Precognition - PROOF! results from MPR - the real holy grail

[winforus]

And as I've said before, you may think your good results are due to precog, but in fact they may be due to intuition. Even Steve admits the possibility of a winning system, he just rejects the old recycled ideas like repeaters etc. So if you believe that, it's actually more plausible to think that results are due to subconsciously picking the most likely outcomes based on patterns, rather than precognition, which entails rewriting the laws of physics. The Cambridge study showed that intuition works for Traders, why not roulette players?

It could be intuition, of course. I also think that they may be related or even overlapping.

To me, what you call it, is not as important - as long as it works consistently over the long run.

Regarding systems - you would agree that all that are not based on improving the accuracy of predictions, are losing systems? I was reffering to those systems, which are only the ones I had come across.

[Joe]

Regarding systems - you would agree that all that are not based on improving the accuracy of predictions, are losing systems?

Yes. Any system which doesn't improve accuracy of predictions is a non-starter. Even those systems supposedly based purely on progressions and money-management need to at least reduce the variance enough so that the progressions can work.

Regarding how long is a long enough test, it depends on how many numbers you're betting, but as I've said in an earlier post, it doesn't have to be millions of spins, either for systems or anything else. Why should the length of the test depend on how the results were generated? Steve disagrees, and I'm looking forward to his explanation why.

[precogmiles]

You guys are completely missing the point.

Precog is a skill

Systems are formulas

Imagine if someone said they had a formula that will allow a team to win every single basketball game they played. Regardless of the level of skill the individual players had. This would be absurd.

And you can not have intuition about random events. You cam only have precognition of them.

LeBron James, Leon Messi or Tyson fury are better than your average Joe on the streets. You can not give me a magic formula (system) that is going to make me better than them over night.

All this talk of testing is bogus and comes from a very materialistic world view. Probability is a pseudo reality.

[Joe]

You guys are completely missing the point.

Precog is a skill

Systems are formulas

So what? you can still do tests to find out how good a skill is or how accurate a formula is. Why should testing a skill be shorter than testing a formula?

Imagine if someone said they had a formula that will allow a team to win every single basketball game they played. Regardless of the level of skill the individual players had. This would be absurd.

Yes, that would be amazing, but nobody is claiming that, because it's ridiculous. A formula can be approximately right and still be useful, and a skill level can be low.

And you can not have intuition about random events. You cam only have precognition of them.

Maybe results aren't so random after all? And you have to be careful with the word 'random', because one interpretation of it is just 'something we don't understand well enough to predict - yet'.  Things which we once thought were random we now realize aren't, so 'random' is really about what we know or don't know.

All this talk of testing is bogus and comes from a very materialistic world view. Probability is a pseudo reality.

Some time ago you asked me about the test results from a precog web site and said that they were almost impossible to get by chance. So it seems like probability and testing is fine and not bogus at all, when it happens to suit you.  Double standards again.

[precogmiles]

So what? you can still do tests to find out how good a skill is or how accurate a formula is. Why should testing a skill be shorter than testing a formula?

If you can't understand the difference between someone claiming 1 +1=3 and somebody else claiming if they train hard enough that they can improve their ability to do arthmetics faster, then that is your problem.

One is impossible the other is a skill.

You just hope for the day someone proves 1+1=3 . No amount of testing, small or large is going to prove this.

Yes, that would be amazing, but nobody is claiming that, because it's ridiculous. A formula can be approximately right and still be useful, and a skill level can be low.

This is wrong. We have examples of this in all sports leagues. Those teams with the best skilled players win the league more times than teams with good tactics. Skill is the ultimate determinant

Maybe results aren't so random after all? And you have to be careful with the word 'random', because one interpretation of it is just 'something we don't understand well enough to predict - yet'.  Things which we once thought were random we now realize aren't, so 'random' is really about what we know or don't know.

Have you got an example for this?

Some time ago you asked me about the test results from a precog web site and said that they were almost impossible to get by chance. So it seems like probability and testing is fine and not bogus at all, when it happens to suit you.   Double standards again.

If I remember correctly it was you who originally posted that website because you didn't want to accept the results from MPR. I was just using your own website as evidence against your unfounded scepticism.

My issue with probability is When it is used to make models or claims based solely on inference. First comes reality then comes statistics. It is not the other way around.

[winforus]

Regarding how long is a long enough test, it depends on how many numbers you're betting, but as I've said in an earlier post, it doesn't have to be millions of spins, either for systems or anything else. Why should the length of the test depend on how the results were generated? Steve disagrees, and I'm looking forward to his explanation why.

I don't know 100% for Steve's reasoning, but I agree with him.

The way I see it - is when we are talking about games of chance, that the length of test definitely depends on the methodology of how the results
were generated. Why? Because the bigger edge, the less variance, and the likelihood of you just being lucky, decreases.

For a very advanced roulette computer, that has a very high accuracy, it would be very evident in even 100 spins.

Hypothetically, for a person who has practiced "precognition" a lot (reached a very advanced level) and that could bet on a single number, and get a hit within the first 3 spins, it would be very unlikely that he is just getting "lucky".

For a person who let's say is an intermediate, who could bet on a single number, and get a hit in first 10 spins, would require more testing, but a LOT less than for systems.

Systems to begin with are based on fallacy (those that don't improve the accuracy of predictions, and are depend on progression/bankroll management, repeaters, etc) certainly require millions of spins, as their edge to begin with would be very small - unless shown otherwise. Like precogmiles have mentioned, systems are formulas - but other methods (such as precognition) are not formulas.

[precogmiles]

I don't know 100% for Steve's reasoning, but I agree with him.

The way I see it - is when we are talking about games of chance, that the length of test definitely depends on the methodology of how the results
were generated. Why? Because the bigger edge, the less variance, and the likelihood of you just being lucky, decreases.

For a very advanced roulette computer, that has a very high accuracy, it would be very evident in even 100 spins.

Hypothetically, for a person who has practiced "precognition" a lot (reached a very advanced level) and that could bet on a single number, and get a hit within the first 3 spins, it would be very unlikely that he is just getting "lucky".

For a person who let's say is an intermediate, who could bet on a single number, and get a hit in first 10 spins, would require more testing, but a LOT less than for systems.

Systems to begin with are based on fallacy (those that don't improve the accuracy of predictions, and are depend on progression/bankroll management, repeaters, etc) certainly require millions of spins, as their edge to begin with would be very small - unless shown otherwise. Like precogmiles have mentioned, systems are formulas - but other methods (such as precognition) are not formulas.

Good points.

I wonder if moxy and joereally are willing to wait 20 years for a precoger to complete a million spins? Or is it just an attempt to allow system players to keep claiming 1+1=3 and not have to provide any evidence.

[Joe]

Guys, you're still arguing in a circle because you're assuming (because you're biased) that it's perfectly justifiable to demand that systems be put through a million spins whereas precog or a roulette computer can be proved effective with much less. That's the point at issue, not whether systems can win or not. I'm not trying to argue that they can, only that it's double standards to take results from precog or AP as proof that they are effective, while dismissing similar results from a system. 

And neither am I arguing that precog should be tested over a million spins, quite the opposite, in fact.

Suppose you are given a stream of W and L which represent the results from playing roulette. You don't know what the method was - it could be a system, a computer, or precog. Let's say for the sake of argument bets were on 18 numbers, there were 500, and 350 wins. This result would be impossible by chance (variance) alone and so you would quite rightly assume that you have a real edge. Now suppose you're told that the results are from using a system. Probably you would insist that there should be a longer test. But why? And please don't just repeat that AP or precog is more likely to win. Forget about what you 'know' and let the data speak for itself without using prior assumptions.

[Steve]

Guys, you're still arguing in a circle because you're assuming (because you're biased) that it's perfectly justifiable to demand that systems be put through a million spins whereas precog or a roulette computer can be proved effective with much less

Joe, you're still not getting it.

Systems like repeaters have no valid logic. The logic and proof shows it doesnt work.

Computers have far more substanting data than just wins and losses, like precise predictions of when and where the ball falls. So far fewer spins are needed for proof.

Precog has much better logic and substantiation than systems like repeaters. But they do not have additional substantiating data, and tests must be manual. So verification is very difficult. But it still needs the same amount of spins to test as systems, except if the edge is very high. But still a lot of spins would be needed.

It's still better than 1+1=42.

And the proof of precog is far stronger than you're aware. But i dont have time to explain it again. Do or don't believe it. Nobody cares.

It's not complicated. It has all been explained before.

[precogmiles]

Suppose you are given a stream of W and L which represent the results from playing roulette. You don't know what the method was - it could be a system, a computer, or precog. Let's say for the sake of argument bets were on 18 numbers, there were 500, and 350 wins. This result would be impossible by chance (variance) alone and so you would quite rightly assume that you have a real edge. Now suppose you're told that the results are from using a system. Probably you would insist that there should be a longer test. But why? And please don't just repeat that AP or precog is more likely to win. Forget about what you 'know' and let the data speak for itself without using prior assumptions.

Ok since we are supposing. Suppose I was to walk on water, and then claim 1+1=3. Would you believe 1+1=3?

Their claims are false from an axiomatic level. The axioms they use to build their system refute their own claims.

A million or a billion tests would not make a difference.

What in fact happens is a RTM when their systems are tested long enough.

[Joe]

No Steve, you're the one who doesn't get it. There is no logic to precognition or any evidence for it other than anecdotal.  And if you know systems don't work why bother to even test them at all?

Computers have far more substanting data than just wins and losses, like precise predictions of when and where the ball falls.

That's irrelevant to statistical tests or simple win rate. I'm talking about judgment based on criteria common to all methods of generating results. Is that the explanation you're putting in your next video?

[RayManZ]

Why you need to run a system trhough 1mil spins? Because you can! There is really nothing holding you back to do it. So, do it!

If i could test precog with 1mil spins i would do it to. But i can't.

So lets see what we got here:

1. We have systems that you can test for a mil spins but nobody found a system that works longterm.

2. We have precog/AP/roulette computers/gizmo/notto. All methods that you cant test for 1mil spins. All claim to be winning long term...

So what is the diff between the two? Hard work and pratice. Seems like winning is a skill.

[Joe]

Ok since we are supposing. Suppose I was to walk on water, and then claim 1+1=3. Would you believe 1+1=3?

Their claims are false from an axiomatic level. The axioms they use to build their system refute their own claims.

That's just silly. And you don't seem to realize you're undermining your own claims too. If 'random' means unpredictable how can even precognition predict random outcomes? 'Predicting the unpredictable' is an oxymoron. And precognition itself implies determinism in which case there can be no 'random' outcomes. That's great for precognition but at the same time you can't also insist that systems can't work because outcomes are 'random'. It's a mess of contradictions.

[precogmiles]

It's not complicated. It has all been explained before

Exactly, I don't understand what is so hard to understand about this.

Everyone seems to want to reinvent the wheel and come up some random argument to make systems work.

[Joe]

Like I said, I'm not trying to argue that systems work, only that if a test is good for one method, it should be good for all. Why is that so hard to understand?