Reading Randomness ( The Real Way ) @ Roulette Simulator

[gizmotron2]

This Roulette Simulator stuff has taught me something new.  The headroom for $10 chips needs to be near $4,000 not $3,000.  That is based on flat betting at a max of $200 bets. So no double or double double bets allowed at that $3,000 set level. It also means that online betting for me must be kept at $20 max bets and a $400 bankroll in order to validate cheating or not. I still want to use all six of my groups with all 12 sets that make them up. This change will require far more patience and control. But that has always been my nemesis. It's a slight difference than the 7 net losses. This is 20 net losses. So I will adjust my play now and see if I can still win well enough to make it all worth it.

I think I will drop back to $54 wins, but without ever doubling down at a higher flat bet level until recovery occurs.  This might confirm that my suspicions about online cheating are wrong. It all comes down to headroom and flat betting the attacking plays.  It does not matter to climb the leader ladder. That's nice but it doesn't confirm a real working system. There are a lot of progression players up there.

[gizmotron2]

Just figured out a way to use 3,000. I just make the bets 8 per number instead of 10 so that a session ends right around 500 with three net wins. That's what I'll try to do from now on. Still, no more doubles or double double laziness either.

[Moxy]

Just figured out a way to use 3,000. I just make the bets 8 per number instead of 10 so that a session ends right around 500 with three net wins. That's what I'll try to do from now on. Still, no more doubles or double double laziness either.

So did I.

[Moxy]

This Roulette Simulator stuff has taught me something new.  The headroom for $10 chips needs to be near $4,000 not $3,000.  That is based on flat betting at a max of $200 bets. So no double or double double bets allowed at that $3,000 set level. It also means that online betting for me must be kept at $20 max bets and a $400 bankroll in order to validate cheating or not. I still want to use all six of my groups with all 12 sets that make them up. This change will require far more patience and control. But that has always been my nemesis. It's a slight difference than the 7 net losses. This is 20 net losses. So I will adjust my play now and see if I can still win well enough to make it all worth it.

I think I will drop back to $54 wins, but without ever doubling down at a higher flat bet level until recovery occurs.  This might confirm that my suspicions about online cheating are wrong. It all comes down to headroom and flat betting the attacking plays.  It does not matter to climb the leader ladder. That's nice but it doesn't confirm a real working system. There are a lot of progression players up there.

Me too.

[precogmiles]

Gizmo have you ever heard of Apophenia?

[Moxy]

Gizmo have you ever heard of Apophenia?

Oh boy.   This won't end well.

[swanson]

Apophenia

Apophenia - seeing a connection between unrelated things.

You can relate anything to anything. You can pray for those in Africa for healing and necessities. You can point at the roulette wheel and affect the outcome, not always. You can never prove this, yet this is real.

If demons and Satan can create connections and magically manifest things in our realm that are so bizarre, then what about God? I have been tormented by aliens/demons, so I know some of their capabilities.

No, I am not schizophrenic, because schizophrenia can't magically move things before your very eyes and make things disappear and reappear.

[winforus]

Gizmo have you ever heard of Apophenia?

Q.E.D

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo have you ever heard of Apophenia?

And even more: "( apophenia and pareidolia ) Apophenia is the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena. ... Pareidolia is a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct.

If you have ever bothered to read what I say you will find that the figure formations that make up the illusion of characterizations are just figments of my capacity to allow them to be created as formations in my mind. I know for a fact that they have no meaningfulness or any magical capacity to improve prediction. In fact they have no powers at all. I have always said it's just coincidence and guessing. I also know that a trend can only continue if it is already happening.

Perhaps Pareidolia is just a kind of confirmation bias or type of scotoma where your mind sees what it wants to see. Ever heard of that?

[precogmiles]

And even more: "( apophenia and pareidolia ) Apophenia is the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena. ... Pareidolia is a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct.

If you have ever bothered to read what I say you will find that the figure formations that make up the illusion of characterizations are just figments of my capacity to allow them to be created as formations in my mind. I know for a fact that they have no meaningfulness or any magical capacity to improve prediction. In fact they have no powers at all. I have always said it's just coincidence and guessing. I also know that a trend can only continue if it is already happening.

Perhaps Pareidolia is just a kind of confirmation bias or type of scotoma where your mind sees what it wants to see. Ever heard of that?

So if your guessing is not improving accuracy why do you give it a fancy name like 'reading random as if the results are any different to random guessing.

[gizmotron2]

So if your guessing is not improving accuracy why do you give it a fancy name like 'reading random as if the results are any different to random guessing.

So you want the story of how it got its name.  A person named Spike referred to my description of a list of characteristics of trends and patterns as "reading the random" as it was a rudimentary construct. I used that phrase to say it in the present tense. It came out as reading randomness. It exists because of the syntax of the construct.

I have fully explained the relationship between a working win streak and the coincidental occurrences of trends or patterns. They occur at the same time if you are betting on the trend to continue.  I could have named it mathZombies suck.  They ask stupid questions at just the right time too.

[Richard Meisel]

Hi Giz, “To swim against the current of human intuition is a difficult task. ... the human mind is built to identify for each event a definite cause and can, therefore, have a hard time accepting the influence of unrelated or random factors. ... Random processes are fundamental in nature and are ubiquitous in our everyday lives, yet most people do not understand them or think much about them.”

â€"Leonard Mlodinow, “The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.”

[gizmotron2]

Hi Giz, “To swim against the current of human intuition is a difficult task. ... the human mind is built to identify for each event a definite cause and can, therefore, have a hard time accepting the influence of unrelated or random factors. ... Random processes are fundamental in nature and are ubiquitous in our everyday lives, yet most people do not understand them or think much about them.”

â€"Leonard Mlodinow, “The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.”

People like to equate meaning to abstract things that have no related connections. I've been dealing with critics for two decades. They like to assume that all this is a claim of prediction. It's a straw man implanted in their brains by their own doing. They hear someone else say it so they assume that I claimed it. Of course they are right. Any right thinking person knows that much. So I'm perceived as a crackpot.  Only one problem with that conclusion. It's not me that is exposed.

Randomness is everywhere. Some people see a stretch of hot days and think that it is proof or evidence of global warming.  It's just random chaos. The mind sees what it wants to see. I know that the data coming to me is real. It is clear evidence that a win streak is in a current state of continuing.  It's not a magical wished for thing. It is just a coincidence that I'm there at the same time that it is occurring. 

I created it because I constructed the evidence of its existence in the syntax of a language of characteristics. And it did the one thing that I was guessing that it could or might do. It continues. So I bet big while it continues and bet small when it does not. I have constructed a process to take out win streaks.

It's one of the great things about casinos. They expect you to have these streaks but they also expect you to want even more and then to give it all back in the process of trying to get more.  This is not a game against the odds. It's a game against your own human nature. So if you are caught up looking at the polka dotted unicorns then you are part of the process for which things don't work.

Why try to beat the odds. You can't beat the odds if you try to outfox the odds. It's not there. It never will be. You must use something else. I use guessing and coincidence.

People are all focused on trying to win with a combination of progressions and targeted repeats. That's the odds. It probably will be discarded soon enough. Some will have great luck with it and some will not.  People will attach meaning to it. It's funny to me because they all get what everyone gets in the end. Some get win streaks and some do not. They can't target the win streaks because the packets of data are too large.

It takes 300 spins to get a win streak for instance. It's so big that you can't help but be right up against it. You can't back away from it to see the bigger picture.  It's like standing at the edge of a forest and looking into it and seeing your range of visibility diminish as trees cover your field of view. But if you could stand back on an adjacent hill you could see the full forest and what it has to offer, including the mountain view behind it.

[Moxy]

People like to equate meaning to abstract things that have no related connections. I've been dealing with critics for two decades. They like to assume that all this is a claim of prediction. It's a straw man implanted in their brains by their own doing. They hear someone else say it so they assume that I claimed it. Of course they are right. Any right thinking person knows that much. So I'm perceived as a crackpot.  Only one problem with that conclusion. It's not me that is exposed.

Randomness is everywhere. Some people see a stretch of hot days and think that it is proof or evidence of global warming.  It's just random chaos. The mind sees what it wants to see. I know that the data coming to me is real. It is clear evidence that a win streak is in a current state of continuing.  It's not a magical wished for thing. It is just a coincidence that I'm there at the same time that it is occurring. 

I created it because I constructed the evidence of its existence in the syntax of a language of characteristics. And it did the one thing that I was guessing that it could or might do. It continues. So I bet big while it continues and bet small when it does not. I have constructed a process to take out win streaks.

It's one of the great things about casinos. They expect you to have these streaks but they also expect you to want even more and then to give it all back in the process of trying to get more.  This is not a game against the odds. It's a game against your own human nature. So if you are caught up looking at the polka dotted unicorns then you are part of the process for which things don't work.

Why try to beat the odds. You can't beat the odds if you try to outfox the odds. It's not there. It never will be. You must use something else. I use guessing and coincidence.

People are all focused on trying to win with a combination of progressions and targeted repeats. That's the odds. It probably will be discarded soon enough. Some will have great luck with it and some will not.  People will attach meaning to it. It's funny to me because they all get what everyone gets in the end. Some get win streaks and some do not. They can't target the win streaks because the packets of data are too large.

It takes 300 spins to get a win streak for instance. It's so big that you can't help but be right up against it. You can't back away from it to see the bigger picture.  It's like standing at the edge of a forest and looking into it and seeing your range of visibility diminish as trees cover your field of view. But if you could stand back on an adjacent hill you could see the full forest and what it has to offer, including the mountain view behind it.

That's what I said.

[gizmotron2]

Roulette programming has progressed a lot and we can no longer see novice software like before. Professional programs have replaced simple computing programs. A software developer I know of, AK Software software has two programs with a total price of 270 â,¬ and Metodi Roulette software's 520 â,¬ programs as well as Tesla Roulette 369 program [150 â,¬] and 2 pdf training sets of Italians 175 â,¬, and Netent Online Predictor software [260 â,¬ ] I know a software developer who coded it all. All software belongs to the same person. But the people selling it are different. This developer sells it all for 400 â,¬. For your information. He is Telegram
: usamebinladin

I program people. They are far better at recognition and execution. It's that quality of using conditional awareness of yet to be identified patterns that makes humans better than computers. To teach a computer to recognize a pattern that is not already in its cluster of types and to have it also recognize the global effect for that new characteristic as well is like asking for every permutation of every number on the wheel. I know what I'm talking about. The computer would need to also place the bets. I've tried it. You can't get the bets down hour after hour without blowing all your brain cells.  It's too difficult. You must use memorized sets from your full EC groups. The trick to programming is for the programmer to teach the computer to do what a human player would do. I happen to understand Reading Randomness and so I can program it, with its fixed 12 sets and 6 groupings of EC's. Do your programmers know Reading Randomness?