...nice to see that i could be of help to you too
Going into the study of CWB in the context of the Swiss Dreams, I am reminded of the words of CEH, also echoed by Razor, that it is not with mathematics or the study of odds that you will beat the game of roulette, despite how 'real' you consider that mathematics is. It requires instead a belief, a mental thought pattern, that enables insight through extended, almost obsessive observation.
5 years ago, studying the 'pigeon-hole' theory of CS1968, and then later the applications of 6thsense using penultimate pattern analysis, and various theories of the time, I did test several ideas on 100 spin samples, and in a few cases to 30 sessions.
The results were inconclusive. Sometimes they worked, sometimes not, and it showed a couple of realisations. One was that these were not CWB quality and did not enable 'stable' results to the standards as outlined by CEH. Also the short cycle nature of roulette was shown, just as Arvis had shown me, when he wrote after the fiasco of the scam.
When you look back over the years, and more so, the early years of the writings of CEH, the volume, the raving, the personal attacks and interactions on the various forums, were muddied and very unpleasant. Who would want to go through that all over again. And it seems that Razor did his own work under great pressure, with very little guidance, in order to finally access what he believed was possible.
If it were CEH alone, the whole caravan would be enough to discourage me. But through the writings of Razor, I sense more serious knowledge and application, yet of course even then wrapped in a personality that at times is opaque.
As earlier mentioned I have had the fortune to have at least two mentors in roulette, and those at a high level of professionalism and experience. That was a fantastic foundation for me. Nevertheless it took me a further ten years at least to see that one source had brilliance but no edge, and that the other had a different brilliance but with a hidden edge not comprehended or revealed fully. I found that by hard work, obsessive hours of study, and simply, flat staking, so that I now evaluate my own private bet as having an average +20% edge.
It uses cluster analysis, but at an elemental level of context, and at detail invisible to the mathematical posse that writes on Roulette30. It stands outside of their concrete criteria because in my game prior spins DO influence subsequent outcomes, and I could now never see it unfold in any other way. I have commented on this earlier saying spin outcomes are BOTH independent, and dependent. It depends what window you are looking through, ie what sets chosen to follow or through which to interpret the messages put out in the natural flow of roulette spin outcomes.
To my shock I see that CEH also refers to his 'cluster analysis' and yes it does involve very short cycle context in his work with EC's and DC's. It is a very different form of cluster analysis from mine.
Yet both require a different way of seeing the game, and this is the 'thought pattern' which he refers to.
I am prepared to change my mind, shift my views sometimes, as the result of fresh evidence, and I believe a CWB in the elegant form that CEH outlined ( but sometimes in not very elegant writing- but sometimes very condensed and brilliant writing - love the inconsistencies of human personalities and individualities). Like wise Razor. I believe he found a bet. Also such as Arvis who had such knowledge - I think he was independent of CEH and Simon ( but he also may have one and the same amongst the smoke and mirrors of the time).
The practice and ethical continuance of writing about a method, a professional bet, and providing hints, examples and results, is problematic.
From having seen several demonstrations from colleagues, and seeing my own results, partial success, and total success in some areas, I believe totally that several winning bets can be developed and that efficiency of those bets can be continually refined. The CWB that CEH refers to and Razor refers to appears to be a very compact and powerful tool.
Perhaps the owners wanted to share some of their knowledge for various reasons, some selfish but maybe some for greater good. Mixed signals alright, and offering a very very very complex path to an outstanding discovery that provides a level of freedom. ie financial freedom, to the owner. Fear of the loss of such freedom by a change in the rules of roulette may also be a concern if public knowledge and application of a particular bet method were made available. So maybe it is a very skewed and difficult balance but certainly the erratic and foggy communications with these brilliant minds - for they are brilliant although with issues-if the communication can be built on consistent logic and a structure assembled with the mists removed by near obsessive testing with a reasoned belief that the journey has a destination, then it is all worthwhile. But it will never be made public and easily accessible for that will defeat the whole purpose.
So, as we started, mathematics and study of odds, is really immaterial and needs to be set aside. You cannot beat the odds or change the odds. But you can beat the game by going inside, or taking another pathway to observe, as I have done with set cluster analysis.