If the last spin was not in those five streets

won't the last spin always be in the last street??

Bit dodgy at night I hear....

OK.....back on yer 'eds

Wheres the white jacket you scruffy sod!!!

Just wanted it explaining.....anyhow.....enjoying Xander and No.6 posts....even if they are the same (joke)    


Got me thinking about PP. Got me thinking about lots of things.


Needed a new thing to get excited about....so thanks

Quote from: Number Six on January 03, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
Turner,


We happen to agree on a point or two,

Number 6....Im sure you do lol


Now you are scaring me.... Im not sure you even know what me and Bayes are talking about......lol


Read right to the very...very end.


Bayes,There could be either one of two approaches to your personal style of play. Play to survive, or play to win. Both are quite different. But in either way, the true risk of ruin must be calculated by accounting for the deviation of the results of your actual wagers. So, if you factor in virtual results into your risk of ruin, the risk can only increase because the deviation measurement would be incorrect, the longer it goes on like that the more woefully inaccurate it becomes. It's a simple corruption of data, the more corrupt the more dangerous. At first the true risk might actually be less than what you think it is, but at some point there'll be a role reversal; a test may well show that at the point of reversal the true risk will accelerate beyond control. Of course, the player wouldn't know this, and when he's placed his last chip he'll leave the table wondering where it all went so wrong.
Xander,   <<<<<<<<<< you-hooooo.....this bit !!!!

By the way Number 6......nice ars*!

Quote from: Xander on January 02, 2014, 11:33:38 PM


@Number Six,

I like your post.

I was already at DEFCON 3.....until this.....and after this latest faux pas.....my  pistol is cocked

Quote from: Number Six on January 03, 2014, 01:26:51 PM
Bayes,

There could be either one of two approaches to your personal style of play. Play to survive, or play to win. Both are quite different. But in either way, the true risk of ruin must be calculated by accounting for the deviation of the results of your actual wagers. So, if you factor in virtual results into your risk of ruin, the risk can only increase because the deviation measurement would be incorrect, the longer it goes on like that the more woefully inaccurate it becomes. It's a simple corruption of data, the more corrupt the more dangerous. At first the true risk might actually be less than what you think it is, but at some point there'll be a role reversal; a test may well show that at the point of reversal the true risk will accelerate beyond control. Of course, the player wouldn't know this, and when he's placed his last chip he'll leave the table wondering where it all went so wrong.

Xander,

One  slight flaw in your reply no.6

Sam...... I did something on this called  Shhhh....Turners talking about e/c series
It got discussed there.
I personally got a great understanding of this from studying dice outcomes and throwing them myself and noting the varience vs what you would expect from probability. This is where my wife finally thought I had lost the plot.
I discussed it in craps section here.
I found dice and singles and series very similar.
Well I did anyhow......I'm not opening discussion on how they are not!

Quote from: Xander on January 01, 2014, 09:14:22 PM

-Xander


We measure and calculate the "wavefunction collapse" using a new theoretical framework, called quantum decoherence.   Decoherence correctly predicts the form and probability distribution of the final eigenstates, and explains the apparent randomness of the choice of final state in terms of einselection.j  Duh! 

he means just puts little clocks all over the place.....he's possibly just showing off

I don't get the question...sorry

Quote from: Xander on January 01, 2014, 06:35:25 PM
Regarding Turner's "personal permanence" and a little different view.............................

...............Contrary to what many people believe, the numbers that hit are not predetermined and laid out to infinity.  This means that if you're away from the table when your number hits, that the same number may not have hit had you stayed and played.  -Xander

perfectly acceptable thought

Quote from: Pockets on January 01, 2014, 02:14:32 PM
You are right there Sam.  This is based on my observations for over a month.  The funny thing is my observations started from one of your beliefs that past spins influence future ones like voodoo.  And also on your question on two eyes on the marquee. After seeing those comments I wanted to see that happening myself.  And yes it is voodoo.  It happens. But at the Same time realized it is not the spins on the table, but it is the spins that you observe or take into consideration.

I found it working even if I randomly pick up some 20 spins from random.org and go to a casino and start playing my betselection based on the 20 numbers right from the first spin when I reach the casino. One of those things that has completely changed my perspective and I should thank you for igniting this thought process.  Random is really very confusing.

See....this is where Im not sure about no.6 view that PP doest exist until you bet on it. I played with this....and I can discuss my findings in detail....but conclude that you can't  make a bet based on anything...because there isn't anything yet as you haven't placed a bet. You would have to min.bet a random number while you built up a PP.
No.6 may be right....but it's a death knell for any initial idea as you sit at the table

Xander....
This is my point about your approach. You assume I haven't read the history of roulette. I may of done. How would you know.
You think you know because it appears to you that I don't share your view that you fomulated from it.

The moon was an anallogy for opinion.

The point was this.

I believe man landed on the moon. that's BELIEVE. Only 12 men actually know if we did.