Unicorns Aren't Real

[Steve]

I've tried to use visual, but in my opinion it is very difficult and need a super brain and eyes to win often.

Then you're probably using a bad technique, dont understand what's really required, or need more practice.

after two spins start headache in me..need a lot of concentration and it leads to me to bet really random... 

As above. I find it very easy.

And did you assess the scatter first? If you dont know what I'm talking about, that's a clue to the problem.

I want to ask to you about that; someone have created an average file or create a database for example with the start points and land points and and see if there are good connections with number spun..?I think is difficult too..but  it could be an advantage playing,  for example in airball.
Do you think this is doable?

It's do-able but not with all wheels, and conditions are too volatile to look at pocket distance alone. You need a lot more to know when there's an edge. You'll have a lot more success on slower rotors. And if the scatter is bad, dont bother.

In my experience, almost every wheel can be beaten one way or another. But often it's not practical in a casino environment with the main cause being spins are too infrequent. It depends on the method though. Rather than limit yourself to just one method, understand which approach is best for the individual wheel you're playing on. Like I tell my players, a strategy can be great for one wheel, but totally useless for another.

[Bigbroben]

Steve,
I bet you've read some Zecharia Setchin.  If not, I'll double up and bet you've read some David Eyk (Ayk? Haykes?)

[Steve]

Steve,
I bet you've read some Zecharia Setchin.  If not, I'll double up and bet you've read some David Eyk (Ayk? Haykes?)

No, I may have seen some of his material, but his name doesn't ring a bell (neither names). There are a lot of people that share the same beliefs because there's enough evidence to back it up.

[precogmiles]

You say that like precog is real but getting an edge is a grey area.

Precog doesnt make any sense to me. Why is there no proof?....like ghosts or aliens.

Yeah, there are 1 billion videos on you tube but none are proof. they are all fakery or optical illusions.

No ghost or alien has been photographed conclusively and theres also no proof that the brain is no more than a concentration of biological cells.

Show me the proof and I will believe.

rather like I spend years seeing volcanos on video, but dont believe them. You can make me a believer by taking me to a volcano. Simple.

Initially scientists did not believe in quantum phenomena.

Have you ever heard of the double split experiment?
How is it possible that the reality of particle changes just by observation? The materialist worldview is a deadend when it comes to explaining reality. You are stuck in a very old and incorrect paradigm even when it comes the facts.

Precognition is a phenomena that has been proven statistically by many experiments

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.
link:://deanradin.com/evidence/Utts1996.pdf
link:://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

Again just do the research.... but it seems you want to believe it is false because the supposed 'scientific community' (in fact only dogmatic materialist skeptics believe this) claim it is not possible according to science.

Here is Brian Josephson a Nobel prize in physics winner who believes in esp/psi

As he states....
"I would question your statements about the vast majority who dismiss it and a few who believe it, because it is a fact that once you profess a belief that it may be true then this may damage your career prospects"

"quite a number of scientists believe that it is real but don't come out and say it.... its part of sociology science is a bit like a club which has its rules as to what you may believe and what you may not"

The majority of people seem to be duped and brainwashed into the incoherent worldview of materialism that they think everything outside it is 'spooky'.

The reality is.....
precognition is real.
Telepathy is real.
Telekinesis is real.
Apparitions are real. 

All of these things and more are real.
It is all a part of reality we just need to understand it better.

To any else reading this DO MORE RESEARCH..... TAKE THE RED PILL!!! WAKE UP!!

[Steve]

[Gitano]

Yes Steve I understand very well what you said and my lack of knowledges,
But playing in an airball roulette that is a machine..nothing more than a simple"machine..not a ghost or a precog  ..could be simply beaten in your opinion?
We have two second to bet the sector, is doable to play I mean.. the issue should be study before the statistics of the biases..the averages spins won/lost/landed - that one took by the visual spins (start and land ball before starting bounce)  collected before (a lot of data I mean..) ??
Where can I learn something about the asses scatter you spoke about ?
Thanks

[Steve]

airball roulette that is a machine..nothing more than a simple"machine..not a ghost or a precog  ..could be simply beaten in your opinion?

"Machine" is an over-simplification. It's still a real physical wheel. Generally focus on live dealer wheels. Earlier auto wheels were easier to beat. Newer models are more difficult. You can beat some, but dont bother unless you already know what you're looking for.

If you mean VB, the rotor on an auto wheel will probably change its speed. You need to assess the angle it will change. Some claim 360 degrees random, but rarely it is. Like some just select between pre-defined speeds. All that does it increase the amount of possibilities; most of which overlap. So it doesn't make much difference at all. Some do the randomization properly in which case you don't bother. Most will significantly reduce your edge. To make you totally lose any edge would have a backlash from players who lose trust in the wheel, because of visible manipulation of the wheel.

Where can I learn something about the asses scatter you spoke about ?

The method you use depends on your system/approach. I suggest the following:

1. Pick one diamond you can clearly see

2. As the ball slows down, note the number under your diamond when the ball is above this diamond for the LAST time in the spin. This is number "a".

3. The wining number is "number b"

Repeat this for 30+ spins separately for each direction, and you'll get data like:

a,b
a,b
a,b
a,b

4. Submit the data at link:://roulettephysics.com/jaa/index.php/jump in "quick jump"

You'll get something like this:


If the rating is 70% or better it's usually ok.

[luckyfella]

Ok, I have a question for you !
I've tried to use visual, but in my opinion it is very difficult and need a super brain and eyes to win often.. after two spins start headache in me..need a lot of concentration and it leads to me to bet really random...
I want to ask to you about that; someone have created an average file or create a database for example with the start points and land points and and see if there are good connections with number spun..?I think is difficult too..but  it could be an advantage playing,  for example in airball.
Do you think this is doable?

BR
Gitano

VB is not difficult

You have to know what you are looking for

When the conditions line up place your bet, it's that simple
Physics dictates that the outcome will come inside known parameters, that's science
The key here is condition

A much simpler approach is to use math
It works with any wheel since the physical attributes is not required
So long as you can count, you can play it

Precognition......hmmm show me ghost and fairies
It's ok to take a backseat on this one
You first

[Joe]

How is it possible that the reality of particle changes just by observation?

This is a common misconception. It's not the mere observation which changes the behaviour of the particles, as though there is some mysterious force coming out of our eyes, lol. It's the measuring which has an effect, not the human observation. An analogy is using a volt meter. Measuring a voltage changes it slightly because of the impedance of the meter.

You don't need to have a materialistic world view to believe that precognition doesn't exist, because (a) there is no known scientific mechanism which would allow precognition and (b) there is no scientific evidence that it exists, even though people have believed in it for thousands of years.
If people want to believe it, that's up to them, but like Turner I don't understand why the general doesn't comment. As far as I'm concerned it's far more unlikely that you can win at roulette using precognition than a system.

[Steve]

there is no known scientific mechanism which would allow precognition

Same for radio waves once too. Have some foresight.

there is no scientific evidence that it exists

Nonsense. Research properly.

it's far more unlikely that you can win at roulette using precognition than a system.

That depends on the system. Certainly not if youre talking about the typical system using known ineffective approaches.

I don't understand why the general doesn't comment

He already said he thinks it's nonsense. It doesn't appear to be something hes spent much time on. Neither his or anyones negative opinion about it is going to bother me.

And if hypothetically precog was proven nonsense, id move on. Im a grown man only partial to reality, whatever it may be.

[Nimo]

So since this thread moved into the metaphysical/paranormal realm, unicorn's are real, they could be interdimensional beings, or animals from a parallel universe, or aliens from another galaxy. 

In 95% of ghost investigations they found toxic mould in the dwelling that caused hallucinations.  3% of the people claiming to see ghosts were found to suffer from some sort of mental illness.  1% were on mind altering substances, leaving 1% unexplained.

As for auras, Steve your description is almost identical to Nikola Tesla's in his autobiography.  He suffered from migraines as well.  Most that do see auras suffer from migraine s.  Using MRI imaging when an aura was seen the ociptal region of the brain lights up like the Vegas strip, the nerve impulses that cause migraines they believe stimulate the optic nerves which the patient thinks they see auras. 

Since some of you believe precognition is possible, why is it so far out of the realm to think that maybe some system players "see" patterns that would cause them to alter a system to what they feel is the play, rather than saying its curve fitting.

I too am curious why Caleb is so silent on this topic.

[Joe]

Nonsense. Research properly.

Steve, I don't mean youtube videos, I'm talking about serious peer-reviewed scientific research. Many investigators have tried but their studies have all been shown to be flawed or the results insignificant. You're always saying systems should be tested properly, doesn't that apply to precognition research too?

All the evidence is anecdotal, same goes for systems too. You can dismiss so called winning systems as being down to luck, but you can also dismiss anecdotes of precognition as being down to coincidence or flawed methodology.

[Steve]

they could be interdimensional beings, or animals from a parallel universe, or aliens from another galaxy. 

Now thats just silly. Where's the proof?

In 95% of ghost investigations they found toxic mould in the dwelling that caused hallucinations

Maybe. I don't really give a shit. Ghosts is not my thing. I believe there is something after death but I'm busy and will get to that later. Whether or not someone can see spirits is inconsequential as far as I'm concerned.

3% of the people claiming to see ghosts were found to suffer from some sort of mental illness.

Like the 98% of system players who think their system works.

1% were on mind altering substances

Nothing compared to 54% of system players.

leaving 1% unexplained

Compared to 0% of system players unexplained?

As for auras, Steve your description is almost identical to Nikola Tesla's in his autobiography.  He suffered from migraines as well.

And he was probably the greatest genius of our known history. What's your point?

Most that do see auras suffer from migraine s.

Huh? I think youre just making up random shit.

Using MRI imaging when an aura was seen the ociptal region of the brain lights up like the Vegas strip, the nerve impulses that cause migraines they believe stimulate the optic nerves which the patient thinks they see auras. 

I must have brain damage. I'll get right on it.
But i dont get migraines.

why is it so far out of the realm to think that maybe some system players "see" patterns that would cause them to alter a system to what they feel is the play, rather than saying its curve fitting.

Because it's retarded to think 1+1=8.72 and think only the winning sessions matter.
The problem is they don't understand what they're doing or saying.  Other people who understand tell them about it but are attacked for being honest.

I too am curious why Caleb is so silent on this topic.

Simple.  He's watching Rick and Morty. The bitcoin babe recommended it and i love it, so i understand. Bitcoin babe has a sense of humor too. But her fees are too high.

[Steve]

Steve, I don't mean youtube videos, I'm talking about serious peer-reviewed scientific research

So am i. Really, I'm not stupid.

Many investigators have tried but their studies have all been shown to be flawed or the results insignificant

Probably because they tested with charlatans or people with purely latent ability.

You're always saying systems should be tested properly, doesn't that apply to precognition research too?

Sure. Read what i wrote. It helps to test properly.

You're still comparing systems. If you understood the math of losing systems, you wouldnt compare them.

All the evidence is anecdotal,

Rubbish.

You can dismiss so called winning systems as being down to luck

No, if it were short term results it's plain inconclusive. What im talking about regarding specific approaches is clear eventual loss from provably ineffective approaches that can and have been tested long term.

you can also dismiss anecdotes of precognition as being down to coincidence or flawed methodology.

Like i already said, the available results may not be conclusive enough. I explained why. Read back. It doesn't mean it isn't legit. Again, more testing etc is needed.  It's not like proving 1+1 doesn't = 43.7654, is it?

[Joe]

Rubbish.

So do you have a link to some serious peer-reviewed study which shows that precognition works?