Quote from: Mike on June 03, 2018, 10:44:40 AM

To say that the house edge can "be handled in playable sessions" is just to say it doesn't matter, which is absurd.  Your analogy with the wrestlers is a poor one. Nobody would agree that weight alone is the deciding factor in a wrestling match, but as I've said, the other factors such as MM and discipline only make a difference AFTER you have gained a real edge; they are not a substitute. And I'm not "crying" over the house edge; even in roulette it can be overcome, just not by nonsensical strategies such as quitting when ahead, or patterns in past numbers, trends, and progressions. These have zero merit in a random game of independent trials.

Calling something "nonsensical," as you do, does not actually validate your opinion. It only displays a reliance on an imagined peer review that actually is non-existent. I'm here to challenge your well worn-out dogmatic demagogic "deplorable"-isms. If I do this then you "mathBoyz" will have to rewrite the books. And then a reel peer review will have to take place. Soon, someone will offer you the "Red Pill." Take it.
...

Just think of it as a toxic mess that needs to be cleaned up. Anyone can see the level of civility is monitored and kept to a very high standard here at this forum, as juxtaposed by the conduct seen on other forums. There will always be trolls. There will always be the mathBoyz vs the educated guessers. All that really matters is that both parties are attempting to put a dent in the casino's bottom line. The, "I'm better than you" game is just part of our fun and games. I like to watch GreenGuy blast Ken with his nasty disparaging pejoratives on another forum. It's funny too. And best of all, Ken comes back and delivers his zingers too. It's just a different style of communication. This place can be like herding cats at times. The other place is free but rude to the max. The point "is to keep talking;" -- Pink Floyd

Quote from: Mike on June 03, 2018, 07:24:28 AM
I know, but my replies aren't really for Gizmo. And besides, he's admitted he has a "problem" with gambling. I'm proud to be one of the "mathboyz". 

I'm proud that you are a "mathBoyz" too. I hope that you get time to pick up a few recipes from the Food Channel on how to saveur Crow.


I'm currently proving to myself that you have to be wrong and that I am right, an extra good bonus, - that. Once this becomes factual you will still be able to rely on your standards, until it becomes untenable.  It's all here at these forums how the greatest minds in math & gambling where seen as nothing more than practitioners in an idiom liken to a meeting of the flat earth society.


Here are the actual criteria for classifying problems with gambling:

QuoteDSM­5 Diagnostic Criteria: Gambling Disorder


* For informational and discussion purposes only *


A. Persistent and recurrent problematic gambling behavior leading to clinically significant impairment or
distress, as indicated by the individual exhibiting four (or more) of the following in a 12 ­month period:


a. Needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired excitement.


b. Is restless or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop gambling.


c. Has made repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop gambling.


d. Is often preoccupied with gambling (e.g., having persistent thoughts of reliving past gambling
experiences, handicapping or planning the next venture, thinking of ways to get money with
which to gamble).


e. Often gambles when feeling distressed (e.g., helpless, guilty, anxious, depressed).


f. After losing money gambling, often returns another day to get even ("chasing" one's losses).


g. Lies to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling.


h. Has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational or career opportunity
because of gambling.


i. Relies on others to provide money to relieve desperate financial situations caused by gambling.


B. The gambling behavior is not better explained by a manic episode.


Specify if:


Episodic: Meeting diagnostic criteria at more than one time point, with symptoms subsiding
between periods of gambling disorder for at least several months.
Persistent: Experiencing continuous symptoms, to meet diagnostic criteria for multiple years.


Specify if:


In early remission: After full criteria for gambling disorder were previously met, none of the criteria
for gambling disorder have been met for at least 3 months but for less than 12 months.


In sustained remission: After full criteria for gambling disorder were previously met, none of the
criteria for gambling disorder have been met during a period of 12 months or longer.


Specify current severity:


Mild: 4–5 criteria met.
Moderate: 6–7 criteria met.
Severe: 8–9 criteria met.


From the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (section 312.31).

I'm just (D) from the above list. That's 1 characteristic of problem gambling and does not register as problematic by the standards set here.

Quote from: Xander on June 02, 2018, 06:18:26 PMMike,Gizmo doesn't comprehend the math.  He really sucks at it.  He's a "literate boy," but not one of the "mathboyz."

More "we" tactics. Ha ha...Enjoy this: I wrote it from scratch 14 years ago.

   repeat while pp < 18
    put 1 into ep
    repeat for each element ep in rkoR
      put ((xL bitAnd 4278190080) / 16777216)  bitAnd 255 into a
      put ((xL bitAnd 16711680) / 65536) into b
      put ((xL bitAnd 65280) / 256) into c
      put (xL bitAnd 255) into d
      put (((  ((S1[a + 1] + S2[b + 1]) mod 4294967296) bitXor S3[c + 1]  ) + S4[d + 1] ) mod 4294967296) bitXor xR into xR
      put xL into temp
      put xR into xL
      put temp into xR
    end repeat
[/b]You've got to love X-Code and the best version LiveCode.

So this is my daily seven resets: I'm using 3 units, then 2 units for each reset. It's a real world practice session. After each reset I kick out 6 spins without bets. It's all based on guessing. Doing this in front of the skeptics might prove informative. Now, I'm supposed to lose. I wonder what the next four days will show. I've told my family today that if I fail at this I will give up gambling for good. That is why these practice sessions are so important to me. I'm treating them as if everything is on the line. I'm not asking anyone to trust me. I'm not actually depending on anyone in these forums to believe any of this. But my actions in the next few weeks will tell the real story.



-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  1
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13
|    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  09 -- W  ( $ 48 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ 80 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   |   |  --  29
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  8
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  4
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- W  ( $ 54 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ 86 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  6
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32 -- L  ( $ -108 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  08 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  09 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16 -- L  ( $ -108 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- W  ( $ 54 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    | X | X |  --  30 -- W  ( $ 90 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  37
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  7
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ 54 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36 -- W  ( $ 90 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  7
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  8
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ 54 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35 -- L  ( $ 18 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  08 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  08 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16 -- W  ( $ -18 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35 -- W  ( $ 18 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -18 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 18 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    | X | X |  --  30 -- W  ( $ 54 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ 18 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36 -- W  ( $ 54 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ 90 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  38 -- L  ( $ -60 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -12 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  08 -- W  ( $ 36 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ 72 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ 36 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    | X | X |  --  30 -- W  ( $ 72 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ 108 )


-----------------------------------------

| B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  1
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  6
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 54 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- L  ( $ 18 )
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  37 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20 -- W  ( $ 18 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- L  ( $ -18 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ 18 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20 -- W  ( $ 54 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35 -- L  ( $ 18 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  09 -- L  ( $ -90 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -90 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  37 -- L  ( $ -108 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- W  ( $ 0 )

------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting. On another forum we are discussing what a "what is enough point" looks like to individuals. My current technique looks like a 30% increase on my bankroll as a good enough point. I try to win that 30% in just two net wins too. Sometimes it takes two spins. Other times it can take 30 to 60. The method doesn't really matter. Do that with a $1000 bankroll and in one year I would have earned a little less than $110,000 before taxes.

Quote from: Mike on June 02, 2018, 07:58:27 AM
Gizmo,

You really don't need math to understand why an edge is needed, simple logic in plain English is enough. First, what is an edge? It's the difference between what you SHOULD get paid in order to break even, and what you ACTUALLY get paid. If the payments on winning bets are short, the edge lies with the house, if they are long, you have the edge. eg. if the payout is 35 chips on a single number and the probability of a hit is 1/37, you will lose, if it's 1/36 you will break even, and if it's 1/35 you will win (long term). The edge is defined by the relationship between the payout and the probability of a win. The simple math which encapsulates this is well known. Here is the forumula for expectation in even money bets on a double zero wheel:

EV = (18/38 x 1) + (20/38 x -1) = 18/38 - 20/38 = -2/38 = -5.26%

So ON AVERAGE, you lose.

Gamblers often think they can win because the house edge very rarely manifests over a session or even a number of sessions. They win because of the variance, which in the SHORT term can often put them way ahead of what the expectation (long term average) dictates. But as the number of bets increases, the house edge dominates. It's the short term behaviour of variance (standard deviation) which fools players into thinking that they can win long term. The expected loss is proportional to the number of bets made, but the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of bets made.

The blue line (standard deviation) initially increases at a faster rate than the expected loss (red line), but there will come a time (when the lines intersect) after which you will be in the red, never to recover.

That's it? Look at that last paragraph. It confirms the existence of an opportunity with regards to time. Time implies more than one spin. I'm still waiting for the proof. Perhaps you could demonstrate the non existence of uptick swings. That would be convincing.

Quote from: Jimske on June 02, 2018, 04:14:57 AM
I presume your fancy yourself an intellectual. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Anyway thanks for the discussion I enjoyed it. You can have the last word.

Disagreeing with me, the two of us discussing our differing opinions on the best direction for our country, won't solve anything. You like centralized power where a Keynesian Economics model is the best way to establish a fair minded culture. I can suggest that the ubiquitous unintended consequences from liberal centralized planning always tends to undermine that actuality. Show me the culture that has not eventually turned to tyranny as it always runs out of other people's money. I would suggest that freedom is the enemy of socialism. But that does not matter much. We like the people that have given each of us our facts. There is no point in discussing the differences. Please admit it that you favor a communistic model. That's becoming fashionable again. I suppose you think that the forgotten man in America is just going to lay down their guns so that a Saul Alinsky styled game plan can be carried out? You will not believe the unintended consequences if that scheme where ever tried. I know that the liberals will never give up and that they will always keep coming. I know that it looks just like rules for radicals is working. I would say that the "Red Pill" movement has effectively dislodged the possibility of a landslide landing on your favorite leaders heads. It's fun to watch the pendulum swing back. ... back to Roulette.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 02, 2018, 12:40:13 AM
You dropped 24 numbers method? You sayed it was the best method until now.

The best method for me is to get 3 net units up. To get that at $100 units is easier with Even Chance bets like betting on the reds or the odds. So I bet a 2 unit bet on the first net win, and 1 unit on the second net win. I use two net wins to get 3 net units up. It sort of comes from John Patrick's "up and pull" technique. I just play until I win those steps.


I changed tactics 6 months ago. I used to play for 20 to 40 net wins up from very long sessions. I always counted on hitting at least one super trend. Now I swing trade the micro ticks in a candlestick type chart of any day trading technique on the stock market. If you know how to see micro swings in Roulette trends then you can see that they are similar. It's all based on actual results.

Quote
Anyway 20 vs 18 is still an asymmetrical proposition or I'm missing something?

I'm not sure what you mean by asymmetrical. There is a balance to even chance bets. It pays off at 1 to 1 odds. It covers almost half the wheel. Randomness characteristics are still observable with Even Chance bets.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 11:14:58 PM
Look, Giz, IMO you devised a brilliant idea to wisely consider outcomes by asymmetrical terms (dozens, etc). After all my nickname speaks for it.
Itlr 1-2 vs 3 or 1-3 vs 2 or 2-3 vs 1 equals to zero (adding the negative tax) but we have to expect some natural deviations that soon or later will show up. That is trying to take advantage of such fluctuations in a way or another.

I dropped the 24 numbers method. I'm working this out in even chance numbers of 18 to 20. I did this because I only need 2 net wins to win a session. This is the rabbit and the hare race. This is not that difficult to accomplish. I know that it only takes a small win streak to recover and go up net 2.

Quote
Actually and I'm sure I'm not wrong, if your algorithm works (or my methods work) is because you have found out a possible defect of randomness of roulette results or that in some instances baccarat asymmetrical force will shift the results toward an univocal direction.

There is no flaw in randomness. There are micro swings as the general expectation works it's house advantage downward. Along the way are opportunities that are good enough to grind your way up to a net 2 win. People that bet the same amount on every bet will get ground down, as expected. People that target the micro upticks will prevail if they also minimize the damage from the micro downticks. That takes making a decision based on a situational awareness, a task easily programmable.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 10:05:15 PM
You are taking the wrong side of what I've written. I've always liked your writings. But I fear you are crossing the line a bit.

Anyway, if you think that "guessing" would be a decisive tool to control the random world,
I'd suggest to present your algoriythm at MIT (my cousin works there, so I can easily accommodate your lecture as soon as you wish). Can't guarantee millions for your effort, but you will be the most notable gambling person the world had ever known in case you are right.
Think about how your "guessing" implications will be considered by NASA, for example.

as.

First this: "Think about how your "guessing" implications will be considered by NASA, for example. "


I'm sure that they would want to first fly up Uranus. --- Sorry, couldn't resist.


My cousin got an undergraduate degree on a full boat ride and then went back for his Masters there too. I was at his graduation. Nice place.


Now please think about this for a moment. This is the place where the MIT gambling teams ran their operation from. Don't you think that some enterprising professor might want the scoop a little less exposed?


It's one thing to make an algorithm and another to execute the method in a real casino, you know, all that human nature stuff. Once I'm 100% sure, only then will I consider your perception of achievement. Truly it would be tempting.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 01, 2018, 09:11:36 PM
Xander is absolutey right, but I'd change his words in "nobody CAN'T DEMONSTRATE to win itlr without an edge".

If anybody can demonstrate to win at games without a mathematical edge he would be millionaire without placing a dime on the felt.
The problem is to present a valid scientific evidence of such claim.

I already did that. I wrote the foundation for an artificial intelligence algorithm that makes (big bet / small bet) bet selections for the software's perception of best risk and reward results. It even makes difficulty of session adjustments. So where is the million? An algorithm just happens to be a mathematical proof. But the real issue is that I wrote it from guessing and never from probability projections. And no, I don't want that level of proof to just drop into your hands. I don't care about a prize from people that are wrong. And I think of people like you the least. So you are going to be the last to see it. I just want to see your proof that you can't use guessing to win in the long run.

Quote from: Jimske on June 01, 2018, 08:27:27 PM
where to begin? First of all I think you have to be pretty obtuse not to realize that the show Apprentice was not about Donald Trump. The master deal maker lording over all these little apprentices trying to be like him and he having the ultimate "you're fired" authority sounds to me that it's all about him. LOL. 

Trump is an authoritarian who leans toward fascism.  Sure a lot of people agree with that kind of authoritarianism.

On a personal level there is really no argument that he is a consummate liar, a bully, a misogynist and has a high degree of narcissism.

That's a very good description of a selfish, self serving personality. Like I just said a while ago, people like the facts that they get and from whom that they get them. From those kind of facts comes conclusions that make perfect sense too.


But what I want to know is, have you ever started a business or run your own business before? Have you ever been responsible for making payroll to a lot of employees every week? Have you had to jump through bureaucratic hoops in order just to stay in business or operate a business? My guess is that you never had that responsibility or expense before. I would be surprised if you did have that experience. Have you ever read 'Atlas Shrugged?' There are a lot of us that know what Trump has done is to turn the tables on the government looters and takers. This is not about degrading people. What you are seeing is the forgotten people fighting back while they still can. Trump stands up to City Hall. It just so happens to be his trademark. Trump haters are just people that think they know the truth. But to me they couldn't run a lemonade stand. Just remember this. It's people like Trump that make out the paychecks. You can only beg for more and hope that you get it. Only a loser settles for mediocrity and then demands crumbs. You will never know how pathetic the demand's of employees tug at the hearts of risk takers. You are expendable and always will be if all that you can aspire to is being an employee. Group think -- blah! It's just a bunch of wishful thinking nags. Without powerful looters some of you are going to be fired. Drain the swamp.

Quote from: Xander on June 01, 2018, 06:42:06 PM
... If you are, then why do you assume that all of the experts and mathematicians are wrong, based on what they've written?  After all, they comprehend the math and basic probability, but you guys don't since you're not one of the "mathboyz!" 

If I were you, I think I'd make an effort to learn the math and basic probability, rather than trying to make it cool to be ignorant.   

Gizmo,

Are you really going to pass this off as proof of ignorance? Xanadu?  Although we are having a proper and lively discussion, you have not proved anything. Why, mathematically, must anyone have an edge in order to win? The question still stands. It didn't go away because you sweep up the dust in front of some math wiz's chalkboard. You should know that I wrote the first Blowfish encryption algorithm for the Transcript programming language. It's a 32 bit block cipher that uses bit wise operations with a very unique cipher block chaining front end that utilizes the mod function of the language. It's still illegal for an American to export it. I had to figure out the math. Funny how the dweebs that can predict the future with probability use that grand achievement to impress little minded groupies like you. Are you getting the trend yet? I think you are faking it.


So please prove that I haven't confounded your excuse for not actually addressing the issue. Is that literate enough for you? Prove it.

Quote from: alrelax on June 01, 2018, 04:01:36 PM
To answer your question, I have no edge over the casino that I can identify, likewise the casino has a 'mountain' (rather than an edge)  over myself, a real player with real cash.  That mountain that they have is 'Time' and 'Unlimited Chip Inventory' as well as the emotional and psychological problems/confusion and slip from reality that I inflict upon myself at certain times while gambling. 

However, I found a way to turn the tables slightly on the casinos and it has nothing to do with systems and math and statistical results in the classical sense, etc.

You made those methods, beliefs, practices, and experience clear to me the first day that I read your posts. I knew that you could win, and do it because of your intellect and experience. We are very few in the gambling world, I guess. People are now using hot numbers to expose conditional randomness to detection. These same people used to oppose me. Now they have found their own way to "read the random," to quote Spike. They have moved on from systems and math to situational awareness. And the best of us have also added the human nature factor to improve that skill. That is you too. I have watched you try to share experience. I think it can't be done. People do not have the ability to assimilate 1000's of lost sessions. They don't have skills at watching changes occur in the variance. They can't even relate to standing back or outside the data and seeing its real over all significance. I tried to teach that. I've tried to share it here. It's sort of like pushing a large boulder up a hill with your nose.


They all want a simple, step by step, set of rules that will make gambling like taking money out of an ATM machine. If it takes work and a lot of experience then they don't want it. Who's fault is that?


This entire subject, gambling to win, is another extreme mountain top that I give to myself. I like to summit and then ski off the most difficult, able to be skied route. I'm killer diller at that. I want to be that good at this. It looks like I'm there too. I've beaten the monkey on my back.