Here's an interesting thought for what it's worth (or what little time we have left): If we can control variance then it follows that we still lose from flat-betting and without gaining any edge (and often we lose from progressions too); here's an example:
HLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHL
Above we lose if we just play H or just play L. Same with the following: RRBBRRBBRRBBRRBB
So in order to gain edge we don't flat bet - we wait for the average number of losses to hit first before betting when we expect a win - above would be one loss for HL and 2 losses when betting for B.
Variance control also indicates that progressions would eventually start to win as opposed to breaking the bank - but that it's still 2nd place to waiting for average losses.
So let's say we wait for an average of 2 Reds before betting black but we get a 3rd Red:
RRR...
If there was this bias in the variance - as opposed to the equality of Red vs. Black - then we would stop betting and begin waiting for a virtual win before re-attempting.
So how might we gain control over variance? Maybe track dozen cycles + line cycles
D1+L1... bet 2+3
If win:
D1+L1, D2+L3... bet D3+L1+L3.
First find out how often that stitched cycle wins vs. loses and then only bet when you expect a win - otherwise you have to wait for the next sequence - always based around when both Dozen cycles and Line cycles are on spin 1 and in sync, etc.
Hi Falkor,
With due respect.
Its true that, variance kill whatever progression and our little br.
The worst ever recorded, EC bet,
"only69red/200", that could only won with labby, star from(1), won at 67hit, need progression that snowballed to hundreds units, and just impossible to play.
Even only30hit/100, also hard to play.
There never recorded yet, any hit less than 30/100 in any bm casino, thus if we see streak of 10 losses, then there will be at least 30hit in next 90spins.
(if you not believe this, research any real data, after 10 or more losses, then there be at least 30hit, before the 100th spin.)
Thus, only 30hit/100 spins, could applied, as highly unlikely, or near impossible, to hit in next 100 any EC roulette/baccarat.
Now, if next 100, has only 30hit, how are we going to turn the negative variance, into hit within math expectation?, and also, not to turn next 100 spin, that has within math expectation, into negative variance!!!?
(I mean, in there, say 45hit in 100spin, our method should not make it into losing negative variance!)
Some may say, that "follow the last or 2nd-last", can turn negative variance into advantage, but it also proven that the ftl and ft2ndl, also hit by long 30/100 negative variance too!!!
So, your main purpose now, is to look, for a bet selection, that ALWAYS hit WITHIN MATH EXPECTATION!
(What is , math expectation?
eg.
in next 100spins, there may, from45 to 55hit, or any EV 27%,35/37, ecart, or any #@+-#, that
the math boys must nodding head agreeing to ..)
If you can have,
a math selection,
that can produce,
hit within math expectation, 40+%
when next 100 has worst variance, 30/100,
or within math expectation "50/50minus edge", then any $#@& progression, can win.
Some math professors, here, screaming their lung out that, we cannot win, because -EV2.7, edge,
bla,bla,bla, with any progression.
ok, now ,if the 46hit/100.
that more than -2.7,
it easy to win with any simple progression.
If they still denying, then,
let play a game that has 50/50, no EDGE, 1:1payout.
1red marble, and 1 black marble in a box, I take 1 out, and put it back.
(follow casino rules.)
we may still expect to lose, in many seasons, why?
NEGATIVE VARIANCE.
until you found a bet selection, that produce, stable result, always hit, within math expectation...
you should not bet in casino, because negative variance, will hit you very hard, bleed you dry...
you are not rushing to LOSE MONEY!
SWEET, what you are describing is when the variance is unbiased (by default) and progressions will break the bank (by default).
But if the variance is *biased* then it follows - based on my extreme examples - that we can gain an edge through virtual wins/losses and that even progressions would start to win within the table limits, i.e. the gap between wins or losses will start to become smaller as variance is manipulated further.
Therefore, if true, then it means all the advice we were told about a system must win flat-betting and progressions being a no-no was not only incorrect but also a false dichotomy because virtual wins/losses were never considered due to equally-like outcomes when Non-Random can make outcomes unequal or temporarily locked out; independence vs. dependence never even comes into it, hypothetically speaking.
Of course there could be a fallacy to this whole line of reasoning that I'm missing. It's not my usual way of thinking.
(English not my first language, I struggle to understand, even need to look up for meaning of "dichotomy". hahaha)
I think we should ask...
WHY WE LOSE?!!
why we lose!!?
why we lose!!?
the answer simple...
The flatbet or progression cannot "closed", because, the winning hit, keep not coming, till our br bust!
Thus, our flatbet, or progression, must have a betselection that produce enough hit, to close within our br capital, or cutloss target.
So, if ,
(oversimplified example)
next 100 has only 30hit, (there never less than 30/100, as virtual limit of variance),
then LABBY cant closed, because labby neefs 33.34% to closed, then to avoid possible 30hit/100 negative variance that bust your br.
Wait for, say 10losses in row, (or long losses with only few hits), then,
next 90 has atleast 30hit, thus 33.33%..that labby has chance to close before 100th spin.
Quote from: SWEET on May 06, 04:22 AM 2020why we lose!!?
the answer simple...
It is simple, but maybe not why you think.
We lose, because each spin and therefore each result is independent. Every individual bet has negative expected value, so the law of large numbers guarantees that you will lose in the long run.
You cannot look at the imbalance in variance in the past 20, 50 or 100 spins and bet against it, because all results will be independent. If you truly understand this, then you can also understand why a progression is not a long term solution.
It is also important to understand that mixing the spins from 10 different wheels, or ignoring every other spin, or mixing up the numbers on the table in any way, will not change anything in randomness.
Some people claim that this mathematical fact can be broken, but that requires a radically different way of thinking :o
I started a google blog on this topic a little while ago. I aim to find out whether any bet selections make any difference to variance, even if they don't affect the long term edge.
link:s://roulettesystemanalysis.blogspot.com/
I tend to agree with ati that no bet selection makes a difference, although many players swear it does.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 04, 08:16 PM 2020Here's an interesting thought for what it's worth (or what little time we have left)
Remind me when doomsday is again? ;D
Perhaps you should add it to this list -
link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
That’s happening soon in a theatre near you, when they release 5G.
We are all going to die.
Joe, ......... again mate
think like this...
we cant predict future.
Now, if we bet only RED, for next 100spins, what will happen?
1.RED will hit around 50%.
2.RED, will hit, at worst...only 30hit.
3.RED, may, at best hit, 70hit.
THAT have nothing to do with edge, in short 100spins, but probability of random, at best, and at worst RECORD.
Go and look at your real bm, any EC data.
You cant find , 100spins, that has less than 30 hit.
seek, before you disbelieve...
Quote from: SWEET on May 06, 12:41 PM 2020
think like this...
we cant predict future.
Now, if we bet only RED, for next 100spins, what will happen?
1.RED will hit around 50%.
2.RED, will hit, at worst...only 30hit.
3.RED, may, at best hit, 70hit.
THAT have nothing to do with edge, in short 100spins, but probability of random, at best, and at worst RECORD.
Go and look at your real bm, any EC data.
You cant find , 100spins, that has less than 30 hit.
seek, before you disbelieve...
Then I have this proposal for you: We will flip a coin 100 times, and for every tail, I will get $10.50 and for every tail you will get $10. Deal?
Sweet
It doesn’t really stop when you have a 30/70 ratio. You might think that it will even itself out in the next 100 spins.
The real problem is, sometimes the trend extends to a much larger number of spins like 150/400.
Extreme variance.
One side can’t catch up, it takes 1000s of spins.
One solution is playing speed roulette and be willing to play long periods, if you choose the unlucky side, or change sides.
Quote from: SWEET on May 05, 11:38 AM 2020
So, your main purpose now, is to look, for a bet selection, that ALWAYS hit WITHIN MATH EXPECTATION!
(What is , math expectation?
eg.
in next 100spins, there may, from45 to 55hit, or any EV 27%,35/37, ecart, or any #@+-#, that
the math boys must nodding head agreeing to ..)
If you can have,
a math selection,
that can produce,
hit within math expectation, 40+%
when next 100 has worst variance, 30/100,
or within math expectation "50/50minus edge", then any $#@& progression, can win.
you could always look at it a different way...get a higher payout for your money..
Quote from: SWEET on May 06, 04:32 AM 2020
So, if ,
(oversimplified example)
next 100 has only 30hit, (there never less than 30/100, as virtual limit of variance),
then LABBY cant closed, because labby neefs 33.34% to closed, then to avoid possible 30hit/100 negative variance that bust your br.
Wait for, say 10losses in row, (or long losses with only few hits), then,
next 90 has atleast 30hit, thus 33.33%..that labby has chance to close before 100th spin.
if an ec needs that ratio for Labby to close.....why not use the rolling unhits instead...but keep your eye on the cycle start and stop...rolling basis you are pretty much at that ratio you need for an ec ..
but on less numbers..look at the pic for example ..U is unhit that has hit ..
probably a lot more bankroll needed...but hey..you can stop betting and start with the amount your comfortable with using the unhit count on ayks tracker and the ranges...unhits don,t drop instantly on a rolling basis..repeats don,t rise on a rolling basis instantly...or uniques....takes time..
Thanks 6th-sense, for your ideas, but my poor English, cant really understand your methods.
Winforus and Jay,
seems that we misunderstanding each other ideas.
what I mean is,
say,
imagine you sit at the table, and look at RED/BLACK, to collect data, for next 100spin, increment.
What will happen to EVERY next 100spins?
We cant predict and dont know ...
Three SCENARIO will hit.
1.RED> BLACK up to 70hit/30
2.RED<BLACK, down to only 30hit/70
3.RED almost equal to BLACK 50/50, albeit green.
(real world record=69red/200)
in other word,
if we focus on RED,
then in next 100spins,
all scenario, of,
NEGATIVE VARIANCE of 30hit/100, swing to POSITIVE VARIANCE of 70hit/100....may hit
That millions of permutations, of possible scenario.
Now the million dollar question.
HOW are we going to bet,
or a bet selection, that can take ADVANTAGE, of all three scenario?
Or in other word,
Can our bet strategy,
win when,
negative hit, ?
when,
almost equal hit, ?
and when
positive hit?
Our bet selection must not static,
eg.
"bet RED only",
no matter what...
then
its deadly, if black keep hitting up to 70/100.
It must flexible,
betting red and stop bet, or change to bet black, when situation warrant.
Simply ask ourself, why my system failed...
because, the winning hit, keep not coming, and my br bust.
my point being...is variance is somewhat controlled in the manner of unhits...repeats...are not much out of sync per cycle on a rolling basis after 37 spins....
ie the numbers may shift but its all on the ayk tracker highlighted features...
the variance is contained in the next 37 rolling spins...unhits repeats etc...
not a fallacy
it simply is a fact...
unhits uniques and repeats are set at the end of 37 spins..
next 37 from that you will be able to work the variance method from the least unhits in 37 spins..which shift every spin..to the most within a range...same the opposite way..
you don,t have to win every spin but you know that you can work with the minimal information per cycle..for or against in stepped profit
Basically in this format rolling I’m trying to point out that you already have the unhit numbers and rest of numbers to guide u after a. Cycle I’m a rolling basis
Quote from: winforus on May 06, 12:54 PM 2020
Then I have this proposal for you: We will flip a coin 100 times, and for every tail, I will get $10.50 and for every tail you will get $10. Deal?
No Sweet - you mentioned that people winning or losing has nothing to do with edge, but with variance. Hence I offered you my proposal.
Casinos make money from all of their games due to edge, not due to variance. Why do you think they ban card counters at Black Jack, despite that if you do card counting, you only get 1-2% edge? Because that's how casinos make money.
Until you understand this fundamental fact, you will be stuck and wasting your time and energy.
Contemplate, accept this fact, and move on to methods that actually increase the accuracy of your predictions.
Quote from: winforus on May 07, 09:20 AM 2020
No Sweet - you mentioned that people winning or losing has nothing to do with edge, but with variance. Hence I offered you my proposal.
Casinos make money from all of their games due to edge, not due to variance. Why do you think they ban card counters at Black Jack, despite that if you do card counting, you only get 1-2% edge? Because that's how casinos make money.
Until you understand this fundamental fact, you will be stuck and wasting your time and energy.
Contemplate, accept this fact, and move on to methods that actually increase the accuracy of your predictions.
You're pretty much right about what you said. The edge gives the casino's a constant winning. But, in my opinion, the real winning of the casino's comes from impatience, greed, lack of control, distraction of the ones that risk their money!
Winforus
& Steeefan2014,
With due respect,
Thanks for your views.
I THINK,
"edge",
only represent,
long stretch of bet, but sometime, 1000spins, could produce extreme variance, there a record of bm,
up to
"only-387hit/1000",
which difficult to win.
Since you insist, only "edge",
single-handedly
causing huge losses,
then,
for example,
1000x(-3%*edge*)
=970hit/1000spin,
Then, please, post, any
permutation, of only 970hit/1000.
and then ,we see, if any
erudite member here,
cant win, even 1 unit,
with their choice of progression.
I can win any permutation, of only 970hit/1000, even before the 1000th spin!
You are right, casinos don't even need the house edge to make money. Most people would lose at a zero house edge game too. I'm a good example of that :P
Players has finite bankroll, therefore there is a high probability that players stop when they are in the negative and they can't raise their bet any further, or when they lose hope and give up.
There is an article on Wikipedia on this topic link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_ruin
SWEET are you P.A?
You write in the same style.
Quote from: 6th-sense on May 07, 04:06 AM 2020
my point being...is variance is somewhat controlled in the manner of unhits...repeats...are not much out of sync per cycle on a rolling basis after 37 spins....
ie the numbers may shift but its all on the ayk tracker highlighted features...
the variance is contained in the next 37 rolling spins...unhits repeats etc...
not a fallacy
it simply is a fact...
unhits uniques and repeats are set at the end of 37 spins..
next 37 from that you will be able to work the variance method from the least unhits in 37 spins..which shift every spin..to the most within a range...same the opposite way..
you don,t have to win every spin but you know that you can work with the minimal information per cycle..for or against in stepped profit
Maybe a little visual image will help see things more clear.
I guess you can ride the wave. Dont bet against the wave. Go with the flow.
The AVG is 13 unhit 14 unique and 10 repeats in a 37 cycle.
See attachment
OK I've figured out the mechanism behind controlling variance.
With HL we can have long losing streaks:
HHHHHLHLLHHLHLLLLHHLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLHHLHLHHHHLLLLLL
Our aim is to get outcomes looking more like:
HLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLHLH
Let's take High-Low Cycles:
HLH
H...
We now have the following outcomes:
Order 1 L locked out
Order 2 L available
Order 1 H available
Order 2 H available
Order 1L cannot follow H, so we begin to control the variance a little - but not much.
If we increase our outcomes from 4 to 6 by bringing in the Cycle Length then we have more things locked after each cycle - now swings back and forth between one set of outcomes and another:
CL1 Order 1 L - locked out
CL1 Order 1 H - available
CL2 Order 1 L - locked out
CL2 Order 1 H - available
CL2 Order 2 L - available
CL2 Order 2 H - locked out
If we want to improve on the above and take variance to new levels of control then we need to change order 1 to equaling the same as the last 2 defining elements, else if one of the previous 2 defining elements are different then it's order 2.
So instead of A1,A2,A3 vs. B1,B2,B3 we get something like A1,A2 vs. B1,B2 vs. C1,C2.
Since outcomes get locked out over 2 cycles then we are increasing uniques - so we must bet uniques - and the gap between wins should reduce significantly!
This is looking very good now for our break even game:
Order 1/2 based on single defining element = 75% vs. 25%
Order 1/2 based on last 2 defining elements (follow the last order 1) = 80% vs. 20%
Order 1/2 based on last 2 defining elements (follow the last order 2) = 66% vs. 33%
The game remains break even just based on 2 EC cycle outcomes - but the stats have changed - indicating that the variance has changed.
I made a mistake with the last stats, but here I've taken order 1 (based on last 2 defining) and the cycle length to make 4 new outcomes.
1,1
1,2
1,4
2,1
2,2
2,4
3,1
3,2
3,4
4,1
4,2
4,3
4,4
1,1,1
1,1,2
1,1,4
1,2,1
1,2,2
1,2,4
1,4,3
1,4,4
2,1,1
2,1,2
2,1,4
2,2,1
2,2,2
2,2,4
2,4,3
2,4,4
3,1,1
3,1,2
3,1,4
3,2,1
3,2,2
3,2,4
3,4,4
4,1,1
4,1,2
4,1,4
4,2,1
4,2,2
4,2,4
4,3,1
4,3,2
4,3,4
4,4,3
4,4,4
Above 3 can only follow 4 - and because of the lock out over 2 cycles, sequences involving 3 cycles are also limited! That means we are forcing variance to go in a circle as opposed to having long streaks of the same outcome.
1111
1112
1114
1121
1122
1124
1143
1144
1211
1212
1214
1221
1222
1224
1243
1244
1431
1432
1434
1441
1442
1443
1444
2111
2112
2114
2121
2122
2124
2143
2144
2211
2212
2214
2221
2222
2224
2243
2244
2431
2432
2434
2441
2442
2443
2444
3111
3112
3114
3121
3122
3124
3143
3144
3211
3212
3214
3221
3222
3224
3243
3244
3431
3432
3434
3441
3442
3443
3444
4111
4112
4114
4121
4122
4124
4143
4144
4211
4212
4214
4221
4222
4224
4243
4244
4311
4312
4314
4321
4322
4324
4343
4344
4411
4412
4414
4421
4422
4424
4431
4432
4434
4441
4442
4443
4444
I decided to modify the game of Roulette and dozen cycles just to get a better idea of how variance control works with equally-like outcomes such as dozens rather than a custom outcome:
1... only 1 or 3 can follow
2... only 1 or 2 can follow
3... only 2 or 3 can follow
The result is that repeats actually increase instead of uniques; however, cycle length 3 also increases, so the stats change from:
CL1: 33% to 50%
CL2: 44% to 25%
CL3: 22% to 25%
Also, some CL2-3 outcomes are not possible as per regular cycles, such as CL2o1 or CL3o2.
By betting only CL1 we get a steady amount of profit/edge (see attached) - yet each dozen still tallies up to 33%/33%/33% so if you only bet an individual dozen then you would break even instead of profit.
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/brM4p7kT/skewed.png)
Only CL1 produces decent profit - unless we use this biased game to find out if there's a optimum time to bet a particular dozen based on the cycles?
Unfortunately, when it comes to creating our own custom game we run into some different problems, such unable to cover all pigeons at once.
Finally, this method of changing the variance must have an opposite, i.e. certain additional outcomes become possible in certain situations; how to construct those pigeons I wonder?
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 10, 08:43 AM 2020
Finally, this method of changing the variance must have an opposite, i.e. certain additional outcomes become possible in certain situations; how to construct those pigeons I wonder?
What if you will add new custom dozen for increasing amount of pigeons?
Red always saying that need at least 2-3 streams
Frankly speaking,
You add a tremendous amount of complexity in the game with no apparent benefit.
(Maybe you don't realize it because you are so much IN it, but it is hard to follow your thoughts.)
Maybe this is an indication that the "solution" (if there is one) is a simple one.
No need to reinvent the wheel (pun intended).
Quote from: Kav on May 13, 06:15 AM 2020
Frankly speaking,
You add a tremendous amount of complexity in the game with no apparent benefit.
(Maybe you don't realize it because you are so much IN it, but it is hard to follow your thoughts.)
Maybe this is an indication that the "solution" (if there is one) is a simple one.
No need to reinvent the wheel (pun intended).
So now complexity is without benefit?
I gave up on single dozens and double dozens because of volatility in changes. I moved to Even Chance bets with Reading Randomness. But I have this very complex artificial intelligence app that demonstrates my bet selection and size process. It spits out telemetry so that the viewer can learn from the changes in bet selection and amounts that occur. This was provided so that what appears to be complex is actually the same thing only applied over 4 different groupings of dozens. And I uploaded it and made it available to anyone that wants to learn single and double dozen technique.
Computers can't predict random.
Quote from: precogmiles on May 13, 01:12 PM 2020
Computers can't predict random.
Computers can recognize conditional characteristics based on coincidence and therefore demonstrate specific awareness. I should know. I programmed that sim mentioned above to do just that. Prediction by sixth sense is subjective. Anyone can make blanket conjecture.
Computer = logic
Random =/= logic
Simple basic stuff.
Why is everyone so desperate to reinvent the wheel?
Humans have been predicting random events for millennia. Just learn from their experiences.
Instead of using AI and complex maths, focus on what has been proven to work for 1000s of years.
:yawn: system junkies :yawn: :question:
If you don't have a genuine edge progression just masks the problem.
Quote from: precogmiles on May 13, 02:50 PM 2020
Computer = logic
Random =/= logic
Simple basic stuff.
Why is everyone so desperate to reinvent the wheel?
Humans have been predicting random events for millennia. Just learn from their experiences.
Instead of using AI and complex maths, focus on what has been proven to work for 1000s of years.
:yawn: system junkies :yawn: :question:
If you don't have a genuine edge progression just masks the problem.
How come your sixth sense doesn't clue you in on how AI works? If you task a computer to discover a situation and then to act on what it finds while the condition that the computer's selections are in at least a 70% working state, then a computer generated guess with a bet takes place, just like a human being with the same skill. This: "Random =/= logic" doesn't change and is fact irrelevant. What you are suggesting is that because the world contains random events the sky is blue.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on May 13, 04:08 PM 2020
How come your sixth sense doesn't clue you in on how AI works? If you task a computer to discover a situation and then to act on what it finds while the condition that the computer's selections are in at least a 70% working state, then a computer generated guess with a bet takes place, just like a human being with the same skill. This: "Random =/= logic" doesn't change and is fact irrelevant. What you are suggesting is that because the world contains random events the sky is blue.
AI can not predict random.
No matter have you approach a random game the results will be random. As long as you use a mechanical process, be it AI or maths it will not result in improving your result.
No matter how many fancy words or terminologies you use are guessing blind.
This is basic common sense.
You want to use a materialistic world view to give you answers about random. Foolish approach.
Quote from: precogmiles on May 13, 04:57 PM 2020
AI can not predict random.
No matter have you approach a random game the results will be random. As long as you use a mechanical process, be it AI or maths it will not result in improving your result.
No matter how many fancy words or terminologies you use are guessing blind.
This is basic common sense.
You want to use a materialistic world view to give you answers about random. Foolish approach.
Humans and computer AI can not predict what will result from anything that is random. So what. What's your hangup? I have never said it could predict outcomes based on past spins. But it can guess. I have tried for decades to tell you guys that Reading Randomness is not a claim of prediction. So when are you guys going to get that thru your heads? Always the very same lame argument. Guessing will not make your mother-in-law happy either. Past spins will not get you out of trouble with your mother-in-law. You should stop claiming that your mother-in-law can beat Roulette. BTW, your mother-in-law can't see into the future.
Why reinvent the wheel?
Predicting the future has already been done, for 1000s of years In every major civilization. Egypt, rome, China, etc... and among every culture by way of shamans.
There is nothing new about it. You have not discovered anything new. To make make it worse you want to use fancy words to describe so called patterns that are not even there.
You are guessing, it's that simple. Regardless of how much you think you have invented a way of seeing 'patterns'
My advice is stop wasting your time. That goes for you and the system junkies. You both need to get out of the dogmatic cult of materialism.
Using AI = materlist mindset
Math = materialist mindset
Computing using bits and bytes can not make you see beyond materialism.
Quote from: precogmiles on May 13, 08:07 PM 2020My advice is stop wasting your time. That goes for you and the system junkies. You both need to get out of the dogmatic cult of materialism.
Using AI = materlist mindset
Math = materialist mindset
Computing using bits and bytes can not make you see beyond materialism.
So let's see what we have here. You are some kind of saintly Winston Churchill pontificating the assumption that you are a spiritual savant and the now established "we" are not. Ego trip!
Quote from: precogmiles on May 13, 08:07 PM 2020To make make it worse you want to use fancy words to describe so called patterns that are not even there.
Yes, it's just despicable. "Singles on the weak side," as it relates to Even Chance bets. I have chosen these words in order to impress people with my creative use of the words "weak side." I apologize for the implication that a few people here will be so offended by my dazzling intellect. I need to thank you for fixing the world. Do you let people polish your spandex and iron your cape?
Quote from: gizmotron2 on May 13, 08:56 PM 2020
Yes, it's just despicable. "Singles on the weak side," as it relates to Even Chance bets. I have chosen these words in order to impress people with my creative use of the words "weak side." I apologize for the implication that a few people here will be so offended by my dazzling intellect. I need to thank you for fixing the world. Do you let people polish your spandex and iron your cape?
No cape here sorry, just common sense.
Enjoy reading patterns and finding the 'weak side'.
Quote from: precogmiles on May 14, 08:53 AM 2020
No cape here sorry, just common sense.
Enjoy reading patterns and finding the 'weak side'.
Posted at the other site: "So I have been putting this to a test. I was getting killed on the live online tables because I was rushed and could not fill out my online charts and get an inside bet down in time. I messed around with Steve's MPR online app and won every session. So I quit that in a self destructive run. But I decided to try the American RNG game online that allows me to fill out my chart and take all the time that I want. It looks like it plays just like the MPR game. I had a slight uptick, then a ten spin losing streak, and then a grind back up to my first goal of $15+ per session win. I started out yesterday at $105 bankroll. This is better than waiting for the casinos to open back up. And it's real money. It will be fun to demonstrate Reading Randomness and the 3 lost sessions of -$35 each lost per session against the $15+ per session on a win."
I decided to do this where it counts. It has winning streaks and losing streaks. And I'm not having any difficulties seeing this. I'm using a grinding method so that even if there is targeting it's not as elaborate as I am. I will know eventually if the RNG is unfair or not. I'm looking into another place that allows for confirmation of spins using the hash method. But I'm doing fine with this. Real is much better than pretend.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on May 14, 09:22 AM 2020Real is much better than pretend.
That's a good one! :)
Quote from: gizmotron2 on May 14, 09:22 AM 2020
Posted at the other site: "So I have been putting this to a test. I was getting killed on the live online tables because I was rushed and could not fill out my online charts and get an inside bet down in time. I messed around with Steve's MPR online app and won every session. So I quit that in a self destructive run. But I decided to try the American RNG game online that allows me to fill out my chart and take all the time that I want. It looks like it plays just like the MPR game. I had a slight uptick, then a ten spin losing streak, and then a grind back up to my first goal of $15+ per session win. I started out yesterday at $105 bankroll. This is better than waiting for the casinos to open back up. And it's real money. It will be fun to demonstrate Reading Randomness and the 3 lost sessions of -$35 each lost per session against the $15+ per session on a win."
I decided to do this where it counts. It has winning streaks and losing streaks. And I'm not having any difficulties seeing this. I'm using a grinding method so that even if there is targeting it's not as elaborate as I am. I will know eventually if the RNG is unfair or not. I'm looking into another place that allows for confirmation of spins using the hash method. But I'm doing fine with this. Real is much better than pretend.
I saw your attempt on MPR, yes you had a good run. But only when your progression worked. When your guessing didn't work the progression made you lose everything.
You didn't quit with a self destructive run. You quit because the progression got too big and you lost big.
Quote from: precogmiles on May 14, 08:39 PM 2020
I saw your attempt on MPR, yes you had a good run. But only when your progression worked. When your guessing didn't work the progression made you lose everything.
You didn't quit with a self destructive run. You quit because the progression got too big and you lost big.
OK Kreskin. You are projecting. You might want to get your head examined. You should know more than anyone. You blasted away during losing streaks. Just go back to your crystals and Ouija boards. You are the evangelista for future prediction. Leave projection to those that like you.
Hi Gix, just had a nice 38 Spin with almost a Perfect Pattern with the High/Low. It went H L H L H L H L H L and over on the Dozens and Columns just about every Dozen and Column that didn't repeat continued to not repeat the next time. If this had happened in Vegas I would have made a lot of money going past the +3. This is probably in the wrong thread but I wanted to tell you that your Reading Randomness is working for me.
Quote from: Richard Meisel on May 16, 01:24 AM 2020
Hi Gix, just had a nice 38 Spin with almost a Perfect Pattern with the High/Low. It went H L H L H L H L H L and over on the Dozens and Columns just about every Dozen and Column that didn't repeat continued to not repeat the next time. If this had happened in Vegas I would have made a lot of money going past the +3. This is probably in the wrong thread but I wanted to tell you that your Reading Randomness is working for me.
I take advantage of moments like that all the time. You have a swarm of singles in the high low and you have singles swarming in both the dozens and the columns. This was a marvelous moment. If you know where the next spin won't land, if things continue, then you will be able to select fewer numbers. If it was high in the EC, and in the second dozen, 13 - 24, like #24 and in the third column like it was then on the next spin it would be in three quad bets only and the zero. It would be in column 1 and 2 in the lower half of the table layout. That's just 13 numbers if the situation continues, and it did. I call these combo bets. My software lets you practice these.