The "Statistical Imbalance" fallacy

[carvigno]

I suggested to Kimo that he get his system coded and set up a web site where users can input spins and it will tell you what to bet.

Systems with stiff rules not taking into account changing targets are prone to failure. No way his playing method can be coded. it is perfectly defined why, what, when and how to play but it relays on tracking previous spins to assess rhythms, simmetries, sincronicites. Observing which events over others are being most favored and how are they disposing themselves in time (frecuency) and space (secuency).

[Joe]

carvigno, Kimo said his method is perfectly mechanical and unambiguous, therefore it can be coded. What is the difference between a rule and a 'stiff' rule?

If any person can use his system by tracking previous spins to assess rhythms etc then a computer can be programmed to do the same thing, no problem.

And If his method can't be coded it would mean that it's subjective, which is rather convenient, don't you think? It would mean that there is no 'right' way to pick your bets, and someone who didn't win using the method could be told they didn't have the necessary skill, and it wasn't the method's fault, but theirs. 

[Steve]

Carvigno, you said too many incorrect things to correct. You're going to eventually learn better, but nothing i or anyone can say or present you with will probably hasten that. You'll just need to learn for yourself.

[Steve]

And im not saying I'm better than you. But we are at very different levels of understanding.

[Kimo Li]

Kimo i havent had time to respond to everything you said. I wont. I already looked into your claims and approaches more than was needed. I hoped you had at least something to offer, but didn't look into your strategies and claims much until now.

Sorry its clear you're not an honest person, and anyone who uses your methods will eventually lose, like with typical losing systems. You still have some gullible and inexperienced fools following you. They'll learn eventually.

"anyone who uses your methods will eventually lose, like with typical losing systems."

How can you make that statement?
You don't even know my methods. Please stop your lies. You sound like the media, creating "Fake News."

I do not discredit your work. I don't know enough about your work to comment or critique. I do question your character when you post lies about someone.

[carvigno]

But we are at very different levels of understanding.

Absolutely. For once we agree.

[carvigno]

You should read this article. It's food for the mind. I'm good at increasing probabilities as in the article is explained  .

link:s://statisticsbyjim.com/fun/probability-theory-helps-find-more-four-leaf-clovers/

[carvigno]

Steve ban this piece of sh*t!! He is spamming all the threads and Forum.

Why? She writes like a boss 

[Steve]

I removed all of member "HOUSEWIFES" spammy crap, and he's on moderation.

[Gandhi]

Housewifes imbalanced this thread.

I'll bet within the next three posts one will be her.

[gizmotron2]

I removed all of member "HOUSEWIFES" spammy crap, and he's on moderation.

Thank You.

[Steve]

"anyone who uses your methods will eventually lose, like with typical losing systems."

How can you make that statement?
You don't even know my methods. Please stop your lies. You sound like the media, creating "Fake News."

Kimo,your statements explain enough about your methods. Your statements contradict everything I and every educated expert in the industry says. So tell me again, who's making bold statements?

You aren't arguing with me. you're arguing against basic logic and math, which you clearly dont understand.

You're not a roulette expert. You're a manipulator, and not a particularly skilled one because your backwards logic is easily pulled apart by anyone with basic understanding. So you prey on uneducated people like Carvigno who are yet to learn.

You haven't produced a single shred of proof to validate your claims. You ask people to buy based on blind faith, and you say if people don't buy without proof, it's their loss, they vetted themselves, and it's part of your in-built vetting process. Only allowing buying without proof is a good way for vetting people with a brain.

Like Joe said, your vetting procedure is more to ensure the only people who buy are gullible and stupid. It would make them easier to manipulate later so they dont cause trouble.

I do not discredit your work. I don't know enough about your work to comment or critique. I do question your character when you post lies about someone.

What kind of expert doesnt know about advantage play like VB?

What kind of expert doesn't understand sustained winning is impossible with random bets?

Again you haven't shown a single shred of proof of your claims. Everything you've presented contradicts common sense, basic logic, math, and fundamental truth every expert knows.

Until I see something that actually supports your claims, why would I believe anything other than you're running a scam?

Or should I be like one of your "vetted" purchasers and buy based on:

1. Blind faith, and
2. So-called proof which is vague claims that go against all logic and common knowledge.

In the end, you cant beat roulette consistently with random bets - it's impossible. You said yourself your bet accuracy is random. That means your payouts are still below odds. How people like Carvigno dont get it is a mystery.

Everything you say is backwards. To explain it, this sums up what you say:

"Only I know the secret. I wont tell the secret. You only get the secret after paying me a fortune. You dont get any proof before sending money. If you dont send money without proof, you have vetted yourself, as I planned."

Come on Kimo. You'd have to be a real moron to send money with those conditions. And I bet you're counting on it.

[Kimo Li]

Kimo,your statements explain enough about your methods. Your statements contradict everything I and every educated expert in the industry says. So tell me again, who's making bold statements?

You aren't arguing with me. you're arguing against basic logic and math, which you clearly dont understand.

You're not a roulette expert. You're a manipulator, and not a particularly skilled one because your backwards logic is easily pulled apart by anyone with basic understanding. So you prey on uneducated people like Carvigno who are yet to learn.

You haven't produced a single shred of proof to validate your claims. You ask people to buy based on blind faith, and you say if people don't buy without proof, it's their loss, they vetted themselves, and it's part of your in-built vetting process. Only allowing buying without proof is a good way for vetting people with a brain.

Like Joe said, your vetting procedure is more to ensure the only people who buy are gullible and stupid. It would make them easier to manipulate later so they dont cause trouble.

What kind of expert doesnt know about advantage play like VB?

What kind of expert doesn't understand sustained winning is impossible with random bets?

Again you haven't shown a single shred of proof of your claims. Everything you've presented contradicts common sense, basic logic, math, and fundamental truth every expert knows.

Until I see something that actually supports your claims, why would I believe anything other than you're running a scam?

Or should I be like one of your "vetted" purchasers and buy based on:

1. Blind faith, and
2. So-called proof which is vague claims that go against all logic and common knowledge.

In the end, you cant beat roulette consistently with random bets - it's impossible. You said yourself your bet accuracy is random. That means your payouts are still below odds. How people like Carvigno dont get it is a mystery.

Everything you say is backwards. To explain it, this sums up what you say:

"Only I know the secret. I wont tell the secret. You only get the secret after paying me a fortune. You dont get any proof before sending money. If you dont send money without proof, you have vetted yourself, as I planned."

Come on Kimo. You'd have to be a real moron to send money with those conditions. And I bet you're counting on it.

You are right. I am defying the mathematical institution. My method does not apply to the math world. That does not make my approach wrong, different, but not wrong.

I don't buy into the visual ballistics and AP. My approach does not employ complicated analysis. It stands up the the HG principle of being simple, no major math calculations, or time consuming tracking cards, although may be used by beginners.

You simply walk up to the tables, do a few simple calculations in the head and start betting. An expert does not mean you have to know everything about roulette. An expert, in my case, means I do something extremely well, without the clutter of other peoples ideas.

Plain and simple. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[Steve]

You are right. I am defying the mathematical institution.

Who gives a f*ck about any "institution". Math and logic is not an "institution".

That does not make my approach wrong, different, but not wrong.

By definition, yes it does. You're arguing 1+1=3.

I don't buy into the visual ballistics and AP

Because you have no experience with it. Although in your recent post you said:

I too incorporate in a few of my strategies visual ballistics, probably not in the way you do, still, using ball movement logistics.

You're all over the place Kimo. Your logic and claims are very messy and full of holes.

Basically by your own admission, your bet accuracy is random. This literally means your bet selection CHANGES NOTHING. You still win at the expected rate, which is the same as someone making random bets.

I'll try not to waste more time on this bullshit. There are lots of self-professed gurus around peddling bullshit, because there are enough stupid people around to buy it.

[Kimo Li]

Who gives a f*ck about any "institution". Math and logic is not an "institution".

By definition, yes it does. You're arguing 1+1=3.

Because you have no experience with it. Although in your recent post you said:

You're all over the place Kimo. Your logic and claims are very messy and full of holes.

Basically by your own admission, your bet accuracy is random. This literally means your bet selection CHANGES NOTHING. You still win at the expected rate, which is the same as someone making random bets.

I'll try not to waste more time on this bullshit. There are lots of self-professed gurus around peddling bullshit, because there are enough stupid people around to buy it.

You are upset because it does not fit into your way of thinking. I understand. I have not given you any information that would support my claim, with good reason. You would exploit it. You are a businessman, enough said.