Thanks mate. Any tips are always welcome.

Quote from: Turner on December 30, 2013, 10:33:19 PM
I stand up and walk over to table 2 with my personal permanence......and bet 2,10,17,33 and 13.
Does this make sense?......
well if they are all cold, on table 2....it doesn't...and if it does make sense, what's the point of playing a system of any kind.

Turner, again bang on. You are indeed trying to checkmate with every post. To understand this, I will have to go back a couple of posts.

If you remember the post name was "There is no truth, only perception". You have quoted a valid example of it.

---

ran·dom/ˈrændəm/ [ran-duhm] adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

---

Imagine a scenario where there are no biased tables, no cheating dealers and machines. Everything is random. In this scenario, every spin you get from a single table is random. Everything you get if you combine spins from multiple tables is random. Are these two randoms different? No, they are just RANDOM.   

With that in mind, the truth is you are just combining a random sequence of numbers. Perception is there are hot and cold numbers on a table. Truth is no, there doesn't exist hot and cold for a table, it is only for the random sequence that you observe/play. There goes the answer to your first question.   

Coming to your second question "Does any of the betselection then makes sense".

All the statistical concepts including regression to the mean, law of third etc comply with two things:
1. They apply to a random set of outcomes. These concepts do not know how your outcomes have been put together. As long as there is no external factor influencing these outcomes (like a biased wheel), they don't distinguish on how you got those outcomes.
2. They are not certain. You know 1+1 will always be 2. But these concepts are not certain. Take an example of RTM. The theory just suggests that in a set of two samples the likelihood of second set of sample showing extreme results is less if the first sample set showed extreme results.  No one is saying it is certain.

So yes, playing the system of any kind complying to these statistical concepts definitely makes sense. Its just that your personal permanence is the actual probability of outcomes and that is what the bet selections should be based on and not on "let it pass" kind of plays.   

See this example video. Two parts to the session. One playing continuous spins. One playing a new session with newly generated keys and numbers in BV everytime you get a repeat in your personal permanence. Bet selection is repeats of 2 moving to repeats of 3. Its all the same. So on a lighter note, don't worry if your better half wants you to leave the table as its boring, don't worry if BV cuts you off. Continue from where you left, on a fresh day, fresh table. Your personal permanence is omnipresent.

   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K0ZSYZ27kA

Quote from: weddings on December 31, 2013, 01:30:33 AM
Wish you good luck in your play pockets. How much bankroll are you playing at the moment btw?

500 Euros

Quote from: Turner on December 28, 2013, 12:18:11 PM
perfectly normal result from 37 random numbers.
Its not like there are less repeats, or more, or more distributed numbers, or less distributed.
I can't see any advantage in these mish mash numbers, compared to 37 straight on 1 table.
Just a thought

Bang on Turner. Everything is random and random has its own rules. So whether you pick up 1 number from 37 tables, 37 spins from one table continuously or randomly, any kind of mix and match you do, I have tested and seem to adher to this rules. Once Winkel mentioned that you pick up one number random from multiple tables, or playing only certain amount of spins and continuing from where you left, GUT will work. This is a clear consideration of personal permanence. So essentially there is no mathematical advantage whether you play continously or virtual plays which is a superset form of hit and run.

However, the advantage is more psychological. Superman has exhibited nicely how to do this. He mentions that the longer he plays, he gets tired and loses his mind in his intuitive play. So he tries to keep his sessions, progressions shorter so that he approaches every session with a fresh mind. I surely think this is an advantage of any form of hit&run. There are merits.

Quote from: Alexandro on December 30, 2013, 12:39:29 AM
ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE JANUARY 1 2014

Swansea City vs Manchester City

Asian Handicap
Pick - Manchester City -1.00

Sorry to interrupt your nice thread. Wish you a happy 2014. I think its long the blues had a streak. 2014 is going to turn the tide and MC is not going to win this one

Alex, pls feel free to delete if thiss is out of place.

Quote from: weddings on December 29, 2013, 03:24:47 PM
I polled positive but doesn't the fact that almost half are positive tell you something. You can choose to believe but I don't, its just my point of view.

May be true, may be not. There are close to 300 members here and the poll just reflects just a portion of the members who are actively involved in here. Weddings you have shown how to win and have inspired a number of people like me that it can be done. Three days back the losing % was 4% and now it stands at 20%. So as and when we get more people to poll may be we will get a balanced view. Afterall, we have to trust our fellow forum members

Also, on the whole topic being the results from Gambling, we need to see what is gambling.

"Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize."

All casino games fit into this category. But the definition is so vague, do you think investing in property is gambling? Do you think investing in stocks is gambling? I can go on and on as these are all wagering money on an event with uncertain outcome.

So limiting things only to casino games, am excluding Sports betting etc in the same lines of other investments, am in NEGATIVE. I have voted negative. A taste of how negative am in can be found from the history in BV account. I have also tracked other games i have played in B&M casinos, and overall it's a negative. But so far in December i have not lost a ssingle session and is bringing some hope for new year to look forward to. Wish you all a happy and joyous 2014 and may the luck be with you.

[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]

Note : Greens are my deposit, oranges are my withdrawals

As I was explaining dominance alone is not sufficient. We need to have something which will limit the variance. Which will operate with predetermined top and bottom control points. Look at the following graph of 200 spins.

[attachimg=1]

There is an upper control limit, there is a lower control limit. Top point is +3, Bottom point is -3. The graph really fluctuates between these 2 extreme points. This is what is possible when seeing dominance from a different perspective. The betting always happens when it is within normalcy limits which is +1 and -1. Bettting stops/reverses when we get into the extremes.  What do you think? Do you think we can break the bank by limiting variance using such bet selection?

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on December 23, 2013, 01:54:38 AM
you introduce a personal permanence   

Makes sense to me. But I still believe it's a confusing topic.

If random outcomes follow the laws of regression, when you are playing virtually, the spins which are real creates patterns and will follow laws of regression and will have its own SD. This is my understanding of the whole issue and I think you cannot control variance using virtual bets. May be for the same number of spins, you might be better off, but if you consider the same number of placed spins  you will more or less be around the same mark, is my guess.

Virtual bets are more like hit and runs. Its just that instead of running every day after a hit, you will run after a short sessions within a bigger session. And we all know that HAR will not create an edge. A good explanation can be taken back to the day when Bayes challenged JL questioning HAR with a logical example. Same holds good for virtuals as well is MHO.

What Bayes does is a little more than virtual betting. Little more than HAR. There is a subtle difference. Read in his own words, even though it was in different context, it makes absolute sense and can be related here.

"I agree. I've tried to make this point several times but it seems people just don't get it. I play this form of HAR myself - look for "favourable" opportunities, get in then get out. There's a big difference between doing that and the kind of HAR JL recommends in PB and his other systems. Take PB: the "trigger" to bet is determined by random itself, not by any favourable conditions. The number of spins you have to wait when playing PB is a random variable, ie; anywhere between 21 spins and 60 or more.

Now someone might say that waiting for favourable conditions is a fallacy because roulette is a game of independent trials (unlike blackjack) so there is no such thing as a "favourable" condition, but that's irrelevant to the validity of the argument which only says that IF conditions are favourable, then bet and IF conditions become unfavourable, then stop betting. The logic of PB ignores any concept of favourable conditions because you enter the game at a random point in the stream and the random stream itself determines when you actually make the bet, so both "triggers" are randomly determined.

Playing short sessions (HAR) does nothing to change this, it just means you're entering at different points along the stream of data, but in both cases (either playing HAR or continuously) the trigger is selected randomly. Placing 100 bets in one mode or the other (HAR or continuously) thus amounts to the same thing in terms of favourable conditions, ie: they're not taken account of in either case because it's not part of PB's remit to find any favourable conditions; PB is supposed to be an absolute winning bet - the final pattern will materialize at a constant rate which is higher than 7-1 and this will guarantee you a profit. But this simply isn't the case."


Drazen, we may not discuss it here. But you might be absolutely right. The MM is what is creating that edge and not the bet selection here.

Thanks for your kind comments. Now that some of you have gone through the video, you have noted that there is not a strict rule that has been applied even within this 3 stepped ladder. That's because I hate mechanical play when am calling the shots. I like some dynamics. But that doesn't mean that I don't like bot play. Its fun in its own way and we can define a set of rules and suit this play to a mechanical way of playing. It's like this. I go to Starbucks every day, well almost every day. I ask for a cuppa. They make cuppa within a defined set of rules to make the coffee taste the same irrespective of the outlet you visit. So there are defined rules and the coffee machine outputs the coffee. Very similar to a bot. But one coffee maker makes a heart on the foam on the top and other makes a Christmas tree. That's personal touch. That's like me playing roulette and calling shots. The output is finally the coffee you need.

Why am I highlighting this? If you have watched the video then you would have noted that the first step is playing 18 numbers and I have chosen to play Red and black. Mechanical. Pure mechanical. But someone else might chose to play low and high. Turner might chose to play a set of 3 lines. A bot maker might chose to play 18 individual numbers. But finally the essence is 18 numbers.

On the other hand the second step in the ladder is playing 24 numbers. If you have watched the video, you would have noticed that I am playing 2 dozens sometimes, I am playing 1 line and an EC which are not overlapping sometimes. That's not mechanical. That's not governed by rules. That's intuition. Will this way of playing work without intuition? Yes it will. It will give the same coffee without that added touch of heart or smile or tree on the top. It is essentially playing 24 numbers. With that guidance, I will carry on with why I am currently believing it should work (Of course, am always with Sam when he says only time will tell and am not claiming it to be bulletproof)

Now leaving aside all philosophy, same idea but different positions. 6 and 9 streets(18 and 27 numbers) in this video. Actually, i went on to 15 splits as well(30 numbers) but for some reason the video did not record after a certain point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOrqOPjpbdE

Betting history for the 29 spins i played in this session below. The outcome was 27units.
[attachimg=1]

Answer is not very straightforward. This is one of those things where there is no clear demarcation of right or wrong even if go by maths. For maths, it doesn't know whether you play virtual or real. It is dependent on only the outcome from the wheel. So it suggests you can use it to your advantage. But at the same time, math suggests these are all independent events, so house edge will remain and hence it doesn't matter whether you play virtual, there is no advantage. Confusing ain't it.

A more simplistic explanation. Consider a sequence of events in EC - WWLWWLWLWLWWWLWL
One is playing all real. 
result - +4

One is stopping real play after a loss and after two virtual wins, continues in real mode.
Result - 0

No am not going to talk about Chaos theory here. I am going to talk about a way of playing roulette, that I have been pondering upon. If you have read chemistry then you might have come across the anecdote that the honeycomb structure that we come across quite frequently in organic chemistry is the result of a dream on a good nights sleep. I am glad, I decided to stop playing roulette because of the losses I made there and this method is a product of a nice little dream. It is a result of a very intense thought process that has gone into the game to figure out the probability of something which is very rare in occurrence.

When the thought stuck me that if you are able to figure out something that has a lowest odds of occurance, then you are able to maximize it to your advantage. So initially I went into patterns to try various combinations like RRBBRBBBRRB so on and so forth and figured out that it has a balance between occurance and non-occurance and will always be an issue to create that edge. Then I read about parachuting in this forum. I thought, that sounds really nice and workable and why are people not doing it. Then learnt that it is not as simple as it looks. Then explored law of third and after digging through post after post after post across multiple roulette forums, figured out that anything that is around here as a bet selection is equally good as other. I have dug so deep that even though I have joined the forum very late, I can now remember dialogues that goes back to 7-8 years.

Coming to the point, the idea is simple. We all know that there are sleepers. We all know that certain things can sleep for a long time. But 37 unique numbers in a row, how rare is that? 18 splits in a row, how rare is that? The idea is completely based on this principle. It is based on the fact that there will always be sleepers. So take advantage of sleepers while they sleep before they wake up. And be as dynamic as possible in your bet selection to take advantage of that sleeping by applying the principles of parachuting. I recently posted my 10 day history. There was one loss and that loss was because I was in the middle of the game and my daughter sat on my lap to use paint shop in my PC. I let go of the roulette. So there is promise.

A taste of the 3 stepped ladder play of this idea in this video. I mention 3 step, as it progresses only to 3 steps in the session i have played. 4 steps is relatively common as getting 8-9 reds in a row. I will explain more when I find time. But I have already given out the idea for everyone to interpret.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVVi9WISElI

I don't know who said it, but I have been hearing this since I was a kid "Man is a social animal". Being social means prone to distractions. I am no different and prone to distractions. While I was working on the principles of dominance and how to limit variances, a serious thought stuck me. Something that I never thought about before. I went in pursuit of it and I see that I have made real good progress. I have made very good progress up to a point that I am confident I can come out every session with a win. But as Sam always says "Time will tell". So what is it?

It is essentially the power of the law of the third, parachuting, laws of probability, sleepers and wakers all put into one simple method. I always said this thread is all about betselection and I am happy that I am not going to deviate from that thought process yet, even though I believe this method will work best with progressions. I call this method "Chaos". Read about it all here(http://betselection.cc/gambling-philosophy/chaos-theory/new/#new), as I want to keep this thread limited to discussions on the adventure.

I thought your profile picture is the one of Buddha. Did not know it is your own picture

Indeed Max.

Am around. someone told me racing is pants. So was trying on trousers to see how it feels. Its good, but not as comfortable as pants are

[attach=1]

On a serious note, busy personally. Spending some quality time with family ahead of some winter hibernation.In case we don't speak until new year, merry xmas everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqWig2WARb0

Quote from: Number Six on December 09, 2013, 04:50:31 PM
Sure, it will be my life's work anyway.

Good on you mate