Quote from: Gizmotron on August 08, 2016, 08:27:44 AM
So you accept a perfect sequence if it defeats a progression but you fail to accept a perfect sequence if it comes in the form of a perfect repeating trend. [/font]

Not quite. I accept that "perfect" sequences exist which will make large profits if using a progression, just as there are sequences which bust other (negative) progressions. You can't have one without the other in a random game. What I dispute is that there is any way of telling whether any upcoming sequence is more likely than another. And you HAVE to know this in order to make a long-term profit. There's no way around it. And the reason you can't tell what sequence is coming up is that spins are independent. Sorry to keep repeating myself but I do it because it's repeatedly ignored (the "inconvenient truth").

If you can't increase the accuracy of your predictions you're left with nothing but perfect balance with respect to winning and losing sequences. At best  you break even, throw in the house edge and you lose.

It's really very simple to understand, no math pipe needed, just simple logic.

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 08, 2016, 07:39:07 AM
Any bet selection, no matter how derived at, must produce a form of the three states. And that my dear boy is meaning.

Yes there is meaning in the sense that one of the states must manifest at different times for any given bet selection (although your "states" are to some extent artificial and arbitrary). However, bet selections are meaningless in that they entirely fail in their intended aim, which is to (a) produce more wins than are dictated by expectation (call this the "strong" form) or (b) reduce variance (call this the "weak" form).

Of course you disagree, but let's see...

@ XXVV,

QuoteThe occasional nihilist remarks from Mike are amusing and of course when taken to the boundaries of mainstream experience are absurd.

Your use of the word "nihilistic" is on the one hand entirely inappropriate here given that it means:

Quotenihilistic
   adjective
   rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless.

I'm not suggesting that life is meaningless, only that bet selections in the game of roulette are. On the other hand, it's strangely appropriate in the sense that belief in bet selection is indeed a religion for adherents because they can't or won't understand or accept the self-evident truth that spins are independent, and the implications of that fact. Believers in bet selections won't accept evidence contrary to their beliefs, just as millions of people believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, contrary to the overwhelming evidence that it isn't. The belief comes not from any evidence or lack of it, but just from their desire to believe.

QuoteAsk him also to address some questions to Thomas. The Magician, although you may find Thomas is smart enough to not get drawn in to such time consuming matters. From what he has made public already there is no need to explain further but instead admire.

Ah yes, the "magician". It's a source of continual amazement to me that all someone has to do on a forum to elevate his status to that of a guru is merely make assertions, and perhaps post some unverified stats. It helps if the idea is novel and draws concepts from some esoteric scientific discipline to give it an appearance of science (more Physics envy). The superficiality is breathtaking. Such is the case with Winkel, Kimo Li and others. It's a triumph of style over substance. All you have to do to become a true believer (and admirer of these gurus) is abandon your critical faculties.

QuoteMike acts as if there are no professional players in roulette, or successful long term winners, perhaps in any casino game.

No. You're attacking a straw man. There are indeed professional roulette players, but they target the gaming device, not the game. The games are designed to be profitable for the casino, not the player (with a couple of notable exceptions). Any "professional" player of the GAME won't be professional for long. Looking for chinks in the armour  of the GAME is a highway to nowhere, that's why casinos make every effort to ensure that the gaming device generates spins which are as random as possible.   

QuoteOutside of his sphere of comfortable rationalisation astonishing progress has been made in much more accessible research into roulette.

Oh really? And where can we read about this astonishing progress? On roulette forums? Please post some links to scientific papers or serious academic studies which reveal the extent of this "astonishing progress".

Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on August 07, 2016, 03:15:26 PM
When a newbie says,
Bet marthy EC,  fixed color, for 10 spins,
Or,
Bet follow the last, for 10spins marthy,
Soon, the math boys wiil howl..."FOOLLLLLLL"  "!!!
You will lose SOOOON...

Then , the newbie asked, IF it so sure, to lose soon,
Then why not reversed the bet as it may SOON...hit..?

The mathboy just keep quiet...

He's a fool not for using a particular bet selection, but for using a suicidal progression. For the 948,623,678,499^th time, all bet selections are the same. There's nothing wrong with waiting for 15 reds then betting black, but why wait when you have the exact same chance of a win when betting on a random color straight away?

@ Albalaha,

This thread is about bet selection and how a complex bet selection is no better than a simple one. I agree but would go further: no bet selection is better than any other, they are all equally worthless  if the criteria for success is getting more wins than expectation suggests. In that thread you linked to you say that the method which produced the graphs was based on triggers for single numbers. So it seems you're a believer in bet selections after all.

There are many questions I could ask about that system. For one thing, look at the drawdowns! 8000 units? This is one of those systems which look great on paper but are unplayable under real conditions. And since you're using triggers you're obviously not betting every spin so to say the system beats 10 million spins is misleading.

QuoteIndeed, no book of maths ever claimed that such games are unbeatable by nature.

Huh? What do think negative expectation means, if not that the game is unbeatable by nature? And the word "game" is important here. Games such as roulette are designed to be unbeatable. The game cannot be beaten but the gaming device can. That's the difference between AP and systems.

It's just a graph and a bunch of claims. There is no transparency at all. Any competent programmer can create such graphs, just as it's possible to fool people with statistics.

At least Gizmo intends to put his ideas on the line with total transparency and live with result, whether it be success or failure. 

Quote from: 3Nine on August 06, 2016, 04:32:08 PM
Never say never.

Next you'll be telling me that it was proved the bumblebee couldn't fly, or perhaps that Edison had to fail 1000 times before he invented the light bulb. Such heart-warming pep-talks and parables completely miss the point because in this instance the difficulty is conceptual; it's not a problem to be solved but rather a case of understanding that any proposed solution is incoherent. It's for lack of this understanding that system addicts keep searching. It never occurs to them that the solution can't exist. Anyone who points out the simple truth is dismissed as negative, or even a troll.

In the meantime the con-artists continue to ply their trade.

LOL. I take this as merely forum banter. Nobody can be that deluded.. can they? 

I'm sorry, neither sticks nor chimps can help because spins are independent. As Al Gore once said, it's "an inconvenient truth".

@ Gizmo,

My advice is to not bother wasting your time trying to code a winning  algorithm. The results will be as expectation predicts. Guaranteed. Just be happy that you've found something that seems to be working for you so far.

You're never going to prove the "math nazis" wrong. That's the thing about math; once proved, a theorem can't be "unproved".

Gizmo, let's indulge in a flight of fancy for a moment and assume that your algorithm really is a money-making machine. What would I do with it? Keep schtum like any sensible person and quietly milk the casinos. 

If you're looking for recognition and this isn't just a joke, then I suggest submitting your research to Open Science Journal. You've missed the deadline for submission but this will give you about a year to work on your algorithm and manuscript.

You don't need to be an academic or even have a college education.

http://osjournal.org/about.html

Quote from: Gizmotron on August 05, 2016, 01:35:36 PM
I'm willing to tutor you for a reasonable fee.

LOL.

Why would anyone need tutoring in order to use an algorithm?. The whole point of an algorithm is that you DON'T need "tutoring" or practice, or intuition. You just follow the procedure mindlessly.

Gizmo,

I'm well aware that I'm perceived as a naysayer on the forums, so in an effort to be constructive, I'll spare you the trouble of writing your algorithm by writing it myself, based on your 5 step procedure.

Quote1.) See the existence of opportunistic coincidences.
A.) This is done by filling in simple to observe charts while you are playing.
   a.) my charts are located all over this forum, both text examples, free software, and actual photographs of playing charts.
B.) Visual dexterity allows the chart user to instantly see randomness characteristics.


2.) Actually use the best occurring coincidence to make and place your bets.


3.) Keep a mental record of steps 1 and 2's effectiveness.


4.) Use a disciplined bet size method based on that mental record of effectiveness.


5.) Follow steps 1 - 4 until win goal is reached.

But it's pretty vague. In order to give the algorithm the best chance of success, please be a little more specific, or perhaps point me to some of your other posts so that I can fill in the gaps.

Are you betting on the wheel or the layout? which bets? what counts as an "opportunity"?. Some examples would help.

BEAT-THE-WHEEL,

QuotePLEASE LEARN MORE, BEFORE POSTING!!!

I have a degree in math and statistics, do you?

You can't "manipulate" variance, that's another fallacy. You can reduce variance by increasing the number of bets or betting on more numbers, but in that case your exposure to the house edge is increased. No free lunch I'm afraid.

And what is "RTM" and "RCTM"? What is a "stable" bet selection? No bet selection can escape variance.

You guys should really learn some basic probability and statistics before trying to BEAT-THE-WHEEL.

Yes it's been known since casinos opened that roulette has a negative expectation. Apparently system players missed the memo about events being independent, and that this consigns all bet selections based on past spins to the trash can.

Kimo,

QuoteI have taken into account the complicated calculations of measuring where the ball will fall and designed my method so that the layman can simply follow a process and be able to bet with confidence that they will be in profit in the long run.

So you're saying that your GPM is actually an AP method? I haven't read your books, but I've seen enough of your posts at various forums over the years which suggest that isn't the case. You admit that your books outline only a way of "mapping" the wheel, and that the GPM also provides a "language" with which to communicate and decipher ball movement. So we still have the question of how you select your bets. If it's a form of VB, then how can the bet selection be as subjective as it appears to be? The core principles of VB are not subjective.

Mapping the wheel, providing the means to effectively memorise it, and deciphering ball movements may all be valuable additions to the roulette player's arsenal, but they're not a substitute for bet selection (which is what this thread is about). When it actually comes to the time to select a bet, how does all the paraphernalia of GPM tell you how to proceed if it's not based on past spins? And if it's based on past spins, you're back in the fallacy.

It seems to me that you're trying to add an element of physics to GPM in order to give it an air of respectability, but in fact there's no real physics involved at all. It's basically a trending system, albeit a rather sophisticated one. A case of physics envy perhaps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

@ BEAT-THE-WHEEL,

Selections based on probability won't overcome the house edge. You need a way to select bets which overcome the house advantage otherwise your results will merely conform to the negative expectation. Probabilities can help if you're playing in order to reach some specific goal or manage a limited bankroll, but it won't give any advantage.

@ Gizmo,

QuoteI don't need to know the future in order to take advantage of coincidence.

That's an oxymoron, like saying you can "read randomness". Randomness by definition can't be "read". It's absurd. Similarly, coincidence is something you can't predict. You can't "take advantage" of coincidence until it's already happened, by which time it's too late to take advantage of it.

I get what your bet selection is attempting to do but it doesn't work. You try to catch a trend and if it doesn't work you find another one and jump on that. Rinse and repeat. Eventually you hit a nice long trend and clean up. It's not a bad idea but unfortunately the reality of randomness means that the losses you make in the many minor and failed trends will outweigh the gains made on the relatively few major trends. And again the selection is based on past spins, so the foundation is built on sand.

Gizmo,

It doesn't take a superior intellect to understand that past spins don't indicate future spins. Only in a roulette forum might that seem "superior", LOL.

Good luck with your algorithm, but hey, Kimo has already beat you to it. Funny that roulette and casinos still exist though. 

QuoteYour argumernt is as old as the hills.

An argument's validity isn't based on its novelty.

In fact, looking at your assertion

QuoteTrends can be observed at the very beginning, the middle , and the end of their occurrence. An experienced player knows how to live with the results of all three conditions

I'm not sure what this even means, and I'm pretty sure you don't either. But it sounds good, and that's the main thing, right?