-
The first thing I want you to do is to think a little different regarding the permanence.
If you try to write down the first red you see and then the next two outcomes that follows, you would get this result.
Lets take a look at a random walk.
BBBRBRBBBB
If you take the first red here and write it down you have:
R
Now you write down the two outcomes that follow red like this:
RBR
Now we have done what I told you that we was going to do.
Now lets take a look at this and continue with this simple rule about how to gathering the permanence.
BBBRBRBBBBRRBBBRBRBBRRRRBBRBB
As you can see we get this patterns and everyone begins with a red outcome and the two that follows.
RBR RRB RBR RRR RBB RBB
This is the cycle for all the possibilities.
RRR
RRB
RBR
RBB
This is the foundation the basics.
Now we are going to make some combination regarding this patterns that are base upon series of 3.
Now we are going to make this patterns become 9 like this RRRRRBRBR or RBRRBBRRB.
I will do that later ok, for now I just want to tell you the basics. Lets continue.
The second rule now is that every time we have a red we will play only for two decisions like this.
RBB then we play RR
RBR then we play RB
RRR then we play BB
RRB then we play BR
Now think.
Here we go if we have a 12 step progression and patterns of 9 then you add the things I told you, we will playing against this
RRR RRB RBR RRR RRB RBR RRR RRB RBR
This is what we would bet against patterns of 27.
Pattern - RRR RRB RBR RRR RRB RBR RRR RRB RBR
RBB RR
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBR LW
RRR BB
RBR RB
RRB BR
RBR W
RBB RR
RBR RB
RBR RB
RBB LL
RRR W
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBR RB
RRR W
RBB RR
RBR RB
RRB BR
RRR W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBB RR
RBR W
RRR BB
RBB RR
RRB BR
RBR W
RBB
RBB
RBB
RBB
RBR
RRR
RRR
RRR
RBR
RRR
LW Registry - LWWLLWWWWW
Well we can make it extreme and use a 14 step Marty a like and play against 30 that would be a lot of fun (link:://vlsroulette.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
Here is a short test and as you can see there would not be any need to make a progression that win at every step becuse they will shop and generat profits for the long run 8-)
LW Registry
LWWLLWWWWWLLLWWLLWLWLLLWWLLWLWWLLWWWLWWLLW
WWWLWLWLWLWWLLLLWWWLWLWWWLWWLWLWWLLWWWLLWWWWLLLWWLLLLWWW
Random aginst Random
RBB RR 050101 T1
RBR RB
RRR BB Play aginst RBBRBRRRR - RBBRBRRRR - RBBRBRRRR using RR RB BB RR RB BB
RBR LW
RRR BB
RBR RB
RRB BR Play aginst RRRRBRRRB - RRRRBRRRB - RRRRBRRRB using BB RB BR BB RB BR
RBR W
RBB RR
RBR RB
RBR RB Play aginst RBBRBRRBR - RBBRBRRBR - RBBRBRRBR using RR RB RB RR RB RB
RBB LL
RRR W
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBR RB
RRR W
RBB RR
RBR RB
RRB BR
RRR W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBB RR
RBR W
RRR BB
RBB RR
RRB BR
RBR W
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBB LL
RBR LW
RRR BB
RRR BB
RRR BB
RBR W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRR LL
RBB W
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB LW
RBB RR
RBR RB
RBR RB
RBB LL
RBB LW
RBR RB
RRR BB
RRB BR
RRR W
RRB BR
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRB LL
RBR W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RRR BB
RRB LW
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRB BR 050102 T1
RBR W
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB RR
RRR LL
RRR W
RRB BR
RRB BR
RBR RB
RBB W
RBR RB
RRB BR
RRR BB
RRB W
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBB RR
RBB LW
RBB RR
RBR RB
RRB BR
RRR W
RBB RR
RRB BR
RRB BR
RBB LL
RBB W
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRB BR
RBB W
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB RR
RBR W
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBR RB
RBB W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBR RB
RRB LW
RRR BB
RRR BB
RRB BR
RRB LW
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBR BR
RBB LW
RBR RB
RBR RB
RRB BR
RBB LW
RBB RR
RBB RR ---
RRB RR 050103 T1
RRB W
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBB LL
RBB LL
RRR W
RRR BB
RBR RB
RRB BR
RBR W
RRB BR
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBR W
RRR BB
RRR BB
RBB RR
RRB LW
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRB BR
RRR LW
RBR RB
RBR RB
RBB RR
RRB W
RRB BR
RBR RB
RBR RB
RBR W
RRB BR
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRR LW
RRR BB
RBB RR
RRB BR
RBB W
RBB RR
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBR LW
RBB RR
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBR LW
RBB RR
RRR BB
RRR BB
RRR W
RBB RR
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB LL
RBR W
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB RR 050104 T1
RBB W
RBB RR
RBR RB
RRR BB
RRB W
RBR RB
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBR LL
RRR W
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBB RR
RRR W
RRB BR
RRR BB
RRR BB
RBR W
RRR BB
RRR BB
RBB RR
RBB W
RRR BB
RBB RR
RBR RB
RRR LL
RBR LW
RRR BB
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB W
RBB RR
RRB BR
RBR RB
RBB LL
RRB LL
RRB W
RRB BR
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBR W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBB RR
RBB W
RRR
RBR
-
THE LOTTERY GAME :twisted:
-
Now I assume you understood how to get the permanence.
It looks like this
RBB
RBR
RBB
RRB
RBB
RRR
RBR
Now when you have 3 series of 3 you just write down the opp color next to you bet selection.
I repeat that is 3 series of 3 that is 9 outcomes.
Here I show you how to write down the opp next to your bet selection.
RBB RR
RBR RB
RBB RR
Now you have to play RR next time red appears.
If you get RBB then you lose your two bets.
Then you have to play RB then if you get RBR you will lose. Then you bet RR and if you get RBB you will lose.
Now what happened. Well all the 3 series of 3 did repeat them self in the exact same order like this.
RBB
RBR
RBB
RBB
RBR
RBB
That is 18 outcomes now we will continue and we will use the same RR RB RR because that is exactly what we want to prevent to happen that this 3 series of 3 repeat at the exact same order. If we lose then you have.
RBB
RBR
RBB
RBB
RBR
RBB
RBB
RBR
RBB
That's 27 outcomes. This would be all the bets.
RBB RR
RBR RB
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBR RB
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBR RB
RBB RR
I hope this helps.
Now lets say this is your bet selection
RBB
RBR
RBB
Then after that you just wait for the first red to appear and bet twice RR then you wait for the next red to appear and bet RB and after that you just wait for the next red to appear and bet RR.
You do that for 6 times in the same order to prevent it to repeat and alternate in the exact order as you bet selection.
So if you have...
RRR
RBR
RRB
Then you would bet BB RB BR in that order every time red appers if the first 3 attempt lose you just repeat them and as you can see itch time you bet you bet twice.
I hope this helps... if read the post above again you will understand it.
Pst when you find a total loss let me know (link:://vlsroulette.com/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
-
LWWLLWWWWWLLLWWLLWLWLLLWWLLWLWWLLWWWLW
WLLWWWWLWLWLWLWWLLLLWWWLWLWWWLWWLWLWWLLWWW
LLWWWWLLLWWLLLLWWW
Here I will make one more explanation regarding my hybrid.
The first great thing is that we are using a bet selection of 9 events and we prevent this 9 events to become 27 events
The second great thing is that we only have to make 12 bets to prevent 27 events to occur at the exact predefined order as our 9 events.
The third great thing is that we are not playing the same static pattern, we always go along with and change the bet selection of 9 so the selection becomes random against random.
Now lets take a look at how its is done.
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
RBR
RRB
RBR
Now we have our bet selection of 9 events and can see what the opposite colours after itch red will be.
RB
BR
RB
This we will use in the exact order after every time a red outcome appears so now we will continue with the permanence.
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
R Here we have our bet selection now we will play 12 attempts after red
B
B
B
R Now we will play RB
B
R We lose two attempts.
B
B
R Now we will play BR
R
B We lose two attempts.
B
B
B
R Now we will play RB
B
R We lose two attempts.
Now we have lost 6 bets so know we continue from the beginning and use the same and they are as I mention above.
RB
BR
RB
So lets continue with the permanence.
B
B
B
R
B
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
B
B
R
B
R Here we have our bet selection now we will play 12 attempts after red
B
B
B
R Now we will play RB
B
R We lose two attempts.
B
B
R Now we will play BR
R
B We lose two attempts.
B
B
B
R Now we will play RB
B
R We lose two attempts.
B
B
B
B
R Now we will play RB
R We win now you back track to get selection of 9 events and start to play again8-)
Now do you get the picture, here we go...
RBB RR 050101 T1
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBR LW
RRR BB
RBR RB
RRB BR
RBR W
RBB RR
RBR RB
RBR RB
RBB LL
RRR W
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBR RB
RRR W
RBB RR
RBR RB
RRB BR
RRR W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBB RR
RBR W
RRR BB
RBB RR
RRB BR
RBR W
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBB LL
RBR LW
RRR BB
RRR BB
RRR BB
RBR W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRR LL
RBB W
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB LW
RBB RR
RBR RB
RBR RB
RBB LL
RBB LW
RBR RB
RRR BB
RRB BR
RRR W
RRB BR
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRB LL
RBR W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RRR BB
RRB LW
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRB BR 050102 T1
RBR W
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB RR
RRR LL
RRR W
RRB BR
RRB BR
RBR RB
RBB W
RBR RB
RRB BR
RRR BB
RRB W
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBB RR
RBB LW
RBB RR
RBR RB
RRB BR
RRR W
RBB RR
RRB BR
RRB BR
RBB LL
RBB W
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRB BR
RBB W
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB RR
RBR W
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBR RB
RBB W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBR RB
RRB LW
RRR BB
RRR BB
RRB BR
RRB LW
RBR RB
RRR BB
RBR BR
RBB LW
RBR RB
RBR RB
RRB BR
RBB LW
RBB RR
RBB RR ---
RRB RR 050103 T1
RRB W
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBB LL
RBB LL
RRR W
RRR BB
RBR RB
RRB BR
RBR W
RRB BR
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBR W
RRR BB
RRR BB
RBB RR
RRB LW
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRB BR
RRR LW
RBR RB
RBR RB
RBB RR
RRB W
RRB BR
RBR RB
RBR RB
RBR W
RRB BR
RRB BR
RBB RR
RRR LW
RRR BB
RBB RR
RRB BR
RBB W
RBB RR
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBR LW
RBB RR
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBR LW
RBB RR
RRR BB
RRR BB
RRR W
RBB RR
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB LL
RBR W
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB RR 050104 T1
RBB W
RBB RR
RBR RB
RRR BB
RRB W
RBR RB
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBR LL
RRR W
RBB RR
RBB RR
RBB RR
RRR W
RRB BR
RRR BB
RRR BB
RBR W
RRR BB
RRR BB
RBB RR
RBB W
RRR BB
RBB RR
RBR RB
RRR LL
RBR LW
RRR BB
RRR BB
RBR RB
RBB W
RBB RR
RRB BR
RBR RB
RBB LL
RRB LL
RRB W
RRB BR
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBR W
RRR BB
RRB BR
RBB RR
RBB W
RRR
RBR
Now you need to build a progression.
There is two ways to make one and it should have a humble beginning because the W will shop and you should profit from that and don´t be to aggressive.
My suggestion is that they start like this:
1 1 3 4
1 1 2 3
You need to develop a 12 step progression.
-
THE LOTTERY GAME :twisted:
Clarification:
RRBRBBRRR - RRBRBBRRRRRBRBBRRR
RRBRBBRRR - R[RB]R[BB]R[RR]R[RB]R[BB]R[RR]
Its all the same S H I T so you can play random against random and it is the same as CODE 4 or any other popular bet seletciont with same strike ratio.
THE LOTTERY GAME :twisted:
Use stopp/loss - stages and recovery progression or what ever you like - same S H I T :lol:
Hello Ego
Interesting work ;D I finally need 2 take a closer look at your theories.
Something completely different from whats usually posted here.
Thanks 4 taking your time 2 post.
Regards
ego
This is very much along the lines of a system I bought years ago. I think you may have found what he was trying to do. I have printed out your post and will study it.
Thanks for all the typing and knowledge.
Sam
I have played this for months at Vilamoura Casino - Portugal.
Ego do you remember the book with the "sistolic drawings"?
That was the very beginning of this along with JLP years ago on the other forum!
Eternal Random Vs Random
link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=10510 (link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=10510)
=)
Cheers
Hello
If it won flat. 12 step progression on EC scares me a bit >:(
Regards
Quote from: Robeenhuut on May 23, 09:06 PM 2012
Hello
If it won flat. 12 step progression on EC scares me a bit >:(
Regards
I understand - but you don't have to win every bet to win overall ...
Look at this line 1 1 1 2 2 3 or maybe 1 1 2 3 4 7 or maybe some other humbel progression
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
L 1 +0
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
W 1 +4
L 1 +3
L 1 +2
L 1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
L 1 +2
L 1 +1
W 1 +2
L 1 +1
W 1 +2
L 1 +1
L 1 +0
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
L 1 +0
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
L 1 +0
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
W 1 +2
L 1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
L 1 +2
L 1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
W 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
W 1 +6
L 1 +5
L 1 +4
L 1 +3
L 2 +1
W 2 +3
W 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
W 1 +6
W 1 +7
L 1 +6
W 1 +8
W 1 +9
L 1 +8
W 1 +9
L 1 +8
W 1 +9
W 1 +10
L 1 +9
L 1 +8
W 1 +9
W 1 +10
W 1 +11
L 1 +10
L 1 +9
W 1 +10
W 1 +11
W 1 +12
W 1 +13
L 1 +12
L 1 +11
L 1 +10
W 2 +12
W 1 +13
L 1 +12
L 1 +11
L 1 +10
L 2 +8
W 2 +10
W 1 +11
W 1 +12
Quote from: albertojonas on May 23, 04:31 PM 2012
I have played this for months at Vilamoura Casino - Portugal.
Ego do you remember the book with the "sistolic drawings"?
That was the very beginning of this along with JLP years ago on the other forum!
Eternal Random Vs Random
link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=10510 (link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=10510)
=)
Cheers
Correct and i post this as many things you see today alredy has been posted as topics 2 to 3 years back.
Hello Ego
Of coz i would not attempt martingale here >:( but maybe if after 6 bets halfway we are down we could double our bet size. Progression stays the same.
Regards
I'm not fan of marty.. I found a way more powerful than it and less risky.. I post it later
Quote from: justanothergambler on May 24, 05:42 AM 2012
I'm not fan of marty.. I found a way more powerful than it and less risky.. I post it later
You did not find a method less risky as they all are the same thing and you did not find a method witch produce higher hit ratio.
Quote from: ego on May 24, 05:53 AM 2012
You did not find a method less risky as they all are the same thing and you did not find a method witch produce higher hit ratio.
The only method i find that is better then others is Marigny - but it should not be that - as all selections has the same probability.
Quote from: ego on May 23, 04:40 AM 2012
As you can see we get this patterns and everyone begins with a red outcome and the two that follows.
You could do the same for patterns which begin with black, then play both using a progression betting differentially.
I know you've posted this idea in the past, but this is the first time I've really got it. Thanks for the detailed explanation. :)
QuoteIts all the same S H I T so you can play random against random and it is the same as CODE 4 or any other popular bet seletciont with same strike ratio.
THE LOTTERY GAME
Agreed! :thumbsup:
Quote from: justanothergambler on May 24, 05:42 AM 2012
I'm not fan of marty.. I found a way more powerful than it and less risky.. I post it later
whats the more powerful way?
Quote from: Bayes on May 24, 04:58 PM 2012
You could do the same for patterns which begin with black, then play both using a progression betting differentially.
I know you've posted this idea in the past, but this is the first time I've really got it. Thanks for the detailed explanation. :)
Agreed! :thumbsup:
It is simple but complex by it self.
One static rule and the rest random against random.
You see three series of three that begins with red you have your bet selection or one can use 4 5 6 indications of red or series of three that begins with the same outcome/colour.
Equilibrium is powerfull when you play against 20 25 30 trails witch has the same probability as 20 25 30 blacks or reds in a row.
One other explanation is that if you have three series of three witch all begin with red.
Then you have to get a pattern of 9 to repeat 3 times in a row - witch has the same probability to get 3 x 9 reds or blacks in a row.
The crucial aspect is the staking plan - all in or play in different stages with recovery plan.
Quote from: warrior on May 24, 07:15 PM 2012
what's the more powerful way?
Trust me your search end here - there is no more powerful way.
I can prove my point any time or you can do it your self comparing with any other existing bet selection on this forum.
Here you have one simple static rule to follow - thats all - and you are free to use any staking plan you want and any size of bet selection against 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 trails using the principal i describe.
Quote from: ego on May 25, 06:42 AM 2012
Trust me your search end here - there is no more powerful way.
I can prove my point any time or you can do it your self comparing with any other existing bet selection on this forum.
Here you have one simple static rule to follow - that's all - and you are free to use any staking plan you want and any size of bet selection against 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 trails using the principal i describe.
i believe warrior's question was directed to justanothergambler... =)
i like to mess around with this as you know, and i like the idea that you can had extra factor to it.
gathering the permanence the same way, with the static rulle. i wait to observe 3 different formations in a row and then bet against the missing one to appear right after.
xxx
xxo
xox
x---here i bet against xoo
or any other combination...
this one does not substitute the previous but it hads an extra bet type.
cheers
Quote from: ego on May 25, 06:42 AM 2012
Trust me your search end here - there is no more powerful way.
I can prove my point any time or you can do it your self comparing with any other existing bet selection on this forum.
Here you have one simple static rule to follow - that's all - and you are free to use any staking plan you want and any size of bet selection against 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 trails using the principal i describe.
In order to capitalize on a pattern you have to bet against whole pattern. And any progression would be very costly. You generally would need at least 2 wins especially if you go deeper and if you don't go for just one win. And playing for one win on ECs means martingale.
In one of your posts you posted an example where you got hit on 11th step out of 12 possible.
And if you go flat or very mild progression its like hit and miss approach to me. ;D
Quote from: ego on May 25, 06:36 AM 2012
It is simple but complex by it self.
One static rule and the rest random against random.
You see three series of three that begins with red you have your bet selection or one can use 4 5 6 indications of red or series of three that begins with the same outcome/colour.
Equilibrium is powerfull when you play against 20 25 30 trails witch has the same probability as 20 25 30 blacks or reds in a row.
One other explanation is that if you have three series of three witch all begin with red.
Then you have to get a pattern of 9 to repeat 3 times in a row - witch has the same probability to get 3 x 9 reds or blacks in a row.
The crucial aspect is the staking plan - all in or play in different stages with recovery plan.
And you are wrong here about probability. Betting against formation of any Rxx pattern for 9 times in a row still its like betting 12 times against any EC. Why? The whole pattern consists of 27 different outcomes but you bet 6x2=12 times against it. Other outcomes are predetermined already and you probably know how easy is to lose for example 7 times in a row any bet on EC.
Unfortunately Robeenhuut is correct. :-X
Any bet selection is going to be hit & miss, so it's as good as anything else (and also as bad).
Quote from: ego on May 23, 04:40 AM 2012
The second rule now is that every time we have a red we will play only for two decisions like this.
RBB then we play RR
RBR then we play RB
RRR then we play BB
RRB then we play BR
I just don't understand this!
Quote from: marivo on May 25, 08:15 AM 2012
I just don't understand this!
You just bet opposite of 2 outcomes in Rxx sequence after R hits >:(
RBB you bet opposite of BB after R hits - RR
Thanks, its clearer now....
-
@ All i agree to what has been saying and again state that this is as good it gets and no other selection is better - but i don't agree that you have to use Marty to win as Fibo does very good ...
Periodic betting or all in.
@ albertononas you understand it wrong ...
Here you can see why Marty is one big illusion and why you don't need it to win.Quote
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
L 1 +0
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
W 1 +4
L 1 +3
L 1 +2
L 1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
L 1 +2
L 1 +1
W 1 +2
L 1 +1
W 1 +2
L 1 +1
L 1 +0
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
L 1 +0
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
L 1 +0
L 1 -1
W 1 +0
W 1 +1
W 1 +2
L 1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
L 1 +2
L 1 +1
W 1 +2
W 1 +3
W 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
W 1 +6
L 1 +5
L 1 +4
L 1 +3
L 2 +1
W 2 +3
W 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
L 1 +4
W 1 +5
W 1 +6
W 1 +7
L 1 +6
W 1 +8
W 1 +9
L 1 +8
W 1 +9
L 1 +8
W 1 +9
W 1 +10
L 1 +9
L 1 +8
W 1 +9
W 1 +10
W 1 +11
L 1 +10
L 1 +9
W 1 +10
W 1 +11
W 1 +12
W 1 +13
L 1 +12
L 1 +11
L 1 +10
W 2 +12
W 1 +13
L 1 +12
L 1 +11
L 1 +10
L 2 +8
W 2 +10
W 1 +11
W 1 +12
Quote from: ego on May 25, 10:40 AM 2012
-
@ albertononas you understand it wrong ...
regarding what EGO?
Hello Ego
Your idea does not show any advantage over betting against any pattern.
And such betting against any pattern of EC's never worked.
You made a wrong assumption about a probability and you just hope to string up
few wins and get out. You can use any progression you want or flat bet but it comes
down to pure luck. You showed some examples of betting but they are small samples.
As to a probability its a mistake most people make in roulette. Example:
You see 10 R in a row on a board. You bet 5 step Marty against it becoming 15 R in a row.
Probability of 15 R in a row is roughly 1/30000 so you think that you need only 32/1 probability of success to beat such a rare event. Wrong.. you lost already 10 virtual bets and it becomes just like regular 5 step Marty against any EC.
Regards
Quote from: Robeenhuut on May 25, 10:33 PM 2012
Hello Ego
Your idea does not show any advantage over betting against any pattern.
And such betting against any pattern of ECs never worked.
You made a wrong assumption about a probability and you just hope to string up
few wins and get out. You can use any progression you want or flat bet but it comes
down to pure luck. You showed some examples of betting but they are small samples.
As to a probability its a mistake most people make in roulette. Example:
You see 10 R in a row on a board. You bet 5 step Marty against it becoming 15 R in a row.
Probability of 15 R in a row is roughly 1/30000 so you think that you need only 32/1 probability of success to beat such a rare event. Wrong.. you lost already 10 virtual bets and it becomes just like regular 5 step Marty against any EC.
Regards
Exactly what i have been saying there is no other bet selection on this forum for EC that produce better results or higher strike ratio and you still not have to use Marty to win.
There does not exist any roulette system in the world that has advantage or edge over the house.
So i agree with you.
I have run 800 000 and 1M with out using Marty and does end up with profits, so my statment is valid.
Been testing Fibo witch is much better then Marty.
I would never recommend any one playing a roulette system - its a wast of money.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on May 25, 10:33 PM 2012
As to a probability its a mistake most people make in roulette. Example:
You see 10 R in a row on a board. You bet 5 step Marty against it becoming 15 R in a row.
Probability of 15 R in a row is roughly 1/30000 so you think that you need only 32/1 probability of success to beat such a rare event. Wrong.. you lost already 10 virtual bets and it becomes just like regular 5 step Marty against any EC.
True, spins are independent events, but you have to be careful you don't end up like one of the "mathboyz" and end up saying things like "you could get 100 reds in a row". ;D
The mere fact that spins are independent can lead to illogical conclusions, if you don't understand the bigger picture. You have to take into account the binomial distribution and regression to the mean. A sequence with a strong deviation doesn't CAUSE the following sequence to be closer to the average, but that's what actually happens. The trick is to find the right entry point. ;)
Here's an example sequence I played this morning:
[attachimg=1]
It's not that Low was "due" for a comeback, only that strong deviations won't continue indefinitely. If they did, it would mean that the concept of a distribution governed by laws of probability is meaningless.
In my opinion, exploiting these kinds of events is the only way to make a long term profit from any "system", and there are countless such events occurring all the time in roulette, it's just a question of identifying them.
Quote from: Bayes on May 26, 03:20 AM 2012
True, spins are independent events, but you have to be careful you don't end up like one of the "mathboyz" and end up saying things like "you could get 100 reds in a row". ;D
The mere fact that spins are independent can lead to illogical conclusions, if you don't understand the bigger picture. You have to take into account the binomial distribution and regression to the mean. A sequence with a strong deviation doesn't CAUSE the following sequence to be closer to the average, but that's what actually happens. The trick is to find the right entry point. ;)
Here's an example sequence I played this morning:
[attachimg=1]
It's not that Low was "due" for a comeback, only that strong deviations won't continue indefinitely. If they did, it would mean that the concept of a distribution governed by laws of probability is meaningless.
In my opinion, exploiting these kinds of events is the only way to make a long term profit from any "system", and there are countless such events occurring all the time in roulette, it's just a question of identifying them.
Yeah regression toward the mean is one of most misunderstood concepts in the gaming.
Nothing is really due in short term and only way to capitalize on it is to sort of bet against it by trying to ride the event that for relatively short time has a highly unusual distribution rate.
Bayes
"deviations won't continue indefinitely."
What force in the Universe causes the deviations to cease? Or is this action without underlying cause? See, in my slowly-going-feeble mind, I say, "Well something caused the deviations to cease or they, themselves, decided to cease."
R. D. Ellison referred to this as "statistical pressure" in that the numbers "tried" to equalize themselves somewhat so as not to look so lopsided to the outside world. He's a bit of a out-there guy, but he wrote some good stuff.
What do you think? Is there "statistical pressure" or "numerical peer pressure"? Dang! I coined a phrase!
Sam
To me he is not an authority on roulette systems 4 sure. I know that you like his "Angels" system but i hope you tweaked it because lots of people put it down. I know that most systems out there are proven to be the losers but certainly i would not trust his opinion blindly.
I like GUT on other hand 4 some inexplicable reason ;D
Rob
The system is called the A3q or some combination of those and yes, I did tweak it a bit. I made it tougher to bet. I demand three out of the last five and for the target group to not have hit back to back. For me it always worked pretty well, but it takes far too long to find a bet. You can get As and non-As for ages or vice-versa. It's like a code in it's waiting time.
I'd rather just bet the penultimate dozen and be done with it.
But Ellison raises some very interesting points, one of which I asked above. Few will even try to answer it.
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 26, 10:15 AM 2012
Rob
The system is called the A3q or some combination of those and yes, I did tweak it a bit. I made it tougher to bet. I demand three out of the last five and for the target group to not have hit back to back. For me it always worked pretty well, but it takes far too long to find a bet. You can get As and non-As for ages or vice-versa. It's like a code in it's waiting time.
I'd rather just bet the penultimate dozen and be done with it.
But Ellison raises some very interesting points, one of which I asked above. Few will even try to answer it.
Sam
Thanks Sam. What about GUT? You mentioned recently that you were still playing it? Do you use this KonFuSed tracker? I know that you can not play it blindly....
Rob
I love to play the G.U.T on Dublin. Play money, for sure. I use the Track4 written by droidman. The other only goes to fifty spins and sometimes I hang in there to 60 or more if I've got a good crossing coming up. Like 12 v 11. It happens, but not often.
I actually use little yellow post-it arrows under the columns on Track4 because it is less tedious than always thinking...it's 1 vs 2; never >1 vs 1. >1 is never a crossing unless it is on the right...1 vs >1
Maybe it'll all be clearer after next Tuesdays cataract surgery and new glasses.
8)
Sam
Don't mean to brag, hak-kaff, but I'm almost at #4,000 profit using my methods on Dublin.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 26, 02:18 PM 2012
Rob
I love to play the G.U.T on Dublin. Play money, for sure. I use the Track4 written by droidman. The other only goes to fifty spins and sometimes I hang in there to 60 or more if I've got a good crossing coming up. Like 12 v 11. It happens, but not often.
I actually use little yellow post-it arrows under the columns on Track4 because it is less tedious than always thinking...it's 1 vs 2; never >1 vs 1. >1 is never a crossing unless it is on the right...1 vs >1
Maybe it'll all be clearer after next Tuesdays cataract surgery and new glasses.
8)
Sam
Don't mean to brag, hak-kaff, but I'm almost at #4,000 profit using my methods on Dublin.
You need 2 do something 2 start playing 4 real money online. I use GUTCBA tracker and it works fine.. But you need 2 get a feel of GUT. I would not trust any software 2 make any decision 4 me especially in a such complex system as GUT.
Regards
Maybe it'll all be clearer after next Tuesdays cataract surgery and new glasses.
--Did both eyes/with intervals of 1 year/now reading without glasses.
Good luck Sam on tuesday.
Sam
Don't mean to brag, hak-kaff, but I'm almost at #4,000 profit using my methods on Dublin.
--Fun or real dough.
[/quote]
Thanks Vile
It's funny money #s, as Dublin calls it.
This brings up a point. What a person can do with #1,000 they may or may not be about to do with 1000E in real money.
My eyes are being done 25 days apart. Now one sees one way and one another! ;)
Sam
This brings up a point. What a person can do with #1,000 they may or may not be about to do with 1000E in real money.
--[color=blueThey should be on DB/fair casino/provide it is played with confidence
and proven method./I hear already......no such method exists/and my unswer is
depends to whom.[/color]
Sam
[/quote]
Hi Bayes,
Your dosbox graph reminds me of this.
b dub vietnam (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=cx0n-SqK3is#ws)
And this.
Chicken crossing the road (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9DLlMMXhKg#)
Now moving across the page treat each cell of the graph as a street to cross.
I think you will eventually find that it takes an average of about 9.5 spins to traverse each cell.
You will also see that it takes 4 chops to cross each cell.
From here you can create an EC bet for every time it takes 8 spins to show 3 chops. This bet can run continuously always watching for 3 chops over 8 spins.
Each time you see 3 chops over 8 spins you would bet for the 4th chop. I suggest betting only twice with a 1.2 unit progression.
This is actually a very strong selection method that I’ve been watching for a long time. Your graph seems to reaffirmed my findings from a while back.
Cheers.
vile
When I was in pole climbing school I learned there was a lot of difference between being two feet off the ground with sawdust below you and being 90 ft. up with asphalt below you.
I find the same feeling when playing with # vs playing with E. It is just not the same. For me anyway.
Hopefully, someday, that will change.
Sam
Quote from: Bayes on May 26, 03:20 AM 2012
True, spins are independent events, but you have to be careful you don't end up like one of the "mathboyz" and end up saying things like "you could get 100 reds in a row". ;D
The mere fact that spins are independent can lead to illogical conclusions, if you don't understand the bigger picture. You have to take into account the binomial distribution and regression to the mean. A sequence with a strong deviation doesn't CAUSE the following sequence to be closer to the average, but that's what actually happens. The trick is to find the right entry point. ;)
Here's an example sequence I played this morning:
[attachimg=1]
It's not that Low was "due" for a comeback, only that strong deviations won't continue indefinitely. If they did, it would mean that the concept of a distribution governed by laws of probability is meaningless.
In my opinion, exploiting these kinds of events is the only way to make a long term profit from any "system", and there are countless such events occurring all the time in roulette, it's just a question of identifying them.
Strong deviations won't continue indefinitely - if they did - it would mean that the concept of a distibution governed by laws of probability is meaningless.
I agree.
I like the grahp you post as you can chart very effective using that method in Casino.
RRRR
R
BB
RRRRR
BBB
RRRR
BB
RR
BBB
R
B
R
B
Very nice ...
Quote from: Bayes on May 26, 03:20 AM 2012
[attachimg=1]
I use DosBox for a lot of things. I'm wondering what this program is and why you use a Dos program. Most of all, i'm wondering how i can get this software too! It looks like point and figure.
Here you go Still
Here is all you need
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9376.0 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9376.0)
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: drazen_cro on May 27, 04:06 AM 2012
Here you go Still
Here is all you need
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9376.0 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9376.0)
Cheers
Drazen
Thanks drazen_cro, i just noticed that thread. To thank you i'll point to a thread i know of that seems to make good use of the old point and figure method:
link:://:.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122236&highlight=P%26F (link:://:.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122236&highlight=P%26F)
Thanks i ll check it out :thumbsup:
Drazen
Quote from: Skakus on May 26, 10:56 PM 2012
Hi Bayes,
Your dosbox graph reminds me of this.
b dub vietnam (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=cx0n-SqK3is#ws)
And this.
Chicken crossing the road (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9DLlMMXhKg#)
Now moving across the page treat each cell of the graph as a street to cross.
I think you will eventually find that it takes an average of about 9.5 spins to traverse each cell.
You will also see that it takes 4 chops to cross each cell.
From here you can create an EC bet for every time it takes 8 spins to show 3 chops. This bet can run continuously always watching for 3 chops over 8 spins.
Each time you see 3 chops over 8 spins you would bet for the 4the chop. I suggest betting only twice with a 1.2 unit progression.
This is actually a very strong selection method that I’ve been watching for a long time. Your graph seems to reaffirmed my findings from a while back.
Cheers.
How do you mean bet onle twice?
Hello Warrior
You just bet 2 step for formation of 4th chop after you see 3 chops in 8 spins.
Just one more way 2 capitalize on trends in Ec's.
I personally always bet 4 repeat of last EC. The reason? I never saw chop sequence longer than 11 spins but saw more than 15 repeats few times. But some people will always disagree.
The chance of 2 events happening is of course d same. I just feel more comfy playing this way. ;D
Regards
Quote from: Robeenhuut on May 27, 12:33 PM 2012
Hello Warrior
You just bet 2 step for formation of 4th chop after you see 3 chops in 8 spins.
Just one more way 2 capitalize on trends in ECs.
I personally always bet 4 repeat of last EC. The reason? I never saw chop sequence longer than 11 spins but saw more than 15 repeats few times. But some people will always disagree.
The chance of 2 events happening is of course d same. I just feel more comfy playing this way. ;D
Regards
i have seen about 20 chops in row and a 0 into th mix.
Im not surprised :D Warrior. I just flat bet against chops sometimes if i see them forming. No prog whatsoever.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 26, 07:20 AM 2012
Bayes
"deviations won't continue indefinitely."
What force in the Universe causes the deviations to cease? Or is this action without underlying cause? See, in my slowly-going-feeble mind, I say, "Well something caused the deviations to cease or they, themselves, decided to cease."
R. D. Ellison referred to this as "statistical pressure" in that the numbers "tried" to equalize themselves somewhat so as not to look so lopsided to the outside world. He's a bit of a out-there guy, but he wrote some good stuff.
What do you think? Is there "statistical pressure" or "numerical peer pressure"? Dang! I coined a phrase!
Sam
Sam, the probability answer to that is that there are more ways to "get to" a result which closer to the average (that's why it's an average). This may help (don't let the math put you off, the idea is quite simple):
link:://:.financialwebring.org/gummy-stuff/coin-tossing.htm (link:://:.financialwebring.org/gummy-stuff/coin-tossing.htm)
Quote from: Skakus on May 26, 10:56 PM 2012
Hi Bayes,
Your dosbox graph reminds me of this.
b dub vietnam (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=cx0n-SqK3is#ws)
And this.
Chicken crossing the road (link:://:.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9DLlMMXhKg#)
Now moving across the page treat each cell of the graph as a street to cross.
I think you will eventually find that it takes an average of about 9.5 spins to traverse each cell.
You will also see that it takes 4 chops to cross each cell.
From here you can create an EC bet for every time it takes 8 spins to show 3 chops. This bet can run continuously always watching for 3 chops over 8 spins.
Each time you see 3 chops over 8 spins you would bet for the 4the chop. I suggest betting only twice with a 1.2 unit progression.
This is actually a very strong selection method that I’ve been watching for a long time. Your graph seems to reaffirmed my findings from a while back.
Cheers.
Skakus, I like the way you think! :)
That's why I added the grid, in order to help with spotting patterns.
Quote from: Still on May 27, 03:56 AM 2012
I use DosBox for a lot of things. I'm wondering what this program is and why you use a Dos program.
Hi Still,
I know Dosbox isn't ideal, my main OS is Linux but the programming language I use only has support for graphics in the DOS version, so rather than have to learn a new set of syntax and library routines, I decided to do it in DOS, so basically, the answer is laziness. ;)
Does random really have any limits? mathematically speaking, it doesn't.
You might be mistaken for thinking that it does if you look at the standard bell curve:
[attachimg=1]
It SEEMS that the curve actually touches the horizontal axis, and that would correspond to some kind of limit, but actually the curve only ever gets closer to the horizontal axis, but never touches (this is what mathematicians call an "asymptote", meaning that it's a bit like a horizon which is ever-receding).
And of course the danger of "chasing equilibrium" is that by that very selection, you have thereby excluded a large number of "average" sequences, so in a sense you're seeking out those runs from hell. Nevertheless, outcomes WILL balance out, and the method is dangerous only to the extent that you haven't done the research and are using a progression which hits the house limit too quickly. If you take it slow and don't progress too quickly, you'll be ok. :)
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 05:03 AM 2012
Hi Still,
I know Dosbox isn't ideal, my main OS is Linux but the programming language I use only has support for graphics in the DOS version, so rather than have to learn a new set of syntax and library routines, I decided to do it in DOS, so basically, the answer is laziness. ;)
Now i
must know what programming language you used for that! Pascal? Power Basic?
Dunno if it runs on Linux but Bulls-Eye Broker comes highly recommended for PnF...at least for financial media.
Quote from: Still on May 28, 06:07 AM 2012
Now i must know what programming language you used for that! Pascal? Power Basic?
You've probably never heard of it, it's called Euphoria (link:://:.rapideuphoria.com/)
There are two versions and I'm using the older one (3.1.1) because support was dropped for DOS with version 4.x (link:://openeuphoria.org/index.wc). There are tutorials on the site, but to be honest you don't really need anything other than the manual if you have any programming experience.
I used to use BASIC, but Euphoria is much nicer in my opinion. A little code goes a long way and the syntax is clear and simple, plus it's very fast for number crunching (you can even poke machine code directly into memory if you want to).
I had a look at bulls-eye broker some time ago, but it wasn't really adaptable to roulette ;D , so I had to write my own version, plus it's Windows only.
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 05:28 AM 2012
Does random really have any limits? mathematically speaking, it doesn't.
"N=2 Surprise" is one of many such limits.
In general, it comes down to the "premise" (which i'm just not proving here) that math and physics, etc, are all susceptible to a theory of everything.
Like Matty wondering aloud about the physics of roulette given its math. Well, if there's no good math for it, then it follows that there's no good physics either. Not to say that there aren't liberating mathematical equations for the roulette's properties of scatter, etc.
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 05:28 AM 2012
... this is what mathematicians call an "asymptote", meaning that it's a bit like a horizon which is ever-receding.
Such a curve reaches an asymptote at its limit over infinity. Most believe that that represents another sort of balance, but it's just another limit.
If you believe that physics can follow math, than things are a bit more infinite than we might find intuitively comfortable.
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 05:28 AM 2012
And of course the danger of "chasing equilibrium" is that by that very selection, you have thereby excluded a large number of "average" sequences, so in a sense you're seeking out those runs from hell. Nevertheless, outcomes WILL balance out, and the method is dangerous only to the extent that you haven't done the research and are using a progression which hits the house limit too quickly. If you take it slow and don't progress too quickly, you'll be ok. :)
If you guys could just for once begin to straighten out the above confusion, you might become dangerous. LoL.
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 09:04 AM 2012
You've probably never heard of it, it's called Euphoria (link:://:.rapideuphoria.com/)
I call it a "pencil and paper", and the glorious wonders you can work with that.
Computing should be a last resort, and then only to check your figures when life, or a lot of money, depend on those. Otherwise, it's no longer only a tool. (Recall all the earlier guys who were more amazed with the notion of a computer than with the results of one. How do they enter code, and other enter mass data, now?)
Don't feed the trolls. ;)
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 10:37 AM 2012
Don't feed the trolls. ;)
Were i a troll, by Bayes axioms-of-the-internet-troll... i'd be long dead.
P.S. I'm not much on the winks, and kisses, either.
Equilibrium always changes...the more the things change the more they stay the same..
We don't need gun control, we need i.d.i.o.t control O0
What goes up must come down, and vice-versa. The question is, when?
@ GARNabby,
More gibberish dressed up as profound insight? and by the way, far from being a last resort, computers are the only way to crack the vast majority of nuts. Card-counting to name but one in gaming alone.
And don't forget we're dealing with real life gaming conditions here, not some abstract platonist realm. But I'm forgetting, you're not actually interested in making money are you? - too far beneath your towering intellect. ;D
I think Ego should take out the trash in this thread, including my posts. kiss kiss, wink wink.
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 09:04 AM 2012
You've probably never heard of it, it's called Euphoria (link:://:.rapideuphoria.com/)
There are two versions and I'm using the older one (3.1.1) because support was dropped for DOS with version 4.x (link:://openeuphoria.org/index.wc). There are tutorials on the site, but to be honest you don't really need anything other than the manual if you have any programming experience.
Wow! I had never heard of it! Dunno how it slipped under my radar. I have it installed and took a look at the "ee" editor; very impressive. My interest in character oriented programming goes back to an interest in an old 8 bit CP/M machine that came into our family back in 1983 that was trying to compete with the IBM PC but was too little too late; so you've probably never heard of the Visual Technologies V1050; a very advanced 8 bit for its day. The idea is to fire it up and maximize it's relative usefulness; to somehow burn some 5.25" floppies for it to use. I use DosBox to help bridge the gap between my Win7 system and the CP/M era. With it, i've looked at a lot of old Dos programs and am impressed with what they were able to achieve with just ASCII characters.
For your amusement, somebody has used Silverlight to make an online version of GW-Basic located at this link:
link:://:.addressof.com/basic/#/Home (link:://:.addressof.com/basic/#/Home)
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 12:25 PM 2012
What goes up must come down, and vice-versa. The question is, when?
Another glaring mistake from the self-declared resident "mathhead/computer guy" who can't welcome even a few simple corrections, to his own work; by someone like myself with a university degree, or two, who's obviously trying to help him just begin on a better path.
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 12:25 PM 2012
More gibberish dressed up as profound insight? But I'm forgetting, you're not actually interested in making money are you? - too far beneath your towering intellect.
Someone who must, i suspect, play these ever-stranger emotional games with others out of a vain attempt to over-compensate for a more-basic deficiency.
As i wrote before, the more (non-contradictory) corrections, the better. You don't even have to be able to follow a discussion (then), but you'll still be getting somewhere. Can't make enough mistakes, until you find yourself at a finished viable product!
Anyway what's so-profound about being more concerned with "feeding" yourself? Can't "bring home the bacon" with such fuzzy thinking. But, as noted in each and every post of his, "No mistake like the one you know to be true but which ain't so."
Oh yeah, before i forget about the latest correction: Modern cosmology is built around the fact of an exponentially-expanding universe. What is going up, and apart, for all intents and purposes, IS NOT coming back down, together. You'll have to come with a truly-profound definition of 'down' to make that one work out.
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 12:25 PM 2012
And don't forget we're dealing with real life gaming conditions here, not some abstract platonist realm. And by the way, far from being a last resort, computers are the only way to crack the vast majority of nuts. Card-counting to name but one in gaming alone.
Yawn. Didn't they basically do that, once, back in the early sixties? Some guy named Thorp, among others, then, who quite otherwise observed that very-simple effect, and its approximate order of magnitude, enough to know to go on to perform some of the resource-laden field work, and quickly polish it off with some simulations in a small, but lucrative, paperback before publishing it.
Not so-surprisingly, it's the masses who "buy more into the polish" than the substance. I mean, you can't rework the "polish". And who of them wants to, pray tell, do the work?
But thanks for making my point, for example, that computers have changed little on the blackjack scene since, if ever. Also the casinos thank you, i suspect, for perpetuating their own "polish".
Quote from: Bayes on May 28, 12:25 PM 2012
I think Ego should take out the trash in this thread, including my posts. kiss kiss, wink wink.
Too bad you can't just delete all your "whoopsies", especially those at the local casino, the same way? Maybe you should go back to being a volunteer moderator, to do some more of your own "handy work", yourself, here? LoL.
P.S. Now what on earth, for example, is that word which means the ability to recall and use the right word? Anybody?
Such seemingly-lofty stuff just might make you a better programer! Just say'n.
Quote from: GARNabby on May 29, 12:59 PM 2012
Another glaring mistake from the self-declared resident "mathhead/computer guy" who can't welcome even a few simple corrections, to his own work; by someone like myself with a university degree, or two, who's obviously trying to help him just begin on a better path.
There you go again with flaunting your degree(s). I have my own thanks, not that it necessarily means anything. It just confirms my impression of you that you're here only to try and impress others, why the need to bolster your ego on an internet forum? it comes across as pretty pathetic.
I hope for your sake that your book is written more clearly than your posts here, because I don't have clue what you're on about most of the time, and I don't think anyone else does either.
You take statements out of context, twist words and conjure up straw men in order to further your own weird agenda. Why do you post on this forum?
I have never declared myself to be "mathhead/computer" guy, nor any kind of expert. I happen to know a fair amount of math/statistics and I also know how to program computers, sorry if you don't like it. if I see something I know to be wrong math-wise on this forum I'll jump in and correct it, but I'm not infallible, no-one is. Anyone is free to challenge me and is welcome to do so, besides, I often say "don't take my word for it - find out for yourself". That's the nice thing about this kind of study, it's mostly objective and doesn't depend on anyone's opinion.
Instead of the snide remarks and put-downs why don't you actually offer something constructive for a change? You can start with my "what goes up must come down" statement. It happens to be true, with limitations of course. You obviously see yourself as some kind of math wiz, so tell me exactly where I've made the mistake?
Quote from: Bayes on May 29, 01:50 PM 2012
I have my own thanks, not that it necessarily means anything.
Was that so-hard to admit? You're not another Unibomber, are you, LoL? I don't know, maybe you're part of the new thinking in America, that a standard education will only hold you back.
Standard education can't give rise to genius, but, in virtually-all cases, it does carefully foster and speed its development and expression. And, clever persons tend to thusly seek out the work, and guidance, of other clever persons.
Quote from: Bayes on May 29, 01:50 PM 2012
It just confirms my impression of you that you're here only to try to impress others. Why [else] the need to bolster your ego on an internet forum? It comes across as pretty pathetic. You take statements out of context, twist words and conjure up straw men in order to further your own weird agenda.
Draconian drivel (, likely from the "fun police".) Besides, if, as you want to believe, in general, that a dim person can hold a university degree, then possibly a very-bright person could be an egotistical joker. Heaven's sake, man, life's hard-enough. It's only a gambling message-board, after all. Have to come here to shut others out, then you're trying too-hard.
Quote from: Bayes on May 29, 01:50 PM 2012
I don't have clue what you're on about most of the time, and I don't think anyone else does either.
What utimately matters to me is that i have a clue (without contradiction.) You ought to be more concerned with that if you want to make things personal, thank you very much. Focusing so-much on others, especially in such an environment as this, will leave you a very-unhappy person. How else do you think i so-well "suffer" my time on these boards?
Quote from: Bayes on May 29, 01:50 PM 2012
Why do you post on this forum? I happen to know a fair amount of math/statistics, and I also know how to program computers. Sorry if you don't like it. You obviously see yourself as some kind of math wiz.
"This forum" is YOUR forum? Why else would you ask, and go on like that.
Quote from: Bayes on May 29, 01:50 PM 2012
Anyone is free to challenge me and is welcome to do so, besides, I often say "don't take my word for it - find out for yourself".
I did find out for myself.
Quote from: Bayes on May 29, 01:50 PM 2012
Instead of the snide remarks and put-downs why don't you actually offer something constructive for a change? You can start with...
On the contrary, i contend that it's you who have yet to offer up something of proved value on this board, given its overt objective.
Quote from: Bayes on May 29, 01:50 PM 2012
... my "what goes up must come down" statement. It happens to be true, with limitations of course.
Oh, it just "happens to be true", but let it to crazy-old Garnabby to explain it!
Can't have 'up' without 'down', by definition. But in no way does that relative defining imply, for examples, exactly what either is, or that "what goes up, comes down."
Lets suppose that 'down' is a gravity-thing. But what is gravity? Or then, 'up', in its true sense, if there's no such thing as anti-gravity? Maybe 'down' has something to do with 'in', or 'together'? Does 'in' mean, or imply, 'together'?
Come to think of it, how is anything defined, let alone understood absolutely? Well, all-at-once. None of the definitions, etc, shall be finalized separate from the others. What follows are a few bare-bones highlights from my very-own working theory-of-everything, by "iterating" from the aforementioned (strong) postulate, itself. Feel free to ask an actual question, Bayes. Alternatively, you can keep trying to "laugh me off", for whichever reason, if that's your "game". Your choice.
Begin with the most-salient: what's absolute, defined; and what's not, namely the undefined, infinite. Note that those are essentially opposites, beyond each as axis of the universe. The absolute axis comprises: the point, nothingness, in the center; and the anti-pt, all beyond, or round, the point (in the center of the universe. A point faces outward; anti-pt faces inward.) Invert, ie, turn in-side-out, the absolute axis for the undefined pt, which is directed inward, startlessness; and the undefined anti-pt which is directed outward, endlessness. (Endlessness is 'all' directed the other way, beyond plain-old all, hence with no prospect other than an endless reconfirmation of all, because all is all; startlessness is nothingness directed the other way, an attempt at inward of nothingness, likewise with no prospect other than a reconfirmation of nothingness.) The reader may think of this as a trip from the center of the universe to its end, in whichever sense; and then beyond the end until "magically" back up, and out of, the center. Indeed, the latter part of the trip involves the inverse of the straight-up topologies of either roundness, or straightness. Turning a (center) point out through its anti-pt turning in from the other direction to produce those of the undefined axis is nothing like turning inside-out a floppy rubber ball with a big hole in it. (Reminiscent of Einstein's "Steady State" concept.)
Inexactness or approximation occurs in the above paragraph through the incomplete inversion, whichever, from the perspectives of the absolute to that of the undefined. Think of this as the universe catching on itself while performing some "magic". Notably on either the relative, ultimately-theoretical; and/or the quantum-mechanical, probabilistic. Specifically, the former is rooted in the absolute; the latter, in the undefined. (Invert point outward to "emulsify" it to an infinity of equally-possible positions. Invert all to "collapse" those positions back to the point.) A "determination" of the parts of the universe which lay between, on, over, etc, its axes. Carefully unpacked, naturally yields the physical/mental dimensions of those describable parts. The "star" trade-off is an (limit-at-) infinity of such dimensions which unfold effortlessly in all ways, without the requirement of "fudged" ones to explain away new fields, etc, as for example, in finite theories like "N=8 supergravity", and as opposed to a wave-based "String theory"; and which are expressible solely in terms of the four (, nay, five,) dimensions which are perceivable and accessible.
_________________________________________________
Basta! To be continued... still to bring this around to the "question" at-hand; and specifically roulette.
[Please excuse my editor, doesn't seem to be working tonight. Couldn't make the paragraphs.] Good, should be able to quickly "knock out" the remainder of discussion, after a few more off-the-cuff "scientific liberties" for the purpose of quick and easy clarity. It would take considerably longer to put it into the standard, and thorough. Even the absolute sort of stuff, which is unattainable, etc, in any meaningful way, presents its own complexities. Words like "all" are very-limiting. As to up, and down. You could throw a ball straight up, and await its "return" but to neither the point in space nor time from which you launched it. It's neither quite the same ball anymore, nor even the same you. While things appear to you to even out, ie, the ball came back to you to the extent that you threw it straight up, that doesn't mean that that process, itself, evens out. Space isn't really that empty, real, separate from time, or pure, as to allow a ball to just fall back to earth. Einstein called that possibility "spooky action at a distance"; and theorized that space allows for different types, and degrees, of fields or "paths" to referee such actions. He also realized that, likewise, time isn't so free because it keeps moving forward (, at least its process of which we are easily aware.) But stopped short of trying to understand how things could be uniquely where those are when those are there. So, what appears to be evening out, perhaps is not doing so to an observer in an appropriately-different frame-of-reference. Trivially, from a higher dimension; or a transformational reckoning in this dimension of what such an observer would see. (From the fouth dimension, were there a spatial one, you could observe our three-dimensional space in the form of a flat surface, or perhaps a curved surface. A surface which would allow you to "see through things to other things".) Or perhaps, according to the contemporary quantum science, quantum-random processes which, for example, keep time moving in one direction, are just that... thusly unknowable even to thoseselves. But what if there's more to it, what if the quantum stuff relies on its own sort of axis, like the absolute? Well, suppose that what goes up, doesn't come back down. Would such a universe have a solution, if only an unobservable solution? It certainly wouldn't be a fair universe unless it "came with" an observable solution... a "warranty" that it shall keep working out, after all. So, i guess that it would at least be preferrable, for the sake of argument here, to have stuff come back down for all observers. Anyway, back to my Indeterminance Theory, the idea is to focus on the intermediary "catches" between the absolute, and the undefined (, the absolute axis turned inside-out,) dimension by dimension until on the scale of the expansion of a universe. And at each stage, have relativity play as much a basic role as the quantum. Until, instead of a "bang"/"crunch" expansion/contraction to an impossible, infinitely-massive singularity, an expansion with a built-in contraction (all along). If, for example, each and every particle of a given universe more-or-less becomes smaller along with its neighbors, the particles recede from each other to give the appearance of expansion; conversely, in the reverse, increasingly-larger particles give the appearance of universal contraction. A universe which pulls through the "emptiness" of itself at the end of its expansion instead of at its infinitely-dense singularity; or which pushes ever-more slowly against itself at its singularity, to "re-bang" (in the accelerating manner observed by the modern telescopes.) Also, the baseball analogy implies that nor can the universe "come back down" (in space-time) to the same singularity from which, apparently, it began with the "big bang". But singularities come in only one kind... the same (infinite sort.) Hence, i think it possible to at least determine a rule-of-thumb, or inherent pattern, to how the mathematical evening-out occurs. (Even if the physics can "go where" the math goes, each can't manifest itself both ways at-once. Like the wave-particle duality of light stops as soon as it interacts to manifests itself in either particle, or wave, form... but neither actually goes away.)
Um... right. :o
QuoteAnother glaring mistake from the self-declared resident "mathhead/computer guy" who can't welcome even a few simple corrections, to his own work; by someone like myself with a university degree, or two, who's obviously trying to help him just begin on a better path.
Yeah, thanks for the "help".
Do you actually know how many degrees you have? as self-declared math guy (you were the one boasting about the math degree, not me) I assume you know how to count to two...
By the way, have you ever read this (link:://:.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html)? I'd be interested in your opinion. It's not as long as it looks, most of the page is footnotes and references.
I really don't know why you're wasting time here with us knuckleheads, you should be posting on physics/philosophy forums (please?).
Quote from: GARNabby on Jun 01, 10:01 PM 2012
[Please excuse my editor, doesn't seem to be working tonight. Couldn't make the paragraphs.] Good, should be able to quickly "knock out" the remainder of discussion, after a few more off-the-cuff "scientific liberties" for the purpose of quick and easy clarity. It would take considerably longer to put it into the standard, and thorough. Even the absolute sort of stuff, which is unattainable, etc, in any meaningful way, presents its own complexities. Words like "all" are very-limiting. As to up, and down. You could throw a ball straight up, and await its "return" but to neither the point in space nor time from which you launched it. It's neither quite the same ball anymore, nor even the same you. While things appear to you to even out, ie, the ball came back to you to the extent that you threw it straight up, that doesn't mean that that process, itself, evens out. Space isn't really that empty, real, separate from time, or pure, as to allow a ball to just fall back to earth. Einstein called that possibility "spooky action at a distance"; and theorized that space allows for different types, and degrees, of fields or "paths" to referee such actions. He also realized that, likewise, time isn't so free because it keeps moving forward (, at least its process of which we are easily aware.) But stopped short of trying to understand how things could be uniquely where those are when those are there. So, what appears to be evening out, perhaps is not doing so to an observer in an appropriately-different frame-of-reference. Trivially, from a higher dimension; or a transformational reckoning in this dimension of what such an observer would see. (From the fouth dimension, were there a spatial one, you could observe our three-dimensional space in the form of a flat surface, or perhaps a curved surface. A surface which would allow you to "see through things to other things".) Or perhaps, according to the contemporary quantum science, quantum-random processes which, for example, keep time moving in one direction, are just that... thusly unknowable even to thoseselves. But what if there's more to it, what if the quantum stuff relies on its own sort of axis, like the absolute? Well, suppose that what goes up, doesn't come back down. Would such a universe have a solution, if only an unobservable solution? It certainly wouldn't be a fair universe unless it "came with" an observable solution... a "warranty" that it shall keep working out, after all. So, i guess that it would at least be preferrable, for the sake of argument here, to have stuff come back down for all observers. Anyway, back to my Indeterminance Theory, the idea is to focus on the intermediary "catches" between the absolute, and the undefined (, the absolute axis turned inside-out,) dimension by dimension until on the scale of the expansion of a universe. And at each stage, have relativity play as much a basic role as the quantum. Until, instead of a "bang"/"crunch" expansion/contraction to an impossible, infinitely-massive singularity, an expansion with a built-in contraction (all along). If, for example, each and every particle of a given universe more-or-less becomes smaller along with its neighbors, the particles recede from each other to give the appearance of expansion; conversely, in the reverse, increasingly-larger particles give the appearance of universal contraction. A universe which pulls through the "emptiness" of itself at the end of its expansion instead of at its infinitely-dense singularity; or which pushes ever-more slowly against itself at its singularity, to "re-bang" (in the accelerating manner observed by the modern telescopes.) Also, the baseball analogy implies that nor can the universe "come back down" (in space-time) to the same singularity from which, apparently, it began with the "big bang". But singularities come in only one kind... the same (infinite sort.) Hence, i think it possible to at least determine a rule-of-thumb, or inherent pattern, to how the mathematical evening-out occurs. (Even if the physics can "go where" the math goes, each can't manifest itself both ways at-once. Like the wave-particle duality of light stops as soon as it interacts to manifests itself in either particle, or wave, form... but neither actually goes away.)
Can you post something that does not require Phd 2 understand it? :D
I think we need 2 create a special category 4 yr posts.
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 02, 12:02 PM 2012
... as self-declared math guy (you were the one boasting about the math degree, not me) I assume you know how to count to two...
Ah, my degree in math specifically means that i'm NOT a "self-declared" mathematician, but so-accredited by a separate, independent body of distinguished overseers in that field.
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 02, 12:02 PM 2012
By the way, have you ever read this (link:://:.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html)? I'd be interested in your opinion. It's not as long as it looks, most of the page is footnotes and references.
The upshot is that even a theory requires a universally-sound foundation. However, i prefer, and think it best, to be able to put a theory across in rather-plain e*n*g*l*i*s*h (in two short posts, for example). Fuzzy thinking won't "bring home the bacon".
Put into personal terms, do your best, and have no regrets.
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 02, 12:02 PM 2012
I really don't know why you're wasting time here with us knuckleheads, you should be posting on physics/philosophy forums (please?).
Even "knuckleheads" deserve better, Bayes. Not saying that the on-line majority are that, but only that most persons could do better, if they would only try.
And, most importantly, that there is something to learn from every one. Except, according to a couple here like Bayes, from myself. Go figure.
Just because Bayes over-compensates for his academic laziness with bullying, "snide remarks", etc, certainly doesn't mean others should "follow suit".
P.S. Please let me know which board(s) you're at.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jun 02, 12:08 PM 2012
Can you post something that does not require Phd 2 understand it? :D
The irony here is that no number of post-doctorate degrees will allow for the successful translation/application of almost any of the bulk of the work across the gambling boards such as this.
But it sure is a lot of fun trying, isn't it.
link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9594 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=9594)
No "Trolling" above...
Quote from: GARNabby on Jun 02, 12:45 PM 2012
Ah, my degree in math specifically means that i'm NOT a "self-declared" mathematician, but so-accredited by a separate, independent body of distinguished overseers in that field.
Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. I'm talking about the fact that you specifically bought it up on the forum that you had a math degree, that's what makes you a "self-declared" math expert.
QuoteThe upshot is that even a theory requires a universally-sound foundation. However, i prefer, and think it best, to be able to put a theory across in rather-plain e*n*g*l*i*s*h (in two short posts, for example). Fuzzy thinking won't "bring home the bacon".
Put into personal terms, do your best, and have no regrets.
Actually, that article was a hoax (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair). it was submitted to an academic journal as a test. The article is actually nonsense.
QuoteEven "knuckleheads" deserve better, Bayes. Not saying that the on-line majority are that, but only that most persons could do better, if they would only try.
Deserve better than what?
QuoteAnd, most importantly, that there is something to learn from every one. Except, according to a couple here like Bayes, from myself. Go figure.
Just because Bayes over-compensates for his academic laziness with bullying, "snide remarks", etc, certainly doesn't mean others should "follow suit".
P.S. Please let me know which board(s) you're at.
I agree that there is something to learn from everyone, but doesn't it also depend on what you've already learned and where your interests lie? I don't know what you mean by "academic laziness", please give an example of where you think I've been academically lazy.
I'm still no wiser as to what you really think of my comment "what goes up must come down" in terms of roulette. In fact that statement is so vague it could mean anything, nevertheless you jumped on it anyway and called it a "glaring mistake". I got a lecture about cosmology (what was that all about?) and then you admitted it was true, so where was my "glaring mistake"?
And just for the record, I didn't volunteer to be a moderator here, I was asked.
QuoteOn the contrary, i contend that it's you who have yet to offer up something of proved value on this board, given its overt objective.
Actually, I've contributed quite a bit here over the years. Not so much systems, but software tools/trackers, statistical analyses and explanations. And what is "proved" value? I've received positive feedback from my contributions, so I take that as proved value. If by "overt objective" you mean finding the holy grail, don't you deny that such a thing exists? in which case no-one can ever offer anything of value, including you.
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 03, 02:14 AM 2012
Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. I'm talking about the fact that you specifically bought it up on the forum...
Ah, that would serve as a good way to distinguish between the actions: to bring up (casually what's incidentally of consequence); versus, to declare (formally what's fundamentally important).
The fact that you perceive such a forum as this, essentially a ragtag collection of common strangers, to be an appropriate place to do the latter, well... .
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 03, 02:14 AM 2012
Actually, that article was a hoax (link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair). it was submitted to an academic journal as a test. The article is actually nonsense.
Are you sure? Maybe this reply of yours is the hoax?
But those actions highlight the difference between: (childish) lameness; and (profound) originality, clarity.
At least i made an attempt at the latter. I quite stand by my initial reply to the question. (Re-read it, maybe it will make even more sense. At the very-least, you didn't get what you were looking for, right?) The better paintings aren't the ones with "balloon" captions, and screaming arrows "brushed" in.
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 03, 02:14 AM 2012
Deserve better than what?
Someone who honestly thinks that they don't.
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 03, 02:14 AM 2012
I'm still no wiser as to what you really think of my comment "what goes up must come down" in terms of roulette.
Your (supposedly-vague, according to you,) conclusion wasn't taken out of the general context of gambling, but only out of your own persistently rather-narrow view of it.
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 03, 02:14 AM 2012
In fact that statement is so vague it could mean anything, nevertheless you jumped on it anyway and called it a "glaring mistake". I got a lecture about cosmology (what was that all about?) and then you admitted it was true, so where was my "glaring mistake"?
That i "agree with you" doesn't mean that we interpret those words the same way.
In fact, once really figured out, or defeated, those words have no real impact. Nothing is really going up, or down. You would have to be outside the universe, to see it so-succinctly, hence beyond its effects, and even such references.
And the idea, then, would be to try to see it while still in it! As i tried to show, explain, and allow for meaningful questions, before, with the "you can't put the paste back in the tube" approach.
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 03, 02:14 AM 2012
And just for the record, I didn't volunteer to be a moderator here, I was asked.
Then, you were asked to volunteer. You weren't paid in any meaningful way, shape, or form, right?
Quote from: Bayes on Jun 03, 02:14 AM 2012
If by "overt objective" you mean finding the holy grail, don't you deny that such a thing exists? in which case no-one can ever offer anything of value, including you.
I meant, to make easy money from playing roulette. That could include by a "grail", which would have to be of a working theory-of-everything which could then be indirectly applied to roulette.
But first, the foundation. Something which can be put into words, of neither real equations, when that's your "hammer", nor "hoax" ones, when that's not.
Never argue with an i.d.i.o.t. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
Actually, I don't think he's an i.d.i.o.t. although he's clearly got "issues". He posts the same way on other forums and has been banned from a couple I think. No, the guy is just a troll, and I should have taken my own advice (and will do from now on) -
[attachimg=1]
Hehe cool Bayes
As always voice of reason ;D . But i did not refer 2 any post in particular did i?
So until proven guilty im of d hook right?
And trolling is actually entertaining in my opinion.
Wish that crackers n cheese moved here n entertained us.....
Regards 2 everybody
The difference between "losing gracefully", and making real 'internet trolls' of yourselves. Not even a laughing matter.
Sigh. But i did my best!
P.S. For they who didn't, or didn't take the time to, "get" my "punch line" to Bayes who was trying to "stump" me with another one of his lame "tricks", he failed to recognize one of my own in kind, to his "hoax" question. (Some theories are baseless, and that's not a good thing.) Now, the face-saving stuff from him. Lol, see you in the "funnies", Bayes.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jun 05, 10:28 AM 2012
Hehe cool Bayes
As always voice of reason ;D . But i did not refer 2 any post in particular did i?
So until proven guilty I'm of d hook right?
And trolling is actually entertaining in my opinion.
Wish that crackers n cheese moved here n entertained us.....
Regards 2 everybody
please DONT
This is exactly what I mean. GARNabby now declares himself a winner, because I didn't bother to reply to his nonsense.
Didn't he see the link I posted in my reply about the hoax? what, am I supposed to have written that wiki entry too?
In reply to my "Deserve better than what?" question he says: "Someone who honestly thinks that they don't."
Very enlightening. ::)
He didn't give me an example of how I'm "academically lazy" either.
I just can't be bothered any more. I have better things to do.
So congrats GARNabby, you "win".
Quote from: albertojonas on Jun 05, 11:36 AM 2012
please don't
Hehe AJ
Relax. I think they r about done but i hope 4 more ;D