Please give an example of Winkel's G.U.T strategy

[gizmotron]

So this "gambler's intelligence" should in effect be applicable to any and every system?

Yes, it almost does. It has nothing to do with progressions though. They are mindless.

So it would be a good idea to use the simplest method with the smoothest transitions.

[winkel]

What a problem for the long termers.

Markov chain

"In mathematics, a Markov chain, named after Andrey Markov, is a random process where all information about the future is contained in the present state (I.e. one does not need to examine the past to determine the future). To be more exact, the process has the Markov property, meaning that future states depend only on the present state, and are independent of past states. In other words, the description of the present state fully captures all the information that could influence the future evolution of the process. Being a stochastic process means that all state transitions are probabilistic (determined by random chance and thus unpredictable in detail, though likely predictable in its statistical properties).

At each step the system may change its state from the current state to another state (or remain in the same state) according to a probability distribution. The changes of state are called transitions, and the probabilities associated with various state-changes are called transition probabilities. An example of a Markov chain is a random walk on the number line which starts at zero and transitions +1 or −1 with equal probability at each step."

What a bummer. Spike's concepts are backed by math. That will give a head ache to the flat earthers. Mathboyz, don't remember this. It's too hard to handle. You will get another headache.

Thank you for quoting:

With G.U.T

the current state is a crossing-situation
the transition probability is due to the amount of the group e.g. 14 13 10
the probability for transition  is therefore 14/37 13/37 or 10/37

determined by random chance and thus unpredictable in detail, though likely predictable in its statistical properties

that is simply what I ever said, didn´t I?

[Landis]

Thank you for quoting:

With G.U.T

the current state is a crossing-situation
the transition probability is due to the amount of the group e.g. 14 13 10
the probability for transition  is therefore 14/37 13/37 or 10/37
 Quote:    
determined by random chance and thus unpredictable in detail, though likely predictable in its statistical properties  
 

that is simply what I ever said, didn´t I?

I'm assuming that you're talking about the odds of 12 numbers hitting.
The odds of 12 numbers hitting is still 12/37, not 14/37 or 13/37 or 10/37.  The payoff is still just 2 to 1 or 35 to 1 for any one number.  Therefore the house edge remains intact.

[winkel]

I'm assuming that you're talking about the odds of 12 numbers hitting.
The odds of 12 numbers hitting is still 12/37, not 14/37 or 13/37 or 10/37.  The payoff is still just 35 to 1.  Therefore the house edge remains intact.

You are not even able to read. If I talk of 14 13 an 10 numbers groups then I am not talking of 12 numbers.
And what about Kolmogorof and Markov and my other questions you dump idiot.

And as your arguments disappear in Nirwana you go back to house-edge. You poor stupid boy, go back to school or better pre-school before you talk to me

[Landis]

I'm sorry, but you're not side steppping probability or effecting the house edge.

Look, on the math and physics forum we want to see the math.  Not rude comments.  If you want us to take you seriously, then you must act like an adult.


Show me the math.

[winkel]

I'm sorry, but you're not side steppping probability or effecting the house edge.

Look, on the math and physics forum we want to see the math.  Not rude comments.  If you want us to take you seriously, then you must act like an adult.


Show me the math.

How can I show you when your brain is closed due to severe malfunction

and I repeat: What about Kolmogorof and Markov?
Why should I go to a phjysics-forum. I´m not interested in phsysics. I would go to a stochastics-forum. But if all people there are that closed-minded as you

[gizmotron]

I'm sorry, but you're not side stepping probability or effecting the house edge.

Nobody is trying to side step anything that can or can't cause nor prevent the next outcome from happening. The one time odds don't change. They don't predict either. The current situation will continue or it won't. Probability does not explain anything that continues on the very next spin. Past spins from before the last spin can't predict what will happen either. Only the last spin can tell you if the state for continuance exists. Only the next spin can become the last spin during that moment that it is spun and then completed. The state of continuance exists until it stops.

Trend detection can make use of many coincidences to establish its circumstantial existence. The odds on the next spin are irrelevant. When all the conditions are right then the continuance tends to hold up. Experience extrapolating coincidence and form allow the brilliant player to take it in all very easily. That's why reason based charting systems are so complex that common sense is often ignored by their users. Some times detection is a no brainer. I know this. You must use most of your ability to decipher the current state and less on producing meaning from multi-faceted, reasoned-out contraptions that require extraneous deductions just to communicate back to you what to do. The topic is following the current state of randomness. It could be by a rule based charting system or a guess based charting system. It's better to control the outcome than to be dragged through its bad patches.

[Landis]

Both of you pretend to be math guys, so show me the math.  Show me how you have changed the odds and what the new odds are of a number(s) hitting. 

Thanks.

[gizmotron]

Both of you pretend to be math guys, so show me the math.  Show me how you have changed the odds and what the new odds are of a number(s) hitting.  

Thanks.

I don't pretend to be a mathematician. I have no doubt I can write a computer program that guesses better than the odds. I know how to put enough conditional testing into an algorithm for it to produce the results that I claim. In the end the algorithm would be the evidence that proves my points. I don't need to be a traditionally trained mathematician to make my points. I've told you where and how the topic can be known. Do your own proof. I guess you will have to go out and become a brilliant Roulette player and a computer programmer. I will not disclose exactly what I do on an open forum. That does not mean that it can't be done.

Show me how you have changed the odds and what the new odds are of a number(s) hitting. 

Don't be ridiculous. I never said that I change the odds. That's you attempting to venture into the twilight zone. Everything I know about roulette is that the odds for the next spin are absolute. Only now you show me the math for continuance occurring exactly like the odds for the next spin only. Continuance is different than red or black. It can't exist for every spin. Red and black does exist for every spin. There is a difference.

[GogoCro]

Landis, for you nothing works and that may be true. What are you searching for on vls forum?
You have opinion that nothing can beat math odss and I agree.
Only want to say what is point to discuss here with winkel and others?
Do you have some method for share with us or anything else beside debating about math odss?

[Landis]

Gizmo,

You and Winkel both pretend to be math guys.  Now that a real math guy is asking you questions, you're singing a different song.   I thought that you were supposedly an expert on randomness?  What's up?

[winkel]

Gizmo,

You and Winkel both pretend to be math guys.  Now that a real math guy is asking you questions, you're singing a different song.   I thought that you were supposedly an expert on randomness?  What's up?

I never ever said I am a math guy! You did you are one, but you don´t know Kolmogorof and Markov. so just shut up, if you refuse to give answers to questions. just hanging around and repeating senseless statements doesn´t help anyone in anyway.

[Landis]

Winkel,

You have implied that you are everytime you attempt to belittle or berate someone because they don't see the brilliance of your system.  Should I provide some examples? 

Enough said.

Now, can you or can't you demonstrate why your method is effective mathematically?
All I'm asking is for you to show how the house edge is changed by the system.

[gizmotron]

Gizmo,

You and Winkel both pretend to be math guys.  Now that a real math guy is asking you questions, you're singing a different song.   I thought that you were supposedly an expert on randomness?  What's up?

I guess you are a lier.  You are also another sorry math guy that has no clue what really happens. If I prove to you that I can write a computer program that proves my position then I'll have to kill you.  

Landis, you are effectively a beggar. Does that add up? It's simple arithmetic. No jerkwater math wannabe is going to get me to drag them to the casino as a success. You can endlessly suffer in your limited math based conclusions.

[Landis]

Gizmotron,

You claim to be an expert on randomness, right?  Ok, then how many standard deviations above normal does your system perform when betting on five numbers after 100k spins?

[Landis]

-