Mike, thank you for your very well thought out and coherent reply. We are discussing tangentially the same ground that the two camps of probability have been arguing about for more than 100 years.

QuoteDo you think it's only possible to calculate the probability of a sequence of outcomes only if each is not independent?

I'm not suggesting that at all. It never goes to a state where each spin is not independent. I'm saying that a coincidence of randomness some times presents a state of opportunity irregardless of the over all probability and the odds for an independent spin. Knowing the odds has nothing to do with opportunity recognition. Furthermore, the odds can't predict the outcome of the next spin.

Me too Ken, it's a waste of time arguing with the mathBoys.

Cool, interesting perspectives.

Let's start with making Spike angry. That is the pivotal point in the past ten years. I decided to take people though my discoveries as a mentor and student experience. This was a threat to Spike, don't ask me why.


Spike is a classic Narcissist, a common personality disorder. His only purpose for being on the internet was to cause confrontation and to create crisis. He fed off of it. It was his Narcissistic supply. When I went against him he set out to destroy me. That's a classic Narcissistic reaction too.


He tried to tell the entire gambling forum world, wherever I was participating, that I only sucked up to him pretending to be a friend, and that I did it in the hopes that he would tell his secret to me. That was a delusion on his part. But that off the target thinking was also a classic part of him being Narcissistic.


So there is the before Spike's temper tantrum and the after it periods.


Before, there was GG, gamblers glen forum, a wild west town if there ever was one.


I created, shared openly, and defended several concepts there first.


1.) The Elegant Pattern
2.) My charting technique and the need for visual dexterity to see trends fast.
3.) A few common characteristics of trends.
4.) Posting first the actual quote phrase "Reading Randomness" taken from an email where Spike suggested a notion of reading the random. It was a sort of plagiarism that infuriated Spike. So it was a tool for me to turn the tables on him in times later. It worked too. My Cheese and Crackers days were all about Narcissistic supply. I tweaked him with the evidence that I was the first to coin the actual phrase. He's a child. He's a drama Queen. He's a rescuer. It's all there to see for yourself. He's such a needy personality. I wonder what that makes me. He was my only allies in the battle for educated guessing as an advantage to flat betting the even chance games.
5,) I shared the existence of the effectiveness state.
6.) I shared the existence of the Global Effect.


Then I came here and taught ten students at no destructive risk to the gambling community as a result.


I waited two years and then proceeded to publish here first the list of characteristics of randomness in the game of Roulette.


I went over the previously disclosed information that I already published elsewhere.


I created and gave out two charting programs that demonstrated my charting techniques.


I explained these concepts and openly and freely attempted to make it clear what I meant.


It's all here if you can put it together on your own.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 03, 2016, 11:39:08 AM
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?!

We all know that he got caught in his wild claim and could never back down and admit it. That was the most telling of all. Math was never his strong point. He bragged about being a debating expert. The truth was never the point of his banter. He lived for the confrontation and in agitating others. You must know that. He's a classic Narcissist. Just look at the traits and look at his reactions to confrontations and crises that he created and fed on. He was there for one thing and one thing only, Narcissistic supply. All he needed was that 72%. When I did the one thing that he didn't approve of he turned on me to destroy me, a common reaction for a Narcissist. If you encounter him you need to know how to arm yourself. Look it up. You will see that I'm correct.

Quote from: Mike on September 03, 2016, 08:53:04 AM
I think it's unfair to characterize members as 'cynical', 'nihilist', 'children' etc because they happen to agree with the universally recognized mathematical facts regarding roulette and are merely asking for some evidence that they don't exclusively apply. You, Gizmo, and other 'enlightened' members on the forums may well have 'overthrown' the accepted wisdom, but it's merely an assertion; there is and never has been the slightest evidence that any of these theories actually have any merit or reflect reality.

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.

Quote from: Mike on September 03, 2016, 08:53:04 AM
What, in the name of Jehovah, does Quantum Mechanics have to do with roulette and independent outcomes? Just how can outcomes be simultaneously independent and inter-connected?

Answers to basic questions are always evaded by you guys. Such questions always put you either on the defensive or the offensive. Is it any wonder readers are suspicious of your motives, even when you're not openly touting for business? (as Gizmo and Albalaha both are).

I've have boldly put a price on something that actually works, because it's worth it a hundred times over. In a way that is a kind of free. It's just free if you can see that an education that returns far more in rewards must come at a price. My fee of $200 is just high enough to weed out the non-interested. It also serves the other purpose of answering your question. A small army of successful players using it, thus proving that more than one person can master the skill, is the way I wish to let the truth be known. And once that happens it will have always been the truth.


Now to your, so called scientific question. I'm sure once you get my answer you will ignore the fact that you ever asked it. In the game of Blackjack the cards are connected because the deck is reduced in size after each hand. This is known scientifically as variable change. There are less cards for the next hand, and the cards that are missing can be known if you pay attention to them as they are used. Some refer to this, clumsily, as the game having a memory.


That brings us to the game of Roulette that does not throw out slots on the wheel after each spin. The mechanical random number generator has the same number of slots for each spin. It has the exact same odds for each spin. It's funny how independence minded neo-pseudo-scientists around here hang their hats on independence and then come right at everyone with the non-independence minded conglomeration of multiple events, spins, that are combined to form a notion of an iron clad probability declaration. How do you get to use combined spins to extort the existence of the long term odds if there is no such thing beyond independence? Your kind thinks that probability is an exact science and so you tend to be dogmatic referring to it. It's convenient for you, so you lean on it heavy, but when it turns on you with your biased confirmation skills you always find a way to do a pretzel maneuver and escape the argument as if it never occurred. I have found that to be a consistency that never seems to stop happening on these gambling forums over the past ten years. Perhaps they are connected by some cause too.


A 30 spin perfect pattern is a combination of 30 perfectly executed independent outcomes of a balanced and fair mechanical random number generator. But did it ever exist if it was never observed? If it did happen it was a coincidence of randomness and by no outside cause and nothing more. Because it happened, and was observed by a person skilled enough to exploit it, that person, by only existing, made it real. Those 30 combined spins became a single thing in the mind of the skilled craftsman. The odds of it occurring have no effect on the fact that it did in fact occur. Odds can't predict the future in the next 150 spins. They can only suggest a value that borders on infinity in the long run. Remember, the notion of long termed odds, based on probability studies, they are the combinations of independent events, if this science is to be forever ensconced in stone that is.


If your argument is that independent events are the proof that Roulette spins are not connected, then why connect them to prove that the odds are connected? It's just a convenient argument when it suits you and is to be ignored when it does not, is that it? Your post-modern attitude does not impress me at all. Your subjective reasoning does not support the facts. Try to give me an objective example that challenges what I just showed you in this post. Stand up for your beliefs this time. Don't run and hide like they all do.

Jake, you are really dense. You are the one that needs me to admit that my bet selections make no difference. That's your drum beating again. I think you must have a head ache. I don't care what you need.

QuoteSo you finally admit that your bet selection has no effect. It took a while, but we got there in the end.

I'm done engaging you. You don't know anything about gambling discussion.


You can own this thread and I don't care what you have to say. You don't listen, you draw conclusions that are not true. And when you are shown the truth you can't see it. Enjoy the sound of your own voice.

Quote from: Jake on August 30, 2016, 01:50:19 PM
My, you have been busy with copy & paste. Gizmo, try to stay on topic and come up with an actual argument or some data which proves that you win all your short sessions and yet still miraculously end up with a win rate right on expectation. You know, try to exercise a little of that critical thinking faculty you're recommending. You might have to brush up on some basics first though, so here's little reading for YOU.

OK, time to crack that thick bone located just above your neck and to let something in. This is a test of your intelligence. If I add up all the spins that I placed bets on, as if I were keeping track of every win and every loss, they would average out at 61% wins and 39% losses, as expected for the double zero American wheel. Are you with me so far?


I'm trying to example to you, per your request, showing you how I win more money by winning at moments that represent to me opportunity. And in actual practice and real play, they actually exist. At 61% vs 39% and flat betting I would expect to lose at the House's Edge rate. And that is what you are insisting must happen. Only I have been saying for years to bet bigger when you are doing good and bet smaller when you aren't. Once again your opinion being that I can't know when I'm doing good, or bad I guess for that matter. So, until you acknowledge that I can tell when I'm doing good and conversely bad, I can't reach you as a fellow human being on this planet.

QuoteI love the way whenever someone's trying to put anyone else down, they invoke imaginary supporters, as if that actually means anything. I don't hear anyone else complaining about me, only complaining about you asking $200 for a roulette system. I don't blame you for being p*ssed off though, since I've already exposed your at best incompetence, and at worst lies. Your days as a seller are numbered buddy, better join some more forums if you want to pay the bills.

Talk about imaginary supporters, do you ever bother to meet with yourself and do a check of what's real? I'm not " p*ssed off" as you just put it. I'm the happy owner of a successful online school with happy students. I could ask $20,000 and get it if I could close every sale in escrow after proving it works. But I had a far better idea. BTW, I've earned my $200 per student. I've spent far less time on these students than I did with the first ten at $500 each. My better idea is to, almost for free considering what it is worth, to give it away slowly. It's against everything human nature traps all of us into dealing with, unless you happen to be one of the captives set free. You see, I've looked into the mirror and checked with what is real. I'm giving away something that really works for what amounts to not much more than the price of two aggressive bets.


Now let's see how you do with that. You have been told what you have clearly asked for. It's a mathematical explanation that clears it all up. If this continues to go on as some kind of begging for the big secret then you will have to find someone else to give you your answers.

Quote from: Jake on August 30, 2016, 09:06:36 AM
I'm glad to hear that there will be no selling allowed. But I think it's a mistake in what is supposed to be discussion forum for certain members to have their own little empires and the power to delete all posts that they don't agree with. I've never seen this on any other forum and it's weird.

It's one thing if you're trolling and abusing other members, in that case the admin should obviously be able to delete the offending posts, but deleting posts just because you disagree with someone goes against the spirit of what a forum should be about.

Try to look up the word obnoxious. Try to look in the mirror and see yourself in your command post uniform. Try to look up fundamentalism and don't leave out "Math Nazi." You think that we don't hear or can't hear your endless chanting, "Ze plane! Ze plane!" -- Tattoo; Fantasy Island. You represent a very small sect of society that thinks that a savior is needed in the world of poor delusional gamblers and so you are here to DRUM BEAT it into us like a traveling fundamentalist "Turn or Burn" preacher. We have seen your act. It's tired, there's absolutely nothing new, and actually, I doubt that anyone can hear you anyway.

Quote from: Jake on August 30, 2016, 08:55:54 AM
But you haven't shown that they're linked at all. Sometimes clusters continue long enough for you to profit, sometimes they don't.  ...Unreal...

My goodness. Heresy from within your own world of real. You preach total disconnection from spin to spin and then you quantify and validate a notion of "clusters" in an argument to make some kind of convoluted impression. How convenient your world must be for you. I guess you are one of those young, propagandized, students that entered the first grade after 1980. These people are the rats in a maze experiment to cause a person to ignore objective critical thinking and to embrace subjective arguments. They have been classically trained to specifically ignore the truth, and that truth is just a tool to keep the establishment in power anyway. It's also refereed to as post modernism. You should attempt to redefine post modernism as an escape mechanism. Perform one of your pretzel logic back-flips for us.


Want to test to see if you are a trained tool? I Dare you to read "TELLING THE TRUTH" by Lynne Cheney


and then read: "The Velvet Monkey Wrench" by John Muir


Education in America has been hijacked to fulfill the purposes of 60's radicals that have pragmatically set out to overthrow the establishment by deliberately lying to it. They needed a generation that would be comfortable being lied to. You see, back in the late 60's these radicals discovered the teachings of a nineteenth century philosopher. He advocated that you could lie to a society in order to change it.


So I wonder if you are a classically trained tool. They took over from the first grade to undergraduate degree in the humanities departments of almost every school district and college in America.

Remedial arithmetic, gads. That takes the cake. "according to probability"


Let's try insults for door number three Bob.


I see by your avatar that you are the south end of a north bound steer. So that "NO" circle, is that to suggest that you want everyone to stay out of your south end?


I don't want to wise you up as another pest used to put it.


Please, keep up the good job of protecting us all.

Bally6354,That is an amazing table.


I love the pointing out of the moment that the law of third occurs.


It just jumps off the page to want to go wild writing sims again.

Quote from: Jake on August 28, 2016, 05:12:15 PM
Gizmo, stop trying to pull a fast one. OBVIOUSLY, if you can CONSISTENTLY do well in the SHORT run then your long run win rate will be better than what's expected. If your win rate is as expected, as you admit, then the short runs in which you do better than average must be balanced by the sessions in which you do worse than expected. THAT MUST BE SO TO GET THE EXPECTED RATE.

You're trying to argue that  2 + 2 = 5. I don't think anyone's going to buy it. Please credit readers with some intelligence.

I'm done trying to explain this to you. And to give you the credit that you are clearly asking for, what form of lower life intelligence could you agree best describes you? I don't want to insult you. So please consider something with a brain bigger than a peanut.


I can have an average win rate of 61% and still have a higher result average based on when I get my wins. Only you think that not changing your diapers for you means that I'm trying to be evasive. Listen bub, when I get my wins does not change the long term average but it definitely changes the outcome. Now please, use that 1 oz brain pan of a specimen of yours to see what I just said. ... and thank you for asking for credit regarding intelligence.

Have you seen Denzies' daily reports in the school participant's thread?


There is something missing from his method in those examples, something that I teach at the school openly.


That's conditional MM, a protected staking plan, and a solution to concur the occasional weakness that randomness offers the player and that the casino can't protect themselves from that you are looking at.


You might try to convince me that you have something worth trading for too. I need more or I need to read more that is available that you have already written.