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

[Moxy]

It is just my method of practice. I test out different ideas.

I know I can win comfortably with around 4 numbers per bet. In fact that is what I do when I play real sessions. I agree that a method is important and I have daily targets i reach.

My ultimate aim us to improve to a level where I can win after playing 1 number in 1 spin.

I want my accuracy to be as close to perfect as I can get it.

This is why I continue to experiment and practice.

For me it us not a question of precog being real or not. It is an undeniable fact for me. It is a genuine skill. My only aim is to improve it as much as possible. So betting just 1 number is the aim.

You are trudging along X-Men territory.  Or the Force.  Or the Oracle. 

You will be among mere mortals in short order.  Yet, zero man hours. 

This forum is a bizarre bunch.  Or is it?...  Dunh dunh dunh.

[Steve]

Moxy, what has a better chance of success:

A. Strategies that are thoroughly tested, proven to fail, and go against all logic and basic math.

B. Strategies that are less- tested, but have shown some positive results, have no known information to disprove the physics, and actually do have a scientific foundation.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Moxy, dont troll. I'm not sure I've ever seen you tout anything but nonsense, or "just talk".

[Moxy]

Moxy, what has a better chance of success:

A. Strategies that are thoroughly tested, proven to fail, and go against all logic and basic math.

B. Strategies that are less- tested, but have shown some positive results, have no known information to disprove the physics, and actually do have a scientific foundation.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Moxy, dont troll. I'm not sure I've ever seen you tout anything but nonsense, or "just talk".

Let me preface.  I believe in precog.

Ok. As I've said.  Two factions.  One claims precog ability.  The other, an hg.   

Regardless of result, the former gets carte blanche to post with zero critique.  The latter is ridiculed i.e. Turbo, Ignatus.

It's not the claim of Precog.  It's that my unremarkable buddy, hypothetically, can register on here and claim precog ability and he's on the VIP list. 

Here's the kicker.   Claim you have precog and you bypass the millions of rounds of testing as long as you are fortuitously accurate enough in short form.   Hmm.  Why don't folks just claim precog and try to pass your extremely truncated vetting process by sheer luck over a few hundred rounds?

Why on earth would you hypothetically  believe my unremarkable buddy?  Wishful thinking?  Circumventing something?

Cuckoo.

[Moxy]

...

[Steve]

the former gets carte blanche to post with zero critique

Horseshit. You can criticize, but not troll.

Criticizing (constructive criticism) is when you present counter-arguments that people can verify.

Trolling is when you just hang around and criticize, without offering anything constructive.

Turbo is full of shit. Smarter people don't "troll" him. We give him ample opportunity to explain what he means, and substantiate his claims. And SO FAR ALL HE PROVIDED IS A MESS OF CRAP LIKE FUN MONEY WINS ON PLACES LIKE PARX (MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN RIGGED), AND A MESS OF BAD AND INCORRECT THEORIES (THAT ARE PROVEN FALSE).

There's a big difference.

It's that my unremarkable buddy, hypothetically, can register on here and claim precog ability and he's on the VIP list.

No. I've said many times although I believe precog is reality, his wins are simply too short term to mean anything, because there's no additional data to back up the results.

Moxy, your understanding of reality here is very poor.

[Moxy]

Horseshit. You can criticize, but not troll.

Criticizing (constructive criticism) is when you present counter-arguments that people can verify.

Trolling is when you just hang around and criticize, without offering anything constructive.

Turbo is full of shit. Smarter people don't "troll" him. We give him ample opportunity to explain what he means, and substantiate his claims. And SO FAR ALL HE PROVIDED IS A MESS OF CRAP LIKE FUN MONEY WINS ON PLACES LIKE PARX (MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN RIGGED), AND A MESS OF BAD AND INCORRECT THEORIES (THAT ARE PROVEN FALSE).

There's a big difference.
No. I've said many times although I believe precog is reality, his wins are simply too short term to mean anything, because there's no additional data to back up the results.

Moxy, your understanding of reality here is very poor.

So you hold prodigal son Precog to the same standard of millions of rounds of testing?

[Steve]

prodigal son

Now you're just being an idiot.

the same standard of millions of rounds of testing

Yes. I've addressed this point many times before.

Basically the statistical confidence must be the same, for the same reasons. But all testing for precog must be manual, so any volume testing is nearly impossible. UNLIKE bullshit like repeaters, which can be tested extensively with software.

[Moxy]

Now you're just being an idiot.

Yes. I've addressed this point many times before.

Basically the statistical confidence must be the same, for the same reasons. But all testing for precog must be manual, so any volume testing is nearly impossible. UNLIKE bullshit like repeaters, which can be tested extensively with software.

Apologize for the "prodigal son" remark.  Was just being silly.

Ok, then.  So how would an hg ever come about from this level of impractical, time consuming, collective-heads, testing?   Wait.  You have a secret weapon.  Forgot.

[Steve]

So how would an hg ever come about from this level of impractical, time consuming, collective-heads, testing? 

1. Test as much as you can.

2. If tests are good, apply it for real.

3. If you keep winning, keep doing it.

OR if you lose, think of what you could be doing wrong, change it, and repeat the process.

Most system players repeat a similar cycle, but mistakes they make include:

* They don't test enough spins, when there's no excuse considering we have programs like RX.

* When they think they change something, they just change the packaging, and not the shit inside.

* What they're testing has already been tested, extensively.

[Moxy]

1. Test as much as you can.

2. If tests are good, apply it for real.

3. If you keep winning, keep doing it.

OR if you lose, think of what you could be doing wrong, change it, and repeat the process.

Most system players repeat a similar cycle, but mistakes they make include:

* They don't test enough spins, when there's no excuse considering we have programs like RX.

* When they think they change something, they just change the packaging, and not the shit inside.

* What they're testing has already been tested, extensively.

You obfuscated on my particular question but that's fine.   Another time.

[Steve]

You obfuscated on my particular question but that's fine.   Another time.

What, you mean this part?

Wait.  You have a secret weapon.  Forgot.

I didnt bother with it, because that was just you being a dick again. But ok, I'll answer it:

It's called a BRAIN. And it's only a secret to people without one.

[Moxy]

What, you mean this part?

I didnt bother with it, because that was just you being a dick again. But ok, I'll answer it:

It's called a BRAIN. And it's only a secret to people without one.

I may be a d*** but I'm not chopped liver.

[Steve]

I'm not sure you know the difference

[precogmiles]

You are trudging along X-Men territory.  Or the Force.  Or the Oracle. 

You will be among mere mortals in short order.  Yet, zero man hours. 

This forum is a bizarre bunch.  Or is it?...  Dunh dunh dunh.

Whatever it is, get over it.

[Joe]

Most system players repeat a similar cycle, but mistakes they make include:

* They don't test enough spins, when there's no excuse considering we have programs like RX.

Steve, for one thing, coding systems isn't easy, which is why so few people do it. And RX makes things harder because it's really only a toy language. You'd be better off using a decent language like Python.

Second, you don't need millions of spins to be able to say a result is statistically significant. When scientists do medical trials do you think they have millions of participants? usually it's only a few hundred. For most statistical tests you only need a sample size of at least 30. Of course more is better but the point is to calculate whether the result could have occurred by chance. If that probability is small enough then the result is likely to be significant. It's not quite as simple as that because there are other issues such as statistical 'power', but you certainly don't need millions or hundreds of thousands of bets. However, for systems you should ignore progressions because they artificially inflate the variance.

e.g. I could test a system over 500 bets and if the (flat bet) result was good enough, the result would be statistically significant because that result would be highly unlikely to occur - over 500 bets - by chance. So it shouldn't be just dismissed as 'not enough spins'.