Quote from: Mike on August 04, 2016, 03:29:01 PM
An argument's validity isn't based on its novelty.

In fact, looking at your assertion

I'm not sure what this even means, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. But it sounds good, and that's the main thing, right?

The main thing is I'm going to spend this winter writing the proof algorithm in the X-Talk language. That's just because of you and the symbolism you represent of all the Math Nazi's I've had to deal with on all the forums for the past ten years. If I succeed then you are total dust in the wind. If I fail then you can boast of your superior intellect. No matter how righteous you think your opinion is, I control what happens next.

Quote from: Mike on August 04, 2016, 07:48:59 AM
but you can't observe the middle or end before the middle and end has actually occurred.

Yes I can. I can confirm a continuing situation as it continues. I do this as it happens. I don't need it to do a certain thing to exploit it. Your brain is fixated on defining what I do. That's your trouble. You are just guessing from an uniformed opinion. Your argumernt is as old as the hills.

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 07:53:23 PM
Interesting, I wish they had it with American air-ball machines.

One of my favorite casino's air ball does have it here in the USA, Thunder Valley Casino just north of Sacramento. They call it Finale. You press the Finale button and the ten options come up. I've never seen it offered on a table layout before. That would be way-cool to the Max Daddio.

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 04:36:55 PM
One of the best ideas that came from you is the root numbers for 10.
I give credit to you every time I teach your concept to my students, Base 10.
I tell them I got the idea from Gizmotron on a forum.

The way I organize the concept allows the players to see numbers in a totally different light, most used for 12 number betting and Even Chances.
Thank you for your contribution.

I came up with these on my own, but apparently, the automated air-ball machines offer it as a quick bet option.

"Final Bet (Finale) The Final Bet or Finale (from French) is made on the last digit of a number. For instance Finale Four means that you bet on the numbers 4, 14, 24 and 34. The bet on Final 1–6 requires 4 chips, while Final 7–9 gets along with just 3 chips."

Quote from: Mike on August 03, 2016, 06:14:04 PM
Trending 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.

Trends can be observed at the very beginning, the middle , and the end of their occurrence. An experienced player knows how to live with the results of all three conditions. I assure you that you can bet that the next spin continues the trend and that you can win or lose based on what happens in the future. The trick is in knowing how to exploit the unknown future.

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 03, 2016, 03:27:18 PM
Really?, in the name for fame. Good luck with that.

Kimo Li

Oops! and Kimo Li too.

Sorry about that. To be fare, all I've ever looked at of yours is your pet groupings, sections of the wheel. I knew that your methods are beyond just observing these groups. That's an impressive list of milestones. So you charge $2000 for the tutoring or training, is that right?

I know that you have been doing this for a long time. I didn't know that you had more information available beyond your published books.

I became aware of randomness characteristics back in 1992. That is when I specialized in hot number characteristics and pet groupings of my own. That's why I liked what you were writing about and what others were looking at of yours. I never heard about you until 2006. Obviously, your teaching has not wrecked the game in all that time, so you must be teaching in a way that students keep their advantages to themselves. It's true, if you have randomness and tactical advantages figured out, your way, then some day the truth will come out regardless of what I teach. I've watched you defend yourself for the past decade. Keep up the good fight.

Quote from: Mike on August 03, 2016, 08:01:01 AMGizmo,What you call "coincidental change" is just another name for random. System addicts don't understand statistical independence (and blackjack isn't a game of independent trials) which is why they endlessly try to create systems which attempt to plug the gaps. The trouble is, every hole you plug just opens up another hole somewhere else. It's endless. Every sequence is equally likely so no matter what you use as your trigger there is a corresponding sequence which will cause the system to lose. That's a fact and not merely my opinion. I hope for your sake that someday enlightenment will dawn.There is no algorithm which will achieve more wins than losses. All a bet selection does is to select parts of an infinite random stream (a sub-sequence from a sequence), but it has been shown that this cannot result in improved odds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossibility_of_a_gambling_systemPresumably you have actually written this algorithm to at least prove to yourself that it works? If so what are the results? What is your edge?Show me the math!

You acknowledge the existence of variable change, like in the game of Blackjack. That's the basis for coincidental change. Variable change occurs because the game has a memory so to speak. It mathematically offers small streaks to take advantage of it. While in a state of favorable advantage a known strategy to raise the bets is well known. Because there are perfect sequences in randomness that appear to defeat the variable change advantage there is no guarantee that you will win every time you use it. In the long run though, you should win.

Your argument is that my method doesn't actually change the odds. That's true too. So why use odds to beat a random game if you already know you can't count on odds as an advantage? I'm satisfied that using coincidences of randomness also offer stretches of advantage even if they are not changes in the path of independent events. You claim that they can't work to your advantage over the long run. For example, 40 sleeping dozens in a row is more powerful than a single deck advantage in Blackjack. Knowing how to strategically take advantage of these kinds of opportunities is a skill based craft. It requires reasonable expectation and a form of situational money management.

Proving it to you is not my plan. My plan is to show the world what actually works and have people like you as documented naysayers of a once believed truth. Perhaps one day there will be an algorithm for every high school math teacher to marvel at. I'm still having fun treating the casino like an ATM machine. When I have more than I need, and that's not to far off, I will fully and publicly disclose proof. Just because you think that a discussion forum needs it proved when you say so doesn't mean that it is the best method to disclose inventive progress. I'm no longer intimidated by the requests of those that demand proof. I know what I have discovered. All I have discovered is something that has already been the truth. I just did it first.

There are others that have made the same claims. Spike, Gr8player, John Patrick, and others have laid claim to exploiting trends. This is not new. They didn't program it as a basis for it being true though. They didn't discover a charting method to see it as a simplified visual dexterity process. They never saw it as characteristics. They never referred to it as reading randomness.

So please resign yourself as to being patient as to when I will fully disclose everything. When I do it, it will be a free open source example. It will be fun watching the throng scurry around like they once did before when Edward Thorp wrote "Beat The Dealer." That's my plan.

Quote from: Albalaha on August 03, 2016, 03:16:29 AM                 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.

If I wanted to wreck everything and cause a total disruption in gambling opportunities for everyone I would create and share an open source version of an algorithm that proves everything. That mechanical based artificial intelligence would be mathematical proof that coincidental change occurs just like Variable Change occurs. I have coined the concept of Coincidental Change from the logic in economics, Coincident Indicator, and from the pragmatic approach to moments of advantage caused from Variable Change and counting cards in 21 being opportunistic if the right conditions exist.

In 21 the game is exploited because of mathematical advantage. I'm just positing that Coincidental Advantage exists and is easily exploitable by computer algorithms, especially in the game of Roulette.

Quote from: Mike on August 02, 2016, 04:15:43 PM
Albalaha is correct and only stating the obvious. Of course bet selection (whether complex or simple) doesn't help in a random game of independent trials.

Shut your eyes and scatter chips randomly over the table, or get your pet monkey to do it, and your results will be no better or worse than someone who has spent years researching and developing a system.

Anyone who denies this has either been fooled by short term results or is deliberately trying to deceive the gullible.

Mike, I have already confirmed for myself that your generalization is only true some of the time. If I'm using the characteristics of randomness, based on placing bets after 4 repeating characteristics, then there are times when those bets lose continuously. It's one of the three phases of effectiveness. To deny that these three states exist is like going into outer space without bringing an oxygen supply. If I'm in an effectiveness phase that is working extremely well, for the time being, if I change to a mindless random bet selection, what you are suggesting, and ignoring what is already working, then almost every time I have done so the winning streak transforms into a losing state.


This knowledge and experience is a repudiation of your opinion. I'll suggest that because you are the one thinking from a position of denial you need to look at something you have placed boundaries from seeing.


Do you get it? I've tried random on random. It changes states faster than the global effect when it's working great. My experience with you, Mike, is that you are a constant state too. You won't look where you think you already know the answer. The world is not flat Mike.

Quote from: Nickmsi on August 01, 2016, 05:08:48 PM

Gizmotron. . . I agree that RNG and the seeding problem might affect results so we have included in the bot,  9 RNG sources to choose from. See attached pic.  Now we can verify results using different RNG sources. 

That's good, It effected our 100 million spin tests.


Add the equivalent of this to your repeat loop


if numSpins mod (500000) = 0 then
  set the randomSeed to random(1000000)
end if




This will change the random seed every 500,000 spins

Quote from: Albalaha on August 02, 2016, 04:38:22 AM
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?

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.

Quote from: Albalaha on August 01, 2016, 06:21:49 AM
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.

Apparently my goal to disclose what works and yet to make the communication process of doing so extremely difficult for anyone attempting to see it clearly, worked.


Here is the order of learning and using my techniques:


1.) See the existence of opportunistic coincidences.
A.) This is done by filling in simple to observe charts while you are playing.
   a.) my charts are located all over this forum, both text examples, free software, and actual photographs of playing charts.
B.) Visual dexterity allows the chart user to instantly see randomness characteristics.


2.) Actually use the best occurring coincidence to make and place your bets.


3.) Keep a mental record of steps 1 and 2's effectiveness.


4.) Use a disciplined bet size method based on that mental record of effectiveness.


5.) Follow steps 1 - 4 until win goal is reached.




I talked to Victor about privately tutoring people here. My past experience doing this took an average 30 - 40 hours. At $15 per hour that's still about $500. Since that first ten students I have added simplification and the improved effectiveness methodology including discipline method. I get asked at least once every couple of months to provide a guided journey through my techniques. If I get some real interest I will improve my training software and put together a better training process that focuses on the very few things that I have kept secret for the past two years. There is a subtle advantage to knowing what I have discovered in the past two years.


My tutoring will be all about giving anyone practical experience in taking advantage of the coincidences offered up by simple randomness observation. I can teach you to be a grinder and an explosive opportunist in things that just need to be waited for. "Opportunity rewards the prepared mind."


Contact me by PM. If I get at last one student I'll make a formal invitation over in the Gizmotron section. I like this obscure location first, in this thread. This is how I have hidden my concepts in plain sight from the beginning of posting here at BetSelction.cc. Almost all of it is here somewhere. It's just not assembled in a coherent order to easily see it.

This bet loses at the statistical expectation point just like all mechanical mindless based systems do. Presenting a magical thinking argument does not make that argument true.

I'm not trying to be negative here. Wishful thinking will not make a system work. You will find that this method of bet selection will produce the three states that I have for many years tried to explain. It will lose because you never know when a cold number will activate. Those two cold numbers still hit from three to six times for every 300 spins even if they remain cold.

When you get exhausted searching for a mechanical system to beat Roulette you might want to consider coincidences  that appear as opportunities. It is my experience, on these forums, that mechanical system researchers never give up their quests until they have exhausted all the ideas they can dream up or find. In other words it's just a stage of learning. I know, because I already have gone through that stage.

Something everyone should be aware of. These tests using a computer to generate an RNG need the random seed reset after half a million spins, and for every half million thereafter. Modern computer operating systems now reset the random seed of the RNG algorithm every time you restart your computer. But if you run a simulation over 100s of millions of spins you get a duplication of the approximate first half million. This will give you a false reading. Years ago several of us programmers proved it is possible to avoid the double zeros by a minute fraction of a percentage. We proved that the statistical percentage for the house edge was not a constant. That a mechanical system could deliberately avoid some of the wilder swings of the zeros being hot numbers. It was however impractical. It never came close to becoming 50/50.

Quote from: james on July 30, 2016, 06:35:19 PM
If no bet selection produces an edge, can progressions give an edge mathematically?

It's true that no bet selection, either guess or mechanical based rule can produce an edge. But both of these types of bet selections can produce favorable coincidences of opportunity that are exploitable by a prepared expert. These large number tests show that there are more favorable times to use short termed progressions.

If you are to favor a moment for a progression then you might as well favor positive progression's characteristics.

Just offering something to think about here.