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.

Interesting, Gizmotron. If you think you can gain in a random game by just playing at right time, that too without any MM, that would be a mechanical Advantage Play. Logically, I don't think it is possible but would love to be proved wrong. Your idea can be proved/disproved only through simulations on a long random data with any tracker. Do you have anything?

QuoteI asked you the same questions. You give nothing.

I provided MMs with any system I talked of. Indeed MM is what makes any bet profitable. I read both of your books Kimo. There is no MM.

There is a strong reason for picking "Player" in baccarat that you can read here: http://albalaha.lefora.com/topic/19400640/Why-Banker-is-the-wrong-choice-for-progression-play#.V577zdycHIU

        MM is the trickiest thing and makes all the difference. Ironically, I never saw any MM that is made considering a wide variety of probabilities we can face in a session. You need to create one yourself or choose among the existing ones that looks safer to you.

I see this tendency for years or since I start to think of baccarat or roulette. People came up with complex looking bets that needs microscopic eyes, long excel sheets, complex formulae or miles of tracking to get our bet. Even I went into the same path, for sure when I was to find the bet that is better than all other. Many gave me illusion of being finer for a short period and later when evaluated that long enough,found that it was only equal to a randomly picked bet only. No difference.
                 I would like to point out some of the very complex looking bets that gave no real advantage to any but kept delusion in minds of the  readers that oh, it is something different and unique and will help for sure.
           First I would start with GUT, a deemed big thing in online forums. It gave a theory of a crossing of some hit and unhit numbers and to extract the numbers therefrom to bet. Even creator of the system could not clarify the exact way of using that. No appropriate MM were ever suggested that can help. Ophis simulated the same and declared a big loser as anything else.

   I saw Martin Blakey book and his method of betting different bets in steps of if first fails bet second and then third. A bit complex to use but still easier than GUT. Mr. Blakey was alive and joined some forums and I asked how all these can help in random betting and if he is ready to prove his point by simulations. He said, I won with this all my life but you may not. Enough to understand.

  Then came the king of optical illusions over roulette wheel--Kimo Li. He taught us nukes, stars, pies, boomrang, bowtie and what not on the wheel itself. I asked him some plain questions, how does these images or any of them help to win and if he has any appropriate MM to help. He did not answer much and tried to avoid being straight.

           Then I saw our superstar of complex bets, Johnlegend and his pattern breaker and hilarious 7 on 1 which were based on the assumption that if a pattern is the last possible pattern of that length, it may not hit as easily. I myself simulated both his methods and that proved too silly to try.

I had my own silly complex set of bets too. My favorite was the best two numbers that kept me busy for about 2 years. It looked good but had the same set of troubles as any other bet. In my earlier, "finest method to defeat roulette" that became talk of the town in rf.cc in Victor's time, I relied too much upon repeaters in a particular span. It had trackings but not too complex. We just needed to see the marquee and bet every number that came twice there expecting to come for third or more times. Although my complex betting had a difference. I suggested MMs too to handle the worst cases and never claimed anything to win flat or suggested any martingale.
           I worked on Latest 18 unique numbers considering that better than any EC bet and trying to get advantage from "sleeper" numbers. Believe me, all these doesn't work. I can confirm this and challenge anybody to disprove me.

                  Recently saw, lots of hue and cry over VDW, an old idea of picking non-random bets started by my friend Nick. Although he doesn't have a claim that it will be better than 50:50 but some of his tests and tests of one of my another buddy Audiokinesis over No Zero wheel are making ripples in the forum's pond.

                  No amount of tracking, codifying, sorting, unsorting, filtering, calculating can give us any idea of any bet that can do better when we start to bet that. Since we need to bet on any bet, we can pick that in any style and I am not saying all these betselections are foolish but they won't give us any advantage in long run, I am 100% sure of that.
                       
                               One of the wisest guys in forums, Mark (known as gizmotron) does have claims of identifying patterns and gaining advantage therefrom. I am not sure if anything like that even exists. His ideas are either too complex to understand and use or he failed to demonstrate how exactly one needs to play that.
                        If someone asks me what would I like to play in roulette as my bet, I would say any EC bet. In baccarat, I would bet only Player.

More Later.....

Knowledge of science and maths help us to understand the power of nature and life and to make it better.