It works - RNG

[gizmotron2]

I say there is missing and undiscovered math.

Eventually you mathBoyz will have to come to grips with the overwhelming reality that Reading Randomness exposes a flaw in the hypothesis of the absolutism of probability. The only evidence so far in favor of RR are the people that have publicly tried it. So far everyone that has tried it has come close to a 2 to 1 win to loss ration except one person from this forum. That person has admittedly explained that he prefers precognition, a form of ESP. And he went back to it. But I looked at his results too. They, for the most part, show a better than 1 to 1 ratio that is still supposed to be impossible with today's known probability predictions.

The number of people trying it, honestly trying to master these skills, is huge compared to more than a year ago. Before July of last year there were only two people that had mastered these skills.  There appears to be from 6 to 10 more now that have publicly shown their results of trying it. I have no doubt that there are people that have worked on this in secret. As of this moment 108 people have downloaded the free to use practice software used for teaching and discussion. It is moving forward despite all the resistance and effort to cancel it by skeptics.

[gizmotron2]

Systems betting falls under this hidden segment.

Reading Randomness is not a rule based system. It is a skill to watch for times when things are in a state of supporting upward results like in support and resistance changes in moving averages of stock pricing.  It follows and speculates on waves of up and down conditions in bet selections that display upward motion before betting on them. It is nothing more than observation of current conditions. Perhaps there is math statistics for stock traders that buy and sell on moving averages found in stock charts? There might be controversial math that already exists for this? It would not surprise me that there is mathZombie absolutism in the stock trading world as well.

[cht]

Eventually you mathBoyz will have to come to grips with the overwhelming reality that Reading Randomness exposes a flaw in the hypothesis of the absolutism of probability. The only evidence so far in favor of RR are the people that have publicly tried it. So far everyone that has tried it has come close to a 2 to 1 win to loss ration except one person from this forum. That person has admittedly explained that he prefers precognition, a form of ESP. And he went back to it. But I looked at his results too. They, for the most part, show a better than 1 to 1 ratio that is still supposed to be impossible with today's known probability predictions.

The number of people trying it, honestly trying to master these skills, is huge compared to more than a year ago. Before July of last year there were only two people that had mastered these skills.  There appears to be from 6 to 10 more now that have publicly shown their results of trying it. I have no doubt that there are people that have worked on this in secret. As of this moment 108 people have downloaded the free to use practice software used for teaching and discussion. It is moving forward despite all the resistance and effort to cancel it by skeptics.

The mathboyz are correct about the known math.
In the absence of evidence that's all we can go on with.

We are merely searching for evidence if there's this hidden segment.
Ofc we saw enough evidence, that's why we have to approach this search the proper way based on math. Don't want to fool ourselves. Joe posted that test score calculator serves as a yardstick if the evidence we collated means something significant or not. That's the starting point on solid ground.

Anyway none of us are bothered with some undiscovered math.
Our purpose is to gain a edge over the wheel to make money.

[cht]

Joe, lets assume this is the result.

What's the interpretation of this result ?

What's this z-statistic means ?

What does the last number mean ?

[gizmotron2]

We are merely searching for evidence if there's this hidden segment.
Ofc we saw some evidence, that's why we have to approach this search the proper way based on math. Joe posted that test score serves as a yardstick if the evidence we collated means something significant or not. That's the starting point.

I use the same yardstick. I use the 1/37 or 1/38 principle to determinate the baseline value for expectations. If I bet 1000 spins on Red only I will get up and down moving average waves that slowly decline along an axes that is in correlation with the math for 1/37 by example. I must do better than that axis line. In fact I must do better than the break even line above it or the session is wasted. Yet, in the shorter runs I have several opportunities to quit while I'm ahead before falling below that axis point or break even point and remaining forever in a lost session condition. For me it is a consideration for conditions and selection of timing.  I chose to quit while I'm ahead.  These wave forms are indisputable. Because they exist they must be subject to some kind of math. We have actuary tables in car accident insurance. They use some kind of math for future unknown events. Perhaps they do have common sense when it comes to local activities? I know they do for theft of cars.

[gizmotron2]

So to take this to the final understanding regarding a possible unknown math I must ask a simple question. What are the large number expectations for how many times or by how large waves occur above the break even points? If by example you graph 1 million spins all bet on Red at the same flat bet price. And then you select random entry points for starting your break even points, ( a new session for example, ) you then get (how many and by how much) waves that are above those starting points?

It's a simple process to demonstrate. Has this been discussed by gamblers at forums before? Are there large number statistics for this question already?

[cht]

Video on z-score

link:s://youtu.be/2tuBREK_mgE


Video on Confidence Interval

link:s://youtu.be/_GJZzyHIDkE

[Moxy]

Reading Randomness is not a rule based system. It is a skill to watch for times when things are in a state of supporting upward results like in support and resistance changes in moving averages of stock pricing.  It follows and speculates on waves of up and down conditions in bet selections that display upward motion before betting on them. It is nothing more than observation of current conditions. Perhaps there is math statistics for stock traders that buy and sell on moving averages found in stock charts? There might be controversial math that already exists for this? It would not surprise me that there is mathZombie absolutism in the stock trading world as well.

Here we go again with the arbitrary inflation of numbers.  Again, my challenge is on the table yet you're afraid of this persona non grata.

[gizmotron2]

Again, my challenge is on the table yet you're afraid of this persona non grata.

Your challenge is proving what an idiot you really are. You don't count. Your opinion of what I have shared with others doesn't matter. Those that try it out and see for themselves is all that matters. Their numbers are all that count. They have published what they have found. More will try it out. You can't persuade them. The proof is that they keep trying it out. They keep succeeding. You keep harping on your own perceptions. You are rapidly become irrelevant. You might want to change your name from Moxy to Oxy, like in Oxy Moron.

[Moxy]

Your challenge is proving what an idiot you really are. You don't count. Your opinion of what I have shared with others doesn't matter. Those that try it out and see for themselves is all that matters. Their numbers are all that count. They have published what they have found. More will try it out. You can't persuade them. The proof is that they keep trying it out. They keep succeeding. You keep harping on your own perceptions. You are rapidly become irrelevant. You might want to change your name from Moxy to Oxy, like in Oxy Moron.

I can say with with complete confidence your numbers are off.  Way off.   Balls in your court, chief.

[Joe]

@ cht, good news!

I was in a hurry this morning when I posted and didn't notice the Confidence Interval value was a bit strange, and also, thinking about it, the P-value seemed too high for the difference in the proportions over the sample size, so I found another calculator site, which has given completely different results that seem much more plausible:



Again, this is assuming you're betting 12 numbers. I will check them by doing manual calculations later, but I think they're reliable. These results are highly significant, statistically. 

The site is here :
link:s://:.medcalc.org/calc/test_one_proportion.php

Also I will explain CI and Z-statistic later too. Not enough time at the moment.

[cht]

@ cht, good news!

I was in a hurry this morning when I posted and didn't notice the Confidence Interval value was a bit strange, and also, thinking about it, the P-value seemed too high for the difference in the proportions over the sample size, so I found another calculator site, which has given completely different results that seem much more plausible:



Again, this is assuming you're betting 12 numbers. I will check them by doing manual calculations later, but I think they're reliable. These results are highly significant, statistically. 

The site is here :
link:s://:.medcalc.org/calc/test_one_proportion.php

Also I will explain CI and Z-statistic later too. Not enough time at the moment.

Ok, I have this funny feeling some numbers don't look right so I try play around with it.

It has to be 12 for the result to be as I explained earlier. Now I have some confidence that these selected number carry higher probability to hit identified at the last spin in the 37spins history. I explained the math principles with the posted videos.

[gizmotron2]

I can say with with complete confidence your numbers are off. 

Prove it.

[cht]

@ cht, good news!

I was in a hurry this morning when I posted and didn't notice the Confidence Interval value was a bit strange, and also, thinking about it, the P-value seemed too high for the difference in the proportions over the sample size, so I found another calculator site, which has given completely different results that seem much more plausible:



Again, this is assuming you're betting 12 numbers. I will check them by doing manual calculations later, but I think they're reliable. These results are highly significant, statistically. 

The site is here :
link:s://:.medcalc.org/calc/test_one_proportion.php

Also I will explain CI and Z-statistic later too. Not enough time at the moment.

The CI percentage may be a little low, I think. Not sure what's the acceptable threshold.

[Moxy]

Prove it.

It's on like donkey kong.  Where shall we meet?