It is just a matter of knowing what the wheel is throwing at the time.

[gizmotron]

Gizmo, yes I can. We've had this discussion earlier in the thread. In reply #48 you said (your reply in blue):
I'm not really sure what you mean by "global" effect but assuming it means the pattern over a longer spin history, then why should this "global" effect not be subject to the same laws as a "local" effect (meaning the more recent pattern) - what reason is there for me to believe otherwise?

But really, there isn't much point in this endless back and forth, it beats me why you don't just shut us all up by giving a demo. If you did that we would all be put in our place and you would be proved right. Notice that I'm not asking for a full revelation of your method, just a demonstration of its effectiveness. If you don't want to do it publicly maybe we could arrange something privately?

The global effect can permeate the trend tracking for several hours. It just does that. I've seen very strange global effects work on four different tables in Cesar's Lake Tahoe. It went on for more than five hours. I bet against it because I was thinking this had to stop. It didn't and I lost my pay check for that week. Sharing information with others when it clearly cost me to learn it is kind of a pet peeve for me.

Regarding a demo. That was going to happen until people started throwing all this back in my face. I even started one over at GG when Spike came busting in to interrupt it. I don't deal with rude people with something that is actually worth something.

I tried to tell you what you would see in a demo. I would play, we would see three types of situations, works real well, works real badly, or is choppy chaos. In all that, if the opportunity rises, I would attack my win streaks.

That would leave people like you to interpret what happened. I can predict that too. Have you ever heard of the blind leading the blind? I would have to drag every one of you through a full explanation of each bet and how it effected the win streak. My suggestion to you is to go lose several pay checks. You owe it to yourself to get a true perspective of this game. I don't need to prove anything to you. Your demands to end debate because I won't bottle feed a bunch of demanding beggars is going to always fall on def ears. Why do I have to publish proof? Why do I have to kill off my own opportunity by causing a gold rush? It makes no sense. Take what I have or leave it.

I told you years ago. Prove it to yourself. And buster you have had the years. You said no way. That's your choice. Now live with it. I'm not your mother. I'm not going to choose your clothes for you. I'm not going to drag any of you kicking and screaming to the truth.

[zippyplayer]

is there any moderating on this forum

[VKM]

Ok, well you had no reason to believe the current conditions would CONTINUE either, so rationally, the decision to bet or not should have been 50/50. The fact that you won several bets doesn't confirm that the bet was favorable; you haven't considered the alternative explanation: that it was pure luck.

Naturally, if you've been playing like this for years and winning (I'm talking at least several thousand placed bets) then luck as an explanation doesn't seem very plausible.

Are you claiming that you win consistently playing this way?

No, I haven't played this way for several thousand placed bets.  It's just one of a few ways that I play.  I'm satisfied with the results.


So let me get this straight...
You don't think that winning several bets is a confirmation that the conditions were favorable to win at least one bet. 

What do you think would be a better way to confirm that the conditions were favorable to win at least one bet?


I took a few minutes and considered the alternative explanation: that it was pure luck.
I concluded that it was not pure luck because for that to be true it would have required too many coincidences.

Then I considered another alternative explanation: that the conditions were favorable for many coincidences to occur, causing pure luck to affect my bets, resulting in expected but at the same time unexpected wins...


VKM
 

[Zindrod]

No, I haven't played this way for several thousand placed bets.  It's just one of a few ways that I play.  I'm satisfied with the results.


So let me get this straight...
You don't think that winning several bets is a confirmation that the conditions were favorable to win at least one bet. 

What do you think would be a better way to confirm that the conditions were favorable to win at least one bet?


I took a few minutes and considered the alternative explanation: that it was pure luck.
I concluded that it was not pure luck because for that to be true it would have required too many coincidences.

Then I considered another alternative explanation: that the conditions were favorable for many coincidences to occur, causing pure luck to affect my bets, resulting in expected but at the same time unexpected wins...


VKM
 

VKM. If you play EC's. Say you bet on Red for no particular reason. Red wins........ That was one win right? So that was luck.

You see it isn't so difficult to win a unit or two BUT in the longterm you will be held accountable by the 2,7% house edge. So yes you will win your fair share. Eventually though you would be down by the house edge. You see certain days you won't get it right from the get go. Does not matter what you do. So if we assume you have stop-loss and a huge bankroll eventually you should be down 2,7% in the longrun. Personally I think it might be worse than that. Why? Well how many stop-loss, stop-win have you seen being equal to each other? For instance my br is $5000. My stop on a win target is 20% which is $1000. My lose cut off is 40% (or more but never equal to the win cut off) is $2000. Now in the short term you have a good chance to reach any of those two on a particular day. The thing is that by not having your two cut offs the same value you are increasing the odds against yourself in the longterm.

[Mike]

Regarding a demo. That was going to happen until people started throwing all this back in my face. I even started one over at GG when Spike came busting in to interrupt it. I don't deal with rude people with something that is actually worth something.

I tried to tell you what you would see in a demo. I would play, we would see three types of situations, works real well, works real badly, or is choppy chaos. In all that, if the opportunity rises, I would attack my win streaks.

That would leave people like you to interpret what happened. I can predict that too. Have you ever heard of the blind leading the blind? I would have to drag every one of you through a full explanation of each bet and how it effected the win streak. My suggestion to you is to go lose several pay checks. You owe it to yourself to get a true perspective of this game. I don't need to prove anything to you. Your demands to end debate because I won't bottle feed a bunch of demanding beggars is going to always fall on def ears. Why do I have to publish proof? Why do I have to kill off my own opportunity by causing a gold rush? It makes no sense. Take what I have or leave it.

I told you years ago. Prove it to yourself. And buster you have had the years. You said no way. That's your choice. Now live with it. I'm not your mother. I'm not going to choose your clothes for you. I'm not going to drag any of you kicking and screaming to the truth.

Gizmo, YOU decided to make all these wild claims, and when people naturally question them you throw a hissy fit. You seem to think that everyone should treat you with awe and reverence without any kind of proof? Grow up.

All these strategies are variations on the same theme, which is why I know they can't work - the PRINCIPLES are flawed.
Therefore, there's no need to test each and every permutation or combination of possible methods (which would be impossible anyway) because they are all members of the same class, they are all built on quicksand.

[schoenpoetser]

GMT Your conclusion in reply 80 is wrong.After 19 red in a row it is 50/50 to get a 20 red in a row.If you start the sequence the expectation of a 20 red in a row it  is 1/2^20 .

[VKM]

VKM. If you play EC's. Say you bet on Red for no particular reason. Red wins........ That was one win right? So that was luck.

You see it isn't so difficult to win a unit or two BUT in the longterm you will be held accountable by the 2,7% house edge. So yes you will win your fair share. Eventually though you would be down by the house edge. You see certain days you won't get it right from the get go. Does not matter what you do. So if we assume you have stop-loss and a huge bankroll eventually you should be down 2,7% in the longrun. Personally I think it might be worse than that. Why? Well how many stop-loss, stop-win have you seen being equal to each other? For instance my br is $5000. My stop on a win target is 20% which is $1000. My lose cut off is 40% (or more but never equal to the win cut off) is $2000. Now in the short term you have a good chance to reach any of those two on a particular day. The thing is that by not having your two cut offs the same value you are increasing the odds against yourself in the longterm.

Zindrod, I really can't relate to "betting on Red for no particular reason".

As for your other statements, I'm not interested in discussing money mangement methods in this topic.  I also don't want to get involved in a debate where I have to spend time and effort trying to prove my thoughts about how the  expectation that an individual Roulette Player will conform to the "longrun" mathematical statistics is a fallacy.  (By the way, even though I think it's true, I don't think that I can prove it.)

VKM

[gizmotron]

Gizmo, YOU decided to make all these wild claims, and when people naturally question them you throw a hissy fit. You seem to think that everyone should treat you with awe and reverence without any kind of proof? Grow up.

All these strategies are variations on the same theme, which is why I know they can't work - the PRINCIPLES are flawed.
Therefore, there's no need to test each and every permutation or combination of possible methods (which would be impossible anyway) because they are all members of the same class, they are all built on quicksand.

First of all it's you reacting to my claims. You are the one with the problems and the issues. Have you ever heard the phrase "it's hard to soar with eagles while you are surrounded by turkeys?"

Think about this too. Whenever someone thinks of something for the first time others tend to call that person a genius. What that person discovered had always been the truth all along though. It was that nobody ever thought of it before. So when skeptics come around with their old claims they were never the truth either, ever. So I have every right to call them retards. They have always been wrong. I know it. That's just the way it is.

I don't care how long you remain a skeptic and I don't care when the math experts get off their asses and grab that Nobel prize for mathematics. When all that happens I'll enjoy the moment and there you will be with your pathetic demands. You are wrong, I know it. What you really don't like is that I don't respect you. You have only earned the right to be burned. You have not earned the right to be heard. I'm just doing my part. This is the time that all the truth comes out. I'm doing this my way. I discovered it. I've disclosed enough to take credit for it. I've even used people like you as pawns in my methods of madness. You are incredibly comical. I've put it right in your hands for everyone to see. And you want to touch t**ds in the toilet and play with your little plastic boats there too. If I was you I'd be so embarrassed I'd quit posting. I set you up on purpose. You geniuses ticked me off. This is me getting even with you. I want you to suffer on the spit and cook some more before I put you out of your misery.

BTW you just contradicted yourself after seeing that I have you surrounded. What's up with that? First you demand a demonstration. Now it's not necessary because of your superior logic. What a pathetic argument.

[gizmotron]

GMT Your conclusion in reply 80 is wrong.After 19 red in a row it is 50/50 to get a 20 red in a row.If you start the sequence the expectation of a 20 red in a row it  is 1/2^20 .

I knew that. Thanks for confirming the basis of my sarcasm.

[Mike]

More bluster from Gizmo the clown.

I know damn well you don't have anything, and you know it too. It's kind of funny seeing you trying to wriggle out of doing the demo you promised a few weeks ago. You also said you were going to spill the beans on your strategy; all we have so far is "follow the trend" which is as old as the hills.

I get your number now; bait people into "begging" and then run away giggling. That's pretty sad behaviour for a grown man, you really should get a life. 

So that's 0/10 for originality and 10/10 for being a dickhead.

[gizmotron]

More bluster from Gizmo the clown.

I know damn well you don't have anything, and you know it too. It's kind of funny seeing you trying to wriggle out of doing the demo you promised a few weeks ago. You also said you were going to spill the beans on your strategy; all we have so far is "follow the trend" which is as old as the hills.

I get your number now; bait people into "begging" and then run away giggling. That's pretty sad behaviour for a grown man, you really should get a life. 

So that's 0/10 for originality and 10/10 for being a dickhead.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that all you have seen is "follow the trend." Yeah, I put you down and it stuck too. You are just a pathetic mathboyz wannabe.

What happened the last two weeks was me teaching and some people disrupting the threads. People like Cheese and MauiSunset did not stop a few people here from getting more than you have ever taught them. You think this game can't be beaten. That means any time you do play it you are a loser. That's a pathetic existence. Beggars can't be choosers. That's as old as the hills too.

[cheese]

If you have a winning method, it should go like this.

Average balls spun per hour when its busy is about 30.

Your goal should be to win between 5 and 10 units. Lets say its 7.

There should be no drawdowns longer than 2. You should never be away from
breaking even for longer than 2 losses.

The average time at the table should be less than an hour before you reach your goal.

Flat betting only.



If you have big drawdowns of 5 or 10 losses below breaking even, your method is not a winner. If it takes you hours of playing to make 7 units, its not a winner.  If there are big spaces in between bets, its not a winner. If you have to use a progression EVER, its not a winner. If you make bets where the wager is bigger than the payout, its not a winner. If you have sessions where you lose, its definitely not a winner.

[gizmotron]

So I'm starting a demo in the general section. All it needs is someone to call out spins. I've even provided a way to verify any tampering if you need that too.

Spike wanted this at GG. Well I'm doing it here. No rules. I'll play to win and I'm betting wherever it looks good. I may set a goal. I always play that way anyway.

[ReDsQuaD]

Gizmo, YOU decided to make all these wild claims, and when people naturally question them you throw a hissy fit. You seem to think that everyone should treat you with awe and reverence without any kind of proof? Grow up.

All these strategies are variations on the same theme, which is why I know they can't work - the PRINCIPLES are flawed.
Therefore, there's no need to test each and every permutation or combination of possible methods (which would be impossible anyway) because they are all members of the same class, they are all built on quicksand.

You are just digging your self a deeper hole and You know it, you realise now its to late to turn back.

You really are going to make your self look like an idiot. You realy have no idea who you are messing with. He will destroy you. You are an ant to him.

Before you disrespect some one, you should do your research first, maybe you do, but in this case i can tell you haven't.

James.

[cheese]

You really are going to make your self look like an idiot. You realy have no idea who you are messing with. He will destroy you. You are an ant to him.

Who are you talking about? Who's going to destroy who?

[cheese]

-