Is proper bet selection really necessary?

[Steve]

U can call it gambler intelligence or gamblers experience. But in the field it needed.

Sounds more like gambler's delusion. But can you give an example of using this "ability"? I'd like to know if there is some logic behind it, or more like gut instinct (pun semi-intended).

I have read somewhere he is one of the top ranked player . He is not a teen. As he is saying he is winning for 14 years .

If we believed everything we heard or read, we'd be very misled.

There may be something that we r missing

Thats how it ends with all the gurus. The followers arent getting the results they expect, so wonder what they're missing.

[TheMind]

Winkel, please send me a link to your e-Book via PM. I will develop your system,and distribute the results here in the forum. The best promotion for you, isn't it?

[Steve]

Here's an old quote from winkel:

these clinical test-rules are only made up for testing. It is not the game!

The G.U.T needs human decisions due to what I call "What is going on"
This tool by KFS allows everybody to watch when or why a 50-spin-trot is losing

Your decisions might be:
Stopping to play in a Plus
Stopping the game in a Minus
Bet or bet not a crossing due to the way it came up, where it came up

As KFS also proofed: betting every crossing over a long period will lead to -2,7%.

only

[highlight]Your decisions will make you win[/highlight]

Summary (from winkel's own post):

1. The test rules arent really how to play GUT. So ignore test results.

2. GUT needs "human decisions" due to what he calls "what is going on". You need to know when or why a 50 spin trot is losing (maybe the reason for loss is the ball just isn't landing on what you hoped?)

3. Your decisions might be:

      - Stopping to play in a Plus
      - Stopping the game in a Minus
      - Bet or bet not a crossing due to the way it came up, where it came up

Your decisions play a role in whether you win or lose.

4. Betting every crossing over a long period will lead to -2,7% (the house edge). So I guess dont play long term, and don't play GUT how it was designed. You need the X-factor, so you know when to bend or break the rules.

[Taotie]

4. Betting every crossing over a long period will lead to -2,7% (the house edge).

[Turner]

Steve....So how is Winkel using a decision maker called GUT any different from pregognition.
I know which one sounds like cloud cuckoo land to me.

[Bebediktus3]

As I said several times before - all is very simple, only must be a brave player and do an open test where I will see bets and results - from that I can calculate very exact - can the player to win, or that is questionable.
With Vb accuracy of predictions can be evaluated by distance where ball land from a predicted number - +/-2 is better than +/-5, this is better than +/-9 and so on.
With system players such we can't do, but are another method - where player himself evaluate which numbers have more chances to hit which  - less - so player sort winning number in his mind to some groups accordingly chance to hit and after play simply do calculations if he was right and in which % was right.

[Steve]

So how is Winkel using a decision maker called GUT any different from pregognition.

It occured to me success with gut may be attributed, although unlikely, to precog. But its more likely variance. Ie some players win, some lose.

Precognition, assuming its legit, requires both natural ability and lots of development.

The gut bet selection method, minus possible precog, is mathematically the same as random bets with long term loss.

If i had to choose between a method that is relatively new and unexplored but with positive research from reputable groups.... or mathematically random bets.....id find the first approach the better choice. Anything is better than something we already know for sure doesnt work., wouldnt you agree?

[Steve]

On that note, i believe sometimes there is beginners luck although it may be related to precog. Because the player just plays on a whim. But when they think too much, or hold on tight, thats when precog has no chance of being effective.

Im not saying this is definite. Just a theory.

[Joe]

Steve, I'm not sure why this back and forth between you and Winkel is still going on. Didn't he say he would give all the betting rules to you if you signed a non-disclosure agreement and agreed to give him the majority of the profits if you sold GUT?

He told me that gambler's intelligence is based on experience and empirical results, which kind of suggests it can all be coded. But I agree, if it can't be coded and success depends on it, then it's really no different from precognition, and GUT is irrelevant because you could use it (gamblers intelligence) with any system.

[Steve]

Lets say for a second that gut really is a roundabout way of using precog that winkel isnt even aware of. As success appears to rely heavily on guessing, its possible.

The crossings may serve as a distraction for the conscious mind, to allow the subconscious to work.

In this context, i believe gut has possible merit. But in a mathematical system context, guts bet selection is no better than random bets. So if gut was working for someone over a statistically relevant amount of spins, precog may be the reason. Or it could be plain variance.

Would it make gut special? No. The working principle is not crossings. There are surely far better and more direct ways of applying precog. The overall best in trials i know of is called majority vote, explained in the outside the box board.

[Steve]

Joe, some of what he says suggest guessing, and some suggests secret concrete algorithms. He can confirm what the case is exactly, but expect a vague response.

As for coding it, pretty hard to code if its not clear.

[Joe]

If i had to choose between a method that is relatively new and unexplored but with positive research from reputable groups....

Do you mean Daryl Bem's results? According to Wikipedia they were shown to be flawed.

link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition

"Feeling the Future"

In 2011, the psychologist Daryl Bem, a Professor Emeritus at Cornell University, published the article "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, offering statistical evidence for precognition.[26] The paper itself was criticised.[27] The publication of such a paper by a respected researcher in an upper tier journal also prompted wider debate on the validity of peer review process for allowing it.[28] Bem appeared on MSNBC and The Colbert Report to discuss the experiment.[29][30]

Jeffrey Rouder and Richard Morey applied a meta-analytical Bayes factor to Bem's data and concluded that, "We remain unconvinced of the viability of ESP. There is no plausible mechanism for it, and it seems contradicted by well-substantiated theories in both physics and biology. Against this background, a change in odds of 40 is negligible.[31][32]

Psychologist James Alc*** claimed to have found serious methodological flaws (metaphorical "dirty test tubes") such as changing the procedures part way through the experiments and combining results of tests with different chances of significance. It was not recorded how many tests were actually performed, nor was there an explanation of how it was determined that participants shown erotic images had "settled down" afterwards. Bem's response to Alc***'s critique appeared online at the Skeptical Inquirer website and Alc*** replied to these comments in a third article on the same website.[33][34]

In 2012, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published an independent attempt to reproduce Bem's results, which failed to do so.[35][36]

[Joe]

As for coding it, pretty hard to code if its not clear.

It would be impossible. 

[Steve]

I know all about bad or flawed tests. I base my opinions on what i believe are proper tests from reputable groups, procedures with replicable results, my own experiences, and my own testing.

The same tests have been replicated by others. Also see the global consciousness project. Theres a lot more.

Im a reasonable person. I know how some people view precog. I wasnt born yesterday. Considering everything, i believe it has clear merit.

[Turner]

wouldnt you agree?

I never rule out something I havnt studied my self.....and I havnt studied it

All I can say right now is "it SOUNDS like a load of Bollox to me"

I cant say "it IS a load of bollox"