It works - RNG

[cht]

Herby, I didn't say that the law of the third doesn't work. Let's clarify what I mean by 'work'. I mean that after 37 spins the average numbers unhit really is about 12-13. But it doesn't 'work' in the sense that knowing this gives you any advantage or helps to predict what the next number or numbers are going to be.

You may not have figured out how to use this knowledge to predict BUT if you spend time to think deeper and explore the permutations in detail you might understand this distribution better to design a bet that increase the accuracy of the prediction considerably over random selection.

LOTT plus 2LoTD combined gives a natural positive edge in the prediction of future outcomes based on historical spins.

Ofc in all other cases they don't work with history spins appearing as independent spins confirming gamblers fallacy.

[Azim]

proving was not the question,

the law of the third can be fullfilled if the spins are not independent

The law of third works because the spins are independent, in other words, if a number falls we don't cover the hole. It stays open.

If the spins were dependant, which means as soon as the number hits we cover the whole the number can't repeat.

I might have said it the other way around, however you get the idea.

[Joe]

@ Azim, right. It doesn't make sense to say the law of the third holds true if spins aren't independent.

@ Cht,

In the first place, your sample results are really too small to 'prove' anything, and how do we know they weren't cherry-picked to look good?
Secondly, good results compared to what? Without a comparison bet selection the results don't mean much. I don't know exactly how you've selected the numbers to bet but let's say you're betting on all the unhit numbers after 37 spins plus some which have only hit once. So when you make your bet on this selection also pick 18 numbers randomly (or just bet on red) and compare the results with your LOTT bet selection. You'll find that there is no difference.

Most system players just assume that their ideas have merit but hardly ever check that they actually do, partly because they don't know how to, or they are just too lazy. You should always test to find out whether your system's results are better than random, and if they're not, all the tracking and triggers are a complete waste of time and energy.

It's so obvious that spins are independent. There is no counter-argument which makes any sense whatsoever. And if spins are independent, how can using the spin history help at all in guessing what will come next? Logic says it can't and empirical data confirms it.

LOTT plus 2LoTD combined gives a natural positive edge in the prediction of future outcomes based on historical spins.

And what is '2LoTD'?

[cht]

@ Cht,

In the first place, your sample results are really too small to 'prove' anything

I already said in my post this is a small sample.
We all know that we require large sample rx testing as proper proof.

Eventhough it's a small sample, can you produce similar results that can measure up to what i have posted to prove that your random bets perform this similar result.
Don't just talk, post the proof.

Why small sample ?
Large sample requires a lot of playing time which I am not prepared to do.

how do we know they weren't cherry-picked to look good?

This account is a real account which few members here can confirm that it's real and not cherry picked.
Read the name.

Your objections are the usual,
1. not large enough sample size,
2, cheating by cherry picking.

You have nothing else to offer.

I have tested with large enough sample size to confirm that this result will hold the same for long term every 55 spins session.

[cht]

@ Cht,

Rules for your random selection bets are,

1. Flatbet,

2. even chance bet,

3. Bet every spin.

4. continuous betting for 18spins per session,

5. 3 sessions,

6. account name - my54randombets

POST THE PROOF.

I have posted my sessions of 54spins.

Lets compare if your random selection bets can produce similar results as you claim.

[A3on]

And what is '2LoTD'?

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

[Joe]

Cht, I'm not the one claiming the LOTT system works, you are. So the onus is on you to show that it works better than random.

If you give the rules of the system you're using then I can prove that it's no better than random bets, but you won't do that, will you?

So it's the usual story; members claiming they have a system which works, but they never tell you the rules so nobody can verify it. It's just empty claims, cherry-picked data, charts, and hot air. 

[cht]

Instead of betting on the unhit numbers after 37 spins, try betting the same number of numbers picked randomly. You'll find that the results are the same. Why? because outcomes are independent and past spins don't influence future spins.

You made this claim.

Don't just talk.

PROOF IT.

Check my past posts.

I am the only member to post proof played on R-sim sessions.

I am 100% of what I posted on this forum.

Read my post how I designed this bet which naturally wins.

It shows how when you use one math law(LOTT) combined with physics law(2LoTD), both will reveal the pockets that are naturally carry higher probability to win. It's based on math and science.

[Joe]

Rules for your random selection bets are,

1. Flatbet,

2. even chance bet,

3. Bet every spin.

4. continuous betting for 18spins per session,

5. 3 sessions,

6. account name - my54randombets

POST THE PROOF.

I have posted my sessions of 54spins.

Lets compare if your random selection bets can produce similar results as you claim.

lol, so supposing I post results from random bets which are as good as yours. Will you not suspect that I cherry-picked them? But when I accuse you of cherry-picking, that's not ok. See how it works?

[Joe]

You made this claim.

Don't just talk.

PROOF IT.

You really are clueless. How can I prove what you're asking me to prove without having the rules for the system which you've used? I can prove that a system based on LOTT doesn't work, but if I do that you will say 'that's not MY system! MY system works!'.

Logic. It's always in the way. 

[Joe]

It shows how when you use one math law(LOTT) combined with physics law(2LoTD), both will reveal the pockets that are naturally carry higher probability to win. It's based on math and science.

Bollocks. It's just talk. You guys are nothing but hot air and empty claims. Give the rules of a system (any system you like) which you think does better than random bets and I'll prove it doesn't. But I have to have YOUR rules. Using MY rules doesn't count for anything, does it? 

[cht]

People, don't let Joe derail the point I want to show to you guys.
He has no basis for objection. Lets not waste time.

Forums has explored LOTT the wrong way.
12unhit, 24hits and 12 repeats...... this stats will NOT give you any advantage to select pockets with higher probability hitrate.

You are brainwashed into the wrong perception of LOTT.

Used the correct way it points to winning bets as I have posted so many examples on this forum.
Check my posts.

2LoTD is about entropy. It occurs every in nature. Even in roulette spins.

Less than 54spins and you will have won enough to walk away from the casino without them noticing you.

Some of you wrote to me for help.
Read my posts.

Okay I'm gone from the forum.

[Joe]

Summary

session1   9w       5L        4BE       18bets
session2   6w       4L        8BE       18bets
session3   7w       4L        7BE       18bets
                  41%    24%     35%

54bets, 41%win, 24%loss and 35% breakeven(-1)

Cht, even without comparing to random bets, these results don't show anything. They are entirely within expectation, so you have proved nothing.

[gizmotron2]

Bollocks. It's just talk. You guys are nothing but hot air and empty claims. Give the rules of a system (any system you like) which you think does better than random bets and I'll prove it doesn't. But I have to have YOUR rules. Using MY rules doesn't count for anything, does it?

This is what I wrote to someone searching for a way to beat the casinos with software:

Out of interest, do you think people care about which software drives their favorite online casino game?

I think that people learn to gamble in stages.

The first stage is gambling for entertainment. They come to the casino to lose a set amount of money set aside for entertainment purposes.

The next stage is progressions in hopes that they have discovered a way to beat the casino every time.

Next comes magical beliefs and superstitions. They can combine this with the progression period.

Next comes the money management phase. They try to use math to overcome a mathematical disadvantage.

Last comes you can't win and anyone that tries is a fool phase. This is where they become what they really are, assholes. I have given them a name that is a progression of names given to them over decades of discussion. First they were the mathBoyz. Then came the mathNazis. Now it's the mathZombies because of that great song by the Cranberries, "Zombie." "What's in your head, Zombie?"

It turns out that a very old axiom in gambling is the way to beat the casino. It goes like this: " Bet big when you are winning and bet small any other time than that." You might ascribe this to luck. I do. That is what the Reading Randomness thread is about. It just uses trends and patterns to identify win streaks. When a trend or pattern is working it is in a state of a win streak. But you must also look at these same trends that at times are not a win streak. They then tell you when a win streak is occurring or not. That becomes a construct where characteristics become the syntax of communication. Therefore the process of looking for data is identifiable as reading.

At know time does any of this looking for data process go back to the magical thinking stage. The mathZombies try to treat us by assuming that trends have a claimed power of prediction. Reading Randomness does not have that power and a person reading randomness has never relied on trends or patterns to attempt that. But the minds of these magical thinking obnoxious tools can't break from that assumption. So they erect straw man arguments just to win them in discussions. They might as well try to say that man was never meant to fly because he doesn't have wings. For some reason they are stuck in a magical belief that trends can't predict the future and they want to make sure that everyone respects their intellect. So discussion forums go on and on dealing with gamblers in different phases of learning.

There is no software to take you thru these stages. You must experience them for yourself and decide for yourself whether to give up or keep going. If you do keep going and you do get past all these stages, with knowledge, then you will have real playing experience. This is a subject even more valuable than tactics or methods. You must deal with impulses to take risky chances. You can't gamble without dealing with risk. That is why phase one is mindless progressions and mechanical rule based systems that allow you to sit back and let the system make you money. They want the casino to be their personal private ATM machine. They want it to change their lives forever.

So good luck finding software to take you thru these stages and changes in life."

[Moxy]

This is what I wrote to someone searching for a way to beat the casinos with software:

I think that people learn to gamble in stages.

The first stage is gambling for entertainment. They come to the casino to lose a set amount of money set aside for entertainment purposes.

The next stage is progressions in hopes that they have discovered a way to beat the casino every time.

Next comes magical beliefs and superstitions. They can combine this with the progression period.

Next comes the money management phase. They try to use math to overcome a mathematical disadvantage.

Last comes you can't win and anyone that tries is a fool phase. This is where they become what they really are, assholes. I have given them a name that is a progression of names given to them over decades of discussion. First they were the mathBoyz. Then came the mathNazis. Now it's the mathZombies because of that great song by the Cranberries, "Zombie." "What's in your head, Zombie."

I challenge you to a acct ban challenge.
Loser asks for IP ban and leaves.  Forever.

So at least the public members of this forum will only have to put up with either weird long winded novellas (you) or troll quips/retorts (me).  Not both.  Cause one is leaving for good.

What say you?  Chummmmmm.......