Check this:

NOT HOTTOYS alice！　"Ultraviolet"custom

Wow Bayes, that's as beautiful as Milla Jovovich in Ultraviolet.

[Edit: For those who want to know about MJ see the OFF TOPIC section -- where it belongs.]

I thought I would show a little progress so far. This telemetry will be changed to logical phrases that are good for seeing process. I still have to add recognition for patterns, global effect, and session effectiveness.

holdYesListSingle && holdThisBet && zapDis
Level 2 doz3, col2,  col2, 2

<<<< -- Winner! -- >>>>
-----------------------
Your running total is now at 20

Place a bet of 10 on Column 2

holdYesListSingle && holdThisBet && zapDis
Level 2 doz3, col2,  col2, 2

<<<< -- Winner! -- >>>>
-----------------------
Your running total is now at 40

Place a bet of 10 on Column 2

false1, false2, false3 -- holdDozDoz3sp
true1, false2, false3 -- holdDozCol3sp
false1, false2, false3 -- holdDozDoz7sp
false1, false2, false3 -- holdDozCol7sp
3213112111321 -- dozList
3113211123222 -- colList
even, high, doz2, col3,  -- holdMaybeListSingle
col1,  -- holdMaybeListSleep
doz3, col2,  -- holdYesListSingle
-- holdYesListSleep

Razor -" ... like anything else."

That's exactly correct. Following trends is no better than anything else. But it's not a mindless set of rules, like a progression is. What it is, and why I like it, it's a great method to detect winning streaks and losing streaks. It gives you a "WHY" it's working. When you are searching for cause and effect, even if it is not real, like seeing formations in clouds, trends are just a method to apply a mapping of the recent effectiveness. The sole purpose of which is to move into win streaks while avoiding being killed by the losing streaks. You can use anything to give meaning to the why. I have found that using a ( why it's working ) method makes seeing the global effects, the elegant patterns, the win streaks easier to keep track of. Every session is different. You must learn to treat every session differently. Keep your eyes on the big things that always tend to be similar. The biggest thing is the win streaks. They come and go differently every session. The why they come and go is different every time too. I have a well developed agility. My intuition is to adapt to the current conditions.  To do that I must see them. That's why I must have a useful method of mapping the conditions. Following trends is just a tool that leads to a stretch of positive results that are easier to exploit.

Yes, of course. Let's start with recursion and other subjects like class overloading. I can teach object oriented programming with xTalk in less than ten minutes. Variables create their own memory space just by using them for the first time.

put "Hello World" into x
repeat with i = 1 to 5
  put x & return after field "maintext"
end repeat

Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World
Hello World

I've had a request to write this in another scripting language. I've got enough to do writing it in xTalk. Here is the secret to programming it. Have the algorithm perform each observation of a characteristic at a time. Have it send back a percentage of effectiveness from the recent history of spins. Do this for all the characteristics, including the possibility of a working global effect occurring for each characteristic. Make the software think like you think when identifying characteristics and patterns. Take all that data and have the software select the best trend to bet on. Have the software evaluate the session difficulty. Have the software constantly search for elegant patterns.

To write this software you must already know how to do everything. It makes no sense in tutoring others at this point. The software, when completed, will be the perfect tutor. It will kick out perfect telemetry for every characteristic, for every spin entered.

I know there are those that want this to operate as a bot. It won't need to be a bot. You can run it on a second screen while you are logged into an online session.

Yes, that tracking software is essential. You can fill out charts by hand if you can't run this software. I have an example further down in  that thread. There is another thread here where I published the list of characteristics that I look for while looking at these type of charts. Do a search for "list" & gizmotron.  That might bring it up.

It did :
http://betselection.cc/meta-selection/the-simple-explanation-attacking-trends/msg2678/#msg2678 

Quote from: Max on April 05, 2013, 04:56:16 PM
Will you public a holy grail?

No.

But i would assist someone to go in the right direction.

Regards
Max

Max, I already did. It's published here, like chips in chocolate chipped cookies. The only thing not published is a spin by spin explanation and working results. I really did expect people here to do the work. Human nature deserves a lesson. Max, the answer is YES.  When you get the message you will scratch your head. You will ask, why tell the true holy grail publicly?

The main idea with it is to teach and validate concept. So I'm designing it to produce telemetry for each characteristic of randomness. In other words it outputs what I think when analyzing each spin. That way I won't have to teach by writing books. The software does that for you. I would like to be compensated for the four to six months of work that is going into development of this product. That's what it is you know. It will teach far better and easier than any book and teaching school. Other people will become experts. It is they that can teach those that struggle with it. I might sell it at a reasonable price, as a software product. What about that? Once I reach a set earnings goal I can let it go as open source. How much is six months of development time worth?

I wonder if I get this black box validator working, I wonder if I should first sell it to rich people. I figured out a way to give it away as a trial period. Steve says he makes $300,000 per year off his sales. It's obvious that there are people that could afford to validate this in a real world testing type of a situation. That would eventually lead to rumors of its effectiveness. That would cause a big enough buzz as to cause a great deal of attention. That would lead to a proper demonstration to occur. Then a release of the open source version would be taken serious.

Any ideas or comments regarding this are welcome.

By request I've been asked to bury the hatchet. I've actually considered that.

I've set out to accomplish the impossible. So I'll  do it. 

I leave to do a difficult task. But I give you this Spike:

Pink Floyd Lost For Words

You must wait for it.

Quote from: spike on March 31, 2013, 02:42:06 AM
Yes, something would be better than nothing,
which is all I can find now.

That certainly explains how you can criticise my contribution to understanding randomness. Your opinions are groundless, based on impressions that you want to be correct. As if wishful thinking were your argument. You have no basis in fact. You clearly demonstrate an unscientific approach to your efforts in these forums. Any might guess that jealousy were your primary motivation. But that's just an educated guess. I'll be done with my proof of concept algorithm within two months. Perhaps you should use your own capacity to research my writings at this forum. It would be very interesting watching you explain to everyone how an example of working proof can't work, even though it clearly does in demonstration.

Spike, perhaps someone will feel sorry for you and assemble something. Victor has his own method that is very good too. There are others here that have versions of randomness and guessing too.  I had no trouble finding their contributions. I really don't see the difficulties. I'm sorry Spike, I'm very busy working on something more important.

Quote from: Bayes on March 30, 2013, 08:33:29 AM
Gizmo, how about setting up a separate web site or blog for all this? it would be nice to have it all in one place and you could put the URL in your signature. You could give examples, upload your tracking software etc. As it is, all your posts are scattered in different sections and forums and not that easy to find. Just a suggestion.

First off, the suggestion is flattering. I have it here for one very good reason. It's in the hands of those that want it the most. It's in the hands of those that reject it. No one will be able to say sure, he kept to himself before he wrecked it. You do realize that the full release of a working application, coupled with a very simple to understand explanation will have the potential for a wide spread result. I have a good use for that result.

And there's also an extra benefit. There's poor Spike. He's like the court clown at the gathering of the mathboyz. That will be the moment when these forums take on a whole new perspective. Imagine having documented coverage of the flat earthers during the realm of Columbus. Only now we have it all in their own words. And we have the resident bone head for amusement sake. It's all good.

Moderator's comment:   The poster has been sanctioned for posting an inflammatory and insulting comment that clearly violates the forum rules.

It's time the two of them stopped behaving like a couple of fractious children and showed adult maturity.

Either will automatically mute themselves if there is any more of this unseemly behaviour in future .

Quote from: D1 on March 29, 2013, 10:01:37 PM

Well I agree with you there Giz

that's me one of the uneducated

Well some really smart person will explain to all of us. Turning mathematics on its ear will be fun to watch.