Reading Randomness ( The Real Way ) @ Roulette Simulator

[gizmotron2]

Reading Randomness would work, only if you were able to predict the winning steaks which you are targeting.

So instead of arguing with you regarding prediction, which would be some kind of magic that does not exist, other than some claim for ESP, I will agree with you.  You say I must have the power to predict. I say that I must have a simple skill to observe conditions that already exist. So I will clarify this in that you can't really predict when a losing streak will start but you can see one already occurring. You can only get out of the damage of a losing streak then if one is already occurring.

I can't make this clearer than that. There are no magical powers. So I use what is already there.  I fund the winning streaks and I defund the losing streaks. I play off of micro streaks with John Patrick's "Up & Pull" techniques.  I'm not attempting to predict anything. Nobody can do that. Well, except those gifted ESP types that is. The jury is still out on that.

[gizmotron2]

Progression will only mask it, until you lose.

So let's discuss this out. Is ( 2, 1, ) and  ( 1, 2, ) combined with the defunded virtual bet a progression or a modified form of flat betting?

We can just leave out if it works for me or not, having already demonstrated three times that I deliberately set about to win 50 games in a row using it. When I self destructed I used the marti or the exact same bet that would eventually hit its inevitable sequence of death. I know how to lose on purpose. I can't think of a better way to fuck with the trolls heads. Just give them the ammo that they expect and watch them jump through hoops like circus dogs. It's fun. You should try feeding the trick dogs. It's better than rehashing some strawman argument about prediction for the past 25 years.

[winforus]

But does your stand on this actually consider that winning is more important than making restrictive qualifications?

There is two types of winning. One is due to variance/luck, and the other type of winning - is when you have an actual edge. Meaning, you increase the odds of winning in your favor. When you have an edge, you will win in the long run, weather it's 10k spins or 1 million. When you win due to luck, you will due so in short term, until the luck evens out and you will lose.

I am interested in verifying that your system gives you an edge. And in order for you to have an edge - you will need to increase the accuracy of your bet selections.

And how do you see the accuracy of your bet selections? By making flat bets and winning over a decent sample size.

So far, you have not played that many spins, and your results are slightly better than break even. Here is how your graph looks like: link:s://prnt.sc/va50fc Given your bet sizes, you won around 10 units or less.

But what if it wins by targeting opportunities with an increased sized bet and mitigates losses by a lower priced bet?  So if I just go ahead and put up better numbers now what will be your conclusion?

if you are targeting opportunities is accurate and it gives you an edge - there is no need to make lowered priced bets at all. You could stick to the same unit size (flat bet), and skip the lowered price bets all together. Do you see what I mean?

I did the first 50 games flat just for you. I did it flat because people like to call me a liar.

Yes I appreciate the fact that you did flat betting this time - hopefully it will make you understand more, what I've been trying to say.

[winforus]

I guess you have never seen me say that you will lose the correct number of bets that math says you should lose. So we are in full agreement on these numbers.  I'm clearly saying that you can make unfunded bet selections that lose at the mathematical rate. I'm saying that this is a form of math known as "variable change."  In other words I have math on my side.

I don't think you are understanding what I mean. Let me give you an example:

You have 10 red balls in the bag and 10 black balls in the bag. The bag is closed, and the balls are not visible. The dealer every round picks out a ball at random, and if you get the color right, you get paid $0.90. If you get the color wrong, you lose $1. Afterwards, the ball goes back in the bag.

Would you take the bet?  A professional player wouldn't - because in this case, the casino has the edge.

Now, if a player had a way to predict, even with slight accuracy, which ball would be picked next - then he would take the bet. Because then he would have the edge.

Now, what if the ball doesn't go back in the bag? Then that would be a variable change, and weather you take the bet, will depend.

Did you understand my example?

With the way that you are doing RR, you are taking the bet when the casino has the edge, as in the first example. There actually is no variable change - you have confused the math concept imo. And you have no way to predict in anyway, what color or number is likely to come out.

This is what I been trying to tell you all along.

[winforus]

I say that I must have a simple skill to observe conditions that already exist. So I will clarify this in that you can't really predict when a losing streak will start but you can see one already occurring. You can only get out of the damage of a losing streak then if one is already occurring.

I can't make this clearer than that. There are no magical powers. So I use what is already there.  I fund the winning streaks and I defund the losing streaks.

You are observing the patterns (such as red,red,red,black,black,black,high,high,high) and you think that they have a correlation, and to you it is "variable change", while in fact they are independent of each other and that is not a variable change.

Again, if that was the case - then you would be able to win by flat betting (not betting at all on the bets you think will lose).

[gizmotron2]

if you are targeting opportunities is accurate and it gives you an edge - there is no need to make lowered priced bets at all. You could stick to the same unit size (flat bet), and skip the lowered price bets all together. Do you see what I mean?

I will explain the unfunded bets and the lower priced bets then. First off the unfunded bets, if accurately placed, actually change the odds according to the logic behind "variable change." So that alone comes down to accurately placing those non funded bet selections. I have demonstrated that mindless blind bet selections will produce win streaks and losing streaks. I have also shown that they can be visualized like carrot and sticks charts in the stock market where traders search for patterns in moving averages. This is not mumbo-jumbo. Stock traders bet on the stocks based on these moving averages and the effects of support and resistance.

I do the same thing. I'm hunting for consistent resistant sequencing where I defund my selections, no matter what they are, be it fantastic looking trends or not, so that it acts like I have placed a stop sell point. But in Roulette you are not forced to sell or get killed. You can just defund the bet selections for a while and wait for the swarming uptick in the values. This process of waiting outside of any damage is what causes the variable change to occur.

I have no problem visualizing a losing streak based on mindless or well structured bet selections. According to math these guesses are meaningless anyway. Nevertheless  I can demonstrate how they can be useful and meaningful at the same time. But that will have to be a different discussion. The point I'm trying to make is that you can know when you are in a losing streak. You can't know how long it will last. But I'm saying you don't have to know how long it will last. There is such a thing as the bigger picture. You can see when your bet selections are doing well and when they are not doing well. These are big movements, over all movements, in the sequence of any gambling session. I can easily target these big picture movements.  Now if that is true then you have just been shown my necessary edge.

[winforus]

You can see when your bet selections are doing well and when they are not doing well. These are big movements, over all movements, in the sequence of any gambling session. I can easily target these big picture movements.  Now if that is true then you have just been shown my necessary edge.

Except, that  Roulette is not the stock market. In Stock market the amount that people buy/sell is not random. I know a Forex professional trader personally and he explained that it's about predicting when to buy/sell, based on a lot of studying that they do.

You are not playing in a stock market. You got numbers coming out at random. And you are not predicting either - meaning you don't have an edge.

And I will mention this fact : the traders at stock markets don't use progression until they can see that they have been making money consistently with flat bets.

[gizmotron2]

You are observing the patterns (such as red,red,red,black,black,black,high,high,high) and you think that they have a correlation, and to you it is "variable change", while in fact they are independent of each other and that is not a variable change.

No, not even a little. I guess this is the time to show how trends can signal a win streak. First off the variable change math comes from defunding any losing streak. It does not matter what causes that losing streak. It just happens. I'll give you an example for instance. Let's just guess at the numbers but say that I must lose 53 times for each bet placed on Red and win only 47 times for the same bet selection. Now because of variance  let's say that there will be maybe one streak of ten losses in a row. There might also be 2 sequences where 6 losses in a row occur. So if I can stay out of 5 of the losses from the big losing streak and 1 loss from each of the 6 sized losing streaks then I have protected my self from 7 of those necessary losses in the 100 spin sequence. So when I subtract those 7 unfunded losses from the expected 53 I get 46 losses to my 47 wins. This is what happens as a result of variable change.

Now go further with this logic and consider a few bets at twice as much on the big and few smaller win streaks. I now get a net value of say 6 added to my wins because a few bets were at twice the value. So I have an aggregate win value of  47 + 6 for a total of 53 wins against 46 losses. So it's not just the non funded losing streak bets but the double funded win streak bets too.

Now add the logic of a real stop win point of 3 net wins and value 1.   All I'm asking you to do is see the wave formations of common ups and downs caused by simple variance. Three bets beyond breaking even is a very small distance.  I use the 7 net losses because some times the first bet placed on a guess losses and that there can be swarms of lost first attempt bets. It's all part of randomness where nobody knows what will happen. There can be a rare perfect storm of first attempt losses.  But most of the times you can see win streaks and losing streaks and they just happen regularly.

[winforus]

To give you a better example Gizmo:

You got 10 black balls, 10 red balls, and 1 green ball in the bag. You can make a bet on the black or red ball. The payout is 1 to 1. If you win, you get $1. If you lose, you lose $1. (the ball goes back into the bag)

Would a professional take the bet? No, unless if he had a way to increase his accuracy, of predicting when the red or black ball comes out.

Would you (Gizmotron) take the bet? Yes, you would track when red, black, and green come out, and increase your bets during a certain "pattern" that you notice. The problem, is that the pattern doesn't exist - balls come out at random.

You will win some with progression in short term, but in the long run, you will lose big time.

In this example, there is no variable change. There would be a variable change if the ball would not go back in the bag or some other factor.

[winforus]

No, not even a little. I guess this is the time to show how trends can signal a win streak. First off the variable change math comes from defunding any losing streak. It does not matter what causes that losing streak. It just happens. I'll give you an example for instance. Let's just guess at the numbers but say that I must lose 53 times for each bet placed on Red and win only 47 times for the same bet selection. Now because of variance  let's say that there will be maybe one streak of ten losses in a row. There might also be 2 sequences where 6 losses in a row occur. So if I can stay out of 5 of the losses from the big losing streak and 1 loss from each of the 6 sized losing streaks then I have protected my self from 7 of those necessary losses in the 100 spin sequence. So when I subtract those 7 unfunded losses from the expected 53 I get 46 losses to my 47 wins. This is what happens as a result of variable change.

The problem, is that you have no way to tell when the losing streak ends and when one begins. How are you going to stay out of the losing streaks? Just blindly guess? This means that your bets are no better than random bets - the payouts and the odds are still the same - those are the most important variables that don't change.

And like I said - if your method wins, you should be able to win by flat betting. It's simple - don't do any "lowered price bets", skip out on those, and keep the bet size the same for all other bets that you think would win.

[gizmotron2]

Except, that  Roulette is not the stock market. In Stock market the amount that people buy/sell is not random. I know a Forex professional trader personally and he explained that it's about predicting when to buy/sell, based on a lot of studying that they do.

I know that that is true. There is cause and effect. People act on fear. "The chickens run scared." This is a buying opportunity.  All these things occur because of some external force. Randomness has no external force.  But, randomness still acts like the same kind of movements. I'm just saying to take advantage of the moving averages even though there is no cause and effect.  There are no chickens collapsing the market like in a sell off.  I'm just asking you if you can see up & down volatility in Even Chance bet selections and if you can see dominate patterns of up or down movements? If you can't see these bigger picture patterns then I would be interested in why you can't see them, regardless if they can be exploited or not.

[winforus]

But, randomness still acts like the same kind of movements. I'm just saying to take advantage of the moving averages even though there is no cause and effect. 

If the moving averages have no cause and effect - then it means they cannot exploited. And if they cannot be exploited, then they are meaningless, and play no role in you winning/losing.

I'm just asking you if you can see up & down volatility in Even Chance bet selections and if you can see dominate patterns of up or down movements? If you can't see these bigger picture patterns then I would be interested in why you can't see them, regardless if they can be exploited or not.

Of course I can see them - but they are meaningless, because there is no cause/effect. The roulette wheel has no memory, and there are no other variables that change.

If there was a cause and effect - then you would be able to have an edge, and win with flat betting.

[gizmotron2]

The problem, is that you have no way to tell when the losing streak ends and when one begins. How are you going to stay out of the losing streaks? Just blindly guess? This means that your bets are no better than random bets - the payouts and the odds are still the same - those are the most important variables that don't change.

It's actually very simple. I can only stay out of a losing streak that is already occurring and then demonstrates that it is continuing. Now this evidence for continuing always demonstrates itself with facts. It either continues on the very next spin or it does not.  The adds are actually better for that first try bet losing. But you can't get continuation unless it has already been in a state of continuing. So I can know when it ends. It ends on the first loss. I also can't know how long a win streak will last.  But if I win the first try bet then all wins after that are without damage. Once you get two wins in a row you are always going to get at least one net win in the aggregate from the sequence. So there is even a deeper level of understanding these win sequences. They often swarm in sizes. You must use this coincidence if it presents itself.  Suppose you are using four in a row as a trigger for win streak detection. Now suppose there has been a swarm of 7 wins in a row as a coincidental pattern for win streaks.  You could go for two or even maybe three wins in a row and then stop and not take that last lost bet.  There are times when randomness works for you like this. To ignore these coincidences is just ignorance.  There is no cause or effect. There is just coincidence.

[gizmotron2]

If the moving averages have no cause and effect - then it means they cannot exploited. And if they cannot be exploited, then they are meaningless, and play no role in you winning/losing.

So keep the rule in your head and go without. It takes skill to do what I am doing. That comes from seeing win streaks and losing streaks and knowing that even with that there is no certainty of winning. But if I play the coincidences well then the casino has no chance of using math against me because I know I will lose that sight number of bets, funded or not.  I will also double my base value for unit size a few time on the way to a minimal stop point.  Math has no chance against me because I'm going to effectively use variable change to my advantage.

[gizmotron2]

You will win some with progression in short term, but in the long run, you will lose big time.

Stay smarter than the rest of us. I can tell that I have failed to get to you in any productive way. You are a losing streak. I can see that.

Thanks for the discussion anyway. It was lively and well discussed.