Quote from: Xander on June 11, 2014, 03:44:09 PM
.

XXVV would have everyone believe that he's responsible for it going down.  I'm sure he'd also like everyone to believe that he's responsible for the sun rising each day as well.

However, nothing could be further from the truth.   I'm sure the administrator and the service provider found his foot stomping to be as silly as everyone else did.  Is it just me or does he remind anyone else of the poster named Mr. Chips?

Xander, by arguing ad absurdum, a device often used by children when first learning to debate you show yourself to be not a dealer in fact which is a claim you make, but instead inflammatory and hyped comment.


Fact - you lied, misrepresented several issues and fermented trouble on several occasions  with BetForum.cc and with this Forum, to the extent that you have a trail of aliases, and a reputation for causing trouble and dissent in a Forum.


That you appear never to have been taken to task for your actions, and that you always ignore any responsibility for your actions, and that it is always rationalised by you as someone else's fault , are signals that your actions are immature, deluded and irresponsible. Your presence will never be permitted on my personal Blog.


Fact - I formally made a complaint to Belgacom Skynet, and to the EU Privacy Commissioner over the actions within BetForumcc. The Telecom issued my action with a formal registration and file number. Following this, after the required ten day review, the Forum closed.


Fact - It was your malicious actions within that Forum that led to the increasing volume of troll activity which was not adequately controlled by the Administration.


It is absurd and rather unintelligent to then (as usual) over state your position that I take some  sense of pleasure and responsibility for an act of retribution. Far from it. The situation was sad and shocking and behaviour from entities like you are the root cause of such consequences and you never take responsibility for your actions.


I will go as far to say that through behaviour like yours Forums just will never work while you appear to be permitted to move from one location to another, with differing names, on a phony crusade to remove 'blarney' or whatever you mean by that - I suspect big words and big ideas you cannot deal with.


We had a few weeks here with some sunshine and no Xander. Fortunately I have completed an extremely  worthwhile exercise while here and there is no need for or further contact with you. I do hope that BetForum.cc opens again and I am certain the Administration will have been cautioned as to any further breach of privacy protocol or permitting of libelous and illegal content.


Fact- I have always simply used my XXVV title and anyone can access me personally or professionally as I welcome intelligent and constructive dialogue. The reference to 'Mr Chips' means nothing to me.


The advice from Bayes and others is that you should just be ignored ( Bayes suggested some sort of button option), but why should any of us have to passively accept your nonsense when it impinges on us and our integrity. You have attempted to undermine and contrary to your claims of wanting to deal in reality and fact, you dredge lower levels by irresponsibly with negative intentions. You thrive on stirring trouble.


There is no need for me to make any further statement and I have outlined to you and the Forum what was needed to be said to you.

@ Xander


Your comments as always are noted.


As usual you have missed the point completely as to what was discussed and the principles and practical application therof. Your lack of observation regarding my quite specific and particular work in practical application and testing of roulette ( ie the specific 10,000 spin live test of WF +LWB and the 100,000 RNG test) on the Blog Section illustrates shall we say a 'selective' vision, or perhaps 'blinkered' view. Several years of roulette work you seem to have missed, and it might be fair to say I publish more specific spin data than many.


For the record, and as you are now in direct contact with me which is the position I wanted, please note on BetForum.cc that it was your pre-meditated, malicious, ignorant and spiteful continuing personal attacks on first Dr Martin Blakey PhD ( Melbourne) a highly regarded professional roulette player and daily participant at Crown Casino Private Members Rooms, and then your personal slander and derogatory attacks on me, accusing me of representing myself as Dr Blakey on the Forum, and then your accusation that I conspired to defraud Members of the Forum, and your issue of threatening and defamatory PM messages to myself and to the Forum Administrator regarding me, that caused massive mis-information on the Forum to such an extent that the Forum Administrator lost control and published private correspondence between myself and he, in breach of international privacy regulations. Having watched this situation unfold through your troll like behavior, you then in a delicious twist of inverted irony demanded that I should apologise to the Forum for the chaos that unfolded.


Thus, after taking careful professional advice, I made a formal complaint to the Forum Server, Belgacom Skynet in Belgium with the apparent result that BetForum.cc is now closed. Further action by me is pending. Let us be clear here. I made the formal complaint which was receipted by Belgacom-Skynet on May 20. I was advised action would follow within ten days, and during that time I noted BefForumcc closed. The 'action' I anticipated would have been further detail communications from the telco but whether coincidental or not, the Forum closed. It is childish of Xander to state that I was seeking to claim I had been responsible for the closing. It may have been a complaint or it may have been other commercial issues, or private issues. I am sure Xander would not know but as is his mode of operation he likes to assert blame anywhere other than in his origination.


I have stated elsewhere my intention was to bring to formal attention unacceptable and illegal behaviour on an internet Forum hosted within EU provisions, not out of some petty attempt at retribution. Far from it. I hope the Forum re-opens because there is valuable information therein. What I do want is to see lessons learned and behaviour improve on internet Forum sites. Now this may be hard to achieve but the difference between a responsible and calm environment and that of a chaotic and reactionary cauldron is the difference between heaven and hell in my perception. Sound control and administration is essential but it may be that higher level work has to be private for some entities just do not want or accept progress.


Xander is  primarily responsible for that consequence being the Complaint against the Forum where he was the initiator of a pre-meditated campaign of slander, and as he is a forthright expounder of the principle of cause and effect, this one is a classic example. His irresponsible actions and repeated lies were the cause, and the effect may be the resulting loss of service to that Forum. But then maybe its all a curious coincidence.

Quote from: Agesta1 on June 10, 2014, 05:50:09 AM
Hi!
I must have missed something but what has happen with betforum,?
I delivered sportstips almost every day there, i must have had to much focus on doing that.
Agesta

Good Question. Any takers?
R.

As stated elsewhere the divisive black and white views espoused by some are silly childish oversimplifications of a much more complex, fascinating and beautiful reality. In many cases I can say you are both right but when some over state their position and deny all other possibilities that reveals the limitations of their thinking and present capacity to think.

I will provide examples.

Every day and in any stream of numbers you provide, say 20 -30 spins duration I can demonstrate short term patterns and sometimes symmetries that put a lie to the position as stated by Xander, and which will give a likely indication of a con-sequence through the dialectic of 'same' and 'different'. These variations on a theme ( often illustrated beautifully in baroque music) are all beautiful, just as any leaf on a favourite tree in the garden or park, or the patterns we see as infinite variety in human fingerprints or iris. Unique assemblages of the same material but when seen in the correct 'spirit' are exquisite. just so a stream of random numbers, and every one containing coded information ready to temporarily link and thus cluster in short strands. The decay curve of such overlapping clusters stretches from ( by my definition/ interpretation) three to sometimes well beyond a dozen and the willingness to change form or resistance to break is a resonance of change/ same expressions where the force to change always wins but sometimes struggles to overcome same.

These patterns are insights and aspects of randomness which I tend to approach as a partially knowable unknown.

It is beyond human consciousness to deal with the vastness of the 'Unknown' and the attempts produce over simplified orthodoxies that separate people very often rather than unite. This is where physical merges into 'meta-physical' but this should be no surprise because we are constantly dealing with such when decay and creation surrounds us and is 'our body'  ( in all its bio chemistry) from microscopic to cosmic and more. You just have to learn to look ( peep if necessary) outside of the (linear) box wherein you may feel more comfortable.

I am not going to waste my time in my Blog Section dealing with views such as those expressed by Xander, or Mike, but that is not to say they are 'wrong' but that they appear not to accept that there are other views beyond their understanding. For all is not knowable, and the best we can do is chip away and try to make progress. All I am encouraging is co-operation in this quest and not subversion.

It is 'results' ( ie actions) that count, not 'words', and too many words are divisive. So I merely wanted to provide some support for Gizmotron here with his wonderful and elegant example. It is the application of theory that has most value and in science priority is given to 'how', with often the 'why' being wisely attempted much later.


There are many participants in this Forum  ( I personally know several) who have working successful and demonstrable bets ( and wisely they may not choose to reveal too much in public ) - knowledge and results earned through so much practical application. Once you have that quality, you realize how foolish and vain are the statements of those who say it can't be done! Also, beware cynics, for all the reasons I have outlined earlier, as for reasons known only personally to them, but they can get quite mean spirited, especially when they get together.

Quote from: Bally6354 on June 10, 2014, 09:54:55 AM
Wise words Mick 

In gambling, the key is to control your losses and capitalize on winning streaks. In other words, to lose as little as possible and win as much as possible.

Simply stated, keep to a low average bet while you are losing and bet more everytime you win. Most people do just the opposite, doubling up when they are losing in a foolish attempt to get their losses back fast, and restricting themselves by becoming conservative when they begin to win. It's the old story of self-preservation. Casinos are so plush and luxurious because people don't always cut their losses but they cut their winnings.

cheers

Fantastic and simple reversal advice.  To paraphrase the Chinese admonition - Fight like dragons ('lung')  while winning, and worms ('chung') while losing - while in reality most reverse this to fail doubly miserably. ( refer P.98 Roulette for the Millions - O'Neil-Dunne 1972).

Well answered Albalaha.
R.

Quote from: greenguy on June 07, 2014, 12:25:51 PM
Hello.
Mr. seykid31 makes a fair question. Is it old stuff as such???
In my view the answer is yes, it is old stuff, tried and tested at great length.
The clumping theory is just that, a theory. An unproven speculation like the existence of aliens for instance. [smiley]aes/smile.png[/smiley] It has some use for roulette only because probability allows for limited variations due to there being only 37 numbers. If you put 2000 numbers on the wheel the clumping effect driven by this new probability would be almost undetectable and fleeting at best. Actually it is already fleeting with only 37 numbers.
I don't have the answer, but I feel following clumps is a bit sheep mentality and I never met a smart sheep.

Art Sheep

A glib and superficial observation GG. However you are correct in one aspect, in that one of the attractions in playing roulette, as opposed say to the derivatives market is that the variables in roulette are finite and the phenomenon of 'clumping' can indeed be noted, as a first stage of a later clustering phenomenon. Once you get into that realm GG it is serious business and therein lies fabulous opportunity of which clearly you are as yet unaware.


The point of contributing to this Forum, from my perspective, is to offer tangible, real opportunities to succeed, based on experimental evidence from trials conducted with precision. I am not interested in the quips and often repeated phrases of the cynics and naysayers, because they have nothing to offer, unless if I am being particularly charitable, they keep questioning in order to challenge delusion or even fraud.


I use 'clumping' as a powerful short cycle technique as a commencement to later cluster theory analysis.


I will publish some specific example results soon to demonstrate the worth of this insight from Vic.

All work in this Forum is theoretical ( and able to be applied and tested) but some theories are better than others in that they can demonstrate some tangible results relatively consistently. Scientific method uses empirical evidence to build theories and to test theories, and sometimes they attempt to explain why or how something 'is'. 'It' just is, it just happens, and we attempt to come to understand more about 'it' as a natural phenomenon, and sometimes we have to admit we don't know why or how, but it just is.

Everything is in motion, including our state of knowledge, and what one year may be a favoured theory, may next year be out of favour through new discoveries.

The length of time a phenomenon has been observed and noted is irrelevant, and in many cases if we were to take a fresh look at what is literally under our noses, our 'universe' would change.

A paradigm shift is sometimes a result of seeing something afresh.

The simple act of a clumping of a few numbers on wheel, or table in proximity can be another tool to use in the short cycle nature of roulette behaviour. That is a different matter from longer cycle phenomena. Please also note that probability itself is just a theory, and there are variations and overlays to series outcome analysis ( single numbers as independent outcomes and streams of outcomes two or more and long series outcomes in large samples) which make superficial and nonsense some remarks you see written by certain individuals on this Forum.

They are easy to spot - opinionated and certain, when reality is such that we should live with wonder and with humility because the more we know, the more we come to realize the less we know, and a preparedness and readiness to accept change and modify our views would be wise.

Most of the smart writers on the Forum offer insights and direct experience theories which are intended to help the collective good.

I have frequently stated I write to help myself by clarifying and ordering my thoughts, and to set challenges for verification to myself, but beyond that I want to try to assist others and encourage others to push further ahead and achieve ever greater success.

'Signal Strength' is a very important part of reading of the game flow.


This applies to many bets and their unique characteristics. Remember some bets are more suited to slower live table play, some to more rapid roulette, and some to RNG where time can stand still.


It may be a helpful side note to play RNG where there are other players at 'your' table and their bets can be seen.
If you are playing smaller bet sizes and bet in different locations this may perplex the program that is designed to see you fail.


Where the strength of a signal, a focus of energy is directed toward certain outcome characteristics, then that is where the smart money should flow in short cycle sequences as a response to the current/ flow being experienced.

Really looking forward to this work. Very exciting.
Best
R.
XXVV

It is a pleasure to be here and to write, explore, research, amidst a genuine collection of the brightest minds who specialise in roulette and other casino studies. May this be a growing centre for constructive discussion, great research and experiments in understanding of the nature of roulette and ways to harness the opportunities therein. Always looking for fresh insights, thanks to Vic and the team.

This is a great question.


On public record I have a variety of methods which have ranged from 'promising' to 'still needing more work' ( or 'hopeless' as Sputnik tartly described it).


In private I have material which is able to flat stake profit and can be applied over several sets ( from one to say twelve or more being sets of nine numbers and their various characteristics) given a suitable RB is applied for every set utilised. This will never be made public but I did start to explain some of the theory of this ( some of which I deleted but not all) in the the earlier series of threads still accessible on this Blog. It is a credit to Vic that this all remains intact.


It is a fantastic business model and sits in the studio workshop till 2015 when sufficient resources will be invested. Other (financial) business is taking priority in the interim.


For years I, and several colleagues have searched for an efficient and smart bet, with characteristics that meet required criteria.


Some bets are suitable for bot programs, others not, in my view, and in this latter case I just will apply live at the table with high unit value and a large bank. Real enjoyment and quite theatrical awaiting key coups. Play need not be prolonged with higher unit values. As always, timing is everything.


Some bets can just be switched on and do their thing, ideal for bots and I believe the WF4 +LWB method with a few little overlays can do just that, and this tuning research with simulation is underway. As earlier stated, I will publish guidelines and helpful notes when I know for sure thanks to the work of trusted colleagues. Expect an answer during June.


The simple WF3 on its own was just a little exercise.


The overlays I refer to are switches, triggers to go live or go virtual, or progress or stop loss, or step in unit value.


Listening to the gold prospecting of Gizmo, I am most impressed and well done.


Martin Blakey, despite the acidic criticism ( why are some people so full of bitterness?) runs live at the table with an assistant, an ongoing review of sets of 16 numbers, and targets relatively short cycle aberrations ( such as sleeper groups). In my personal view he could also run warm to hot clusters but if it works, why change it?


Green Guy - well done


Albalaha - logical yes

Wannawin - yes of course we are engaging with winning strategies for our personal and unique application - now that is Art.

@ Wannawin


Thanks for raising this principle. Great idea. It would be a great idea to have a donation button in place and I would not hesitate to pop in some 'loose change' every now and then. It is a mark of respect and support for the values of this Forum.

Quote from: Archie on May 12, 2014, 04:54:30 PM

Saying that it all boils down to physics and chemistyisn't necessarily suspect.  It does.  But not enough of us have been trained to work in such an environment to off hand recognize how on a daily basis.

Archie, the physics and chemistry terms are the 'boxes' into which we self consciously attempt to organise aspects of our observations of what is 'nature', or 'natural phenomena'.


Increasingly medicine, complex technologies, design and media attempt to avoid the separation caused by the knife cutting analysis of self conscious study by looking at the bigger picture, holistic medicine for example and you may find your friendly GP/MD increasingly tries to link and bridge previously separated departments to assess  your 'health'.


Just so, the way we analyse data needs both detail unit observation and larger cycle observation. If the use of big and unfamiliar words challenge the 'blockheads' among us, well that is the price you pay for wanting to explore. Progress is made by searching for new connections and new links, not stereotype cliches.


So goodbye to this thread and this context.


This theme will be continued in my various blog sections where there will be strict editorial control over content.


Thanks Archie for your true observation that has enabled a discussion to open, and not to shut down. Do you see what I am saying?


Regards
XXVV

Quote from: Mike on May 11, 2014, 07:52:50 PM
XXVV,

As far as I'm concerned there are 3 possible approaches for anyone who is seriously interested in making a success at playing roulette.

I'm assuming, even if you don't take this avenue, that you recognize that the physical approach to roulette is a viable one? The game consists of a number of physical components which all contribute to which pocket the ball ends up in. If you know at least some of the 'initial conditions' (as Physicists call them) of these components, then you can predict with better than random accuracy where the ball will land. That's cause and effect. If you knew every initial condition perfectly then you would be able to predict the exact number every time. There is nothing random about roulette for someone with that kind of knowledge, although it's admittedly theoretical. It's just an application of physical laws (Newton's laws and dynamics) which have been known and used for centuries and which apply to any physical system, including roulette. The mathematics is complicated but a rough approximation is good enough for practical purposes.

Secondly, there is probability and statistics, or using what is understood statistically about the game either from gathering your own data or using the laws of probability and various statistical techniques. 

I know there are some who also believe in numerology, astrology and the like. Your mention of 'inner derivation' and 'force' makes me think that perhaps you are signing up to this? If so, I don't see much benefit in continuing the discussion, but I wish you all the best.

I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from, because it's not clear to me at the moment.

@ Xander,

'why should it work?' Yes that seems like the natural question to ask anyone who proposes a method. I'd like to hear XXVV's answer to it. The physics approach seems best because it works for everything else, that's how we got to this modern technological world. That doesn't make me closed-minded, just practical. Why try to reinvent the wheel (excuse the pun) and posit some strange 'force' as the explanation?

@Mike


I will open a thread on my Blog sites on both Forums to deal with some of the very valid and important questions you have raised Mike. You will appreciate, that neither of us can afford to waste time arguing in circles. My response to Xander was caused by his defamatory and ludicrous remarks regarding Dr Martin Blakey who holds a doctorate in applied mathematics and has been a professional roulette player, based mainly in Melbourne, for over 40 years now. The effect is the end of this discussion in this context.


Until Xander learns to listen , understand and show respect to fellow Forum members ( such as MB) he is not welcome in my blog section, and appears to have learned nothing over the past six months with his cliche over-simplifications bringing any hope of worthwhile discussion, debate or learning to nil or less. That is what I mean by 'block -head mentality'. His remarks were erased by the Moderators but this is the attitude the fellow expresses as Snowman/ Xander et al, and his reputation is well known.


I will open the new threads in due course as this is an excellent theme subject.


XXVV
May 2014
Chch NZ

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on May 12, 2014, 04:34:33 PM
Actually this is quite funny as well as a good and accurate observation** XXVV you shouldn't be offended by this. I won't mention names, but there has been some total nonsense floating around over the years, oops it still continues today.

XXVV can you provide a link to these blogs, is it on this site, somewhere else?  I had a quick gander here and couldn't see any blog pages.       

Blogosphere on this Forum or XXVV Blog on BetForum.cc


** if you believe facile 'what you see is what you get' 'science' then you have much to learn - roulette is a great

    microcosm of life experience on many levels both for wheel and player