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

[curious]

Mike,

You've made your conclusions based on past information....

Important information that you do not know is, what the game within the game that cheese plays is, and how does he play it.

It appears to me that you are so comfortable with your conclusions that you are willing to argue your points even though you lack that and possibly other important information.

It's not working.


VKM

This is really easy to clear up.  If cheese would actually explain what he is talking about in a way that others can understand it. 

Cheese?

[Mike]

Mike,

You've made your conclusions based on past information....

Important information that you do not know is, what the game within the game that cheese plays is, and how does he play it.

It appears to me that you are so comfortable with your conclusions that you are willing to argue your points even though you lack that and possibly other important information.

It's not working.


VKM

No VKM,

If you read my posts in this thread you'll see that I'm trying to understand what cheese is saying; so far he's not making much sense. It isn't necessary for me to ask WHAT game he's playing, I'm still trying to find out whether he uses past spins or not and all I'm getting is double talk. It's not my fault if he's sitting on the fence and not committing himself to a straight answer. This is what he has said:

Past spins have no obvious relevance, unless you find an out of the box way to make them relevant.

So past spins CAN be relevant.

and then:

I say over and over that spins are TOTALLY independent. They're so independent I can take unconnected spins from two unconnected wheels and put them together and get the same results. They don't point to anything, they point to nothing.

And this makes sense to you VKM?

Cheese certainly isn't using "independent" in the way I understand it or the way that it's understood in statistics. So what does he mean?

I've no idea. 

[gizmotron]

No one can do this.  If I see 6 reds in a row on the electronic board that doesn't mean that the next spin will be red. It also doesn't mean that the next spin will be black.

But it does mean that it might be the sixth spin of reds that is part of twenty reds in a row. In a game where you have a 50/50 chance with a 50/50 payoff you would expect to lose bets. But with your logic you get to guarantee that you will not win 14 reds in a row. That's a craft too. The deliberate avoidance of a winning streak caused by not jumping on a trend streak. That's all this arguing over the years is really about. If you can't try a risk on the huge long shots then there is no reason to take chances on the smaller short shots too.

You can win enough if you just chip away at it slowly. All you have to do is find out anything that continues just one more spin. You put enough wins like that together in a short while you will have your 5-7 wins. It's not easy to find things that are continuing if you aren't looking for them in the first place. Like I said, that's a craft.

[Mike]

So you see VKM, I have not come to any conclusions, neither have I argued any points which could be refuted by any rational person.

I'm just interested in Cheese's responses, so far I'm of the opinion that it's all a big wind up.

[gizmotron]

Cheese certainly isn't using "independent" in the way I understand it or the way that it's understood in statistics. So what does he mean?

I've no idea. 

He might be trying to say that his game within the game is  independent  of the sequence of spins coming from the wheel. He did say that he could use the data of two wheels to produce his game from within the game and that it still works.

This might be like my case of attempting to say it's not about prediction. I've tried to explain that for many years now. Some still don't get that point. Perhaps cheese will have to keep trying for years with this point.

[curious]

But it does mean that it might be the sixth spin of reds that is part of twenty reds in a row. In a game where you have a 50/50 chance with a 50/50 payoff you would expect to lose bets. But with your logic you get to guarantee that you will not win 14 reds in a row. That's a craft too. The deliberate avoidance of a winning streak caused by not jumping on a trend streak. That's all this arguing over the years is really about. If you can't try a risk on the huge long shots then there is no reason to take chances on the smaller short shots too.

You can win enough if you just chip away at it slowly. All you have to do is find out anything that continues just one more spin. You put enough wins like that together in a short while you will have your 5-7 wins. It's not easy to find things that are continuing if you aren't looking for them in the first place. Like I said, that's a craft.

I am not guaranteeing anything.  I did not say what play to make.  I said that knowing what happened the previous 5 plays tells me nothing about the next play.

What you are saying it complete and total nonsense.   The fact that 5 reds in a row appeared just now tells me nothing about what the next spin will be.  Nothing.  Yes, if I play red, I will be correct 18/37 times and if I play black I will be correct 18/37 times.   And the house edge will grind me away.

You aren't telling anyone anything that helps them, you are just spouting nonsense.  Just like you have in every thread I have ever seen you in over the years.

[Mike]

He might be trying to say that his game within the game is  independent  of the sequence of spins coming from the wheel. He did say that he could use the data of two wheels to produce his game from within the game and that it still works.

Maybe that's it then. I think bombus said something the other day about using outcomes as 'inputs' to a game of tic tac toe, in which case there is no assumption that there is any connection between spins, but you're still using past spins to select your bets.

[gizmotron]

curious - "I said that knowing what happened the previous 5 plays tells me nothing about the next play."

So change your name to clueless. It clearly tells me that a beautiful woman will walk into the room in the next ten seconds.

curious - "What you are saying it complete and total nonsense.   The fact that 5 reds in a row appeared just now tells me nothing about what the next spin will be.  Nothing.  Yes, if I play red, I will be correct 18/37 times and if I play black I will be correct 18/37 times.   And the house edge will grind me away."

So change your name to clueless.

curious - "You aren't telling anyone anything that helps them, you are just spouting nonsense.  Just like you have in every thread I have ever seen you in over the years."

So change your name to clueless.

There is no point in discussing anything with you.

[gizmotron]

Maybe that's it then. I think bombus said something the other day about using outcomes as 'inputs' to a game of tic tac toe, in which case there is no assumption that there is any connection between spins, but you're still using past spins to select your bets.

I think you've got it. My monster list of considerations is nothing more than applying identifiers to meaningless past spins. I then use this meaningless information to produce an independent game of my own. When I make a guess from it, it's based on meaningless figure formations, meaningless effectiveness trending, and meaningless data streams of everything that still continues in all of it. When I apply that to the next spin as a guess the result is also meaningless. But coincidentally, the game within the game might have produced a win and so might my real game of Roulette. I call it a mirage. Here it is again: "Following a trend is no better or worse than following a mirage. But sometimes the mirage is right in line with the real thing."

[VKM]

I said that knowing what happened the previous 5 plays tells me nothing about the next play.

If you are saying that the previous 5 spins do not gauranty what the next spin will be, then you are 100% absolutely Right!  Everybody knows that.

If you are suggesting that there is NO POSSIBILITY of ANY useful information contained in the recent past spins of
a roulette session, then you are 100% absolutely Wrong!  But you are not alone.



VKM

   

[cheese]

I'm just interested in Cheese's responses, so far I'm of the opinion that it's all a big wind up.

You're not interested in my responses, you just want to show you already know the answers. You say it in every post. You're just anothe flat earther.

[cheese]

He might be trying to say that his game within the game is  independent  of the sequence of spins coming from the wheel. He did say that he could use the data of two wheels .

If I can use data from another wheel, it shows that the next spin is totally independent.

[VKM]

No VKM,

If you read my posts in this thread you'll see that I'm trying to understand what cheese is saying; so far he's not making much sense. It isn't necessary for me to ask WHAT game he's playing, I'm still trying to find out whether he uses past spins or not and all I'm getting is double talk. It's not my fault if he's sitting on the fence and not committing himself to a straight answer.

Mike,

I disagree (mildly) with you.  I think unless you do know how cheese plays his game within the game, then you can't discuss it rationally.  It's not because you're not rational (you're alot more rational that I am or choose to be).
It's just that you (and everyone else here) lacks that important info.  Without it, no correct conclusions can be made other than that "It doesn't make sense yet".

VKM

[cheese]

I call it a mirage. Here it is again: "Following a trend is no better or worse than following a mirage. But sometimes the mirage is right in line with the real thing."

Its an illusion. Everything about past spins is an illusion. Whats the only thing about past spins thats not an illusion? They're dependable, thats what. Because there are only two outcomes possible in the EC's, you're dealing with a very narrow set of parameters. Make it three outcomes, like three dozens, and the parameters expand greatly. You don't want that. Because all bets are equal in roulette, the EC's are just as good a bet as anywhere on the layout. I can't use an RNG because its not dependable, its not true random.

[ll l ll l lll ll]

Its an illusion. Everything about past spins is an illusion. Whats the only thing about past spins thats not an illusion? They're dependable, thats what. Because there are only two outcomes possible in the EC's, you're dealing with a very narrow set of parameters. Make it three outcomes, like three dozens, and the parameters expand greatly. You don't want that. Because all bets are equal in roulette, the EC's are just as good a bet as anywhere on the layout. I can't use an RNG because its not dependable, its not true random.

Can you give an example of how a RNG is not true random specifically?  What differences do you notice specifically btw true random and fake pseudo random?

[ll l ll l lll ll]

-