It takes a sorry individual to censor a polite disagreement with his theory. If what I wrote was so wrong, why not take me to task on it instead of denying the membership the right to read a dissenting view?
This horse hockey of an author being Lord and Master over his thread is simply not right. People should be allowed to dissent when it's done politely.
I won't spend another hour typing the whole thing, but I will say this: If you want to jump on that load of manure he's posting, don't gripe if you come out smelling like chicken sheet!
Sam
Sam,
The same happened to me from another author. I just agreed with someones statement in a very polite manner and it was deleted :" being OFF subject".
It was just a matter that I agreed that we both preferred a live table/wheel at a B & M casino over any RNG.
Tamino
Tamino
Say it how you see it Sammy !!!!!!!
O0
The gentleman PMed me and told me he is not interested in gambler's fallacy. Not enough guts to even post on my thread. What? 'Fraid I'd delete it? No, not me. Dissenting opinions are welcome.
When a human develops a certain level of intelligence, they realize they learn nothing from the people who sit around and agree with every word that comes out of their mouth. People learn from people who disagree with you and steer you in another direction.
Is your ship sound? Take the sucker out of the harbor and onto the high seas if you really want to know.
EGO has lambasted people who post systems and now he's posting a Dempster Dumpster full of garbage and wants no opposing views.
This always begs the question: What are you scared of?
Sam
QuoteThe same happened to me from another author. I just agreed with someones statement in a very polite manner and it was deleted :" being OFF subject".
LOL ND, as I said, I was trying to keep the thread clean/on topic, there was no disagreement between us, you seemed to be ok with it, obviousley not though. Sorry if you feel sore about it.
I did NOT mention anyones name. Solely the incident was given as a comparison in line with Sam`s post.. BTW this was the subject about Authors can delete posts at their whim..Wasn`t it?.
Tamino
Ego has deleted a handful of constructive posts I have made in some of his threads. At one time he even declared he never deleted posts >>> yeah right.
Here's what I want to know,
If one which does bet red and the udder witch does bet black for 5 spins then witch which does win does spins and which witch does lose does spins? :o
By the way, among other words Ego has been told about 400 times how to spell 'which' and how to spell 'those' yet he keeps posting up 'witch' and 'does' among other words. That sums it all up for me. ^-^
People
I've moved past it now. Had I even the slightest suspicion he would delete me, I would have saved it in Word and posted it on my own thread.
Not worth the finger strain to re-type it.
Samster
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Aug 25, 05:36 PM 2012
People
I've moved past it now. Had I even the slightest suspicion he would delete me, I would have saved it in Word and posted it on my own thread.
Not worth the finger strain to re-type it.
Samster
Sam...
You are a sensitive soul arnt ya!
......look at all the positive results you get from all your great posts. why let one incident take president over sh1t loads of great posting.....
I love reading your stuff......
For the record....I'd love to be in a position to delete posts on stuff I posted up. I already struggle to get more than 5 posters on my topics. I would welcome direct insults just to get onto a 2nd page list....lol
Turner :thumbsup:
Turner
(Patting myself on the back!) I wrote some really good stuff in those posts!!
Sam
My post got also deleted. I commented as far as i can remember on Sam's post. ;D And Turner i can insult you if you wish. Hardly anybody is also commenting on my posts. So devastated :sad2:
Everyone here please focus on the essential. Ego has a lot to teach anyone here about roulette. He has not the easiest type of personality though. =)
aj
I'd love to be taught by anyone! You're a smart person. You tell me............
X (2 3)
X (5 6)
Where it could be:
XXX
XOX
The above are six spins. You tell me why 2 and 5 or 3 and 6 either have a greater or lessor chance of being the same/different.
aj, I sincerely want to be taught that!
A TwoCat Proclamation: Nothing is due. Wait! Didn't someone just say that??
Sam
Keep in mind the thread author can moderator his own thread. If you want to say something you feel is justified and within the forum rules, then create your own thread. But keep it justified and civil or it may get messy.
If you have a big long message you'd like to convey, and want to post it to a thread that may be moderated, then save your message elsewhere so you can republish on your own thread if it is removed.
Just keep in mind of course people will butt heads every now and then. When two logical and civil people butt heads, the matter is eventually resolved. When at least one of them is in the wrong or logical/civil, conflict will continue. ie great minds think alike, fools seldom differ. Accept that not everyone will think alike, and learn to live with them. You can both say your bit, then you have to leave it alone. If it continues and becomes a pissing match, it annoys everyone here and gets into the realm of breaking forum rules. If either of you break the rules, appropriate action is taken to prevent it continuing.
Its not that hard to let things rest because anyone that continues to hassle another is breaking forum rules, and may be banned. So you can be assured moderators enforce the rules to benefit the forum.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Aug 25, 05:36 PM 2012
People
I've moved past it now. Had I even the slightest suspicion he would delete me, I would have saved it in Word and posted it on my own thread.
Not worth the finger strain to re-type it.
Samster
OK.......
No problem!
Sam
link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=UduuxKdPt9Q# (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=UduuxKdPt9Q#)
between 1970 and 1990... the world lost its sense of fashion. no it is was more than loss of fashion sense. something I dont understand. something we'd all rather forget. but people like skakus have a habit of opening old wounds
Quote from: Steve on Aug 26, 09:56 PM 2012
between 1970 and 1990... the world lost its sense of fashion. no it is was more than loss of fashion sense. something I don't understand. something we'd all rather forget. but people like skakus have a habit of opening old wounds
:)
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Aug 26, 04:07 PM 2012
aj
I'd love to be taught by anyone! You're a smart person. You tell me............
X (2 3)
X (5 6)
Where it could be:
XXX
XOX
The above are six spins. You tell me why 2 and 5 or 3 and 6 either have a greater or lessor chance of being the same/different.
aj, I sincerely want to be taught that!
A TwoCat Proclamation: Nothing is due. Wait! Didn't someone just say that??
Sam
Ok I will try.
I assume you are talking about the thread "One cycle is c... time line"
Cycle:
-On an EC is two spins.
-Inside single numbers 37 spins (French Roulette).
-etc...
What ego proposes is observing clusters of 3 spins regarding a chosen EC. Taking the 1st spin of the cluster as a reference point and notating whether the current spin is either same ('X') or different ('O'),
four distinct formations are possible:
XXX | XXO | XOO | XOX
The probabilistic analogie is a dice with four sides: - Tetrahedron
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
The famous "Gambler's Fallacy" discussion will dictate on one side that each and every event is independent and correlation has no measurable effect. On the other side we may advocate that mathematical logic and laws have a finite descriptive ability regarding real events and that developments in physics and other areas constantly challenge that ability. "60 reds in a row?"
I will not discuss this, despite i find obvious that in the long run everything tends to balance out.
What will be most commonly observed is the most probable event, thus the assumption that after a cycle of perfect balance with the four possible formations showing in a row, the same will not happen immediately after.
Developing a playing model from this observation is other matter, and should be backed up with statistical data rather than probabilistic assumptions.
Best regards.
AL
AL
I truly thank you for that explanation. (I keep hearing "Occam's Razor") I will print it out, study on it and get back sometime later.
Sam
AL
I see where you posted this on ego's thread. Look at the post just above it.
I know people do the best they can do when English is not their first language and I try to never mention that--but--I've tried and tried and I don't understand that post.
Could you clarify that please? About having to hit six to create four, or something.
Sam
Sam,
We have our dice with four sides with all the possible outcomes: 4*4*4*4 = 256
The probabilities of the event:
1) Four Different sides in a row
4*3*2*1 = 24
P= 24/256
2) Four Same sides in a row
4*1*1*1 = 4
P = 4/256
_______________________________________________________________
Now you choose what event you want to play against.
In the first case you have to place a maximum of 4 bets to try and avoid the Four Different sides in a row.
In the second case you have to place a maximum of 6 bets to try and avoid Four Same sides in a row.
Example bet (not playing model) for the first option: "Bet against Four Different Sides in a Row"
xOO
xXO - x Bet O (same as above) L
xXX - xX Bet O (same as the previous known formation) L
xXX - x Bet against the missing formation XOX so the bet will be 2 attempts x X O
... what happens is that a win happens on first attempt.
Attached an example played reseting the cycle once a win is found and taking the last formation as the first for the new cycle.
I believe once grasped the betting behavior for this option it will be very easy to explore the second option too.
Cheers,
AL
xOO
xXO - x Bet O (same as above) L
xXX - xX Bet O (same as the previous known formation) L
xXX - x Bet against the missing formation XOX so the bet will be 2 attempts x X O
... what happens is that a win happens on first attempt.
AL
I'm sorry for my lack of understanding.
xOO...........do we bet now? And for what?
or
xOO
xXO.....do we bet now? And for what?
Why are some capital and some small?
If you would quote and use red next to my questions, it would sure help.
Sam
alberto
I think I have figured out one part. Assuming a four-sided dice.........
You toss and get a 2. If you are wanting four of the same, 2 2 2 2 , you always have three, 1 3 4, pulling against you. Every throw.
But if you want four different and toss a 2, you have three pulling for you..1 3 4. Your next chance of hitting a different number is 3 to 1.
If you toss again and hit a 1, you have 1 and 2 so 3 and 4 are for you. 1 and 2 are against you.
Finally you have three out of four and the fourth is the only one left for you. Three are out to ruin your day!
If that much is correct, I'm on my way to understanding it. Not necessarily agreeing with it.......
Sam
xOO
xXO - x Bet O (same as above) L
xXX - xX Bet O (same as the previous known formation) L
xXX - x Bet against the missing formation XOX so the bet will be 2 attempts x X O
... what happens is that a win happens on first attempt.
AL
I'm sorry for my lack of understanding.
xOO...........do we bet now? And for what? You do not bet now, this is the first formation. You wait for the next formation and bet that one will repeat this one. It can be xOO or xOX, you will win the same.
or
xOO
xXO.....do we bet now? And for what?
xOO
x ----> bet now that the pattern/formation above will repeat. Bet O, if lose wait for next cluster.
or with colors
RBB
R ---> bet Black...
...
RBB
B ---> bet Red
:::::::
BRR
B ---> bet Red
...
BRR
R ---> bet Black
the above cases mean all the same initial
xOO
x
This is the advantage of using the symbols, it may seem complicated first, but it ends up simplifying by reducing cases.
_____________________________________________________________________________
So we lost the first bet...
xOO
xXO
x --->we still have to wait for the next spin in order for it to be X or O. Whichever it will be it will form either xX or xO and configure a partial match with one of the two patterns/formations above it xOO and XXO.
Lets suppose next spin is X, we got
xOO
xXO
xX ---> we bet now for a repeat of the previous known pattern/formation above which is xXO, so we bet O
if another X comes out, we have 3 different patterns/formations in a row, like 3 sides out of our 4 sided dice.
xOO
xXO
xXX
x ---> from this stage we have to place 2 bets to ensure the 4th side will not show up, the missing one: xOX. So we will bet against this missing side/pattern/formation. Bet X then if lost, O. If you lose all 4 bets
you have the four sides showing in a row.
Hope this helps.
1."Why are some capital and some small?"
X and O are Simbols for Same and Other.
the lowercase x means that at the beginning you always put x regardless of previous cluster of 3 spins, because this is the one the others refer to, like a pivot. As i mentioned before:
"What ego proposes is observing clusters of 3 spins regarding a chosen EC. Taking the 1st spin of the cluster as a reference point and notating whether the current spin is either same ('X') or different ('O'),four distinct formations are possible:
XXX | XXO | XOO | XOX"
If we were to take colors per example, we would have eight possibilities not four.
RRR
RBB
RBR
RRB
BBB
BRR
BRB
BBR
___________________________________________________
Cheers,
AL
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Aug 29, 11:32 AM 2012
alberto
I think I have figured out one part. Assuming a four-sided dice.........
You toss and get a 2. If you are wanting four of the same, 2 2 2 2 , you always have three, 1 3 4, pulling against you. Every throw.
We do not want 4 of the same, we play against it to happen in a row.
But if you want four different and toss a 2, you have three pulling for you..1 3 4. Your next chance of hitting a different number is 3 to 1.
That is the logical choice =)
If you toss again and hit a 1, you have 1 and 2 so 3 and 4 are for you. 1 and 2 are against you. It is the opposite.
With the dice that would be ok, but each toss of the dice represents 3 spins in roulette.
Finally you have three out of four and the fourth is the only one left for you. Three are out to ruin your day!
...
If that much is correct, I'm on my way to understanding it. Not necessarily agreeing with it.......
Sam
AL
Thank you! That totally explains it. I have saved that to disk for future study while sitting beneath an oak tree drinking rum and coke and smoking a cigar!
I am beginning to see the logic in the whole procedure.
I'll leave you be now, but I'll just bet you helped a lot of other folks as well as me.
Sam
You are very welcome Sam.
I remember your stress with some virus with a bot. Take it easy. O0
It feels good to overcome language barrier.
Sometimes Ego's posts assume you do your homework and some investigation on your own. I often struggled with it and got frustrated and tried again. Once i got it, i re-read it again and it all sums up fine. At least most of the time. ;)
Ego is not a chicken heel!... :thumbsup:
Quote from: albertojonas on Aug 29, 03:37 PM 2012
You are very welcome Sam.
I remember your stress with some virus with a bot. Take it easy. O0
It feels good to overcome language barrier.
Sometimes Ego's posts assume you do your homework and some investigation on your own. I often struggled with it and got frustrated and tried again. Once i got it, i re-read it again and it all sums up fine. At least most of the time. ;)
Ego is not a chicken heel!... :thumbsup:
What ever EGO is I bet he runs Windows 7, and speak Swedish. O0
Calling someone a "chicken heel" is a semi-polite way of saying, "Wow! You really stepped on me!" Kinda like a bloviator! No real harmful intent.
By the way, chickens don't have heels!
;D
Sam
Quote from: Ralph on Aug 29, 03:54 PM 2012
What ever EGO is I bet he runs Windows 7, and speak Swedish. O0
i believe in Linux
Hey Al, I thought you were a MacMan? :D
I think Ego uses Linux. I know I do.
He post pictures generated in Windows 7, Swedish language. So It can not be Linux!!
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Aug 29, 03:58 PM 2012
By the way, chickens don't have heels!
;D
Sam
Sam, this one does -
[attachimg=1]
Quote from: Bayes on Aug 29, 04:08 PM 2012
Hey Al, I thought you were a MacMan? :D
I think Ego uses Linux. I know I do.
I use a mac indeed. Linux is based on unix as well as mac =)
Hey Bayes.
Where's the Parson's Nose !!!!
Clever Humour.
Dino.
I can die now; I've seen it all!