Quote from: Juiced91 on January 10, 2013, 07:51:22 AM

So the way i understand YOU play, you would now bet all black numbers in col 1&2, for greater profits?

I would use the evidence in the streak of blacks to go ahead and make the bet selection on columns 1 & 2. It occurred to me that a sleeping column three  also suggests a strong likelihood that black was heavily overweight. You will notice that the 4 black numbers in column three only hit once. 

As far as a collision bet goes. In this case it is 14 numbers. I would also bet them.

Just look at this. There is a domination of columns 1 and 2, while at the same time there is a domination of the black. And if you check the numbers hit you can quickly see that the (6, 15, 24, 33) black numbers in column 3 only hit once. This is obviously a great example of one set reinforcing confirmation in the other.


| A B C | 1 2 3 |  | B  R | L  H | O  E | -- ## -- Line
|---------------------------------------|  - 00 --  1
|   X   | X     |  | X    | X    | X    | -- 13 --  2
| X     |   X   |  | X    | X    |    X | --  8 --  3
| X     |     X |  | X    | X    |    X | --  6 --  4
| X     |   X   |  | X    | X    |    X | --  2 --  5
| X     | X     |  |    X | X    | X    | --  1 --  6
|   X   | X     |  | X    | X    | X    | -- 13 --  7
| X     |   X   |  | X    | X    | X    | -- 11 --  8
|   X   | X     |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 22 --  9
|---------------------------------------|  - 00 -- 10
|     X |     X |  |    X |    X | X    | -- 27 -- 11
|   X   |   X   |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 20 -- 12
| X     | X     |  | X    | X    |    X | -- 10 -- 13
| X     |   X   |  | X    | X    |    X | --  8 -- 14
|   X   | X     |  | X    |    X |    X | -- 22 -- 15
|---------------------------------------|  -  0 -- 16
|   X   | X     |  | X    | X    | X    | -- 13 -- 17
| X     | X     |  |    X | X    | X    | --  7 -- 18
| X     |   X   |  | X    | X    |    X | --  2 -- 19
|     X |   X   |  | X    |    X | X    | -- 35 -- 20

1  X
2  XX
3 
4 
5 
6  X
7  X
8  XX
9 
10  X
11  X
12 
13  XXX
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20  X
21 
22  XX
23 
24 
25 
26 
27  X
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35  X
36 
0  X
00  XX

He could be using the red/black randomness to select columns 1 & 2 for black, and columns 1 & 3 for red. He might be following the trends in the even chance. Now if you combine that with hot & cold numbers then (6, 15, 24, & 33) are significant for black, while (5, 14, 23, & 32) are significant for red. I would also always watch the trends for patterns, sleepers, singles etc..., and dominance in the columns. Who knows. Perhaps he's using all the clues.

You now can use the sleeping column to identify a weakness in the red or black too. Imagine if 8 blacks or 8 reds were sleeping or in some kind of a sequence.

Good thing I'm really good at this. Let the gold rush begin.

juice91, I could easily program what I just suggested. I'm ready to take this to the casino without testing it.

Please give an example.

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 08, 2013, 01:02:10 AM
I believe Random exists otherwise we wouldn't consider it's non-existence.

Maybe you are just playing devil's advocate, and not wishing to act contraire, but I think you will find that randomness never has a time of non-existence.  Everything you encounter from the roulette wheel is a normal activity of randomness.

Let's take a look at the shorter lived common patterns.

bbR bbbR bR bbR bR bbbbR bbR

Can you see the pattern? If you see it you will notice that when the red hits, it only hits once. You can clobber the casino as long as the pattern holds up. To do this you only need to win the first attacking bet in order to protect yourself from a big loss. But as they say, "nothing ventured nothing gained."

For many years the mathNazis (mathBoys on steroids) kept a constant vigil on the primary forums. They walked in lockstep with their mindless drone of a mantra, "past spins have no effect on future events."  And so it went on for years that following trends offered no possibility to predict the future. That was a fine argument, but one that had nothing to do with the tactic or reason for following trends in the first place. That went on for years. In fact, that went so far as to destroy the Gamblers Glen forum.

During that period I tried to discuss the qualities of a concept for perfect patterns occurring for as much as thirty consecutive spins. I named them "elegant patterns." I was personally attacked that these things don't even occur, and that there was no way that they exist. Many of these room temperature IQ level individuals picked up on that as a battle cry.

Up to that point I had only encountered two Elegant Patterns. Since then I have experienced three more. That's five EP's in twenty years. With so few and far between I wonder why it was worth mentioning. You can capitalize on common occurring patterns. These long running perfect patterns are a different story. They are an opportunity to rob the casino without a gun. And when it happens to you it will feel like it too.

1a. Even the wild swings of randomness are part of what normal is. As opposed to  a magical belief of what randomness is.

What about following trends?  What is it?

Construct - Wikipedia " A construct in the philosophy of science is an ideal object, where the existence of the thing may be said to depend upon a subject's mind. This, as opposed to a "real" object, where existence does not seem to depend on the existence of a mind. "

At best, following a trend is a process of identifying formations envisioned in your mind. Because of that, following a pattern uses the same process. The only difference is that often patterns suffer the difficulties of complicated identification. But they do have many similar qualities as dominances, sleepers, and series.

Bayes -"The trouble is, trying to capitalize on trends is also a fallacy (the inverse gambler's fallacy)..."

Trying to capitalize on the effectiveness of following trends is not a fallacy. In fact it is nothing more than trial & error. I'm pretty sure that you were just making a generalization. I also suspect that you might have considered that this might have hooked my interest.

But there is something I read that was far more interesting. You are not convinced that patterns hold much value. In fact they are one of the least discussed features of randomness. I took a beating for suggesting the existence of elegant patterns. Perhaps now, people are more inclined to become more aware of their significance?

Very good.

I wonder how long it will take for us to figure out that it only took about 2,000 people to give us all this. Imagine a civil war where only 2,000 targets exist.

Quote from: TwisterUK on January 07, 2013, 09:50:46 PM
Are some bet selections better than others ?

If I choose to bet 3 after I see 29 hit, is that better or worse than any other way of making a choice ?

Where's me Crack 

You get three kinds of results from bet selection. It works great, the same bets can work bland, or the same bets can work poorly.

I'm seeing a side of the forums that I can say that I'm very pleased to see. A small handful of us have the attitude to never give up. I know why my threads draw very few followers. It's clear to see that the smartest people here have their own personal preference for success. I must confess myself. Most of my interest is in furthering my own strategy. I suspect that other players hold similar interests.

I don't see the point in killing myself to create a computer simulation for what is clearly known by others. People are better than simulations. There is enough published information on this website to establish that the holy grail of Roulette has been achieved.

Things of high value to me are visual dexterity and things that continue recognition. I see the opportunities in about two to five seconds. I make my bet selections, based on my published strategy, in less than 15 seconds. That gives me plenty of time to get my next bet down.

I never saw this before. When did you get so smart?

'Your work is to identify the "batches of success".'

Now move up one more level to the dark side. If you can imagine the streaks, the clumps, the stretches of every characteristic of randomness, then you can imagine the absence of these same characteristics. Guess what's staring you in the face? That's right.  There's an entire other region of opportunity. It comes in the form of the absence of form or structure. That's information you can take advantage of too. You can play when there are an absence of clumps of singles or an absence of easily seen dominances. You just have to ask yourself what would happen if the absence of singles happened next.

In this level of thinking, all you are searching for is anything that continues. As long as you can see a continuing structure, and as long as it continues to stay in that form, you can exploit it.

So, what else is new?
You might say that I easily understood that.

So what do you hope to accomplish with this thread.