The "Statistical Imbalance" fallacy

[Joe]

Gizmo, never mind all the verbiage, if you think you have something, show us the mathematics. Either a mathematical proof that you have an advantage or at least some stats which show you have an edge.

Bottom line : what is your flat bet edge, and why do you have it?

If you can't answer either of those questions, then frankly, you're deluded.

[Kairomancer]

Also dropping back to minimum bets won't help to profit, at all. Each spin is independent.  All you'll have is different bets of different sizes.

The patterns are not imagination, but can be objectively verified and based on their characteristics can be labeled and identified.
Sometimes random produces them for an unknown span.
It is just a recognizable characteristic, perhaps the timing and the duration also can be put in those patterns.
In a sense sometimes they can be used and seen as a means to speculate.
Based on maths of random in the long run those type of guesses work 18/37 of the time.
Gizmo somehow believes that based on a past favourable winning phase he can continue and keep winning, while he speculates that past losing would lead to future losing, so he can outsmart it by not playing.
This is of course delusional thinking.
In reality the accuracy of his "favourable timing conditions" to play or not to play would work only 18/37 time.
He assumes that somehow by seeing the past chart results of trend phases somehow change the equation, when in fact it is not.
He buys into the fallacy that this is somehow a skill, when in reality it is just positive and negative variance.
One way to use this method is by using precognition to evaluate the timing phases and stay on the positive side of variance, but it will neither work long term, yet I feel that millions can be made this way.

When someone loses playing this mechanically he blames them playing it wrong, which is of course just delusional thinking.
He also believes that somehow casinos win more then the house edge, when I presented the facts of the mpr results he couldn't accept those.

What is more telling that he admits that he was unsuccessfull with that pattern synchronizing game for 15 years, yet he somehow justify it buy blaming self control issues.

I think he will continue to perpetuate this on the forums, believing that those math fools just do not get it, but he can inflate his delusion to repating his theories to clueless members.

[TONINO]

Hi Kimo, I hope to communicate well with the translator since I am Spanish, I am a very experienced roulette player and I appreciate what you expose, where could I see your books? I guess they would be in English, I would have to translate them, I have two great strategies that I can't use due to lack of money, family debts have left me without money to continue living on roulette. I wanted to ask you what tab value is necessary to generate the income that you said in previous comments ... My strategies are patience and confidence that give them the winning knowledge. You are right, for compulsive players you better get away from roulette.

[TONINO]

I would like to be able to work with you kimo li, I can contribute my safe and winning strategies, although to make them profitable as God commands they should be of a chip value that unfortunately I can not use today. I think you are someone honest and honest and I would like to talk with you. And to everyone else I say, THE CASINOS ARE MAFIAS AND OUR TRUE ENEMY, HERE WE MUST BE PARTNERS AND WORK AND HELP US TO DEFEAT THEM

[carvigno]

/quote]

Sure but just in case bring a knife to meet your partners here.  A knife in a fight helps calm down the mood HAHAHAHAH

[carvigno]

You, math geeks, what are you doing in a roulette forum?. Looking for a system that cannot override Casino edge? That's your stance so i dont grasp the point.

[gizmotron2]

It's not complicated. When it's random, neither the universe or the wheel give a crap what patterns, trends or streaks you think you see, or bet on. The result will always be the same accuracy as random betting. That means your strategy changed absolutely nothing.

Thanks for yelling. Does that make your point more valid?

Once again congratulations. My results will be the same as if I made random bet selections. It will continue as a winning stretch or it won't. Perhaps I should yell. It's not that important to me if you open your eyes or not.

It's a coincidence if the bet selection, that is based on a trend, is currently in a win phase. This is no different than if I selected poop from my hat as a bet selection. It won't change a thing or cause the win streak to continue.

Here is what is true and to the point of this thread. For a coincidental win streak to continue it must first be a win streak already occurring.  If I base my search for win streaks that are already occurring on the observation of 6 unique groups that are made up from 12 unique sets then that alone gives me 6 chances to see a working coincidence as opposed to observing then results of just one randomly selected bet selection method. 

Here is evidence of conditions that most people believe are irrelevant. I named it the "Global Effect." I'm sort of glad that people think that both it and the "Elegant Pattern" are hogwash. As long as the world is flat to them the more I like it. It amuses me to watch how defensive people get when they know that they are right and yet can't see this because they haven't tried to understand it. There are many things in this world that are undiscovered by most people and that have always been the truth.

[gizmotron2]

Also dropping back to minimum bets won't help to profit, at all. Each spin is independent.  All you'll have is different bets of different sizes.

In a happy world maybe. You are saying that a person can't speculate on an uptick trend information, like stock traders that search for moving averages do. But I can speculate on unknown factors that go into repeat typed changes. I don't care a wit if the trends are meaningless guesses. All I care is that they pay off at times. I don't make bet selection based on the hope that something is due. I make bets on situations that continue momentarily. I synchronize with the moving averages  based on actual existing evidence. I have no problem stopping on 12 wins and 9 losses on the big bets.  I don't care who thinks that they are right.  They being right does not prevent me from gambling the way that I do. I do want to know one thing though. Why are you so opposed to this?

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo, never mind all the verbiage, if you think you have something, show us the mathematics. Either a mathematical proof that you have an advantage or at least some stats which show you have an edge.

Bottom line : what is your flat bet edge, and why do you have it?

If you can't answer either of those questions, then frankly, you're deluded.

I decided a long time ago that I would not waste my brain power on mathematics because I would only end up being an also ran with no contribution made to other's benefit. Einstein's General Relativity was considered delusion until Astronomers from the Lick Observatory  photographed and proved it was always the truth by capturing evidence during a total solar eclipse.

My answer to you is that Reading Randomness is the evidence. Now you go get the math if it so important to you. I have always said that this is the way it was going to become the way. The capacity comes first and then the math that will be like eating crow. You probability people are going to take a hit. Everything is going to change.

This is my signature at the thread where it is explained: "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."

Once that happens the math world will go into convulsions. You are more than likely not smart or educated enough to unpack this. So you will be forced to agree even if now you are so sure that you are right.

[gizmotron2]

The patterns are not imagination, but can be objectively verified and based on their characteristics can be labeled and identified.
Sometimes random produces them for an unknown span.
It is just a recognizable characteristic, perhaps the timing and the duration also can be put in those patterns.
In a sense sometimes they can be used and seen as a means to speculate.
Based on maths of random in the long run those type of guesses work 18/37 of the time.
Gizmo somehow believes that based on a past favourable winning phase he can continue and keep winning, while he speculates that past losing would lead to future losing, so he can outsmart it by not playing.
This is of course delusional thinking.
In reality the accuracy of his "favourable timing conditions" to play or not to play would work only 18/37 time.
He assumes that somehow by seeing the past chart results of trend phases somehow change the equation, when in fact it is not.
He buys into the fallacy that this is somehow a skill, when in reality it is just positive and negative variance.
One way to use this method is by using precognition to evaluate the timing phases and stay on the positive side of variance, but it will neither work long term, yet I feel that millions can be made this way.

When someone loses playing this mechanically he blames them playing it wrong, which is of course just delusional thinking.
He also believes that somehow casinos win more then the house edge, when I presented the facts of the mpr results he couldn't accept those.

What is more telling that he admits that he was unsuccessfull with that pattern synchronizing game for 15 years, yet he somehow justify it buy blaming self control issues.

I think he will continue to perpetuate this on the forums, believing that those math fools just do not get it, but he can inflate his delusion to repating his theories to clueless members.

Well isn't that refreshing. You exposed your fault in all this to a "T." And Thank you.

You missed the secret. That secret is that each loss during a win streak is a signal that the trend has ended unless it is from singles on the weak side. If a loss is a stop trigger then only one loss may be counted against your win/loss ratio of results. So you drop back to the next try on a first big bet. But if it is a win then you keep on taking from the pattern as suggested by the size of win repeats in the occurring win streak. There are always more wins than losses with this technique.  And you have published evidence that you blaze away during losing streaks and this is somehow an excuse that I use to explain your losses. So, it's convenient for me to explain it this way.

I'm suspicious that you have all along set out to fail. You started out good and then went to what appears to be deliberate losing. Now you have compiled all the reasons why I'm wrong. And you once again are flogging your own baloney pipe dream. If what you say is true then it's about 100 million years of evolution too soon. Tough luck for you  - that.

BTW, you are the only failure in all this.  That's a first. How come you didn't see this coming?

You are a failure at reading randomness and you think that you know why. I'm glad for you. You have all your excuses why you failed, blaming me. PKB.

[Kairomancer]

I neither blame you, nor bully you.
In fact, I am glad you shared your method.
I did not fail at it in any manner. I succeeded in finding out the holes in the methodology presented.

I think this where you project. It is not my pipe dream, but yours.
The question you should ask yourself; what if I am wrong after all?
Could you live with it?

[gizmotron2]

I neither blame you, nor bully you.
In fact, I am glad you shared your method.
I did not fail at it in any manner. I succeeded in finding out the holes in the methodology presented.

I think this where you project. It is not my pipe dream, but yours.
The question you should ask yourself; what if I am wrong after all?
Could you live with it?

You are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I know I am not wrong because before I shared this I walked people through it and helped them where they were having trouble. I didn't do that in the thread. Some people are doing great with it. You are the only one that didn't. I'm not going to guess why anymore. You have an invested interest in precognition.

[Kairomancer]

Mainly I am interested in the truth, anecdotes are cool as a starting basis.

100 or 200 sessions are considered short term, especially if you consider the real amounts wagered, because of the unfunded play.
David at GF is winning with a simple random marti playing over 50k spins with an enormous advantage
Does his method work in the long run?
Not according to the computer similations of Jerome.
Even at this forum losing systems were posted that survived 100 or 200k spins.
You only play with your new sets of rules for less than a year. You started that topic in July and kept adding new rules into the methodology.

Frankly I think only a few people read through your topic, and even less invested the time and effort into testing it.
You claim that I am the only one who fail at this, yet Denzie and few others get to the same conclusion who actually tried your method.

The only player still winning is Jono. I looked at his play sessions. There was nothing special, he even used progressions in some of the sessions I scanned through. I think he just got lucky so far, he only places a few real bets per session, so his results are short term. Best of luck to him.

My interest in precognition is a completely different beast and a new future perspective mixing the EC patterns with intuition.

Having said that I went into evaluating into your method with an open mind and mechanical play approach
Yes, at a few sessions (not most) I kept feeding the losing streaks to see for myself what can happen. I made tests without doing it with still no avail.
Guess what my results are also short term.
Yet you made extraordinary advantage play claims with a 2 to 1 win ratios that of course does not seem to hold. Large drawdowns are also expected. Your bankroll recommendations of total 21 units are also irresponsible.

You can have the last word. I do not invest more energy debating this topic with you. I am ok with you having your opinion.
Best of good luck.

[carvigno]

It's amazing how people fail to understand the meaning of the term 'independent'. If spins are independent it means that tracking data has no merit because knowledge of past spins doesn't give you information about future spins. You can call it frequencies or tendencies or rhythm or whatever, but all those concepts imply using past spins to predict future spins.

600 years ago the natives of America would have been greatly surprised to have known that there were other lands and civilizations beyond the seas. This ignorance, lack of knowledge, did not affect nor alter the development of the european civilization.
If you are ignorant of a reality doesnt mean that it does not exist. The same is the other way round, that other reality is not affected by your ignorance.
Your problem is that you face the game of roulette from a mathematical point of view and that's not the way to find a solution to solve the puzzle of the game.
Random generators (wheel, rng, whatever) produce chaotic results. Chaos does not mean disorder all the time, and therein lies the key. Randomness has memory. That's why there are about the same amount of reds and blacks in 100.000 spins. In the end, everything turns to balance.
Chaos has its rhythms and its laws. One of those laws that govern it is SYMMETRY. Chaos cannot avoid producing symmetric events since it is in its own DNA. These rhythms that produce symmetries can be analyzed, since they are data, and converted into statistical information. It's like music as in another post I commented. In this way we observe what kind of rhythm we have at the present moment and  realize when a change of rhythm occurs (different types of music would be the anology). Rhythms can have long enough durations to take advantage of them.
For example and finally. Simple chances only have four behavioral states:
1 Intermittences
2 Reflections or mirrors (symmetric or asymmetric)
3 Break-trough (change of rhythm)
4 Isolated figures ( 3, 4, 5, etc components).

Food for the brain. Have a nice day.

Carpanta

[Joe]

Randomness has memory. That's why there are about the same amount of reds and blacks in 100.000 spins. In the end, everything turns to balance.

Randomness doesn't have memory, that's nonsense. And there is no balance, at least not in terms of the numbers of reds vs blacks. The ratio of reds to blacks approaches a definite number after many spins but this isn't the same as the absolute numbers of red compared to black. In fact the disparity between red/black increases as you get more outcomes.

What you're talking about is the law of large numbers, which has nothing to do with memory. The distribution of outcomes over many trials comes from the basic physical setup of the system. Roulette is designed so that each number has the same chance in the long run which is why there is 'balance' eventually. If the wheel had a memory then some patterns would invariable follow other patterns,  but the essence of randomness is for that not to happen.

600 years ago the natives of America would have been greatly surprised to have known that there were other lands and civilizations beyond the seas. This ignorance, lack of knowledge, did not affect nor alter the development of the european civilization.

I've lost  count of the number of times I've seen this 'argument'. So because some people said some things couldn't be done and were proved wrong does it mean that this thing which people say can't be done actually can be done? Of course not, it's a pathetic argument. Show us some actual relevant data which supports your particular hypothesis, don't just spout meaningless cliches. 

Gizmo has been giving us this drivel for years. He clearly has 'issues' and can't even tell us basic stats concerning his results. If he doesn't even know that himself he can't know that what he does is any better than random chance. His posts can be entertaining at times but as regards helping anyone to win at roulette, it's well past the time to put him on ignore.