TurboGenius Informational : What are your chances of winning ?

That's nonsense. How many variables can you keep in your head when tracking manually? A few at most. A program can track 100s or 1000s. The only system which can't be coded is one which you can't describe, even to yourself. That makes it mysticism.

 

Guessing.

 

It's not possible for me to even explain what I do let alone detail it for somebody to program it.

 

You just hit the nail on the head. I've been doing this for so long and there's so many things that I look at I would have no idea how to describe it. My subconscious is making decisions from experience that I'm not even aware of. It's like taking a long trip in a car. Your conscious mind is doing very little of the driving, it's your experienced subconscious mind the notices everything that's going on and makes you a safe driver. If you think that's not true, try taking a trip with a sixteen-year-old kid who just got his driver's license. He will scare you so badly that you won't let him drive longer than 20 minutes at a time.

 

Exactly! I dubbed it 'educated guessing' over a decade ago. I have no idea what the next outcome will be but I am capable of making an educated guess that is right far more often than it is wrong. How do you program that, how do you write code for that, how do you write code for guessing.

 

I know both Gizmo and you play "educated guessing".

 

Kon'nichiwa rakkīferā
Hope its right.
The DSAA also known as the General is over at RF reading KTF thread.
There's a file showing an educated guess using 1-3-5-7=16
Good luck

 

@ spike, you make your bets based on past spins. How far back do you look?

 

Why would you even bother to write and post this gobbledygook when you know we're mostly all ignoring you anyway?

 

Spike thinks that it's impossible to write such code. It's not impossible and I told him so in a private message.

This confirms what Median Joe just interjected.

Joe, you can have thousands of variables and have it look back many different sized intervals. For the global effect it looks back at least 20 across all groupings being considered. BTW, no problem for a computer to consider all this.

The question is not if it is possible. The question is do you really want RR proved or not? What Spike thinks is intuition based on experiential based artifacts. In other words the ability to see connections of figure formations he has never listed as search information. The human brain is perfect for this and is why I chose people first as being easier to program. It's the years of doing this that expands the experiential skill and ability to relate to new configurations based on confirmation of situational awareness. In other words, Spike's educated guess. One thing that both Spike and I do is not to panic when a perfect sequence of death starts to occur. We both know that there is a killer sequence of guesses that lurks out there. The computer can be programmed to defund this at the right time too. None of this takes a super computer. You can teach the computer to make up way more unique groupings than any human mind could ever consider in search of. I use 6 and find it enough to search out working conditions. What's hard for a human is having them all memorized so that you can get the correct set in a unique grouping down on the table before "no more bets" is signaled. A computer sim can do this fast enough.

I can write code like this:

Code:

 put "1,3,31,13,12,2,4,24,2,3,23,32,2,22,11,7,27,14," into holdSimGroup
 performFullCheck(holdSimGroup) resultCheckYes, resultSize, resultEffectiveness
 performBetSelection(virtualYesNo) resultHistory, globalCheck, elegantCheck
 performSequenceDeathTest(allLookBackIntervals) yesNo, actionExecute
 put performAssembleGuess grouping, set, amount into nextSpinGuess

This is why I code in a fourth generation language that allows for self commented code and compiles in C and C+. I can build the computer brain to perform thousands of repetitive tasks that allow conditional data mining to come to conclusions based on passed trends & patterns that enter working and not working phases. It can even search for new unlisted patterns.

I don't want to write this code because there is no compensation for doing it. You go ahead and fry your brain and see how much you like it. Meanwhile I have set out to program the basics in the RR thread to a more powerful brain anyway. Your brains...

 

gizmo, it won't take millions of lines of code. There may be millions of patterns to test but that's what loops are for. Just concentrate on the ECs for simplicity because that's what spike bets on exclusively. Suppose he looks at the last 10 spins (if it's 20 or more, the logic is the same, but obviously the running time will be longer). Generate the total possible number of permutations (binary strings) for the 10 outcomes, which is 2^10 = 1024. The first one will be 0000000000 (suppose 0=black and 1=red), which represents 10 blacks in a row. For each possible pattern of 10, generate spins until the pattern appears and then save the pattern which comes after it, up to say 10 spins again. Do this until you have a reasonable number of triggers for each pattern and then count how many reds or blacks follow the trigger. If there is some kind of bias one way or the other then there is an edge associated with this pattern. That's it.

You probably remember a site by mr oops some years ago. There was a lot of data and results from systems on it, including one which investigated whether there was any edge for betting a pattern X, after seeing another pattern Y, for Z spins (for all possible values of X, Y, and Z). I don't remember the details or what location it was betting though. You can simulate whole "families" of systems like that, and the amount of code needed isn't great.

I might even do it myself.

 

12 to 15

 

That's what he just said it in so many words. It's not worth the time and effort.

 

Really? Are you familiar with recursion and name-Space overloading? I invented parallel numerical lineal parsers so that I could do data mining on not well formed non-hierarchic versions of XML structures back in 1999 when others were using off the shelf XML parsers. I use string wrangling functions for pattern identification. You are talking about basic object oriented functions that return results based on loops for recognitions. I use PNLP parsing and high speed string recognition structures that also include loops. But I also create my own command and function libraries, (class libraries), to make single line functionality in non extraneous source code. I'm sure you will too. It's the only way to go. Reusing code is the secret to keeping it under 10 million lines of code. So go ahead Joe. Build it. ... I would make sure that you understand it first.

Now what else did you have to say? I stopped on your first line of suggestions.

 

Yes, you should go for it. I'm deeply amused that you are going to teach me Reading Randomness.

 

Neural .. training .. digitized
Same as you trained =programmed your mind


Just a short intro of what's possible

 

We are talking about the computer thinking like a skilled RR player. It has very little to do with specific pattern matching. Just because it can know a condition does not mean a monetized bet should be placed. That's just what everyone thinks Reading Randomness is all about. It's not, see a pattern and bet that it will continue. It must be after it analyzes the context of the situational awareness that is occurring simultaneously. If it were just trends and patterns making assumptions that it's always supposed to work then gambling would have been done away with centuries ago. It's why math geniuses want it to be just that and about fake claims of prediction. They can sleep at night knowing that this can't be. But they can't listen to information coming from parallel data being generated simultaneously because that could fracture their comfortable beliefs. So they don't.

You need to know more than the basic assumptions made by the mathBoyz that later in life grow up to be hatefully energized Nazis and mindless zombies. "Garbage in garbage out." If you do it right it will win and validate RR. If you have no clue and program it to validate current beliefs in math then it will fail validating RR. It's the very same things that Global Warming sims do. You can make it do whatever you want it to. Don't you think you should become an expert at knowing what Reading Randomness is? I don't mean what you think it is either. You can't write a proper sim if you are clueless.

 

Hah! Welcome to X-Talk.

here is X-Talk

answer "Hello World" --- one line of code. It just does it.

"Hello World" pops up inn a dialog box.

Here is X-Talk with the second inclusion in the video example:

put withEmpathy("Hello World") into field "resultTextField" -- one line of code

There is a created function handler with one passable variable in tow called withEmpathy

It's not AI yet. It didn't select the correct one line function handler of code to create the correct best guess answer. It just followed a command.

They are building the foundation for class structuring and an Artificial Intelligence computing language. Too bad they don't use X-Talk to begin with. They are going to build their own 4rth generation language to support this all build on 3rd generation technology.

Now I'll keep looking at the video...

Wow, I'm impressed. That is more like it. It's still a slave to the request being made of it. I would have to see why it made that choice and generated a web page in HTML using Python.

 

There's nothing to it. You just write a function library that knows what beat a casino means. You give it Reading Randomness capability.

Code:

on mouseUp
  beat the casino with readingRandomness(67%)
end mouseUp

 

Tesla can program self driving cars, yet we're supposed to believe that it's not possible to code your "reading randomness" or "educated guessing" right?