Xander....
This is my point about your approach. You assume I haven't read the history of roulette. I may of done. How would you know.
You think you know because it appears to you that I don't share your view that you fomulated from it.

The moon was an anallogy for opinion.

The point was this.

I believe man landed on the moon. that's BELIEVE. Only 12 men actually know if we did.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 01, 2014, 06:22:36 AM
If PP exists, then I should be able to have an idea at one table, and walk to another and continue my PP.


........very interesting!

Hello Sam,

consider this.....

[attachimg=1]

Let's take the first 37 consecutive numbers.

19
15
5
5
26
29
26
27
30
31
11
20
16
27
35
2
17
25
20
14
35
4
31
23
14
3
0
12
28
35
29
36
34
36
12
23
34

There are 25/37 original numbers in that lot.

Now let's start at the top and skip a spin every time.....

19
5
26
26
30
11
16
35
17
20
35
31
14
0
28
29
34
12
34
3
36
8
36
19
26
10
3
8
6
24
28
5
21
35
15
34
14

There are 24/37 original numbers in that lot.

Now suppose you were sitting at the bar in a casino enjoying a rum and coke and I came up and showed you the two cards from above.

Would you be able to tell me which card was showing consecutive spins and which card was showing every second spin?

Of course not!!

You can take every second spin, every fifth spin....it makes no difference.

How can it help?

It allows you to play several strategies at the same time and not to be under pressure by the dealer spinning so fast that you end up making costly mistakes.

cheers

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 01, 2014, 06:22:36 AM
If PP exists, then I should be able to have an idea at one table, and walk to another and continue my PP.


........very interesting!

You are right there Sam.  This is based on my observations for over a month.  The funny thing is my observations started from one of your beliefs that past spins influence future ones like voodoo.  And also on your question on two eyes on the marquee. After seeing those comments I wanted to see that happening myself.  And yes it is voodoo.  It happens. But at the Same time realized it is not the spins on the table, but it is the spins that you observe or take into consideration.

I found it working even if I randomly pick up some 20 spins from random.org and go to a casino and start playing my betselection based on the 20 numbers right from the first spin when I reach the casino. One of those things that has completely changed my perspective and I should thank you for igniting this thought process.  Random is really very confusing. 

Quote from: Pockets on January 01, 2014, 02:14:32 PM
You are right there Sam.  This is based on my observations for over a month.  The funny thing is my observations started from one of your beliefs that past spins influence future ones like voodoo.  And also on your question on two eyes on the marquee. After seeing those comments I wanted to see that happening myself.  And yes it is voodoo.  It happens. But at the Same time realized it is not the spins on the table, but it is the spins that you observe or take into consideration.

I found it working even if I randomly pick up some 20 spins from random.org and go to a casino and start playing my betselection based on the 20 numbers right from the first spin when I reach the casino. One of those things that has completely changed my perspective and I should thank you for igniting this thought process.  Random is really very confusing.

See....this is where Im not sure about no.6 view that PP doest exist until you bet on it. I played with this....and I can discuss my findings in detail....but conclude that you can't  make a bet based on anything...because there isn't anything yet as you haven't placed a bet. You would have to min.bet a random number while you built up a PP.
No.6 may be right....but it's a death knell for any initial idea as you sit at the table

Regarding Turner's "personal permanence" and a little different view:

Playing the game changes the game.

Contrary to what many people believe, the numbers that hit are not predetermined and laid out to infinity.  This means that if you're away from the table when your number hits, that the same number may not have hit had you stayed and played. 

Here's why:

Had to you stayed and played, the dealer would have had to wait for you to place your bet.  This means that the rotor may have slowed down a little bit more than it would have - had you remained away from the wheel.  It could be that the dealer sped the wheel up in order to accommodate the extra time that he felt was needed for all of the players to place bets.  Regardless, there are several different things that can affect the outcome of the game.  Your very presence at the table just happens to be one of them. 

The same thing applies to when you forget to bet one of your numbers.  Had you remembered to place a bet on the missed number, then the outcome could have been different, based on the reasons described above, and many other factors. Even if you're watching the game, you're still having a possible effect on the outcome of the game.

In short, observing, and playing the game, changes the outcome of the game.  So get up and hit the restroom when you've got to go.  Take a dinner break if you're hungry.  And lastly, don't fret if you forgot to bet one of your numbers.

-Xander

Quote from: Xander on January 01, 2014, 06:35:25 PM
Regarding Turner's "personal permanence" and a little different view.............................

...............Contrary to what many people believe, the numbers that hit are not predetermined and laid out to infinity.  This means that if you're away from the table when your number hits, that the same number may not have hit had you stayed and played.  -Xander

perfectly acceptable thought

"Even if you're watching the game, you're still having a possible effect on the outcome of the game.", said -Xander.  (Sam's red)

-Xander

How do you calculate this?  What if you were watching on the internet as I do at Dublin?  Do I effect the spun number?  What if I'm in the casino and am fifty feet from the dealer and she does not know I'm watching?  Do I effect the game.

What if I'm trying to run my hand up her skirt?  What would the effect of that be?

Sam

-Xander

QuoteHow do you calculate this?-Twocat

We measure and calculate the "wavefunction collapse" using a new theoretical framework, called quantum decoherence.   Decoherence correctly predicts the form and probability distribution of the final eigenstates, and explains the apparent randomness of the choice of final state in terms of einselection.j  Duh! 

QuoteWhat if you were watching on the internet as I do at Dublin?  Do I effect the spun number? -Twocat

No.

QuoteWhat if I'm in the casino and am fifty feet from the dealer and she does not know I'm watching?  Do I effect the game.-Twocat

No, doubt it.  But if people at the table see you, then they could be distracted by your presence. If you distract them, then they may take longer to bet.  If they take longer to bet, then the wheel will slow down more than it would have.  This means that a different number may be below the ball when it drops.  Or, the dealer may have to speed the wheel up to account for the slow bettors, again causing a different number to possibly be below the ball when it drops.

QuoteWhat if I'm trying to run my hand up her skirt?  What would the effect of that be?-Twocat

Disillusionment, bewilderment, and despair.  As you would likely be beaten, banned, then arrested, prosecuted, and jailed.  However, I think the answer that you're looking for is that the number 6 would hit.

-Xander

Quote from: Xander on January 01, 2014, 09:14:22 PM

-Xander


We measure and calculate the "wavefunction collapse" using a new theoretical framework, called quantum decoherence.   Decoherence correctly predicts the form and probability distribution of the final eigenstates, and explains the apparent randomness of the choice of final state in terms of einselection.j  Duh! 

he means just puts little clocks all over the place.....he's possibly just showing off

OK, I got it!!  Thanks....

Turner,

I'm not sure where you're falling down with the concepts. It appears you have proved to yourself the possible existence of a personal perm by collecting numbers from different sources and noting that they are, in fact, totally random and do not produce unusual results. Which means yes, you could "track" a system on one wheel and then begin placing bets on an other wheel with the exact same probability of winning whatever events you are betting on. Because, such a method is gambler's fallacy. In that case, you are simply betting from square one, where the probability of winning an even chance is .486. Any system that involves accounting for past "virtual" results is fallacious.

But even if you had already begun betting on the first wheel, you can simply switch to another wheel for no reason at all. It makes no difference where the outcomes are random, you take your PP with you, including any and all probabilities and deviation.

It seems there is a misunderstanding or confusion of how it all applies to an individual. It has nothing to do with spins you just observe i.e. virtual play: it is about your bets. Your wagers make up your personal random stream, and any subsequent deviation is also calculated from your real bets (or it should be; accounting for deviation of virtual results is erroneous and hugely increases the risk of ruin) . If there is no bet, even if you are "tracking" it, it is not part of anything to do with you personally.

If the personal perm does not apply only to your wagers, it cannot be defined in any terms, it would be too expansive and therefore could be dismissed as nonsense. What if you walk past a wheel and accidently note that the outcome was black. Is that included in your PP? No, it would become impossible to keep track of everything you see.

And the PP doesn't refresh each session. You are in it as soon as you place your first ever wager. The PP just carries on from before, roulette is a game of life. 

Quote from: Xander on January 01, 2014, 06:35:25 PM
Regarding Turner's "personal permanence" and a little different view:

Playing the game changes the game.

Contrary to what many people believe, the numbers that hit are not predetermined and laid out to infinity.  This means that if you're away from the table when your number hits, that the same number may not have hit had you stayed and played. 

Here's why:

Had to you stayed and played, the dealer would have had to wait for you to place your bet.  This means that the rotor may have slowed down a little bit more than it would have - had you remained away from the wheel.  It could be that the dealer sped the wheel up in order to accommodate the extra time that he felt was needed for all of the players to place bets.  Regardless, there are several different things that can affect the outcome of the game.  Your very presence at the table just happens to be one of them. 

The same thing applies to when you forget to bet one of your numbers.  Had you remembered to place a bet on the missed number, then the outcome could have been different, based on the reasons described above, and many other factors. Even if you're watching the game, you're still having a possible effect on the outcome of the game.

In short, observing, and playing the game, changes the outcome of the game.  So get up and hit the restroom when you've got to go.  Take a dinner break if you're hungry.  And lastly, don't fret if you forgot to bet one of your numbers.

-Xander

Xander, playing the game may change the outcomes, but what possible practical significance can that have, if all outcomes are random?


"personal permanence" just shows that skipping spins or whatever makes no difference to the distribution of outcomes or events, so if you forget one of your numbers, or if the dealer speeds up the wheel because of your presence, makes no difference in terms of you winning or losing (assuming an unbiased wheel, of course).

Quote from: Bayes on December 31, 2013, 05:21:09 PM

The average in 10 spins is ALWAYS the same, no matter what has gone before (independent trials, remember?)


The point is that if you go into a game "cold" (i.e., without the 3 SD+ trigger) the chance of you encountering a severe run of losses is higher. With the 3 SD trigger, you have already "used up" as it were, 3 SD's "worth" of losses. The only way you can deny this is if you insist that losses can be infinite, which is a purely mathematical assertion.

Yes, but even with this fallacy being interfered, this way of playing and that MM serves me very well



Cheers

QuoteXander, playing the game may change the outcomes, but what possible practical significance can that have, if all outcomes are random?-Bayes

None.

Even if you're playing on live wheels, tracking the outside ECs is rather futile.  Tracking the inside numbers on a live wheel is of course all together something different.

@Number Six,

I like your post.

Quote from: Number Six on January 02, 2014, 01:41:01 AM
accounting for deviation of virtual results is erroneous and hugely increases the risk of ruin.

Six,


How can it "hugely increase" your risk of ruin? At best it makes no difference. Same as gambler's fallacy; if you wait for 10 reds in a row and then bet black, the odds for red haven't changed, so you're as likely to get red as black on the next spin, so it can't be any more dangerous than if you hadn't waited for the 10 reds at all.


If it makes no difference it can't at the same time increase the risk of anything. The danger only comes if you erroneously believe that black is more likely and use a suicidal progression, but in terms of bet selection it changes nothing.


In fact, making no assumptions about the distribution of past spins, but based purely on the data, the rational thing to do if you see 10 reds in a row is to bet red next.