It works - RNG

[Joe]

If you think a little further, it wouldn't be a problem for me to code this then test it with large live data ?

coding a system and testing over a large number of spins is always recommended because it will remove all doubt. What irritates me is people who say their 'system' can't be coded (like Gizmo's reading randomness) because it isn't 'rule-based'. What a baloney festival that is! 

The exception is precognition (if you believe in it), but that's not really a system anyway.

[cht]

coding a system and testing over a large number of spins is always recommended because it will remove all doubt. What irritates me is people who say their 'system' can't be coded (like Gizmo's reading randomness) because it isn't 'rule-based'. What a baloney festival that is! 

The exception is precognition (if you believe in it), but that's not really a system anyway.

You know by now that I code in excel.

I am bias towards fully mechanical rules based systems for any form of speculation, including gambling.
I don't think discretionary systems  can sustain long run results.

Precognition, I have no opinion about something I have not spend any time with.
My comments will be useless.

[cht]

That little essay by R.D. Ellison copy & pasted by Ares289 (Ellison?) is a masterclass in sophistry.

cht,

But you agreed with my previous post when I said the fact that you don't see 'impossible' sequences has nothing to do with independence. Have you changed your mind already?
No change of mind, I agree with you on this part.

I think what we disagree is the possibility of dependence.

Let me explain it this way.

If I adopt the stance of accepting complete independence then no systems bet works. History spins is useless to predict future spins. That's what math says. I am well aware of this.

However, if AP is the only way to win I will not look at roulette at all. I am not prepared to go down this rabbit hole. Not saying it doesn't work but I have no interest in this approach.

I am curious if there's any dependence so I explored and collated tons of data with all the voodoo systems posted by past Gurus on this forum. None of them work. Or least I could not find anything that work. My criteria has to be flatbet. Not some magic money management stuff that magically turns a losing bet into a winning bet. I don't believe in that i have my opinion about this which is math based that's related to variance which according to the math is unlimited which means risk of ruin is certain.

It's not an every day thing that someone can find such dependence characteristic. Yes I accept that the sample is small. That's where it stands now. Ofc I will be moving forward to remove this last stumbling block.


The main fallacy in Ellison's argument is the ambiguity of the terms 'independent', and 'expectation'. Some words have different meanings in different contexts, which the case here. In everyday discourse, the word 'independent' means 'free from control or outside authority', or 'having the power to do what it likes'. So, logically, if roulette events are independent, doesn't that mean that anything can happen at the table? But we don't see just anything happen; outcomes are predictable to some extent (at least in the longer term). Therefore (Ellison argues), roulette events are not independent. Same for 'expectation'. If something is 'expected', it must in a sense be 'due'. And if it's due, it makes no sense to say it's independent (in the sense just defined).

The problem is, these terms are not used in the same sense in the context of probability and statistics. In probability theory, 'independence' refers to statistical independence, which is defined as :

Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.

Or, more precisely, as

Two events A and B are independent if and only if their joint probability equals the product of their joint probabilities:
P(A & B) = P(A) * P(B)

There is nothing in either of these definitions which says anything about events being free from outside authority or being able to do what they like.

Similarly with expectation. What's 'expected' or 'due' in usual speech doesn't have the same meaning as mathematical expectation or 'expected value' in probability. The definition of expected value is purely mathematical (a weighted average) :

EV = x₁p₁ + x₂p₂ + x₃p₃ + ... + x_np_n

Where the xs are outcomes (values) and the ps are their corresponding probabilities.

So if you understand those terms as they're intended to taken in the context of roulette (as technical terms), Ellison's argument falls apart, because his entire thesis depends on their equivocation (ambiguity).

Then he talks about 'statistical pressure'. He's right of course that there has to be a cause, but the cause is the geometry and physics of the roulette 'system' as a whole, which includes all the physics relating to the wheel, ball, dealer and environment. It's the physical symmetries and regularities of the system which causes the corresponding regularities in the outcomes, not some nonsensical statistical pressure.

Don't fall for it guys. It's utter bullshit, but it probably helped to sell more of his books!

[precogmiles]

There is a difference between intuition and precognition.

If roulette can be beaten using a rule based system then all you would need is to play enough games until your subconscious learns those rules. This is well documented and demonstrated using the Iowa gambling task.

Again even a sophisticated enough AI using deep learning would be able to find the rules to beat roulette.

However, if roulette is truly a chaotic system then you need precognition, as in, some way of accessing non-local information. Unfortunately for skeptics the data is in support of precognition, but the scientific community has a philosophical and ideological bias against it, therefore the layman's judgement becomes clouded with confusion over a topic which is as clear as daylight for anyone who takes even a cursory glance at the evidence.

[Joe]

precog, nice video. It's a point I've made before regarding precognition; how do you know it's precognition you're using when your results can be explained by intuition, as demonstrated in the video?

But as you point out, intuition can only be the explanation if outcomes aren't random. And yes, we know roulette outcomes are not - when you take into account the physical variables (at least sometimes), buts stats on the same set of past numbers alone will usually show that outcomes ARE random. This need not be a contradiction because you're taking into account different factors in each case. Physical variables are causally related to the next outcome, past numbers alone are not.

The problem with your argument about the scientific community is that it's circular. Why is the evidence for precog not accepted by mainstream science? because of ideological bias; why is there ideological bias? because scientists say there is no evidence!

I'm not taking one side or the other, just saying. However, I don't believe there is any conspiracy of silence or a deliberate cover-up, just that the scientific community has more rigorous standards of what constitutes evidence than the precognition community. And I think we should be thankful for that. That doesn't necessarily mean that precog is all bunk. There is strong evidence that some people can do it at least some of the time, but that's not nearly good enough to announce a new scientific law.

[cht]

However, I don't believe there is any conspiracy of silence or a deliberate cover-up, just that the scientific community has more rigorous standards of what constitutes evidence than the precognition community. And I think we should be thankful for that. That doesn't necessarily mean that precog is all bunk. There is strong evidence that some people can do it at least some of the time, but that's not nearly good enough to announce a new scientific law.

If precog community wants recognition then they must play by the rules of the scientific community. Does the evidence stand up to scrutiny? Are the experiments set up rigorous enough?

Instead of cry baby the better and only way forward is to measure up to the level of the science community to gain accreditation. Right now they aren't.

[precogmiles]

how do you know it's precognition you're using when your results can be explained by intuition, as demonstrated in the video?

This is because I get the same results on games other than roulette. There are tests that target precognition specifically, which I also score above average on. So therefore it makes sense to conclude it is in fact from precognition and not simply intuition

But as you point out, intuition can only be the explanation if outcomes aren't random. And yes, we know roulette outcomes are not - when you take into account the physical variables (at least sometimes), buts stats on the same set of past numbers alone will usually show that outcomes ARE random. This need not be a contradiction because you're taking into account different factors in each case. Physical variables are causally related to the next outcome, past numbers alone are not.

I agree, I've always maintained you can use physics to increase your accuracy.

The problem with your argument about the scientific community is that it's circular. Why is the evidence for precog not accepted by mainstream science? because of ideological bias; why is there ideological bias? because scientists say there is no evidence!

If you say so. But let me put it another way, let's assume the scientific community accepted precognition. Could you not see the Implications that would have for all forms of theoretical science. Funding for science would dry up overnight.

I don't believe it is a conspiracy just the cold hard facts of capitalism.

link:s://youtu.be/M9OVyGA15ME
Watch from 1 hour 25mins onwards.

Listen to how to scientists that want to do real science are treated. If you do not tow the line expect to be ostracized.

[precogmiles]

If precog community wants recognition then they must play by the rules of the scientific community. Does the evidence stand up to scrutiny? Are the experiments set up rigorous enough?

Instead of cry baby the better and only way forward is to measure up to the level of the science community to gain accreditation. Right now they aren't.

If you have not done the research how can you make such a claim?

[winkel]

If you have not done the research how can you make such a claim?

I met a precognition gambler in the casino. I asked him if it works.
He said: Of course! Look just the 22 came in. I have written the 22 somewhere on my papers. (After a while of searching) Look here it is 22 on this piece of paper.

You can´t never proof by statistics that you method has done it or you thought you had preconited it.

[gizmotron2]

If during game, I take your roulette wheel and replace it with another, will you then have to start all over again, or maybe will you be able to continue your game as if nothing had happened..?

I've actually conducted that experiment in large numbers using many different players. They don't know it because I kept it a secret.  My practice software does not use the same selection method for American double zeros wheels as I once did years ago for European single zero wheels. I use to make up my custom sets and groups based on the same figure formation like spokes of the wheels for each wheel in use. But when I wrote the new EC version I didn't bother. They are the same groups and nearly the same sets. But the wheel configurations are completely different in sequence.

As I have suspected those that have chosen the double zero wheels to practice on are achieving very much the same results as those that play the single zero wheels. That's because the wheels are random. They are random enough that exchanging the wheels does not matter. The same goes for changing the dealers. It's all random enough to use Reading Randomness. The win streaks and the losing streaks still occur regularly. Sure, a changed pace by a rude dealer can change things if they intentionally rush you. But a crowded table prevents that no matter how fast they want to push players. So I don't get worried if they try to change the wheels. In fact the Native American casinos in California replace the order of the cards in the Roulette wheel slots every hour or so. It makes no difference to me. I just wait for the trends that are working as win streaks.

[gizmotron2]

coding a system and testing over a large number of spins is always recommended because it will remove all doubt. What irritates me is people who say their 'system' can't be coded (like Gizmo's reading randomness) because it isn't 'rule-based'. What a baloney festival that is! 

More Joe Blow-isms. I said it could be coded if you want to write millions of lines of Object Oriented Programming algorithms.  That means that if you were to "Hard Code" it this would take tens of millions of lines of codes.

I also made it clear that people are much easier to program and have higher brain function than AI because they can recognize a working pattern that has never been seen before. AI has to learn and remember these things.   So RR can be rule based. It just won't work as well as people do.  But I could write a version that only hunts for singles on the weak side and combined with virtual bets would beat Roulette in long run "Large Number" testing. I said that too Joe-Blow. What irritates me about you is that you argue in pretend scenarios. You win all your straw man debates. You might want to try mustard on your baloney. The last thing I want to do is write that software because I'm still using RR. You creeps have not made me want to validate my abilities to the point of wrecking it all-- yet. So this slow roll-out is working as expected. You are even doing your part to make it come of age slowly.

I'm surprised that you don't actually give it an honest try. I wonder if you have the kind of character it takes to be objective?

[cht]

I'm surprised that you don't actually give it an honest try. I wonder if you have the kind of character it takes to be objective?

I agree with this.

Joe, it's only fair and right to test drive the system before you come to any rational and objective conclusion.

I don't subscribe to discretionary type systems bet that require live analysis and decision making. It's my choice similar to AP bets that I stand outside, and I have no opinion about them since they are not relevant like precog. They all fall under the same bunch of interactive live betting.

[gizmotron2]

I don't subscribe to discretionary type systems bet that require live analysis and decision making. It's my choice similar to AP bets, but I have no opinion about them since they are not relevant like precog.

It's not that hard to be discretionary with Reading Randomness. You make a bet selection on every spin. You then watch to see if those selections are in a phase of being effective enough to put you in an at least upward grinding trend. Your skill is in choosing the quality of the effectiveness as it is currently occurring. If you like what you see you speculate and fund the next bet selection.  So it's just a skill of watching how well you are seeing the working bet selection. I use trends & patterns because I can pick them out of a live play data chart using a skilled example of visual dexterity. I can instantly see the working bet selections if I were to place bets on them. It's fast. It's not a magical claim. It's just using real data as it occurs. I only bet on working trends. Do they end on the first try? Yes. But they don't all the time. In fact they end on the first try way less than 50/50 as independent events suggests that they should. Even if they did act 50/50 they still only swarm as a swarm of first try events seldom.  And it makes my point completely too. You can know if you are in a swarm of first try losses. You then know the current conditions.  You know to make funded bet selections or not.

So I'm curious to know what your opinion is as to if this is too difficult? Is looking for the working trends and checking for first try swarms too difficult a task to think about when playing at a game?

[Joe]

I said it could be coded if you want to write millions of lines of Object Oriented Programming algorithms.  That means that if you were to "Hard Code" it this would take tens of millions of lines of codes.

I also made it clear that people are much easier to program and have higher brain function than AI because they can recognize a working pattern that has never been seen before.

gizmo, this is hogwash and you know it. If it's a case of recognizing patterns, then obviously your patterns are going to be different from mine, so it's not a case of betting on the 'right' patterns (ie, only certain patterns will continue and others will tend to be shorter).

You've said this yourself more than once, that the actual bet selection is irrelevant. And just the other day you said it's the oldest system in the book : bet big when things are going your way and small when they aren't.  In fact a few months ago you actually congratulated me on being the first person to suggest a mechanical procedure for reading randomness. Track a large number of EC bet selections and monitor their performance. Rank them in terms of which are doing well, and pick the bet selection which is currently top-ranked. Update on a spin-by-spin basis, and if you lose, bet the next best performing bet selection in the list. Rinse & Repeat.

This is a 100% mechanical system. And you can easily generate 100s or even thousands of bet selections for an EC. The algorithm is really simple.

So why don't you do it?

[gizmotron2]

gizmo, this is hogwash and you know it. If it's a case of recognizing patterns, then obviously your patterns are going to be different from mine, so it's not a case of betting on the 'right' patterns (ie, only certain patterns will continue and others will tend to be shorter).

Stop trying to pass off an argument based on sophistry. You don't know what I have taught others. It's their different patterns that are beating you too. That's because they worked to get the skills. You haven't.