Is proper bet selection really necessary?

[Steve]

Lets get this straight....you wait for 18 unhit, then bet all the unhit. Its something along those lines. Clarify the betting rules so a programmer can code them.

The end result, according to you is the odds dont change, but you win anyway. You have no idea how backwards that is. But let's test anyway.

[winkel]

Winkel, ive tested theories like yours before. They dont work.
That others don´t work is no proof that GUT doesn´t work

Is gut coded into roulette xtreme yet? Lets do some proper testing.
I don´t know But if 15 years of winning is no proper testing that s a shame

If it isnt coded, ill pay someone to code it. And if it doesnt work, you'll reimburse my expenses ok?

Who guarantees that the coding is correct? Others who tried to code it doesn´t come across: "Read what is going on!"

[winkel]

Lets get this straight....you wait for 18 unhit,

How can you tell it doesn´t work when you didn´t understand the example of the principle. Which is no betting point?

[Steve]

I read the example but I'm on phone and still find it again later.

The source code will be provided.

Either way i want clarification. So please, provide clear betting rules for the programmer.

[ahlidap]

I'm new to all this GUT "thing".
Going back to cars as I did on another thread:

How do different racing pilots approach some hard turn, wet track, flat tires,... gravel?
Can google put an autopilot car doing the same? No. No way 3 drivers will attack that turn same way.

But.. can they do it better?
Maybe...

As I said, I've just started reading about GUT some weeks ago, and I'm trying to adapt myself to the theories and my own interpretations.
I've seen people using the "concept" with success, and for now I find myself doing it.

Will it last? I don't know...

I can't understand this kind of discussions..
these forums are supposed to be to join people and share experiences, that like the same and seek the same. Not mean to attacking each other.
Life's too short for that... a lot shorter than a "long run"

Well, just to say that, according to what I've read, watched and understand until now, I think there are a lot of subjective choices with the GUT concept.
OK, so we can't model this with in a mathematical way.. Ok, may be true.

If math can't prove how CR7 scores a lot, or says it's impossible to an human to do that, does that mean he don't score a lot?
No.

[winkel]

I read the example but I'm on phone and still find it again later.

The source code will be provided.

Either way i want clarification. So please, provide clear betting rules for the programmer.

Find someone who is experienced coding AI

[Steve]

What kind of bullshit response is that? are you avoiding it now? Its simple, give me clear betting rules to send the programmer.

And do you agree to the terms? It will probably cost about $500.

[Mako]

I can't understand this kind of discussions..these forums are supposed to be to join people and share experiences, that like the same and seek the same. Not mean to attacking each other. Life's too short for that... a lot shorter than a "long run"

I don't understand it either, particularly because if the AP side "wins" the debate and "converts" everyone to their line of thinking, the board posts/traffic/participation goes to zero.  Because AP play in Roulette is so limited, there just aren't many AP avenues left to explore to tame the game.

Bottom line: Both sides are right. 

Which makes this the stupidest possible debate of all.  Math is math, no getting around it, Steve and The General are 100% right, it's not open to debate.

But the system player who wins by "dancing between the raindrops", and "doesn't change how many pockets there are on the wheel", for years (as many have been verified to do), are also 100% right.

Would their method of play stand up to 50k spins or more?

Nope.

Are they net positive overall since adopting whatever method they're using? For years?

Yep.

So this forum-killing debate, in which system players are leaving in droves, and daily posts outside of this thread are falling steadily to zero, doesn't seem productive to me.  Both sides are right, and have been proven right.

[Steve]

Both sides are right? So when someone says i can know for sure than 12 particular numbers wont spin next, they are right?

And you have a long term edge if you dont change the odds?

There is no half truthto it.its black and white. Nobody is debating any system can win for a while. Thats not what we'rediscussing.

Mako, you are missing a lot. Nonsense is harmful to players and i would rather have a quiet forum with accurate and helpful information instead of a busy forum with loads of nonsense. Besides if anyone doesnt like logic or answering questions, they can post in the system players only section.

Im still waiting winkel.

[Nimo]

Im still waiting winkel.

I'm waiting to see when you are going to come through with this that you posted in the Turbo thread seeing as you scoff martingale, systems and Trot has been linked to Winkel soo many times it\s not even funny.

"Actually I'm working on a martingale variant to apply when I figure the trot. It's almost done. I'll publish a 37 spin chart from RS as proof."

[Steve]

Nimo, its a problem if you didnt understand the sarcasm. I thought the martingale and 37 spin chart was a dead giveaway.

[Joe]

Find someone who is experienced coding AI

Hi Winkel, what kind of AI do you mean? There are many machine learning algorithms, but AI should only be needed if you don't already know what the rules of the system are. With your system you say "gambler's intelligence" is needed because if you just mindlessly bet all the crossings you will lose at the expected rate. In another thread you posted this :

Again: This tool is a Clinical Bet Adviser. It takes the principle rules and bets every crossing. An experienced player wouldn´t do.

example:
34 32 W    17  9 11  8  3 this is a hole. Stop betting if a hole appears.
38 20      15 11 11  7  4  =1:  0  5  9 14 18 19 20 23 27 29 31        these are double crossings. Don´t bet DC´s
41 27 L    13 12 12  8  4  =0:  1  4  6  7 10 13 15 21 25 30 34 35 36        this is just playing a Dozen don´t do, there is no positive odd
and many more statements to give.

So do you have a full list of the conditions under which you should bet on a crossing? If you do and are happy to share it then it shouldn't be a problem coding the system.

[Joe]

Who guarantees that the coding is correct? Others who tried to code it doesn´t come across: "Read what is going on!"

It's a good question. I don't think there's much point in providing the source code because only a coder would understand it. One way to check whether a system is coded correctly is to make up a couple of spin sequences which test as many features and aspects of the system as possible and work through them by hand, recording all the results in detail. Then feed these sequences into the program. If it's been coded correctly it will reproduce the hand tested results.

[falkor2k15]

winkel's system depends not only on a crossing, but his mood of the day, i.e. "gambler's intelligence", so cannot be coded. Clever that! Winkel gets to die immortal - remembered for pioneering "the trot". A bit like Bruce Lee - who never actually fought in the ring.

[winkel]

Find someone who is experienced coding AI

What kind of bullshit response is that? are you avoiding it now? Its simple, give me clear betting rules to send the programmer.

And do you agree to the terms? It will probably cost about $500.

Now I can see hwat is going on:
1. My answer is no bullshit-answer. If you can´t find someone who understands AI and its sourcing he wouldn´t understand the rules.
2. RX-Coding is not possible as far as I know so don´t waste time and people on such a try.
3. Cost of 500$: This simply shows that you have no idea of the extensive wealth of the rules. This amount would cover 25 to 50 hours of programming. You are joking.
4. You own VLS-Forum and you own this forum. 90% of the rules and hints and explanation are to find in these two forums. On GUTCBA therre are the links to the clinical rules. The programmer could start with that and than could go through further explanations.

On the above facts I found that this is just an ambush. If a programmer would look at this he would talk about a time needed of 300 to 500 hours. at minimum

So Steve nearly everything is open on your forums. The programmer can start (if you ever was to find one). He can contact me openly or on PM or on e-mail if he has questions and needs further rules and explanations.

Here is your only target:
Post one : coding is done
Post two: we ran it over xxxx spins. It failed.

You are not interested in a fair deal! Why I know that? You are an AP-man!