Roulette Reading Randomness

Lost session

 

Another session lost (27) 6 unit

Perhaps I will follow this and will not bet for same Ec which lsot

 

Hi gizma
I have questions and your views on this

What about a life time progression recommended by Priyanka in some other tread

What exactly this means

 

I don't know Gizzmo..

I completely get the rest of your post (adventure, transferable skill, etc.), but otherwise it was backwards to me.

It comes to the question of time & Ockham Razor, which you are proppnent of anyway.

In t]the context of the latter, why would you invest unnecessary time, performing a task 4-5x or 20x times, to give you the same end result!?

Increasing the base unit & most impoetantly using the compounding effect in you favor (of which benefit seens you haven;t figured out yet, obviously, esoecially in relation to time), you could go in a casino once every 3 months, 6 months, or even once a year -- & fullfill all you gas needs (&or whatever else), meanwhile (importantly to you, it seems ..) keep low profile.

The bottom line, & very much in line with you adventure spirit + non-attachment, you would invest all that otherwise casino-spent time in something else. The acknoledgment of the importance if time come ever more with more mobey one makesm gets anyway. & as well, with suddenly all & so many possibilities opened & accessible, the ability & importance of saying NO to so many things .. other than those that explicitly get to realize & externalize your self .. over & over again.[/Quote]

 

I'd forget about getting back your losses with a long termed, lifetime, progression.

Here is what you want to know. In the aggregate are you getting approximately 4.6 won sessions at 3 net wins per session as compared to each 7 net losses? Avoiding a swarm of losses is just as good as any guess. But using a progression during a swarm of losses is just bad. You would need to use the same progression when the swarm of losses were not present in order to balance the effect. So don't use one if in the long run it is not needed anyway.

4.666 times 3 comes out to about 14. So 14 net wins to 7 net losses is a 2 to 1 win to loss ratio. This is not supposed to be possible in the long run. You are not even supposed to get a 50 / 50 lifetime outcome in Roulette. The casinos sell the world that the odds are in their favor. Yet they collect far more from the inexperienced players, according to their own corporate yearly earnings reports, than that 3% to 6% that they are telling the world.

I say to accept the lost sessions at 7 net losses but to try to stay out of the losing streak swarms. You started out in a win streak swarm. This happens too. But it's OK to have a winning streaks swarm. You don't have to avoid those if you can.

You need to go back to the start of keeping track, and add up all the net wins, then add up all the net losses, and see what your results are. I think that you will find out that your are beating the so called projected and anticipated odds. Setting the value of a net win or loss is a different subject. That goes to life choices that can involve things like self perceptions. It brings in greed, fear, needs, desires, and other people's, mostly strangers, opinions of your abilities.

I set out to see if the odds could be different than what the common beliefs were. You get to go after this as long as the opportunity exists. They were scared to death that counting cards in Blackjack would end everything for them as casino owners. But they learned that people are generally lazy and want an easy ride to fortune and fame. It was easy for MIT students to apply self control and validate that counting cards gave them a mathematical advantage. But they had to stick to that advantage and bet bigger when they are in the advantage condition. That's how they got detected.

The same thing will happen for this. People will gamble at this the same way that they gamble in the stock market. They will start and stop trades based on fear. People will play Roulette, Baccarat, and Craps based on these same fears using RR. There won't be an as yet known mathematical advantage at first. But some math genius should come along and make one up that explains these results. That person will get all the attention and accolades. I suppose they will deserve it too, having spent all that time becoming a math genius. Anyway, human nature allows for a way of rewarding those who step on the shoulders of others.

For me this is just another mountain to climb. I'm too old to go back and do all the adventures. I live life planned out to do all the great stuff, requiring excellent physical conditioning, while you have those conditions, and then to do the hard things that don't require these physical conditions later in life, while they are challenges without the requirement. So I'm having fun watching people go from what people tell them is the truth to discovering what the real truth really is. There are no rewards from having being told that I was right all along. The reward is in the discovery and the challenge to see if it is possible, "to go where no man has gone before." RR is just another first ascent for me. You people attempting to make the climb are my validation of peer review.

This is validation of the concept before the math is known. It is as if the astronomers from the Lick Observatory had gone to Goldendale Washington for the total solar eclipse looking for the exact evidence that Einstein said existed, based on his calculation. But it would be as if they went there for the validation before Einstein suggested it. So ((4.666 x 3) to 7) win to loss ratio will one day be validated by math people. Meanwhile the opportunity exists to exploit this playing condition. The casinos will one day use the same method they use in Blackjack to control it. They will let those that suck at it use it. They will banish those that are good at it. Nothing will change much. Some cooperating bozo will get a Nobel prize. Life will go on. This is the golden age of Reading Randomness.

 

Excellent observation.

I've tried to break out as genius boy, marvelous entrepreneur, successful rich person, and the hotdog man himself in the ski bum world. Knowing that I was a dumbshit that was banging into things the hard way has just been the way that it all worked out.

As a boy of five years old I dreamed of one day being a pilot like my father was in WWII. I would ride my bike out to the local airport and watch planes take off and land. I watched all the WWII movies involving planes. My parents taught me that I could have anything I wanted as long as I was willing to work for it. I saw Robert Redford in 'Downhill Racer." I told myself that one day I would do that. I knew from the start that I would go after things differently than most people are expected to do. This RR thread is just another nonconformist expression. But more and more people are coming forward and experimenting with it. I'm so glad that I never gave up on adventure and challenges. You can have just about anything that you want if you are willing to work for it.

But what if the thing that you want is not worth it in the first place. Happiness is worthless to you if you are never happy. I'm a happy minimalist. I wanted to eat good so I learned to cook. I did not want to be trapped by living in one spot and maxxed out on a mortgage with the things that present themselves as stature to those looking at it from the outside.

Experiences offer their own greatest rewards. I'm loaded down to the max with them.

 

There are reasons to keep Social Security and Medicare all in order with regards to income levels. If you play the game just right you can float along happy. This RR thread is all about peer reviewed validation. I'm doing that too by visiting casinos. To play the game properly I can make about $400 extra each month. I use that for gas money to travel and meet people. I like to stay for free at casinos and to follow comfortable weather conditions. It's a game. It's all set out in the instruction manual for planet earth.

I go in for back surgery next Tuesday. I hope that all works out well. It should. I expect that it will. I'm getting my spine fused and some herniation extracted close to my spinal cord. Sounds like fun. To each his own a little rain must fall.

 

Hi gizma
Thanks for your valuable advice i will continue to play your charting game and stuck to 3 and 7 flat bet

 

You are doing great.

 

This thread will be 4 years old this month. It was started on July 20th. It has gone over 600,000 views since then. That is a lot considering that most threads are less than 10,000, even more like less than 5,000 views. It's nothing compared to the numbers achieved by any video that has gone viral in it's first minute. That should tell you something also. The skills presented here for learning are still much a secret to those wishing to exploit it or denigrate it.

 

Well done Gizmo! I sincerely hope people took something from it and it has made them better players.

A lot of what you have written over the years makes perfect sense to me at least and the best and simplest explanation you ever came up with are the states of effectiveness where simply put, it's either working or it's not! You can't get much more straightforward than that and just following that mantra alone will take some of the edge away from randomness.

Regarding your style or my similar style, it's the little things that will determine ultimately whether a player can be successful with it all or not. IMO, that's things like not getting greedy, not getting sucked into the game. Some will argue ''oh, but if you have an edge, you can keep playing'' blah, blah, blah but it's not about that if you understand it correctly. It's about taking a win and repeating the success over and over. That will make you a winner.

 

Giz

A random stream of 60 spins usually ends 30/30; just 7 of the starting 37 left to find.

The big question is how do the repeats come. Even Turbo expects 1 repeat in 10 spins.

So, the repeats appear randomly along the stream.

Now the biggest stirrer in threads is the DSAA. He posted over at RF; 10’330 live spins. Okay, said many times his numbers gave an average for non-hits. That average also shows in his touted random org.

If you know this average; you will no the repeats average to.

You look for the weak side, say singles.

Let us say you have had 10 spins and the 1 repeat has shown. The next 10 spins should give a total for the 20 spins, 4 repeats. That means you watch each spin and like your RR make the guess, be it for non-hit or repeat.

You know the average to hit for non-hit; are they hitting to quick and like Winkle said they need to slow. Only a repeat slows them. If 1 repeat has shown and 3 more expected, the only question you have is, if at spin 17 and only 1 repeat, will spins 18-19-20 be a repeat.

Has the stream given at 20 spins more red or black. If only 2 repeats have shown in 20 spins and for 30 spins the average says 9 repeats; would a colour be more favorable for repeats and this colour the strong side.

It is all about the stream

 

4 repeats red 3 black 1.

 

and this:

Nobody knows this. I never said anything. I was looking at a comment a few days ago in Turbo's section, led their by a comment someone had written here a few days ago. It happened. I saw the light. I noticed something that Ken was suggesting and that Turbo has hinted at. All of a sudden I could see it. So I started rewriting my hot number tracker that I have shared here and talked about.

I could see what both of them were doing with hot numbers. But I needed to have my tracker allow me to direct the tracker's results for three numbers selected and with the bet amounts at each selection point. I'm doing that now. I'm getting my spine tweaked on Tuesday. So I have been getting all prepared to stay still convalescing after surgery for 6 to 12 weeks. That's when I expect to finish the software upgrade that includes these discoveries.

So I'm already open to the randomness of hottest three numbers again. All that because of Turbo's hints. So now you come along and make a suggestion where I consider using these concepts to predict coincidences. There might actually be something to that. But I need something from you. You just wrote this: "Now the biggest stirrer in threads is the DSAA." What is "DSAA" and what does the acronym stand for? I missed this or I can't remember that I have already watched the thread.

You know that Turbo suggests that randomness is predictable. I expose the readable evidence of coincidental changes. Turbo is right that certain things predomentally happen. And because of this they are predictable. You are suggesting this too. I'm suggesting that things just happen. They come and go as coincidental opportunities. These presentments are advantages if you exploit them. I don't need to use Turbo's observation of proving predictability to determine an outcome that must take place, on the average, from an opportunity, and for that matter an actual advantage like expected for an AP.

But having said that, that I may not need it to take advantage, I am so interested in validating Turbo, without actually blabbing his secret, and Ken's secret as well as others here that keep the truth hidden behind hints alone. It's good to do this that way. I was never going to allow my new software to be used as a download. You wouldn't even be able to get the hints from the telemetry that it can post. I'm just working on this to power test the concept and to confirm the data.

So I will go back to work on this after I get out of surgery and have almost nothing to do. I plan to show some results and pictures of the screen shots for what I discover. But it will not blab the secret. Like I said. Last week I saw the light. When I got it I could see where it is so important, that point that he hints at.

So thanks for bringing this idea up. It's so interesting, the idea that randomness being predictable combined with coincidental change can actually work together to validate things that have never been considered before in statistical mathematical inferences. What a great and thought provoking addition idea. I just wanted to power test Turbo's idea that randomness is predictable. But you jus added more to my research.

 

I found this for DSAA: https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/can-you-read-the-trot-dsaa-i-think-not.23273/

I can read about this too while I'm waiting to get better.

 

Owe to laugh. It's Snowman. LOL

 

Yes or is it the general or to0 many to show

 

Giz

This stream of 42 spins, stands 22 non-hits from the 37 and 20 repeats.

Repeats are +3 for the average at 40 spins.

How many blacks have repeated.

Have a look.





If unsure what to bet; like RR which is the stronger colour? Are non-hit late because of repeats. Then the bet could be the stronger colour; it could be a non-hit red or repeat red as stronger side.

Remember at 60 spins the usual is 30/30. 8 of the remaining non-hits in 18 spins?

 

OK, something to work from. I needed this list, in this format, to produce my EC practice software's chart. I bet all bets on Red at $90 each bet, flat betting to create chart:
19,22,25,12,23,6,34,6,36,21,19,34,19,33,23,8,28,18,23,21,17,25,13,14,15,36,34,10,30,23,25,29,16,6,34,33,14,36,5,6,2,34,

I took them right off the picture. But if you can post the list in comma delimited with no spacing that would be very cool for doing RR discussions. That goes to anyone wanting to discuss characteristics also. I built the practice software just to do charting discussions in the first place.

Code:

 W | B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |  --  SN  --  SP 
 X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  01  --  19 ( $ 90 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  02  --  22 ( $ 0 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  03  --  25 ( $ 90 ) Red
 X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  04  --  12 ( $ 180 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  05  --  23 ( $ 270 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06  --  06 ( $ 180 ) Red
 X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  07  --  34 ( $ 270 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  08  --  06 ( $ 180 ) Red
 X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  09  --  36 ( $ 270 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  10  --  21 ( $ 360 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  11  --  19 ( $ 450 ) Red
 X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  12  --  34 ( $ 540 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   |   |  --  13  --  19 ( $ 630 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  14  --  33 ( $ 540 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  15  --  23 ( $ 630 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  16  --  08 ( $ 540 ) Red
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  17  --  28 ( $ 450 ) Red
 X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  18  --  18 ( $ 540 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  19  --  23 ( $ 630 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  20  --  21 ( $ 720 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  21  --  17 ( $ 630 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  22  --  25 ( $ 720 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  23  --  13 ( $ 630 ) Red
 X |    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  24  --  14 ( $ 720 ) Red
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  25  --  15 ( $ 630 ) Red
 X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  26  --  36 ( $ 720 ) Red
 X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  27  --  34 ( $ 810 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  28  --  10 ( $ 720 ) Red
 X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  29  --  30 ( $ 810 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  30  --  23 ( $ 900 ) Red
 X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  31  --  25 ( $ 990 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X | X    |   |   |  --  32  --  29 ( $ 900 ) Red
 X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  33  --  16 ( $ 990 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  34  --  06 ( $ 900 ) Red
 X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  35  --  34 ( $ 990 ) Red
   | X    | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  36  --  33 ( $ 900 ) Red
 X |    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  37  --  14 ( $ 990 ) Red
 X |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  38  --  36 ( $ 1080 ) Red
 X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  39  --  05 ( $ 1170 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  40  --  06 ( $ 1080 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  41  --  02 ( $ 990 ) Red
 X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  42  --  34 ( $ 1080 ) Red

View attachment 20897

View attachment 20897

View attachment 20898

View attachment 20898