Quote from: RouletteKEY on January 09, 2014, 06:57:12 PM
Subjectively speaking...we choose when to bet or when not to bet...

We choose where to place or bets

We choose how much to bet

The casino takes all bets so long as the wheel is in use...they cannot tell us where to place our bets and they can only limit the minimum or maximum amount bet within posted limits that they set.

To me...it would seem we can certainly derive an "edge" or "advantage" from those parameters even with a 00 wheel.   Bet selection, bankroll, patience and discipline rule the day.  This has been my position for years and from time to time in conversations such as these I have posted it.  I am sticking with my position.

There are limits to everything...whether that be repeats or the infamous "random".  If you choose well, have the bankroll and guts to ride out a bad turn (along with stop-losses to minimize such drawdowns) and have the patience and discipline to not feel compelled to bet every single spin if your method of play doesn't dictate that a bet be placed... you can play this from an advantageous position.  You may lose battles from time to time but you'll win the war (that does not mean owning the casino).

I agree and think this is an excellent summary statement.

The point I am trying to make or discuss is that our 'freedom;  to start, stop , pause, is of immence value while the casino operator has to chug along riding sometimes bad losses.

In practice this is more than compensated by the folly of the player over-reacting often to loss, or a run of losses, losing the plot and offering the casino a 20% edge, sometimes 70% edge chasing the losses by spreading more and more  over the table.

I watch with interest the from mezzanines often ( XXVV sunglasses brand) and observe so many males especially standing around a table suggesting a short duration stay, and expecting a loss. females usually sit, and in my observations usually play a much smarter game .

Thanks XXVV

@Xander


No further communication will be entered into with you from myself as you are now partly publishing contents of a private PM answer to one of your several questions. You were advised to look at the particular threads in my studio section on WF.


This thread is not the appropriate space to question WF work and  it again becomes apparent you are seeking to annoy and create friction. Your actions have been reported to the Moderator.
XXVV

Quote from: Bayes on February 04, 2014, 10:16:19 AM

Turner, I agree. Victor has said it would be quite easy to implement a facility like this into the forum software, and most probably it won't be necessary to download any pdf files. What's lacking is a basic roulette interface, which is what I'm working on.


@ XXVV,



Hooking up with DB or a similar live play casino would be great, but could be difficult to do. Have you written about the differences between RNG and live dealer data on this forum? Are you confident that you could, given a list of RNG numbers vs actuals, correctly identify which is which? I've done this test more than once over the years and no-one has been successful to any significant degree.


As I have said to #6 ( who can now be known as pontificating that he has never read anything of practical value in the portion he has read of the 45,632 words I have written on this Forum prior to this note),  it is most unlikely that the aberrations of clustering that enable repeats of 5 or 6 in continuous spins with odds of millions/billions (UK/US) that I have witnessed or been present with on several occasions would also appear in smoother RNG printouts. In other words in substantial samples I expect that a difference could be detected. That is why I play live for lumpy clustering more often and leave my WF hook always in the water of numbers. I also believe the theoretical probability theory -linear model- is just not real experience in the sometimes lumpy clustering in (short) cycles of live roulette play. Real life cycles consist of short passages. Theory is based on  infinite samples. There is a big difference.

In short samples of the RNG comparison test you most probably would not detect the difference. What I patiently fish for though are the special moments where extraordinary things can and do happen.

I have been told by some that the WF works fine on RNG. But as explained it is not my choice as there can be distortions even to that. I like to see my numbers unfold.

I cannot understand why you could not negotiate a live feed from Dublin Bet or Smart Live if they knew that Roulette Fanatics were viewing. More punters for sure and more exposure.

I am delighted to be able to say you will not find it so easy to see me leave after all. On reflection it would be unfortunate to depart in what I can best describe as acrimonious circumstances and it is up to me to restore my goodwill as the reaction from Bayes recent efforts have really been extraordinary.


There are a series of logical steps to follow and I don't intend to waste my precious time or that of Bayes.


Simply, the letter from Bayes landed in the middle of my personal thread. As I had stated earlier it would have been hugely more appropriate had he communicated with me by PM so communication would have been shorter, more effective, on a personal basis, and I am certain progress would have been made.


Instead we have had a circus of statements made, and attitudes expressed which as he himself stated were playing as the devils advocate and really playing to an audience, rationalised as being 'in the public interest'.


This is what I mean by ineffective communication.


A smarter approach would have had this 'problem' sorted privately and avoided fallout. I could see all this coming.


Added to that, among the shambles, we have had insights from such as Xander and others whose contribution in all of this I really cannot fathom, other than Bayes naive suggestion that through 'AP' some consistent profit could be made with a bet. This is the most extraordinary and misguided nonsense when you look at the bankrupt arsenal of ideas available to 'AP' roulette.

Quote from: Xander on February 04, 2014, 09:37:12 PM
Sorry but  Martin Blakey is full of it.  I can spot a fake a mile away.


This is the most nonsensical rubbish anyone could write. MB has been known to me for 25 years. Your comments are more like looking into the mirror I suggest.

Why do you write blarney like what is written above?  What on earth does that have to do with beating the wheel?  It's the same kind of nonsense that Gizmotron used to try.   Cutting and pasting exerts from articles that have nothing to do with beating the wheel doesn't make your system/method sound more impressive.


Oh dear. It is pointless endeavouring to communicate with someone who has no interest or understanding of research and growth in scientific knowledge because it is in the cross over knowledge where change happens. Where the action is now is coming to understand more and more of the mysteries of nature, and numbers, number sequences are part of that. This you will doubtless consider this latter comment more of the BS and therefore suggest you go back to the wonderful world of advantage play where I am advised by Bayes you are an expert. Please do not send me any further PM requests.

Quote from: Bayes on February 04, 2014, 11:23:47 AM
XXVV,


You appear to have completely misunderstood what this proposal is about. Far from being negative, it will give those who insist that roulette is beatable using "systems" (which includes me, by the way, and I am certainly not a mere "theorist" - I play on a regular basis) an opportunity to show that the "mathboyz" are wrong. Or not. Is that not a positive thing?


Your references to Martin Blakey etc betray a complete lack of understanding of what adequate evidence or proof consists of. It's not about credentials - I don't care how many phd's anyone has or how eminent they are. That is merely "proof by authority", and science simply doesn't work like that.


This is an elementary distinction and you will need to do better than that. Martin Blakey has been a writer for 25 years but a player for 40. What I respect is not the somewhat ironical PhD in mathematics for he understands the limitations of much mathematical theory. He, like I am, is a player, and lives and works by daily results operating usually to a maximum of 90 minutes exposure to the table. What I respect is that he has been a full time professional for 40 years and gains by modest wins, and very very rarely a loss.

He is a living published example of someone who is smart enough to win consistently and has been prepared to share and demonstrate just how he does that. Okay he has a book to sell and clients to teach.  But he is a winner. I respect that.


I don't have time at the moment to continue this. I'll be back...


P.S. I have unlocked the thread. Please leave it unlocked.

Quote from: Number Six on February 04, 2014, 12:06:59 PM
The problem XXVV, is that people are bored of baseless bragging. It is nothing personal, but in my experience people brag for either attention, self-gratification, to run scams, or because they are trolls and like to wind others up. You are reacting badly to being challenged. Why? Most people are cynical these days, especially about these matters. You really do seem incensed that we have not joined your cult.

Anyway, none of this is productive to anyone. I have read some of your posts and I fail to really see the practical value, thus they simply look like adverts purposefully convoluted to bamboozle helpless gamblers. It's worse that you lock threads and delete posts of others who do not agree with you. In fact, it's childish.
Thanks #6 for your comments, and from previous writings from you I expected much the same. Nothing personal of course but I would like to have a right of reply here. My approach is unusual and unique i would suggest in that simply I want to share some insights and give something back within reason and within sensible limits, hence the WF work and some extensions. It really does work you know and I use it daily.

There is no intention to deceive or bamboozle and again I have no vehicle or commercial model to sell. The reference I made to commercial bot application is by others who have no commercial link with me, and my future intentions commercially are simply exploratory ideas yet to be fully tested in real application.

The posts deleted were not those that disagreed with me. Far from it they were material that was disrespectful, inappropriate to the theme of the thread or downright rude. I took great effort to respond to 3 of Xander's requests for clarity and as I stated it was an imbalanced offering with me doing all the explaining. I received nothing in return other than a remark that what have oil rigs to do with roulette?

Well to cut a long story short, much actually because all science is inter connected and the principle I was addressing was that of illustrating that previous understandings were shattered when new evidence was tabled that the previously unthinkable was actually fact and naval architecture and fluid dynamic  wave theory had to be re appraised to a remarkable degree. My point is that the same dynamics can apply to the handling of numbers and understandings of random sequences of numbers.

If you are selling a system, it should be proved publically in the way Bayes has outlined, to be worth the investment. I don't see the problem.

My over reaction which of course it is was based on a lot of compounding frustration in being fed a lot of cannots where Bayes by his own admission was playing devil's advocate instead of writing directly and accurately in the spirit of sharing an adventure of research together. I am now advised Wiesbaden is unacceptable also yet random.org is when I have repeatedly stated my own empirical work  and that of applied mathematician colleagues of mine (sqzbox) shows that the quality and 'purity' of random outcomes varies between 'rough' live outcomes and more distributed outcomes from a random source. You may disagree but may struggle to find 5 and 6 number repeats in random.org printouts where theoretical odds are billions to one on theory but which I have personally witnessed, or been in proximity to several times.

Thanks for your time taken to contribute here but I suggest not to 'box' me as a further case to be categorised in standard rationale. My intentions and offerings have actually been intended anyway as quite unique and there has been much joy in my work here. My primary motivation which I may not have shared with you before is that  I know how valuable it is to formulate thoughts into word or speech to add and accelerate  the chain of creative thinking. That has been my primary goal - to improve my own creativity, and if there are benefits for others well that is a bonus. It is no surprise you find no practical benefit in reading any of my material. But who cares?
XXVV

Quote from: Bayes on February 04, 2014, 08:32:41 AM
Hi XXVV,

Ok, let's forget about the mathematical proof and just look at the empirical data which supports the proposition that a consistent winning system is possible. I think you'll find that there's virtually none. The casinos are still in business, and not one system ever posted on a forum or elsewhere has been shown to be a consistent winner. All we have are the bogus claims of system sellers and braggers on forums, who either turn out to have been lying, or have been "fooled by randomness" (the apparent success turned out to be just a lucky streak).


I can't believe this is all so negative. You are are really anticipating that my work and statements are deluded or worse, designed to be deceptive.

How do you assess the work of Martin Blakey and his 40 years of experience. Deluded? Have you read the recent revised edition of his work. He has a PhD in applied mathematics ( being his winning strategy to play roulette). Is he a deluded fool?

I think you need to step back and be prepared to investigate and learn without pre-judgment.

You certainly are not approaching this topic within a spirit of open minded investigation, but instead have indicated any prior claim of success in winning at roulette is deluded and/or falsified.

Nonsense to that. I have been mentored by two brilliant roulette professionals who were consistently very successful at the game for a combined total of 40 years playing all over the world. In my experience both had methods that had some flaws, but they won consistently and over extended periods of time.

I have adapted both of their methodologies and improved upon them and that is some of the basis for my own collective experience.

I am not going to be told by a theorist that I am imagining seeing winning roulette played ever more efficiently particularly by my colleagues, playing winning roulette myself , and then being subjected to an attitude of incredulity and disbelief, never being able to rise above the lucky winning streak rationale. And you suggest I might do well to apply Advantage Play and refer to Xander as an expert at such.

I can see what might be coming and I don't want to work with you. Sorry. That's it.


The point I was trying to make regarding the distinction between the two types of games (negative expectation, and otherwise), is that there is overwhelming evidence (both mathematical and empirical) that systems designed to beat such games don't work, and if we're trying run a serious forum here, we ought to take account of that and require that all those who suggest otherwise "put their money where their mouth is".

You talk of trying to 'run a serious forum here' and I have had to lock my various threads here last year  ( you were not here at that time) to prevent ongoing abusive and disruptive posts and one fellow Mike ( the Boxer) who seemed to thrive on disagreement, negativity and disrespect. He was unable to listen to reasoned argument.

In this most recent phase I have deleted two posts from Xander who referred to several  items in one of my notes as 'fluff' and failed to understand these were points of latest hydraulic ocean research fully documented in North Sea oil drilling engineering data and in Pacific and Indian Ocean tsunami research. ( I have fully explained this to him in a PM to him).

I politely but firmly explained to him that 'the 'fluff' he 'smelled' ( his terminology) was grossly disrespectful.

This is the serious forum you engender when there are many closed minds and attitudes toward alternative viewpoints and the best someone (Turner) can do is post an inappropriate joke about sad last posts from fatally lost Antarctic explorers and claim that is what my writing reminded him of. When I deleted his post as being irrelevant to the subject theme he took such umbridge  ( he thought his post funny) that he set up a thread bleating that individuals like Al. and XXVV ( he later distanced himself from his original remarks) were  effectively a law unto themselves making false untested claims and being supported by moderators. I was called a windbag and peddler by No.6 who I take it represented some mathematical fixed ideology.

These are forum members have been disrespectful to me.

Now I have patiently and with calm direction moved on until the present moment where I am encountering some difficulty in dealing with you.

My intention has been to share a journey of exploration into further work into the mysteries of roulette ( an infinite journey I suspect) and to encourage others to enjoy this adventure.

Through an interesting combination of circumstances, and almost by default I am now having to position myself where I had anticipated encouragement and support from expert and unbiased professionals in their fields, a dismal lack of interest, or lots of reasons why an idea won't work instead of a lateral leap where possibilities could be considered and ideas exchanged.

I am inclined to say why bother and do I need this? I certainly now am using valuable professional time way beyond my earlier intention.


XXVV, are you serious? You really can't understand why a list of spins and your statement that they were not reverse engineered has the same status in terms of evidence as a test done under controlled conditions (meaning that you don't know what the spins are in advance of playing them, and you can't change the outcome after the event)?


The work done on the Macao data should be acknowledged. You are wrong not to be prepared to  comment that the results are worthy of further study.  You realize don't you that there are mathematicians who are so fixed in their views that they consider wins over  20,000 spins a lucky fluke, and a further 5x20,000 spins would still be insufficient. I am not going down that road, and you are signaling to me this might be the direction. This method works daily for me and I have shared some knowledge openly with the forum. Doubtless you will comment this is worthless. For that is the sub text of this matter.

The Macao data is of course a once only opportunity for continual play on one daily serviced and balanced wheel throughout a month of time. How can that be repeated, The numbers were verified I say again by the Casino Owner. How could I change the results to fit my WF Theory needs. And I certainly did not fit WF Theory from one source of numbers as that would be naive.

Your attitude to the Macao data work really has disappointed me. The rules were clearly defined.

I have indicated I was prepared to assist you conduct fresh experiments but I am not using RNG and what data do you propose. I have frequently used Tisch#3 at Wiesibaden so a daily record there would be 400-500 spins. Thus a month of Wiesbaden might be opportune. Your comment? Your suggested control conditions? I really think this is not what I want to do because there is no encouragement. It feels wrong.


I would like to see a change of attitude from you in this matter  ( but I reason  that would not happen) so I will simply lock all my data and research within this website. This has not been handled well. I will conduct Wiesbaden research in due course for my own interest but my priorities are not with WF for roulette at this time.

All you have done to date is list all the reasons why this should not work, based on your existing knowledge and attitudes, and clearly your prejudices. I regret I have seen and heard all this cycle before from 'your side' and 'my side' positions as it is a sad stereotype of wasted opportunity for communication.

This will give many fixed views further fixity to their belief systems.

That is it. This has become increasingly time consuming and my new work is currently being programmed, Why on earth should I be arguing over roulette 1.01

Cheers
XXVV

The letter from Bayes was timely and well received but landed like a spacecraft lost in space amongst my personal thread. However, all good, because various issues are enabled now to be discussed. This may not be a home ground for some supporters of a couple of theme teams, and there may be a need to open fresh fields elsewhere. Over to you but in the meantime, enjoy the discussions.
XXVV

Quote from: Bayes on February 02, 2014, 06:01:29 PM
Hi XXVV,


IMO = In My Opinion


AP = Advantage Play, see here. The article doesn't mention roulette, but we have a member who is a professional Advantage Player, so if you want to know anything about roulette AP, ask Xander.   

I really cannot understand why you ( and other notables) persist in using these cliche acronyms. Please be clearer and take a few extra seconds to write fully so we can all understand, particularly including those who are new to the Forum. Style modes shifted constantly, just observe content within CNBC on NYSE for example and of course titles of broadcast channels. But paradigms are shifting. Consider the sub text implications. This is not precious broadcast time but effective communication in roulette for goodness sake to a wide variety of people from all walks of life and with a variety of language fluency. Lets speak clearly and effectively.

Thank you for the Advantage Play suggestion, and as Xander and I have already been in effective communication ( although rather one sided) I will attempt to redress the balance by asking some Advantage Play roulette questions which I hope will take us away from edges being created by artifice. I hope I do not upset him with my questions.


Apologies about posting here, but I thought the subject a matter of public interest (it never occurred to me to send you a PM, and I'm a little puzzled why you "regret the public nature of this exchange").


I think you need to put yourself in the position of the writer here who is not seeking publicity for the sake of it but is writing in a toned down 'flowing' informal blog format with thoughts, questions and ideas including  interaction that is relevant ( not necessarily supportive of the writer's position) Your letter raises, almost unintentionally, some major issues which work on many levels, and include implications which may be confidential for me.


Perhaps if you want to reserve this thread for your own thoughts you should lock it?

This has been necessary at times for self preservation, and was hoping to avoid this again. You may recall the debacle around October - November last year, or perhaps you were away. As stated interaction is encouraged as long as it is polite and relevant.

Absolutely. The idea is that there will be software built into the forum which will allow members to play roulette as in an online casino, and their results will be on display for anyone to see. I consider that this proposed feature would be an asset to the forum; members will be able to issue challenges to other members, we could have competitions, system test results will be easily shown, and those who make claims regarding system will be invited to "put up or shut up" (I agree, it's a rather crude expression, but it effectively gets the point across).


For the reasons outlined you may not find me there and also I have limited time available as a busy professional in several areas, and my priority is to earn an income stream from roulette, not play at it.

You may find the new features you are encouraging may lead to further problems.

As I had encouraged earlier, I think it could be interesting to have the Forum become more pro-active in bringing parties together under a safe and trusted umbrella to enable and encourage development of research into verifiable empirical tested winning bets and then possibly into associated bots and more as part of the wider and true 'business of roulette' that I advocate. If someone wants to append this to Advantage Play -wonderful but I rather suspect there is a chasm between roulette play under Advantage Play ethics and techniques and roulette play with genuine winning bets and strategies that could and should be encouraged free of risk of legal action and casino intervention.

My dismay is that from what I observe no-one seems to believe it possible to enable consistent legitimate successful winning with roulette from their fortress like positions of mathematical theory and advantage play.


As a valued member of the forum, and an experienced roulette player, I was interested in getting some feedback from you.

The only roulette play I would consider is live dealer spun data and not RNG. I have written at length about the differences.  The Forum could hook up with Dublin or Smart Bet or set up a new studio preferably with glamorous female/ occasional, handsome male dealers and then you will be guaranteed positive feed back no matter what. Dealers will be encouraged to at least appear to take pleasure in defeating the players, especially the 'smart' ones.

No, not at all a suggestion that it should be repeated. I was making a general point, not picking on your system specifically. Sorry, I should have been clearer on that.



With respect, that isn't a demonstration, it's a spreadsheet + an assertion. I'm not implying that you've fabricated the figures but surely you agree that it doesn't carry the same weight as a public demonstration under controlled conditions.


I cannot understand why a well known published list of spins being a month of live play signed off and verified by Macao ( Mr Ho himself) - ( we know there were a few minor typos on two pages) -and then played according to strict WF3 rules and then applied to excel spreadsheet by an independent auditor - why this cannot be considered a suitable empirical proof. The results were not reverse engineered. I have applied this method to my data from the Ritz in London, to Wiesbaden #3, to casinos in Australia and New Zealand.

Please explain.

hmm... now it's my turn to be astonished. Surely you must be aware, as a professional roulette player (is this correct?) that roulette, together with many other casino games, cannot mathematically yield any long term profit because it is a negative expectation game. I'm not talking about finite empirical results, only mathematical proof, given certain assumptions such as a "fair wheel".
However, there is no such mathematical proof for the other "games" that I mentioned. For example, in horse racing, it's POSSIBLE (mathematically) to win consistently because the odds aren't fixed as they are in roulette.
The only way to "prove" that a roulette system is successful is by empirical results.


Surely this is what I am consistently stating - the use of verifiable empirical results. My definition of 'professional' roulette player is that I use roulette income as part of my income stream, and as this is now consistently profitable I consider the transition from amateur to professional at least underway. Lets call it 'chrysallis' stage to leave room for growth.

We have all moved way beyond the discussion over the theoretical best to be achieved from roulette  and probability theory-yes it is a 'negative expectation' game in theory. However the point I am making is that it can be a positive expectation game proven by empirical evidence over suitable statistical sample.


Indeed, it would be a lot of work. But it's not necessary for anyone to divulge their system in detail, only that they show us that it works (up to a given level of statistical significance). Anyway, I'm glad you agree that claims should be verified in principle.


Yes excellent I would be delighted to try to satisfy your curiosity with both WF work and SF+ work in due course.

I think the door is now open for some very interesting but possibly heated debate on these extended issues of Advantage Play and Theory meets Empirical.

In the absence of other action I have split the current thread into two further parts to avoid confusion. I refuse to use the silly 'put up...' title earlier suggested.4
You may wish to commence a further thread on that subject alone.
XXVV  4Feb2014

Once again, apologies for interrupting your thread. If you'd like to reply I can move these posts to another thread.

The second point I wish to add flows from the AP issues.


Conventional mathematical theory appears to be growing apart from the empirical efforts of pragmatists and opportunists like Economist and Academic Nassim Taleb whose writings are a source of inspiration for me and whose phrases have come into everyday English ( elephant in the room/ black swan).


AP work does not seem to allow for the possibility of consistent winning through skill without illegal device where a model of analysis can render questionable present conventional probability theory expectations or limited understanding of random behaviour. We are fooled by randomness.


Nor does conventional mathematics allow for the above, although we acknowledge 'negative expectation'. I prefer to replace that term with' reasoned profit anticipation' through legitimate means, ie without illegal device or artifice or tax loss write off.

XXVV

It seems that AP is big business and APHeat - the January issue 2014 represents a fair slice of this cake. Notable amongst the features is the advantage player who became disadvantaged under the banner 'why advantage players play'. After ritual humiliation and arrest after his attempt to cheat he now merely visits casinos and appears to hold no grudges. Then we have another prolific writer telling us the top 5 advantage plays for the year ahead, and also revealing the techniques to press home the roulette players advantage by attracting the 20% loss rebate.


That a world famous poker player can also feature as the questionable recipient of $1M profit by reading edge cards in baccarat shuffles, only to find he is thwarted by legal action in accessing his winnings, must make the reader wonder really is advantage play worth the risk. Ironically the risk is more of detection by casino forces than by risk of being dealt a bad hand.


Does it have to be so complicated?


The edge that the AP players seek is real enough but seems achieved by means that tread a fine line of ethics and legality, as well as a fair slice of luck from time to time.


I simply ask, is this all necessary, and are there not other ways, without device or assistance, to win and overcome the casino game edge relatively consistently.

@MBB
thanks indeed. On sober reflection sometimes it is a good hint to improve the text anyway. At least I will attempt because this is going into sticky territory - always up for a challenge.  Yes and would you believe it - the Internal Server Error within BetSelectioncc again failed. XXVV

@Bayes


Thanks for your prompt response to quite a few issues. Further elaboration and clarification does make a huge difference to my understanding and therefore quality of response.


When ideas and intentions are more clearly outlined, misunderstandings and semantic issues can dissolve. You must know that from prior personal communication with me I am a reasonable fellow with which to deal. It is unfortunate that some attitudes expressed recently by some members of the Forum have made me rather defensive which really is not a state of mind that one should have to experience for best work.


You may be aware that Xander has already made a couple of postings on the thread and has expressed some viewpoints to which I have fully responded. Of further note he has issued two PM questions to me which have been entirely reasonable and polite and I have taken the trouble to fully answer his questions. One of those questions did relate to WF and where he could find out more about this.


Titles of my blog sections do provide some clues.


Of course I am aware of 'negative expectation' regarding roulette. I and my colleagues often joke with croupiers when we complete a session and either break even or make a small 5% profit which might be ironically scorned by the good natured though assertive dealer. We remind him/her ( it is usually a him) that our modest gain is indeed a victory.


Setting that aside I would like to respond fully to all the points you have touched upon and the discussion could be quite productive. I therefore would recommend that this current discussion be moved to a fresh area where I am sure many would like to have their say. The future proposals for the site could be very interesting.


XXVV

@Bayes


What is IMO and AP?


I am surprised that you have not written this as a private message as this is really disruptive to the flow of my thread where as I have earlier stated I seek to 'order my thoughts' or 'think aloud'. If my current thread material is of interest to others, as I know this exploration is to some, from response, then this is a bonus and is of some merit. However there have been several interruptions.


I have already had to edit one posting which was unduly sarcastic, critical and completely missed the point of what I am trying to do, and other material has been (temporarily) left in which it does not take a genius to work out is consistent with a glib view of life.  Do you propose that your questions and my answer be part of the public debate and of interest to others? Do you consider my thread is the place for this?


I am astonished that after the detail and time that has been gone into and the application of the WF by myself and several members already that there is a suggestion all this be repeated. The explanation was clear, simple and unambiguous. Some attempted a small sampling but as noted it is a methodology that requires patience and medium to large samples. Further, it is a distillation of the type of work many have worked on for some time with some success, so it is no major revelation but instead a sincere and truthful sum of much empirical experience, simplified to the essence of a warming repeat. It works.


For your personal reference I can refer you to the auditor of the 20,000 spin test on the WF3 model and the spreadsheet data can be verified by you demonstrating the consistent gain that has been achieved over that month of continuous spins on the same wheel - a rare opportunity indeed to access the same wheel for such a duration.


I do not understand your closing paragraphs as I have no understanding of what you mean by AP.


You refer that "there is already proof that these latter kinds of bet (ie roulette) cannot, in the long term, achieve consistent profits....".


I have no idea what you mean by this or to what mathematical proof to which you refer. Please explain.


My ongoing work is practical and results are based on empirical evidence and a unique approach to roulette which I would be delighted to share with you on a strictly confidential basis should you wish.


In answer to your 'put up or shut up' question my comment is that this is a crude over simplification in use of terms. I believe that the Forum should be a place of open discourse and free exchange of ideas with mutual respect and courtesy among members.


When claims are made they should be able to be verified in principle and I am in favour of several qualified Moderators being able to discuss detail in strictest legal confidence with members given that a member may not wish to disclose all manner of detail which should remain private if requested. Nevertheless the integrity of a member should be respected at all times.


You realize you are making a lot of work for yourselves in such matters.


I also believe it would be a great help to roulette professionals that first rate ideas can be shared, tested and observed at the very highest level with experts in their field without risk to the intellectual property. In other words it is not for general publication.


No professional would bother to involve with a Forum unless there are motives and mutual benefits. I enjoy writing as it helps me think more clearly. That is why the 'blog' format is suitably informal. It is a great pleasure to read of other's ideas and thoughts. ( I also am developing a blog for World Architecture).  I love to describe and teach at many levels and thus am used to discussion both in principle and in practice, but beyond a small level of time input it would be counter-productive to invest too much time on this Forum. My opportunities to participate come in quantum bursts or windows of new research and growth of ideas, and spaces between outside projects.


So to answer your second question I consider that credibility needs to be earned by a claimant and once obtained then the member should be heard out with respect and interest, not derision. The onus to enjoy the credibility should be in data provided by the member and that is what I have offered you with the spreadsheet data on the WF3 work.


Regarding ongoing work when it is in development it would be pleasing to think others might enjoy the progress, ups and downs of the journey, even though the story is in selected detail.


Given that the latter is not the case then the writer might ask what is the point?


Thus my response is on several levels. No doubt those with fixed views and closed minds will read into my response what they want to hear. Others will interpret differently.


With some clarification from you some progress could be made to hopefully benefit all, but I regret the public nature of this exchange and with your closing paragraphs really wonder where this is coming from. No, I really don't understand the point you are trying to make other than the principle of demonstrating validity of claim for an agreed area of research, to a supervising Moderator panel if necessary.


XXVV