Roulette gamblers glen

Do you know what a combo bet is?

 

For a beginner it would be a big No-No. I was just playing it the other night but Evolution only gives me 20 seconds to make a bet and there just isn't enough time to write down the results, make a decision where to bet, and then make the bets. So I had to stop. That's the one advantage you get in a brick-and-mortar casino is you can knit a sweater in between spins sometimes. You have enough time to make a decision and change it four times before the next spin happens.

 

Its the simplest concept (a bridge, coz you didn't get it as whole .. of course its beginners) & the basic of examples.

Every bet is of equal value, its how you put them together that matters - combined with many other various ingredients.

Why would 3EC bet be the worst & someone deserving to lose coz of it .. stop with your senseless cianid.

Its gonna take you a while since you learn to walk to master the balance & congruence till immaculately performing backflip with a bike ..

 

Sharp cats know how to play a 3 EC combo .That makes ALL the difference how such a combo is being plaid .

That knowledgev is iimportant to succeed with this methyod .

 

@ Chris Mole

It said SHARP cats with experience and know how of the method should play the 3 E C combo .

 

Are you sure it can be validated. It's kind of like validating hunting skills with math. How would you do that. Hunting skills and the skills to do this are so esoteric how would you nail it down enough so that you could calculate it with math.
Esoteric:
"intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest"

 

Tje math zombies are using math for breeding rabbits : the Fibonacci ststem .

 

I'm 100% sure it can be validated. Once one person that has read it, studied it over and over, practiced it for months, and validated for themselves how it works, if that person is a very gifted programmer, then that person can program it to make subjective and objective choices, confirming that the known math is completely obliterated. If this obliterates today's assumptions regarding probability then all research based on statistics must be reconsidered. It will reveal a deeper layer of bias that might have always existed in control group experimental comparisons. Most important of all it will force the math community to come up with an original idea in math based on the evidence already confirmed by the algorithm. It's as big a deal as the Lick Observatory's expedition to Goldendale Washington of 1918. That's when by observation alone the mathematical theory was validated. In this case the observational validation comes before the mathematical theory is known. I don't feel like writing that software. It would be better if someone else writes it.

 

I don't usually post anything in this section but the subject is on point. When I had good legs under me I would casino hop. ALL I would look for was follow and avoid chops. Roulette I would look for R or B to either be dominant or back to back with each other. I would also look at high and the columns. Never had any luck with dozens. Avoided certain dealers. Craps I would watch for 6 and 8 shooters. I would also look for repeat shooters. Baccarat also looking for strong follow. Loss of 3 on any was gone. Flat bet with some parlays. Minimum bets averaged for me anywhere from 500 to a 1000 a day. Just using follow the last. John Patrick was on point saying that if the tables aren't giving it up take a powder and come back and check later. Multiple casinos were a game changer on this.
Now will they close tables if everyone learned to play. Nope we accept the commission at Bac as "cost of doing business." When they back anyone off a BJ table when 2000 up we accept it. And when they dictate your play at a craps table we accept it. There's no need when the games are so far in their advantage and it is hard to win consistent.

 

(we) 100% correct.

Ken

 

I am not at all a math person but I thought that a mathematical calculation had to involve some degree of dependable repetition. That is nowhere to be found in roulette outcomes. I never know with the next outcome will be all I can do is make an educated guess. I'm not sure how the math would do that. You have red red black black red, maybe the next outcome is red maybe it isn't. If you look at enough of those you realize that 50% of the time it's red and 50% of the time it's not. How would math make an educated guess. My educated guess is based on the outcomes leading up to this pattern. How you would figure that into a mathematical calculation seems not possible for me. But like I said, I flunked math in 9th grade.. It was much more exciting for me to read a James Bond book then pay attention to the class.

 

The software will make the same guesses that a human does. That's exactly how you program it. You teach the computer to make choices. You force it to look at conditions from the past for evidence to choose one path over another. You compile all the paths and make the software select the right one based on the track record of going on that path and the current condition of it playing the game, in other words working paths. At the end of millions of bet selections you must be down because the math and the statistics say you will be down. That is the known math of today. But after millions of bets you are up because the computer selected, funded, and bet on twice as many winning bets as losing bets then it's up to the mathematicians to come up with the formula. They will have the algorithm. The will have to explain it all by using math.

 

It seems to me it's like those computer dating services. They gather every bit of information they can about you and the computer matches you with someone with similar interests. But that is not what makes a good relationship. There is something there between two people that you cannot define and that a computer cannot calculate for. When you meet somebody that you click with you really can't define it into words let alone into a computer program. When I'm playing roulette I cannot define what I'm looking at in past spins so how would you write code for it. I really believe there's a certain amount of intuition involved and how do you teach intuition to a machine.

Intuition:

1. the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
2. a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

 

I can. You teach the computer to perform intuition. It's not that hard. It's just a pain in the ass to write millions of lines of object oriented reusable functions and commands. In effect you create a new operating system. You have to remember that it's only thinking about Roulette spins. It's not trying to solve a theoretical war game.

 

So how many roulette players have beaten the game playing the 3 EC at the same time, if you really think that's the Holy grail carry on playing them then

 

What makes you think that I play EC, except for the initial bet .. morron.
Other players, other _______ don't matter ... if 100s of the win & you still don't .. you're still a loser .. lost in the sea of many. Lick your A.

 

Don’t think so , I have a sense of humour. Cheers

 

We don't know how fast the human brain does comparisons combined with connections. The reason an AI version of Reading Randomness would be intuitive by your definition goes back to those pathways that I suggested. It's also why it's the death nail to existing math. It uses numerical value comparisons and does it in less than a ten thousandth of a second. I can make the computer find the 20 best trends or patterns for all six of my EC groupings, have it look back 3, 4, 5, to 8, 9, 10, (8 different) spins back for each grouping. It will search for any global effect. I could also teach it to place a number value on the quality for each discernable connection that it makes. Like 100% down to 70%. So it can filter for the best occurring situation of conditional awareness. It can do all that for all 20 best trends and all 8 look back depths in less than one hundredth of a second for all the comparisons. It then just takes the best percentages from each conditional reference and selects the best working bet selection. It also does a limitations test and decides virtual bet or real attacking bet. It also plays my game of 3 net wins and session is done or 7 net losses and session is done. It plays each session until a win or a loss. It can play thousands of sessions in under a few seconds for testing. I could even use the activity of the zeros if using the three table layout groupings in any final selection for real or virtual betting. It will look like intuition to the human eye but it will be numerical, math based, all the way. It will even be killable by the sequence of death. A huge number of sessions as an experiment and it will prove or disprove RR once an for all.

Now a math guy, that can program, can write the software to intentionally fail. We know this is likely because those first 97% scientist that all agree regarding Global Warning wrote their software prediction tool to confirm that global warming was about to take place. It did not and Al Gore's "Hockey Stick" never developed. He however got a gazillion dollars in government grants, started corporations to exploit suckers, got a Nobel prize, and an Oscar. And his 97% of scientists dried up like a dessert. Poof, all that are left are suckers. You can get whatever you want from the experiment and if you can control communication regarding fake science then you can win the proof war any way that you want it win. It would take other programmers to detect junk science. That is how they caught the fake 97% in the first place. Programmers investigated the prediction software. It was loaded with huge errors and assumptions.

People that want to be lied to will find a way to be lied to. You can manufacture any subjective truth that you want. You can even go as far as declaring every idea as truth. You can teach children that there is no such thing as an objective truth. And you can call this new truth "critical thinking."

Nobody will believe the results until every line of code is investigated and verified. People that have their own ox to be gored will never accept it, no matter what. Humans program themselves. It's that or they allow themselves to be programmed by others and like it. Life is a joke in that respect. Are you a Spandex boy all programmed with garbage and ready to stand on your soapbox? People don't do anything much to find out real truth. They have been brainwashed to think that truth is just a tool to create political change. That's why I like Heaven & Hell. I like a God that will separate the wheat from the chaff. It's not my planet. It's just tough shit for the people that embrace or repeat lies. There's no arguing. When it done it's done. And it's in someone's hands far more intelligent and knowing than me, a bonus for sure.

 

Now that I have written that I do not believe that you use intuition at all. I think you are still doing comparisons between it working or not working. I might put it this way. Some times your intuition works and sometimes it doesn't. The same could be said for precognition. I think you think it's intuition but I also suspect that you are referring to instinct.