+ Register

[Steve H]

[Gizmotron]

Even Spike could confirm this, he has 72% prediction accuracy for EC's, the fact that he doesn't fully comprehend how he's achieving this it's irrelevant.
If he has some kind of psychic powers, like precognition for example, could probability condemn him too as a loser?!

We all know that he got caught in his wild claim and could never back down and admit it. That was the most telling of all. Math was never his strong point. He bragged about being a debating expert. The truth was never the point of his banter. He lived for the confrontation and in agitating others. You must know that. He's a classic Narcissist. Just look at the traits and look at his reactions to confrontations and crises that he created and fed on. He was there for one thing and one thing only, Narcissistic supply. All he needed was that 72%. When I did the one thing that he didn't approve of he turned on me to destroy me, a common reaction for a Narcissist. If you encounter him you need to know how to arm yourself. Look it up. You will see that I'm correct.

[greenguy]

Greenguy, hows it goin?

It's goin good, mate.

Basic computers have been studied by casinos, and even the basic ones are recognized as a threat. Why do you think they watch you closely if you bet late?

When I bet late I'm too busy to see who's watching.

No casino staff has ever evaluated my hybrid.  I have full control over it because I can see where it is being used, who is using it, the wheel, results etc. I see the live video feed always.

That's a very astute set up, and I'm not surprised to hear it. Nice effort Steve.

Anyway, the mk7 wheel model is exactly the same when the tests were done. It's still the huxley current model. Besides like i said, anyone can test for free. Do you really want to argue the point? Anyone can test easily with my permission 

No point in further discussion or arguing as this will all likely be deleted as off topic soon enough.

[greenguy]

Haha..how'd you find that? lol!

This is actually on topic, because this thread is about recognising trolls, and that's a troll pictured right there for easy identification.


Disclaimer: Any similarity between the inserted picture and the user's avatar is purely coincidental.

[Steve H]

Yes we had some fun times roadkill cactus

[Blue_Angel]

Yes we had some fun times roadkill cactus

Have you heard the other with the Bigfoot...?!

[greenguy]

We all know that he got caught in his wild claim and could never back down and admit it. That was the most telling of all. Math was never his strong point. He bragged about being a debating expert. The truth was never the point of his banter. He lived for the confrontation and in agitating others. You must know that. He's a classic Narcissist. Just look at the traits and look at his reactions to confrontations and crises that he created and fed on. He was there for one thing and one thing only, Narcissistic supply. All he needed was that 72%. When I did the one thing that he didn't approve of he turned on me to destroy me, a common reaction for a Narcissist. If you encounter him you need to know how to arm yourself. Look it up. You will see that I'm correct.

Awww, he wasn't all that bad. Never ripped me of nuffin'. Quite a lovable character after all's said.

[Blue_Angel]

Awww, he wasn't all that bad. Never ripped me of nuffin'. Quite a lovable character after all's said.

GG

Perhaps because he didn't have the chance to do otherwise.

I'm glad we are setting things straight, keep the ball rolling, or should I say spinning.

[TheLaw]

So as an example of a "review" or "testimonial" Steve posts links from 2008-09..........thank god computers haven't changed much since then.

As a counter argument to my point, I have also never seen any personal negative reviews of his hardware/software on any boards.

Finally, this idea that a NDA would hinder someone from reviewing hardware/software is ludicrous.........just give proof of purchase, and whether or not it worked as described.

Once again.......too much political maneuvering going on here to appear legit. Maybe it's really just bad optics............maybe.....

[greenguy]

Yes we had some fun times roadkill cactus

Yeah, pity you wiped me for pencil dick, of all people 

[Mike]

Now to your, so called scientific question. I'm sure once you get my answer you will ignore the fact that you ever asked it. In the game of Blackjack the cards are connected because the deck is reduced in size after each hand. This is known scientifically as variable change. There are less cards for the next hand, and the cards that are missing can be known if you pay attention to them as they are used. Some refer to this, clumsily, as the game having a memory.

Actually it's called sampling without replacement.

That brings us to the game of Roulette that does not throw out slots on the wheel after each spin. The mechanical random number generator has the same number of slots for each spin. It has the exact same odds for each spin.

Yes, this is called sampling with replacement. So far so good.

It's funny how independence minded neo-pseudo-scientists around here hang their hats on independence and then come right at everyone with the non-independence minded conglomeration of multiple events, spins, that are combined to form a notion of an iron clad probability declaration. How do you get to use combined spins to extort the existence of the long term odds if there is no such thing beyond independence?

This is where you go off the rails. No no no a thousand times no! Do you think it's only possible to calculate the probability of a sequence of outcomes only if each is not independent? How then would it be possible to come up with the binomial distribution which can tell you the chance of getting exactly, or at most/at least X wins in Y spins?

There is an analogous distribution for outcomes (like Blackjack) where outcomes are dependent. Whether outcomes are independent or not, the probability of a sequence of trials can be calculated, you just need to know the probability of success for a single outcome.

Because roulette is a 'sampling with replacement' type of game, it means the odds are FIXED. Therefore the chance of red after 20 blacks is the same as after one red. In doesn't mean you can't calculate the chance of 20 blacks in a row in advance. And just because you CAN do that doesn't give you the right to demand that suddenly the game is of the 'sampling without replacement' type.

If your argument is that independent events are the proof that Roulette spins are not connected, then why connect them to prove that the odds are connected? It's just a convenient argument when it suits you and is to be ignored when it does not, is that it?

I'm not 'connecting' them, you are. Gizmo, you really don't need to learn any probability theory to understand that spins aren't connected. In fact you've already acknowledged it. You know the difference between sampling with and without replacement. That's all you need to know. From that you can easily deduce that virtual bets and waiting for triggers is ineffective. If you deny it and say they ARE effective, on what basis are they effective? is there another kind of 'connection' we don't know about? and why doesn't it seem to hold whenever we do any empirical testing? No matter what fancy triggers and virtual bets you can come up with, the results will ALWAYS be as if none had been used. They make no difference. None, zilch, nada, rien, zip, diddlysquat.

[Mike]

We all know that he got caught in his wild claim and could never back down and admit it. That was the most telling of all. Math was never his strong point. He bragged about being a debating expert. The truth was never the point of his banter. He lived for the confrontation and in agitating others. You must know that. He's a classic Narcissist. Just look at the traits and look at his reactions to confrontations and crises that he created and fed on. He was there for one thing and one thing only, Narcissistic supply. All he needed was that 72%. When I did the one thing that he didn't approve of he turned on me to destroy me, a common reaction for a Narcissist. If you encounter him you need to know how to arm yourself. Look it up. You will see that I'm correct.

100% correct. Spike was just an attention junkie.

[Blue_Angel]

If you deny it and say they ARE effective, on what basis are they effective? is there another kind of 'connection' we don't know about? and why doesn't it seem to hold whenever we do any empirical testing?

Mike

On Law Of Thirds basis.
There are, the fact you are not aware of them doesn't equates with the fact that they don't exist.
Gravity existed long before humanity realized that we are not living at a flat planet, didn't need human's appreciation to faction.
Because you see only what you want to see, aka confirmation bias.
One day we'll eventually realize that there are much more to learn and embrace which, right now, are beyond our field of perception.
A theory's lifespan ends with the beginning of a new one, that's what history has taught us this far.
In other words, it's correct as long as we don't evolve our knowledge.

[Mike]

On Law Of Thirds basis.

I never understood why the law of the third gets the attention it does. There's nothing special about it, it's just a probability like any other and doesn't warrant the almost mystical status it has. It's something that's only ever talked about on roulette forums and perhaps online casino or systems sites, but no statistician or mathematician knows about it. Try bringing it up on any math forum and you'll draw a blank. Why do you think that is?

Any system based on the law of the third is also based on the usual fallacy.

http://onlineroulette.org.uk/systems/law-of-the-thirds/

So is this science or just gobbledeegook?

Well, the bottom line is that  the roulette wheel has no memory. And this system is hinting that the result of a spin is affected somehow by a historical event. So there is your big flaw. There are other "hot zone" strategies out there like the Quadrant roulette strategy, with which you will run in to the same problems.

The problem with these kinds of distribution modelling systems, is that they are modelling a group of spins (in this case 37) whereas you are betting on an individual spin. And therein lies the problem. If you were making a bet on whether 24 numbers would hit over the next 37 spins, then it has more legs.

Because you see only what you want to see, aka confirmation bias.

I'm glad you brought up the subject because it's exactly what system players aren't aware of. They ASSUME that their strategies have merit but never do any tests which disconfirm this assumption. That's confirmation bias. If they did they would realize the systems don't have any effect on their chances of winning.

It's not enough just to glibly state 'you only see what you want to see', and proving me wrong would be much more satisfying, wouldn't it?

Give me ANY system based on the law of the third and I'll show you it's no better than betting randomly.

[Mr J]

Who is this Ronjo anyway?

You have a ways to go kid.

Ken