Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

+1

It's funny how the losers like to prop up each other's belief systems around here with nothing but hot air.
It makes you wonder what these guys are afraid about. Maybe finding something that actually worked would entail going out to an actual Casino and that would put their narcissistic behaviour on full display. We can't have that now, can we.

 

Imagine that you are correct once in a while. It's easy if you try. There are no facts yet confirming TwoUp's opinion regarding 3 / 7 validation with RR. There's just his obnoxious insistence of a mathematical absoluteness. His condescending remarks are just opinions. Just because everything he has been taught is accepted truth does not make it true in light of Reading Randomness and the 3 / 7 validation experiment. It's just too soon. Not enough people have made a big enough splash to effect the world of casinos or math. His facts are worthless because of the mathematical results that I am seeing. Now it all comes down to a proper peer reviewed experiment knowing that most people like to lean of confirmation bias. If that happens then the experiment is invalidated. No, he is blowing a gasket because he needs to be respected for the work he has put in. I've thrown a real monkey wrench into his gears and am just waiting for that result. When enough people start exploiting this there will be enough noise that even the closed minded will be forced to hear it. That is exactly how things work. I'm not scared of his facts. He's scared of mine.

 

Wrong again bone head. I have the Reading Randomness experiment and the possibility for voluntary validation through documentation of the skill learning process using the 3 / 7 stopping points. If you keep on ignoring this you can stay happy, with a happy crack too. LOL.

 

I'll get back to you regarding this.

 

If that were true, and I really hope that it is true, then I am the first. I'm force feeding a bunch of retards that can only think in terms of "White Papers." I'm bringing you the evidence and the validation first. I could care less if the scientific community is happy and has a paper to explain this. I have a paper for you. It's my used toilette paper and you can lick it.

 

White Paper: This hypothesis is to conjure up the imagination for deflating mathematical absolutism. It's an experiment conducted by volunteers wishing to discover an overlooked method and skill for beating casinos that have a so called and perceived advantage. This skill invalidates the notion that "the casino always wins." It ruins the concept that the casino has the upper advantage. Current known math experts support these well known axioms. But Reading Randomness and the 3 / 7 experiment stand up against those widely held beliefs. Many have demonstrated going from 47% win to loss results up to 66% wins to losses results with only about a month of training. That's in a game where 47% is the expected outcome. This, if true, contradicts known math. To this date not a single mathematician has taken up the honest challenge to see if there is any truth to these findings. The experiment is sitting there and all the data needed to become skillful is provided. Others have proven that much already. They are not scientists and don't suffer disbelief issues.

Ref: Gamblers's Glen, VLS gambling forums, Steve's gambling forum. This exact topic has been debated for more than 16 years openly. The RR thread is about three years old.

 

Gizmotron, here is something that I don't get.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you are still promoting this reading randomness stuff. It's history. I thought about everything you talk about years ago and it was like a stepping stone in my evolution of gambling research.

For sure there is the KISS element involved and sometimes simpler is better but that doesn't mean you are playing at the optimum level and it might not always cut the mustard.

Nobody can fault you for sharing the software and helping to explain what you came up with but seriously there is a lot better out there than that.

Not aiming this at anybody in particular but it's sad that some people think having a presence on an internet gambling forum and that they must carry on with their charade holds so much importance to them. Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

 

It's you that is not ready for it yet. I have set the wheels in motion. I guess turdology was your first inclination that things are scientific. I can just see you playing with your shit in your crib. " I have Caw Caw." "It's great." "I'm great." LOL[/B]

 

I'm 70 years old. I had my extreme ski mountaineering period, I had my top level wind surfing period, I had my rock and ice climbing period. I had my construction business period. I had my computer programming period. I had my flying period. I had my SCUBA period. I have my music period. I have my gambling period. I'm just shepherding in my gambling discovery. If the math geeks had not objected to it so much this would be a different story. But they took first blood. So I've made sure they will have to deal with it. It's another mountain top for me. BTW someone else said " money won is twice a s good as money earned." It's a good place to make a stand.

 

So we should accept the great Jizzatron opinion that the entire scientific method is wrong.

Jizzatron has declared science dead, because, um, wait for it, because he says so. Not until we give up science will the world be ready to hear the great ones message.

Centuries of progress, math, physics, materials science, astronomy, engineering, information technology, semiconductors and silicon chips that power your phone and everything we do in the modern world. All just based on useless science and research using the scientific method, and all worthless.

Yes it's true the world is not ready to ditch the scientific method and allow you the great Jizzatron on the alter of RR while we kneel below in awe with our mouths open while you blow your RR 7/3 sprog all over us.

 

I'll take one of you famous blow jobs while you are at it Caw Caw breath.

 

It's not the science that this implies is worthless. It's you that is worthless. That is what it implies. I'm actually happy watching you blow up. You are even more funny when you exaggerate your own importance.

 

I think the Conway number thing can be exploited to be a real good approach to bet selection. I am doing well as it is anticipating patterns to form. I would like to put some real effort into this, but I will need some guidance because there are a few things I don't quite understand. The chart refers to triplets and their probabilities. Let's convert H and T to X and O.


What are the triplets that have the least amount of waiting time to the longest? For example, I will guess at that from least to longest.


XOO – XXO – OXO & OXX – XOX – OOX & XXX



You have a series of outcomes that look like this: XXXOXOXXOOOXO. What do you continue to examine regarding the outcomes for bet placement?

 

To date not a single Gizzmatron has taken the honest challenge to describe his theory concisely for objective scrutiny.

It remains an open problem that is unlikely to be resolved ever.

 

I*t seems that every fart is to be math based . Otherwise no go.

 

How do you know that?

 

The same goes for Spike. The people who read your comments, Spike's and Gizmo's have become very aware they are not willing to prove their claims and therfore would have to draw the conclusion they cannot take them seriously at all. As far as everybody is concerned, when they hear people on this forum constantly brag about their unbeatable method of play, and constantly argue that math plays no role what so ever with their strategy, and furthermore are not willing share any particulars about it, it all becomes very clear they really have nothing to offer but hot air. Not everybody on this forum is as stupid as they they think.

 

I will come back to this, in the mean time try reading:

Penney Ante: Counterintuitive Probabilities in Coin Tossing
R.S. Nickerson

https://sites.math.washington.edu/~mathcircle/circle/2015-16/second/PenneyAnte.pdf
​

 

Ok where is your paper decribing your theory?

 

I have been 100% willing to prove my claims. I've set out to teach a skill to strangers that if done will provide a form of proof that will be demonstrated to have always been true at the same moment of it becoming too late to use it. It's my way of really hurting these people that won't find out while it is not too late. My suggestion to these guides of truth is to keep leading people away from it as long as they can. So we have this standoff. So what. These opinions on what is what are nothing more than baloney. Only those that acquire these skills are the ones that matter. That group is getting bigger, not smaller.