Over There but Here, Reading Randomness

[gizmotron2]

Just once show your online gambling on live stream on some online casino. Can you do that?  Or with live stream your stupid method won't work?

Just stop all the people that I have given this to. Two can play command post commander. How do you like it?

I have chosen the method of proving it. My decision. My way.

[gizmotron2]

Charly? Have you seen this? : "My edge is a large enough number of people doing this and producing win to loss results that are demonstrably beyond the possibility of inaccuracy."

[Richard Meisel]

Charly, it has taken me a long time to become a nice guy. Randomness is quite a topic. In a lot of religions it doesn't exist or should. But randomness has its own set of rules. Rules that make the behavior of a random process understandable and PREDICTABLE. Even though a SINGLE random event might be completely unpredictable, a COLLECTION of independent random events is extremely predictable, and the LARGER the number of events, the more predictable they become! (Consider atoms in a box of gas or the study of thermal Dynamics). If not, then study a Chart of the Columns, the Dozens, Even Odd, High Low, Red Black, etc. Watch how the Trends and Patterns flow after a number of Spins. Forget that the Odds of the next Spins is 1/38 on an American wheel. Look at the possibilities shown, can you make an intelligent Bet or is it just luck?

[swanson]

Look at the second quarter of this year. Search for the word "table" 179 million in activity, 20.2% win percentageThe house's advantage is complete bullshit.

The win percentage is based on the ratio of the hold (casino's profits) and the drop (amount of money changed at the table). This is higher than the house edge because people continue playing with their initial buy in, exposing themselves to the edge repeatedly. The house edge isn't bs. You are expected to lose about 2.7% or 5% of every dollar you gamble.

[gizmotron2]

The win percentage is based on the ratio of the hold (casino's profits) and the drop (amount of money changed at the table). This is higher than the house edge because people continue playing with their initial buy in, exposing themselves to the edge repeatedly. The house edge isn't bs. You are expected to lose about 2.7% or 5% of every dollar you gamble.

So says you. People lose because of human nature and greed. Fear makes a player bet less and quit too soon when they are doing good. It makes them stay too long and at the higher bet level on a losing streak. Nobody makes a player do this. Math does not make them act this way. But for some crazy reason math makes you act this way. You have no proof. 20% is proof. It's not what you say it is. If a Player has $200 as a bankroll and stays for 40 bets at $5 per bet then they have not re used the winnings.  My experience watching players is that they stay for about an hour or less and only have about $200 as a bankroll. What happens is they try to get back to even while they spiral down. You call that reusing. I call it losing.

[swanson]

People lose because of human nature and greed.

People lose because the odds are stacked against them.

Fear makes a player bet less and quit too soon when they are doing good. It makes them stay too long and at the higher bet level on a losing streak.

The person who betted less and quit soon could have saved money by losing less and avoiding a losing streak. This is slightly more likely to happen than winning or breaking even. Fear and beliefs do nothing to the house edge. You cannot win or lose long-term based on these things.

It makes them stay too long and at the higher bet level on a losing streak

The player's "streak" is almost just as likely to change (from losing to winning) as it is to stay the same (losing). An increased bet size only means bigger or smaller wins/losses.

But for some crazy reason math makes you act this way.

I am acting this way mostly because of experience, common sense, and logic. Math plays a small, but integral part.

If a Player has $200 as a bankroll and stays for 40 bets at $5 per bet then they have not re used the winnings.

I have a new answer to why the 20% winning: players buy in and repeatedly stake their bankroll until they leave, often broke. I.e. they expose each buy-in to the house advantage multiple times before they leave the table.

I guess I was partly wrong when I stated that it is because people continue playing with their initial buy in? I was thinking about the fact that the player will continue exposing their bankroll to the house edge. Almost never does a player only bet the amount of their buy in only once. If I am understanding this correctly, if a player lost their bankroll, the casino's expected win %, as stated in the financial reports, would reflect 100%.

Also, this is an exceptional case, a player not reusing his or her winnings.

[gizmotron2]

Ha ha ha LOL

[swanson]

Ha ha ha LOL

How is arguing against people wasting their money to the casino or casinos funny?

[gizmotron2]

How is arguing against people wasting their money to the casino or casinos funny?

It's funny to watch a self proclaimed spandex and cape clad savior like you. Losing money at gambling is the only real way to teach experience at gambling. And you are not really standing in the breach. More and more people are learning a skill that rewards them and not you. You are the needed skepticism that protects the opportunity. Long may your flag fly. Oh, one last comment for you. Nobody pays a single dime to the casinos if they follow my teaching and practice software that is freely available to learn from. Nobody is wasting any money. You might want to think about that. I turned in my cape decades ago and have never been happier.

[swanson]

You are scamming people of their brains, time, money, and more. This is a FACT

[gizmotron2]

You are scamming people of their brains, time, money, and more. This is a FACT

I'm glad you are so clueless when it comes to facts. Your life will reflect that as a retribution built in by design. In other words you are destined for misfortune because it is built into you like "baked in the cake." It's nice to see one of my critics so inclined to be miserable. Are you in fact a validated victim yet? What's your calamity in life? Were you sexually abused by your father perhaps, then handed off to your grandparents to live forever in your safe seclusion of their basement? I'm so glad for you. You are just learning the basics of being a control freak. You have decades of making others miserable ahead of you.  So while you scam yourself why don't you polish your spandex.

[Richard Meisel]

Hi Gix, yes, a COLLECTION (I0-20 Spins) of individual Random 1/38 Bets will show many characteristics that can be intelligently Bet on. Not to puff you up, but your Method (I use Method instead of System) is the best one I've ever come upon that can and will beat mathematical odds. Gamblers everywhere, we can forget what we've been taught: that the previous events do not influence the dice because the die had no brains, the unbiased Wheel and Ball because.they have no brains, and in Roulette every Spin is 1/38 on an American wheel. Just study the previous Spins, learn how to study, and beat the odds. Or will you call it luck.             I have a question for you, Giz. I've studied and Tracked on the Wheel your Primes/NotPrimrs and your Specials/NotSpecials. Both have 18 #'s and I know you put some study into choosing these numbers. I do see a little relationship in those chosen. My question is: what do you think of 0+/00+, 0+ = 0-1-3-5-7-9-12-14-16-18-19-21-23-25-27-30-32-34 and 00+ = 2-4-6-8-10-11-13-15-17-20-22-24-26-28-29-31-33-35? The numbers in both 0+ and 00+ are not more than one number apart. Both have 19 numbers.

[gizmotron2]

Hi Gix, yes, a COLLECTION (I0-20 Spins) of individual Random 1/38 Bets will show many characteristics that can be intelligently Bet on. Not to puff you up, but your Method (I use Method instead of System) is the best one I've ever come upon that can and will beat mathematical odds. Gamblers everywhere, we can forget what we've been taught: that the previous events do not influence the dice because the die had no brains, the unbiased Wheel and Ball because.they have no brains, and in Roulette every Spin is 1/38 on an American wheel. Just study the previous Spins, learn how to study, and beat the odds. Or will you call it luck.             I have a question for you, Giz. I've studied and Tracked on the Wheel your Primes/NotPrimrs and your Specials/NotSpecials. Both have 18 #'s and I know you put some study into choosing these numbers. I do see a little relationship in those chosen. My question is: what do you think of 0+/00+, 0+ = 0-1-3-5-7-9-12-14-16-18-19-21-23-25-27-30-32-34 and 00+ = 2-4-6-8-10-11-13-15-17-20-22-24-26-28-29-31-33-35? The numbers in both 0+ and 00+ are not more than one number apart. Both have 19 numbers.

I got my groups from a very old magical belief period I went thru for a short time back in the 90's. Because of those beliefs I memorized a few custom made up sets for each side of the grouping. They were based on sectors of the wheel. Like the zeros that are next to the zeros or double zeros on the American wheel.  The Sixes are ninety degrees offset from the zeros. You can make up your own groupings and sets. I just use these because I already had them memorized. The point is to have more than just the three offered by the table layout.  The Specials are 18 numbers that went on a 4 day Global Effect domination. So once I had them memorized I just kept them.  None of them hold any form of importance. They are just different from other groups.  There is a guy around here somewhere that plays two tables at the same time and just uses the three table layout groupings from each table to get his 6 groups to track. I thought that was a great idea.

[Richard Meisel]

Thank you, Giz, for telling me how you got your "6's". I really like my "0+" and "00+" Settings. I hope you don't get upset for me trying to tweak your Method. I think I told you before that I tweaked up Silverthorne's Super Neural System, changing the Stops and the Targets and the Bet Selection. I also changed his Progression Bets (by the way, I call flat bets, for instance: 1-1-1-1-1-1-1, etc., a Progression, a Flat Bet Progression) and winning around 80%, a 4 to 1 ratio.   Another question for you, Giz, I hope you don"t mind. On your Betting Levels you like a +3 over a -7. Win 3 for every Loss of 7, needing a 7/3 (2.33) average. What do you think of a 2 for 5 ratio? I realize that 2.5 is more than 2.33, but I'm thinking about that 2nd Win. With your Method that First Win is great and I believe getting that 2nd Win is much easier than getting the 2nd and 3rd Win. So the question is which is easier: getting the 2nd Win before a 5th Loss or getting the 3rd Win before a 7th Loss?

[gizmotron2]

Thank you, Giz, for telling me how you got your "6's". I really like my "0+" and "00+" Settings. I hope you don't get upset for me trying to tweak your Method. I think I told you before that I tweaked up Silverthorne's Super Neural System, changing the Stops and the Targets and the Bet Selection. I also changed his Progression Bets (by the way, I call flat bets, for instance: 1-1-1-1-1-1-1, etc., a Progression, a Flat Bet Progression) and winning around 80%, a 4 to 1 ratio.   Another question for you, Giz, I hope you don"t mind. On your Betting Levels you like a +3 over a -7. Win 3 for every Loss of 7, needing a 7/3 (2.33) average. What do you think of a 2 for 5 ratio? I realize that 2.5 is more than 2.33, but I'm thinking about that 2nd Win. With your Method that First Win is great and I believe getting that 2nd Win is much easier than getting the 2nd and 3rd Win. So the question is which is easier: getting the 2nd Win before a 5th Loss or getting the 3rd Win before a 7th Loss?

I created (2.33 x 3) = 7 to show people mathematically where the balance point is. The truth is that you can play in search of win streaks or slow grind upwards for from 2 to 3 hours. The goal is to take from the casino while randomness is giving out profits and to restrain your losses when it is not. It makes sense that a streak of wins will last much longer than 3 net wins.  I wanted validation so I made the method in this confined method. Just about everyone doing this has adapted it to their own preferences. The trick is to get skilled at taking while randomness is giving and to protect the bankroll when it is not.