Quote from: greenguy on September 03, 2016, 11:52:18 AM
Spike had nothing but a bluff.

He was only ever looking for suckers.

How do I know?.. I'm greenguy, that's how.

Even Coco the gorilla knows it...

Quote from: Gizmotron on September 03, 2016, 11:17:21 AM

And once my Ai, artificial intelligence, machine is fully validated by inspection of the open-source supplied source code and is publicly peer reviewed by experts, that evidence will then exist. And once it is accepted as the truth, it will have always been the truth.

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?!

Quote from: Steve H on September 03, 2016, 10:33:46 AM
1. Yes all my players submit NDAs.

2. Perhaps you arent aware of this:

Not everyone is able to visit me for a personal demonstration. So I had my roulette computer openly tested by a well-respected, trusted and neutral member of the roulette community who everyone knew would give an honest evaluation.

The requirements of the person doing the test were:

* Competent and knowledgeable enough to conduct testing. The tester needs to understand how to conduct proper testing

* Well known and widely trusted. The purpose of the test is for a widely trusted individual to report findings.

Initially the roulette community chose two particular individuals who were both sent a free roulette computer for testing, but neither had time to do the testing. So the computers were sent back, and everyone selected another individual named Ronjo.

The full forum thread with all details of the public demonstration is at www.rouletteforum.net/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1220826187/ – it is a long read but you can read the summary of Ronjo's findings below:

Ronjo's Comments About The Testing:

So I have done group public demos (even recordings on my site), given my computer for free testing to a respected forum member, offer a free trial at www.roulette-computers.com/free-trial/

Plus anyone can even test all they want for free, or even see a demo via live webcam, on any wheel they want. What else am I supposed to do to demonstrate honesty?

I don't deal with anything other than direct proof and verifiable physics. It is very easy for anyone to find the truth.  It's just that most people don't bother to look. Besides its easier to believe rubbish from people who have a personal vendetta against me. I have better things to do than to constantly refute lies about me. For every 20 attacks against me, I respond to perhaps one of them. Again the facts are easy for anyone to find, if you look.

Why the demonstration didn't took place inside a casino?
Why there were not more than one individuals to test it?
Who is this Ronjo anyway?

Martingale? What are you betting?
Or is it a joke?

Quotethis is actually what Life is all about - growth and development.

XXVV

"As long I'm living I'm learning'' Plato

I'd like to personally thank you for your support against the ridiculous claims of Caleb Johnson.
However, it wasn't necessary because I've encountered his situation numerous times across different forums and I've learned that such person cannot be considered seriously.
Every time I'm reading his posts which are directed against what I'm doing and what I believe, I'm laughing so hard that tears rolling on my cheek! 

Dear Rich, I want you to know that there are people who admire your work, so encourage you to contribute further and eventually leave a heritage of knowledge for the generations to come.

QuoteThank you for your posts Blue Angel.

Regarding the G.U.T. I think Winkel has only ever really scratched the surface and just laid out the basics. I don't really blame him. It's hard to communicate ideas/thoughts sometimes and Winkel's main language is not English.

I have done some more testing and I am still getting very streaky results. I tried the 'goose' this time just for fun and also added a count to see if I could 'read' things any better. If I am 100% honest however, I really think the beauty of the LOTT will be in identifying hot numbers to play for short periods as the cycles change. (call it a hunch)

cheers

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Winkel.
He might be a wonderful personality, but my objections are about GUT.

Your name seems familiar...it suddenly hit me, Gizmo is the good white gremlin from the 80s! 

Quote from: Angie on August 20, 2016, 01:36:18 PM
i would choose.... red)

Because you are red-y? ;-)

Quote from: mogul397 on August 27, 2016, 05:14:27 PM
Angel,

Can you give another example of this. I'm not sure I follow the amounts
you are betting on each street, etc.

Thanks

Mogul

Yes, I can.
Streets are good bet because are representing the law of thirds proportion.
For every street that hits there is a  good opportunity to hit again because it could fulfill one of two requirements or even both.
These two requirements are:
1) a number could hit more than once
2) 2 out of 3 numbers are going to hit (2/3 like 24/36 aka law of the thirds)

In order to confirm the average expectation  we need to bet every street that just hit till it wins or till 37th bet  from the 1st bet.
This means that after the second hit for each and every street, it's being removed from the bet selection.
Not all of the streets will be bet for the same duration/spins.

Here is an example:

21  bet the 7th street
19  7th street hits, balance +11, no bet
29  bet 10th street
36  bet 10th and 12th street, balance +10
7    bet 10th, 12th and 3rd street, balance +8
7    3rd street hits, balance +17, bet 10th and 12th street
16  bet 10th, 12th and 6th street, balance +15
12  bet 10th, 12th, 6th and 4th street, balance +12
20  bet 10th, 12th, 6th and 4th street, balance +8
2    bet 10th, 12th, 6th, 4th and 1st street, balance +4
7    bet 10th, 12th, 6th, 4th and 1st street, balance -1
11  4th street  hits, balance +6, bet 10th, 12th street, 6th and 1st street
6    bet 10th, 12th, 6th, 1st and 2nd street, balance +2
34  12th street hits, balance +9, bet 10th, 6th, 1st and 2nd street
24  bet 10th, 6th, 1st, 2nd and 8th street, balance +5
35  bet 10th, 6th, 1st, 2nd and 8th street, balance 0
12  bet 10th, 6th, 1st, 2nd and 8th street, balance -5
8    bet 10th, 6th, 1st, 2nd and 8th street, balance -10
23  8th street hits, balance -3, bet 10th, 6th, 1st and 2nd street
24  bet 10th, 6th, 1st and 2nd street, balance -7
22  bet 10th, 6th, 1st and 2nd street, balance -11
22  bet 10th, 6th, 1st and 2nd street, balance -15
10  bet 10th, 6th, 1st and 2nd street, balance -19
27  bet 10th, 6th, 1st, 2nd and 9th street, balance -23
18  6th street hits, balance -16, bet 10th, 1st, 2nd and 9th street
28  10th street hits, balance -8, bet 1st, 2nd and 9th street
15  bet 1st, 2nd, 9th and 5th street, balance -11
21  bet 1st, 2nd, 9th and 5th street, balance -15
17  bet 1st, 2nd, 9th and 5th street, balance -19
28  bet 1st, 2nd, 9th and 5th street, balance -23
4    2nd street hits, balance -15, bet 1st, 9th and 5th street
30  bet 1st, 9th and 5th street, balance -18
1    1st street hits, balance -9, bet 9th and 5th street
8    bet 9th and 5th street, balance -11
16  bet 9th and 5th street, balance -13
36  bet 9th and 5th street, balance -15
13  5th street hits, balance -5, end of betting

It ends in negative but it was flat bet the whole way, while some other 37 spins cycles ends up in positive without progression.

You call LOT slippery, I call it multifacet because many ways to form, thus a polymorphic source which never ceases to exist, only alters from time to time.
The longer  the interval from one observation to the next, the  greater this difference it might be.
By providing many fault interpretations you cannot conclude that the LOT is useless, but useless are the interpretations!
LOT is an easy beast to misunderstand, don't blame yourself, needs great amount of effort in order to conquer the principle/source.
Just focus to the "trunk" instead of the "brunches"...

QuoteThere are 22 spins in the picture above with 4 repeats. (so 18 originals) It's a bit like G.U.T. with the 'first crossing' 19 unhit vs 18 hit.

Now here is my thought/question. If the LOTT averages 24 originals in a 37 spin cycle and it has already produced 18 originals, why would I want to bet the 19 unhit. On average, only 6 more of those 19 are going to appear in the next 15 spins.(admittedly some will maybe come twice or more)......but it's something to think about/study.

Excellent observation Bally, by betting the 19 unhit you won't get the edge most of the times because in the final third usually are more repeats (from 18 group) rather than from the unhit 19 numbers group.
The principle of the 19 unhit group has to cross is flawed simply because it aims this to happen on a single specific spin.
Yes, eventually this crossing will happen BUT if you don't know WHEN exactly, you know nothing and have no advantage at all!
It surprises me when such flawed methods are getting so much publicity, if it hadn't so much acceptance from the majority, would be just another way to bet and I wouldn't even bother with it.
But it's disturbing me that GUT got so much publicity, even called holy grail and all these based on a fallacious principle!
People don't like when you are waking them up, so the best attitude is to leave them on their ignorance and they will reap what they sow... 

If we would bet always the same selection with the same amount for all the time, we would be losers with 99.99% certainty.
The opposite is valid too, therefore the key to success lies in differentiation.
So the next reasonable questions are to which selection will you change and when, let's ignore bet amounts at the moment.
An accurate prediction wins regardless of the amount of chips standing on the top of it, the exact opposite is also true.
The results are changing, if we want to be more correct than wrong we should imitate those results by changing selections, thus adjusting to the stream of results instead of stubbornly sticking with a specific selection.
Selections change and the same happens for the rules and conditions, they cannot fit in all possible situations, therefore they should alter from time to time.
Differentiation leads to flexibility and flexibility to long term profit.

If we would bet always the same selection with the same amount for all the time, we would be losers with 99.99% certainty.
The opposite is valid too, therefore the key to success lies in differentiation.
So the next reasonable questions are to which selection will you change and when, let's ignore bet amounts at the moment.
An accurate prediction wins regardless of the amount of chips standing on the top of it, the exact opposite is also true.
The results are changing, if we want to be more correct than wrong we should imitate those results by changing selections, thus adjusting to the stream of results instead of stubbornly sticking with a specific selection.
Selections change and the same happens for the rules and conditions, they cannot fit in all possible situations, therefore they should alter from time to time.
Differentiation leads to flexibility and flexibility to long term profit.

After all these are just a promotion for roulette lessons?
And if you don't care about money then why do you charge 200 per head?
Sometimes you are contradicting yourself, perhaps not everyone has good memory and attention to details in order to read between the lines but I do, so you cannot fool me.

Usually what people miss is the most obvious, what 'law of thirds' has to do by betting columns and dozens?!

I don't know and I don't care who this guy claims to be, not even his name is real, Don Colonne or Don Corleone?? Perhaps Don Column because on some languages column=colon!

The guy and his method are a joke, but don't let this misinterpretation of 'law of thirds' make you believe that there are not proper ways to take advantage of it.