+ Register

[Gizmotron]

He is right, though, in saying that there's no way of exploiting rare events, and there's no way of "reading" randomness either. The very idea is an oxymoron. How is it possible to predict the unpredictable? which is what random outcomes are.

There that same mistake is. It never fails. Someone always thinks that reading randomness is a claim of predicting future outcomes. It's  actually a process of confirming continuing situations. It has nothing to do with fallacy or prediction.

What's troubling is having to deal with people that can't understand it. Further more they get up on their high horses about this "straw man" argument. Well this might sound very odd to you Mike, but your argument is undeniable. There are very few people that would disagree with you around here. There's one big problem though, you don't know what reading randomness is for and how it is used for bet selection.

Mathematical fundamentalism and probability can't predict when a win streak will occur and how long it will last. Those are two things that happen every day, and they do this without any need for prediction to make them happen.

[Mike]

Mathematical fundamentalism and probability can't predict when a win streak will occur and how long it will last. Those are two things that happen every day, and they do this without any need for prediction to make them happen.

Actually, probability can predict those things, that's what expectation is. The expectation is an average, but of course you have to factor in the variance, so events are predictable only within certain limits. You can predict events like the number of spins it takes to get a run of 3 even chances in a row, or the number of spins on average before all numbers on the wheel have hit at least once.


So reading randomness is confirming continuing situations? OK, but unless you can predict better than the expectation says you will, how can you hope to gain an edge? You can lose a lot of bets before your situation continues as you hope it will, and the math says that over time those losses will outweigh the wins.

[Gizmotron]

Like I said, there are those that are stuck on the math. This: 1/37, this has all of them fixated like a deer in the headlights.

Why are math oriented people discussing at a forum about bet selection. Something does not add up.

[Turner]

Like the maths guys or not...they stake their case as Xander did. Like the "random produces rare events all the time" guys or not....I staked my case clearly why I believe it.
Now we are left with the "no it doesn't" guys not staking any case. Just..."no it doesn't"

[Gizmotron]

So what you're saying is that all of the experts and mathematicians are wrong, but you're correct?  Do you by chance have any "elegant" math that you can show us to back up your wild claims?  Or do you still require people to pay for your "elegant" tutoring?

Guys, "reading randomness" is an oxymoron.  You can't read random, because it's just that, random! There are no "elegant patterns" that can be exploited.

-Xander

I have exploited five perfect patterns in the last 20 years. This is from the first one:

.324 x .324 x .675 x .324 x .324 x .675 x .324 x .324 x .675 x .324 x .324 x .675

This pattern occurred for 36 perfectly symmetrical spins in a row.IF YOU REALLY NEED THE RESULTS I'll have to use my laptop. It's basic distribution arithmetic. That's mathematical proof that a basic pattern can continue to repeat.

[XXVV]

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.

[XXVV]

@ 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.

[Gizmotron]

Thank you for successfully illustrating the side of the loyal opposition so candidly. My favorite part is both of you ignoring my example and/or being ignorant of it altogether.  I guess being an actual math oriented fundamentalist is actually very easy. I'm still waiting for the all mighty of all mantra "past results can't predict future events."

[Mike]

Gizmo, where is your example? Your method seems to be this: look at the last few outcomes and if you see a pattern, eg something like R B R B then bet that the pattern continues. So the pattern being alternating red/black I would bet on red next, correct?.


If the bet fails I look for another pattern and bet for it to continue. Is this your method in a nutshell?

[Gizmotron]

Gizmo, where is your example? Your method seems to be this: look at the last few outcomes and if you see a pattern, eg something like R B R B then bet that the pattern continues. So the pattern being alternating red/black I would bet on red next, correct?.

If the bet fails I look for another pattern and bet for it to continue. Is this your method in a nutshell?

Singles in the EC 's are not rare. I won't bet on them unless there is also an existing context, the global effect. - Yes, I know, it's another made up phrase. Too bad you are too lazy to research about context. It's  here at this forum, it's completely given without an expectation of compensation.

[Mike]

Singles in the EC 's are not rare. I won't bet on them unless there is also an existing context, the global effect. - Yes, I know, it's another made up phrase. Too bad you are too lazy to research about context. It's  here at this forum, it's completely given without an expectation of compensation.

Typical. You can never get a straight answer from system advocates. That's because they know that if they give a concrete methodology you can actually test, it will be shown to be a loser. Far better to keep it vague and then no one can say you're wrong because they don't know what you're talking about in the first place.

[Gizmotron]

Typical. You can never get a straight answer from system advocates. That's because they know that if they give a concrete methodology you can actually test, it will be shown to be a loser. Far better to keep it vague and then no one can say you're wrong because they don't know what you're talking about in the first place.

http://betselection.cc/gizmotron/the-global-effect-what-is-it/  - for those that are interested.

I could not be more pleased that you don't get it. Some people deserve their own self inflicted retribution. Whine all you want. This website is the only place on the internet where I answered all the questions. I have no reason to re-discuss material already published. I have no desire to argue with a troll. Come back when you have done your homework.

[Gizmotron]

Before being interrupted I was sharing the existence of the perfect repeating pattern. I consider this the most fringe of rare occurrences. The topic of this thread is about taking advantage of rare events. The old boy scout axiom plays into this, "be prepared". 

I always am searching for these moments while I play my normal game. I wonder if others have such tactics?