Individual Permanence and the Myth of Hit and Run

[Gizmotron]

Bayes - " It really makes no sense to talk about "reading randomness"

"Reading Randomness" is a simple phrase created by me to express to people with little interest  that there is information there that can be exploited for the purpose of taking advantage. It was created at a time of  forum discussion where participant members dismissed the existence of characteristics that make the concept of  seeing information  possible. Reading Spin Sequences might have been a better coining of a phrase.

[MAX]

Reading randomness

"Probabilistic reasoning and ways that we can estimate probabilities of combinations of events from limited data about the probabilities and conditional probabilities of events.... "

Regards
Max

[Gizmotron]

My contribution from last year:

" Reading Randomness - The ability to assign observations of characteristics into subsets of past outcomes in casino games, like recent past spins in Roulette."

[amk]

Amazing descriptions.........

I wonder, in 37 spin cycles of 37 spins each, how often will the law of the third not be observed?.........

Does the law of the third appear X%? of the time?

[GARNabby]

When it comes to reading random I'm setting up the scam stove, I realized that the volume dial had wrenched its colors off of the bloom- thereby flanking the impending bell, and setting the whole engine into fits of spurious contention. This coming after words and bleepings heard in the surrounding shops had already set sail!

An Advantage-play is only a glorified guesser, and hence loser. You won't find any reputable brokers, physicists, et al, seriously "playing the ponies"; and you won't even have to look for the millions of essentially-addicted gamblers who claim to have worked those professions from the other way around, and while paying the casinos the commissions.  Nonetheless, all of them stand at-the-ready to voice their deep-seated contempt of they who might practice any of those here.

If something is 'random' to everyone, which is ONE interpretation of Quantum theory, does that mean that it's indeterminate (in the sense of not CAPABLE of being determined)?

Which dictionary/thesaurus (directly) links the word random with indeterminant? What we know is as determinant as what we don't know whether we truly know either, so indeterminacy has to be about neither... what we know but don't know, things like 0/0, e.g.. In general, don't be overly-concerned with the bits which seem to overlap. Separate out the basic meaning of one word from another, to begin to move beyonds the words. Look to the academic meanings and usages first, then to the popular ones. Finally, play with those definitions until the words fit together into something greater than the parts.

It's going off-topic, and this is a philosophical can of worms, but what is 'random' to one person may not be to another - randomness is a matter of information.

Who says randomness, like everything else in general, can't be also mental in nature, as well as physical? Or, that neither word's subject/object exist all together? Though strictly speaking, that's certainly not a factor in roulette, even were there no "zeroes".  And were a random outcome to be strictly "unknown", then also nothing would be known about the system of its regulation, or in this case, the game, itself. Sounds like the "game of life"?

"You'd think so, but according to the Copenhagen interpretation, randomness is an inherent property of particles - so it's a waste of time looking for 'causes'."

Einstein had an abundance of good working years to try to do away with the new science which he, himself, indirectly brought about by trying to push Relativity to become its own underlaying absolute. (So much so, that he hesitated to categorize it as relativity.) In fact, it was his own reluctant, almost-manic determination to "exterminate" it which lead to much of its "shoring up" by his peers, and later on.

Now, if you want to "defeat randomness", you first have to accept it for what it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated to be.  To "resolve" (but not) the quantum-relativity dilemma, you have to figure yourself into the equation, brain and body, where it already resides.  A universe which isn't [together by being apart] can't sustain itself.  (If it's completely together, then like one diamond cutting another, it could break down.  The "by being apart" part guards against this sofaras you can't take something apart which is already apart.)  You have to work out what the operations are, what are the dimensions, etc; but not focus on which equations, etc.
　

"That's a poor way of doing science and has more to do with the politics and philosophy of 1920s Germany."

Okay, everything still seems to mean everything else to you. Unless of course, it's you, yourself, who makes the point-of-distinction. But we're a long way from anywhere in the 1920's. No one's stopping you from saying what you think here. Others may delete it, but so what. After all, the most-illogical sciences revolve around "sitting on the fence", an even-worse approach than keeping "all your eggs in one basket" or a defence only. Nothing's easier than throwing out yet another make-believe "spin" on something which you have no stake in, or which remains unknown. I mean, put your "shovel into the dirt", take a clear-and-decisive position on something. Lose lots of sleep over it, let your ideas take a hold of, and carry, you through to something of genuine value. Something so powerful that it becomes ever-stronger the more denied. (e.g., you can fight city hall, but you can't fight gravity.)

[Bayes]

Okay, everything still seems to mean everything else to you. Unless of course, it's you, yourself, who makes the point-of-distinction. But we're a long way from anywhere in the 1920's. No one's stopping you from saying what you think here. Others may delete it, but so what. After all, the most-illogical sciences revolve around "sitting on the fence", an even-worse approach than keeping "all your eggs in one basket" or a defence only. Nothing's easier than throwing out yet another make-believe "spin" on something which you have no stake in, or which remains unknown. I mean, put your "shovel into the dirt", take a clear-and-decisive position on something. Lose lots of sleep over it, let your ideas take a hold of, and carry, you through to something of genuine value. Something so powerful that it becomes ever-stronger the more denied. (e.g., you can fight city hall, but you can't fight gravity.)

I don't think there's any such thing as an 'illogical science' (it's an oxymoron), and so what if we're a long way from the 1920's?, the Copenhagen interpretation is still a popular viewpoint - but that's all it is - there are other interpretations which don't throw out causality. If you throw that out then you're into pure mathematical abstractions which often can't even be tested. Einstein was right to believe 'God does not throw dice' - that's my opinion and I believe he'll be vindicated in time. But nothing in science is ever 'proved', that only applies to mathematics.

[Bayes]

When it comes to reading random I'm setting up the scam stove, I realized that the volume dial had wrenched its colors off of the bloom- thereby flanking the impending bell, and setting the whole engine into fits of spurious contention. This coming after words and bleepings heard in the surrounding shops had already set sail!


Got it ?


Right, go read some real random in the casino and make some money.

Kelly,

You play the markets, I believe. You do realize that none of the tools or techniques of technical analysis have any credibility from a scientific point of view? there have been studies on TA and none of the indicators have been found to give any advantage, and yet you and others still use them. Who are you trying to scam? 

Playing the markets is 'respectable' but roulette isn't - everyone 'knows' that roulette is unbeatable, and yet the distributions are in some sense more predictable. Go figure.

[GARNabby]

I don't think there's any such thing as an 'illogical science' (it's an oxymoron).

I had written "a*b*s*u*r*d", but the strange politically-correct automatic editor on this board stepped in.  In the sense that "it just is", without explanation.

I believe he'll be vindicated in time.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

But nothing in science is ever 'proved', that only applies to mathematics.

Okay, so apply that concept to science as well, see where that gets you.  Einstein was all for the idea that physics follows math.  He, himself, strictly speaking not a mathematician, went to great lengths to seek out the best math help.  (None(?) of the tensor-analysis used in his General Relativity was his own math.)

[kelly]

Bayes, im aware that applying indicators without any "real life" input is just the same as testing roulette systems. Nevertheless i have back testet a strategy over 3 years which went heavyly in profit in that particular stock + one more.  Applyed to the EUR/USD it was still  in profit but smaller. 


The backtest took all signals, which i don`t, even though i ought to.  Part of the strategy which runs in the 4 hour timeframe using the parabolich sar, is to go to the 15 min timeframe when the Sar on the 4 hour frame flips over.  And then trade the 15 min, still using sar but only taking the signals in the direction  you have on the 4 hour,  until you have a healthy sar line on the 4 hour and then skip the 15 min. That way you don`t get  that many expensive whip saws. 


But like i said,  some types of stocks simply don`t work with the strategy. Bank stocks for example. It must be stocks with a high beta value. 

[nayan007]

Yes you are correct. But always buying stocks with high beta value is not worthy.Istead once it comes down and if bought at less price will give more return back

[Bayes]

Okay, so apply that concept to science as well, see where that gets you.  Einstein was all for the idea that physics follows math.  He, himself, strictly speaking not a mathematician, went to great lengths to seek out the best math help.  (None(?) of the tensor-analysis used in his General Relativity was his own math.)

Scientific theories are subject to revision in the light of new discovery, a classic case being Newton's laws only being valid at speeds well below the speed of light. But a mathematical theorem, once proved, is true forever and 'in all possible worlds', as they say. Einstein said - "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

[Bayes]

@ Kelly,

So you're doing ok with the trading? making money?

[kelly]

Yeah the strategy is a calm steady earner on the Danish stocks. Its not like its making money on a daily basis, neither is every trade a winning trade but its only roughly every 4th trade which is a loser. But thanks to the Sar, the risk is known up front.  Its not like I'm a stock expert, for example I'm also trading Apple which is mostly in one direction; Upwards. Last night i shorted it on the 30 min time frame. 463,45  because i was pretty sure the market would drop today because of Greece.  Only to get stopped out today in 465 and go into a long position. Currently trading at 469,35 with a stop-loss at 465,20 trailing upwards with 0.45 each 30 minutes.


Its not as funny as standing next to a Roulette wheel staring at the ball and rotor taking 1.2 sec timings for 4 hours straight............cough............ but it has its moments.

[GARNabby]

Scientific theories are subject to revision in the light of new discovery, a classic case being Newton's laws only being valid at speeds well below the speed of light. But a mathematical theorem, once proved, is true forever and 'in all possible worlds', as they say.

Newtonian physics is what is, aside from the effects of Relativity/Q. Mechanics, etc:  Physical matter's expression of the mind.

Einstein said - "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Okay, that certainly LOOKS like more contemporary "fudging" on his part after the so-called, established facts.

Old, discarded arguments/theories which come back into fashion (, or which were merely revised,) isn't what surprises me.  So why not make a new "one" from the iterated expectation of that practice (to continue)?

I wouldn't worry about running into some absolutes along the way, LoL.  Wasn't it Hawking who wrote that the person who shall "end physics", aside from there always be some left-over calculations and applications, has probably already been born?

Had Einstein, and the Relativity-based predecessors of 2000 years, further worked the concrete, conceptual aspects of relativity before attempting to directly apply some of that to the then similarly-premature perceptions of space, and time.   You know, 4-dimensional Space-Time is NOT the spot to run with Relativity.  But once you properly deduce what a point has to be, those sorts of things become much more black-and-white.

Everyone (i know of) gets hung up on things like, "Infinite mass at a singularity, how to make those infinities cancel themselves.  By the way, what the h*ll is infinity?"  What if a physical point is plain-old matter, to be divvied up as go?  (And it's we who aren't so-real.  As Hawking clumsily put it, "Living in imaginary time."  Or, if you want to extend that sort of thinking to the causality of one temporal dimension, and three spatial ones, then you'll realize that nor are such forces so-real.  I mean, you can't really push something unless you're pushing at right-angles on it, head-on; and you can't really not push on it unless the thing is "skating" along parallel to you, you're pushing off along its side.  But those sorts of critical angles aren't available to the its inhabitants.)

[Rolletti]

Having tested several Methods of this forum now with my 150.000 real wheel spins I have to post a disappointing result.
Pattern Breaker, Code 4 DC, and some other Matrix based methods:

There is no significant difference between Hit and Run and continuous play. Meaning there is no way of play or method that gives a permanent profit.

As I tested over and over again, using different random entry points into the stream of spin results  I have to mention that still it is possible to be "lucky" over a period of 1 years full day real casino play and gain some profits.

But on average the games will lose money. Even when using different staking levels or progressions.

The only method that showed more win years then losing years was the "Law of 1/3 or 111" of I think Ironsteel if I remember the name right. When bet after 74 spins on the 3 streets that did not come more then 12 times (all 9 Nos together). But within 1900 observed games you  will get around 60 bet signals only.

cheers