MauiSunset

[Bayes]

Question for you Kelly and Bayes >>> Do you endorse a person claiming they have a kick a** method.....we're all idiots for not being followers of the guy etc. BUT the person does not post the method. Is that alright to NOT post the method? If yes, why? Remember, you'll be on record (I'll copy/paste the answer before the thread is deleted) ......its ok to dangle the carrot?
Ken

No, I don't think it's ok to brag and at the same time attack others, that's just being a troll. When this forum was set up it was agreed that there should be no "hinting". When people evade questions and yet still drop hints and attack other members at the same time, it's time for them to be banned.

Ken, I think you misunderstand what I wrote, I certainly wasn't endorsing the guy, in fact I was the first to point out he was being inconsistent (wanting it both ways).

And by the way, I'm not in the "advantage play is the only thing that works" camp. Anything that WORKS, I'll give it a try, I'm not biased in favour of one or the other "method".

Actually, the guy reminds me of Spike, but I don't think it's him.

[maestro]

that maui is an idiot i cannot believe you are spending so much of your time to read his crap...he just wants to bang in your brain what he thinks and keeps repeating same and same again and again..just ban him..and let him enjoy the sunset..

[Bayes]

let him enjoy the sunset..

[MrJ]

Betting randomly isn't a method, in my opinion. By randomly I mean something like picking birthday numbers, or just scattering a handful of chips on the table with a blindfold on. If you bet randomly, you've already decided it's all down to luck.

But Maui says roulette is "all about **statistics** and luck". If statistics is a factor, then presumably his method is based at least partly on statistics, so he's not betting randomly. I already asked him how he played, but he ignored my questions and referred me to the website. So yes, the guy wants to have it both ways, I agree, and attacking others for something you do yourself makes you a hypocrite and a troll.

And like I said, if he uses statistics, where do statistics come from? THE PAST, which also means gamblers fallacy.

Ken

[MrJ]

No, I don't think it's ok to brag and at the same time attack others, that's just being a troll. When this forum was set up it was agreed that there should be no "hinting". When people evade questions and yet still drop hints and attack other members at the same time, it's time for them to be banned.

Ken, I think you misunderstand what I wrote, I certainly wasn't endorsing the guy, in fact I was the first to point out he was being inconsistent (wanting it both ways).

And by the way, I'm not in the "advantage play is the only thing that works" camp. Anything that WORKS, I'll give it a try, I'm not biased in favour of one or the other "method".

Actually, the guy reminds me of Spike, but I don't think it's him.

I think I know who it is but dont want to say in case I'm wrong. Funny thing though, the guy actually told me his identity a while back but I cant remember. (lol)

Ken

[woods101]

Hey Giz,

Don't worry about it. I think the guy is a bit confused about what he believes in the first place:

Ms quote:

"First let's define Gambler's Fallacy:

The false notion that odds for something with a fixed probability increase/decrease depending on recent results. "


MS quote:

"There are NO trends in random numbers - just higher and higher probabilities against the last color/odd/high/dozen/column/number showing up in the next spin to extend the "trend"."

Mmmm....

[Gizmotron]

Bayes - " Maui says on his site that you commit GF whichever side you bet on - if you see 4 heads in a row and bet tails (because it's due) OR if you bet heads (because there is a trend).So you're damned whatever decisio you make.

So why can't he listen? I don't use GF. I check to see if a trend has CONTINUED! You don't win with my methods by only winning one bet after identifying a trend. You have winning sessions that are the basis of continuation being confirmed after the fact. Perhaps some of you old timers around the forums will recall me saying this: "TEST AS YOU GO." I criptically told you my secret all along and for many years. There is no gamblers fallacy in my method. It's  based 100% on confirmation.

MauiSunset's argument with me is an old classic debating strategy where he uses the straw man argument. If there is any fallacy it is in Maui attempting to categorize me with his projection into a subclass the he thinks he is Iqualified to ridicule. He calls me idiotic. You watch. He won't  understand the difference I just clearly explained.explained.

[kelly]

J i dont endorse Maui in any way, i just dont see him push his opinion any harder than the other fraction push their opinion.  As for why there arent any series of 100 reds, well, the probability gets smaller and smaller because of the lenght of the serie.  100 reds has the same probability as 50 reds then 50 blacks or 25 reds + 25 blacks + 25 reds + 25 blacks.  Or any other 100 spin sequenze that just happened, well hey, THAT particular sequence just happened so its not THAT impossible.


As for the "higher and higher probability" please note that it never gets to 100% certainity....... 


If he says he is doing quite well at the tables by using statistics, he is also himself a GF victim.   You wont get anyone to admit that they are a frequent loser.

[Gizmotron]

Kelly - " You won't get anyone to admit that they are a frequent loser."

Then let me be the first. I lose all the time. Many of my sessions begin with draw downs that must be overcome . This often happens because I fail to get into the flow of the randomness. Now some of you will go crazy  on that.

[flukey luke]

This often happens because I fail to get into the flow of the randomness.

SPIKE claimed he spent a few hours a day testing just to keep his elbow in.

Does not sound so crazy really. Reading randomness is an art that you can easily lose the knack of without practise.

All you are trying to do is get in synch with the trends. It can produce explosive results.

This is where I think some people misunderstand when they say you are full of crap if you can't lay everything down in a mechanical fashion. It does not excactly work like that.

[MrJ]

@Gizmo >> I'm not arguing with you, I consider you a friend. However......."I don't use GF. I check to see if a trend has CONTINUED" >>> So you base you future bet(s) on what has already happened, correct? Let me ask this.....lets say the history board is not working and you have not watched the wheel or recorded any past outcomes. Can you walk right up to a table and place your bet immediately? If no, why not?

Ken

[Gizmotron]

Ken -" Can you walk right up to a table and place your bet immediately? If no, why not?"

Ken & Flukey Luke, no, I can't  just walk up and hit a win streak right off the bat if I have not tracked the current conditions. For me it's  not about practicing recognition. It's about using my strategies that have already been perfected. I can't use them if I can't  see the current conditions. That's  not to say that I can't take advantage of  Streak on the marquee. That's a chart. It's just not as extensive as my charts.

[MrJ]

"I can't use them if I can't  see the current conditions" >>> So the definition of this is what? 'Current conditions' means.......?

Can I assume, looking at what HAS ALREADY HAPPENED? It makes no difference if its the last 800 spins or 1 spin, correct? I'm not knockin it, I use some past results. Even the AP guys use past results (but won't admit it). Is the wheel bias? How would a person know if they were not watching what has been hitting? What about DS? You do have to watch past results in order to know, right? Almost *EVERY* method is somehow related to what has happened.

Ken

[Gizmotron]

" Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is
a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. [Note
1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and remember information selectively, and
interpret it in a biased way."

In a way I'm using a form of confirmation bias. I'm not using it to fool myself. I'm using it to detect the current conditions.   When something is not a trend or a characteristic of a trend type then you know what it will act like . If that condition continues then you can bet on it as long as it keeps continuing. You want to find anything that continues. That also goes for trends that conform to known characteristics too.

[MrJ]

"In a way I'm using a form of confirmation bias" >>> That's cool, I'm not knockin it but it does entail past results.

Ken