Quote from: greenguy on March 17, 2016, 12:04:41 AM
!.)Everybody fails to communicate anything of value to ND..

2.)The global effect as you call it is sometimes clearly visible to experienced players, especially through charts.

3.)I just don't have the RAS to confidently predict its stability when actually placing real money bets.

1. -- That's funny. I've always like ND, and always will. I love the way he plays Nathan Detroit on the forums.

2. -- ... and it clearly does not appear to be happening at times too. But Oh Boy when it goes Nuclear, do I love that.

3. -- I can't predict its stability either. But it only takes a couple of risky bets that graduate upward for just a couple of spins to find out, with the original risked bet being not much bigger than a flat betting method. It's a method of checking to see if you are in a whirlwind of repetitive characteristics. That's when it is time to spank the casino. I'm experienced at taking chances on it. So I'm comfortable with a loss that shows it's not really happening. It only represents a flat bet loss to me to try. I just know to hammer it if it continues.

I watch for four key characteristics that come and go in differing strengths for a chance to increase the bets among 30 different sets of 12, 18, or 24 sized groupings. When that is not working, I use a stand even tactic. Playing to not lose is also an art form. You can last for hours with just $100 on a $5 table. Deliberately breaking even builds up comps too. You can't attack a win streak if it isn't there. You can't make one appear at will either. You must wait for it. So an occurring win streak is the sign to go for it. Absent that, you must play on your belly.

The concept of a law of thirds is so thought provoking to anyone considering mechanical system development or research. I keep coming back to it often. It's hard to deal in terms of 37 spins making up a set or balance point. Once you add 3 hottest numbers or the12 hottest numbers then you start thinking what about the 12 coldest numbers? It's a great area to look at when you consider 300 spins as a ten hour session. There are 8 to 9 sets in 300 spins. It's like all trends. It works sometimes.

Amazing what you are creating and providing. You might set the foundation for mathematically considering short duration probability beliefs with regards to gambling beliefs. Once someone takes down the casinos with a working method your work will spring to the front.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 08, 2016, 06:53:34 AM
Whichever bet you pick by any magical formula, it can not be a Constant Winning bet in any manner, by itself. Correct use of MM can though make any bet a CWB in the long run.
.....

Whatever bet selection you might use it will only produce one of three states at any time. It works like a constant winning bet, it works like a constant losing bet, or it bounces somewhat between the CWB and the CLB state as an evening out state. Once anyone starts to react to the effectiveness trends of their betting choices they can maneuver with their MM stratagems.

In other words, don't be mesmerized by learning how to use bet selections, "these are not the droids you are looking for."

Here's some advice that is not the same old gizmo, and it's not verbose as well.

Don't get married to a dozen and expect it not to sleep up to 30 times in a row with 8 to 16 times in a row being very common.

Divorce yourself from wishful thinking.

Quote from: NathanDetroit on March 14, 2016, 12:46:09 PM

Charting  is of no help.Just   consider  the last spin result to be  in either the second and third column.

ND

So, have you ever seen the global effect revealed clearly in charting? To ignore it for any reason tells me that I have failed to communicate anything of value.

Thanks for the reply. What a joke. I was all ready for some interesting debate.

Anyone seeking a subjective conclusion while ignoring the obvious is asking for it. So this thing is nothing like the shoot out at the OK Coral in Tombstone Arizona. It's more like an anti-climatic soap opera.

Quote from: ybot on March 14, 2016, 03:20:45 PM
http://www.roulette30.com/2014/05/roulette-player-vs-math-professor-dialog.html

This debate is really interesting. Ellison, Snell, Leibon.

I remember Ellison was sued by 2005 by FTC for his statements

That's fine and dandy, I read the whole thing, so what is Ellison's ground breaking hypothesis regarding independent events of sequences of spins on a fair Roulette table?

My opinion is that 200 continuous spins are in fact connected packets of opportunistic variations of characteristics that ebb & flood continuously as spins are added and calculated as meaningful.

So my question, if ever asked of Probability experts, both frequentists or absolutists, can a sequence of  independent outcomes produce meaning? Can that meaning, if it in fact exists, be more than just the fallacy of statistical expectations? The Zen of probability can't be about saying nothing and allowing unspoken assumptions to be the platitudes of the consensus undefended.

Quote from: Gizmotron on November 30, 2012, 10:53:47 PM
On every spin I check to see if a new characteristic is forming or that any existing ones are changing. So I scan the chart. I can see a characteristic in approximately one third of a second.

Look for sleepers in the dozens and columns.
Look for singles, then doubles, triples, and larger in the dozens and columns.
Look for global effects for all this.
Look for perfect and almost perfect patterns in the dozens and columns.
Look for a perfect or almost perfect dominance in the dozens and columns.
Look for dominance in all of the even chance bets.
Look for sequences of singles, doubles, and triples and above in the even chance bets.
Look for perfect patterns in the even chance bets.
Look for sleeping zeros and wide awake zeros.
Look for any active attack bet ending.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the current state.
Repeat this process after every spin and before every bet.

Apply proper money management to that probing technique and Bingo! you are driving a pre Volkswagen Lamborghini. 

Here is how winning consistently works.

You go on the internet and stumble over everything that doesn't work for years. You try everything you can think of. You overlook advice of others because it has nothing to do with what you are interested in now. Even though any advice has yet to cause the casinos to change tactics in the last 200 years, you keep searching. Some of you do your own research even. You keep this up hoping to discover the so called holy grail that nobody has discovered yet. Once you find it you go silent on the internet forums...

... ... ... ..........................................!

Quote from: plolp on January 22, 2016, 02:38:25 PM
You can wait states supposedly favorable but that does not change anything.
Your permanence of spins played resemble in all respects to any permanence

That's interesting because it's not meant to change anything. The odds never change. They are the same odds, spin to spin. The commonality of winning 10 to 16 spins in a row is so prevalent on a daily basis that it would take a brain transfusion to get accepted to MIT. In other words, it's sick. I admire your persistence in all this though.

Quote from: Carlitos on January 22, 2016, 05:36:20 PM
I think i played such systen a few years back. What i remember is that one could have nice runs with it but also bad streaks came along. I think i even played in an live casino. When i set down at the roulette machine i had 16 winning spins, one after they other.

Carlitos 

Yep, double dozen or double column bets are great for runs. BUT, having said that, losing a double D/C bet can clean you out so fast that you had better think fast.

Quote from: plolp on January 22, 2016, 02:09:31 PM
as all my posts are deleted with "nathan detroit" I place it here.

I just gave a result on the T1 wiesbaden yesterday;
-14 To 89 spins

I guess you blazed right on through betting into a bad effectiveness streak. Maybe you never bothered checking for the three states of effectiveness. That's OK. Somebody has to pay to keep the lights on.

Quote from: plolp on January 21, 2016, 09:36:21 AM
This makes little sense here is to always play the first column regardless of the color output.
It would be better to bet on the third column when red hit and the second column when black hit.

It is easier to manage and more economical.

Spike is a very crafty fellow. You might want to consider it as a clue into seeing randomness as a kind of information that tends to lead to more correct guesses than what you would get from just blind guessing. It still comes down to one thing though. You play what's coming at you, not what you wish was coming at you. It's a hint to play what's coming at you. You must remember this. Betting on trends to succeed was considered a fool's errand for a very long time by many that frequented these forums. Spike and I took a lot of heat. So we both learned to dish it out too. The hints are all there, on many forums for the past nine years. They were given in a way to put people on to what works. It was hoped that anyone trying hard enough would find their own interpretation of randomness. If they made that work then they would have enough sense to keep their secrets secret.

We will see about that. People are trying to figure out reading randomness now. They have worked at the senseless mechanical systems long enough to finally give up on them (Phase One). Not wanting to quit altogether, they are considering things like the collusion of limited progressions confined to favorable moments of trending windows of opportunity. (Phase Two) Next, they will consider pure flat betting only or two level flat betting like I prefer. (Phase Three) Once they accept flat betting then they will be ready to really depend on "reading the random" as Spike first put the idea forward many years ago.(Phase Four) Once they do that, they will begin to see that it all comes down the three states of effectiveness. (Phase Five) How can casinos defend themselves from players that can maneuver among the minefield of basic ups and downs of gambling? That should be the end of casinos except for one thing, basic human nature. A mind working against randomness can defeat it unless that mind is misdirected from its original task. That's what human nature and deliberate distraction or misdirection can do.

Have fun while you can. Because winning is fun. If too many people figure this out, then the casinos will adjust or go out of business. There are those that will not get the memo, as it where, and continue to play the mindless slots though. Perhaps human nature is the holy grail, and it only favors the casino. What percent of a house's edge is that I wonder.