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

[cheese]

Not this time. 

Not true. You just refuse to accept it, which is fine. Like I said, I'm here for me, not you.

[iggiv]

Mike if u wanna stay in this forum u r not gonna call people like that even if they claim that that they yesterday walked on Mars.

i hope i make myself clear. in recent days i had to give lots of warnings to people and probably i have to talk to Steve and other moderators what to do about guys which try to turn this forum into some kind of a nest of snakes.

[ll l ll l lll ll]

I don't know what to tell you. The spins aren't connected, its an impossibility. Its like that puzzle you see in a kids book, where the face of an old man is in the branches. You can't see it for a long time, and when you finally do see it, you can't 'not' see it again. Its there everyhtime you look.

If you see RRRRR, what is your next bet?

[cheese]

If you see RRRRR, what is your next bet?

I bet I don't do tests. 

[Nathan Detroit]

If you see    RRRRR while  playing then you should  know  what to do. But if you walk up to the table  and see those  5 Reds in a row that`s another matter and  ones reaction shoukd be pre-determined.

It is  better to forego a win than    to create a loss. 



Nathan Detroit

[gizmotron]

OK, let's try frustration this way. It does not matter what Bayesian or Frequentist math says. If you see RRRRR you should go to your ability to read the conditions. Without context this set of data is as worthless as probability is. To consider the context take experience. For instance you need to know if all trends have crapped out at five steps or less in the recent past. That's a contextual bit of information that effects the recent hour of play. It exists far beyond the information that comes from  three or four spins back. There can be other data too. Reds might be the only trend going, the blacks might be chaotic. The blacks may be global and the reds are just a freak occurrence. You must consider the context of the moment. Math configuration has no context other than a perfect baseline or an inference of a localized baseline. The context of trends, patterns, dominances, series, and global effects is far more informative. If you are married to conclusions based on math then frustration only confounds this level of discussion as absurd. If you leave these useless conclusions behind then information from context can be your guide.

[Mike]

Not true. You just refuse to accept it, which is fine. Like I said, I'm here for me, not you.

1. I win better than expectation by using past spins as a guide.
2. Spins are totally independent and point to nothing.

By any standard, this is gibberish, but you think what you like.

[Mike]

Math configuration has no context other than a perfect baseline or an inference of a localized baseline.

That's the point. You can't make a judgement about a "condition" unless it's with reference to something, and that reference point is the average or expected outcome, no matter whether it's the number of streaks of 5 reds or whatever. Everything has its own distribution and standard deviation. If you claim to win using deviations from a baseline then we are back to assuming that outcomes are not independent. There is just no way out of this conundrum. 

[gizmotron]

That's the point. You can't make a judgement about a "condition" unless it's with reference to something, and that reference point is the average or expected outcome, no matter whether it's the number of streaks of 5 reds or whatever. Everything has its own distribution and standard deviation. If you claim to win using deviations from a baseline then we are back to assuming that outcomes are not independent. There is just no way out of this conundrum.  

I'm not saying there is a connection caused by any deviations from a baseline. These are almost worthless indicators. They reveal very little in regards to any context. What you should be looking for is the connection to a context based on the characteristics of randomness. You should use those data structures to determine the "now state." The connection is to the "what's happening now conditions." I see you attempting to force the conversation toward a conclusion that is mathematically oriented. That's a choice in favor of the weaker set of data. In effect, the weaker connection, if one exists there at all. You can't make the leap. The mathematical data sample is the lesser optimism. In fact it resolves to a limit of nothingness. It does not exist in a vacuum though. There are two qualities to this  observation and conclusion. One is a belief in complete independence and the other is in connected contextual dependence. My argument is in the later. Yours is not.

[I have cookies]

connected contextual dependence - what is that - just curios - fancy words ?

[cheese]

2. Spins are totally independent and point to nothing.

On their own, they point to nothing. But they can be useful, if you're clever, and never think something is 'due'. There are no good bets in roulette, no better bets, no specific time to bet. All you can do is guess.

[gizmotron]

connected contextual dependence - what is that - just curios - fancy words ?

Yes, it's way too fancy in fact. The discussion topic is independence with regards to having a connection. It's devolved to semantic deferences, and perhaps has lost all meaning altogether. The facts are that all spins are independent. Reading randomness uses past spins. So what or where is there a connection if one exists at all anyway?

[gizmotron]

All you can do is guess.

You can get very good at guessing based on the experience of guessing.

[Kelly]

Wake me up of my connected contextual sleep if it ever comes so far as to an explanation of how to transform this  connected contextual   word building into a bet placed on a roulette table.

[gizmotron]

Wake me up of my connected contextual sleep if it ever comes so far as to an explanation of how to transform this  connected contextual   word building into a bet placed on a roulette table.

That's simple Kelly. Make a bet on anything with no regard to winning.

[gizmotron]

-