Reading Randomness ( The Real Way ) @ Roulette Simulator

[gizmotron2]

Hi Giz, got a question for you.  “RR BBB RRRR BB RRR BBB RR BB RRRR BBB RRR BBBB RRR BB RRRR BBBBB RRRRR BB RRR BBB RR”
There is an absence of singles. There seems to more of a Dominance for Triples than Doubles. I would probably put $90 on Red. Or play a virtual Bet. What would you try?

The first thing I would do is make it easier to see with visual dexterity:

rr BBB rrrr BB rrr BBB rr BB rrrr BBB rrr BBBB rrr BB rrrr BBBBB rrrrr BB rrr BBB rr

There is a mutual absence of singles on both sides.  So the big picture is that there are at least doubles that you can count on for sure if singles stay gone. So each time it changes bet the next one big, at least a double will win them all with steps like that. Then wait for the next change and do it again until the first single appears. Does that make sense?

[gizmotron2]

rr BBB rrrr BB rrr BBB rr BB rrrr BBB rrr BBBB rrr BB rrrr BBBBB rrrrr BB rrr BBB rr

So let's unpack that sequence without singles. If I compare Follow the Last Result and apply greed as the tactic then I would place a bet on every spin of it and accept the losses to wins offset.

Just for the sake of comparison with what is to follow, let's say that this sequence with no singles were already discovered and that these results in the list are at the point that you start betting. Let's also stipulate that you quit while you are ahead, so there will be no last lost bet.

With Follow the Last you get 21 lost bets. You get 43 wins for an aggregate win of 22 net wins.

With a single bet on the first repeat after any change you get 21 wins and no losses.

I always look for a way to take from these kind of sequences of pattern characteristics a way to win and have no losses. In reality both methods must eventually reach that first single where the pattern begins to break apart. In this case of FTL the first single results in two lost bets in a row. But the single bet after each change only has one lost bet, the first lost bet of the sequence. So this sequence gives the same result if you play it all the way to the first loss do to a first single appearing.

I have found that looking for ways to play a pattern without losses works the best.

[gizmotron2]

Now let's unpack playing a sequence in harmony with not getting losses.

If you use FTL you get unwanted lost bets at different times so it will kill off what you could get if you are in a stretch without losses the other way.

This tactic was developed and shared in the writings of John Patrick that he called "The Up & Pull."

You let a little ride on the next bet and then take some off as you go up as well.

Here is how it works. You bet 2 units on the first step of a win streak without losses.

Then you bet 1 unit. So you are splitting the win of the first bet and keeping half for your trouble so far. If you lose you are still up one unit. If you win then you double down the riding bet from 1 to 2 on the third step of the win streak.

If that loses you are still up 1 unit. If it wins you are now up a total of 5.

If you wish to keep going then you bet 3 on the next bet. That will mean you are already up 2 before you risk the next bet.

If that step wins then you have a total of 8 units from the streak if you stop there.

You can keep pulling some off and letting some more ride the streak.

So this is how you get Up & Pull sequences like ( 2, 1, 2, 3, ) that Nathan Detroit is always referencing.

[Richard Meisel]

Hi Giz, yes, Up & Pull is nice (2-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10). As to the FTL Bet, on the 4th consecutive Loss I Change the Bet and then continue FTL.

[gizmotron2]

Hi Giz, yes, Up & Pull is nice (2-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10). As to the FTL Bet, on the 4th consecutive Loss I Change the Bet and then continue FTL.

good enough. I just wanted you to think of how to play sequences with no losses or just one loss when it breaks down at the end.

[Richard Meisel]

Yes, thank you, be safe.

[winforus]

Gizmotron, you now have 10 resets, and are down -1.5k. on Roulette Simulator :

link:s://prnt.sc/umerek
link:s://roulette-simulator.info/en/user/c4414e538a5475ec0244673b7f2f7dbb

Are you going to claim again that you lost on purpose?

[gizmotron2]

gizmotron, you now have 10 resets, and are down -1.5k. on Roulette Simulator :

link:s://prnt.sc/umerek
link:s://roulette-simulator.info/en/user/c4414e538a5475ec0244673b7f2f7dbb

Are you going to claim again that you lost on purpose?

Nope. Play time for practice is over. I'm working on real. I don't care if you think you have proof that RR does not work. In fact I'm happy for you. You are right where I want you. Why should I care to change that? In fact you should encourage others to follow you like the Pied Piper. Save the world from free to check for yourself skills. You are even too afraid to prove that it can't work. Please stay with that too.  Thank you for letting me live in your head rent free.

[winforus]

Nope. Play time for practice is over. I'm working on real. I don't care if you think you have proof that RR does not work. In fact I'm happy for you. You are right where I want you. Why should I care to change that? In fact you should encourage others to follow you like the Pied Piper. Save the world from free to check for yourself skills. You are even too afraid to prove that it can't work. Please stay with that too.  Thank you for letting me live in your head rent free.

Practice? You claimed to have been winning and teaching this for over 10 years. And you can't put up a winning record on Roulette Simulator?

Who do you think you are fooling? There is too many contradictions and lies in all of your statements.

[gizmotron2]

Practice? You claimed to have been winning and teaching this for over 10 years. And you can't put up a winning record on Roulette Simulator?

Who do you think you are fooling? There is too many contradictions and lies in all of your statements.

Stay cool. Please stop misrepresenting my claims. I have been talking about RR for 15 years. Three years ago I changed by learning something better. I applied RR to it and set out to prove that I could teach this new stuff. I waited one year and in July 2019 I shared it all openly. I provided free practice software and answered all the questions openly without just dropping hints. That thread is done. Those skills are there for anyone to work on it if they want it. You are just about over the top with your illusions of it. I hope you gamble like that too.

[precogmiles]

Gizmo if you can code reading randomness then why don't you just do it and sell it. Why make people waste their time learning this 'skill' when they can just pay you for the software?

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo if you can code reading randomness then why don't you just do it and sell it. Why make people waste their time learning this 'skill' when they can just pay you for the software?

That is a great question. I get it that it would be a bot for playing online. It's easier to program people for free. It let's me feed the mathZombies a shit sandwich. I get to change everything in the math & statistics world. I change the magical fallacy of the house's edge belief. I get to use it for a while. It's still all baloney to almost all gambling experts. I'm getting just what I want the way that I'm going. Let someone else learn it and then program it. Nothing is stopping them. It took astronomers to prove Einstein was right. Space is curved around a gravity well.  Don't you know that I suggested that Variable Change applies to targeting win streaks? I have even suggested the math that applies to RR. I get to talk to informed people, gamble at my leisure, smack a few faces when they act smartassed, and help anyone trying to learn the skill. Your way is all work and then the software would just get pirated. That's a nothing burger and the entire bullshit ride for being a scammer. You program it and sell it.

[precogmiles]

That is a great question. I get it that it would be a bot for playing online. It's easier to program people for free. It let's me feed the mathZombies a shit sandwich. I get to change everything in the math & statistics world. I change the magical fallacy of the house's edge belief. I get to use it for a while. It's still all baloney to almost all gambling experts. I'm getting just what I want the way that I'm going. Let someone else learn it and then program it. Nothing is stopping them. It took astronomers to prove Einstein was right. Space is curved around a gravity well.  Don't you know that I suggested that Variable Change applies to targeting win streaks? I have even suggested the math that applies to RR. I get to talk to informed people, gamble at my leisure, smack a few faces when they act smartassed, and help anyone trying to learn the skill. Your way is all work and then the software would just get pirated. That's a nothing burger and the entire bullshit ride for being a scammer. You program it and sell it.

The problem with this approach is that as it stands today nobody knows how to play RR except you. Those that tired it have failed, so why would anyone take this seriously enough to spend their time coding it?

First demonstrate it and when people see it wins then they will have a reason to code it.

Since you are the only one who knows how to do this RR stuff you need to code it. Why don't you create it as a subscription website that way they can't steal or pirate it.

[gizmotron2]

Some people have suggested that I'm brown nosing Steve. They just don't know why I respect him. I've seen what his critics write about him. He has a business. He's still in that business. Do I believe that computers can predict what sector a roulette ball will more than likely end up in even with all the improvements to cause scatter these days? Yes. It only takes a few extra wins for every 100 bets to turn someone into a millionaire. I know that these computers operated properly can do that. It's basic celestial mechanics adapted to an interactive input algorithm. Yes, a user must be sneaky. But the days of being back-roomed and having you knuckles broken are long behind us.  Anyway "caveat emptor" is the order of the day.  So I don't have a problem if Steve thinks RR is bullshit.  He's a gentleman about it always. And based on recent discussions he might be able to kick my ass.

Look. I put it out there and am letting it stand or fall on its own merit. Steve has done the same thing with his computers.  I'm in this for the long term. It will take years before it gets validated one way or another. Meanwhile we have spandex boys and sick people that have an axe to grind to entertain and amuse us.

[gizmotron2]

The problem with this approach is that as it stands today nobody knows how to play RR except you. Those that tired it have failed, so why would anyone take this seriously enough to spend their time coding it?

That's not true at all. I personally trained the first student one on one and he proved that it could be taught. The RR teaching thread is a simplified version of that original training. Everyone there has succeeded except you. You showed your telemetry of your progress. I watched you break the basic strategy. I wanted you to feel free to work it out or not on your own. I stayed silent when you gave up. I have my own opinion on how you failed. But I'm not going there. You came to it with your precognition interests more concerning to you. You went back to your primary interests. Your progress is there to see. You can't take it down.

If I get validated then they will be able to see if they can tell why you failed at something that works.  Nobody else there has failed. All their work on it confirms that it works. I did the arithmetic. Almost all of them reached 4.66 won sessions at 3 net wins to each lost session at 7 net losses. That equates to a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio. Go back and do the math on all your own examples. You quit while you were above 1 to 1 win to loss ratio. You also admitted that you tried to apply precognition to it. I'm happy with all the results, even yours. I want to thank you again for trying it in the public view.