Ok, so how do I begin?

[gizmotron]

Lanky, there are many reasons why I wanted to try to reason with Arte. He thinks there are laws that govern randomness. The only law I know of is 37/1 or 38/1 respective of the types of wheels used. On the very next spin that is the only law that exists. There is nothing preventing or causing that law to have an effect on two spins at once. it's not 76/2 or 74/2 that pays after two spins. There is no mathematical connection to multiple spins because the casinos don't pay on multiple spins other than one spin at a time.

Consequently there are no laws that apply to multiple spins from the past in comparison to single or multiple spins in the future. There is just one spin, one bet, and one payout. So why should past results apply to the next spin? They do because you use them for bet selections. It's only a reason to have a bet selection. Nothing says that they are always the right bet selections. Nothing prevents them from being right either. They are just an excuse to have a bet selection process. They exist all around you. Use them, don't use them, that's up to you.  The point is can you use a bet selection process to see if it is working or not? I've been saying all along you can. I've said test as you go. That is what I mean by checking to see if it's working or not. Seeing a bet selection opportunity is only part of the method. You must know what to do with it in all situations. Think. That's what I did. I figured it out. Any of you can too. Don't get stuck on the bet selection process. The game is won or lost in the strategy applied to the situation, when to bet larger, when to attack, and when to lay back.

[madupz4]

Gizmotron,

When you say, "That's why I track nine different dozens, that nine make up three sets," other than the 3 dozen's and 3 column's what other combination do you use to track 3 additional "dozens?"

Thanks

[gizmotron]

I once thought that sections of the wheel would give me an advantage. There is no difference in the quality of hits. I used the three spaces on either side of each zero on the American wheel for a total of 14 numbers, counting the zeros too. Then I could leave out the zeros sometimes for a dozen. I also used the six numbers either side of 90 degrees away from the zeros. In between these two sets of ninety degree numbers and the two sets that make up the zero's sets there were left four sets of three each.

On the American wheel that makes these three sets:

0,00,1,2,9,10,13,14,25,26,27,28,35,36

5,6,17,18,19,20,21,22,31,32,33,34

3,4,7,8,11,12,15,16,23,24,29,30

I memorized these twenty years ago.

[madupz4]

Gizmotron,

Thanks.  From analyzing the streams of data, I realize you wait until the opportunity presents itself, and it's more beneficial to be patient rather than betting every spin and relying on triggers.

But how quickly would you say it is safe to "jump in" as far as reading the random and then acting?  Meaning for example, if you see dozens 1,2,1,2........would you jump in now and and bet 1 only or 1 and 2 at the same time?  or would you wait for a longer chain like 1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,.............and then jump in?

Thanks

[gizmotron]

This goes to the entire point of practice. You will learn what needs to happen if you practice. There are signs that some times lead you and sometimes those same signs are not there. Experience is what you are asking for. Get it the hard way. It's the only way it will count. You need it to work for you, right? Guess what? You will give yourself all the answers.

[madupz4]

Gizmotron,

Your right regarding the practice......Thanks for your insight.

How many units do you personally aim to win on average per session?

[gizmotron]

I used to set a goal that was a leave point. I don't do that anymore. I just take what ever comes at me and whatever I can get. A session can have no opportunities and might lose a little. A session might have great opportunity and win you more than you would have won had you used a threshold. You need a way to break even while waiting for opportunities. It's really common sense.

[Arteinvivo]

You need a way to break even while waiting for opportunities

Cut the comedy Gizmo, it's time to cut the crap. I admit you are quite imaginative to create strings of non sense. Here is a way to break even 100% of the time and it's free. Invest $100000 in a account in your bank then each year take the profit compounded and play it randomly on any games. No need to wait just play randomly. I can assure, you will never lose money as you can only win using this simple strategy.

[gizmotron]

Cut the comedy Gizmo, it's time to cut the crap. I admit you are quite imaginative to create strings of non sense. Here is a way to break even 100% of the time and it's free. Invest $100000 in a account in your bank then each year take the profit compounded and play it randomly on any games. No need to wait just play randomly. I can assure, you will never lose money as you can only win using this simple strategy.

I could not create a more woosified image of you than that bat guano poster of a savior in spandex. You are that infamous piece of crap hanging from the top of a cave. It's perfect. Newton was wrong. BS does go up. You know Arte, not only are you stupid, but you think that your presence here is like an appearance of that hero from the comic books. I so enjoy making you look like poop. It's part on my everyday enjoyment in life. Let's see. You are the contraption king of the roulette forums. You are that Clyde Crashcup of a buffoon of a scientist that spawns the creations of Ruby Goldberg type systems that are only partially useful. In fact that fits you to a tee. You are only partially useful. Thanks for chiming in again. You are nothing. You offer nothing. Your credibility about randomness is nothing. So go Forex yourself.

[madupz4]

Gizmotron,

Can you expand more on what you mean by reading the baseline?

I am familiar with binomial distribution, and how it relates in the grand scheme of things but when you say "baseline," are you talking about what is "expected" vs. what is actually occuring?  Similar to the law of the third?

Thanks

[gizmotron]

Gizmotron,

Can you expand more on what you mean by reading the baseline?

I am familiar with binomial distribution, and how it relates in the grand scheme of things but when you say "baseline," are you talking about what is "expected" vs. what is actually occuring?  Similar to the law of the third?

Thanks

There is nothing expected. The flow of data will transition across the baseline while in motion. The data flow of randomness is a moving target. That's why you must change with the flow. The baseline is not a moving target. It's a reference to what is happening that is in motion. You can see motion if you contrast it against a stationary object. Hence the phrase "reading randomness." You can make a winning move while betting the correct side of the baseline, while it is in a state of dominance, either side. That's what is wrong with binomial distribution as a stationary object and applying it to moving targets. The two don't fit well together, especially as a predictor. So here is the rub. People keep trying to fit me into that argument because it's all they understand. They tell others that I believe that randomness is a predictor. Anyone can argue against that. That's why they take on that great challenge. It's easy.

[Arteinvivo]

Good comedy Gizmo, i am sure Madupz4 is more educated than he was prior to reading your last comment 

[gizmotron]

Good comedy Gizmo, I am sure Madupz4 is more educated than he was prior to reading your last comment 

That does it Arte. You are banned from this section on randomness discussion.

[Spike]

1gxHn3  <a href="hxxp: fjbmvwfjpaxx. com/">fjbmvwfjpaxx</a>, wvwikgvqpjiv, [link=hxxp: fpjaereqyxeq. com/]fpjaereqyxeq[/link], hxxp: lyvfftnhillb. com/

[potatochips]

To me, Arte hit the nail on the head. There is no evidence you can win long term with your so called theory and beside thousand of people practice everyday trying to beat the wheel and still no evidence has been shown that one could beat it on a regular basis. As said Arte hit the nail where it counts on the head while you seem to turn around the pot because your pot is probably empty of arguments. You can ban me if you want as i rarely like to speak with scammers or people who take pleasure to give false directions.

[potatochips]

-