Quote from: JohnLegend on January 06, 2013, 08:33:13 PM
You just put JULY 19TH in your diary. That's the date you and all the other naysayers learn what I've known to be obvious for some time.

Just did. BTW, just curious, is that the day that they let you go?

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 06, 2013, 08:22:51 PM
We are talking about the even chances in relation to results garnered for PB Giz nothing else.

You have an uncanny gift for stating the obvious.

JL -" And the general belief is it has something to do with the layout."

Spooky. I had no idea there was a general belief or consensus regarding your claims.

I truly feel sorry for those that are stuck on magical beliefs. It's one of the primary causes of problem gambling. There's no talking to them.

Android phone:
Yes & yes. I must click on the thumbnails first. They both show fine before I zoom in on the finer detail.

Did that help?

Quote from: albalaha on January 06, 2013, 09:27:40 AM
I agree 100% with spike. All numbers are same and these so called "group" of bets like Red/black, dozens/columns etc. upon table is made to fool us. If someone looks for a pattern in ECs, it is like trying to mislead oneself.

I take it then that you have never taken advantage of a perfect occurring pattern? I love fooling that incredible amount of extreme variance money into my wallet. I especially like the part where other players around me give me that 'deer in the headlights' look.

What seems to be foolish to others can often surprise you. Patterns come in all shapes and sizes. I'll give you a free one that will haunt you for the rest of your life. Everything is a loose similarity of a recurrence of past sequencing, with a slight quality of imperfections to the same. To the individual that can see this goes the spoils.

Who's to say whom the "fools" are?

Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on January 05, 2013, 10:55:01 PM
And there goes the thread... 

I can tell you officially that I don't care. Sometimes, all you can do is laugh.

That's probably it.

Quote from: NathanDetroit on January 04, 2013, 10:26:02 PM
Gizmo,

What made a  number of  ex- GG  experts to  withdraw from posting ?  Hm?

N.D.

Good question. Why don't you give us a sense of why you think it is, since you saw it first, a kind of 2cents.

Ok, let's say that I'm using triggers. The problem is each trigger is attached to its own barrel. There happens to be at least 100 barrels with triggers. Now only a few are aiming at the target at each shooting. In the end you only get to pick one at a time. Even though several not selected will change, the one you selected might experience a change or it might not.  So in my opinion it's not trigger based but sync based. So people will need to wrap their heads around synchronization.

The absence of a trend characteristic is information too. When you add that information to the list of continuing characteristics then you can reduce the possibilities to when things change only. The only time bet selection fails is because change occurs. Now that I think about this, the occurrence of change is almost directly linked to the effectiveness track. I think I can use this. I've never considered the possibility for tracking the global effect in the effectiveness track. But I should. It occurs to me to track it in the change track. There must be a wicked way to take notice of the changes in the characteristics. This is great. I've discovered a simple way to include all states of randomness. Bingo!

The collissions of two dozens with two columns is 16 numbers. This is great for playing a side bet on two extra hot numbers. Some times the 0/00 are the hot numbers. For those that track if the zeros are sleeping this can be very good. This is vastly becoming my new method. I'm also using strong streaks of dozen or columns collided with strong streaks in any of the even chance bets.

Interesting software. This was developed using Revolution. I know because I opened it in Notepad. The creator never bothered to encrypt the source code.

There is no consideration for visual dexterity, something I need.

The trick is to first understand the problem. I think Einstein had a nice quote regarding that. I came to the conclusion that I was allowing myself to win. But it's a little different than that. I'm isolating synchronization. This is a new field of research emerging.

http://plus.maths.org/content/sync-emerging-science-spontaneous-order

"And here we get the first taste of Strogatz's excellent skill in guiding the reader through a mathematical proof, explaining the first tractable model of group synchronisation developed by a Japanese physicist, Yoshiki Kuramoto. Reading this section feels like touring a beautiful architectural structure, appreciating its ingenuity and creativity, its beauty and its strength, giving a real feel for the proof without any of the mathematical details that might put some people off. That isn't to say Strogatz shies away from mathematical concepts, there is much discussion on linear and nonlinear dynamics, differential equations, differences between particular mathematical models, but these are always explained in a physical, tangible way. "

Imagine that. A scientific study of the concept of spontaneous order. And they might have missed Roulette of late. HAR HAR HAR.

It's a better name than I was thinking. It's what it is too. Good name.