BetSelection.cc

Please login or register.

Topic: Dr Blakey: The Basics  (Read 7451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Timbo111

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Dr Blakey: The Basics
« on: August 26, 2016, 03:58:38 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • Hello.

    This is my very first post on this fantastic forum!

    I am hugely interested in the work of Martin Blakey and have been very happy to see some positive discussions about his life.

    But there seems to be a vague understanding that his basic system - as outlined in his final book - needs tweeking and major overhauling. Jason Chan has been very generous with his time and thoughts and I have valued enormously his contribution. But he has left me doubting the wisdom of following the basic MB system.

    Am I right to be wary of his basic system? And could some one possibly agree with me that betting with delay - that is virtual betting - is of no value when every spin is independent?

    Thanks to whoever runs the site. And many thanks to the major contributors who have given me hours of entertaining reading and heady thought. The amount of effort put in to some of the posts beggars belief!

    Tim


    Offline Jake

    • Rising Member
    • **
    • Posts: 39
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #1 on: August 26, 2016, 04:31:41 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • And could some one possibly agree with me that betting with delay - that is virtual betting - is of no value when every spin is independent?

    Yes that's right. Virtual betting is of no use, although I'm sure some people will tell you different.  :o Do your own research and see for yourself if in doubt.

    Offline Timbo111

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 2
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #2 on: August 26, 2016, 05:20:36 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • Thanks Jake.

    The simple fact is that if you are prepared to accept each spin is an independent event - then it irrefutably means virtual betting is a waste of time.

    By "virtual betting" I mean watching the spins come in and then betting real money when you think the conditions are correct.

    A simple thought experiment will show this fact. Independent events mean virtual bets are a waste of time.

    This is one of the areas where I have struggled the most with the Dr Blakey book. I was one of the few who was lucky enough to communicate with the undeniably great man. Our emailing came to an end after I raised the subject of virtual betting but sadly I think that might be due to his ill health. He agreed that roulette spins are independent and yet his work is peppered with the thinking that a player should bet with delay.

    Under no circumstances am I denying the achievements of Dr Blakey or the value of his book which I am very fond of. He was a phenomenal gambler. I sincerely wish he had more kudos for his work.

    But I remain puzzled or uneasy about the importance of virtual betting being given by Dr Blakey et al. And wondered if anyone could help me and justify the use of betting with delay in the Blakey system?

    Tim

    Offline Gizmotron

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 1487
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #3 on: August 26, 2016, 05:57:14 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • I had to do some research on the method and found this defense of him:


    Quote
    "Through constant refining and development of this particular strategy Dr Blakey was able to achieve net gains by limiting his bank exposure, by timing his sessions within most effective constraints, and learning to accept appropriate profits when offered, and accepting loss when necessary, so as to mitigate damage. At other times gains could be accentuated through cool headed judgment."


    That and his technique was about going after 16 numbers to win. A 16 number betting system can be very powerful if you can stay remotely close to a 50% win rate.
    "...IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO BREAK THE LAW OF AVERAGES." 

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #4 on: August 27, 2016, 12:52:54 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Hello Tim.

    XXVV from sky city in auckland nz at this time and later from christchurch casino live.

    MB16 is being played here by me with success as this is a platform also for multiple vertical stacked selected additional bets.

    I have had enormous success this weekend in two casinos, over 20 sessions and at unit values ranging from $2.50 to $10.00

    I look forward to hearing more from you. Am a little puzzled why you are writing in my Blog space without any contact or approval from myself. Also why permit these silly comments from Jake without any answer?




    Offline Jake

    • Rising Member
    • **
    • Posts: 39
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #5 on: August 27, 2016, 04:56:20 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • @ Timbo111,

    I'm curious why you think Dr Blakey is a "great man" ?

    For someone with a PhD, I find it very surprising that he should fall for such an obvious fallacy like using virtual betting.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #6 on: August 28, 2016, 08:41:32 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • @ Jake

    You are posting within my Blog section and you are taking a position on 'Virtual' betting. Further you are sarcastic regarding the late Martin Blakey. Who are you and what right do have to comment idly on a man's professional life and reputation? Clearly you know very little of this subject or context. I have no time for individuals with opinions that have no respect or knowledge for the lifetime work of others, their  reputation, no understanding of the value of the context of my own writings, my threads that feature the work of Marin Blakey. Who are you to comment and pronounce such banal stereotype thinking. Go away and set up your own thread somewhere else. Your posts will be deleted within 24 hours from this location.


    Offline Jake

    • Rising Member
    • **
    • Posts: 39
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #7 on: August 28, 2016, 08:58:47 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • XXVV I wasn't intending to be sarcastic although you seem to have interpreted my post that way. Who am I to comment? Timbo111 asked about virtual betting and takes the same position as me regarding it.

    Quote
    The simple fact is that if you are prepared to accept each spin is an independent event - then it irrefutably means virtual betting is a waste of time.

    He says he is uneasy about Dr. Blakey's advice about virtual betting, and he is right to be. My comment was just that it seems odd for someone who is highly educated in mathematics to support the concept of virtual betting when simple probability tells you that it can have no effect in the game of roulette. I wasn't trying to imply that Dr Blakey's system is ineffective because I've never used it. Presumably Tim has, or maybe not.

    Do you agree that virtual betting has no effect? if yes, then what's your explanation of this particular aspect of Dr. Blakey's system?

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #8 on: August 28, 2016, 09:08:27 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • You need to rise above 'simple probability', and read the multiple examples I have given in my writings for the practical, empirically tested benefits of stop loss, virtual bets, and triggers to resume.

    I have no need to further discuss any of this material, as we have moved on beyond concrete linear 'simple probability' in practical play and application. Look at my example in the Time Theory thread where 'timing is everything'.

    I have not the time, inclination, or desire to go round in circles on elementary practical aspects of roulette play where an opinion is offered with no practical experience or understanding.

    This questioning is a step backward in my view and really you need to do some reading, research and practical play before you go any further.

    Offline Jake

    • Rising Member
    • **
    • Posts: 39
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #9 on: August 28, 2016, 11:20:06 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • I have not the time, inclination, or desire to go round in circles on elementary practical aspects of roulette play where an opinion is offered with no practical experience or understanding.

    With respect, it isn't my "opinion" that virtual betting is of no use. It follows necessarily from the fact that outcomes are independent. It's a matter of logic, not opinion. Any empirical tests will only confirm this.

    People are free to believe what they like of course.  :)

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #10 on: August 28, 2016, 08:12:49 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • Jake- out of courtesy I will  make one further comment to you as you appear to come from that concrete school of fixed limited views in black and white elementary mathematics. All this may be deleted shortly but one detail here as you indicate that every spin in roulette is independent.

    If you had done due diligence ( do you know what this means) before writing to me you would have seen in my writing on this roulette forum that of course every spin in roulette is independent. Of course it is. It is also connected to what has gone before and to what will follow. It is a complex matrix of linkages that is not at all understood or appreciated by most players.

    The closer to the present the more powerful the interaction, and cluster analysis is one way of interpreting this to your advantage if the player is able to 'read' the game, the flow, the short cycle nature of roulette. There are other ways also.

    What is important to me is that this is not theory - it is empirical based study and works to the player's advantage most of the time ( but not always). That is why I refer to win cycles and corrective cycles. My private bet developed over a 30 year time frame  works flat staking with a range of positive edge against the house, and can be operated in as many sets, or frames of reference as you might imagine. I have about 12, although in practical play with WF and MB16 I use 3 sets - this on 60 second time frames for rapid live roulette.

    MB 16 is a crude simple fixed bet that has no edge, but it has a use as a reader of the game flow, as to win or loss cycles. So I use it as a low level platform above which I superimpose, when I choose multiple further platforms. I do not use computer technology for this. I do this live at the wheel and after years of paper and card practice I now do it all mentally, ie invisibly to the casino.

    This has vast implications as no one can shut me down or pull the plug -lol.

    Also I lose sometimes and that keeps everyone happy, but how the scales are managed makes all the difference.

    I do not fight with casinos.  I like chatting to dealers and yesterday while playing at table limits toward the end of the session, I chided the dealer to acknowledge ( sometimes) my successful bets ( and not to comment other than constructively). All this was done with good grace and humour.

    Interestingly the session ended just as the dealer finished his shift.

    My play is not adversarial as it is my view that with such a belief and attitude from the player, this will bring about intensified repercussions sooner or later.

    I play with an attitude to the dealer and administration that we are 'all in the same boat'. I respect their needs and functions, and they should ( and do) mine. This works more than not. Just as with my returns. Of course the live casinos have aspects that can interfere with our intention and focus. However we just have to transcend that with good grace and good will. When you are winning the world does appear a happier and more co-operative place/ space.

    I have summarised my current attitude to play, and this has developed considerably over the past 2-3 years, and has now come into sharp focus with my current model of play. In my head it is all portable, flexible and adaptable.

    Jake, if you have understood 25% of what I have stated and are genuine in your enquiries, and not just another messenger from the Frozen Mathematics Police Department (FMPD), then this conversation can continue on another theme thread I will establish. If however it is just more of your same ( and I have noted your various remarks to Gizmo) in response, then this will be the end of our communication.

    Offline Gizmotron

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 1487
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #11 on: August 29, 2016, 12:07:32 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • delete it or not, it's a wonderful explanation of playing experience.
    "...IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO BREAK THE LAW OF AVERAGES." 

    Offline Jake

    • Rising Member
    • **
    • Posts: 39
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #12 on: August 29, 2016, 08:48:49 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • of course every spin in roulette is independent. Of course it is. It is also connected to what has gone before and to what will follow.

    XXVV, I don't think you understand what independence means. If you did, you wouldn't say that spins are connected in the next sentence. In what sense are they connected if they are also independent? These terms must have different meanings, otherwise you are simply contradicting yourself.

    Quote
    What is important to me is that this is not theory - it is empirical based study and works to the player's advantage most of the time ( but not always).

    If your empirical data is telling you that virtual bets make a difference then I suggest that you look more closely at your testing procedures and methodology. Perhaps you should present your findings in a statistics forum where you're more likely to get honest feedback.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #13 on: August 29, 2016, 07:22:30 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • XXVV, I don't think you understand what independence means. If you did, you wouldn't say that spins are connected in the next sentence. In what sense are they connected if they are also independent? These terms must have different meanings, otherwise you are simply contradicting yourself.

    If your empirical data is telling you that virtual bets make a difference then I suggest that you look more closely at your testing procedures and methodology. Perhaps you should present your findings in a statistics forum where you're more likely to get honest feedback.

    Jake - your response demonstrates you have no understanding at all of the full implications of what I have written on this forum over recent years. Further my own private professional bet to which I have referred many times, and from which I have shown many examples and illustrations in part, was itself first developed by a professional Statistician who was my mentor for several years - it was he who used stop loss and virtual betting with triggered re-starts with great success using aggressive short progressions. This approach I tuned to flat staking over a further ten year period.

    You were offered an opportunity to intelligently interact and discuss these ideas. You have chosen not to do so. Please do not post on this thread any further.

    Offline XXVV

    • Moderator
    • *****
    • Posts: 1694
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: Dr Blakey: The Basics
    « Reply #14 on: August 30, 2016, 05:00:14 am »
  • ReplyReply
  • Further to the comment on 'independence' in the context of the fixed views of Jake et al from the FMPD. Here is an outcome live from this morning's play at the boutique casino here in Christchurch.

    In this situation there was only one roulette table open at midday and this situation continued a further hour. During this time the same dealer was in place, and the casino was very quiet ( a tuesday lunchtime).

    I observed 23 spins overall but broke my play into three parts as after profit I use a proportion on nearby slot jackpots on a fishing excursion. This is part of my strategic play live in a casino. Short bursts of profitable activity ( where possible) are undertaken with the fishing for a jackpot ( or part thereof) using 'free money' being about 50% of roulette derived profit. Many times I have leveraged a payout in excess of the usual roulette profits through such strategic play. Of course in cold mathematical odds such activity would  have a probability expectation of loss. However my relatively consistent experience is that I am fortunate and have a feel for when payouts might be accessible, ie the slot may be in 'win mode' as opposed to the prolonged correction mode.

    As an aside I played a slot machine two nights ago and loaded $60 and emerged 20 minutes later with $1303 - no jackpot but an astonishing clustering of free games ( over 50 free games activated and all at increasing higher stakes). Why this machine? It felt lucky and co-operated within 2-3 minutes of my start. Yes I was fortunate. But this happens frequently and in some cycles I make more profit on slots than roulette because I seem to be attracted to payout potential machines and avoid or quickly stop play on cold machines.

    Others have noted this and this is a 'skill' I have sharpened through practice and is like a phenomenon noted in ' The Psychic Gambling Supersystem' by Sunil Padiyar, to which I referred two years ago.

    So today the 23 spins were broken into 12 spins, 5 spins, and 6 spins.

    The analogy is that these clusters of spin sequences are 'independent' yet 'inter-connected'.

    9
    29
    9
    9    hit WF
    27  hit
    33  hit
    17
    35  hit
    0    hit anchor bet
    0    hit
    15  hit
    11
    -----  pause ( no spins while I leave the table)

    0    hit WF
    1    hit
    12  hit
    25  hit
    10
    ----- pause (no spins while I leave the table)

    7
    35   hit
    18   hit
    32   hit
    27   hit
    33   hit

    -----  and cash up for the third time  ( note the 27-33 as earlier)

    This sequence made up of three parts are clearly interdependent/ overlapping as the clusters and continuities flow through to enable consistent profits throughout - the same pattern types throughout no doubt helped by the same lovely dealer.

    Profit +695 units through WF and private bet on three sets ( wheel set, finales set and street set).

    This is shown to illustrate how individual spins and individual sessions are linked and overlap in short cycle behaviour. as well as being of course independent spins. Of course they are linked. It is a time/space and emotional/psychic energy continuity.

    Those silly enough to maintain blinkers would not be able to take advantage of the opportunities presented in this remarkable  sequence. I view it as a gift, and I accepted it, with good grace and praise for the dealer, a lovely young Indian lady. Generalisations are dangerous and also inaccurate and flawed. Many times I have heard from some that 'Asian' dealers are much more inscrutable than 'European' dealers. Not so in my experience.

    By the way in this session the MB16 platform was in dormant mode and not played.

    Most of the hits were from signals presented by the sets for Wheel areas clusters and change, Finales clusters and change, and Streets clusters and change.

    I play for both continuity and change at differing times responding to short cycle behaviour.

    The FMPD seem to have missed all this inherent fertility/ abundance  in nature.