It's refreshing to see a gambling web site where the author tells it like it is. No misleading hype - just the plain truth. Good job!

esoito,
Have you actually tried this yourself? 

This thread reminds me of the prayer:

Quote
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can

And wisdom to know the difference.

Once you accept the faulty premise that spins aren't independent, an infinity of systems become possible. I think most people would assume that independence of outcomes is self-evident, but if you're not convinced, try Googling the "Chi-square test for independence", and use it on any sequence of spins which you think is some kind of indicator of future spins.

I await your results with interest!

Quote from: Gizmotron on July 02, 2014, 01:59:01 AM
I'm totally fascinated by those that can't see it.

I'm totally fascinated by those who DO see it, LOL.

Hello Sputnik,


It seems you are betting that the next 10 spins won't match the previous 10 spins, is that right?


1 R
2 R
3 B
4 R
5 B
6 B
7 B
8 R
9 R
10 B


If the next spin, no. 11 is R then it matches spin 1 which is R, so you put a S label on it, but if spin 11 was B, you would put a O label there. But I don't understand how you are choosing your times to bet. Is it when the outcomes (S or O) are starting to balance out?


1 2 O[/size]1 2 O1 1 S2 1 O L    Why did you bet here?1 1 S W2 1 S - 1 1 S2 1 O2 1 O1 2 O L1 1 S W2 2 S

The forum is very slow and jerky, sometimes when typing a post there are delays before the text appears. Then there are strange gray triangles which appear. See the attached.


[attach=1]

Bally,


I appreciate the gesture, and looking forward to your results.

Quote from: Bally6354 on June 21, 2014, 12:50:05 AM
Naturally, I don't mind someone checking my account when I have finished to make sure everything was above board.

I'd like to volunteer to be that someone. 

To answer the specific question, then yes, I believe thinking out of the box can be taught. Esoito's example of Edward de Bono is a good one. He has written textbooks on creativity which show you how to generate new ideas deliberately on demand without waiting for inspiration. Some will be better than other at this, but everyone can learn it to some degree, if they have the desire.


But I will add one thing: reality is the final arbiter. Although we can *think* outside the box, we are still constrained by the box, in reality although not in thought. There is a world independent of us which behaves according to certain laws (which we have discovered, not invented). I can imagine a perpetual motion machine, or even try to build one, but it won't work, because it violates the second law of thermodynamics. We have to recognize that there are certain constraints which limit application of our ideas in the real world. This is not being defeatist or negative, but simply realistic.

I guess I'm one of those who you say can't think outside the box, at least with regard to roulette (systems and methods). But I disagree. If I pretend for moment that spins aren't independent, I can think outside the box as well as anyone, in fact I've posted a system on this forum which I haven't seen the like of anywhere else. However, I still know it won't win. Why? because in order to create that system, I've assumed something that isn't true, namely that spins aren't independent.


Thinking outside the box is appropriate for something like sports betting or trading; following the herd won't get results because the odds aren't fixed, but vary in proportion to the number of punters making similar bets. Sometimes this can work in your favor, ie "the trend is your friend", but other times not. That's why a good racing system will lose its effectiveness over time if too many people are using it.


In roulette, you can step outside the box of independent trials by taking into account those factors which generate the outcomes, namely physics.

Quote from: Sputnik on June 20, 2014, 01:44:19 PM

I mean if i can pass 800.000 trails using a test with 12 step fibo and win.

Is this a one-off test or can you do it every time?


@ BEAT-THE-WHEEL,


What do you mean by divisor, and what is "HP"?


So are you saying that if there at least 69 wins in 200 spins then you will always end in profit?


I don't believe it but I'm willing to test it.

I voted YES, a winning system is impossible. I'm not sure what the difference is between "making consistent profits" and "a winning system". If you have achieved one then you have also achieved the other, have you not?


The tough questions are never answered. How can it be possible, in a game of independent trials, to know when a number or group of numbers is going to hit higher than expectation? No one is denying that any system will have short bursts of wins, the question is, how do you know when they are going to occur?


You cannot compare roulette played this way to horse racing or sports betting, because the latter are potentially beatable, but roulette systems as such are not, because the odds are fixed and the expectation is negative. No amount of skipping spins, manipulating stakes or following patterns will change that. So why is it always claimed that there is some kind of "loophole"?

Quote from: XXVV on June 16, 2014, 02:27:55 AM
What is so interesting here, amidst this context is the really interesting question raised by Mike being ' how many elegant patterns are possible?' et al.

Thanks XXVV. Glad someone noticed the significance of that question. Strange that Gizmo didn't, even though "elegant patterns" are his baby. Instead, it seems he prefers to generate more heat than light.


The reason it's important is because if there are more "elegant" patterns than inelegant ones, then Gizmo's idea might even work, because you will lose less during the "false starts" (meaning those occasions when you bet on a pattern to continue, but it doesn't) than you win when those bets do in fact become elegant patterns. But any repeating pattern is more likely to be short than long, so it's not simple to work out whether you make more than you lose. An analytical solution would be too difficult, but a computer simulation would give you the answer, as long as you know what counts as the start of a potentially elegant pattern.

Gizmo, so an elegant pattern is one which continues for.... how many spins?


How many elegant patterns are possible? what is the smallest pattern you can identify as a potentially elegant one?

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 11, 2014, 03:35:25 PM
Singles in the EC 's are not rare. I won't bet on them unless there is also an existing context, the global effect. - Yes, I know, it's another made up phrase. Too bad you are too lazy to research about context. It's  here at this forum, it's completely given without an expectation of compensation.

Typical. You can never get a straight answer from system advocates. That's because they know that if they give a concrete methodology you can actually test, it will be shown to be a loser. Far better to keep it vague and then no one can say you're wrong because they don't know what you're talking about in the first place.

Gizmo, where is your example? Your method seems to be this: look at the last few outcomes and if you see a pattern, eg something like R B R B then bet that the pattern continues. So the pattern being alternating red/black I would bet on red next, correct?.


If the bet fails I look for another pattern and bet for it to continue. Is this your method in a nutshell?