Quote from: D1 on March 29, 2013, 06:52:59 PM

EXACTLY !!!

that's why it will never be ABC

To me, what I said, is as simple as ABC. Reading source code is no more complex as simple arithmetic is. If you know the language and the compilation of very simple processes then it can be done easily. What I meant to say is that so called intelligent people will explain it to those uneducated folks who have not educated themselves.

Quote from: D1 on March 29, 2013, 06:19:15 PM

A grail will never be ABC

Yes it will. It will be the compilation of experts, taking my writings from this forum, and the source code written in xTalk, the only speech oriented syntactic language, and taking all of it to explain in common terms how it works and why it works. None of that will happen until the proof is delivered.

You have identified the process that keeps you from losing ground. You are describing all bad sessions as negative, and all good sessions as positive. If you can get as many positive as negative sessions then you break even. All negative sessions end as the -3 stop loss. You need to look at looking past the notion of a stop win.

If a session can be difficult to impossible then a session can also be easy to fantastic. You need to consider ways to take more advantage of the different qualities found in the positive sessions. You can see the different qualities and effectiveness of certain trends, as they occur. You should capitalize on these differences.

Here is a link to download a 45 minute YouTube video of getting started with livecode.

http://revdev.on-rev.com//Begginer%20Lessons/Lesson%201.zip

I downloaded it in a minute on my smart phone. These six videos teach you how to create your own software.

The link that I posted earlier contains all six videos.

Quote from: spike on March 27, 2013, 08:39:38 PM
Really? What's wrong with them. Don't they know you
published the HG here? That's why I had all the question
mark emoticons in the previous post, where is that post
where that the Grail is in, I missed it. Do you have the
link?

Spike, what you want does not concern me. Randomness is not your exclusive domain. It never was. Your 72% contribution has never passed a peer reviewed process. My version of reading randomness will. You and your concerns are irrelevant. You are nothing more than a minor irritation. I've been dealing with the mathazoids for so many years, you are nothing but a bunch of hot air. BTW, you know where every word I've said at these forums are. Don't play unintelligent.

Quote from: spike on March 27, 2013, 08:14:26 PM

Very simple Spike. I'm running an experiment in human nature. Heck, even Victor is suggesting a Randomness 101 kind of talking points. No. 1, I don't need the money. Nobody in my family believes I can win whenever I go in a casino. Of course, none of them ever go in casinos. So I have a pallet full of skeptics telling me what I can't do. The mathboyz are the primary targets. My goal is to send a throng against their never ending, drown of fundamentalist dogma. I really don't care if it over saturates the casinos with effective players. I don't care what the casinos are freeked out over. I don't care if you get discovered. I'm only interested in showing the mathboyz that they are wrong.

Quote from: Bayes on March 27, 2013, 05:31:58 PM
Have you tried code academy?

http://www.codeacademy.com

Nope. But I did discover some very interesting stuff this last week. When I got started back in 96 I was told that I would need to learn Visual Basic in order to accomplish sophistication in the IT  world. There was Pearl, CGI, JavaScript, Flash, and all kinds of standards being required to give the impression that you were savvy enough to take a risk on. My favorite language is xTalk, the language of HyperCard. Well now this language does all those tricky CGI scripting tricks. I can interface my websites with database interactions. Heck, I created my own database that is not table oriented. It uses my parallel numerical linear parser to deliver data from a cloud of formless conglomerated storage. And now my cloud is remote access by construct language and unlimited contributions.

Learn for free.

http://www.runrev.com/developers/documentation/beginners-course/

Livecode is about to go open source. That means that you can build Sims for free. I will give you sim development advice for free. All you have to do is get started. Many of my Sims are very simple to write.

put random(37) into x
put x into field "results"

That's a RNG in just two lines of livecode.

Here it is in one line:

put random(37) into field "results"

I'm sure that most people believe that a real HG should never be widely available. In fact it would be foolish to share such a thing. That's exactly why I did it. It's published right here at this forum. I'M counting on human nature. People are too sceptical to believe what's right in front of their faces. There's also the fact that very few are ready to see it. Most people want an easy solution. Until they are prepared to give up on any easy way, they have very little interest in finding the very thing they are looking for. And for that, most of them will be too late. It's not personal. I haven't done this to tick off a few beginners. This is about proving the mathboyz wrong. The price for doing this is in a way it's own reward.

"The suspension of disbelief," look it up. We have it all. You can go from magical beliefs to magical tricks in a blink of  an eye around here. Don't forget to keep your eye on the ball.

That's a good read there Marshall. Spike is definitely showing off his paranoia side.

Spike, thank you for showing me this. You have made my day. Heck, my week.

I'll say it again. There is opportunity from everything that happens. I know, because I can teach a computer to look at just about everything available to the outside bets on the layout. These are the same groupings monitored in my play and practice software. That process is a method of going out and finding information and choosing the best thing to bet on.

What I like about Buffter's idea is that it uses the premise of having a computer go out and find a grouping, and having the program bring back a set that has performed in a dominant state of continuing. It might be fun to power test it with millions of spins.

Spike, you don't have an advantage at times because you don't see one.

Quote from: spike on March 20, 2013, 07:33:00 PM
I'm not clearly saying that at all. Why should I bet
if I don't have an advantage? I have no interest
in breaking even anymore when I'm not winning, so
betting every spin is a waste of time. There no my
random or you're random, there is only random.

The point is to get out of the casino as soon as possible,
not dawdle around..

What are you afraid of Spike? I thought you could win every time you go to the casino.

I don't need to be lectured by someone with both limited knowledge and limited experience too. Just because you've done the same thing for years does not mean that you have a vast amount of experience.

Quote from: spike on March 19, 2013, 09:34:27 PM
There is no 'his kind of randomness', there's only random.
Just one kind, it doesn't belong to anybody. It stands by
itself, accept it or don't, it will continue without you.

There is most assuredly "your kind of randomness." You think that sitting out spins is a necessity. If a person makes a bet for every spin, that makes them a fool. You are clearly saying that there are segments in the stream of spins that are useless, or ineffective, other than avoiding them. Again stating that if used it would be foolish. That is as clear a case of evidence that you use a kind of randomness that suits you as there ever could be. There is opportunity from everything that happens. The anti-trend is information too. The absence of a streak is reading randomness too. The win streak as well as the losing streak & the I don't know streak all happen because of every characteristic found in randomness. That includes every form of anti-characteristic that also relates to reading randomness. You, Spike, advocate a specific type of randomness. Yours is a limited kind of randomness that allows you to present yourself as superior, as the sole possessing author of your kind of dogma.

In my example above, there is a very nice display of the global effect. I wonder who can see it?