Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 08, 2016, 05:23:30 AM
We do not need to predict, no forecasting, no voodoo,
no hocus  pocus,
Just mm, to anticipate, the streaks to happen...

The only risk is when,
the anticipated streaks, fail to hit,
And we lose our br,

             Even streaks are subject to variance at both sides. Hence if we wait for a streak of 7 hits of player, it may take more than 1000 hands at one point of time, or it may come twice in merely 50 hands. Positive progressions looks lucrative at a glance but it doesn't better the game by itself.

What fanciful complex bet selection can't help with:

1. It can not avoid long streaks of successive losses: LLLLLLLLLLLLL

2. It can not avoid getting tricky and bad rate of wins: LLLLLWLLWLLLLLLLLLWLWLLLWLLLLL

3. It can not even win a single unit in the long run, flat betting.

4. It can't predict anything with any accuracy, in short run.


                      Then why do we waste our time on waiting for a trigger with complex formulae and lots of calculations, tracking etc? Except Physics based bias analysis or ball and wheel speed cloaking, there is no empirical evidence of winning with the betselection only.

@Mike,
     I said no betselection is good or bad permanently and same goes to any style of betting. Still there can be rooms to beat the randomness in the longest stretch one can imagine.
       It is true that every spin in 10 millions might not have bet my way but it is also likely to have 10 or more bets running together in a single spin. Hundred of thousands of chips can not be won betting a few hundreds or thousands spins only. Drawdown of 8k looks so scary to you but I bet u won't get across 10 million spins even with 100k chips bankroll. I told about gamblers' ruin if you cared to read my answer. Regarding the authenticity of my results and graphs I openly offered the admin to take bot and test himself that he chose not to. Read the full thread again. My methodology did not prefer one bet over other but worked on certain conditions and progressions that can be within table limits.
        A mechanical way of playing can beat the odds in the longest run but it is not everybody's cup of tea.

If you really want to educate people, be open with your concepts that you think work.
Tracking software, where is that?

Can you try to create a simulator/tracker that can automatically analyze a large set of data as you want us to play?

Is it flat betting?

Quote from: NathanDetroit on August 06, 2016, 08:45:52 PM
With one  of my methods:   NO SWEAT .

  Really? What is the method?

Quote from: Mike on August 06, 2016, 07:48:39 PM
Next you'll be telling me that it was proved the bumblebee couldn't fly, or perhaps that Edison had to fail 1000 times before he invented the light bulb. Such heart-warming pep-talks and parables completely miss the point because in this instance the difficulty is conceptual; it's not a problem to be solved but rather a case of understanding that any proposed solution is incoherent. It's for lack of this understanding that system addicts keep searching. It never occurs to them that the solution can't exist. Anyone who points out the simple truth is dismissed as negative, or even a troll.

In the meantime the con-artists continue to ply their trade.

Hmm. You believe that beating the game impossible mechanically?
         Here is my answer to that: http://betselection.cc/albalaha's-exclusive/holy-grail-randomness-can-be-beaten-even-in-the-longest-run/

No amount of luck or coincidence can keep you in positive even after 10 million spins. It was all mechanical and mathematical and done through a bot.
Indeed, no book of maths ever claimed that such games are unbeatable by nature. House edge/house fees and unpredictability along with gamblers' ruin and aboveall ignorance of player ensure losses in long run. If someone tries to beat 10 million spins with 100 chips bankroll against infinite chips of casino, he is bound to get doomed, even without a house edge. House is heavier and stronger than an average player for sure and runs 24x7 to earn via grinding and faulty payout but in no way, it has to win in all probability.

           Take a case: House has 1 million chips as max losing capacity and you have the capacity of 5 million chips. It is an easy guess who will get sucked faster. The game is beatable with new out of box approaches. See my harsh sessions. Those are not beatable with any oldschool progression but can be beaten with my rules very easily.

If your way is purely mechanical, learning the same is not so difficult. Experience is all about having our own inputs that is not needed in a purely mechanical way to play. If winning your way varies with individual's judgement, intellect or experience, it is not purely mechanical way to play.

Streaks do come but the size and frequency is still as uncertain. What is the certainty of getting a 15 step in 200 spins? I do not think it is even regular or 1/2 i.e. even 1 in 2x200 is possible. Can Gizmo put some more stats in this regard?

QuoteOne seven step win is enough to make up for grinding out all the attempts that don't work all the way to the big win. You should know from my writings that it is common in 200 spins for a sleeping dozen to occur at least once for at least 15 consecutive spins.

          Can you please elaborate this part a bit more?

Ok. You play in a real casino but you do have a mechanical way to do everything and you better know that the same can be programmed very easily to be a bot/tracker.
             It will help you too to understand if your wins are merely coming as a fluke or variance working for you or it is a permanently profitable way to play. I or anybody else have no right to demand from you and I can not even say that unless you prove to me I will consider your claims fake but a proper showcase of an ides through simulations on randomly picked data(not your handpicked one where you can do reverse engineering to prove your point) long enough to ward off any chance of momentary variance affecting results, will be enough to prove your point. 100k placed bets on ECs or anything alike will be enough to conclude.
                     If your way is proved to be correct and if it can win flat as well even 1 chip in 100 spins, it is worth its weight in gold and an answer to the joke of Einstein. You will be the first person to do that ever.

@Gizmotron,
                           Can you validate your claims via long run testing? I can provide you random sessions of European roulette and you need to just do your way of betting on 100k placed bets. If there is any profit betting flat, you are an undisputed champion of randomness and pattern play. Do you have any tracker that can process data and showcase a graph of how your ideas do?

Harsh session # 17:
                          72 Wins vs 92 Losses (very tricky start)


L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W

QuoteTrending has been used in roulette since the game was invented, but unlike in trading (the herd effect) it has no basis in reality. The reality is that trends in a random game can only be recognized AFTER they've occurred. See a trend and jump on it, fine, but of course there is no tendency for it to continue, and there is no tendency for it to break.

You can get lucky for a while of course, but luck runs out.

                I believe this to be truth too. Any magical formula defying the house edge and giving better than average prediction for sure in random gaming is like telling what will come in megamillion tomorrow. If it can be done in random games like RNG, I believe that would end casinos' days. AP guys on real wheel claim to do that with cloaking devices and bias analysis. Never heard of an AP for RNG. Gizmo, are you serious?

             Regarding Kimo Li, he claims to teach the exclusive art to exclusive students and he is having a university of professional gamblers of his own. Interesting.
             To me, Gizmo's claim is something out of world. If he has any student of him here, I would like to hear from him too.

16th Harsh Session:

79 Losses vs 64 wins


L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 02, 2016, 01:54:21 PM

Playing at the right time is only part of it. What you play is equally important too. It probably doesn't occur to you that providing proof only serves a superfluous purpose. I don't need to prove what works for me in the practical application of using my technique in a real casino.


That does not mean that I need to write a software program that beats the game though. All I need to do is get enough people using it properly and the throng that follows will have the same effect. When I decide to do that, I have not yet determined. I do this out of the spirit of the inventor and a desire someday for recognition. Non-believers are a prerequisite necessity of this method of disclosure. Discovering the world is not flat is like a mathematician that will  need to throw out the probability books.

                 If something works merely for you but that fails in an empirical test, it has nothing to do with logic. MB claimed the same. He said that he has won his entire life with the method but when we simulate that, it comes nowhere closer to reality. Harsh but truth.
When I and Ophis tested over 10 millions spins with his bot, the win was sure as it had an irrefutable logic that has to win. If we could have got 10 millions more spins we could have beaten that too. Only thing that did not appeal to me was that was a pure bot stuff and bot need to run 24x7 with that way.
               Anyways, I am not denying your claim as I have no idea how that works. May be you can prove to those whom you need to.