Over There but Here, Reading Randomness

[Steve]

I mean that it increases the results.

Do you mean you are increasing the win rate to be better than random?
If so, that's what I keep saying.

It's just you making it a rule that it must take place by "prediction."

Whether you use the NOW, or the PAST to determine where to bet next, it's still a "prediction".

But actually in roulette, there's no such thing as the now. There's either past spins, or future spins.

I understand what you;re saying by the "current state" (the NOW), but you're still basing bets on what you expect will happen in the future. Nobody bets on the present. It's always about what happens next.

It occurs without prediction and that is a complete refutation of your rule. Your rule is only a theory at best. 

As above, your bets are based on previous spins. You call it the NOW. But it's actually just past spins. There is no spin in the NOW. The nearest you can bet is the previous spin, or the next spin.

I understand what you're saying, but it's incorrect. What I'm saying is not theory. It's fact. You can only bet on future spins.

It's not the past. It's now. And they don't all end just when I notice them.  If they did I would know exactly what to bet and win every time.  That's what bugs you I think.

To clarify, there's nothing "bugging" me. If anything, I'm just not understanding how you can justify your logic to yourself, which it's clearly backwards.

You're basically saying you have set patterns you expect will complete. But that's fallacy.

I don't need it to change by an increase in accuracy. I just need it to change on its randomness own.

Just before you said you "increase the results". Does that mean increase the accuracy? No matter how you spin it, your bets are based on something. And it's still a prediction. Even if you call it "unfolding", it's still a prediction.

I'm glad that people that need your rule and live by it always miss out. 

It's not MY rule. I didn't design this universe.

At least I dont think I did. If I did, I must have been drunk and dont remember. There are things I dont agree with.

You are a grown man

Depends who you ask.

If you don't want to see it then please yourself.  It's the funnest thing on planet earth

There are funnier things.

Gizmo, I do see what you're saying. Again you're just incorrect.

You see a perfectly occurring pattern and you bet it until it breaks down

And again. You're betting on a pattern you believe is "forming". That's prediction.

You make thousands off of it and everyone gathers around and cheers. The pit boss comes over and stands to watch all the action.

Sounds awesome. Except in reality, that's the last thing a professional player wants.

And thanks to most people believing in things like your rule, nobody has a clue what is happening right in front of them.

Basic math is not my rule.

The coincidence of randomness and your ability to fit your bet selections into what is happening.

Random means this......
Whatever you think, whatever your system tells you to bet on, it means precisely d*ck. Because everything is flipped around, put on its head, turned around some more, and flipped around some more. And then you get the outcome. Your bets have the same average accuracy as random bets.

[Steve]

Gizmo, I'd really love you to be right. But I dont think you are. Anyway whatever. If you're winning, keep winning.

[INTERCEPTOR]

I think he have something NOW, why to throw stones on him, give him a chance to explain his betting pattern.

[Steve]

He doesn't have to explain anything.

I'm just pointing out problems in what he is explaining.

[Steeefan2014]

I think he have something NOW, why to throw stones on him, give him a chance to explain his betting pattern.

I don't think Gizmo has a betting pattern. What Gizmo has is a vision of the trends that are being created by the roulette spins. And he plays according to that. It's not a fixed "something" that can be coded.

[Steve]

If you can't code it, its more like guesswork.

Guesswork can still be profitable, if you're accurate enough.

But he said he doesn't increase accuracy. He increases the results though. I'm waiting to hear what that means.

[cht]

If you can't code it, its more like guesswork.

Guesswork can still be profitable, if you're accurate enough.

That's why VB and DS is similar bs guesswork.

[Steve]

Actually vb can be coded. That's what a roulette computer is.

Ds can be coded too.

And like i said, even if it were guesswork, it is still profitable, if you're accurate enough. Like the stock market..

At least thats not random, like rng.

And ap isnt rubbish you know. People don't regularly earn millions from bullshit guesswork, or trash like repeaters. Unless it's parx money.

But guess what regularly does earn millions, in real money?

[INTERCEPTOR]

I don't think Gizmo has a betting pattern. What Gizmo has is a vision of the trends that are being created by the roulette spins. And he plays according to that. It's not a fixed "something" that can be coded.

Can I give him for free a 37 roulette random spins to show me what to play next?

[cht]

Actually vb can be coded. That's what a roulette computer is.

Ds can be coded too.

VB and DS is not coded, fact.
They hv to be guesswork by your previous interpretation.
Same yardstick applied.

[cht]

 Systems bet can be coded and tested over millions of spins over thousands of wheels. Fact.

Has RC been tested over millions of spins over thousands of different wheels? No. Fact.

Same yardstick applied.

[Steve]

Cht, vb is an algorithm. The player is the computer. Like a real computer, it is subject to some error. That's the same as vb..

Ds can be 100% coded and mechanical.

[Steve]

Has RC been tested over millions of spins over thousands of different wheels? No. Fact.

No, and it's needed.

Because it has other substanting data. There's lots, but for example, predicting where and when the ball will fall. So the data is very specific. You only need to see a few spins to see it ain't random.

It's not the same yard stick. Its not the same ball game. Its not even the same sport. Roulette computers and physics in general have so much more supporting information than typical systems.

[cht]

Cht, vb is an algorithm. The player is the computer. Like a real computer, it is subject to some error. That's the same as vb..

Ds can be 100% coded and mechanical.

I am not arguing with you.

I expect the same yardstick of measure applied for everything, no double standards.

If you dispute what I wrote then produce the actual proof of test results for millions of spins on thousands of wheels. Post the graph here.

The same is expected from systems bet.

Repeat - NO BS DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Ofc AP, VB, DS, RC can't provide the required proof. Just a wall of  usual bs text - we already know that.

[Steeefan2014]

But guess what regularly does earn millions, in real money?

What?