Roulette Measuring Success

It's strange too because the forum has it's own AP section where he could contribute and help others.
It's a ghost town there. AP is so super secret with wobbly wheels and covert hidden computers that
no one dare mention it in the open on a forum I guess. It's a wasted section it seems. Shame.

 

That's a good point because there are quite a few techniques for bias wheel play which don't take very long and anybody without a mechanical mindset or good observational skills would never even consider them. So it kind of cuts both ways because I know that there are extremely effective ways to tackle the short term variance / inbalance that won't see the light of day on a gambling forum for the exact same reason no AP would wish to divulge too much about their techniques. Go figure!

 

Yeah go figure, he is content free as far as this forum is concerned. Would be nice if he kept to his side of the tracks as I have no interest in that kind of cheating. The character of an individual to do that has to be quite shady.

 

This crews' posts have this unmistakable shaddy aura when you read them. It gets to me sometimes.

They operate the same way in many forums for the past decade. Think about that.

 

I wouldn't take the stats too seriously. I remember being told that I need to demonstrate at least 5 std to prove that precog is real.

A positive winrate is the most important thing since roulette is a negative expectation game.

Have you tried any other games? Try some esp card tests online or even over at psiresearch where they have lots of games.

Keep up the faith, this research is the most cutting edge. Mainstream science is not equipped to explain or understand this phenomenon since their view on causality is too rigged as explained by Carl Jung.

 

Yeah it was a bit tongue in cheek, I had built up a quick 50k bankroll on RSim off 3k session flat bets so it felt significant to me!

I used to do esp cards a lot when starting out without much success, I have tried the remote viewing exercises on psi research a couple of times over the years. Again no real success but that’s something I’d definitely like to get into at some point. Getting into precog has opened my eyes to all sorts of possibilities. It seems almost trivial to use it for winning money on roulette when there must be much more fulfilling ways to use it. Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

Yes I agree. This can be used for so much. I am fascinated by this ability. This is has been a part of human life for thousands as of years, it is nothing new. Yet modern life has made us forget this natural talent we have.

I like to research the history of this ability as much as I can and absorb all the knowledge I can. Roulette has always been just a means to an end for me, the goal is to understand the underlying structure of how this happens by way of practice and not just theory.

Currently I am experimenting on the limits of manifesting. I think most of these phenomena are connected, dowsing, precog, tk, manifesting, channeling, and much more paranormal abilities.

Once we find the fundamentals the sky is the limit.

 

You do realise that future events influencing the past breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

If we accept these claims to be true, we should also be prepared to accept the existence of perpetual motion and time travel.

Science has a fairly large body of evidence that supports that causes precede effects, not the other way around. I'd say mainstream science (actual science using the scientific tmethod) is well equipped to deal with these claims very efficiently and swiftly, whilst pseudo science indulges them.

I have no problem with robust research in this area, but so far there has been no credible research or experiment that was successfully repeated by others. The scientific method is working very well to weed out poorly designed experiments with faulty conclusions.

 

So what?

According to some 'scientists' time travel is possible. And perpetual motion machines will exist.

Seems like you don't understand the philosophy of science or causality.

How much research have you personally done on this topic?

 

I don't research this topic, I don't need to.

Have you published any peer reviewed research in the field? I'd be happy to read it.

I'm glad you used quotes around 'scientists'.

When that breakthrough is made sign me up and I'll go back in time and meddle with your deck of ESP cards so you never discover it actually works.

 

You don't need to? But you are happy passing judgement on it?

No you won't. You are going to be a skeptic all your life.

 

Twoup, there’s lots of resources on Steve’s forum if you want to find out for yourself. If not then it seems you are trying to start an argument for the sake of it, which seems to be about 90% of the content on this forum, which is pointless.

 

But there isn't any credible evidence. The most hailed paper has not been able to be reproduced.

It is of course fine to believe whatever you like. No-one can change your mind, only you can.

Science is based on scepticism, it is based on testing a hypothesis and others being able to independently repeat the experiment to validate the method, identify and eliminate flaws, sources of error or noise and ultimately obtain data with sufficient statistical significance whereby the hypothesis cannot be explained by other factors or accident.

This is usually expressed as 5 sigma confidence, or 5 standard deviations but for the less robust sciences like psychology, which has a history of inability to replicate results, p-value is used.

I'm a firm believer in the scientific method, it provides the only means to confirm a hypothesis. Anything less is easily corruptible.

When an experiment can't be independently repeated and the results confirmed, or if the data cannot be examined it can't be regarded as science or a confirmed hypothesis.

Theories also must survive basic tests of soundness, if they can be shown to trivially violate established laws or principles that do have robust evidence, then the onus is on the claimant to provide the experimental evidence or a proof that the established position is in fact false.

The fact that precognition violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a pretty big hurdle to jump over and the burden of proof needs to be sufficient to make such a bold claim. It's not there, its not even close.

I'm being fair here, I have an open mind but not so open that my brain falls out.

 

Exactly, he doesn't want to do the research yet feels confident enough to dismiss it.

 

This is nothing new. These arguments have been had a million times and it ultimately ends in skeptics demonstrating they have no understanding of the philosophy of science, as shown in your post.

Enjoy being a skeptic and may you worship at the altar of scientism forever.

 

The only way to get an exact hit rate of 1/37 (2.70%) is betting all numbers on the felt. The fewer numbers you play, the longer it takes to average out to 1/37.

As far as I'm aware, precog players play a small number of numbers each spin. Few numbers played each spin results in greater variances (variance affects you more). For example, when you are playing 1 number each spin, your good and bad runs stretch out like crazy. You might be winning for two days straight impressing your friends, and losing for another 3 days. That's what @SPIKE mentioned a few days ago: sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, no matter on which table.

I hear precog players call the good runs a perfect situation in their mysterious world, and the bad runs not working temporarily, losing connection, lack of inspiration, and some other scary sh!ts, like the moon phase and stuff.

If precog works, it must work every time the player plays. If it doesn't work some days, it's nothing more than a random bet selection, because that works most of the time too, until it doesn't.

 

If the science was settled on precognition as you seem to think it is, physics would have been rewritten by now with the 2nd law of thermodynamics being violated.

It hasn't been proven, the 2nd law of thermodynamics still stands and you're being niave and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Again I am not trying to change your mind, but simply point out that your position isn't supported by the standards required of mainstream science.

If it's real then it can be proven to those standards and will be repeatable and independently confirmed and the 2nd law of thermodynamics will fall.

Everyone can prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Simply boil some water and make a cup of coffee and let it sit there. You will notice it gets cold after a while with the heat flowing into the environment unless you do something to keep it hot. 2nd law of thermodynamics right there. Entropy and disorder increases, it doesn't go the other way. You have to prove this is false and that cause and effect can be reversed. Good luck with that.

 

It gives me above average results all of the time, when it comes to my precog method.

What is your point again?

 

So it works every single time you play it. I really wish I knew how to do that. Good luck.

 

This is sad. You need to do more research and study the philosophy of science.

I have to keep repeating this because you really do not get it. The fact you are bringing up the 2LOTD just shows you have not done enough research.

This obsession you have with scientism is outdated and these views do not align with reality. They are just models that attempt to approximate reality, most of these ideas won't last for even a 300 years. You need to just accept that there are things out there that you just cant measure and quantify but are part of reality.