Quote from: Mike on June 19, 2018, 08:06:36 AM
... math by itself only gives you answers relative to your assumptions. If you haven't looked at the process which generates the data then no amount of manipulation of the data will tell you about causes and effects, ie, reality. Most systems on gambling forums only look at the data generated from the games, they don't look at the underlying process which generated it; that's the mistake.

Coincidence. I wonder how a person would go about accessing the equivocation of coincidences that occur from time to time. I have listened to Mike. He communicates very well. He is basically saying that you can't know when a streak will occur or when it will end. And also how long it will last. You can't know that in advance. I agree. You can't know that in advance. Mike is suggesting that absent that knowledge you don't have an edge. Is there math to support that theory?


If you get 20 red numbers in a row on a Roulette wheel is it possible to win just one single bet from that streak? If that is possible then is it possible to win two bets from that streak? Is there math to support the idea that during a streak, in other words a streak that has not yet displayed its ending, is there math to predict what the next spin will do? I'm not taking about the odds for one spin either. Is there math that predicts what will happen in a coincidence? It would need to predict what is going to happen. Does math predict the future? Does math give you that edge?

Quote from: alrelax on June 18, 2018, 04:33:32 PM
Then we will just have to keep you alive! 

I've been dying of the same aortic heart failure for ten years now. I have A-fib because of a reduced effectiveness heart valve. A special pill keeps me alive by slowing my heart down on purpose. Works great for Roulette. Cool, calm, and collected. But I can tell things are changing a little. I'm just a little bit less in my lungs. Who knows. Perhaps I can stretch it ten more years.

Quote from: alrelax on June 18, 2018, 02:29:24 PM
... coupled with, 'scared to wager when winning time comes', (which Lungyeh) defined well sometime ago, will sink the bulk of the gamblers every time.

It sunk me. It does most of the time. That's why my tactic to go with just three net wins and the session is done is so important to me now. It will take me a long time to raise the capital to run a fearless gambling trip. I'm a realist. Life has given me this set of shoes to walk in. So if you wonder why I go on and on about randomness you could easily put two and two together and see why if my heart gives out I would have wanted my ideas credited to me. People need an explanation or they won't believe it. I'm a poor broke dick expert in many fields that has had to live on nearly nothing. Yet I save money so that I can get this right. And I probably will. My relatives hate that I keep pursuing this. But they are completely ignorant of this effort and are almost completely baseless in their assumptions regarding the effort. Maybe by Christmas time. I'm 350 miles from the nearest casino and it's against the law to gamble online. Such is real life.

BTW, the above column of blacks/reds is loaded with readable occurrences of opportunities. In fact it's a gold mine. If this happened in Baccarat it would be wonderful.

I used my practice software to kick out 100 bets made on just betting 1 unit per number of reds only.

Here are the results.
| B  R |
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  35 -- L  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -72 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ -72 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -36 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -36 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36 -- W  ( $ -18 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- L  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  08 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -36 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ -18 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ 18 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ 0 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15 -- L  ( $ -36 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- L  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  37 -- L  ( $ -72 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  02 -- L  ( $ -90 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -108 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -90 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ -72 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  09 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  02 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  34 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  17 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -72 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  14 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  10 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  25 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ -36 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ -18 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ 0 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -18 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  19 -- W  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  21 -- W  ( $ 18 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18 -- W  ( $ 36 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ 18 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  24 -- L  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 18 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  12 -- W  ( $ 36 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- L  ( $ 18 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- L  ( $ 0 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- W  ( $ 18 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ 36 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- L  ( $ 18 )
| X    | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  29 -- L  ( $ 0 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    | X | X |  --  30 -- W  ( $ 18 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ 0 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  15 -- L  ( $ -18 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11 -- L  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  04 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  32 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  27 -- W  ( $ -36 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -18 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  28 -- L  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  31 -- L  ( $ -54 )
| X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26 -- L  ( $ -72 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -90 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  01 -- W  ( $ -54 )
| X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  33 -- L  ( $ -72 )
|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  23 -- W  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  02 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  36 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X |   |   |  --  07 -- W  ( $ -36 )
| X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  11 -- L  ( $ -54 )
|    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  03 -- W  ( $ -36 )

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on June 18, 2018, 02:00:08 PM
Since variance kills the br,
Thus we need a betselection, to beat random,
to produce an end result THAT HIT WITHIN MATH EXPECTATION!

First off, I have done control group research on using random to beat random. It is not variance alone that kills the bankroll. It is what you do with variance that kills the bankroll. I have used blind randomness to select bets, irregardless of the condition of the variance at the time of the bets. This blind use of a random selection always under performs my selections based on conditional awareness of the state of the currently occurring variance.


The idea of a control study using the placebo (random bet selection) as opposed to the control study's bet selected for a reason (X) suggests that we need a bet selection to beat random.


I think it is unintelligent to want to reach the mathematical expectation. Currently that amount is losing. The math needs to change based on new knowledge. We need a math that beats the single spin payoff ratio of 37 chances to receive 35 units payed.


I'm thinking of producing a research study using Psychologists that have studied the misconceptions of what randomness is. These researchers, with the already well accepted baseline, can explain the effect that a skilled observer has on effectiveness because of situational awareness. I believe that I already know the result. But this research would be to open the eyes of the academics to new ground and new ideas. Of course such research would be published.

Actually Glen I will teach them to win. I don't mean win sometimes as some kind of gimmick. I mean win to the point of becoming a professional gambler. I will make students get the experience needed to be successful. I will teach them to read randomness, to see opportunities, to exploit the global effect, and to swing trade like a day trader in the stock market. I can do all this because you don't need a mathematical edge to beat a negative expectation game. Students will learn how to redefine the long run. Actions will speak louder than words. And it's to my advantage that most people believe that you can't win. Over the past month we all know that the casinos make 5 to 10 times as much more than the house advantage off of gamblers. It's in their tax returns. 4% to 5% would not keep the lights on and pay for the extravagance and all the overhead. All you have to do is look at the yearly earnings reports for publicly traded casinos. The myth of the house edge is nothing but a con job supported by math geeks trying to focus only on a bet selection's chances. There is nothing out there in the world about monster trends, that while occurring, tend to demolish the odds. Yet these things in the stock market are a dream come true.


Not only is all this possible. It's teachable too. It's time to market to the day trader / swing trader crowd. Only 20 people have my AI software. Nobody has my Even Chance software.

https://www.careeraddict.com/become-professional-gambler


If you want to be a professional gambler you should read this full article.

Quote
Professional gambling requires a variety of personal qualities that few people possess. Some of the most important ones include precision money management and meticulous record-keeping, and those hoping to pursue a career as a professional gambler would do well to master the following:Strong research skills

   
• Time management skills
• Stress management skills
• Emotional control
• Persistence
• Patience
• Dedication
• Strong memory
• Concentration skills
• Problem solving/analytical skills
• Being comfortable with adversity

Mike said something about his world of assumptions and how he knows what I would have said. So I tortured his claim and removed it. Thanks for the heads up Mike.

It's good to know people are reading to the bottom line:

Cool. And since this thread is split out in happyville I will run the first legal ad for my tutoring business.

I really think that a small handful of posters here could tutor students and do a fantastic job. They have all addressed and discussed the need to overcome bad decision making due to human nature issues like greed and all its attachments.

It's not just a winning tactic and a better bet selection method. It's an entire skill and craft.

I have that skill and craft all figured out and organized as a simple teachable subject. I have software that takes you through to the level of success.



Online tutors get from $10 to $75 per hour. My instruction is a full course including a graduation requirement.

I'm actually going to teach individual students how to win and to prove it too. At the end they will need to go into a casino several times and execute the plan. If they do that they will prove to themselves that is works.

It will take at least 2 months at from 1 to 2 hours per day of my time, not including any student's homework study.

This time the students will be taken all the way. They will be winners with trade secrets of professional gambling.

It's going to cost too. At $25 per hour we are talking over $3,000. And I require the student to have a $5,000 playing bankroll that will be cut into 5 parts for sessions. That's $1000 per session of their own money for their own play. They will return from the casinos and send me pictures of their playing charts. We will both know what really happened.

I reserve the right to raise the hourly rate to $100 per hour on new students if I get busy with this thing. I realize that the total cost is less than the cost of a single bet for many gamblers. I just want to see what a small tutoring business can produce. This time I want proof. I want to see each student prove that they were really taught. Each student will have a plan.

Quote from: Mike on June 15, 2018, 07:12:27 AM
I would have done his course and given the methods a fair trial, using standard statistical tests. But what I would NEVER do is pay a penny for any such information.  Everything anyone needs to know is freely available in online stats courses, or just buy a good textbook. That will put you streets ahead of all the system players on forums, who are clueless and amateurish with regard to statistics and probability. If you like playing systems just create your own. If you want ideas then there are plenty of free systems on the forums; again, no need to buy anything.

I wonder what sock puppet you really are here. But that does not matter. You can take my class. It's right here in front of you and it's been right here in front of you for years. All that is needed to know about the global effect is already published here for free. So you have no excuse. If you are smart enough to do the stats on this then you are smart enough to read what has always been right in front of you. Now run away and hide behind your lame pejoratives and catchy phrases like "fallacy." If you could have done it, as you just claimed, you would have done it.


This website has too many fake aliases running around pretending to be real people and making up useless conversations. A useless PM to me started the idea of starting classes again. Is life that boring that somebody needs to set traps? I'm done here. This place will likely fail. Better find a new forum where "fallacy" is the favorite troll word of the truly bored. It started out altruistic and is ending just like all the past failed gambling forums have ended. What's the stats on that Mike?

Quote from: esoito on June 13, 2018, 11:44:29 PM
@ Gimotron

PLEASE offer Mike a free seat in your proposed tuition group.    ( Mike, PLEASE accept it if he does, and work through the whole course.)

Mike might even finally acknowledge the validity of your Global Effect. 

And then the rest of us can all heave a sigh of relief as peace finally breaks out. 

You are absolutely right. It's time to drop everything here. You have your peace of mind. Good luck.

Quote from: Mike on June 13, 2018, 06:59:33 PM
Gizmo,

What you always seem to miss is the fact that you don't know WHEN these winning sequences will occur. Sure, you can anticipate that the next spin will turn into one and raise your stake accordingly, but this is just like using a reverse martingale on the even chances. All the false starts will eat away at your bankroll and in the end you end up losing at a rate given by the HA, even though you get some big wins.

Take your pick : lots of small losses followed by a big win, or lots of small wins followed by a big loss. You seem to favour the former, and I agree it's a more sensible way to bet, but it doesn't give you long-term advantage.

I don't agree. You always say that I can't know a thing that is essential for your position to hold true. I say I that I can know the thing that you say I can't know. I know when I'm in the middle of the Global Effect and I know how to exploit it. Not only that but I can program a computer to see that the algorithm is in the middle of a global effect too. You math guys think that I need to prove it. Why do that? Is that really logical? I mean you guys frequent these gambling forums just to regurgitate your math prowess, right? You get a little piece of the Fields Medal. You get to sniff it. It's so close and you are so great. Ha Ha Ha. You guys are the ones that don't know a thing.

Quote from: Mike on June 13, 2018, 06:48:16 PM
Some casino games are pure chance - no amount of skill or strategy can alter the odds. These games include roulette, craps, baccarat, keno, the big-six wheel of fortune, and slot machines.

Funny how this is supposed to be the final word. It's right there in the equations too. The implication is that the odds must change in order to win. That is no longer the truth. The odds stay the same and you can win. You do it by accepting the odds as is. The game is still pure chance. That does not change either. You just add coincidental situational  awareness to the math. This is the fun part. I could do it. You can't even imagine it.

Fantastic. This looks so official. I mean it passes peer review and it looks like it makes the case for what is generally believed. So for me it represents a baseline for what is to follow.


For the sake of discussion only:
"Earning Potential = Average Bet ´ Hours Played ´ Decisions per Hour ´ House AdvantageFor example, suppose ... A player who bets $500 per spin for 12 hours in double-zero roulette at 60 spins per hour would be worth about $19,000 (500 x 12 x 60 x .053)."


This equation is incomplete in my understanding of the math that is to come:
Casino's Earning Potential = (Average Bet) times (Hours Played) times (Decisions per Hour) times (House Advantage)
The missing component is the result of an algorithm that equates to a random awareness coincidence factor. This component would be added to the original equation as a signed number. Now it must be understood that the original equation represent all time played and not just a winning segment's duration of play by the coincidence function. So the coincidence algorithm must also factor in for a result or returned value of the portion of time that the awareness function is utilized with reference to the full time considered in the newly constructed equation. This is a known value, because all expectations are after the fact. So the implication is based on real values and not just potential values. So with the added component added to the existing equation you get a real debatable original idea, possibly confirmed.
And you guys want to play me off as some kind of math illiterate. All that is needed is my knowledge and a proper (awareness coincidence factor) algorithm that returns a signed number. You add it to the end of your existing equation as "times (awareness coincidence factor)."