What is the most basic form of randomness?

[Gizmotron]

What is the most basic form of randomness?

The answer is so simple. The win streak or the dominance of winning bets over a few losing bets is the most basic form of favorable conditions, if you decide to place your bets based on the most archaic of reasons. If you stick to that selection plan, then your results will probably go through patches of temporary favorable conditions. In a way, favorable conditions are a moving target based on your pet bet selection technique.

So why not have several preselected bet selection techniques? You can watch the flow of the game to see when one of them passes into the favorable condition state. You can also include the option to select bets based on the opposite of your preferred selection technique. It just might be that the opposite of a losing streak is a winning streak.

If you are really clever you might learn how to evaluate the quality or purity of the different conditions that you see. In a way you could come up with your own quality scale.

Your bet selection process needs to be something that you can stand outside of. You need to think outside the box. In other words, don't put yourself in a box that confines you to all the conditions that there are. Your only conclusion will be failure.

[keel44]

I have always liked what you've had to say on another forum.  Please continue to teach and reveal some tactics to help us at the roulette table.

How do you qualify a favorable condition?  That has always been my trouble spot.  It seems there makes no difference sometimes when looking at the past results.  Would you say it is better to wait for a condition to appear or play what is appearing here and now?

[esoito]

"Your bet selection process needs to be something that you can stand outside of. You need to think outside the box.
In other words, don't put yourself in a box that confines you to all the conditions that there are. Your only conclusion will be failure."


Hmmm...reading that prompts me to ask:

Is there a role for contrarian betting?

In other words, is there a way of betting profitably against an event (or sequence of events) NOT happening?

And would that, per se, be one of the most basic forms of randomness? (Notice my deliberate use of one of rather than the  I'm always uneasy talking in terms of absolutes.)

[Gizmotron]

How do you qualify a favorable condition?  That has always been my trouble spot.  It seems there makes no difference sometimes when looking at the past results.  Would you say it is better to wait for a condition to appear or play what is appearing here and now?

If you play whatever the conditions are, "here and now" as you say, then you need to keep your losses to a minimum. If you dig a big hole then any good stretch that comes later will all be gobbled up already. The trick to waiting for favorable conditions is hovering at even. If you don't see a favorable condition then use your hovering plan. A sleeping dozen is a favorable condition. If the sleeper hits once or twice in 20 spins then it's still a good dominance. You might only get a few favorable conditions for each 100 spins. It's possible to get none. If you practice 100 spin sessions you will begin to get a sense for detecting them. Practice every day if you can. You will form your own opinion.

[Gizmotron]

In other words, is there a way of betting profitably against an event (or sequence of events) NOT happening?

Yes, you can run a short termed progression against a most unlikely pattern. You just can't use it mindlessly and to expect to win with it in the long term. Try to find a pattern that exists in certain conditions and almost never exists in others. Then figure out a progression that capitalizes on that condition.

[esoito]

"Try to find a pattern that exists in certain conditions and almost never exists in others. "

Yes, indeed. Emphasis on the word 'try'...

Many wouldn't even know how to begin.

What would their starting point be?  (You do understand these are catalyst questions, I hope.)

[Gizmotron]

I once researched extensively the very rare pattern. The one I focused on even had unknown breaks in it between bets. It was done by betting after a repeat followed by a single in any one of the three dozens or three columns. After any repeat in a same dozen or column, as soon as a single (not repeat occurs) you start betting a four step progression on the other two. In other words you win as soon as a single hits. You lose if you get four repeats in a row.

My research ran this blindly for millions of spins. It loses. But what if it's only run when swarms of singles or a dominant absence of repeats are present in current conditions? I've already demonstrated these conditions in another thread in this section.