Of interest for roulette??

[reddwarf]

Hi iggiv,

Interesting indeed. I think I missed those post. Indeed I do use EC's (but also straights...). maybe for everyones education: can you post the links?

Gizmotron: if those were questions, than you have a strange way of asking! But still, my answer stays the same.

If you think I'm boasting, that's fine with me. The only reason why I posted this is that i want to save people a little bit of time, but believe me, time it will cost.

reddwarf

[Gizmotron]

Reddwarf, if you really want to save time then get to your point. Go ahead and share what you think will save people time.

[iggiv]

link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=18432.405

read this, especially what cheese says. He claims he invented some kind of "game" which he plays to place his bets. He claims that he uses past spins for some info for his game, but he does not use them directly as i understand. He somehow transforms this info into something else, then plays his game, gets some results, transforms them into his betting selection of EC, and wins most of the time.

that's how i understand it. you can read his posts. just make a search on a user "cheese" with keyword "game"

[Gizmotron]

Iggiv, that was interesting reading. This is a perfectly good place to bury some more clues. If a trend is made up from a stream of independent results then it's  true that it can't predict anything. But it can act like it's  predicting something, like the psychologist just said at the end of that thread. Many people see the lack of a confirming trend as chaos. They can't  see that it's  confirming something else. As soon as you can identify what it's confirming you can use the only true thing you really need. That is confirmation that your bets are winning more than they lose. All there is to this game is bet selection and success rates. All this cryptic rhetorical evasion is about suggesting the correct direction to be looking without blaring it to the masses.

[reddwarf]

I read the thread. Really interesting indeed. Cheese is not bs'ing. Concerning the last post:it sounds ok, but it really isn't. Its like in the old days in physics where philosophers made statements about the physical world, he is still in the old paradigm. Its like listening to  a person who "knows" that the world is flat explaining this "thruth" to someone who thinks it might be round(ish) and that it actually really doesn't matter.


knowing how people think is not the same as knowing how to think!


Anyways beddie time. And again good luck to you all.


Reddwarf

[Timo]

1. waiting for an event you need to win
2. guessing or predicting numbers
Is there guessing? Thats sucks. But if we would put question this way.What will happen next..? Events, they exist.


Timo

[Gizmotron]

link:://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=18432.105

Just in case you missed it. Spike shared his game within the game. He even repeated himself in doing it. Now let's see if any of you can see it this time. I told him he could share it and nobody would get it.

[Bayes]

1. a session must be short as not to be pulled in by statistics so to speak
2. a strict definition of what a number cycle is must be found
3. the "waiting for a win event" game must be avoided at all costs
4. progressions can only be used once a winning method has been found
5. playing just 1 method is not going to cut it
6. Einsteins definition of insanity must be remembered and revered at all times ("Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

To be honest, none of this means much because you haven't defined your terms precisely enough. No-one ever seems to do this when they're posting 'hints', which is why they're largely useless as a guide to anything.

Anyway, all the best to you. 

by the way, not complaining, if you don't want to give details, that's your choice. But what is a "short" session? what is a "win event", and why should waiting for one be avoided? what is a "method"? isn't using multiple criteria also a "method"?

I tend to look at things from the perspective of a programmer, so as a specification to find a winning system, I can't get a handle on it at all. As you said yourself, the permutations of possible systems are practically infinite, and your hints don't narrow things down enough, which is why they're no help at all.

[reddwarf]

Hi bayes,

You make it difficult for me to leave: as I always found you one of the politest forum members I have to react:

1. "win event" on vague on purpose. Any event that is needed to win: a chop to end, a streak to continue, a pattern to be completed a color to appear, the birthday of my child, a repeat, a hot number, a cold number, you name it

the game where people bet on a win event to happen is a loosing proposition

2. "a method" when I started with roulette I read and followed the discusions about systems and methods and strategies and why the one was better than the other. For me it's really simple, I call everything a method, so if you have something that wins, it is a winning method, if you have something that looses it is a loosing method. I always find it laughable when someone states that this or that does not work because it is a system and not a strategy, who cares!

3. A short session? ha that's a good question. You are a maths guy so this is a hint: the number of sessions for any RNG, PRNG, roulettewheel is limited, extremely large, but limited

I think that the work has to be done by people themselves, hard work, sweat,  dispair, enligthenment (perfect) or acceptance (good)

Hope this helps a bit, reddwarf

[GARNabby]

I told him he could share it and nobody would get it.

Spike, himself, still doesn't "get it".  I mean, it doesn't take much of his own "reverse engineering" slant to "reverse" yourself from him, and his so-called methods.  Specifically, which mathematical knowledge, or form, has he, the most-prolific gambling-board poster, imparted to anyone over all of those years?  But suddenly he knows all about "transforms", something strictly inherent to some branches of applied mathematics.  And what does he do with the "golden egg"; or, more succinctly, what doesn't he do with it?  He continues to revel in obscurity, playing the worst-available casino-game on which to deploy that sort of method.

All types and degrees of gambling describe one compulsion, or another.  Just as there truly isn't a right amount to gamble, there isn't a right way.

But Reddwarf is certainly on the right track, with his trying to begin with a short list of pretty-much self-evident gaming axioms.  Laying out the path for a lot of futher research, all hopefully, in some useful directions.  After all, real engineers allocate roughly 5% of their resourses of time, etc, to the computer simulation of each such project; and then only as an overall check of all the already-proved segments.  Most of the time is spent on other projects, waiting for the real work to "fall into place" on any given one, while original ideas fully mature.  (Computers can't technically do anything that those aren't instructed to do, by definition... except find errors, and oversights.)

[Gizmotron]

GARNabby -" He continues to revel in obscurity,"

When logic looks like stupidity it's easy for most people to not recognize it as anything useful.

I've known the value of simplicity in strategery. Because of Spike it made it possible to come up with what I thought was a game within the game. But Spike has described something even on a more simple level.

at least from my perception now that is.

[Bayes]

Hope this helps a bit, reddwarf

Not really, but thanks anyway. 

I agree with you that the work has to be done by anyone aspiring to make consistent profits. There are no short cuts.  For me, it's been a combination of a sound knowledge of statistics (in particular, how BAD things can get), having a plan for EVERY eventuality, and intuition (gained from study and practice).

Personally I doubt whether there exist any winning systems/methods which can be played 100% mechanically, and if there are, they would probably be too much of a strain on the nerves (at least for me). Having said that, I'll probably keep looking for them, not because I really need to, but because it's a fun challenge, and always contributes to your further knowledge.

cheers.

[akuuka]

.... Having said that, I'll probably keep looking for them, not because I really need to, but because it's a fun challenge, and always contributes to your further knowledge.

I'm agree with u Mr. Bayes. It's a fun challenge to find a method/strategy to beat the roulette, even it's not a 100% winning method.

cheers ...

[iggiv]

i don't find it fun at all. that's pretty hard. Whatever is hard is not a fun.

[ddarko]

i don't find it fun at all. that's pretty hard. Whatever is hard is not a fun.

If it was easy everybody would be doing it