Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 10:56:10 PM
Turner,

I have question.  Why would you track at one table, and then expect those results to carry over to another table?

Xander....


I have no beliefs in that theory. I have to see it for myself, or its just a good read.


Either I explain things badly, or you arnt so interested in what I say and read between the lines.


I hear "personal permanence" bandied about...so i investigate.


I would never say never. I would never say....no it isn't.


I am trying, by experiment, to find out what people mean by PP.


To answer your question, If PP exists, then I should be able to have an idea at one table, and walk to another and continue my PP.


Like i said, I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I just try to get to the bottom of things myself, and not just jump on a bandwagon purely by reading it.


I read a lot of books on Quantum Theory and Astrophysics. You have to forget what seems real or unreal in the real world to understand. You have to relax and accept the proposal as a proposal.


that's what I am doing here. Seeing it for my self.






if you like, "Man didn't land on the Moon" is classic. One argument for "Man didn't land on the moon" is the Van Allen belt would of killed the Astronauts.


Did these conspiracy theorists actually discover the Van Allen belt by experimental proof? No.


They just read it, like people who believe we did land on the Moon read that.


In many ways, man did land on the Moon, and didn't. Its just about opinion.

Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 06:21:51 PMRandomness sucks, doesn't it?    Bayes, let's talk on Skype sometime.  Happy New Year!

Xander....probably best you talk on skype


You wouldn't want to be seen fraternizing with Bernouilli's stupid men, would you 

Pockets....I blush before you


(I wasn't aware that I had posted anything of interest)

BA....


Bayes did a whole post in CC roulette


But, if you have RX......show statistics, say even money, show summary, and press help.


Help actually explains what all the calculations are...mean, SD ETC.


I learned from Bayes and RX help.


I learned some SD's by heart. So, 14 reds and 2 black is SD3 etc.


(I prefer to remember positions.....yes Chess again!)

Thanks pockets.
Me and the wife went to the casino last night. I took £30.
I played an idea on table 1 . I won once which put me £5 up.....then changed to table 2.
I started fresh tracking but carried on monitoring  my old numbers...which duely hit.

I like something new hitting me in the face

Quote from: Xander on December 30, 2013, 11:38:39 PM

Please explain what you mean and why.

I did carefully say...some merit.
I used the method of betting on repeats so most quickly get what i am doing and why and you can quickly take numbers to the next table. It was so hopefully....no one would get fixated with what I was actually doing..and talk about the point I was discussing
Ok..I sit at table 1 until I see 3SD for red...then I go to table 2 and play for red to regress to the mean. Its my personal permanence.

heres the rub though.....with personal permanence.


I sit at table 1. I look at the marque and see 4 repeats. lets say they are 2,10,17,33


I play them for a several spins, and 2 hits, since then 13 has repeated.  Everyone will agree this way of betting has some merit.


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.

I do think it's a good test, to test personal permanence


I picked 3 tables at a casino, picked 4 simultaneous numbers from table 1, then table 2, then table 3


This makes 12....then repeated (one being 5) moving down the list each time.


It kinda simulates moving from table to table and coming back to other tables.


The resulting 37 spins has 21 hit, 7 repeats and 16 un hit.


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

No.6.....I am saying there is no HAR. It makes no difference


Your total permanence is same.


And.....inadvertently,  I may just of agreed that SD doesn't grow if you don't bet on it

hmmm...Im not explaining this very well am I.


With HAR....you bet and leave. You come back and bet, and leave. The numbers you bet on are as random as continuous betting. No difference.


I tried to show that by joining sets of numbers that arnt consecutive, and seeing if they looked like straight consecutive numbers.


they did.


i can't explain any better than this.

I don't want to get involved in the actual debate, but perhaps people don't see the British sense of humor.


Its quite sarcastic. I got Bing Bell straight away


http://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/what-a-price!!!!!!!!!/msg25207/#msg25207


I've been misunderstood here just yesterday. Everyone thought I was on my last legs.

Xander.....I got Random with 6 disjointed, out of sequence sets of numbers. It complied to  Law of the Third.


I had no advantage by missing out chunks between my bets (HAR), HE = 2.6% same as a consecutive 37 numbers. 24 hit, 13 don't.


it's a quick one off. I should do this 100s of times.


My HAR permenance was same as a straight run of 37 (sitting at the table without HAR)


Just a thought experiment. I may be wrong......but this test kinda showed it

Quote from: Turner on December 21, 2013, 09:32:00 PM

Wally...unless medicine changes radically...I won't be here mate lol


All the best to all here !!!!

oops........I am quite well...(if not a tad embarrassed).Don't panik !


The Devil is in the detail my dear concerned friends.....


Wally said good luck in 2104


I would be 140 years old......

Xander.....because its random...right?


Straw poll....


I ran 1 tables permz from weisbaden, stopping here and there to pick 6 numbers, and finally 7


I had 37 numbers made from groups of 6 with varying gaps in between


24 numbers hit, 9 are repeats, 13 un-hit.




same numbers 37 in a row....from spin 100


23 hit, 9 are repeats, 14 un-hit

Quote from: NathanDetroit on December 25, 2013, 09:51:59 PM
Less exposure to the  wheel the better :  Frank Scoblete, John Patrick, and  V. Bethell.

ND

There are different ways to look at exposure to the wheel. One is to see that as meaning not sitting through more than a certain set of consecutive numbers, another is not to expose too much BR during a session or cycle.


if I bet for 8 spins and win, then leave....this is the classic H&R model....but if I sit for 37 spins, and by method, only ever have 1 chip on the table due to some trigger, sometimes none, sometimes 2 (no more than 2)..... do I have less exposure to the wheel?


And for the purposes of the above, I use 20u on both methods....and win the same.