Beggars, what else?

I doubt that you will understand this, but there is no such thing as the Spike Theorem.

There is no evidence that you can do anything other than voice your opinion. What I have presented so far is substantive. All you have demonstrated is your stumberness  or your capacity to perceive in ignorance. That does not give you the ability to judge. You can say whatever you want. But you have no clue what the global effect is. You can't verify or validate it because you clearly don't understand it. So you avoid it.

Quote from: The Crow on March 09, 2013, 08:35:35 PM
Professionals do not waste their time with long sessions.  They have a goal in mind and the take it. It's the greedy amateurs that use professional methods that give us professionals a bad rap.

Professionals pass up opportunities to have a great feast, only to grind
away with the grist of meat & potatoes. Out of fear that the game will
make a meal of them, they retreat trembling.  No way.

" 1. A combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

2. A person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present."

Whether Spike can win or not is irrelevant. His ridicule of the concept of a
global effect tells me that he is not qualified to determine if I can win or
not. When I referred to contradiction, I was referring to definition #1.

My validation of concept algorithm will be a contradiction of just about
every gambling book authored and every explanation given by math
experts. That will be a tangible revelation for change. It will be proof
of my claims. I have vehemently opposed the explanation that everyone
must experience the inevitable same bad results when faced with a
transition of large numbers. In view of that contradiction Spike's
opinion is irrelevant.

Spike should set out to disprove the existence of the concept of a global
effect. His attempts to discredit the messenger are nothing more than
feeble excuses for not presenting an argument in the first place. It
appears that Spike would rather experience for himself a contradiction
that is best defined by example number two.

A true write once, run anywhere, software development language goes Open Source.

http://runrev.com/home/ks1/?preview

My favorite development language is about to be free.

When I turn loose my validation of concept software, it will now become easy for coding experts to analyze every command and function. As an open source app it should spread throughout the world as an amazing example of contradiction. It will be a game changer for casino owners. It will work on smart phones too. That should cause a new round of casino rights.

There's no evidence that you have anything. Even JohnLegend had the guts
to share what little he had. Claiming something, without backing it up, might
be considered a violation of the standards set forth in this forum's charter.

Quote from: spike on March 08, 2013, 08:14:45 PM
And when you play roulette, you read random. Same thing.

Here we are again. You never describe the meaning. You never give examples. We know that it's just a guess. To read music notes, you have quarter notes, time signature, keys, all making up the characteristics making reading possible. There is a proper syntax that makes reading music possible. What is your syntax for regarding reading randomness, that makes that possible?

I'm not sure what you might mean about feeling it. I can't see the effect without the use of my charts. Then, it's just a matter of seeing them. It's true that going for it, high betting trends, it takes guts. Perhaps there is an element of gut instinct involved. There is nothing that can tell you what the next spin will do. You can't win a huge win streak if you never take the first step.

Although it doesn't matter, Spike is accusing me of abandoning this thread. The concept is here. What I shared about it makes sense to me. Do I need to repeat myself or to give more examples? I just want people to know that small trend characteristics sometimes combine together to show a kind of larger continuing characteristic. That larger characteristic can be significant enough to be highly profitable. Ignoring their existence is certainly a waste of an opportunity.

I don't need to apologize for what I share. I don't see that apologizing for something that I would about to say as the best form of politness.

I've been working on my AI, intelligent machine, that will be my validation of concept. It will place a bet for every spin. I will also publish a complete explanation of method with the software. I'm doing this for the same reason that Christopher Columbus sailed the oceans blue. Everyone was sure that the world was flat. Poor Spike. He's only 72% flat. He can't mock me for attempting to do something he could never do. If I succeed, then this website will be considered of historical significance. At worst, it will be considered amusing, like that guy from Florida that tried to prove that we all lived on the inside of a hollow ball, with the sun, moon, and stars in the middle. I have almost completed the framework for isolating all the characteristics for randomness. That puts me at about 25% done.

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on March 05, 2013, 03:03:52 AM

What if others are placing bets at your table, can you sit out spins then?

no

I play at a casino that demands a minimum bet for every spin. I have no trouble playing with chump change while I wait. I hope it is a simple enough explanation for your requirements. If not, then tell it to somebody that gives a hoot.

Razor, one spin at a time.

I've been trying to show people here that they don't have NOTHING. You don't have to pay attacking prices for your bets, while in losing streaks. You can save those prices for your winning streaks. I bet minimum bet prices during flat states & bad states. Why can't you?

Mathematics, by it's own characteristics, is unaware of the three states of any given roulette session in a casino. I don't know anyone that can play a million spin session. Mathematics, probability statistics, nor even basic simple arithmetic can't tell anyone when the next favorable state will occur and how long it will last.

If you play a balanced game, then you can act to minimise the correction of playing through the bad states. Without that equalising having an effect, the math does not have the ability to end in a large number, amount.