KAV something is wrong with your forum site

[Steve]

I need to show that trends and patterns can give a player an edge

Then you claim to be changing the odds, ie increasing accuracy of predictions. If you genuinely are, then you are beating roulette. But if you're saying "random works best", then you're saying unpredictable and 1 in 37 works best. It's a contradiction. Turbo makes this contradiction. I dont know enough about your system to comment yet.

Also that there are 37 or 38 slots that pay back 35 plus you keep the winner. The odds on winning in the long run with blind random guessing will make you lose in the long run.

Correct so far

I know that this independence can't prevent a person from targeting win streaks.

You can "target" them, but it wont work.

These are a win streak, a losing streak, or a chaotic nothingness that just stays even. Now there are different kinds of things that happen to each condition. It can be a slow win or a slow grind downward kind of streak. It can be a real fast up or down streak. But one thing is for sure. Math, odds, or even magical beans for a sixth sense can't cause or prevent these three types of condition from occurring. They just happen.

What you described is normal probability and variance. It happens when spins are completely random, and even when they aren't random. You're referring to normal random like RNG. What you've described cannot change the odds. Why? Because you've still got 1 in 37 accuracy.

If you have information suggesting otherwise, I'd like to have a look.

[gizmotron2]

Then you claim to be changing the odds, ie increasing accuracy of predictions. If you genuinely are, then you are beating roulette. But if you're saying "random works best", then you're saying unpredictable and 1 in 37 works best. It's a contradiction. Turbo makes this contradiction. I dont know enough about your system to comment yet.

No I'm not. I know that the odds don't change. It does not take increased accuracy at guesses or an ability of prediction to get one of the three types of streak conditions. You place your bets and you get results. These results come in groups of identifiable conditions. I just chose to recognize them. I don't shy away from them because something didn't cause them. They are just what happens in a gambling session. Random does not work best for me. I attach my meaningless bet selections to trends or patterns that I see. I have a bet selection that is based on things I see in my playing charts. When I'm in a win streak my guesses are also working. When I'm in a losing streak then my guesses are not working. There is never prediction going on here. It all comes down to how long streaks last. How long does the losing streak last. Can I see it change to a win streak? Yes, I can see changes in the streak types. I have taught others to see these change also. It's an easy skill to learn.

What you described is normal probability and variance. It happens when spins are completely random, and even when they aren't random. You're referring to normal random like RNG. What you've described cannot change the odds. Why? Because you've still got 1 in 37 accuracy.

If you have information suggesting otherwise, I'd like to have a look.

These close to even chance odds are good enough. They are what they are. People learning this skill are murdering the odds. They lose the required number of losses in a session if they make a bet selection on every spin. I teach how to ignore the odds as far as bet selections go. They are irrelevant. Odds will never tell you when a win streak will start, how long it will last, and when it will end. The secret to all this is in targeting the win streaks while they happen and for as long as they happen. It does not take prediction. In a way it takes timing. Timing is a skill too.  I have practice software to learn good selection and timing skills.

[gizmotron2]

Here is a graph that illustrates that whatever the bet selection you get different types of streaks. This is from 100 spins all bet on red.

[Steve]

Yes I know there are different streaks. But those "patterns" are all in your head.

It's like systems that look for streaks like:

BRBRB
BBBBBBBR
RRRRRRRB

One could argue there's a choppy streak, a B streak, and R streak. When in fact there are no patterns to it. It's just random.

No matter what you see, the odds of R or B haven't changed.

[gizmotron2]

Yes I know there are different streaks. But those "patterns" are all in your head.

It's like systems that look for streaks like:

BRBRB
BBBBBBBR
RRRRRRRB

One could argue there's a choppy streak, a B streak, and R streak. When in fact there are no patterns to it. It's just random.

No matter what you see, the odds of R or B haven't changed.

Of course the patterns are only in my head. They are just an excuse to make a selection. I just showed you a picture of a graph that is all bets on red. I just picked them for no reason at all. They don't matter either. They don't change the odds.

I want to know if you think I'm claiming that this is changing the odds? Because I'm trying to clearly say that the odds have not changed. Can we move on past this or are you stuck? I want to know if you can see win streaks and losing streaks. Do you need some kind of remedial proof that win streaks exist and they do so even when the odds are against them occurring? If you want the world to be that you must lose every time you gamble then the world of gambling is bleak at best.

I need to know if streaks happen even when the odds are against them occurring.

[gizmotron2]

Let's try this another way:
::::wwLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLwLwLwLwLwLwL

Do you think that you could make money off of that? The actual bet selections were based on random selections with no meaning in your mind. The only thing they had was that they were all Even Chance bets all with 18 numbers selected on each bet selection.

[Steve]

I want to know if you think I'm claiming that this is changing the odds? Because I'm trying to clearly say that the odds have not changed.

I think you are contradicting yourself. And I'm not sure if you know what I mean by "changing the odds", so i'll be clear.

Changing the odds means if you are betting on say a single number, you win on average more than 1 in 37 times. If you apply your strategy to reds/blacks, then changing the odds means you get better than 18/37 hit rate.

The reason it's not possible to win consistently without changing the odds is because on each independent spin, with random spins, you are stuck with 1 in 37 for single numbers, or 18/37 for colors. 

What you appear to be claiming is you don't change the odds, but you do change the odds by predicting streaks, but you dont change the odds.

Let's try this another way:
::::wwLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLwLwLwLwLwLwL

Do you think that you could make money off of that?

You would profit if your bets matched the wins, exactly like if the sequence was RBRRRBBBRRRBRRRRRRBBBBRRB.

Sorry but I see us going in circles. I dont see a point to it. If you and your students are winning, keep doing whatever you're doing.

[Serendipity]

Here is a graph that illustrates that whatever the bet selection you get different types of streaks. This is from 100 spins all bet on red.

Even though roulette has no memory, the graph shows that everything tries to even out eventually... And there are only 100 spins... Is this a chosen pattern or many of these are looking like that?

[gizmotron2]

Even though roulette has no memory, the graph shows that everything tries to even out eventually... And there are only 100 spins... Is this a chosen pattern or many of these are looking like that?

Most patterns tend to grind slowly downward as they should. This was a single zero wheel. It had 50 wins and 50 losses with zero only hitting once.   I chose this 100 spins because it had steep losses and steep wins. The point is to find out if people can see win streaks and losing streaks. For some reason many can't see streaks. I'm not sure why. If they can't see win streaks while they occur then this method will not work for them. I designed the software to expose win and loss streaks so that the skill of seeing them is improved through visual dexterity.

[Kav]

Giz,

For the first time I seem to gasp what you are saying. But...

There a many Trend followin systems out there, even for Baccarat (Rouletteman has a couple such videos) but they seem to fail at some point for some reason. It seems, in practice, trends can change in ways that none can predict. So they don't work.

[gizmotron2]

The reason it's not possible to win consistently without changing the odds is because on each independent spin, with random spins, you are stuck with 1 in 37 for single numbers, or 18/37 for colors. 

The odds for each independent spin are still 18/37. If I bet only on red I'm trying to make a point. If I decide to play 150 spins and quit then the law of averages states that I will lose more bets than I win. Some sessions like that might win once in a while but most the time I will lose. I hope we agree so far. I look at the session as a single event. The people that are doing real well at this are using coincidence and not odds. We both agree that you can't beat the odds. So I show them how to play ignoring the odds.

In order for a person to have the law of averages work as it should you must flat bet each bet selection on each bet. You could try some lame progression but that is just a wishful thinking method. Those hit a sequence that kills all progress in the long run. But this is different. If my students can see losing stretches in a 150 spin session and not fund them while they are occurring then that changes the outcomes without changing the odds at 18/37. They make a bet selection on all bets. They  put this in my recommended charts. They can then see phases when bet selections on trends and patterns are working as wins and bet selections of losses when these selections are not working. It takes a mind and the ability to use recognition.

That is why I ask if people can see and recognize losing streaks. If they can't then they should pass this method up. Explaining the odds created by this method is not my problem. Instead of odds per each spin it will become total outcome and results odds using larger numbers than single event odds. I can lose the required number of spins in the long run and still destroy the expected result just by recognizing losing streaks and not funding them.

I can make a bet selection in my charts and label those selections with a hyphen. Those are guesses that are not funded. I bet between $90 and $100 per funded bet at a B&M casino. I bet the table minimum of $5 during an unfunded bet. I tend to lose most of my unfunded best because I'm good at recognizing lost patches of a session. Conversely I'm very good at recognizing winning patches of a session. You only need to learn how to attack the win streaks and stay close to even during stretches of chaos or losing that clump together.

You add stop win and stop loss restrictions to that and you have a working method.

I can't figure out why people think they can only win if they change the odds first. I'm suggesting that the odds can't be changed. I'm clearly fascinated by blind people that can't see win streaks. Perhaps it's some kind of self imposed blindness. I mean that they just can't see how simple this is. It has to be math oriented or it can't work. It's almost like some kind of phobia.

I can't help them. People see what they want to see perhaps. Those are the ones that will be left behind as this gets learned by many others. I have just taken the skill of visual dexterity combined with recognition skills and turned it into a method.

If this is true then I must have an explainable changing of the odds. The math department has just not come forward to explain it yet. Not seeing it is not proof of anything.  People that can see this are using it because I made everything real clear in order for them to see it. I'm teaching good timing. It can be learned. The results are becoming overwhelming. One day this method will end table games in casinos. It will happen while blind people let it all pass them by. In other words this is a losing streak for math oriented players. They will have missed the opportunity.

I have given this away for free because I have known for years that this has real possibilities. This is a total contradiction in known long term expectations. Once enough people start using it then the prevailing math beliefs will come under greater scrutiny. Until then this is the time of opportunity. It is the time of stubborn blindness also. Einstein was an idiot and a fool until astronomers proved his assumptions. What I have done here is to present the proof first. The math will come later.

I would love a research scientist to prove me wrong. First they must learn to read randomness and to follow my recommendations. Then a large number of research techs can go into validation experiments. This takes a learned skill. Nobody can do this in a condition of ignorance. It looks like less than ten people are working on this. They are not paid. All they have to do is apply themselves to becoming skillful. Those that do apply themselves will be rewarded. Those that pass it by will not. 

So I respect the way that you think. How long will this take if it slowly leaks out to the world? Math scientists would go nuts to be the first to undo known beliefs.

[gizmotron2]

Giz,

For the first time I seem to gasp what you are saying. But...

There a many Trend followin systems out there, even for Baccarat (Rouletteman has a couple such videos) but they seem to fail at some point for some reason. It seems, in practice, trends can change in ways that none can predict. So they don't work.

So don't look any further. You know what you know. I'm just here to peel off a few of the curious and to give them a free shot at the future. I spent 14 years hinting at this. Now I'm walking people thru it one step at a time. The first step is it possible to see a win streak or a losing streak in the middle of its condition of continuing? I teach that skill. So far everyone that applies themselves sees at least that much.  I thinks it's fun to watch people not see the obvious. They are the experts most of the time. They have their own interests and don't want to be told how things might work.  It will take a wrecking ball for them to see this. That's OK and to be expected. I could not be more glad for them. So I'm glad for you passing this up.

[Steve]

In order for a person to have the law of averages work as it should you must flat bet each bet selection on each bet.

No. Because when spins are independent as they are, progression like 10,20,40 or whatever is just 3 separate bets each with the same odds.

3 players making bets 10, 20, 40 is the same as one player using progression.

Progression is basically a loan that must be repaid, with huge interest.

I didn't read the rest. If you're winning keep winning. End of story.

[gizmotron2]

No. Because when spins are independent as they are, progression like 10,20,40 or whatever is just 3 separate bets each with the same odds.

3 players making bets 10, 20, 40 is the same as one player using progression.

Progression is basically a loan that must be repaid, with huge interest.

I didn't read the rest. If you're winning keep winning. End of story.

Yeah, I got tired of you too. I guess we think much alike.