Probability Vs Mathematical trends

[Moxy]

Well don't know if this is a joke or not, because I don't know the man, but he might have just switched opinions on you.

link:s://clickhole.com/a-changed-man-richard-dawkins-has-converted-to-christi-1825123803/

That's a weird parody.  No matter, regardless.

Taking the Red Pill as in The Matrix, there's no turning back.  It can get "empty" at times but truth is paramount. 

[gizmotron2]

But no one is going to miss the boat for being scientific minded.

I believe that the words "Let there be light." are the big bang. I'm convinced that God is Omni time oriented, everything known in different times, the beginning all the way to the end. God knows all time. A human is linearly oriented. So telling humans that were at the time focused on the stars mean things, "signs in the heavens," type stuff. That was the science of the time of the description of creation. Now that description starts to look right by what we now know. That order of things is starting to line up nicely. It looks like life just jumped into being at the last. But it doesn't really matter much. 100 years ago that science ended up being impossible. Darwin got one thing wrong. So I believe things evolved along "intelligent design."

[Joe]

Invented the list of characteristics for Reading Randomness. Invented Reading Randomness MM tactic, the Elegant Pattern characteristic, and the Global Effect characteristic.

Gizmo, you can cross this one off your list of achievements. The only thing you've 'achieved' here is Apophenia.

[Joe]

It's the 21st century.  For the love of god, lay religion to rest. 

So you believe in God but not religion? How is the 21st century relevant? Or are you making the argument :

  'Hey look at all this amazing science and technology we have now!  Therefore, God doesn't exist'.

If so, it's a terrible one, and merely chronological snobbery.

I'm not especially a fan of organized religion, but I believe in the god of classical theism, because there are some great arguments for it. My favourite is the Aristotelian proof (chapter 1).

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo, you can cross this one off your list of achievements. The only thing you've 'achieved' here is Apophenia.

"Apophenia definition is - the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things (such as objects or ideas)."

You are just speaking out of your south end while facing north.

The trends don't matter. All you need to do is to watch for the strong side of anything. While that strong side is occurring your win to loss ratio is working in your favor.  I have proved this occurs when any random bet is placed. You can make bets on Red only on Roulette or on the Pass Line of Craps only. These only bets will produce up and down results much like the carrots & sticks graphs in stock trading.  All you need to do is to know what up and down means. It has nothing to do with Apophenia. This is real data. I don't have a problem watching real data and seeing upticks in these moving averages type changes. The same goes for most stock traders. The numbers are actually real and they tend to follow the mathematical expectations for probability, including variance.

With trends and patterns I can see working uptick styled moving averages before selecting one for bets. You need them to be pretend information or a claim of prediction. Your claim of Apophenia does not function. You don't function. Your last name wouldn't be Biden would it?

[Joe]

The trends don't matter. All you need to do is to watch for the strong side of anything.

Ok, and that isn't gambler's fallacy and failing to understand that past spins don't influence future spins? That IS a kind of Apophenia because you are assuming there are connections between the numbers, a connection which doesn't exist.

And this is from someone who says he understands that spins are independent. 

We're talking about fucking RANDOM numbers here you dingbat!

[gizmotron2]

Ok, and that isn't gambler's fallacy and failing to understand that past spins don't influence future spins? That IS a kind of Apophenia because you are assuming there are connections between the numbers, a connection which doesn't exist.

And this is from someone who says he understands that spins are independent. 

We're talking about fucking RANDOM numbers here you dingbat!

We are not talking. You are flatulent while remaining petulant.  See, I can do it too. I just said you are something and now you must defend the baloney.

This: "you are assuming there are connections between the numbers, a connection which doesn't exist." is bullshit.

I am too. I'm noticing that there is a formation structure in a state of continuation or not continuing or an ending. If I were to bet on it to continue it would do two things only. It would win or it would lose. I suggest you learn where I got this from. I speculate on observable moving averages as illustrated in this video. They happen to really exist in Roulette and to a lesser degree in the other minor table games with only one data stream.  Stop using your magical beliefs as straw-man arguments and learn for once. You mathZombies are all alike.

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=bRCtBRsLPmk

"Scotomisation" that's predictably you.

[Joe]

This: "you are assuming there are connections between the numbers, a connection which doesn't exist." is bullshit.

No Gizmo, the connection only exists in your mind, not in reality. And stock trading and roulette are completely different. In stocks, past results may actually mean something because traders tend to use the same techniques, or follow the herd, so trending is a real. Roulette is just a ball and a wheel, no psychology involved at all and no trends in past numbers that mean anything.

It's easy to prove this for yourself but obviously you have no interest in doing so, since you've been flogging the same dead horse for years.

[gizmotron2]

No Gizmo, the connection only exists in your mind, not in reality. And stock trading and roulette are completely different. In stocks, past results may actually mean something because traders tend to use the same techniques, or follow the herd, so trending is a real. Roulette is just a ball and a wheel, no psychology involved at all and no trends in past numbers that mean anything.

It's easy to prove this for yourself but obviously you have no interest in doing so, since you've been flogging the same dead horse for years.

You are such a pain in the you know what. I don't give a damn about the trends. I only care about the wave formations and the possible evidence of moving averages. I have clearly illustrated these movements with the graphs that I have shown here on this forum. Just because you can't use them doesn't mean that others can't. This is not a democracy and this is not your command post. I can use the waves even when you say that they don't exist. Anyone with even a modicum of gambling experience knows that win streaks and losing streaks occur. You are actually trying to represent that they don't exist.  That makes you look ignorant and without playing experience.

[gizmotron2]

This: "you are assuming there are connections between the numbers, a connection which doesn't exist." is bullshit.

No Gizmo, the connection only exists in your mind,

This is comical. That assumption statement was you.  I never claimed there was a connection between numbers. In fact I called bullshit on you.  You are one funny and conflicted observer.  It's always easy for you to see things that aren't there and then being so helpful and willing to set someone else straight. mathZombie! "what's in your head."

[Joe]

I never claimed there was a connection between numbers.

Gizmo, if there is no actual connection between the numbers in reality how can you assuming there is, change anything or give you an advantage? There has to be a correspondence or correlation between your hypothesis and reality. If there isn't it just proves that  your hypothesis is false.

Think about it. And yes, it certainly is comical.

[gizmotron2]

Gizmo, if there is no actual connection between the numbers in reality how can you assuming there is,

That is the guacamole between your ears.  I never assume there is a connection. There can't be. Just in case you haven't heard it all results are independent of each other.

It's the shit between your ears that wants to believe that I think there is a connection. That's the argument that you want to be right about. It's easy to think that way. It's like when your mother told you that you were a good boy.  You still want to be a good boy. You idiots are all the same with the exact same impression. You think I'm claiming a connection and you are going to ride in on your white horse with your Spandex suit and save us all. You all assume I'm claiming the ability to predict the future because of past spins.  I don't know how to fix your demented opinions. I use trends and patterns because when they appear in phases of strong continuation I know how to turn that into win streaks. Your problem is that you don't know how I do that. I just guess. Because win streaks are always gone with this method when there is chaos. I'm a searcher for win streaks and nothing more.  So get the crap out of your ears and learn that I'm only looking for wins streaks and losing streaks.

[Joe]

There can't be. Just in case you haven't heard it all results are independent of each other.

It's the shit between your ears that wants to believe that I think there is a connection.

I just said there isn't any connection. Sorry gizmo, you're a hopeless case. Keep indulging in your fantasy if it makes you happy.

[gizmotron2]

I just said there isn't any connection. Sorry gizmo, you're a hopeless case. Keep indulging in your fantasy if it makes you happy.

It was nice talking with you again. You might want to get your Spandex polished next time.

This: "I just said there isn't any connection." I know. It was you suggesting that I was claiming there was.  There is also no flying Saucer today to do sex experiments on you. I know I'm right on this point. It's too bad too.

[Joe]

This: "I just said there isn't any connection." I know. It was you suggesting that I was claiming there was.

Gizmo, I have to wonder whether you're being deliberately obtuse. You're claiming there is no connection between spins, and yet you're playing AS IF there is one. Don't you see the contradiction? And please increase the signal to noise ratio of your posts.