years. I decided to take people though my discoveries as a mentor and student experience. This was a threat to Spike, don't ask me why.
Spike is a classic Narcissist, a common personality disorder. His only purpose for being on the internet was to cause confrontation and to create crisis. He fed off of it. It was his Narcissistic supply. When I went against him he set out to destroy me. That's a classic Narcissistic reaction too.
He tried to tell the entire gambling forum world, wherever I was participating, that I only sucked up to him pretending to be a friend, and that I did it in the hopes that he would tell his secret to me. That was a delusion on his part. But that off the target thinking was also a classic part of him being Narcissistic.
So there is the before Spike's temper tantrum and the after it periods.
Before, there was GG, gamblers glen forum, a wild west town if there ever was one.
I created, shared openly, and defended several concepts there first.
1.) The Elegant Pattern
2.) My charting technique and the need for visual dexterity to see trends fast.
3.) A few common characteristics of trends.
4.) Posting first the actual quote phrase "Reading Randomness" taken from an email where Spike suggested a notion of reading the random. It was a sort of plagiarism that infuriated Spike. So it was a tool for me to turn the tables on him in times later. It worked too. My Cheese and Crackers days were all about Narcissistic supply. I tweaked him with the evidence that I was the first to coin the actual phrase. He's a child. He's a drama Queen. He's a rescuer. It's all there to see for yourself. He's such a needy personality. I wonder what that makes me. He was my only allies in the battle for educated guessing as an advantage to flat betting the even chance games.
5,) I shared the existence of the effectiveness state.
6.) I shared the existence of the Global Effect.
Then I came here and taught ten students at no destructive risk to the gambling community as a result.
I waited two years and then proceeded to publish here first the list of characteristics of randomness in the game of Roulette.
I went over the previously disclosed information that I already published elsewhere.
I created and gave out two charting programs that demonstrated my charting techniques.
I explained these concepts and openly and freely attempted to make it clear what I meant.
It's all here if you can put it together on your own.
Is Spike = General, Real, Caleb... etc?
Also, General, Real, Caleb is the same person as Xander.
Spike , for sure, is a different person from the above four personas.
The demand for a forum like this is shrinking due to the emerging group of " Arcade players " who are less interested in live table games..
To those cats table games are a No-No like a Cadillac ,a Lincoln Continental, or a Mercedes.
Therefore , having recognized this prevailing attitude I I have kept my contributions at any one forum to a minimum.
P.S. I do not give a rat`s taiol about the attitude expressed by Spike, Xabder etc. Controversy is what keeps a forum alive.
I have no issue with Spike, General or Gizmo. Years ago? Yes but its water under the bridge.
My advice.... F everyone else (lol). We all have our OWN ideas here. Do your OWN testing and don't look for approval from others. Post, don't post, so what?
Trial & error, I can't say it enough!!
Ken
Me too Ken, it's a waste of time arguing with the mathBoys.
You can make that amount or more per session instead of per student, anyway, it's your choice.
When you said what you left under our noses it was a deliberate mistake...people look but don't see...
Gizmotron has been a nice contributor, undoubtedly. He belongs to the genre of Bayes, another very valuable member here. I do not understand why everyone is attacking him without trying to understand what he is offering. Now, he has some takers of his methodology. They can vouch for him or against him, clarifying whether his claims are valid or not. Before the flying machine was invented, everybody was suspicious of that ever working in real. Physics existed before that too but none could prove that an aeroplane kind of thing will ever exist that can carry hundreds of people together thousands of miles in a few hours.
Those who are very sure that nothing can win in gambling should not be on gambling forums and try something else somewhere else. Maybe some day I and Gizmo work together bettering each other.
Quote from: Albalaha on September 04, 2016, 04:18:56 PM
Gizmotron has been a nice contributor, undoubtedly. He belongs to the genre of Bayes, another very valuable member here. I do not understand why everyone is attacking him without trying to understand what he is offering. Now, he has some takers of his methodology. They can vouch for him or against him, clarifying whether his claims are valid or not. Before the flying machine was invented, everybody was suspicious of that ever working in real. Physics existed before that too but none could prove that an aeroplane kind of thing will ever exist that can carry hundreds of people together thousands of miles in a few hours.
Those who are very sure that nothing can win in gambling should not be on gambling forums and try something else somewhere else. Maybe some day I and Gizmo work together bettering each other.
Thanks for that support Albalaha.
I'm working on the Ai project again after 2 - 1/2 days off of it.
Just posted at my school:
I've changed the way the computer sees the chart in the Ai project. It now sends the latest 30 spins as nine strings of delimited items:
o,o,X,X,o,o,X,X,o,o,o,X,o,o,X,o,o,o,X,o,o,o,X,o,o,o,o,o,o,o,
X,X,o,o,X,o,o,o,X,o,o,o,o,o,o,o,X,o,o,X,X,X,o,X,o,X,o,o,o,X,
o,o,o,o,o,X,o,o,o,X,X,o,X,o,o,o,o,X,o,o,o,o,o,o,X,o,X,X,X,o,
X,o,o,o,o,o,o,o,X,o,o,o,o,o,o,o,X,X,o,o,o,o,X,o,X,X,o,X,o,o,
o,o,o,X,o,X,o,X,o,o,o,X,o,o,o,o,o,o,o,X,X,o,o,X,o,o,o,o,o,X,
o,X,X,o,X,o,X,o,o,X,X,o,X,o,X,o,o,o,X,o,o,X,o,o,o,o,X,o,X,o,
X,o,o,o,o,o,o,o,X,X,o,X,o,X,o,X,o,X,o,o,X,o,X,o,o,o,o,X,X,o,
o,X,X,X,X,X,o,X,o,o,o,o,o,o,X,o,X,o,X,o,o,X,o,o,o,X,X,o,o,X,
o,o,o,o,o,o,X,o,o,o,X,o,X,o,o,o,o,o,o,X,o,o,o,X,X,o,o,o,o,o,
This way I solve the global effect and the local effect with the same data stream. As you might have figured out, I'm not programming it to watch the primes and the not primes.
Thanks for your reply.
I'm always looking to add to my knowledge but usually it's not possible for various reasons.
In order to get 1% to 2% valuable information, I've to weed out the 98% to 99%, unfortunately there are a lot of craps to weed out.
That's why I'm trying as much direct and straightforward as possible.
There are many things to see,check,do, but not so much time, if something has a bad ''face'' it doesn't take too long to show its ugly face, so I'm just moving on in order not to waste more time with methods which fail to live up to my high expectations.
You can't beat the math, so don't try to beat the math by using the math. There is no variable change in the game of Roulette. But conditional probability, a form of statistics, says that there are times that conventional probability does not run parallel with conditional probability at the same time. If you use "Coincidental Change" to process a conditional probability, then you have a value that can be discernible as a kind of situational awareness, much the same as the advantage in a game that does have a variable change like 21. The implication is that there must be a situational math based on the coincidences found in randomness.
Does that make this argument a chicken or the egg paradox? That remains to be seen until someone proves it, one way or the other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr_xWfThjJ0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr_xWfThjJ0)