+ Register

[Gizmotron]

But it doesn't achieve a higher win rate than expected, or does it? If it does, you don't need a progression.

As far as you know. When it all becomes clear to you someday, please look back at your question.


Reading randomness produces a higher win rate than blind selection using random on random. So how do you know that a progression is not needed? Please remember, you don't believe in "any superior bet selection."

[Albalaha]

Anybody can see that sharp progressions and parlays are being used here and it is not flat betting, in any manner. I did beat entire zumma 1600 shoes with a 3 step parlay but that doesn't win in long run, as usual and ends with loss. Gizmo is using a hybrid parlay and not relying upon any bet selection to win flat. It is apparent. Any bet selection with inbuilt edge doesn't need to use any kind of progression.

[Jake]

Reading randomness produces a higher win rate than blind selection using random on random.

Ok, so what is your win rate betting on two dozens if it isn't 24/37?

[Gizmotron]

Ok, so what is your win rate betting on two dozens if it isn't 24/37?

In the long run, my win rate is, HAPPILY, at the expected 61% or 64% rate. But please consider this for a moment: This was my signature here for a while, "Probability never tells you when a trend will occur." I have become a scientist and researcher regarding identification of typical and not so typical trends. My experience is in turning any continuing recognizable phenomenon into opportunity based on nothing more than the natural tendencies found in coincidence. Reading randomness is a skill and an effective tool. When I see people ignore it I am forced to laugh at the total irony of it all. It's like watching people walk past bags of gold laying at their feet.


This is one person's definition of a genius: "Being a genius is nothing more than someone discovering something that has always been the truth." They just do it first and some people hang the label on them. I'm smarter than average but in no way a genius. Most of this is from first making mistakes. As a builder I get the notion of "form follows function." As a recording engineer and musician I get the notion of "less is more." As a professional gambler I get this notion too: "Bet big when you are doing well and bet small when you aren't."

[Jake]

In the long run, my win rate is, HAPPILY, at the expected 61% or 64% rate.

That's all anyone needs to know. What does reading random mean if it doesn't result in an improved win rate? Nothing, that's what. What good does spotting trends do you if you can't do any better than someone who is betting randomly? You're only "good" at spotting and following trends if the win rate is better than the expected win rate.

So it's as I suspected. Your so-called advantage has to do with the progression, not the bet selection.

[Gizmotron]

That's all anyone needs to know. What does reading random mean if it doesn't result in an improved win rate? Nothing, that's what. What good does spotting trends do you if you can't do any better than someone who is betting randomly? You're only "good" at spotting and following trends if the win rate is better than the expected win rate.

So it's as I suspected. Your so-called advantage has to do with the progression, not the bet selection.

Read this:

In the long run, my win rate is, HAPPILY, at the expected 61% or 64% rate.

In the short run my win rate is higher based on knowing when and where to place bets in the first place. You want a quantitative valuation that you can hang your hat on. BTW, that's confirmation bias that you are leaning on. It's the most common fallacy known to occur in doing research. Just because your brain is dedicated to understanding anything here by a win rate quotient, a predetermined conclusion I might add, you jump right to your conclusion like the man that first yelled Eureka!


It's not happening. Home-style don't play that.


Try to open your eyes and ears one time. Probability does not tell you when a trend will occur or for how long it will last. During those coincidental moments of opportunity, in the hands of a trained expert, you can outperform the statistical long termed average or expectation for a brief time if you select the correct bets. But YOU can't do that because you command the world and what you say goes as your current phase of awareness dictates.

[Jake]

In the short run my win rate is higher based on knowing when and where to place bets in the first place.

Gizmo, stop trying to pull a fast one. OBVIOUSLY, if you can CONSISTENTLY do well in the SHORT run then your long run win rate will be better than what's expected. If your win rate is as expected, as you admit, then the short runs in which you do better than average must be balanced by the sessions in which you do worse than expected. THAT MUST BE SO TO GET THE EXPECTED RATE.

You're trying to argue that  2 + 2 = 5. I don't think anyone's going to buy it. Please credit readers with some intelligence.

[Gizmotron]

Gizmo, stop trying to pull a fast one. OBVIOUSLY, if you can CONSISTENTLY do well in the SHORT run then your long run win rate will be better than what's expected. If your win rate is as expected, as you admit, then the short runs in which you do better than average must be balanced by the sessions in which you do worse than expected. THAT MUST BE SO TO GET THE EXPECTED RATE.

You're trying to argue that  2 + 2 = 5. I don't think anyone's going to buy it. Please credit readers with some intelligence.

I'm done trying to explain this to you. And to give you the credit that you are clearly asking for, what form of lower life intelligence could you agree best describes you? I don't want to insult you. So please consider something with a brain bigger than a peanut.


I can have an average win rate of 61% and still have a higher result average based on when I get my wins. Only you think that not changing your diapers for you means that I'm trying to be evasive. Listen bub, when I get my wins does not change the long term average but it definitely changes the outcome. Now please, use that 1 oz brain pan of a specimen of yours to see what I just said. ... and thank you for asking for credit regarding intelligence.

[Jake]

Gizmo, you haven't explained anything to me, it's me who's explained something to you, but you don't get it and seem to think that mere insults represent a counter-argument.

You're good at insults, but math? not so much. I'll try to explain it in simple terms so that you can understand. You're asserting that it's possible to win consistently in the short term and yet end up with the expected win rate of 24/37 = 0.6486 or 64.86% in the long term.

It's nonsense. Suppose you play 5 one hundred spin sessions and the number of wins is

67
66
72
70
68

So your average win rate over the 5 session is (67+66+68+72+70)/5 = 68.6% which is higher than 64.86%.

It's obviously the case that no matter how many short sessions you play, if in each of them your win rate is higher than the long term expected rate of 64.86%, then taking the average of them can't result in a win rate less than the lowest "score". A lot of short sessions add up to the long term, so your long term average must be at least as good as your worst short term score, which you say is better than the long term expected average according to probability.

Understand?

[Gizmotron]

Remedial arithmetic, gads. That takes the cake. "according to probability"


Let's try insults for door number three Bob.


I see by your avatar that you are the south end of a north bound steer. So that "NO" circle, is that to suggest that you want everyone to stay out of your south end?


I don't want to wise you up as another pest used to put it.


Please, keep up the good job of protecting us all.

[Jake]

Remedial arithmetic, gads.

Apparently not remedial enough. 

[Gizmotron]

But you haven't shown that they're linked at all. Sometimes clusters continue long enough for you to profit, sometimes they don't.  ...Unreal...

My goodness. Heresy from within your own world of real. You preach total disconnection from spin to spin and then you quantify and validate a notion of "clusters" in an argument to make some kind of convoluted impression. How convenient your world must be for you. I guess you are one of those young, propagandized, students that entered the first grade after 1980. These people are the rats in a maze experiment to cause a person to ignore objective critical thinking and to embrace subjective arguments. They have been classically trained to specifically ignore the truth, and that truth is just a tool to keep the establishment in power anyway. It's also refereed to as post modernism. You should attempt to redefine post modernism as an escape mechanism. Perform one of your pretzel logic back-flips for us.


Want to test to see if you are a trained tool? I Dare you to read "TELLING THE TRUTH" by Lynne Cheney


and then read: "The Velvet Monkey Wrench" by John Muir


Education in America has been hijacked to fulfill the purposes of 60's radicals that have pragmatically set out to overthrow the establishment by deliberately lying to it. They needed a generation that would be comfortable being lied to. You see, back in the late 60's these radicals discovered the teachings of a nineteenth century philosopher. He advocated that you could lie to a society in order to change it.


So I wonder if you are a classically trained tool. They took over from the first grade to undergraduate degree in the humanities departments of almost every school district and college in America.

[Gizmotron]

I'm glad to hear that there will be no selling allowed. But I think it's a mistake in what is supposed to be discussion forum for certain members to have their own little empires and the power to delete all posts that they don't agree with. I've never seen this on any other forum and it's weird.

It's one thing if you're trolling and abusing other members, in that case the admin should obviously be able to delete the offending posts, but deleting posts just because you disagree with someone goes against the spirit of what a forum should be about.

Try to look up the word obnoxious. Try to look in the mirror and see yourself in your command post uniform. Try to look up fundamentalism and don't leave out "Math Nazi." You think that we don't hear or can't hear your endless chanting, "Ze plane! Ze plane!" -- Tattoo; Fantasy Island. You represent a very small sect of society that thinks that a savior is needed in the world of poor delusional gamblers and so you are here to DRUM BEAT it into us like a traveling fundamentalist "Turn or Burn" preacher. We have seen your act. It's tired, there's absolutely nothing new, and actually, I doubt that anyone can hear you anyway.

[Jake]

My, you have been busy with copy & paste. Gizmo, try to stay on topic and come up with an actual argument or some data which proves that you win all your short sessions and yet still miraculously end up with a win rate right on expectation. You know, try to exercise a little of that critical thinking faculty you're recommending. You might have to brush up on some basics first though, so here's little reading for YOU.

We have seen your act. blah blah blah...

I love the way whenever someone's trying to put anyone else down, they invoke imaginary supporters, as if that actually means anything. I don't hear anyone else complaining about me, only complaining about you asking $200 for a roulette system. I don't blame you for being p*ssed off though, since I've already exposed your at best incompetence, and at worst lies. Your days as a seller are numbered buddy, better join some more forums if you want to pay the bills.

[Gizmotron]

My, you have been busy with copy & paste. Gizmo, try to stay on topic and come up with an actual argument or some data which proves that you win all your short sessions and yet still miraculously end up with a win rate right on expectation. You know, try to exercise a little of that critical thinking faculty you're recommending. You might have to brush up on some basics first though, so here's little reading for YOU.

OK, time to crack that thick bone located just above your neck and to let something in. This is a test of your intelligence. If I add up all the spins that I placed bets on, as if I were keeping track of every win and every loss, they would average out at 61% wins and 39% losses, as expected for the double zero American wheel. Are you with me so far?


I'm trying to example to you, per your request, showing you how I win more money by winning at moments that represent to me opportunity. And in actual practice and real play, they actually exist. At 61% vs 39% and flat betting I would expect to lose at the House's Edge rate. And that is what you are insisting must happen. Only I have been saying for years to bet bigger when you are doing good and bet smaller when you aren't. Once again your opinion being that I can't know when I'm doing good, or bad I guess for that matter. So, until you acknowledge that I can tell when I'm doing good and conversely bad, I can't reach you as a fellow human being on this planet.

I love the way whenever someone's trying to put anyone else down, they invoke imaginary supporters, as if that actually means anything. I don't hear anyone else complaining about me, only complaining about you asking $200 for a roulette system. I don't blame you for being p*ssed off though, since I've already exposed your at best incompetence, and at worst lies. Your days as a seller are numbered buddy, better join some more forums if you want to pay the bills.

Talk about imaginary supporters, do you ever bother to meet with yourself and do a check of what's real? I'm not " p*ssed off" as you just put it. I'm the happy owner of a successful online school with happy students. I could ask $20,000 and get it if I could close every sale in escrow after proving it works. But I had a far better idea. BTW, I've earned my $200 per student. I've spent far less time on these students than I did with the first ten at $500 each. My better idea is to, almost for free considering what it is worth, to give it away slowly. It's against everything human nature traps all of us into dealing with, unless you happen to be one of the captives set free. You see, I've looked into the mirror and checked with what is real. I'm giving away something that really works for what amounts to not much more than the price of two aggressive bets.


Now let's see how you do with that. You have been told what you have clearly asked for. It's a mathematical explanation that clears it all up. If this continues to go on as some kind of begging for the big secret then you will have to find someone else to give you your answers.