Let's play more Gizlish:

I'm still waiting for the advocate of the trendings/guessings style to show me that they can guess/trend at at a clipm of better than 50 percents, hey hey.

Let's actually put that to a test. Let's see if you can listen.

This thread is about MM and not so much about bet selections, right?

So if I just make blind bet selections I'm going to get waves of win streaks and waves of losing streaks say 25% of the time. Are you with me so far or does that mess with your ability to listen?

Just for the sake of making an example here let's say that a win streak or a losing streak lasts 5 to 7 spins in a row or hands in a row. That makes these little streaks smaller than any super streaks and larger than micro streaks like 3 or 4 in a row. Never the less you can see these win streaks and losing streaks all over the place while you play. I'm saying you can see both types about 25% of the time and that's all. Just for the sake of an example.

Now these streaks came from blind random guesses with no notion that a trend or a pattern was used to find them. No trends were used to see these mini or micro streaks. Are you with me so far? Yet these streaks are all win streaks interspersed with losing streaks. You want proof that using these streaks of wins are expected to do better than using streaks of losing. I'm listening to what you want here.

When I look in my multi group play chart that has six groups made from 12 unique sets I see trends and patterns. If I can make bet selections while a trend or pattern is continuing in a single section of the playing chart then that coincidence is a win streak phase so far . So I can read the chart and see phases of wins and phases of losses.

What you want is proof that I can fund the win streaks and not fund the losing streaks that should at best even things out. That would be my money management over this bet selection process. I chose to fund only the coincidences that are in a win phase. If it is not in a win phase it does not get funded. If I lose at any time after starting to bet a streak I stop funding that win phase. Now you can do the math and say that I must lose half of all first attempted bets on any trend / win phase condition. But that is not true. You must allow for variable change. The math for all spins or hands works out for all the spins or hands. It does not work at all if I don't fund the losing streaks or the chaos streaks.

So I take one net win off of all the win streaks that I bet on, money management. I only want three net wins at the funded price to win a session that then is done, more money management. For you to be right I must lose half of all attempts to take a one net win off of each win phase in a current state of continuing.

I have people that have worked on this at length and are producing a 2 to 1 win to loss averages over many many session tests, that's all of them but one person that prefers ESP. That guy did better than 1 to 1 before he gave up on it.

So I think you must prove to me and everyone that these people getting 2 to 1 win to loss ratios are fooling themselves. There is more evidence that my notion of variable change applies to only funding win streaks while they occur.

I know what I'm suggesting is mathematical. But why does it apply to the game show host problem and not to when all active losing streaks are eliminated from the full possibility.