It works - RNG

[gizmotron2]

So why don't you do it?

You are an idiot Joe. I don't perform tricks for idiots. All you do is resist. You are not actually impressing anyone. Well, you are making the uninformed impression that you know without checking. Learn it or not. Nobody cares.

[Joe]

So why don't you do it?

Ok, so why haven't I written it? I could, but all the hot number and trending systems I've ever coded have failed; results are no better than betting randomly. Why should this be any different?

And what's more, if and when it fails  you will tell me that it's because I've left it in the hands of a dumb algorithm and that I need to practice reading randomness, learning the effectiveness states, working patterns, etc. In other words, you will shake your head sadly and tell me that a mindless machine won't cut it.

But here's the contradiction about that : If you have learned through practice and experience which are the right decisions to make, you can catalog them and create a mechanical system, in which case you are no longer reading randomness; you have cracked randomness and the human element is no longer necessary because you have an algorithm. But if you don't yet have the algorithm, it means you're still in the research phase, so why would you bet for real money when you don't yet know the rules to follow?

IMO, insisting that a rule-based system won't work and only reading randomness will is just a cop-out. It's a way of simultaneously agreeing with the mathboyz (spins really are independent, and you're not trying to predict anything), and also the system junkies, because yes, there is a way to win at roulette after all!

This way you get to have your cake and eat it, and at the same time you're insulated from ever having to write a simulation (there are too many patterns! and anyway it can't be coded because it's a skill not an algorithm!)

You've been giving us the same old tripe for YEARS.

[Joe]

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.

I have tried it. It's just a trending system like hundreds of others which don't work. And there is no room in a system for discretionary bets. Discretionary means using your best judgement, but either you have done the research and found that a bet selection or trigger or whatever works, or you haven't. If you have, then no judgement is needed because you have a rule, but if you haven't, then you're just guessing which is no better than betting randomly.

So either way, discretionary bets make no sense.

[Moxy]

If any system bet can continue as if nothing happened then there is no need for history data.

Let me explain.

Let's say there are 10 roulette wheels arranged in a row that have spun 37spins.

Your question is,

If this single betselection that has no connection to any of those wheels,

And if the betselection is played exactly the same on all wheels, will these wheels yield the same winning result on average?

The answer has to be no.

😲

[Richard Meisel]

My thoughts exactly. And why my betselection performs as it does, at a rate higher than the odds.
This means the results I posted of my typical sessions are not due to luck. That random betselection cannot produce similar results. That's the reason why I posted the rsim results with graphs of individual sessions.
Last important point, I place 37units inside bets by looking at the the updated to last spin 37spins history. This means my betselection is dependent on history spins.
[/quote]
CHT, my friend, concerning the Graphs you posted on Aug. 27.
On your 38th Spin you have a Winning Bet of 35 and have a Total of +35
On  your 42nd Spin you have a Winning Bet of 35 and have a Total of +103
Which means on the 39th-40th-41st Spins you won twice of 35 and one Loss of 37.
It was WWL or WLW or LWW.
The 38th Spin was 5, you Won, 5 was an UNHIT #.
The 39th Spin was 12, 12 was an UNHIT #.
The 40th Spin was 34, 34 was an UNHIT #.
The 41st Spin was 10, you Won, 10 was an UNHIT #.
The 42nd Spin was 3, you Won, 3 was an UNHIT #.
You Lost either the 39th, 40th, or 41st Spin. Too bad you didn’t choose all the UNHIT #s. After the 38th Spin there were 12 UNHIT numbers.
You said you leave the Unhit numbers alone, but you do Bet on them with the 18 numbers that you choose.

SLOPEZ007 started this merry-go-round thread and never came back.

Oh, there’s LOTT giving out Even Distribution combining with 2LoTD (Cold number going into a Hot Number and a Hot Number going into a Cold Number, leaving Order to go into Disarray) with entropy, and Lo, going into a Markov Chain. A CONVOLUTED system indeed designed to find the proper Bet Selection. I’ve seen many using calculus, algebra, string theory, many with tricky math equations, all trying to make an EDUCATED GUESS at a Bet Selection. This one take the cake.

Now I do believe this Wins IN THE SHORT RUN. But there is no system where you Bet 37 units on 18-19 numbers and Win CONSISTENTLY. I have a system which is a losing system but it wins 80% in the short run. Only lose 1 or 2 out of 5. I believe many Roulette Players on this Forum also have their pet systems that Win 70% to 80% in the short run.

CHT, my friend, your system is well thought out and will probably Win 70+% of the time IN THE SHORT RUN. So far I think you’ve been very fortunate.

[cht]

My thoughts exactly. And why my betselection performs as it does, at a rate higher than the odds.
This means the results I posted of my typical sessions are not due to luck. That random betselection cannot produce similar results. That's the reason why I posted the rsim results with graphs of individual sessions.
Last important point, I place 37units inside bets by looking at the the updated to last spin 37spins history. This means my betselection is dependent on history spins.

CHT, my friend, concerning the Graphs you posted on Aug. 27.
On your 38th Spin you have a Winning Bet of 35 and have a Total of +35
On  your 42nd Spin you have a Winning Bet of 35 and have a Total of +103
Which means on the 39th-40th-41st Spins you won twice of 35 and one Loss of 37.
It was WWL or WLW or LWW.
The 38th Spin was 5, you Won, 5 was an UNHIT #.
The 39th Spin was 12, 12 was an UNHIT #.
The 40th Spin was 34, 34 was an UNHIT #.
The 41st Spin was 10, you Won, 10 was an UNHIT #.
The 42nd Spin was 3, you Won, 3 was an UNHIT #.
You Lost either the 39th, 40th, or 41st Spin. Too bad you didn’t choose all the UNHIT #s. After the 38th Spin there were 12 UNHIT numbers.
You said you leave the Unhit numbers alone, but you do Bet on them with the 18 numbers that you choose.

SLOPEZ007 started this merry-go-round thread and never came back.

Oh, there’s LOTT giving out Even Distribution combining with 2LoTD (Cold number going into a Hot Number and a Hot Number going into a Cold Number, leaving Order to go into Disarray) with entropy, and Lo, going into a Markov Chain. A CONVOLUTED system indeed designed to find the proper Bet Selection. I’ve seen many using calculus, algebra, string theory, many with tricky math equations, all trying to make an EDUCATED GUESS at a Bet Selection. This one take the cake.

Now I do believe this Wins IN THE SHORT RUN. But there is no system where you Bet 37 units on 18-19 numbers and Win CONSISTENTLY. I have a system which is a losing system but it wins 80% in the short run. Only lose 1 or 2 out of 5. I believe many Roulette Players on this Forum also have their pet systems that Win 70% to 80% in the short run.

CHT, my friend, your system is well thought out and will probably Win 70+% of the time IN THE SHORT RUN. So far I think you’ve been very fortunate.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Read on why your opinion means nothing. Help yourself instead. Read my posts.

I am not here to sell anything.
I won't convince you.
I couldn't care less.

I post to tell you systems bettors that outside of maths and science you have zero chance to win. That's my main message. Joe is spot on correct with his math. And I only trust math, nothing else.

This is what the math calculator says.
I expected those numbers to confirm what I already know. The only weak number is Confidence Interval. I am fully aware of that. And taking this to the next level with big data.

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244405#msg244405

You only saw a single dimension of this bet. I have expanded it into an array of multidimension. This means that a single 37spins history will generate multiple arrays of numbers with high probability. This result in a diversified portfolio betting for each spin reducing further the risk. Each of this array carries the same kind of outcome as the one I posted on forum.

All these requires coding to achieve this goal. That's the level I work at. No way to do this manually. The stuff on this forum is primitive. No reason for me to remain on this forum.

[cht]

I leave you systems bettors with this design requirement for a systems bet with positive edge.

Good luck and goodbye

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244177#msg244177

[Moxy]

I leave you systems bettors with this design requirement for a systems bet with positive edge.

Good luck and goodbye

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244177#msg244177

Why are you people so sensitive?  Giz gets a conniption everytime someone responds.  You threaten to leave.
 
Every one thinks I'm a fruitcake.  And I'm still here. 

[cht]

Why are you people so sensitive?  Giz gets a conniption everytime someone responds.  You threaten to leave.
 
Every one thinks I'm a fruitcake.  And I'm still here.

What purpose I remain here? 

[Moxy]

What purpose I remain here? 

Stay the course.  If you're right.  You're lauded.  If you're wrong, you admit you're wrong and everyone forgives you. 

You've left off other projects before.  No one called you out then.  Sure this forum may come across as primitive but you are coming off snobbish asf where no one can critique you.  Come on, Chief.

[gizmotron2]

Giz gets a conniption everytime someone responds. 

No I don't you demented jerk. I engage and try to answer all questions regarding Reading Randomness that are presented as actual efforts to understand what I'm presenting in my teaching sources. My responses to you are because you are not interested in learning. You are only interested in pestering & posturing. So I treat you like shit.  Frankly you deserve it. You have proclaimed yourself expert while having never worked on it to find out if it works or not.  You use BS like 1/37 and it's all written in stone. You challenge me to some symbolic dual yet you are afraid to discover the truth on your own. I'm an amusement toy for you. I hate the mathZombies and have done this to feed them a level of retribution that they will never forget. I let them spout all they want how wonderful they are with their 100% for sure opinions on what works and what does not. You without reservations refer to Reading Randomness as not possible to work. Yet others are still working on gaining the skills that make it work for them.  There just are not enough of us to embarrass you yet. When it is validated you will have to go back 15 years and read how I toyed with you guys.  You are my toy too.

[Moxy]

No I don't you demented jerk. I engage and try to answer all questions regarding Reading Randomness that are presented as actual efforts to understand what I'm presenting in my teaching sources. My responses to you are because you are not interested in learning. You are only interested in pestering & posturing. So I treat you like shit.  Frankly you deserve it. You have proclaimed yourself expert while having never worked on it to find out if it works or not.  You use BS like 1/37 and it's all written in stone. You challenge me to some symbolic dual yet you are afraid to discover the truth on your own. I'm an amusement toy for you. I hate the mathZombies and have done this to feed them a level of retribution that they will never forget. I let them spout all they want how wonderful they are with their 100% for sure opinions on what works and what does not. You without reservations refer to Reading Randomness as not possible to work. Yet others are still working on gaining the skills that make it work for them.  There just are not enough of us to embarrass you yet. When it is validated you will have to go back 15 years and read how I toyed with you guys.  You are my toy too.

We're best buddies.  You just don't know it yet.

[Moxy]

At least you are not the most pretentious member anymore.  That claim goes to Ares or whoever wrote that world's most boring preamble.   

Jesus, can the author be anymore full of himself. 

[Blood Angel]

Wtaf is a Confidence Interval?
Forget that I just answered my own question. Not sure how to work it out though!

[Ares289]

"If every tabIe game resuIt is an independent event, how can we ever expect any particuIar number to come up at aII? We can’t, because there wouId be nothing to stop the wheeI from seIecting a different number, every time. And yet, the same peopIe who say that these numericaI events are immacuIateIy independent, expect the numbers to conform with the probabiIities. But if such events were truIy independent, there wouId never be a moment, or even a sustained period, when any number couId be expected to show up.

There is a causative force that compeIs numericaI events to seek their Iegitimate pIace within their assigned probabiIities. Whether the dice or wheeI have a memory is irreIevant. The infIuence originates from the effects of statisticaI propensity, the authority that governs the probabiIities of random numericaI events.

The key to getting a cIear handIe on this Iies in seeing the difference between viewing tabIe decisions one at a time, or in groups. On a one-by-one basis, it is true that there wiII never be a time when any number is mandated to appear or not appear. But even in a sampIing as smaII as 3000 spins, you wiII never see what might be regarded as a catastrophic deviation from the statisticaI expectation. There’s not an unbiased rouIette tabIe on earth that can make it through that many spins without our number 8 coming up at Ieast two or three dozen times times.

To understand why this is the case, one must know a IittIe something about the characteristics of the numbers that form the tabIe decisions at rouIette. Toward that end, Iet us Iook at the 15,000 actuaI casino spins, as they appear in Erick St. Germain’s RouIette System Tester. These spins are broken down into thirteen sessions in a SingIe Number Distribution Chart that appears at the end of the book. This chart shows how many times each of the 38 pIayabIe rouIette numbers came up in the course of thirteen groups of 1,140 documented spins apiece.

To get the baII roIIing, we wiII Iook at the occurrences of the number 7. In aII of the groups of 1,140 spins, the 7 came up at Ieast 25 times, but never more than 38 times. That averages out to an occurrence every 30 spins on the Iow end, and every 45.6 spins on the high end. What’s the average of those two figures? 37.8. That’s just two-tenths away from the exact statisticaI expectation of 1 in 38.

Something is making that happen! Independent events are not that obedient or precise, particuIarIy in a sampIing that smaII.

But then, couId that just be a fIuke? Might we get a whoIe different set of resuIts from another one of those numbers? Let’s take a Iook at the entire group:
Taking aII 38 numbers into consideration, the Ieast number of times any number showed up was 16, and the most number of times was 50. This is a wider range, which accounts for the greater possibiIity of unconventionaI trends in a Iarger sampIing, but not one of the 38 numbers tried to escape from the corraI. Meaning, each one was compeIIed to show up a minimum number of times, but not too many times.

This is pretty much how the numbers faII in any group that size. Conformity with this pattern, by and Iarge, is as reIiabIe as a Swiss watch. You never know when a given number wiII appear, but at the end of the day, every number wiII have taken its turn in the spotIight. The numbers have not the incIination or the means to overIook the mathematics of statisticaI DESTINY.

If every gaming resuIt were truIy independent, then it wouId be possibIe for a rouIette tabIe to faiI to produce the number 7 in twenty miIIion consecutive spins, because there wouId be nothing to enforce that occurrence. But in the reaI worId, unIess the wheeI is biased, there is a 100 percent chance that won’t happen. Anyone who understands the numbers knows that an unbiased tabIe wouId never make it past the first thousand spins without a 7 coming up.

Assuming the above is true, the onIy IogicaI concIusion that can be drawn is that it is not possibIe for gaming resuIts to be truIy independent, for those resuIts are constantIy bending, however imperceptibIy, toward a state of perfect statisticaI baIance. To presume that this is nothing more than a persistent coincidence (that never stops occurring) is not a credibIe argument..."