progression with AP (precognition / remote viewing / clairvoyance)? need help

[Steve]

% of bankroll

Yes thats a good one too but not so easy with real chips

[Scarface]

Depends on how your precognition works for you.  Does your wins normally come in clusters, back to back?  If so, I would use a positive up and you win progression.  Otherwise, flat bet

[luckyfella]

I need a little bit of help from you system and progression advocates. 

If I could guess the correct dozen (1-12,13-24, 25-36) within 5 spins. What progression should I use to maximize my winnings?

double on my loss?
triple on my loss?
triple on winning?
any other suggestion?

There are dz1, dz2, dz3

Long term average win rate of random selection is 1in 3
How has precognition help improve the win rate ?

1 in 5 is a temporary short term outcome due to variance(luck)
Your accuracy will improve itlr
Same for anyone, with or without precognition

And throw in 37pockets with unfair payout, you get a negative edge

Caleb and steve love to tell you the rest

[Steve]

Caleb and steve love to tell you the rest

[luckyfella]

...... the fact that I will always get 1 dozen correct within 5 spins or less?

Have you tested millions of trials on millions of wheels to declare it a fact ?

In short, have you conducted statistically significant rigorous test to declare this a FACT ?

[precogmiles]

Have you tested millions of trials on millions of wheels to declare it a fact ?

In short, have you conducted statistically significant rigorous test to declare this a FACT ?

I know it is real. Let me make what I am saying a little clearer.

If you (lucky fella) flipped a coin a million times you would expect to get 50% correct.

If I (precogmiles) flipped a coin a million times I would expect to get 80% correct.

It just is.

Your stats do not apply to my reality. I am getting knowledge from somewhere are not. I have an advantage over you.

If you practice and learn to develop your precognition you too can do it. You will go from getting 50% to 80%.

[luckyfella]

I know it is real. Let me make what I am saying a little clearer.

If you (lucky fella) flipped a coin a million times you would expect to get 50% correct.

If I (precogmiles) flipped a coin a million times I would expect to get 80% correct.

It just is.

Your stats do not apply to my reality. I am getting knowledge from somewhere are not. I have an advantage over you.

If you practice and learn to develop your precognition you too can do it. You will go from getting 50% to 80%.

Ofc it is real to many posters on here as well

You are saying that you have conducted a million trials on your one coin

Try a million trials each of different coins
In roulette sense, a hundred wheels for starters

Post below your results pls

[Steve]

Have you tested millions of trials on millions of wheels to declare it a fact ?

Nobody has. Its not something you can run in a simulator. You know this. It is impractical do to this. That's why "proving" it beyond any doubt is difficult. It is not uncommon to have positive results over hundreds or even thousands of trials. But that's still inconclusive because of the volume.

So then you have to look at what additional data we do have, which includes a combination of different tests done by many other people, and in related phenomena. When we do that, it appears to be likely fact.

[precogmiles]

Depends on how your precognition works for you.  Does your wins normally come in clusters, back to back?  If so, I would use a positive up and you win progression.  Otherwise, flat bet

My wins are normally like this for dozens.

W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W


The maximum number of Loses in a row is 4. Never more than 4.

[luckyfella]

Nobody has. Its not something you can run in a simulator. You know this. It is impractical do to this. That's why "proving" it beyond any doubt is difficult. It is not uncommon to have positive results over hundreds or even thousands of trials. But that's still inconclusive because of the volume.

So then you have to look at what additional data we do have, which includes a combination of different tests done by many other people, and in related phenomena. When we do that, it appears to be likely fact.

The usage of the word FACT is inappropriate ?

How about provide the specific parameters and specify the conditions how this tests were conducted ?

[Steve]

The usage of the word FACT is inappropriate ?

That's why I said "likely fact". No it's not inappropriate considering the available information.

How about provide the specific parameters and specify the conditions how this tests were conducted ?

A lot of data was posted in an earlier post by precog. Start there. I've also done by own trials which I've published. I also published the results of tests done by another group. There's even more. And when you look at it all, there's enough for any reasonable mind to conclude its likely to be real. But you cant just rely on what other people say, or what you see on TV - which is how most people draw their conclusions.

[luckyfella]

That's why I said "likely fact". No it's not inappropriate considering the available information.

Start with hypothesis

Conduct statistical significant test

Publish content for peer review

And so on for due process......

A long journey, if you have the stomach for it

[Steve]

It has been done. Start with the information i suggested.

It's not something like proving repeaters systems dont work, because we can easily prove a negative in that case. Just like we can prove 1 + 1 does NOT = 42.

[luckyfella]

It has been done.

With roulette ?
Really ?

[Steve]

With roulette ?
Really ?

Yes, really. In particular with one study and accuracy enhancement software. I tested the process which was successful, which led to me creating the android apps i published in this forum.  But i haven't yet had time to take it further.

I published the results from the other group.

I'll say it again. I believe this field of study will become the next generation of AP.