I have been using the Fisher method to win a number of sessions with some success Eg: follow the previous colour spun in the hope for a cluster of repeating colours.
Recently it came to my attention that perhaps I could improve my success rate using a 9x4 matrix, to record the successive colour outcomes Eg:
002010150
Z12003050
In the above example there are 2 matches of repeating colours from the top row. The Z indicates a zero. Regardless of whether, in the matrix, the cluster is R or B.
Since there is the law of thirds for dozens, it is interesting to find out whether mathematical models can support or improve the likely outcomes of groups of R or B outcomes using this example above.
Considering the fact that there are 18 red and 18 black positions on the single zero wheel,
(Disregard the zero, and not including RNG) is it safe to say that after 36 spins, we should expect to see an equal distribution of reds and black outcomes?
Eg 18 reds and 18 blacks = 36 spins.
Can we further make a connection that our matrix will match up mathematically in our favour? Is my theory regarding this on the right track?
How can we better account for over a number of continuous spins, that there will be a specific groups of repeats?
Any comments, suggestions, questions are appreciated.
more than 20 years roulette forums and what happens?
One question: did you already think about the double-trick?
Yerg
Another approach for betting colours.
yerg another finger job from you ?
Quote from: Yerg8 on Aug 07, 04:06 AM 2020Considering the fact that there are 18 red and 18 black positions on the single zero wheel,
(Disregard the zero, and not including RNG) is it safe to say that after 36 spins, we should expect to see an equal distribution of reds and black outcomes?
Eg 18 reds and 18 blacks = 36 spins.
No it's not. It wouldn't be random if you'd always get equal (or close to equal)number of reds and blacks in such few spins and that would be very easy to exploit. There is variance, and the less spins the bigger the variance.
I have done a quick test on 10,000 spin outcomes, the number of reds in 36 spins varied between 9 and 27.
The important thing is that the odds of any event always remain constant. There is nothing that can change that. In our case the odds of red or black in the next spin is always 50/50, regardless of what happened before.
Quote from: winkel on Aug 07, 05:50 AM 2020
more than 20 years roulette forums and what happens?
One question: did you already think about the double-trick?
What double-trick are you referring to? Do you really expect me to filter through every single previous post over the last 20 years? Hmm, Not possible!
This is probably beyond you Yerg
Quote from: ati on Aug 07, 06:06 AM 2020
No it's not. It wouldn't be random if you'd always get equal (or close to equal)number of reds and blacks in such few spins and that would be very easy to exploit. There is variance, and the less spins the bigger the variance.
I have done a quick test on 10,000 spin outcomes, the number of reds in 36 spins varied between 9 and 27.
The important thing is that the odds of any event always remain constant. There is nothing that can change that. In our case the odds of red or black in the next spin is always 50/50, regardless of what happened before.
Yes I understand what you mean.
Quote from: Yerg8 on Aug 07, 04:06 AM 2020Since there is the law of thirds for dozens, it is interesting to find out whether mathematical models can support or improve the likely outcomes of groups of R or B outcomes using this example above.
Math will never tell you when a trend or pattern will start, how long one will last, and when one will end. They, like all spins, are independent events.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 07, 08:27 AM 2020They, like all spins, are independent events.
So how can 'reading randomness' work? :xd:
Logic. It's always in the way.
Quote from: Joe on Aug 07, 08:45 AM 2020So how can 'reading randomness' work?
Logic. It's always in the way.
It works for me because I have the skill and the capacity to concentrate on the things that make it work. So ask yourself this. Do you know what singles on the weak side are? Do you know what it means to keep track of the effectiveness states? If these are just gobbledygook notions to you then you are sort of stuck trying to relate to something you might be willing to present to others as an informed opinion. I can't make people understand. I'm thrilled that many don't want to understand it or learn it. I'm counting on that. If "logic" is your excuse for not looking into it then I'm pleased the most that I can be. I'm sort of in this to blow up people's logic. So I label them mathZombies in order to trigger them to turn away. I'm also doing that because I can. You math oriented people are my personal play toys. So until that time when all is validated I get to play with your minds. It is two things. Either I'm crazy or you are just following the crowd that thinks they were / are right. I have it all figured out logically also.
Gizmo, you've just demonstrated that you wouldn't know a contradiction if it hit you in the face. All that drivel about 'singles on the weak side' blah blah blah is about past results, and past results are independent of future results, right? You just told us that, right? :xd:
No amount of skill and capacity changes a game of independent trials into a game of dependent trials, so whatever 'skill' you have amounts to diddlysquat.
QuoteI'm sort of in this to blow up people's logic. So I label them mathZombies in order to trigger them to turn away.
It's not working. It just makes you look like an idiot and provides entertainment for the 'math zombies', or anyone else with an IQ higher than their shoe-size. :love:
Quote from: Joe on Aug 07, 10:03 AM 2020No amount of skill and capacity changes a game of independent trials into a game of dependent trials, so whatever 'skill' you have amounts to diddlysquat.
It doesn't have to become a game of dependent trials. That's just more of your limited opinion and the search for a straw-man argument. You have just confirmed that you are clueless with an uninformed opinion concerning the effectiveness states. Talking with you is like talking with a fungi. You are a classic mathZombie.
Quote from: Joe on Aug 07, 10:03 AM 2020Gizmo, you've just demonstrated that you wouldn't know a contradiction if it hit you in the face. All that drivel about 'singles on the weak side' blah blah blah is about past results, and past results are independent of future results, right? You just told us that, right?
I'm not using past results to determine future events. That's your baloney belief system. You need it to be that just to be logical. But this is not about any of that. It's always the same with you morons. You need it to predict the future so that you can logically refute it. I have made it clear as a bell this has nothing to do with prediction based on past results. It's all about reading coincidences and continuation of coincidences based on guessing. I know you can't hear me. Take the wax out of your ears.
Quote from: Joe on Aug 07, 10:03 AM 2020It's not working. It just makes you look like an idiot and provides entertainment for the 'math zombies', or anyone else with an IQ higher than their shoe-size.
You are the idiot, not me. It all figures. Do the math. You think it's about prediction and nothing is going to make you suspend your disbelief.
Quote from: Joe on Aug 07, 10:03 AM 2020All that drivel about 'singles on the weak side' blah blah blah
I showed everyone all about you. You don't have a clue yet you have a logical opinion. So glad, you flat earth seeking "mathematical dick."
"I don't blame you. It's not about you, you mathematical dick!"
link:s://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/8c61ed12-b0d1-4605-b005-7f0cc59d7652
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 07, 11:36 AM 2020
"I don't blame you. It's not about you, you mathematical dick!"
link:s://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/8c61ed12-b0d1-4605-b005-7f0cc59d7652
lol ....nearly as funny as steves sense of humour and he,s done some crackers over the years...
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 07, 09:28 AM 2020
It works for me because I have the skill and the capacity to concentrate on the things that make it work. So ask yourself this. Do you know what singles on the weak side are? Do you know what it means to keep track of the effectiveness states? If these are just gobbledygook notions to you then you are sort of stuck trying to relate to something you might be willing to present to others as an informed opinion. I can't make people understand. I'm thrilled that many don't want to understand it or learn it. I'm counting on that. If "logic" is your excuse for not looking into it then I'm pleased the most that I can be. I'm sort of in this to blow up people's logic. So I label them mathZombies in order to trigger them to turn away. I'm also doing that because I can. You math oriented people are my personal play toys. So until that time when all is validated I get to play with your minds. It is two things. Either I'm crazy or you are just following the crowd that thinks they were / are right. I have it all figured out logically also.
Have you gotten laid yet?
Quote from: Moxy on Aug 07, 06:21 PM 2020Have you gotten laid yet?
Reminds me of the quadriplegic gal sitting on the beach and crying when a stranger walks up and ask what's wrong with you? She says "I want to get fucked." So the stranger picks her up and throws her into the ocean and says "now you are fucked."
Gizmo, you're nothing but a pretentious pontificating poop-head!
Calling you stupid is an insult to stupid people. I've worn shirts which have a higher IQ!
Your 'reading randomness' method is about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican!
:xd:
Quote from: Joe on Aug 08, 11:19 AM 2020
Gizmo, you're nothing but a pretentious pontificating poop-head!
Calling you stupid is an insult to stupid people. I've worn shirts which have a higher IQ!
Your 'reading randomness' method is about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican!
:xd:
Thank you, I'm glad that someone can set me straight.
Let's have a validation beyond pretentious claims contest. I would really be impressed if you can outdo me. I'd actually like to know you if you can.
Skiing: Did the Men's Downhill at the World Cup Heavenly Valley 1976 -1977. Skied down the north face of Mt Shasta all alone in a two day climb in 1984. Skied down Tioga Pass into Lee Vining Canyon thru God's Half-pipe, 1,000 vertical drop at 45 degrees with 10ft tall sidewalls.
Rock Climbing: Climbed the big walls of Yosemite from 1974 to 1988
SCUBA: Dove to 200 ft deep on one tank in Lake Tahoe in February.
Wind Surfing: Sailed from Crissy Field under the Golden Gate Bridge in 26ft waves / 35 MPH winds, 7 MPH out going tide.
Piloted a stunt plane straight down the face of Half Dome with the wheels as close as 4ft at times, back in 1979.
Went from union trained apprentice to licensed residential developer between 1972 and 1989.
Invented Meaningful Text Markup Language and created the cross platform browsers that supported it. Invented the PNLP, Parallel Numerical linear Parser that makes MTML possible.
Invented the list of characteristics for Reading Randomness. Invented Reading Randomness MM tactic, the Elegant Pattern characteristic, and the Global Effect characteristic.
Got my USGA handicap down to single digits.
Tested four times the IQ test and scored 126 every time.
Had my life transformed by the Holy Spirit and finally got religion right. Now I don't care what anyone else does with their lives. I no longer condemn anyone. They can be an asshole or a jerk and that's just fine with me. The world is full of them. I'm even one to you Joe. I don't give a shit if you are an atheist.
Impressive record Gizmo :thumbsup:
Sometimes I think about how hard it is to impress people nowadays. No matter how amazing and jaw dropping the things you see or hear, chances are you have already seen someone on the internet who did better.
Quote from: ati on Aug 09, 05:20 PM 2020Sometimes I think about how hard it is to impress people nowadays. No matter how amazing and jaw dropping the things you see or hear, chances are you have already seen someone on the internet who did better.
That is so true. I was just on the edge of better than mediocre as a rock climber in Yosemite. I saw people working out like Olympic Athletes and decided there is now way I'm going to work that hard for this. I did take ski mountaineering all the way. That was my big deal thing. But I learned a most important lesson the first year I started my first extreme sport. Nobody cared what I was doing and most told me that I was crazy. So I stopped telling anyone. There were just those of use that did this stuff and that was all there was to it, no cameras, no video. We just did it for what we would get out of it. Old school Yosemite is not to sit around the campfire and talk about what you climbed that day or the last few days. That kind of talk would get people that are impressionable killed. So we didn't do that. I was done with all these thrills by 1995. They just got around to calling it "Extreme Sports" sometime in the mid 80's. There was just Warren Miller and his few thrill seeking skiers. Maybe there was two or three rock climbing movies. The idea of getting sponsored just did not exist. I was asked to represent the USA cross country skiing team in Innsbruck Austria for those Olympics but I turned it down because I had to pay my own way to the six week Olympic trials. I was off in the middle of Desolation Valley all alone cross country skiing when a recruiter hunted me down. That was real weird. That was sort of strange. 6 weeks and off to Europe to be on the USA sucks at cross country racing team. Anyway, impressing people is for the young ones today. And they do get themselves killed trying to impress others also.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 08, 01:39 PM 2020
Thank you, I'm glad that someone can set me straight.
Let's have a validation beyond pretentious claims contest. I would really be impressed if you can outdo me. I'd actually like to know you if you can.
Skiing: Did the Men's Downhill at the World Cup Heavenly Valley 1976 -1977. Skied down the north face of Mt Shasta all alone in a two day climb in 1984. Skied down Tioga Pass into Lee Vining Canyon thru God's Half-pipe, 1,000 vertical drop at 45 degrees with 10ft tall sidewalls.
Rock Climbing: Climbed the big walls of Yosemite from 1974 to 1988
SCUBA: Dove to 200 ft deep on one tank in Lake Tahoe in February.
Wind Surfing: Sailed from Crissy Field under the Golden Gate Bridge in 26ft waves / 35 MPH winds, 7 MPH out going tide.
Piloted a stunt plane straight down the face of Half Dome with the wheels as close as 4ft at times, back in 1979.
Went from union trained apprentice to licensed residential developer between 1972 and 1989.
Invented Meaningful Text Markup Language and created the cross platform browsers that supported it. Invented the PNLP, Parallel Numerical linear Parser that makes MTML possible.
Invented the list of characteristics for Reading Randomness. Invented Reading Randomness MM tactic, the Elegant Pattern characteristic, and the Global Effect characteristic.
Got my USGA handicap down to single digits.
Tested four times the IQ test and scored 126 every time.
Had my life transformed by the Holy Spirit and finally got religion right. Now I don't care what anyone else does with their lives. I no longer condemn anyone. They can be an asshole or a jerk and that's just fine with me. The world is full of them. I'm even one to you Joe. I don't give a shit if you are an atheist.
It's the 21st century. For the love of god, lay religion to rest.
Quote from: Moxy on Aug 10, 05:09 PM 2020It's the 21st century. For the love of god, lay religion to rest.
Here's how I see it. hahahha! I see it you don't. If I'm right you are royally screwed. If you are right there are no consequences. I can't think of a more extreme sport with consequences. You are in the club. You are the greatest crash test dummy of them all. This is without a doubt the most to gamble on with consequences. But what the heck. You are not alone. Can you imagine some lame ass person giving up their life to bring Jesus to head hunters and cannibals? I'm no saint, that's for sure. But I do like the bold that want to dare God to kill them. I mean it's like knowing for certain that God does not exist. That's so bold. And that secret part to what the Kingdom of Heaven is. There's a secret thing about setting people free. You are one stuck mother trucker. I'm not celebrating that. But to tell me that you have your shit together in the 21st century. That's good stuff. But you are in no way set free. If you were you wouldn't be trying to ridicule me. You need to gain from our interaction. I think that motivation is funny. I don't care if you drop dead. There is nothing to gain from your attempt. It's a quest for nothing, which by the way is what you accuse me of seeking. So in a way I'm trying to help you be set free. This Roulette crap is not life. It's just a challenge to see if you can best it. It takes character development to actually get value out of life, that includes any wealth you would expect to fix things. Hahaha! 21st century. Who are you trying to kid?
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 10, 07:13 PM 2020
Here's how I see it. hahahha! I see it you don't. If I'm right you are royally screwed. If you are right there are no consequences. I can't think of a more extreme sport with consequences. You are in the club. You are the greatest crash test dummy of them all. This is without a doubt the most to gamble on with consequences. But what the heck. You are not alone. Can you imagine some lame ass person giving up their life to bring Jesus to head hunters and cannibals? I'm no saint, that's for sure. But I do like the bold that want to dare God to kill them. I mean it's like knowing for certain that God does not exist. That's so bold. And that secret part to what the Kingdom of Heaven is. There's a secret thing about setting people free. You are one stuck mother trucker. I'm not celebrating that. But to tell me that you have your shit together in the 21st century. That's good stuff. But you are in no way set free. If you were you wouldn't be trying to ridicule me. You need to gain from our interaction. I think that motivation is funny. I don't care if you drop dead. There is nothing to gain from your attempt. It's a quest for nothing, which by the way is what you accuse me of seeking. So in a way I'm trying to help you be set free. This Roulette crap is not life. It's just a challenge to see if you can best it. It takes character development to actually get value out of life, that includes any wealth you would expect to fix things. Hahaha! 21st century. Who are you trying to kid?
Richard Dawkins set me straight. I am forever thankful.
Bhuddism is fine though.
Quote from: Moxy on Aug 10, 07:24 PM 2020Richard Dawkins set me straight. I am forever thankful.
Well don't know if this is a joke or not, because I don't know the man, but he might have just switched opinions on you.
link:s://clickhole.com/a-changed-man-richard-dawkins-has-converted-to-christi-1825123803/
Quote from: Moxy on Aug 10, 07:24 PM 2020Bhuddism is fine though.
Buddhism & Hinduism are both nice attempts at minimalism and self awareness. But they both lack that magical ingredient that finishes the job. The human existence was always meant to contain the Holy Spirit. That Spirit is what transforms any asshole into a new being, not my claim, His. Nothing else matters. Not all the crap handed down by selfish hypocrites in all the churches of the world can add up to the secret that is passed on through that moment of truth. You know what they say about truth. As you can tell I don't have any fondness for organized religions. But that magic moment counts for everything. If you have it you know. If you don't then you are a crash test dummy.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 10, 07:49 PM 2020
Buddhism & Hinduism are both nice attempts at minimalism and self awareness. But they both lack that magical ingredient that finishes the job. The human existence was always meant to contain the Holy Spirit. That Spirit is what transforms any asshole into a new being, not my claim, His. Nothing else matters. Not all the crap handed down by selfish hypocrites in all the churches of the world can add up to the secret that is passed on through that moment of truth. You know what they say about truth. As you can tell I don't have any fondness for organized religions. But that magic moment counts for everything. If you have it you know. If you don't then you are a crash test dummy.
Should've told me your stance on organized religion first. I'll give you points for that.
But no one is going to miss the boat for being scientific minded. No worries, mate.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 10, 07:39 PM 2020
Well don't know if this is a joke or not, because I don't know the man, but he might have just switched opinions on you.
link:s://clickhole.com/a-changed-man-richard-dawkins-has-converted-to-christi-1825123803/
That's a weird parody. No matter, regardless.
Taking the Red Pill as in The Matrix, there's no turning back. It can get "empty" at times but truth is
paramount.
Quote from: Moxy on Aug 10, 07:52 PM 2020But no one is going to miss the boat for being scientific minded.
I believe that the words "Let there be light." are the big bang. I'm convinced that God is Omni time oriented, everything known in different times, the beginning all the way to the end. God knows all time. A human is linearly oriented. So telling humans that were at the time focused on the stars mean things, "signs in the heavens," type stuff. That was the science of the time of the description of creation. Now that description starts to look right by what we now know. That order of things is starting to line up nicely. It looks like life just jumped into being at the last. But it doesn't really matter much. 100 years ago that science ended up being impossible. Darwin got one thing wrong. So I believe things evolved along "intelligent design."
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 08, 01:39 PM 2020Invented the list of characteristics for Reading Randomness. Invented Reading Randomness MM tactic, the Elegant Pattern characteristic, and the Global Effect characteristic.
Gizmo, you can cross this one off your list of achievements. The only thing you've 'achieved' here is Apophenia.
Quote from: Moxy on Aug 10, 05:09 PM 2020It's the 21st century. For the love of god, lay religion to rest.
So you believe in God but not religion? How is the 21st century relevant? Or are you making the argument :
'Hey look at all this amazing science and technology we have now! Therefore, God doesn't exist'.
If so, it's a terrible one, and merely chronological snobbery.
I'm not especially a fan of organized religion, but I believe in the god of classical theism, because there are some great arguments for it. My favourite is the Aristotelian proof (link:s://books.google.co.uk/books?id=il8yDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) (chapter 1).
Quote from: Joe on Aug 11, 01:26 AM 2020Gizmo, you can cross this one off your list of achievements. The only thing you've 'achieved' here is Apophenia.
"Apophenia definition is - the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas)."
You are just speaking out of your south end while facing north.
The trends don't matter. All you need to do is to watch for the strong side of anything. While that strong side is occurring your win to loss ratio is working in your favor. I have proved this occurs when any random bet is placed. You can make bets on Red only on Roulette or on the Pass Line of Craps only. These only bets will produce up and down results much like the carrots & sticks graphs in stock trading. All you need to do is to know what up and down means. It has nothing to do with Apophenia. This is real data. I don't have a problem watching real data and seeing upticks in these moving averages type changes. The same goes for most stock traders. The numbers are actually real and they tend to follow the mathematical expectations for probability, including variance.
With trends and patterns I can see working uptick styled moving averages before selecting one for bets. You need them to be pretend information or a claim of prediction. Your claim of Apophenia does not function. You don't function. Your last name wouldn't be Biden would it?
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 11, 09:19 AM 2020The trends don't matter. All you need to do is to watch for the strong side of anything.
Ok, and that isn't gambler's fallacy and failing to understand that past spins don't influence future spins? That IS a kind of Apophenia because you are assuming there are connections between the numbers, a connection which doesn't exist.
And this is from someone who says he understands that spins are independent. ::)
We're talking about fucking RANDOM numbers here you dingbat!
Quote from: Joe on Aug 11, 09:47 AM 2020Ok, and that isn't gambler's fallacy and failing to understand that past spins don't influence future spins? That IS a kind of Apophenia because you are assuming there are connections between the numbers, a connection which doesn't exist.
And this is from someone who says he understands that spins are independent.
We're talking about fucking RANDOM numbers here you dingbat!
We are not talking. You are flatulent while remaining petulant. See, I can do it too. I just said you are something and now you must defend the baloney.
This: "you are assuming there are connections between the numbers, a connection which doesn't exist." is bullshit.
I am too. I'm noticing that there is a formation structure in a state of continuation or not continuing or an ending. If I were to bet on it to continue it would do two things only. It would win or it would lose. I suggest you learn where I got this from. I speculate on observable
moving averages as illustrated in this video. They happen to really exist in Roulette and to a lesser degree in the other minor table games with only one data stream. Stop using your magical beliefs as straw-man arguments and learn for once. You mathZombies are all alike.
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=bRCtBRsLPmk
"Scotomisation" that's predictably you.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 11, 10:03 AM 2020This: "you are assuming there are connections between the numbers, a connection which doesn't exist." is bullshit.
No Gizmo, the connection only exists in your mind, not in reality. And stock trading and roulette are completely different. In stocks, past results may actually mean something because traders tend to use the same techniques, or follow the herd, so trending is a real. Roulette is just a ball and a wheel, no psychology involved at all and no trends in past numbers that mean anything.
It's easy to prove this for yourself but obviously you have no interest in doing so, since you've been flogging the same dead horse for years.
Quote from: Joe on Aug 11, 10:10 AM 2020
No Gizmo, the connection only exists in your mind, not in reality. And stock trading and roulette are completely different. In stocks, past results may actually mean something because traders tend to use the same techniques, or follow the herd, so trending is a real. Roulette is just a ball and a wheel, no psychology involved at all and no trends in past numbers that mean anything.
It's easy to prove this for yourself but obviously you have no interest in doing so, since you've been flogging the same dead horse for years.
You are such a pain in the you know what. I don't give a damn about the trends. I only care about the wave formations and the possible evidence of moving averages. I have clearly illustrated these movements with the graphs that I have shown here on this forum. Just because you can't use them doesn't mean that others can't. This is not a democracy and this is not your command post. I can use the waves even when you say that they don't exist. Anyone with even a modicum of gambling experience knows that win streaks and losing streaks occur. You are actually trying to represent that they don't exist. That makes you look ignorant and without playing experience.
QuoteThis: "you are assuming there are connections between the numbers, a connection which doesn't exist." is bullshit.
No Gizmo, the connection only exists in your mind,
This is comical. That assumption statement was you. I never claimed there was a connection between numbers. In fact I called bullshit on you. You are one funny and conflicted observer. It's always easy for you to see things that aren't there and then being so helpful and willing to set someone else straight. mathZombie! "what's in your head."
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 11, 10:31 AM 2020I never claimed there was a connection between numbers.
Gizmo, if there is no actual connection between the numbers in reality how can you assuming there is, change anything or give you an advantage? There has to be a correspondence or correlation between your hypothesis and reality. If there isn't it just proves that your hypothesis is false.
Think about it. And yes, it certainly is comical.
Quote from: Joe on Aug 11, 10:45 AM 2020Gizmo, if there is no actual connection between the numbers in reality how can you assuming there is,
That is the guacamole between your ears. I never assume there is a connection. There can't be. Just in case you haven't heard it all results are independent of each other.
It's the shit between your ears that wants to believe that I think there is a connection. That's the argument that you want to be right about. It's easy to think that way. It's like when your mother told you that you were a good boy. You still want to be a good boy. You idiots are all the same with the exact same impression. You think I'm claiming a connection and you are going to ride in on your white horse with your Spandex suit and save us all. You all assume I'm claiming the ability to predict the future because of past spins. I don't know how to fix your demented opinions. I use trends and patterns because when they appear in phases of strong continuation I know how to turn that into win streaks. Your problem is that you don't know how I do that. I just guess. Because win streaks are always gone with this method when there is chaos. I'm a searcher for win streaks and nothing more. So get the crap out of your ears and learn that I'm only looking for wins streaks and losing streaks.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 11, 10:57 AM 2020There can't be. Just in case you haven't heard it all results are independent of each other.
It's the shit between your ears that wants to believe that I think there is a connection.
I just said there isn't any connection. Sorry gizmo, you're a hopeless case. Keep indulging in your fantasy if it makes you happy.
Quote from: Joe on Aug 11, 11:13 AM 2020I just said there isn't any connection. Sorry gizmo, you're a hopeless case. Keep indulging in your fantasy if it makes you happy.
It was nice talking with you again. You might want to get your Spandex polished next time.
This: "I just said there isn't any connection." I know. It was you suggesting that I was claiming there was. There is also no flying Saucer today to do sex experiments on you. I know I'm right on this point. It's too bad too.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 11, 11:26 AM 2020This: "I just said there isn't any connection." I know. It was you suggesting that I was claiming there was.
Gizmo, I have to wonder whether you're being deliberately obtuse. You're claiming there is no connection between spins, and yet you're playing AS IF there is one. Don't you see the contradiction? And please increase the signal to noise ratio of your posts.
Quote from: Joe on Aug 11, 12:03 PM 2020Gizmo, I have to wonder whether you're being deliberately obtuse. You're claiming there is no connection between spins, and yet you're playing AS IF there is one. Don't you see the contradiction?
To you it is a contradiction because you don't know what I'm saying. I can use totally random bet selections and this will cause up and down waves that would also be win streaks and losing streaks. Are you with me so far? This would have nothing to do with trends or any expectations of outcomes.
My goal in beating randomness is in acting against the changes between win sequences and losing sequences. That is what I have mastered. I have said clearly for years that math will never tell you when a win streak will start, how long it will last, and when it will end. Well I don't know these things either. In fact nobody knows this stuff. All you have is a guess. But I have noticed some coincidences that I have labeled characteristics, They come in patterns sometimes. They come in mini swarms for instance. I search for continuing patterns of micro win streaks. You can't see them because you don't believe they exist and you have never been successful at anyone ever showing them to you. Just because you haven't seen these characteristics does not mean that they don't exist. I have demonstrated using them at Roulette Simulator where you can't hide your bet selections.
I target the upswings in the flow of the up and down waves. I attack when I'm in a perceived up trend in the win to loss ratio. I retreat when in a downward trend in the effectiveness conditions. It has nothing to do with the future. It's all based on what is going on right now. I use trends and patterns as formation structures in my playing charts because when they are working so is the micro win streak. But I'm fully aware that trends and patterns end abruptly, sometimes just at the time that you recognize them. So that results in more losses than wins. Trends and pattern characteristics are just bet selection tactics in order to see if they are working or not. They have no value any better than selecting randomly. So I stay on the important point. Is it working right now or is it not working right now. That is how I play. So I call all this coincidence. Nothing causes it to happen.
Here, look at the waves:
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27269.msg241935#msg241935
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 11, 02:04 PM 2020
Here, look at the waves:
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27269.msg241935#msg241935
Hi Giz, I noticed on this thread dated June 5, 10:44 AM 2020, you said: If you bother to check my play at Roulette Simulator you will see that I try to win every session. I did throw a blind Marti in there just to tick off the critics. Let’s hope they walk away and see nothing.
These spins will illustrate what Reading Randomness is really all about:
4,4,3,27,8,29,17,30,34,16,12,29,7,19,34,36,29,19,3,34,32,8,22,35,18,10,11,
28,8,21,7,15,19,15,31,27,13,25,10,9,33,19,24,25,11,15,18,32,25,27,19,2,20,
23,30,19,26,24,24,23,12,9,10,25,9,25,2,20,3,26,24,34,10,18,28,24,4,33,30,
28,7,31,9,9,12,32,35,11,26,16,31,29,33,26,29,2,7,18,14,11,
I noticed that on Spin 39 to Spin 50 there were 12 consecutive Odds! I would have Won 11 straight times! Past Spins do have effects for educated guesses.
Quote from: Richard Meisel on Aug 11, 04:50 PM 2020I noticed that on Spin 39 to Spin 50 there were 12 consecutive Odds! I would have Won 11 straight times! Past Spins do have effects for educated guesses.
I use to play for the big trends. I would have won my 3 net wins on that streak and then gone. Did you read my explanation on becoming a millionaire with just 3 net wins per session? It's around here somewhere.
I only got 9 in a row. Here's that graph:
Gizmo, these points still stand, which you didn't answer:
Quote from: Steve on Jul 02, 01:15 PM 2020
Gizmo, what you're not understanding is:
1. I do understand what you're saying about singles etc. I just know better and that your theories dont hold water.
You constantly provide "proof" like really short term charts showing loss, then recovery. I mean whats the point? It's meaningless, and you lost on rs anyway.
2. Nothing you've provided in any way substantiates your claims. I mean literally you provided nothing valid. Evem with RS, all you provided was a claim you'd be #1, then you lost and said it was deliberate to mess with people.
So literally you've provided nothing valid to back your claims. Don't get shitty at me for that. I'm not being difficult about it either.
You're claiming there is no connection between spins, and yet you're playing AS IF there is one. This is clearly the case.
Also, you lost on RS simulator and were not flat betting. If you have to use progression to win, you clearly don't have a winning method.
Quote from: winforus on Aug 11, 07:52 PM 2020Also, you lost on RS simulator and were not flat betting. If you have to use progression to win, you clearly don't have a winning method.
Gee wiz. I said I bet big on win streaks and small on losing streaks. If you need that to be a progression then let it be that for you. Yes, I lost big time using a runaway double down. I did it so that people like you would fall for it. I'm currently stopping on +300 and ending the sessions there. So you can see me bet they way I do when I play to win. I can steady climb forever. It's a simple grinding method where I quit at 10% of my bankroll. I don't care if you think I side stepped questions. You are the enemy. I treat the enemy like crap.
Quote from: winforus on Aug 11, 07:52 PM 2020You're claiming there is no connection between spins, and yet you're playing AS IF there is one. This is clearly the case.
That's just your impression of the things you would like them to be. There can't be a connection. So I'm not claiming there is a connection. So I'm not playing as if there is a connection. You can't be communicated with.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 11, 08:15 PM 2020
Gee wiz. I said I bet big on win streaks and small on losing streaks. If you need that to be a progression then let it be that for you. Yes, I lost big time using a runaway double down. I did it so that people like you would fall for it. I'm currently stopping on +300 and ending the sessions there. So you can see me bet they way I do when I play to win. I can steady climb forever. It's a simple grinding method where I quit at 10% of my bankroll. I don't care if you think I side stepped questions. You are the enemy. I treat the enemy like crap.
You want me to bring up all of your quotes from your thread again?
You claimed you would be #1 and then lost - then you claimed you did it on purpose. You said the same thing when you attempted to win on MPR. Do you expect people to fall for your BS?
100% Apophenia - you see a connection where it doesn't exist.
You're claiming there is no connection between spins, and yet you're playing AS IF there is one. Full of contradictions.
And I am not making it up. Learn what flat betting means and what progression means. If you can't win by flat betting, it means that you don't have a winning method.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 11, 08:18 PM 2020
That's just your impression of the things you would like them to be. There can't be a connection. So I'm not claiming there is a connection. So I'm not playing as if there is a connection. You can't be communicated with.
You are charting past spins and using past spins to determine where you will bet next! How is this playing without a connection?
You seem to be beyond delusional.
Quote from: Joe on Aug 11, 01:36 AM 2020
So you believe in God but not religion? How is the 21st century relevant? Or are you making the argument :
'Hey look at all this amazing science and technology we have now! Therefore, God doesn't exist'.
If so, it's a terrible one, and merely chronological snobbery.
I'm not especially a fan of organized religion, but I believe in the god of classical theism, because there are some great arguments for it. My favourite is the Aristotelian proof (link:s://books.google.co.uk/books?id=il8yDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) (chapter 1).
Being facetious with that preface. I knew someone was going to pick up on that.
It's just a figure of speech. Nothing more.
I'm a determinist atheist (functional) nihilist. Nothing matters too much in my realm ~ if at all.
Quote from: winforus on Aug 11, 08:28 PM 2020You are charting past spins and using past spins to determine where you will bet next! How is this playing without a connection?
You seem to be beyond delusional.
Thank you for rejecting it. I could not be more glad for your life.
Quote from: winforus on Aug 11, 08:25 PM 2020You claimed you would be #1 and then lost
What? You don't like being manipulated? I played 50 straight wins in a row and then lost using stupid progressions. I've done it three times. I will keep doing it this way so that you have your reason to reject it. At the same time anyone can check out how I bet when I grind my way upward. It's two different things. One is real and the other is a red herring. You don't like it. Well that's not really a problem. Watching jerks suck and complain while displaying their neediness, and then having them pretend that they know how to gamble is just my entertainment. You are my toy. You act and live like a tool and it is the responsibility of those that know to treat you badly. I'm just doing a public service. I know this because of the ignorance that you hold up as enlightenment. You look ridiculous. It's a trend.
Quote from: winforus on Aug 11, 08:25 PM 2020Do you expect people to fall for your BS?
I expected you to fall for it. I blew out 50 twice and then lost. I suppose those are just coincidental milestones? How many of you people can win 50 in a row without a progression? It's not perfect flat betting. It's small bet big bet at targeted times. It's 15 bets of bankroll at the big bet price. I spent a year telling how to play 7 / 3. I said that I had never lost 3 bankrolls at 7 in a row. I showed over time that I developed a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio over very large numbers of bets. I confirmed that each time when I played 50 wins in a row. The truth is there to anyone that wants to dig deep enough to find it. The lie is there for anyone that wants to do no work and find an excuse to reject it. I know you mathZombies. You want to reject it. In fact if it is true then you and your opinion is dogshit. I'm counting on having given you your excuses and watching you take it and eat it up. I'm just teaching others how to do this. Those that can will one day be my validation. And along the way I will have tied your tails into knots.
Quote from: winforus on Aug 11, 08:25 PM 2020And I am not making it up. Learn what flat betting means and what progression means. If you can't win by flat betting, it means that you don't have a winning method.
So how many wins in a row is enough for you? I can't use a virtual bet at a casino because they will ask me to give up my seat. So I place a minimal bet while still making a virtual bet selection on my charts. I play at the littlest price until I see a workable moving average in the effectiveness states. I then use the big bet. That big bet is the flat bet. As I have stated clearly I use ( 1, 2, ) - ( 2 - 1 ) - ( 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, etc) until a recovery occurs. I stop on 3 net wins, in this case now +300. I'm using a base bet of 180 and a big bet of 360 to get to +300. It's right there to read it. I'm not trying to hide anything. Your 11th commandment of flat betting is just crap in your head, zombie. You have my steps. I could switch to virtual bets ( nothing ) and 180 while stopping at +300. Let's see you win 100 games in a row with virtual bets and one fixed big bet only. You can't do it. So you have zero credibility.
Off and running at RS. Did a reset and will just add sessions whenever. No goal set. Just trying to reach +300 on each session with a 3,000 bankroll for each round.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 12, 08:16 AM 2020
What? You don't like being manipulated? I played 50 straight wins in a row and then lost using stupid progressions.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 12, 08:25 AM 2020
How many of you people can win 50 in a row without a progression?
You continue to contradict yourself. In 1st quote, you said that you used progression and in the 2nd one, you said that you didn't. In those 50 wins, you clearly were using progression.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 12, 08:16 AM 2020
It's not perfect flat betting. It's small bet big bet at targeted times..
There is no such thing as perfect or not perfect flat betting. Either you are flat betting or you are using progression. Betting small and betting big at certain times, is using progression.
Flat betting, means that you continue betting the same amount ALL the time. And you clearly don't do this.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 12, 08:25 AM 2020
I expected you to fall for it. I blew out 50 twice and then lost. I suppose those are just coincidental milestones?
Winning 50 sessions in a row is not an impressive milestone. In fact, it is very short term. You were using progression, until it caught up to you and you crashed.
Steve told you the same thing. Joe and precogmiles did as well.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 12, 10:23 AM 2020
Off and running at RS. Did a reset and will just add sessions whenever. No goal set. Just trying to reach +300 on each session with a 3,000 bankroll for each round.
I predict you will once again claim it's RR when you win and when you lose, you will say you did it on purpose. Same old story.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 12, 10:23 AM 2020
Did a reset and will just add sessions whenever.
You have actually done 3 resets. Now that nobody buys your BS excuses for losing, you will cover it up by resetting at your own convenience. This is now beyond amusing.
Here is one of your current sessions:
link:s://roulette-simulator.info/en/game/3ed188bbe979c9bc70648c1a8db03867
Once you were losing, you doubled your bet size:
Original bet: link:s://prnt.sc/tyilpg
Doubled bet: link:s://prnt.sc/tyim6r
And once you won, you quit. You call this flat betting and you consider this impressive? Many people can easily do this 50 times in a row LOL
Quote from: winforus on Aug 12, 01:37 PM 2020Once you were losing, you doubled your bet size:
Great discovery batboy. ( 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, ) until I get a satisfactory recovery.
Quote from: winforus on Aug 12, 01:27 PM 2020You have actually done 3 resets. Now that nobody buys your BS excuses for losing, you will cover it up by resetting at your own convenience. This is now beyond amusing.
It sure is amusing. Your need is clear. Try silence for a while.
Quote from: gizmotron2 on Aug 12, 01:53 PM 2020
Great discovery batboy. ( 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, ) until I get a satisfactory recovery.
If you double your bet upon losses, it means that you are using progression. You are NOT flat betting.
Flat bet = same bet size all the time, no matter weather you win or lose
My point still stands.
Quote from: winforus on Aug 12, 06:15 PM 2020If you double your bet upon losses, it means that you are using progression. You are NOT flat betting.
Flat bet = same bet size all the time, no matter weather you win or lose
My point still stands.
The only point you are making is the one your head is shaped like, whether or not if you know it.
I decide to use the ( 2, ) part of my steps when it looks better to use a higher bet. But you can see it as a cheat and you can stay stupid, I mean "stuck on stupid" like the General said. You are not going to see anything but a progression. So what. We all know that progressions reach a sequence that kills it.