Lets have a REAL HOLY GRAIL DISCUSSION!!!

[Proofreaders2000]

Sorry, i dont get the relevance of what
youre saying.. Obviously No one would do that!-36kid

But the essence of what we are both saying is that in an instance where a person is guaranteed too make a profit, only a fool would say no ill take chances and keep opening doors.... Right

That's what keeps casinos in business. 
A Grail may look like $1/hour (depending on your bankroll of course)

It even may be steady money, make $500/year full-time play.  It doesn't
draw the big crowds and "beautiful people" like the attention high-rollers get.

As for only a fool would say no...and keep opening doors.  Note the millionaires from "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" for example vs those at the $500,000 threshold who lost and walked away with $10,000 instead.  It happens more than you think.

[36kid]

Maybe, maybe not. 

Doesnt really move things along... What your motivations are is beside the point...
But i take it that your silence on everythng else i said means you're not inclined to disagree..?

[MrJ]

How about if I break it down a bit easier for you? Why I'm on this board (HG or no HG discussions) is none of your business. Cool?

Ken

[36kid]

Sorry, i dont get the relevance of what
youre saying.. Obviously No one would do that!-36kid

But the essence of what we are both saying is that in an instance where a person is guaranteed too make a profit, only a fool would say no ill take chances and keep opening doors.... Right

That's what keeps casinos in business. 
A Grail may look like $1/hour (depending on your bankroll of course)

It even may be steady money, make $10,000/year full-time play. It doesn't
draw the big crowds and "beautiful people" like the attention high-rollers get.

Could you expand on what you mean by this?

As for only a fool would say no...and keep opening doors.  Note the millionaires from "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" for example vs those at the $500,000 threshold who lost and walked away with $10,000 instead. It happens more than you think.

And this is exactly what i was trying to say to MrJ. regardless of the risk involved human nature to varying degrees drives us to push for more and be essentially "greedy"..
Now the poor people on who wants to be a millionaire who lost only had an audience, a friend and a phonecall.. They didnt know all the answers....
A true HG would eliminate the need for human intervention in the decion making process. it would just tell you the best thing to do to otherwise it wouldnt be THE HG it would just be a good system to use.. Think of it as an earpiece the millionaire contestant could choose to have embedded in thier ear connected to a command centre where Einstien sits infront of GooglePedia. Youd have the ability to open as many doors as you want without fear of loss.... I for one would not say no...

[36kid]

How about if I break it down a bit easier for you? Why I'm on this board (HG or no HG discussions) is none of your business. Cool?

No need to get hostile.. Like i said your motivations for being here are beside the point. I put forward my personal and admittedly generalized opinion to help illustrate my main point. I apologise if that generalisation and my mistaken inclusion of you into one side or the other offended you. But even though he tried to side with you, Proofreaders2000 (sweet irony) just "proven" (couldnt resist that one) my point..

[Proofreaders2000]

Let's say you have a $31 bankroll and the wheel spins 31 of the same even chance.  Since the world record is 36 of the same even chance you could bet with a progression 1,2,4,8,16 with confidence the opposite should hit. (all hypothetical here-odds are still under 50% for even-chance bets)

So there's your $1/hour reference (and if your bankroll were larger you could bet more)

It doesn't draw the big crowds and "beautiful people" like the attention high-rollers get.

People like to see large wagers-pitbosses come out a crowd may
gather.  With that built-in edge chances are the bettor will lose that large bet.)

Ben Affleck (for example) can draw crowds because he
bets $20,000/hand in blackjack-and three hands at a time.

[MrJ]

@36kid >> Any LONG TIME member here has my 100% respect and my 100% attention.

When a LONG TIME member posts something, I pause and take in what they have said. Afterall, I could learn something new. It does not mean I'll agree with the post but I at least consider the information.

Ken

[Proofreaders2000]

But even though he tried to side with you, Proofreaders2000 (sweet irony) just "proven" (couldnt resist that one)  my point..

I don't appreciate being drawn into your argument with Mr.
J.  If you are only here to be a 'right-fighter' don't expect anymore helps. 

[nowun]

From my point of view I would not share a true HG with one single person, simple as that.  No one and I mean NO ONE (not even my spouse) knows how much money I have won in the past or how I did it, they see the results but have no idea how I did it. That is the way it will always stay with me.  One gem of knowledge my father passed to me.

Why kill a golden goose, when you can look after it and continue to benefit from it long term with careful maintenance.

[RobbieD]

So are we all agreed that the definition of a true Holy Grail is winning on every spin, which will never be achieved?

Therefore the 'next best' Holy Grail is the Martingale with unlimited funds and no table limits?

So, the realistic definition is that we are after a system/betting sequence that wins every day/session. Whether that profit is £1 or £100, our ultimate aim is to make a profit.

As all systems will lose eventually, we can then narrow everything down to money management and ultimately luck.

It still amazes me that Einstein made his famous statement without the luxury of all the computer power we have today and we are still no further forward.

Surely by now, all permutations regarding betting have been explored - but we still think we have discovered something that no-one else has thought of.

Testing is good fun - being drawn into the dark depths of 'gambling' is a scary place.

[Asxetos]

My definition of holy G is a method that can overcome any down in a realistic amount of spins.
If it can overcome any down in let say 1000 spins it can t be played in real conditions.. so it s not the H.G.

[Proofreaders2000]

Here is a question.

If you had $1000 and you had a system that was consistent (for the most part) in which you profit $0.50/hour would you play it (or try other systems hoping for a bigger payout)?

[Asxetos]

If it was a sure and steady winner ofcource I would play it!
And after some sessions I would increase the chip value and so on.
There will be a time that the 0,50$ will be 10$ in one hour.

[36kid]

So are we all agreed that the definition of a true Holy Grail is winning on every spin, which will never be achieved?

Therefore the 'next best' Holy Grail is the Martingale with unlimited funds and no table limits?

So, the realistic definition is that we are after a system/betting sequence that wins every day/session. Whether that profit is £1 or £100, our ultimate aim is to make a profit.

As all systems will lose eventually, we can then narrow everything down to money management and ultimately luck.

It still amazes me that Einstein made his famous statement without the luxury of all the computer power we have today and we are still no further forward.

Surely by now, all permutations regarding betting have been explored - but we still think we have discovered something that no-one else has thought of.

Testing is good fun - being drawn into the dark depths of 'gambling' is a scary place.

I think that the one thing we are all agreed on, is that the general consensus among us is that there is no true HG or system that we know of that can achieve whatever our personal interpretations of HG mean. Primarily because of our belief in the world around us and the established concepts of mathematics, phyisics, etc... makes it hard for us to see any logical way for it to be a reality.

in most of our minds true HG is an impossibility.

however, i personally dont believe in limiting your thinking by believing something is impossible. Id rather look at them as not yet achieved.

We live in a world of wonder where the human race has come from drawing lines in the sand with the holy fire-lighting stick to drawing lines in the sky with smoke that bellows from a manufactured flying lump of mineral that is fueled by the invisible but deadly force of kinetic vibration known as electricity. The very world we live in is an impossiblity in itself but yet we believe in the reality because we can touch, taste, feel and see its affects on us and in turn interact with it..

My point is this, Just because something is said to be impossibe or hasent yet been proven possible, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WILL NEVER BE A POSSIBILITY...

So when i apply this view to the subject at hand, i believe that there is a HG and it is just not discovered yet.. But given what we have said about its existance being impossible, IF it was a proven reality, it would not only present a contradiction to our current belief system in the form of an "impossible made possible" paradox, that could in turn provide the basis for advancements or new theories to predicting randomness, which is one of the core considerations of chaos theory... I believe that any advancements in this area that the world could share and utilise collectively would far outweigh any advancements or contributions that could be made by a group or single individual that would keep or use such a thing for thier own personal gain.

Im well aware that my views are slightly fantastical (in our current sphere of understanding) but the true essence of learning and advancement is the questioning of the established order of things in order to find revelations that lead to improvements on our understanding and the things we can then go on to do with our new knowlegde.

It is the reason why i started this thread. To learn. Through consideration of other peoples ideas. To push the boundaries of thinking. Challenge existing beliefs.... Because while we cling to old beliefs we can not truly make progress. 

[ddarko]

i believe that there is a HG and it is just not discovered yet..

Or maybe it already has been discovered, just not exposed......