This thread serves as a repository for "quotes and bits", both gambling-related as well as non-gambling ones.
Quote"Life comes in waves, just like the sea."
-Vinicius de Moraes
Brazilian poet, quoted by Manrique.
QuoteIt seems in roulette waves are everywhere, just like that, in nature we also find waves all around.
We surf the roulette wave, which is also like a sea wave; success is brought by when the crest deposits ouselves in firm soil with our full bankroll replenished.
-Tanausu
Quote
I firmly believe this is the key to win: waves come in cycles; the strategy then lies in being able to identify them for betting more when one must do so.
- danielman
Gianni: Master, I read your Arcanes, the Red Dragon, the Invincible Sacred, etc. I understood the concept of the NGM (Manriqueââ,¬â,,¢s Glory Number), but tell me : How do you win?
Manrique: If I had to give one and only one tool to win, I'd say: leave when you are up, winning.
Gianni: When you are winning how much, master?
Manrique: When you win enough.
Gianni: And how much is enough?
Manrique: Your stomach will tell you, or your reason, if you are attentive to what matters the most, which is winning.
Gianni: Can you be more precise?
Manrique: A good parameter is the performance of your working hour in function of your capital; if with 300 or 400 Euros you won 40 or 50 Euros in only a few minutes, hardly would you earn more outside in this time and with this amount of capital.
Gianni: And how do I know that I won't keep winning?
Manrique: As long as you are winning you continue, without compromising too much what you already won. In the example I just gave, if you already won 50, you can try with 10 or 20 if the winning streak goes on, but never compromising the totality of the amount you already won, and never your starting bank; following in this mode in plateaus while it lasts. At times you'll play 2 euros to a straight-up number which will become in 72, which added to the 50 will be 122, you take 100 apart, and bet 22 prudently, y and if the streak continues, they can become in 500 or a thousand, although I ensure you many times you will leave with 50 or something more.
As you start learning this, you start becoming less generous when risking again what you already won.
Gianni: What if I start in the minus, and I'm never up?
Manrique: Leave too, in the means of your possibilities, without losing it all.
Plenty of times a player goes to the casino with 500 euros, and is 400 down, and starts recovering until the point of being down only 100 again (he won 300 in a tram) and instead of stopping the game and start the next day the recovery of those missing 100, gets frustrated by not being able to recover it all and get back to being 400 down or losing it allââ,¬Â¦
Gianni: You mean, to play the ââ,¬Å"averages gameââ,¬Âââ,¬Â¦
Manrique: Exactly, when in recovery mode nothing forces us to make them in one spin or in one day. Win 4 or 6 days 50 euros, lose 100 when you have to lose them, and your average will still be around 40 a day. If you lose 500 your average will be -50, ruining your bankroll and your morals. Add or substract zeroes according to the magnitude of your bankroll.
Gianni: But it can be the case that I mount up to important lossesââ,¬Â¦
Manrique: Of course, but let them be the product of you ââ,¬Å"personal dispersion", not of your lack of conduct, because in this case you will also meet positive dispersions, in your favor. Limit your loses, not your wins.
Gianni: But leaving when you are winning somethingââ,¬Â¦ doesn't it mean to limit the gains?
Manrique: And who says you wouldn't continue winning tomorrow? What it is certain is that if I win 50 and lost 10, I still have 40, and it is possible that I lose them if I continue, if I go I don't lose them. Of course, if with the 10 you win and win and winââ,¬Â¦ continue until you lose something, and stop there.
Gianni: But in the long run, play what I play, I still have the 2.7% against meââ,¬Â¦
Manrique: The enemy is not in the roulette, it is inside you; never forget it. When dispersion acts in our favor, the bank grows too since the amounts we bet also grow: focused and very profitable trams, limited by the slightest sign of change against them. When we lose, we also try those little trams to be keep being that: little in mass. Most of the time we'll be around even...
QuoteThere's a policy I have: take it for what is worth and leave it where its worth ends...
In other words: Take what you feel like worthy from a person, and leave the rest of him/her alone!
-Never fails :thumbsup:
QuoteGood grammar shows respect for the people who are gracious enough to spend their time reading something you've written.
-munificent
Hi Victor
I think you had to much fire water so stay out of the waves my friend
Your friend
James Albert Wendel
If you must play, decide upon three things at the start: the rules of the game, the stakes, and the quitting time. ~Chinese Proverb.
Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember it didn't work for the rabbit. ~R.E. Shay
This nation was built by men who took risks - pioneers who were not afraid of the wilderness, business men who were not afraid of failure, scientists who were not afraid of the truth, thinkers who were not afraid of progress, dreamers who were not afraid of action. ~Brooks Atkinson
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark; professionals built the Titanic. ~Author Unknown
The house doesn't beat the player. It just gives him the opportunity to beat himself. ~Nick Dandalos
Quote"If you take all numbers in existence and then only even numbers that exist, which is bigger?
The first is bigger, although both are technically infinite."
:)
It is not how much we win . . . . . . . . . it is how LITTLE we lose .
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
Quote from: Nathan Detroit on Jul 20, 06:46 AM 2010
It is not how much we win . . . . . . . . . it is how LITTLE we lose .
Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!
Nathe.... WELCOME!
"Roulette is basically the same movie all the time with different actors (numbers). Concentrate on identifying the scene and you can predict the dialogs."
- Victor
Quote from: VLS on Jul 18, 10:31 AM 2010
"If you take all numbers in existence and then only even numbers that exist, which is bigger?
The first is bigger, although both are technically infinite."
:)
Not true.
One may show that there're as many points, while not trying to define what a point is here, on a long versus a short line... by bringing those lines parallel, and sweeping across both with a third line turning through a suitable point below. (For each pt on the outer, longer segment, there's a corresponding point on the shorter.)
But when it comes to the types of numbers, as fractions or rationals versus real numbers... a mathematician named Cantor proved the latter are indeed more-numerous or more-densely packed, to the extent of being uncountable.
Furthermore, modern mathematicians now agree that there are also types or "levels of" infinity, itself... the reals have been defined as the 0th level of infinity. No one really yet fully understands any of the higher levels of infinity, asfaras i'm aware... which are definitely required to begin to understand and explain the observable continuous processes of time and space, especially motion.
Whatever became of "Jeffrey" Cantor? An old professor of my told us Cantor eventually went (hopelessly) insane... "Only a strong mind can hurt itself."
P.S. A link to some of Cantor's related work, link:://plus.maths.org/issue47/features/macgregor/2pdf/index.html/op.pdf (link:://plus.maths.org/issue47/features/macgregor/2pdf/index.html/op.pdf) .
Hey Victor,
All of that aside, which is bigger... infinity (without end), or everything (all the way to the end)?
GARNabby, I've chosen to answer that dangerous question via PM :D :)
P.S. My answer? I think that "the infinite" has more to do with science eg, physics and chemistry; whereas "the all" has more to do with (the wholeness of) the consciousness studying the sciences... can have an infinitely-partitioned thing, but not half a person.
Leaving a god/devil to be "the consciousness in things", both endless and/but ending.
Quote from: GARNabby on Jul 25, 10:28 PM 2010
P.S. My answer? I think that "the infinite" has more to do with science eg, physics and chemistry; whereas "the all" has more to do with (the wholeness of) the consciousness studying the sciences... can have an infinitely-partitioned thing, but not half a person.
Leaving a god/devil to be "the consciousness in things", both endless and/but ending.
If String Theory is right, then we are ALL bits and parts of an entity which has particles in and out of this "slice" called universe and going to the multiverse... (i.e. what we see is never our "complete self", we are then just a possible
state of the whole.
Quote from: VLS on Jul 25, 10:33 PM 2010
If String Theory is right, then we are ALL bits and parts of an entity which has particles in and out of this "slice" called universe and going to the multiverse... (i.e. what we see is never our "complete self", we are then just a possible state of the whole.
Even establishable theories, of which String Theory isn't one, can't lead to such a basic, almost child-like picture of things. That requires some plain-old definitions for the basic operations of the mental and physical sorts... eg, including one for what infinity is, rather than more means to cancel it against itself (to try to "save" those theories from breaking down nicely on their own).
We need a theory of theories for that. (Einstein, realized that the math must parallel the physics, and versa... but forgot to write himself, asfaras his own thinking, into the greater scheme of things.)
"If String Theory is right..." ;)
Quote from: GARNabby on Jul 26, 06:44 PM 2010
We need a theory of theories for that. (Einstein, realized that the math must parallel the physics, and versa... but forgot to write himself, asfaras his own thinking, into the greater scheme of things.)
I know it may sound "cliché", but others have (tried) to pick where Einstein left in this "Theory of Everything", and -pardon me- some... make sense
*, INCLUDING String Theory.
(
*: Read
make sense to me!)
Well, of course, for some people killing cats in rituals makes sense.
I do take for granted you know that making sense to someone doesn't necessarily means the theory is right/wrong.
Clarifying, "just in case" 8)
Quote from: VLS on Jul 26, 10:21 PM 2010
"If String Theory is right..." ;)
If that theory is correct, we would never know it... the energy-levels required to test anything to do with it are beyond anything capable. (A few years ago, Hawking's boys thought they had it fitting in with some of his gravity-equations... but nothing more came of it.)
Anyway, that theory is a wave-theory... and just throwing away the particles, to me anyway, seems more than clumsy. (Even though the vibrating and closed "strings" could mimic particles.)
Quote from: VLS on Jul 26, 10:24 PM 2010
I know it may sound "cliché", but others have (tried) to pick where Einstein left in this "Theory of Everything", and -pardon me- some... make sense*, INCLUDING String Theory.
(*: Read make sense to me!)
Einstein died in '55... physics has moved on, with even his own published works having been rewritten in different maths to simplifiy a lot of those concepts.
Along the way to that TOE (theory), it will become clear, and perhaps cruel... to note where all of its predecessors went wrong.
Quote from: VLS on Jul 26, 10:26 PM 2010
Well, of course, for some people killing cats in rituals makes sense.
I do take for granted you know that making sense to someone doesn't necessarily means the theory is right/wrong.
Clarifying, "just in case" 8)
Speaking of cats, here's the one from the early days of quantum physics, for they who aren't into such cats, at link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat) .
And of making sense, Niels Bohr once said, "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough." (Some others of his, at link:://:.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niels_bohr.html (link:://:.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niels_bohr.html) .)
P.S. Do you know who Bohr said that too? Gotta run, see you tomorrow, Victor.
Quote from: GARNabby on Jul 26, 10:47 PM 2010
Along the way to that TOE (theory), it will become clear, and perhaps cruel... to note where all of its predecessors went wrong.
Agreed!
Quote from: GARNabby on Jul 26, 10:47 PM 2010
P.S. Do you know who Bohr said that too? Gotta run, see you tomorrow, Victor.
I'm all ears!
What makes sense to me is that given the amount of variables our current universe required to "get right" for being at the current state we experience, it is more logical to find such astronomical amount of odds realized in large samples. We may be only one of those possible "evolving snapshots" in a very large stream of states, where these variables have enough "sample length" to be possible.
To me it is harder to think all the variables "started right" in one single attempt! (I don't want to get into the stand of some people who want to make the multiverse negate the existence of a creator, it is still true that you can't make something out of nothing. There MUST have to be something "prime").
Remember religions say "God knows it all", assuming it is true and assuming all the choices are realized into parallel realities/timelines/universes then God has full access to the multiverse and can see every option realized to its fullest extent. That's how it is possible for this conscious being to "know it all", because it all is realized in this multi-space and he has access to all these streams of data, named realities*, very well being part of them all (God is everywhere). He must then by force have to be present at the same time in all of these universes, in the form of the basic matter for the "Building blocks" of each and all of these realities. The gluing component of all that is there, and living part on the creation itself; having matter, energy and consciousness, the sum of it all... being both the materials and the creation realized. "The Divine Particle" and all that it forms.
...As much as a single cell doesn't realize it is part of a larger organism (the body, with its own realized conscience) we may very well be part of something bigger and self-conscious with its own self identity and not realize it at all (that may be the "image and resemblance" part the religious always talk about, and not the anthropomorphic state)...
We don't know how much "ram memory" does the universe really has for "saving states", we don't know how many characteristics the same "object" in the universe may hold (think programming: inheritance of a set of traits, yet the prime object as a "class" is common to all, reusing the same properties -or in this case: the same particles).
...From getting to see the extension of our single universe and humbly acknowledging we only see that fraction we name the "known universe", if infinity fits a finite space (think how many decimals are there in a single centimeter of your ruler 0.0000[attachimg=1]1 to 0.999999[attachimg=1]...-to infinity-), we could easily be a "dot" in another larger universe, and still have everything proportional to us and our limited state of perception, in awe on how large the world is for us, enjoying the illusion of infinity, inside the confines of a larger, yet finite, "outer space".
Hmmm, String Theory...
Perhaps this reply belongs to the humor section.
So I will put em there.
link:://rouletteforum.cc/humor/re-string-theory/ (link:://rouletteforum.cc/humor/re-string-theory/)
Quote from: VLS on Jul 26, 11:59 PM 2010
Agreed!
I'm all ears!
I believe Bohr was speaking ABOUT Paul Dirac, another very-famous physicist of the most-prolific era in theoretical physics... followed by that in mathematics. ( link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac) )
Was a bit of a trick question to you, as neither I know off-hand to whom he said it. (I don't think it was directed to Dirac, himself, because Bohr was merely trying to say something to make light of Dirac's ever-stranger attempts to express his own TOE by a single equation.)
As for the remainder of your last reply, it was all very-well put as a good spot for the others to jump in with some of their own thoughts.
Thanks Thomas, for allowing this thread to remain half-ways serious.
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity"
Hey Thomas,
When... and for that matter, can eternity have a start or an end? Maybe we're never more than one echo acknowledging another, all along? (The "boot-strap" theory.)
Quote"For every 100% financial loss, there's a 100% wisdom gain."
- BlackDog / Amateur Investor
Quote from: VLS on Jul 28, 10:22 AM 2010
- BlackDog / Amateur Investor
Until the next time! (No one has it all to lose.)