+ Register

[Turner]

I think the doubt with RNG lies in the black box study...where we don't know if the casino has a side input to the black box and thus control of the output.
I don't doubt Random.org in the slightest.

[XXVV]

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

[Bayes]

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.


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.

[TwoCatSam]

Two points keep bugging me.

If you have a winning system, all the negativity in the world will not affect it.  To go historical, if you have a winning idea--same thing.  Fulton was such a fool.  He built a fire on a boat.  They called it "Fulton's Folly".  All the negativity did not keep his steam engine from moving the boat.

In the real word, egos considered, would you rather have a thousand people saying, "Sure, he can do it!" or a thousand saying it's folly.  Much sweeter to prove the doubters wrong, no?

Secondly, what is proof?  How many spins and how many wins or how much money. 

Lastly, why in the world would someone who could spend their time winning real money spend it instead proving to a bunch of guys that he really can do it?  That makes no sense unless you read Number 6 above. 

TwoCat

[Bayes]

XXVV,

I'm truly baffled at your response. Why take it all so personally? maybe it's my fault, perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was in a sense playing devil's advocate when talking about the negative expectation. Nevertheless, like it or not those ARE the facts, and whether a game is NE or not is an important distinction to make. The vast majority of professional gamblers dismiss them, and would likely give a derisive chuckle at any claim that such games can be beaten. I happen to believe that it IS possible to win in the long term without using AP, but I'm OPEN to the possibility that I could be wrong, and that I've just been lucky so far. Knowing that you've read Taleb, I'm surprised that you're not open to that possibility too.

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.

Yes, and I've little patience with their attitude. It smacks of double standards. If the methodology is correct, and the results are statistically significant, then they should be taken seriously. If not, then why do the test in the first place? If you've already made up your mind that any positive result can be dismissed because it doesn't agree with your preconceived model, you've just been wasting your time and doing bad science. But in order to prove to yourself and others that there IS something, you should take the care to actually do it right, with rigour. If the result isn't what you want, then too bad. Move on; there are plenty of other speculative avenues to explore.

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.

What exactly is your objection to RNG? I was intending to use numbers from random.org. It would be by far the easiest option. Unfortunately, it won't do to use any numbers in the public domain like those from Weisbaden. Anyone with even a little programming skill could easily scan the numbers and identify which table they came from and which numbers would be coming next.

[Bayes]

Lastly, why in the world would someone who could spend their time winning real money spend it instead proving to a bunch of guys that he really can do it?  That makes no sense unless you read Number 6 above. 

Sam, there are plenty of people who like to show off and prove the experts wrong. And why would anyone spend time trying to convince others that they really can do it by arguments, bickering with other members, posting results etc, like John Legend did? At least you have to give him credit for actually doing the test. As it happened, he failed and someone who wasn't even asked to do it was successful.

what is proof?  How many spins and how many wins or how much money. 

It depends on how many numbers you're playing. Obviously the more spins you play, the better. But it's surprising how few spins you need, assuming you're using a reasonably powerful statistical test (and there are lots of them). Progressions don't make any contribution to statistical significance. You can adjust results to take account of them, but it's easier to assume flat betting.

[XXVV]

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

[XXVV]

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.

[XXVV]

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.

[XXVV]

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.

[XXVV]

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.

[Xander]

# WF - the edge is observed empirically but is a remarkable constant after survey of over 100,000 live spins by me in casino all over the world ( always live).


There appears to be a clustering force and that is why i term 'warm'. It is a cooler version of 'hot' numbers, but because warm there is more of them and more common but still is cyclic.


I have conducted vast research on degrees of repeats and all empirical evidence  is consistent within a measurable and significant range-XXVV

.

Can you explain the research?  What is the WF (warm fuzzy) method? 

You've written a great deal, but not much about the actual method.

-Xander

[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