That's super. The refuge for those who have run out of arguments is abuse. That's being generous in your case because you never had any arguments to begin with, only ignorance, confirmation bias, and conflating cause with coincidence.

This forum seems to be nothing but a sink hole for the ignorant and desperate. The plain truth is rejected in favour of spammers and snake oil salesmen.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 30, 2016, 03:37:05 PM
I'm trying to example to you, per your request, showing you how I win more money by winning at moments that represent to me opportunity. And in actual practice and real play, they actually exist. At 61% vs 39% and flat betting I would expect to lose at the House's Edge rate. And that is what you are insisting must happen.

Nope, I'm not insisting that must happen at all. You'd better do some remedial reading too. I said that you can't win flat betting in short sessions and yet in the long term achieve the expected win rate. It just doesn't make sense.

Seems like you're shifting the goalposts and pretending that's not what you said after all.

QuoteOnly I have been saying for years to bet bigger when you are doing good and bet smaller when you aren't.

Now that's something I can agree with. So you finally admit that your bet selection has no effect. It took a while, but we got there in the end. 

My, you have been busy with copy & paste. Gizmo, try to stay on topic and come up with an actual argument or some data which proves that you win all your short sessions and yet still miraculously end up with a win rate right on expectation. You know, try to exercise a little of that critical thinking faculty you're recommending. You might have to brush up on some basics first though, so here's little reading for YOU.

QuoteWe have seen your act. blah blah blah...

I love the way whenever someone's trying to put anyone else down, they invoke imaginary supporters, as if that actually means anything. I don't hear anyone else complaining about me, only complaining about you asking $200 for a roulette system. I don't blame you for being p*ssed off though, since I've already exposed your at best incompetence, and at worst lies. Your days as a seller are numbered buddy, better join some more forums if you want to pay the bills.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 29, 2016, 02:32:33 PM
Remedial arithmetic, gads.

Apparently not remedial enough. 

Gizmo, you haven't explained anything to me, it's me who's explained something to you, but you don't get it and seem to think that mere insults represent a counter-argument.

You're good at insults, but math? not so much. I'll try to explain it in simple terms so that you can understand. You're asserting that it's possible to win consistently in the short term and yet end up with the expected win rate of 24/37 = 0.6486 or 64.86% in the long term.

It's nonsense. Suppose you play 5 one hundred spin sessions and the number of wins is

67
66
72
70
68

So your average win rate over the 5 session is (67+66+68+72+70)/5 = 68.6% which is higher than 64.86%.

It's obviously the case that no matter how many short sessions you play, if in each of them your win rate is higher than the long term expected rate of 64.86%, then taking the average of them can't result in a win rate less than the lowest "score". A lot of short sessions add up to the long term, so your long term average must be at least as good as your worst short term score, which you say is better than the long term expected average according to probability.

Understand?

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 28, 2016, 04:19:11 PM
In the short run my win rate is higher based on knowing when and where to place bets in the first place.

Gizmo, stop trying to pull a fast one. OBVIOUSLY, if you can CONSISTENTLY do well in the SHORT run then your long run win rate will be better than what's expected. If your win rate is as expected, as you admit, then the short runs in which you do better than average must be balanced by the sessions in which you do worse than expected. THAT MUST BE SO TO GET THE EXPECTED RATE.

You're trying to argue that  2 + 2 = 5. I don't think anyone's going to buy it. Please credit readers with some intelligence.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 28, 2016, 02:33:47 PM

In the long run, my win rate is, HAPPILY, at the expected 61% or 64% rate.

That's all anyone needs to know. What does reading random mean if it doesn't result in an improved win rate? Nothing, that's what. What good does spotting trends do you if you can't do any better than someone who is betting randomly? You're only "good" at spotting and following trends if the win rate is better than the expected win rate.

So it's as I suspected. Your so-called advantage has to do with the progression, not the bet selection.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 28, 2016, 06:36:08 AM
Reading randomness produces a higher win rate than blind selection using random on random.

Ok, so what is your win rate betting on two dozens if it isn't 24/37?

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 27, 2016, 01:28:41 PM
I have proven to myself that random on random produces far more losing streaks.

But it doesn't achieve a higher win rate than expected, or does it? If it does, you don't need a progression.

@ TheLaw

Yeah it does look a bit "scammy", to say the least. Clickbank though, so you can always get a refund if not happy. 

I think that if Gizmo's method turns out to be a winner it won't be because of any superior bet selection, because I don't believe they exist. It's more to do with the progression. The probability of a win is about 65% and the type of staking used reminds me of Malcolm Maclean's My Mathematical Formula progression used on horse racing and sports betting. It's been around for about 40 years and is still being advertised online. It's quite a clever progression but only works if the win rate is high. You will have some small losses but eventually a nice winning run will come along and you'll clean up.

http://www.mymathematicalformula.com/

Not looking good Denzie. You must be doing it wrong! 

Quote from: Denzie on August 25, 2016, 04:39:35 AM
Ill report after a month of playing on a daily basis.

Thanks Denzie. I'll hold you to that!

Quote from: MarkTeruya on August 24, 2016, 12:08:45 PM
Kind of reminds me of the bad old day when silly people sent Izak money for systems that didn't work and wrote it off due to embarrassment and being ashamed to request their money back, they would admit it behind the scenes, but never publicly. .

Bingo! Just like no one would ever admit to being the victim of a Nigerian prince email scam, although amazingly some poor suckers fall for them.

QuoteSo esoito name me one system that has been sold that worked, which justifies not jumping to conclusions with "knee jerk" reactions!

Good question. The characters who promote these systems don't seem to mind the negative attention either. I suppose any publicity is better than none.

Lupo,

I hope his system is better than betting on sleeping dozens. Are you happy to pay $200 for the privilege of finding out?

Quote from: Kimo Li on August 24, 2016, 06:17:25 AM
Students, well at least students of mine, do not want to give testimonials unless they remain anonymous, because they are under a non-disclosure agreement. However, if you ask them to write to you privately, and give their testimonials, and not expose their identity, I am sure they would agree to give you the answers you seek about their experience in the school environment.

I thought a non-disclosure agreement means that you agree not to disclose how to use the system, which isn't the same as giving a testimonial. And anyone can by anonymous on the internet. No one has to disclose their 'real' identity'.

MarkTeruya,

I largely agree with your post. My comment about Gizmo wanting the fame not the money was intended to be tongue in cheek.