Over There but Here, Reading Randomness

[gizmotron2]

Did someone hack into your account?

You're clearly an intelligent bloke but turned rogue here i.e. a defensive 13 year old.

Don't feel special. I live in a world where it's against the law to treat the instigator of my rage the way he should be treated. There was a guy at Gambler's Glen  named Snowman that set me off on the mathNazi's. His obnoxious drone made me get short tempered with people that use math like it's some magical gambler's fallacy. He highhandedly destroyed Gambler's Glen.  I decided to treat everyone that tries to pull off their condescending platitudes with irreverent disdain. So colorful pejoratives are just too simple. I prefer fantasies of retribution like on a scale of a benevolent dictator with a torture chamber. Notice the gesture of my greatness here. If you are insulted by me you get to be in the club.  You guys that KNOW you are right don't need to condescend to me. I don't have to approve of it without consequences. It's not OK to use probability as the absolute end all of what reality is. Reading Randomness was disclosed for the full purpose of forcing retribution.

[Azim]

I don't try to use a skill that can't exist. Because I can't predict anything I must become aware of a trend that is in a working condition. If I don't see one then I don't place a top priced bet on anything.  I know how to win more working conditions than I lose them. It's really that simple and it clearly makes magical belief in mathematical probability a fallacy. The odds don't tell you when a condition will be working or how long a working condition will last. Yet these same experts of math want you to believe that the odds rule everything.  I don't put money on bet selections that are not working. Sure I lose full priced bets. I just don't lose money on all of those that math says I must lose.

Ok..  Here is one for you Gizmotron2. 

You are saying you not using a skill that doesn't exist. In layman's words you have skills you use.


You can't predict anything, however, it looks like you are missing something.

You are thinking when the trends start and stop.

Ask any programmer who is skillful enough not someone who is home taught. If you can think of it, the computer can do the job for you as long as it's programmed right. The key is a good programmer will bombard you with all sorts of questions and depending on your answer he will write you an error-proof logic.

That's why good programmers ask for complete documentation on the process.

[winforus]

I've got a good idea. Let's make a joke out of you. I'll bet you don't know  that both zeros can go to sleep for more than 100 spins. Your odds go right out the door when the zeros are sleeping. But they don't for you because you are scared of the odds. You are flat out chicken of the odds. If a dozen went to sleep for 30 spins in a row you would miss out on it. I don't have to make a joke out of you. You do a better job of it yourself.

I am open minded, but with this post, you have revealed your flawed way of thinking. Moxy is totally right, you are like a child trying to defend yourself against any possible constructive criticism.

Any serious and winning player would do extensive amount of testing and would track their results. One can get "lucky" even for 1000 spins, it is not much. Testing and tracking of your play is done to insure that you have an actual edge and that you are not winning just due to short term variance.

Your super defensive attitude and a lack of basic fundamental understandings of the math are red flags to me.

[gizmotron2]

Ask any programmer who is skillful enough not someone who is home taught. If you can think of it, the computer can do the job for you as long as it's programmed right. The key is a good programmer will bombard you with all sorts of questions and depending on your answer he will write you an error-proof logic.

That's why good programmers ask for complete documentation on the process.

This is funny. I know exactly how to program a working sim that proves my method. You build a complete function library of classes and reuse that functionality with object oriented processing, and that is just to avoid hard coding it. You teach the computer new operating skills and then you use that on spins while kicking out telemetry during each process so that your work can be validated by skeptics and experts alike. I've already done it and have given it to the world in the past form of double dozen bets. I flat out know how to teach a computer to do characteristic recognition and use. I don't understand why you are trying to coach me on how this all works.

I wrote this almost 18 years ago:

Code Select Expand


put binaryDecode(OsFormat,str,halfBlock) into numConverted
    put halfBlock into xR
    put sX[djp] into IVb
    put xR bitXor IVb into xR
    put 1 into ep
    repeat for each element ep in rkoR
      put xL bitXor bfP3[ep] into xL
      put ((xL bitAnd 4278190080) / 16777216)  bitAnd 255 into a
      put ((xL bitAnd 16711680) / 65536) into b
      put ((xL bitAnd 65280) / 256) into c
      put (xL bitAnd 255) into d
      put (((  ((S1[a + 1] + S2[b + 1]) mod 4294967296) bitXor S3[c + 1]  ) + S4[d + 1] ) mod 4294967296) bitXor xR into xR
      put xL into temp
      put xR into xL
      put temp into xR
    end repeat
    put xL into temp
    put xR into xL
    put temp into xR
    put xR bitXor bfP3[17] into xR
    put xL bitXor bfP3[18] into xL
    put (((xL bitAnd 4278190080 ) / 16777216) bitAnd 255) & ", " after cipherText
    put ((xL bitAnd 16711680) / 65536 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put (( xL bitAnd 65280 ) / 256 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put ( xL bitAnd 255 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put (((xR bitAnd 4278190080 ) / 16777216) bitAnd 255) & ", " after cipherText
    put ((xR bitAnd 16711680) / 65536 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put (( xR bitAnd 65280 ) / 256 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put ( xR bitAnd 255 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put ix + 8 into ix
    put ic + 8 into ic
  end repeat
  return cipherText
end encryptBF


It's part of a 32 bit block cipher.

I spent several days programming an AI version of just a few characteristics, singles and sleepers for double dozen bet selection. I added that to my double dozen charting and practice software. You can download it and try it out.  It looked for sleepers or singles and used a progression to play for the trends. It kicks out telemetry for each spin.  I did it to prove that I could program it. I did not program it to prove that RR works. I did it to let students see how I consider bet selections. I was tired of answering endless questions. It worked too. They could learn from the sim.

[gizmotron2]

Your super defensive attitude and a lack of basic fundamental understandings of the math are red flags to me.

You need to see me as this and you hope that others will support your conclusions. But you are depending on your conclusion as being right. Only that is not scientific. You are going after me and not my method. That is a form of control. This recruitment and control method was placed into you from an education system or by your family upbringing. It's OK and even approved of by those that wrecked you. It's done all day long. You are superior and I am not. Therefore you are going to set me straight. Only I see you as some group think malignant narcissistic control freak. I'm just insulting mathBoyz and mathNazi's. There is no adolescent tossing going on here.  I love it when I hook someone from the side and they get on their high horse as savior and caregiver. It's really such a common minded task.

[Moxy]

Don't feel special. I live in a world where it's against the law to treat the instigator of my rage the way he should be treated. There was a guy at Gambler's Glen  named Snowman that set me off on the mathNazi's. His obnoxious drone made me get short tempered with people that use math like it's some magical gambler's fallacy. He highhandedly destroyed Gambler's Glen.  I decided to treat everyone that tries to pull off their condescending platitudes with irreverent disdain. So colorful pejoratives are just too simple. I prefer fantasies of retribution like on a scale of a benevolent dictator with a torture chamber. Notice the gesture of my greatness here. If you are insulted by me you get to be in the club.  You guys that KNOW you are right don't need to condescend to me. I don't have to approve of it without consequences. It's not OK to use probability as the absolute end all of what reality is. Reading Randomness was disclosed for the full purpose of forcing retribution.

I'm on your side here, chief.  Overcoming 5.26% regardless of level of knack seems a tad off kilter.  Am I over-stepping?

[gizmotron2]

I'm on your side here, chief.  Overcoming 5.26% regardless of level of knack seems a tad off kilter.  Am I over-stepping?

There are no odds against you to concern yourself. Odds can't tell you when a trend will be in a working state. It can't tell you how long a trend will be in a working condition. It can't tell you when a working trend will end. Odds are useless. They don't predict anything except some imaginary and unconditional large number conclusions. To apply that to what is currently happening is a fallacy at best. Let those that cling to their mathematical expectations keep their magical beliefs. Just because someone tells them that you must lose, even if you lose an unfunded bet selection, they then try to move the goal posts. They are dependent on the magical belief of probability. I'm just trying to wake people up.

[Moxy]

You need to see me as this and you hope that others will support your conclusions. But you are depending on your conclusion as being right. Only that is not scientific. You are going after me and not my method. That is a form of control. This recruitment and control method was placed into you from an education system or by your family upbringing. It's OK and even approved of by those that wrecked you. It's done all day long. You are superior and I am not. Therefore you are going to set me straight. Only I see you as some group think malignant narcissistic control freak. I'm just insulting mathBoyz and mathNazi's. There is no adolescent tossing going on here.  I love it when I hook someone from the side and they get on their high horse as savior and caregiver. It's really such a common minded task.

Exactly how good are your programming skills?

[gizmotron2]

Exactly how good are your programming skills?

When the internet first got going there was MTML 3.0. Then they started working on 4.0. It was 1999 when they started talking to developers about XML. I took one look at that and set out to reinvent the internet. It took until 2008 but I developed an new human markup language. I created the browsers, cross platform, for Mac and Windows that could download a new kind of internet document. It was like an interactive PDF file in that you could work on the file once you downloaded it. This could be done off line too. You could use it like an entire website with hundreds or even thousands of pages, including all the pictures. These files would then work off line. You could alter the file that you downloaded. You could personalize it for rapid searches. It could work like a data base, a medical library, a law library. It could be used to deliver a complete published daily newspaper. It could be a sales catalog for all your products. It could be documents presented to students from a school. It was powerful. You could append additional pages to it that users could download to the original growing file. You could anchor fragments within it for gathering topical data. It would create automatic indexing and text gathering thru the use of its unique human markup structuring.  It allowed user groups to create their own construct definitions for unique interest groups. People could put up multi paged fragments of a greater group's interests. All this would allow a file to be used as a hub to link to other contributor's parts of any subject desired by an interest group. It was a break with the well formed requirements of SGML, XML, and HTML. It was called MTML, Meaningful Text Markup Language. I delivered it with many innovative and original capabilities. Nobody was interested in it. I created a new version of the Blowfish  Encryption algorithm that utilized the Mod function in the process of delivering a very unique Cipher Block Chaining capacity. I've written hundreds of test stand sims for gamblers all over the world in order to test their ideas. I did that all just out of curiosity and to learn. I'm an expert on the results of progressions and large number testing. All my test sims included telemetry so that discussion on the forums would be validated and clear in meaning and understanding. I'm pretty sure that if you suggest it there are those of us that have already exhausted it in research.  We even set out to solve Turbo's hot number repeaters. And last but not least I developed the latest version of Reading Randomness 1.4 practicing sim with graphs so that anyone can practice and learn the skill, all free of charge.  With regards to testing systems I always build from scratch and it runs as a free standing executable compiled in the C, and C+ language. I try to include telemetry so that it can be shared online.

Here, see it for yourself:

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0f7nV9GdE

[Richard Meisel]

Hi Giz please forgive me for messing with your Method.
Reading Randomness idea:

Comparing 3 Wins against 7 Losses with 2 Wins against 5 Losses

18 x 5 = 90
W3 x 90 = W270
L7   x 90 = L630   630/270 = 2.33

18 x 7 = 126
W2 x 126 = W252
L5   x 126 =  L630   630/252 = 2.5

I find it much easier getting the 2nd Win than the 3rd Win.
Also the amount Won is almost the same.

[gizmotron2]

Hi Giz please forgive me for messing with your Method.
Reading Randomness idea:

Comparing 3 Wins against 7 Losses with 2 Wins against 5 Losses

18 x 5 = 90
W3 x 90 = W270
L7   x 90 = L630   630/270 = 2.33

18 x 7 = 126
W2 x 126 = W252
L5   x 126 =  L630   630/252 = 2.5

I find it much easier getting the 2nd Win than the 3rd Win.
Also the amount Won is almost the same.

Nice work. People are getting  4.66 wins at 270 each for each loss at 630. 4.66 times 270 = 1,260. In fact some of them are doing better than that in long run testing. It takes time. Experience comes slowly. A person begins to get out of sessions that are difficult without going all the way bust at 7 net losses. The same goes for not reaching all the way to three net wins. Randomness never cooperates the way that you would like it to all the time.

[Azim]

This is funny. I know exactly how to program a working sim that proves my method. You build a complete function library of classes and reuse that functionality with object oriented processing, and that is just to avoid hard coding it. You teach the computer new operating skills and then you use that on spins while kicking out telemetry during each process so that your work can be validated by skeptics and experts alike. I've already done it and have given it to the world in the past form of double dozen bets. I flat out know how to teach a computer to do characteristic recognition and use. I don't understand why you are trying to coach me on how this all works.

I wrote this almost 18 years ago:

Code Select Expand


put binaryDecode(OsFormat,str,halfBlock) into numConverted
    put halfBlock into xR
    put sX[djp] into IVb
    put xR bitXor IVb into xR
    put 1 into ep
    repeat for each element ep in rkoR
      put xL bitXor bfP3[ep] into xL
      put ((xL bitAnd 4278190080) / 16777216)  bitAnd 255 into a
      put ((xL bitAnd 16711680) / 65536) into b
      put ((xL bitAnd 65280) / 256) into c
      put (xL bitAnd 255) into d
      put (((  ((S1[a + 1] + S2[b + 1]) mod 4294967296) bitXor S3[c + 1]  ) + S4[d + 1] ) mod 4294967296) bitXor xR into xR
      put xL into temp
      put xR into xL
      put temp into xR
    end repeat
    put xL into temp
    put xR into xL
    put temp into xR
    put xR bitXor bfP3[17] into xR
    put xL bitXor bfP3[18] into xL
    put (((xL bitAnd 4278190080 ) / 16777216) bitAnd 255) & ", " after cipherText
    put ((xL bitAnd 16711680) / 65536 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put (( xL bitAnd 65280 ) / 256 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put ( xL bitAnd 255 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put (((xR bitAnd 4278190080 ) / 16777216) bitAnd 255) & ", " after cipherText
    put ((xR bitAnd 16711680) / 65536 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put (( xR bitAnd 65280 ) / 256 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put ( xR bitAnd 255 ) & ", " after cipherText
    put ix + 8 into ix
    put ic + 8 into ic
  end repeat
  return cipherText
end encryptBF


It's part of a 32 bit block cipher.

I spent several days programming an AI version of just a few characteristics, singles and sleepers for double dozen bet selection. I added that to my double dozen charting and practice software. You can download it and try it out.  It looked for sleepers or singles and used a progression to play for the trends. It kicks out telemetry for each spin.  I did it to prove that I could program it. I did not program it to prove that RR works. I did it to let students see how I consider bet selections. I was tired of answering endless questions. It worked too. They could learn from the sim.

You can ask any new programmer to write classes, inherit them, use polymorphism, doesn't mean I am a skillful programmer just tells me you know your stuff.

As I said, a good programmer would bombard you with the right questions.   

Not saying and will never say I am a good programmer, however, having said that I have the skills to write GUT. That hasn't been accomplished on this forum by anyone else to my knowledge.

The GUT is the same thing you make decisions based on the current trot, I have stressed enough to everyone to go practice, practice.

I read a few pages of the explanation on Gamblers forum, after finding out Steve is running that one too. I registered and downloaded your tool.

What I don't understand and if you say you are smart, why bet 5 units on low 18 numbers each and not just put  90 on low. You will make the same? However, some casinos used to give 1/2 back if 0 hits. Not sure if they still do it.

By the way, I entered the "007software" as the answer to the question the spin and run button vanished. I just gave up on it.

Anyways, good luck.

[gizmotron2]

By the way, I entered the "007software" as the answer to the question the spin and run button vanished. I just gave up on it.

It's with a question mark. You missed that one I guess. Try 007 software? There is a space between 007 and software? too.

[gizmotron2]

What I don't understand and if you say you are smart, why bet 5 units on low 18 numbers each and not just put  90 on low. You will make the same? However, some casinos used to give 1/2 back if 0 hits. Not sure if they still do it.

I did it this way so that you can use combo bets. You are smart so you will figure out how I included that. But if you give up you will figure out how smart you are the hard way.

[Moxy]

We'd make a great team...  In another circumstance.