Roulette Reading Randomness

I'm extremely sorry I may have missed the point of this discussion. You win some you loose some, that's the whole of life. Just
get on with it.

 

The topic of the thread is : Reading Randomness .



Any one with half of their brain tied behind their back should have been aware of this fact .

 

I'm new to all of this and I'm a numbers man these days. For a very long time I followed red/black I even got very good at it with this play
...Go last colour for 2 plays......... First bet, follow last resulting colour, then 1 unit bet, on that colour, if win leave bet or [double up].
This system has a flaw though if you don't increase you stake it will just go up and down until you hit 12 red/blacks
and you will loose.

 

Sure thing partner, the point is, randomness has one thing you don't and that's a lack of brain.

 

Mark, It’s going to be difficult for me to access the internet this weekend but I have the software installed on my laptop so I will continue to record practice sessions.

I finished yesterday with another five straight winning sessions. That leaves me with a total of 20 complete sessions. 18 winnings sessions and only 2 losing sessions. Surely the losing sessions will catch up soon...? I will be expecting it.

Apart from some small experiments with a progression, mostly it’s all been flat-betting. I will provide more detailed information l on Monday.

Cheers Mark

 

What magic happens between sessions that enables you to begin winning if you return?
How long must you wait before you can start betting again?
What's the difference between playing 100 spins in one longer session verses ten sessions of only ten spins?

Logic, it's always in the way.

 

It is so cool that you are working on this in the wide open.

 

Now you are actually talking randomness. Every time you stick with a rule based selection method it will walk right into sequences that kill it. My thing here is in seeing a potential killer sequence and not letting it get me. I'm all about not getting killed off. If you have a strategy, you must ask yourself if it is working right now. The right now scenario is all about now, what is happening right now. If you go from that point then you have right now options that tend to be more agile than just stuck with the bet selection rule tactics. The only way to teach this is to give people the chance to discover it. I put out the software to teach now conditions. It's a skill to take what it is now conditional awareness and to then adjust for what you see. Reading Randomness is about making adjustments as you see things stay the same or change right in front of you.

 

Thank you so very much for remaining blind. Your smarmy remarks from the idiot bleachers is a welcome sight. I always know that this will pass you up if you just remain a jerk and a pest. Hold that ground. I'm so glade that you hold a hill worth passing up.

 

That proves my point of u being retarded.

 

Thank you for believing that. Please stay just like that.

 

Sometimes stating the obvious helps to focus the problem as you know, look at random in a new light from time to time, a few years ago I recognised what I now call twin event theory. I have tracked this in numbers and real life events. Its very simple, twin stars in the universe, male female in most species, flat tires, traffic accidents of a particular nature, ocean liner accidents, aircraft incidents. OK it may sound very silly, but look out for twin events, they happen everywhere all of the time. In roulette you will have seen 3... 8's maybe 18 then quite soon after 8 and then another maybe 28, in short succession to be followed not long after by 3,,, 27's 17 or 7's or something. Knowing this you could look for the third unit bet. When I first noticed this many years ago I was overtaken by 3 brand new lorry units on a motorway. Shortly after on an A road I saw 3 new ice-cream vans go by. This is what I describe as a twin event. The use of this theory can be very useful in many games and in life, things do not happen in threes, but two's and sometimes 2 events followed by 2 events. Just look at the numbers differently.

 

Long story shirt : limiting exposure. Even something the wizard promoted

Limit exposure to the house edge.

 

Ghost,

Again, what's the difference between playing for 100 spins in one session

verses

Playing 10 spins over 10 sessions?

Which do you feel provides you with the best chance to win and why?

 

Even cooler that you’re sharing it!

 

So let's do some small-sample arithmetic just for the fun of it.

You had 18 won sessions and 2 lost sessions.

Lost: 2 X 7 = 14

Won: 18 X 3 = 54

I want to see the win to loss ratio. So I want 1 on the losing side. Like saying 2 to 1 as an example. So I will divide 54 by 14, ( 54 / 14 = 3.857)

Hmm? I know I made this simple and added virtual bets to the charts, and it's way early yet, but almost double the first student in just a few days of this suggested strategy.

My first student that is also from Australia, coincidence there, didn't reach 2 to 1 until after 30 days or 60 hours of training from me. You are at 3.85 to 1 in a very short time. But this time I only taught two very powerful characteristics. I call them powerful because you can see them real easy in the charts. They are also common enough that you don't have to wait all day for them. That first student flat bet every spin, no virtual bets. He achieved a 2 to 1 long run average. This is an even chance game where if you leave out the house's advantage you would get 1 to 1. So 2 to 1 is mathematically unthinkable to all gamblers up to this point. So everyone is waiting for this to crash. At least they should be if they want probability to rule the universe. Perhaps spandex savior suits will go on sale soon.

This time, in this forum thread, I went right to the most advanced strategy first. I also included the virtual bet concept where choices are made even if bets are not funded. So a correct or mathematical number of losses will still be encountered but they won't all be funded. The implication that it's possible to mitigate the effect of losses becomes real. So the stop loss and stop win strategy also accounts for moving average swings. Only the super streak of first try swarms being the primary losing factor in this advanced stage of learning. This thread is different than teaching my first student. It looks like we have three people that are working on this, that will admit it, and that the results are so far good.

Everyone naturally is expecting a swarm of losses in order to make up for the win to loss ratio. One person just jumped right into a casino with both feet first here. So we don't have any data to build a ratio from. I'm only mostly enjoying the one that is documenting the learning process. So the two from Australia are both well documented in the fact that I have all 120 hours of instructions in email from the first student. I won't share those because of privacy. But anyone looking at how I taught the first student could see that this time I have gone right to a simple to see trend and pattern that is common enough. I had to go with the quick start plan because typically forums try very hard to debunk cornball ideas. So I have come up with this many successful people approach.

So far it's working. But many of us know the funny story about the falling man from the 100th floor of a sky scraper. As he falls he keeps saying "so far so good." My plan is to get more people to try this and to share their findings. It's simple to do if you just keep track of all net wins and all nets losses at the end of each session in the aggregate. Like session 31 ended at 3 net wins, or session 100 ended at 7 net losses. The dollar amount is irrelevant. It's the wins or losses amount considered as an equivalence that matters. I'm looking for win to loss ratios where 1 to 1 is expected. If enough people show signs of better than 1 to 1 then the mathBoyz will have to go back to the drawing board. Fun for me because I threatened to do this 14 years ago. ... H, H , H, my diabolical plan is here now.

 

I am in MGM. I will post later on how it went.

 

The number of sessions played is meaningless, since we don't know how many spins are in each session.

I'm always amused by people that refer to educated people as mathboyZ, because what you're essentially doing is declaring that you're uneducated and that you suck at math. So what do you intend to do, diabolically dazzle us with ignorance?

 

1.) You are so stuck on straw man logic for winning your arguments. You don't need to count by spins as if that is the end all panacea for critical thinking. Try counting by fixed value sessions. That's what we are doing here. I did not think it was necessary to wet nurse you. But you need your diapers cleaned buddy.

2.) Yet another pretzel logic argument where you come out as Spandex Boy number 1. I don't consider mathBoyz as educated. No educated person would bother arguing with system players, magic bias wheel experts, or addicted gamblers.

3.) Oh, the classical smarmy cliche trick. Yes, that will impress people.

 

Gizmo,

Again, how many spins are in each session?

Are you able to comprehend why the number of spins being played is more relevant than the number of sessions?