AMK , as per your request:


| A B C | 1 2 3 | -- ## -- Line
|     X |   X   | -- 35 --  1
| X     |   X   | --  5 --  2
|   X   |     X | -- 21 --  3
|     X |   X   | -- 35 --  4
|   X   | X     | -- 22 --  5
| X     |   X   | --  5 --  6
| X     |   X   | --  2 --  7
|     X |     X | -- 33 --  8
| X     | X     | --  4 --  9
| X     |   X   | --  2 -- 10
| X     | X     | -- 10 -- 11
| X     |     X | -- 12 -- 12
|   X   |   X   | -- 23 -- 13
|   X   |     X | -- 21 -- 14
|     X | X     | -- 25 -- 15
|   X   | X     | -- 13 -- 16
|---------------|  -  0 -- 17
| X     |     X | --  6 -- 18
| X     | X     | -- 10 -- 19
|   X   | X     | -- 22 -- 20
| X     |   X   | --  8 -- 21
|     X | X     | -- 28 -- 22
| X     |     X | --  6 -- 23
|     X |     X | -- 36 -- 24
| X     |   X   | --  5 -- 25
| X     |   X   | --  5 -- 26
| X     | X     | --  1 -- 27
| X     | X     | --  4 -- 28
|   X   | X     | -- 13 -- 29
| X     |     X | -- 12 -- 30
| X     | X     | -- 10 -- 31
|     X | X     | -- 28 -- 32
|---------------|  -  0 -- 33
|   X   | X     | -- 16 -- 34
| X     |     X | --  3 -- 35
|     X | X     | -- 34 -- 36
|     X |   X   | -- 32 -- 37
|     X | X     | -- 34 -- 38
|     X |     X | -- 36 -- 39
| X     |     X | --  9 -- 40
|   X   | X     | -- 13 -- 41
|     X |     X | -- 30 -- 42
| X     |     X | --  6 -- 43
| X     |     X | -- 12 -- 44
|     X |     X | -- 36 -- 45
| X     |   X   | --  8 -- 46
|   X   |   X   | -- 17 -- 47
|   X   | X     | -- 16 -- 48
|   X   |     X | -- 24 -- 49
|     X | X     | -- 25 -- 50
|     X | X     | -- 28 -- 51
| X     |     X | --  6 -- 52
|   X   |     X | -- 15 -- 53
|     X |     X | -- 27 -- 54
|---------------|  -  0 -- 55
|     X |     X | -- 36 -- 56
| X     | X     | --  1 -- 57
| X     |   X   | -- 11 -- 58
|     X | X     | -- 34 -- 59
|   X   |   X   | -- 23 -- 60
|     X |   X   | -- 26 -- 61
|     X |     X | -- 36 -- 62
|   X   |     X | -- 15 -- 63
|     X |   X   | -- 32 -- 64
|     X | X     | -- 31 -- 65
|   X   |   X   | -- 14 -- 66
|   X   |   X   | -- 20 -- 67
| X     |   X   | --  5 -- 68
| X     | X     | --  4 -- 69
|     X | X     | -- 31 -- 70
| X     |   X   | --  8 -- 71
| X     | X     | --  1 -- 72
| X     |     X | --  9 -- 73
|     X |   X   | -- 32 -- 74
|   X   |   X   | -- 17 -- 75
|   X   |   X   | -- 23 -- 76
|     X | X     | -- 28 -- 77
|     X | X     | -- 34 -- 78
| X     | X     | -- 10 -- 79
|   X   | X     | -- 22 -- 80
| X     | X     | --  1 -- 81
|   X   |     X | -- 24 -- 82
|   X   | X     | -- 13 -- 83
|     X |     X | -- 36 -- 84
| X     | X     | --  1 -- 85
|     X | X     | -- 31 -- 86
|   X   | X     | -- 13 -- 87
| X     |   X   | --  2 -- 88
|     X |   X   | -- 35 -- 89
|   X   |     X | -- 18 -- 90
| X     | X     | --  7 -- 91
|   X   |   X   | -- 20 -- 92
|     X |     X | -- 33 -- 93
|   X   |   X   | -- 20 -- 94
|   X   |     X | -- 15 -- 95
| X     | X     | --  4 -- 96
|   X   | X     | -- 19 -- 97
|   X   |     X | -- 15 -- 98
| X     |     X | --  6 -- 99
|     X |   X   | -- 29 -- 100
|   X   |   X   | -- 20 -- 101
|   X   | X     | -- 13 -- 102
|     X |   X   | -- 35 -- 103
| X     | X     | --  7 -- 104
| X     | X     | --  7 -- 105
| X     |     X | --  3 -- 106
| X     |     X | --  3 -- 107
|     X | X     | -- 34 -- 108
|   X   |   X   | -- 23 -- 109
|   X   |   X   | -- 17 -- 110
| X     | X     | --  7 -- 111
| X     |   X   | --  8 -- 112
|     X |   X   | -- 35 -- 113
|     X |     X | -- 30 -- 114
|     X |     X | -- 36 -- 115
|   X   |     X | -- 15 -- 116
|     X |     X | -- 27 -- 117
|     X |   X   | -- 32 -- 118
| X     |   X   | --  2 -- 119
|   X   | X     | -- 16 -- 120
|   X   | X     | -- 16 -- 121
|   X   |     X | -- 21 -- 122
|     X |   X   | -- 35 -- 123
|   X   |     X | -- 18 -- 124
|   X   | X     | -- 16 -- 125
| X     |     X | --  9 -- 126
|   X   |     X | -- 24 -- 127
|---------------|  -  0 -- 128
|     X |   X   | -- 26 -- 129
|---------------|  -  0 -- 130
|   X   | X     | -- 13 -- 131
|     X | X     | -- 28 -- 132
|   X   |     X | -- 21 -- 133
| X     |   X   | --  2 -- 134
|     X |     X | -- 36 -- 135
| X     |     X | --  9 -- 136
| X     | X     | --  7 -- 137
| X     |   X   | --  8 -- 138
| X     | X     | --  4 -- 139
| X     |   X   | --  8 -- 140
| X     |   X   | --  8 -- 141
|     X |     X | -- 30 -- 142
| X     | X     | --  1 -- 143
|     X |   X   | -- 29 -- 144
|   X   | X     | -- 22 -- 145
|   X   | X     | -- 19 -- 146
|     X |   X   | -- 26 -- 147
|   X   |   X   | -- 17 -- 148
|     X |     X | -- 36 -- 149
| X     | X     | --  1 -- 150




Spike- " Smart men have been looking for this since roulette was invented. They never found it because it doesn't exist in random outcomes."

That's Spike's entire argument. He says his kind of randomness works and that using trends and patterns don't work. This, from the same guy that is clueless regarding the concept of the global effect. I'm sure that if he could explain it, that somebody else wrote about it hundreds of years ago too. Randomness only works for Spike. What he does was never written about in the past. He's the genius that does not have to explain or prove anything. Yet he reserves some self imposed righteousness that he alone is worthy. Spike does not know that patterns & trends are in fact opportunities. It's in everything that he says. He can't produce any gambling literature that has as extensive a discussion of my randomness concepts discussed at this forum. His claims are just words without substance. He won't back up any of his claims.

Quote from: spike on March 19, 2013, 07:20:03 AM
Actually, I don't. Sorry. Answer stands by itself.

On this forum, context has consequences. When Vic suggested that someone should chart results in a timeline, (an obvious continuous sequence of spins,) Spike went off saying there is no timeline in randomness. This is Spike being Spike. He loves to make you follow red herring trails. All a timeline is, is a continuous set of past spins. All Vic was suggesting was people should look to see how often sleepers & singles streak together in the dozens & columns. All old Spike wants is for people here to think that randomness only works for him. Don't be fooled by his debating techniques. He loves to change the subject. It takes actual work to stay on topic while he is around. Want to see a trend? Look how many times he has attempted to take words and phrases out of context just in this thread alone. He has yet to deal with his obvious contradictions. Spike knew he made a mistake on that one. So he's back plugging along with his same, tired out, debating style.

Is a computer program that plays chess a form of AI ? My program will not figure out how to beat Roulette. It only follows a set of instructions. It selects the best choices. It can't be true AI and be a validation of my concepts at the same time. It's just a massive consideration of instructions.

AMK, all you need to do is use my practice software. It creates these charts. There are many features for isolation and discussion. Just pump out 150 spins. You are almost guaranteed to see some long sleeping dozen or column sections. Same goes for singles.

Here's one of my trade secrets : Most of you know that I prefer the dozens and columns, as well as any inside groupings that I also favor. But for the sake of explanations I use the dozens as an example. Whenever there is a sleeping dozen there are the two other dozens that are mostly active. Very rarely there are two sleeping dozens. So when one of the dozens sleep you have two choices to find the winning dozen. That means you have an even chance to win a two to one payoff. The same thing holds true for stretches of singles. Think about it. While a certain condition holds true, continues, there exists a mismatch in the payoff. Think about that for system builders.

Marshall, I have noted in other threads that there is a balance point for three step martingales and two to one bets as well. There is no rule that only even chance bets can have a break even point.

Many people refer to randomness with the concept of correcting, or in another word, balancing. Years ago I suggested that there is a baseline value for the point at which randomness can have a standard averaging point. That that point can be the statistical average of probability, and that it is only a selection made and not a real point. Anyone can use fixed, baseline values in order to see variations from an imagined norm. But as Spike says, there is no normal position of randomness, just not in those words.

Marshall, please make note that in this thread "balance point" refers to a break even point, like in two even chance bets, you must win at least one of the two to balance, to break even.

I love waiting for times when Spike contradicts himself without knowing it. This is one of those revealing moments. The most common occurring condition is a mix of singles and doubles, with a salting of a few triples. This is the ideal conditions being used here. Now Spike clearly states that you will do a lot of waiting to get to those ideal conditions. These conditions are the same conditions that I ignore. I deliberately seek everything above triples swarming and any repeating patterns of anything. So according to Spike's statement below, He is admitting that the conditions I prefer are frequent enough as to cause long waits for those that prefer these most common occurring conditions. Now watch the great debator wiggle out of this one. He complains that I have to wait forever while he does not. He admits to sitting out bets, that he gets his preferred sequences within 60 spins. Now he says this:

And another thing. It's called global effect. You can't tell everyone what something is if you, yourself, can't see it. That would be the blind attempting to lead the blind. Thank you Spike, for exposing your true self and your very limited capability to read randomness.

Quote from: spike on March 17, 2013, 02:07:53 PM

Or not. You must spend a lot of time waiting
in a real casino, because 'corrections' in whatever
form certainly don't obey a timetable. You're
doing what many players do, you've identified
a sequence of events that you have a small edge
on and you patiently await those events to manifest.
Much like Gizmo's method on dozens or his Global
Whatchamacallit. This can go very fast playing actuals
on a computer, and take many hours in a real casino
betting real money, even playing more than one table.

TC, my play is very simple for me. By experience I'm aware of the current state of conditions and opportunities that are occurring. I base these conditions on fabricated formations, that by coincidence alone, form in my imagination. My fabricated characteristics of randomness allow me to see associations where none actually exist. Much the same as a person seeing familiar figures in cloud formations. I use my imagination to find situations that work. The wood, metal, and ball of the Roulette wheel don't seem to mind. The mathboyz seem to think that this process of using coincidence is some how a violation of scientific properness. 100% of the time they try to debate me by changing the subject or ignoring my position. They always chicken out. They always have, and they always will. It's in all the archives of all the forums. So we get this endless and pointless argument that never ends. It almost always boils down to shoot the messenger. I know that I'm right. I know that I have clearly explained it. Sometimes most of the people really are ignorant.  I dare you to pull your silly putty trick.

Quote from: The Crow on March 15, 2013, 04:36:24 AM
Interesting. When you do play live, do you play random like I do?

TC

Why don't you tell us all how you play.

Everyone advocating randomness has stated clearly that it takes lots of experience. Experts at just about everything have experienced changes in the form of Neuroplasticity. People have a natural inclination to seek optimism from the unconscious mind. They are prone to ignore negative information while adapting positive results from optimistic situations. It's not easy to adapt a method derived from experience gained from randomness. First you have to overcome yourself in many ways. Using randomness to beat Roulette is the same as learning a difficult art form.

TC, my casino won't let me even use a cell phone at the table. But there is no stopping the on-line gambler. With one button click I would get 18 numbers, all sorted. It would take no more than two seconds. I'd have a list like this:

2, 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,

By sorting the list from low to high, by possibly breaking it into several lines, it is quick and easy to set the bets in time.

A programmer doesn't need a grid. You just need four populated lists. These lists can be comma delimited and sorted by display. I can use them to filter back twenty to thirty spins, searching for any global effects, and also filtering back 10 spins to find the best 18 numbers. This process of eliminating table configuration and pet groupings is brilliant for my needs. I just let the hot opportunities come to me. I guess I now have thousands of groups instead of just 20.

I don't know what Bayes might say but I do know this. Everything shifts on a kind of law of thirds. It's a constantly moving target.