Reading Randomness ( The Real Way ) @ Roulette Simulator

[gizmotron2]

He has contradicted himself more times than one can count. Not to mention the amount of lies, the biggest one him turning many students of his into winning players.

You don't count. Your opinion is nonproductive and leads to a hole in the ground full of crap.

I'm going to master this skill and leave you in the dust.  You are going to be captain of the jerks. Go away. you are like a fly. You eat shit and you bother people.

I'm just going to try my new idea over at RS. No point in descending deep any more. I'll just let myself out of losing sessions without trying to win every one.

You can have winforus to teach you if you want. He's one of the best losers there is.

[winforus]

Gizmo, if you are still learning, and testing, how could you have taught this to people, charged them money for it, and turned them all into winners, if you can't win yourself? 

I am not making it up, here are your direct quotes:

That's fair. It's one man, not they. I was given $5,000 by a person that was interested in what I was doing with the understanding that I would fly to Macau and be given $50,000 to do some high roller gambling. The person giving the money and I both had self control issues that we were both interested in solving. It took years too solve it too. I did solve it and then posted Reading Randomness in the wide open for free. My name is Mark and it has been well known across many gambling forums as gizmotron and Mark. I charged under $1000 for all the students in the first school. In that first school was my first software charting system. I use to go after the huge win streaks and was prone to digging deep holes waiting for it back then.

I ran a second school for $800 as a private accessed forum. That is where I developed my AI software for double dozens. That software is now free as well. But I found the self control I needed in stop points and minimum win goals after that school was done. I developed new training and practice software to teach it with. That software and training is now free also. So I managed to find a way to get paid a small amount for my computer programming time. Last year I took on one student at $1,000 and spent 120 hours, one on one, training him with the new software. He was the proof to me that I could teach people to break all known knowledge of mathematical house advantage beliefs. I've discovered something earth shattering regarding gambling and I shared it with the world for free. If all that makes me a conman then I'm a conman. The man that was trashing my reputation is in fact a mean and dangerous person that likes to get personal information on others and "DOX" them in public. Last night he was discovered by another at the other website where we found out that this man has 16 convictions for crimes. We have his real name now. We have his picture now. We have his relatives, his bankruptcies, his divorces. We have his failed businesses and we have 33 liens against him. We have the power to DOX him. He was told to take down all the accusations or he would get published in the wide open. That threat worked because of a few hours ago all the stuff against me is gone from his website.

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.

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo, if you are still learning, and testing, how could you have taught this to people, charged them money for it, and turned them all into winners, if you can't win yourself? 

I am not making it up, here are your direct quotes:

You just don't get it. I'm not trying to hide anything. People have demonstrated 4.66 win to loss rate. You don't like that? Take it up with them. I don't mind working out all this in front of people. It's free. You would say it's worthless anyway.  Why don't you get a life. I'm tired of carrying you.

I have no idea what anyone has done with Reading Randomness in real casinos. You don't either. Only a few are talking and one of them failed. Does that mean that you are the Grand Inquisitor? This is funny. You are like the self proclaimed savior of the gambling forum. It must be a terrible responsibility. Glad that you have risen to such a higher stature.

[winforus]

You just don't get it. I'm not trying to hide anything. People have demonstrated 4.66 win to loss rate. You don't like that? Take it up with them. I don't mind working out all this in front of people. It's free. You would say it's worthless anyway.  Why don't you get a life. I'm tired of carrying you.

I have no idea what anyone has done with Reading Randomness in real casinos. You don't either. Only a few are talking and one of them failed. Does that mean that you are the Grand Inquisitor? This is funny. You are like the self proclaimed savior of the gambling forum. It must be a terrible responsibility. Glad that you have risen to such a higher stature.

So what you are saying, is that people paid you money, to teach them how to win with play money?

How does " 4.66 win to loss rate" prove that RR is a winning method, if people can't win in casino with it?

The problem is that you positioned yourself as a Guru, advocating for a method that has 0 proof of being a winning one. It's a losing method, for which you charged people money and now using as a way to get validation/attention.

[mma]

The trick to all this is admitting that the trend or pattern on its own can't predict the future. I've tried to explain that it doesn't have to. The way to beat the casino is to bet bigger when you are in a win streak. If it's just a single small isolated win streak amongst a bunch of failed trends then don't bet on it. But if you wait for it you will see a bunch of small trends or patterns signal a swarm of mini win streaks. This is a definite change. You must become skilled at looking for these changes and these conditions.   None of this is about prediction. It's all about coincidence.

Sound advice. Thanks Gizmo
I go to the casino like a soldier going into battle. I look for opportunities that no one else sees. By the time anyone notices a “trend” I have already made my money and left. When there is nothing there, I just place no bets and leave.

Randomness just produces them out of common coincidence

It definitely does.

[mma]

they do not increase the accuracy of predictions (bet selections).

With all due respect, I know where you are coming from. I have studied randomness for several years and am doing a similar thing to Gizmo. I cannot make any predictions, but I am able to win more than I lose. I just adjust to whatever randomness is throwing at me.

[mma]

All I have to do to go pro is to beat this laziness thing

I totally agree.

I don't mind embarrassing myself in public. I once cartwheeled out of control on a 45 degree face at Squaw Valley back in the early 70's in front of a thousand spectators. I could hear them yelling their oohs & ahhs as I tumbled endlessly down 500 ft to the top of a 150 ft drop off

It is true strength to allow yourself to be embarrassed by others. I have done such things deliberately just to test myself and to prove to myself that I don't care what others think... Being able to humble yourself is a great quality. Everyone else just want to look and feel cool.

[gizmotron2]

How does " 4.66 win to loss rate" prove that RR is a winning method, if people can't win in casino with it?

You don't know that and I have never claimed that. I created a self teaching thread and answered a few questions. People on their own demonstrated at least that much. You don't like it? Too bad. That's your problem.

The problem is that you positioned yourself as a Guru, advocating for a method that has 0 proof of being a winning one. It's a losing method, for which you charged people money and now using as a way to get validation/attention.

What a joke you are as a human being. First I taught the characteristics of randomness. That alone was an original idea in the gambling world. Sure people have been using trends for centuries. But where are all the characteristics that I brought up? They are for the most part just light suggestions and without specifics in all the best gambling books. Nobody made a science out of it. Does that alone make me a guru. No. You are projecting ego tripping. I hope you never figure that out.

As far as proof goes you can do that yourself. But you are afraid it might actually work, making you a bozo act if you can do it.  I put this out there for free and provided the practice software and all the information to begin getting better at it. It's a skill. It's not another endless hints here and there festival. It takes you through it step by step starting with the importance of visual dexterity in reading a live play session chart. it then goes on to pattern and trend recognition in these playing charts. It then supports the importance of reading the current state of effectiveness of these observed trend characteristics. It then goes into using three net wins as a stop win and 7 net losses and a stop point.

It then asks a simply trained with the basics person to practice with the software a couple hours per day for a full month before making up your mind.

From that you want me to be a liar and some kind of a scam artist that needs attention.  Try looking in the mirror. You will probably find better answers there.

[mma]

First I taught the characteristics of randomness

There is only one characteristic. It's unpredictable.👍

[winforus]

Gizmotron, you are attacking the messenger, instead of the message, because you know what I said is true.

If you want, I can dig up past posts of people claiming that you are a conman, who charged them money for a losing method.

I know that RR is a losing method, because it is based on fallacy. You have demonstrated it on RS very well.

Like I said, if you can't win by flat betting (which you said yourself that you can't), and need to rely on progression to win, then it's a losing method. Clear and simple.

If you don't understand why it's true, you should stop spreading ignorance, and go back to learning the basics of the Roulette.

For anyone that falls for this crap and ends up losing - then you deserve it, that's all I have to say.

[winforus]

You don't know that and I have never claimed that. I created a self teaching thread and answered a few questions. People on their own demonstrated at least that much. You don't like it? Too bad. That's your problem.

There are people who claimed that RR has not worked for them. There are people claiming that you conned them into paying money for this crap. These people are even on this forum.

Where are the people that have demonstrated the win to loss ratio that you are talking about? Why is there not a single person found?

[gizmotron2]

Everyone else just want to look and feel cool.

Well at least a lot of people are afraid of not looking cool.  OMG, they won't like me if I don't buy this car that will impress them. I think it's so funny how much is spent on trying to impress people that you don't even know. People enslave themselves with endless attempts to achieve happiness. It's everywhere, and in just about everything. Suckers. I climbed Tioga Pass at the Eastern boundary of Yosemite one winter after a monster sized avalanche tore  down into Lee Vining Canyon. It left behind a natural accruing Half-Pipe that was carved out of a 45 degree face. It had ten foot high walls and was about 30 ft wide. I was all alone. My friends were down below climbing the ice walls. That was one of the greatest rewarding experiences I ever had. This was 1983-1984 and only one ski resort allowed snowboarding at the time. It was Donner Ski Ranch.  The idea of a half pipe was just getting started and nobody ever thought a skier would try it. 45 degrees, ten foot tall side walls, and 1000 vertical feet to get down. It was epic.

I lived for moments like that. That is what is called getting a life. You are a far cry from ever living large. You won't get it from riding me.

[gizmotron2]

There is only one characteristic. It's unpredictable.

Try this:
singles on the weak side.
"Chop" which is a stretch of singles.
sleeping dozens
absence of singles
absence of anything larger than triples
perfect occurring patterns ( B, B, r, B, B, r, B, B, r, etc...)

None of these characteristics predict anything.

[gizmotron2]

Gizmotron, you are attacking the messenger, instead of the message,

I'm not attacking anyone, martyr.  I'm just pointing out that you are not right in your facts.

[gizmotron2]

Where are the people that have demonstrated the win to loss ratio that you are talking about? Why is there not a single person found?

They are documented at the instruction thread.

Don't worry dickhead. I'm going back to what works the best. I'm ignoring you and going back to silence.