How to Play With the Truth Bomb

[gizmotron]

What exactly does this mean? on the one hand you say there are advantages to be had, and you say how to identify them, but at the same time you don't give any "rules" for specific bets. Seems to me that you lack the courage of your convictions (if indeed you actually have any). What's more likely is that you know damn well there is no such thing as an "opportunity" (each outcome is equally likely, remember?) and 2) is just a get-out clause. If the user fails to make a profit it's his fault for not putting in the hours of practice - he just hasn't learned to read randomness well enough. 

You can't call that an educated guess. What you don't know is clear. And once I do my thing you will be easily identifiable for you tirades and your jihad of fundamental roulette extremism. Go ahead, blab you opinions. They are worthless irrelevance.

[xman1970]

Keep on rollin Gizmo, that hole your digging is getting bigger n bigger.......

[gizmotron]

Keep on rollin Gizmo, that hole your[sic] digging is getting bigger n bigger.......

You keep on manning your watchtower, it's your favorite command post. You're just too bad for the gambling world.
       

BTW, did you become an ex-man before or after your operation?

[Mike]

You can't call that an educated guess. What you don't know is clear. And once I do my thing you will be easily identifiable for you tirades and your jihad of fundamental roulette extremism. Go ahead, blab you opinions. They are worthless irrelevance.

I don't think prospective buyers of your software will think my points are irrelevant, but you stick to the insults and rhetoric Gizmotron, it's what you're good at. Stay away from facts and logic, it just makes you look like an idiot.

[xman1970]

I don't think prospective buyers of your software will think my points are irrelevant, but you stick to the insults and rhetoric Gizmotron, it's what you're good at. Stay away from facts and logic, it just makes you look like an idiot.

LMFAO 

Looks like Mike has got you off to a tee Gizmo.....

[gizmotron]

I don't think prospective buyers of your software will think my points are irrelevant, but you stick to the insults and rhetoric Gizmotron, it's what you're good at. Stay away from facts and logic, it just makes you look like an idiot.

What the heck do you know? You are a self proclaimed advocate that there are no characteristics to randomness. You are a self proclaimed expert on the trail of the three blind mice. Your conclusions are rife with an absence of facts and logic. Yet that some how gives you the right to pontificate with your own dogmatic rhetoric. You need to get your own house in order before we need to hear from you. You have a far worst problem looming ahead. Your  credibility is also on the line. Leading your arguments with fairy tales is only damaging to you.

[cheese]

Your conclusions are rife with an absence of facts and logic.

So are your assertions. Your claims have no facts, just bluster and threats. Its like watching people who know nothing about math, argue about math. Pointless. Gizmo has again and again in the past said that he loves to use a whole lot of words and say absolutely nothing, and then sit back and laugh. Apparently this is his only talent.

[Mike]

What the heck do you know? You are a self proclaimed advocate that there are no characteristics to randomness.

Wrong. I didn't say that, I said that there are no characteristics to randomness which can give you an advantage. Of course there are "characteristics", you can take any sequence of spins and identify characteristics, but in the absence of other information, the characteristic, whatever it may be, is useless as an indicator of the characteristics of future sequences.

Suppose you are sitting with a friend in a cafe and decide to have a bet on the colours of the cars driving past. Your friend believes that the chances are good that at least one of the next 10 cars to pass will be blue, because there are quite a lot of blue cars on the road at any time. He doesn't have any other reason to believe that another blue car will be along soon, only that it's a "characteristic" of cars that a lot of them are blue, and in the last few minutes quite a few blue cars have passed. You, on the other hand, decide to bet that a red car will be passing soon. You happen to know that today there is a car rally nearby, and that the cars going to the rally have to pass this way. You also know that the rally is for a particular make and model of car, and that the car was only made in 2 colours - red and black.

Each of you has knowledge regarding the likelihood of a car of your chosen colour passing, but your friend's information is weak, it's based on nothing other than the general distribution of blue cars in the total car population, and the fact that he has noticed a lot of blue cars this morning. Your information is stronger; even if you didn't know about the rally, you would not be at a disadvantage betting red, given that there are an equal distribution of car colours.

It's all about information which is relevant to the outcome of your chosen bet. The information I have about the rally and cars is analogous to knowing some physical property of the wheel/ball/dealer which can impact the outcome. If you have no such information, the wheel is then "random" - you have no basis on which to make a bet because you can't differentiate one outcome from another, you are simply saying that certain "characteristics" have been in evidence, therefore other characteristics will follow. Not only is there no reason to make such an assumption, but you are contradicting yourself if you also admit (as you do) that outcomes are equally likely and independent.

[Nathan Detroit]

Next week WIKIILEAKS will  post  full details of the  Truth Bomb. Have patience.

N.D.

[gizmotron]

Wrong. I didn't say that, I said that there are no characteristics to randomness which can give you an advantage. Of course there are "characteristics", you can take any sequence of spins and identify characteristics, but in the absence of other information, the characteristic, whatever it may be, is useless as an indicator of the characteristics of future sequences.

What about a confirmation of a characteristic's continuance on each new spin? I'm telling you that as an indicator it's highly useful information. But according to you it's useless.

[gizmotron]

Next week WIKIILEAKS will  post  full details of the  Truth Bomb. Have patience.

N.D.

That is an excellent argument to never sell a working explanation of my discoveries. There is no such thing as an effective locking system for software distribution.

The only working idea is to give it away to the entire world for free, at the appropriate time. An exit strategy that will end most of the discussion on what works best, especially for the casino owners. I'm thinking that its too much work to leak all this out slowly. On the day that the concepts are widely known, or on the day of my immanent death I will publish it all for free. No scam, just the bomb. I'll go out with a laugh. That's the ticket. This works way better. Nothing for sale. No scam. No more people to teach. Like it or not this thread has reached its useful end too.

[pins]

on that day the casinos will close the roulette wheels for ever.

[cheese]

No scam, just the bomb. I'll go out with a laugh.

Too late for that. We've been giggling about you for a long long time now..

[cheese]

-