Thank you stringbean    I will watch that tomorrow morning.

Todays results on table 4 at spielbank wiesbaden were interesting.

Look at the bottom of column 1.

8
8
26
7
17

and then go to the very bottom of column 10 and the start of column 11.

16
9
17
9
26
26
8
18

Thank you Timo.

I will take a look at that.

cheers

The day before yesterday on table 4 at spielbank wiesbaden

+12.

I don't use it as a stand alone method. It is certainly a handy thing to have at your disposal. Having a handful of half decent trigger bets requiring not much outlay gives you the opportunity to increase your bets when things are going well and causes minimal damage in a lean spell.


cheers

Yesterday on table 4 at spielbank wiesbaden


Total +46.

Quote from: Gizmotron on November 21, 2012, 08:20:19 PM
So here are a few of the stages.

1. Winning a bunch of money will change my life for the better.
2. The Martingale Progression. (I'm going to be rich)
3. I will find a progression that does work
4. Very abstract rules will make progressions work
4.5 Magical thinking will make mechanical systems work.
5. Mechanical Systems don't work. ( I'm not going to be rich )
6. The discovery of conditions might help in bet selection.
7. Bet selection alone will not work.
8. Win streak conditions are opportunities. (Effectiveness) I can be rich if I want to.

Good list. 

What's funny (or not) is that there are probably half a dozen of us who took 100 years between us to come to the firm conclusion that step 8 is the way to go.

I just hope there are no more steps! 

The most important bit of advice I would give anyone (and it applies to gambling) is to think for yourself or someone else will think for you and that always comes at a price.

''Finish the job'' - Gizmo.

The problem is most people have not even started even after spending years at it.

Shane Warne was probably the best bowler the world has ever seen in international cricket. He was getting interviewed once and they asked him why guys who had played in loads of games like him were nowhere near as good as him.

He said that a lot of guys who had played 50-60 games were in fact still playing in their very first game of cricket.

Now I can relate that to gambling. There are guys out there who are likely coming up with the same stuff and making the same mistakes that they made on day 1.

A lot of the so-called experts on the subject have chopped and changed their ideas around for years.

Here are some authors to look up if you are interested.

Nathaniel Branden.
David D. Burns.
Albert Ellis.
Daniel Gilbert.
Fritz Perls.
Barry Schwartz.
Martin Seligman.
William Styron.
Robert E. Thayer.

The most interesting book I read out of that lot was Fritz Perls 'Gestalt Therapy'.

Here are some numbers from a session I played today.

I will put the markings from the chart next to them. I won't cross anything out which obviously I would if playing.

34) 12
21) 7  7/10.
35) 12  2/5/12.
22) 8  8.
17) 6  1/6/10.
14) 5  5/10/11.
09) 3  3/8/10.
08} 3  3/12. **I would not bet here because it is not 3 6 9 even though two street 3's appeared**
25) 9  3/6/9. **Now I have the 3 6 9 and would bet streets 3 and 6.**
26) 9  9/12.  **oh well. It sometimes comes like this. stop betting**
10) 4  4/7/11.
09) 3  3/10/11.
08} 3  3/12.  **It's playing funny buggers at the moment**
06) 2  2/10/11.
30) 10  3/8/10.
07) 3  3/5/11.
19) 7  4/7.
02) 1  1/6.
24) 8  7/8/9.
15) 5  5/9/11.
04) 2 2/6/9.
12) 4  2/4.
24) 8  3/4/8.
02) 1  1/3/5.
27) 9  7/8/9.
22) 8  2/8/11.
34) 12  4/12.
18} 6  6/9.
17) 6  6/12.
02) 1  1/2/7.
32) 11  3/10/11.
18} 6  6/7.
26) 9  3/9. **It's trying**
18} 6  3/6/9.  **play the 3 and 9 street here**
18} 6  6/12.  **no luck whatsoever. stop betting**
17) 6  6/12.   
16) 6  6/12.
31) 11  5/11.

Talk about hitting everywhere except the bullseye. Only lost 4 units.
It does show what I am getting at however.

cheers

I must admit I find it a very fascinating subject.

It must be very empowering for someone who had a gambling problem to turn their life around and still be able to gamble after treatment in a controlled manner rather than think that anything and everything related to gambling was taboo. This would kind of suggests that it is all a state of mind.

I know the UK government spent a fortune several years ago training up a lot of people to work as councilors using CBT techniques. I have not read any reports yet on how successful they think this has worked out.

Gizmo

I can understand why a therapist would come out and tell a pathological gambler that they can never gamble again if they want to live a life in recovery. They have to cater for the majority. What percentage of problem gamblers do you honestly think could turn things around and become successful gamblers ? (speaking of which, I have a book on this very subject where the author did try to turn a group of problem gamblers into successful players at the track... see what I did there)

I reckon the percentage is small because the actual gambling itself is only 5% of the problem for someone addicted. It is all the other sh*t that needs working on which can take years to fix which creates 95% of the problem. It's hard for people to break negative cycles in their life and problem gambling is just another one of them.

Quote from: Ophis on November 21, 2012, 04:32:00 PM
maybe instead of full moderation control give topic starters new option like:
"Mark as Offtopic" or something similar.

Then selected post would be automatically edited to fit into some sort of folding function
like [reveal][/reveal] from rouletteforum[dot]com.

This way topic starters could "CLEAN" their topics while maintaining full transparency off the forum.

That's a good idea if it can be implemented and is then fair to everyone. I would vote for that option.

Of course another option in some cases is to start a thread and then lock it. That leaves whatever pertinent information is in there not to get lost between loads of 'thank you' and 'where are the instructions'. A separate thread could be started for all that. There is nothing worse than reading through a 15 page thread and you still don't understand what's going on.

I can see both sides to this argument.

We have had some good contributors down the years like Winkel and Mr Chips who might still be around contributing if some of the 'usual suspects' did not start giving them a bit of grief. Then I also appreciate everyone is entitled to their opinion and disagreeing with someone is not a crime. I think we can all spot when someone is just plain trolling and just out to get a negative reaction.

I like the idea of 'troll free' posts 

Yet, at the same time, not discouraging free speech just for the sake of it. There is a fine line I suppose and let's hope it is used wisely.

That was a great post Bayes.