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

[Steve]

Yes rx is too difficult for average people. And i agree about python, its readable code.

But i dont agree about the statistical relevance. I'll explain that in the next video.

[ati]

If we are talking about a real consistent winning system, then it needs zero spins to "test".

What's the difference between a 10K spins test and 1M spins test?
The only difference is that in 1M spins there are more possible permutations. But if our goal is to test every possible combination, then even 1M spins is far from enough.
Let's say we want to test 37 spin cycles, there are 13763753091226345046315979581580902400000000 possible different sequences.

Anyway, there must be a reason why a winning system is a winning system. Can you think of a sequence of 20 numbers that would make your system lose?
If you can, then that's it. You don't even need to simulate. Steve said it many times that every possible sequence has equal chance of happening. So it will happen sooner or later.

[reveal]It has been clearly explained by a few members that each spin is independent, the past has no affect on future outcomes, each individual bets have negative expected value, so it is impossible to win long term, using the "standard" approach.
But it was also proven that not every event has equal chance of happening, and we can find and create many dependencies in a stream of random numbers. So we can easily overcome the problem of dependent and equally likely outcomes. But sadly that's not enough, the most difficult part is to create a betting plan that can take advantage of this and is guaranteed to win within a fixed number of spins.[/reveal]

[precogmiles]

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

Forget about critique there has been nothing but full blown mockery and ridicule towards precogers on this and other roulette forum.

Turbo and igantus get level headed serious arguments against them. Precogers get insults and mockery.

[Joe]

But i dont agree about the statistical relevance. I'll explain that in the next video.

Well, Moxy makes a good point. If you say that millions of spins are needed to test a system then to be consistent you must also insist that millions of spins are needed to test precognition. To give precog a free pass is double standards.
I'm not saying you're actually doing that, because you admit that it isn't proven that precog works, just that you believe in it (even though there's no evidence).  But in that case, why attack system players who 'believe' that systems can work (even though there's no evidence)?

[Joe]

Anyway, there must be a reason why a winning system is a winning system. Can you think of a sequence of 20 numbers that would make your system lose?
If you can, then that's it. You don't even need to simulate.

This is vague. What does 'lose' mean in this context? Even if the system was actually a winning one there would be some sequences which would make it lose, but as long as the net wins outnumber the losses the system will still be a winning one.

[winforus]

The bigger the edge, the less testing the method would require. (Less variance) The smaller the edge, the more testing it would require (higher variance).

For majority of systems to win in the short term, they need to use progression. Systems bets are no more accurate than random bets - thus systems require a much higher volume of spins for testing.

Roulette computers have such a high edge, that even 100 spins may be enough.

For those that have experienced and been practicing precognition, they know it’s a fact that the edge increases with practice and the edge goes down with fatigue or in very long sessions.

For experienced players who already use precognition to win - the edge is very high and thus Steve thinks it’s the next HG. Because of this, testing requirements would be different for precognition than for systems.

And it’s not a double standard - think of them as a child(system) and an adult (Precog).

[Moxy]

The bigger the edge, the less testing the method would require. (Less variance) The smaller the edge, the more testing it would require (higher variance).

For majority of systems to win in the short term, they need to use progression. Systems bets are no more accurate than random bets - thus systems require a much higher volume of spins for testing.

Roulette computers have such a high edge, that even 100 spins may be enough.

For those that have experienced and been practicing precognition, they know it’s a fact that the edge increases with practice and the edge goes down with fatigue or in very long sessions.

For experienced players who already use precognition to win - the edge is very high and thus Steve thinks it’s the next HG. Because of this, testing requirements would be different for precognition than for systems.

And it’s not a double standard - think of them as a child(system) and an adult (Precog).

Them are fighting words, my friend.

[Moxy]

Forget about critique there has been nothing but full blown mockery and ridicule towards precogers on this and other roulette forum.

Turbo and igantus get level headed serious arguments against them. Precogers get insults and mockery.

Am I insane?  Revisionist history on your part?  Stay tuned.

[precogmiles]

Am I insane?  Revisionist history on your part?  Stay tuned.

Go and read the early threads about precognition.

[winforus]

Them are fighting words, my friend.

Them are trolling words, my friend.

[Joe]

For experienced players who already use precognition to win - the edge is very high and thus Steve thinks it’s the next HG. Because of this, testing requirements would be different for precognition than for systems.

And it’s not a double standard - think of them as a child(system) and an adult (Precog).

This is a circular argument. You're assuming - because you're biased - that the edge will be high, but you can't know this until after testing. It may well be high but you can't assume it and on that basis say that a much shorter term test is needed than for systems. And why should systems be considered children and precog adults? Again this is just your bias. From the point of view of mainstream science, both roulette systems and precognition are equally implausible and there is no evidence for either (only anecdotal).

[Moxy]

This is a circular argument. You're assuming - because you're biased - that the edge will be high, but you can't know this until after testing. It may well be high but you can't assume it and on that basis say that a much shorter term test is needed than for systems. And why should systems be considered children and precog adults? Again this is just your bias. From the point of view of mainstream science, both roulette systems and precognition are equally implausible and there is no evidence for either (only anecdotal).

Hence, my argument of having my buddy register on here, get lucky as shit on his picks and claim precog, therefore continuing to perpetuate the circular fallacy of not having to test more.

But, alas.  It's lost on the community.

[winforus]

This is a circular argument. You're assuming - because you're biased - that the edge will be high, but you can't know this until after testing. It may well be high but you can't assume it and on that basis say that a much shorter term test is needed than for systems. And why should systems be considered children and precog adults? Again this is just your bias. From the point of view of mainstream science, both roulette systems and precognition are equally implausible and there is no evidence for either (only anecdotal).

You are right, I am biased. I wouldn’t be saying it, if I didn’t practice and had experience with precognition.

It’s an inference that I made based on my own experience - that the accuracy (edge) increases over time.

The edge also decreases during a session - the longer it goes and fatigue kicks in. This is also why testing it for millions of spins at the moment  is not practical nor possible - unless you develop an AI with those abilities.

Systems are a child - because anyone with a basic understanding of odds, statistics, etc can know right off the bat why systems lose and thus to validate one, would require millions of spins. And precogniton - is based on improving accuracy, thus to me it’s an adult. Same as for RC, VB, methods that are based on psychics, adults.

How many spins would be required for precogniton? I have no idea but imo certainly less than for systems.

[Joe]

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?

[Moxy]

You are right, I am biased. I wouldn’t be saying it, if I didn’t practice and had experience with precognition.

It’s an inference that I made based on my own experience - that the accuracy (edge) increases over time.

The edge also decreases during a session - the longer it goes and fatigue kicks in. This is also why testing it for millions of spins at the moment  is not practical nor possible - unless you develop an AI with those abilities.

Systems are a child - because anyone with a basic understanding of odds, statistics, etc can know right off the bat why systems lose and thus to validate one, would require millions of spins. And precogniton - is based on improving accuracy, thus to me it’s an adult. Same as for RC, VB, methods that are based on psychics, adults.

How many spins would be required for precogniton? I have no idea but imo certainly less than for systems.

I believe I in x-ray vision.  How long do you think I should practice it?