Gambler's Glen Message Boards Prove With Math That Guessing Won't Work

3/3/24, 11:24 PM Gambler's Glen Message Boards : Roulette Message Board : Prove With Math That Guessing Won't
uessing Won't Work
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20171005172333/http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin…
Home Page : Roulette Message Board : Prove With Math That Guessing Won't Work
You are currently not logged in. You can view the forums, but
cannot post messages.
| Log In | Register | Search | Help | Refresh
Post a Reply on This Topic
Author Topic: Prove With Math That Guessing Won't Work

SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 16:39 Edit
Mail Profile C'mon you math geniuses, prove that guessing won't work. You all know it
DOES work, you can guess better than the math dictates. But you think its
wishy washy, that it can't be pinned down, that its unreliable. And the truth is,
it IS unreliable. It can't be used for anything else but gambling, where they
actually pay you for being innaccurate. Nobbody else will give you a dime for
being right 60% or 70% of the time, but the casino will. Try getting 30% of
what you do wrong in any business and you'll be fired by the end of the day.
So c'mon, prove that nobody can guess better than the math dictates.
kj smooth Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:15 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Just curious Scammer VLSteve, do you throw in your site address for
everything? lol Sign a credit card slip....do you put in your site address?
Make a grocery list.....site address? Ken
SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:21 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Can I prove "guessing" wont work? Well that all depends on the precognitive
ability>>>
HUH? What does precog have to do with it? How do you know its not elves
telling me where to bet, or my Aunt Alice from beyond the grave? Why do
you always jump off into the Twilight Zone, are you that nuts?
>>But I know spike, I'm a scammer.>>
Why do you think saying it makes it look less true? It makes you look guilty
as hell..
Sheridan Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:22 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Spike,
The "standard" negative expectation proof covers all cases, including any
and all bet selections you can dream up. If you insist that your method
avoids the math, then of course no-one can prove it doesn't if we don't know
what it is. Convenient eh?
Donali Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:22 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Try getting 30% of what you do wrong in any business and you'll be fired by
the end of the day.
https://web.archive.org/web/20171005172333/http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=… 1/54
3/3/24, 11:24 PM Gambler's Glen Message Boards : Roulette Message Board : Prove With Math That Guessing Won't Work
-----------
Ok Chumlee, this has been answered before by me but at your age I

understand how people become forgetful.
Pro's in...
Baseball - hitting or pitching
Soccer
Basketball
Golf, etc.
Car salesman
Real estate salesman
Door-to-door salesman, etc.
Doctors treating MANY hard to cure diseases such as brain tumors,

esophageal cancer, leukemia, etc.
Must I go on?
Once again... Spike opens mouth, inserts ass.
Mail Profile The "standard" negative expectation proof covers all cases>>
Does it say you can't guess correctly? Nope, it doesn't. There is no math that
proves guessing doesn't work. If there were, you'd post it.
Mail Profile [Does it say you can't guess correctly?]
I said it covers ALL cases. Which part of ALL don't you understand?
If you think that because no-one can come up with the proof YOU want to
see, then it means that guessing DOES work, you are sadly mistaken.
Mail Profile I said it covers ALL cases.>>
Guessing falls outside the math. When you have a player who has a huge
winning streak, its not luck. He just guessed correctly without knowing how
he did it.
Mail Profile There is no math that proves guessing doesn't work. If there were, you'd
post it.
------------
We've had this conversation before too Chumlee.
For the life of me I don't know how someone who tries so hard to appear
intelligent about something can be so ignorant.
It's upon the person making the claim that something is true, not upon the
non-believers to prove it's not true.
If I say I can fly with just my arms, the law of gavity says I can't.
It's upon me to prove I can defy a proven law.
So it's upon you to prove that you can defy the law of large numbers by
guessing, it's not upon us to prove that you can't. HOW are we to prove a
negative? And you know this damn good and well. You just are trying to save
face. It's well past too late for that now. Just give up and admit you made up
the 72%, because we ALL know you did.
Mail Profile [Guessing falls outside the math.]
Why?
He just guessed correctly without knowing how he did it.
Now you've really surpassed yourself Spike. Priceless.
There is ONE proof. There isn't a proof for betting your birthday number,
another for the "law of the third", another for Ken's method, and another for
educated guessing.
By the way, if you think that because no-one can come up with the proof
YOU want it means that educated guessing DOES work, then you are sadly
mistaken.
laurance Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:57 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Spike is correct. Math cannot prove guessing doesn't work.
All it can do is tell us how unlikely it is to be a true claim.
Let's look at how likely it would be to place 100 E/C bets, and win 72 of them
(even discounting the 0/00):
1 STDEV = SQRT(N * P * Q)
N = 100
P = .5
Q = .5
SQRT(100 *.5 *.5) = SQRT(25) = 5
Expectation is to win 50 spins.
1 STDEV = 5 extra wins
72 - 50 = 22 extra wins
22 = 22/5 = 4.4 Standard Deviations from the norm.
Statistics tell us that this event will occur .00054% of the time, or 1 time in
1,852 attempts. So, if 1,852 people were to each place 100 E/C bets, on
average 1 of those 1,852 people would win 72 bets. Spike could very well be
the one person out of the 1,852.
When you get into the "longer run", the chances become more slim.
How likely is it to guess 720 correct out of 1,000? In other words, maintain
this hit rate for more than just the very short term.
1 STDEV = SQRT(1000 * .5 * .5) = SQRT(250) = 15.81
Expectation = 500 wins
Wins over expectation = 720 - 500 = 220
220 / 15.81 = 13.9 Standard Deviations from the norm.
I'm not even sure what the chance of randomness is for 13.9 Standard
Deviations. My tables don't go up that far. But, it is well into the billions, if not
trillions, to one (Snowman, maybe you could provide us with a precise
figure).
So, math tells us that winning 720 bets out of 1,000 (72% hit rate) is not
impossible. But, if every person on the face of the planet placed 1,000 E/C
bets, it is highly unlikely that even one person would end up winning 720 of
those bets.
But, it's not impossible that Spike may just be that one person.
That's what the math tells us.
Mail Profile it means that guessing DOES work>>
If I look a sequence of EC's and make a guess, and I'm right, thats not
overcoming the probability math, its going around it. If I figure out how I did
it, and figure out a way to do it consistantly, thats going around it also. Why
is this so hard to accept?
Mail Profile <<Nobbody else will give you a dime for being right 60% or 70% of the
time>>
Baseball pays quite well for doing something correctly 30% of the time.
Mail Profile Baseball pays quite well for doing something correctly 30% of the time.>>
So does educated guessing.
Mail Profile it's not impossible that Spike may just be that one person.>>
How about Gizmo? And others that I know for a fact do it? I'm hardly alone.
>Spike is correct. Math cannot prove guessing doesn't work.>
Probability is an inexact science at best.
Mail Profile <<<If I figure out how I did it, and figure out a way to do it consistantly, thats
going around it also. Why is this so hard to accept?>>>
Because the claim of 72% is so far out there, and it is so easy to prove
empirically.
You are asking us to toss out years of substantiated statistical analysis that
has been demonstrated to be true. The casinos would not exist if it weren't.
That's fine if the claim is true, and it is so easy to prove if it is:
Just have a credible 3rd party accompany you to the casino and verify that
out of 200 placed bets that you win 144. Even anything close to this would
be acceptable.
But, you won't. And, until you do, don't whine about all of us not not
accepting it.
Mail Profile <<<Probability is an inexact science at best.>>>
No, it is a very exact science.
The theoretical equations are very exact, and they have been substantiated
as true in emprical experiment after experiment.
The casinos are a testament to how accurate it is.
Mail Profile don't whine about all of us not not accepting it.>>
I'm not whining, I'm saying prove with math that it can't be done, and you say
you can't. Doesn't it bother you that you're relying on an inexact science that
people who are so called experts can't even agree on? The ony thing
probability experts can say for sure is they agree to disagree.
Mail Profile <<<I'm not whining>>>
Yes, you are.
You are asking all of us to prove you are wrong (proving a negative, which is
impossible).
When, it is so simple to prove you are right.
Mail Profile The theoretical equations are very exact>>
For the LONG TERM, not the NEXT OUTCOME! Why can't you see that?
Even Steve Wynn says its possible and likely he'll have one whole month in
the year where he loses money, where the math completely fails him. But
not a whole year. He's completely confident that over a years time, he will
always be in profit.
I beat roulette on the next spin, and completely start over. The long term
does NOT apply to guessing.
Mail Profile <<<people who are so called experts can't even agree on>>>
Who are the experts that don't agree?
Name one.
Mail Profile <<<The long term does NOT apply to guessing>>>
Prove it.
Mail Profile
Who are the experts that don't agree?>>
I've read that experts can't even agree on probability. Thats why there are no
probability laws, nothing about it can be pinned down to be true all the time.
Mail Profile Prove it.>>>
The reason it works is because of the purtiy of true random. It completely

starts anew on every spin. RNG's do not, they are pseudo random and I
can't beat them. I can for awhile, but then they get weird and I'm lost.
Mail Profile <<<Even Steve Wynn says its possible and likely he'll have one whole
month in the year where he loses money, where the math completely fails
him>>>
How on earth does math fail him by being down over a month? All math
does is tell us how likely it is that such an event will occur.
Where did you ever get the idea that math guarantees a win?
Did Steve Wynn actually say that the "math failed him"?
Mail Profile "The reason it works is ..."
I didn't ask for a reason.
I asked for proof.
It's easy.
Mail Profile For the LONG TERM, not the NEXT OUTCOME!>>>
There are no rules, no math, no nothing that applies to, or controls the next
spin. Anything can happen. Thats why casinos are terrified of hit and run
players. The players they love are small bettors, the punter who devotes
hours and hours to making small bets and getting involed deeply in the math
thats against him. I'm not making it up, I've read it again and again. They
consider these players 'casino oriented'.
Mail Profile it's not impossible that Spike may just be that one person.>>
How about Gizmo? And others that I know for a fact do it? I'm hardly alone.
-------------
THIS IS A BOLD FACE LIE.
Gizmo does NOT know for a fact that you do it. He has never seen you do it
and he admits he can't do it.
And others? WHAT OTHERS? WHO? NAME THEM. People who will say
you've PROVEN it to them, people who will verify that you can do what no
human who has ever lived can do.
Please provide names and contact information so we can verify your claim.
Mail Profile Did Steve Wynn actually say that the "math failed him"?>>
What he said was, the math is unreliable on a month to month basis, but is
very reliable on a year to year basis. Imagine what it is on a spin to spin
basis. Its nonexistant.
Mail Profile I asked for proof.>>
I'm not here to prove anything, just show that the math doesn't apply to the
next spin. And if it doesn't apply to the next spin, you need to find a way to
play with no rules that won't trap you into making bets that act like there are
rules.
[Edited by SPIKE on 23-Feb-10 18:30]
Mail Profile <<<For the LONG TERM, not the NEXT OUTCOME! Why can't you see
that?>>>
Because, I've never had it demonstrated to me.
How can you have a 72% hit rate on a single spin?
In order to have a 72% hit rate, it must be over a set of spins.
How big is that set? That is what the LONG TERM is all about.
It is perfectly believeable - even likely - that if you have only placed 10 bets
and are claiming the 72% on those 10 bets that you are absolutely correct.
But, as near as I can tell, you are claiming 72% for the LONG RUN -
however it is that you define it.
So, here is a specific question (remember, you started this thread):
What is your definition of the set size for the 72% hit rate?
1?
10?
50?
100?
That is how the LONG TERM is defined for this discussion.
Mail Profile It completely starts anew on every spin
-------------
There ya go, now we have it.
IF THAT'S TRUE, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE AN EDUCATED

GUESS because you have NOTHING to base the guess on, therefore the
law of large numbers APPLIES TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mail Profile <<<I'm not here to prove anything>>>
Obviously.
Don't ask us to disprove it either.
We can only show how unlikely it is.
And, it's damn unlikely.
arteinvivo Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:38 Delete Edit
Mail Profile SPIKE-<<Try getting 30% of what you do wrong in any business and you'll
be fired by the end of the day
SPIKE is a bit confused here as reaching 3 standard deviations at will would

be considered 100% efficient. Imagine being able to sustain such a high
level of efficiency. We are talking about an employee that would perform at
1000% every single day with a SD above 10+. I don't think an employer
would fire such a person.
[Edited by arteinvivo on 23-Feb-10 18:39]
Mail Profile <<<I've read that experts can't even agree on probability.>>>
Where?
Mail Profile I've never had it demonstrated to me.>>
But you freely admit that the math the casino depends on doesn't apply to
the next day or the next week, or even the next month. Why do you think it
applies to the next spin if I have a method that is non-deterministic and non-
rule based and starts fresh after every outcome? Clearly the math cannot
apply.
Mail Profile <<<But you freely admit that the math the casino depends on doesn't apply
to the next day or the next week, or even the next month.>>>
No, I don't admit that at all.
Where did you get this screwy idea that just because the math says you
have an edge, that you will win all the time?
The casinos use the math for cash flow and risk analysis over all time
frames.
They use it to spot games that are underperforming, indicating that their own
staff may be stealing from them.
Their whole business plan depends on the math.
Mail Profile Clearly the math cannot apply.
------------
You seriously can't believe your own BS.
If you play 1 spin a day for a year or you play 365 spins all in one day, the
same math applies and you very well know this.
That's what makes your idea of leaving once you've hit your goal so
ridiculous. IF you have a HUGE advantage on every bet, you NEVER want it
to stop because YOU CAN'T LOSE. It's the same premise the casino works
off of to make their money except their advantage is relatively small on most
games.
--------------------
Spike said: It completely starts anew on every spin
Now what I want to know is how you can make an EDUCATED GUESS
about something that completely starts anew on every spin?
Please EXPLAIN THAT ONE.
gizmotron Posted: 23-Feb-10 19:30 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Gads, look what you miss when you have real things to get done.
Donali - "It's upon the person making the claim that something is true, not
upon the non-believers to prove it's not true.
If I say I can fly with just my arms, the law of gavity says I can't.
It's upon me to prove I can defy a proven law."
This is kind of funny. All a genius is, is that when somebody discovers
anything new that was always true before others noticed it, and points it out
to everyone, everyone then calls him a genius for doing it. It was always the
truth. Unfortunately sometimes it makes past believed truth not to be truth
anymore.
I guess you haven't seen people flying with just their arms. There glide ratio
are piss poor but it's flying just the same.
It's just like you to make up the rules for reality. Now guessing has laws.
Look, Donali is a genius. The laws of guessing. Poop!
Mail Profile Where did you get this screwy idea that just because the math says you
have an edge, that you will win all the time?>>
Where do I say that?????? It doesn't say that at all! It says that the law of
large numbers dictates when the math will kick in. Because the casino uses
rule based games, and deal with millions of bets a year, they reach those
large numbers rather quiickly and can take the math to the bank.
https://web.archive.org/web/20171005172333/http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic… 10/54
Because I use a non rule based and non deterministic method to bet on
random outcomes, and start over on every spin, the math of the casino
doesn't apply to me. Its really that simple. Its the only explanation that
makes any sense.
Mail Profile HOW you can make an EDUCATED GUESS about something that
completely starts anew on every spin?
Mail Profile Its the only explanation that makes any sense.>>>
You obviously have a fatal flaw in the math used to calculate what happens
on the next spin.
Mail Profile What is the probability that in the next 30 spins that more than 5 streaks will
occur within 20 separate groupings being tracked for multiple types of
characteristics that fit the definition of a trend?
What's the probability that these same conditions will not reveal
recognizable trend like conditions?
Now prove with math that you know that these trends can't be exploited.
You can't do the math. So it's you that needs to prove that guessing does not
work. Nice try folks. You lost the assumption that you are already right and
that you don't need to prove anything.
Mail Profile I'm not looking to prove anything, Laurance. I'm simply looking for
agreement that the math is so flawed that what I claim is indeed possible.
So it's you that needs to prove that guessing does not work.>>>
So far I've seen no math that applies to the next spin. Can I guess right or
not? And if I do guess right, thats it, its over. You can't look at my results
from the last spin because each spin and each guess is completely
independent.
Mail Profile So it's you that needs to prove that guessing does not work.
------------
That's RIDICULOUS and you know it.
If you invent a new drug and claim that it does a certain thing, do you need
to prove it to the FDA to get approval to bring it to market OR do they need
to prove to you that it doesn't work.
The more you two post about this nonsense, the dumber you look,
SERIOUSLY.
I challenge either of you to get anybody with any credibility to come on this
forum and back up what you say.
Anyone notice how Spike is Johnny on the spot to reply to posts but he can't
seem to answer this one:
HOW you can make an EDUCATED GUESS about something that

We're waiting Chumlee.
Mail Profile The earth is not flat. - "That's RIDICULOUS and you know it."
Mail Profile If you invent a new drug and claim that it does a certain thing, do you need
C'mon Brainiac, what's the answer?
Mail Profile Donali - "HOW you can make an EDUCATED GUESS about something that
completely starts anew on every spin?"
That's so simple that you must have overlooked the thousands of attempts
to explain it to you. So be it. One more time. The answer is: Does the
favorable conditions still exist? On the next spin has the conditions changed
or are they still in the favorable state? Are there any other favorable
conditions beginning to exist? You make a sum of the conditions on each
spin and you adjust to the changing conditions. Oh, BTW, all along the odds
for the next spin never change. Only the conditions change. Guess what? It
takes an educated guess.
"I challenge either of you to get anybody with any credibility to come on this
forum and back up what you say."
Why, so that a bunch of degenerates can get their "Yah Yahs out" on a
distant moon of the universe? Why would you want to have your ass kicked
in public?
Mail Profile My God, could you be any more inept?
My question was: HOW you can make an EDUCATED GUESS about

something that completely starts anew on every spin?"
Your answer is: Does the favorable conditions still exist? On the next spin
has the conditions changed or are they still in the favorable state? Are there
any other favorable conditions beginning to exist? You make a sum of the
conditions on each spin and you adjust to the changing conditions.
HOW THE HELL COULD A FAVORABLE CONDITION "STILL EXIST" or

BEGIN TO EXIST when Spike said it completely starts anew on every spin?
Mail Profile <<<I'm simply looking for agreement that the math is so flawed that what I
claim is indeed possible>>>
The math is not flawed at all. It is simply a tool to measure how unlikely the
claim is.
<<<It says that the law of large numbers dictates when the math will kick
in.>>>
The math doesn't need the law of large numbers to work. Large numbers are
needed to bring the uncertainly level down to near zero. The math still
applies to small numbers as much as it does to large numbers:
Over 100 bets, a 72% hit rate occurs 1 out of ever 1,852 tries, on average.
Over 1000 bets, a 72% hit rate occurs 1 out of [billions and billions], on
average.
The math applies to both small and large sets of numbers.
Mail Profile Why would you want to have your ass kicked in public?
------------
So I can feel how bad it feels for you and Spike everyday.
Bring on the credible person of your choice, we'll be waiting, and waiting and
waiting.
Tell me, who are all the degenerates that you are referring to? Give us a list.
Mail Profile The math doesn't need the law of large numbers to work.>>
Does the math say I'll get the next guess right or wrong? It doesn't know,
does it. And if the conditions are the same for the next guess, which with
true random they are, there is nothing preventing me from getting that one
right too. Is there.
Mail Profile <<<You obviously have a fatal flaw in the math used to calculate what
happens on the next spin>>>
Please answer this simple question:
How do you get a 72% hit rate over 1 spin?
To have a hit "rate" you must have a measure over multiple spins.
In fact, in order to have exactly a 72% hit rate, you must have a set of at
least 25 spins.
18/25 is the minimal fraction necessary to yield a hit rate of 72%
So, even though you make your decisions one at a time (who doesn't?), your
claim of a 72% hit rate must be based on a set of at least 25 spins.
Otherwise, how do you calculate 72%?
Mail Profile <<<Does the math say I'll get the next guess right or wrong?>>>
No, but it does say that you won't get the next spin 72% right.
You will get the next spin either right or wrong. The math says that both
events are equally probable.
How do you get 1 spin 72% right?
Mail Profile BTW Jismo, it was kind of you to try to answer the question (unsuccessfully I
might add) that I posed to Spike that he couldnt answer but you failed to
answer the one I posed to you...
If you invent a new drug and claim that it does a certain thing, do you need
What's the answer?
Mail Profile Debunking you two is so easy that even a caveman could do it. That's what
happens when you try to BS your way through something.
Mail Profile <<<You can't look at my results from the last spin because each spin and
each guess is completely independent.>>>
Then, don't claim a specific hit rate. Just say that you are really, really good.
Because, a specific hit rate requires a set of multiple spins - not just one
spin.
Mail Profile How do you get 1 spin 72% right?>>
I don't have a 72% chance of getting it right, only 50% without the zeros.
a specific hit rate requires a set of multiple spins>>
You're way too hung up on the hit rate. You need to concentrate on the
process of independent spin to independent spin, thats what the casino pays
on.
Mail Profile Like I said Spike, we have the Mathboyz to run cover for our methods. They
work just fine. There is not a casino in the country that even remotely think
that there is a problem.
Mail Profile <<>>
You agree with the math.
<<<You're way too hung up on the hit rate.>>>
What? That's the crux of this whole discussion.
The "math boys" claim that over the long run (substitute here any way you
want to define the long run), that it is highly unlikely that your results (hit
rate) will vary more than 3 standard deviations from expectation.
I would go so far to say that it is "impossible" for your hit rate to exceed
seven standard deviations.
You claim to have a hit rate in excess of 13 standard deviations.
The hit rate claim is everything.
Mail Profile <<>>
Spike, if you TRULY had a method that wins 72% of the time, you WOULD
have a 72% chance of getting it right.
That's one of the few things we seem to agree on:
You only have a 50% chance of getting it right.
[Edited by laurance on 23-Feb-10 21:23]
Mail Profile I keep asking for the odds for trends, when they will occur, how long they will
last, and for their quality, not to mention when they act consistently in
continuous groupings. To this date I have not received a single answer. The
response is defining. Why is it convenient to ignore this part of the issue? To
this date it has silenced all the math people. If you are going to stand on you
soap boxes then please deal with these inconvenient questions.
CaptXII Posted: 23-Feb-10 21:50 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Spike cheated. Since da math don't work, there is no chance that da math
can prove anything in gaming. Perhaps you don't get it; but Spike did.
Mail Profile you WOULD have a 72% chance of getting it right.>>
Again, you're confusing the eventuality with the moment. I have 18 reds and
18 blacks, an even amount. In the moment, where I play the game, my
chance is never better than 50/50. How could it be greater?
You yourself don't arrive at 50/50 because you tested it over 1 million spins.
There are only 2 equal choices, the odds have to be 50/50.
Mail Profile There is not a casino in the country that even remotely think that there is a
problem.>>
They believe with every breath they take that the game is safe. No uppity
Thorp-type is going to beat it. They sleep very well.
Kelly Posted: 23-Feb-10 22:29 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Looks like you again can fill a whole nights discussion on GG by ducking
and diving between bullets and twisting questions when all it takes to settle
things is to go to the casino and hit 216 times right in 300 spins and no one
would ever bother you again.
Gizmo, you can`t use probability to define WHEN a trend will occur.
Mail Profile hit 216 times right in 300 spins and no one would ever bother you again. >>>
So if I did that in front of you, you could explain the math of it to me? Pretend
I just did. Explain it. If you say luck, coincidence,a fluke, whatever, I'll do it 5
more times. Explain the math to me.
Mail Profile If you did that in front of me, i could quickly calculate that you had broken 8
standard deviations with your hits. Since i just saw it, obviously i would
believe it.
Mail Profile So I just did it and you saw it. But its impossible, right?
Mail Profile The probability for it to happen is very very small. If you did it 5 more times
you would be up at + 18 standard deviation. The probability of getting
beyond 3 standard deviations is 0.06 i think it is. Even in 200 spins i would
have to see it to believe it. 8 standard deviations is a tough challenge for
anyone, but the smaller the spin sample, the more likely it is to just happen. I
have no doubt you sometimes hit 7 out of 10, even 14 out of 20, but 216 out
of 300, nope.
You just did it ? Damned, i didn`t see it. Can you do it again ?
Mail Profile But the bottom line is, if I did every time you asked, you would refuse to
accept it. Because it doesn't fit your template.
Mail Profile I wouldn`t refuse to accept it if you actually did it, i would be amazed and
wonder where you got the powers from.
When they put the new Cammeghs in my local casino, i could predict a
specific half of the wheel 42 out of 50 times at a specific wheel speed during
the second day of tracking. (all other speeds 50/50) But it involved physics
and there were a logical explanation for it. A bit like predicting where the dart
player will hit the board if prediction is done when the arrow is 20 centimeter
from hitting the board.
Mail Profile <<<Explain the math to me.>>>
Spike, you would have defied the math!
You would become, overnight, one of the most famous people in the world.
I, personnally would stand up and be your biggest cheerleader (although, I

refuse to put on one of those silly costumes).
You would be asked to appear on Leno.
That is, of course, if you can really do what you say you can.
Which, I don't believe you can.
But, you sure talk a good game. I'll give you that.
Mail Profile I wouldn`t refuse to accept it if you actually did it,>>>
Then you think its possibe, then. But you claim the math doesn't allow it. So
which is it?
Mail Profile become, overnight, one of the most famous people in the world.<<
Good god. You say that like its a good thing.
Mail Profile You keep twisting things.
"I wouldn`t refuse to accept it if you actually did it," does not mean i think its
possible right now. I would still have to accept it if you did it in front of me.
I don`t say math doesn`t allow it, only that the chance for it to happen is so
small that i don`t believe in it.
Mail Profile I don`t say math doesn`t allow it>>
I could do it on 500 spins in front of you, Laurance and Snowman and you'd
all say I was getting around the math somehow. Why bother. I'm saying that
already.
Mail Profile <<<Since da math don't work>>>
The math works just fine, Capt.
Let's look at the Standard Deviation for 1 E/C spin:
SQRT(1 * .5 * .5) = SQRT(.25) = .5
Why, the Standard Deviation for 1 spin is 1/2 a spin. On average, it is

expected that someone will be within 1/2 of a spin of expectation after 1
spin.
Expectation = 50%
Within 1 Standard deviation Negative: 0 (you lost)

Within 1 Standard deviation Positive: 1 (you won)
In this instance, the math works even better because the outcome will
ALWAYS be within one Standard Deviation.
Wow. Go figure.
Seems to work for me.
Mail Profile <<>>
That's not true at all.

The math is based upon a random system.
If you could do what you say you can do, you would have found a way to
predict random.
If we aren't dealing with a random system, then your claim would be

perfectly valid and believable.
But, we are dealing with a random system.
You cannot demonstrate otherwise regardless of what the math says.
You won't demonstrate it because you can't do it.
It's just that simple.
Mail Profile Whatever you do in 500 spins is measurable in standard deviations. We will
be equally impressed proportinal by the amounts of standard deviations you
break. Upwards that is. If you can do it downwards too, we will be equally
impressed.
But its educated fiction and is never gonna happen. I haven`t got more time
for this.
Mail Profile If we aren't dealing with a random system, then your claim would be
perfectly valid and believable.>>>
It doesn't work with anything but true random.
Ava Tar Posted: 24-Feb-10 02:05 Delete Edit
Mail Profile SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 19:59

"I'm simply looking for agreement that the math is so flawed that what I claim
is indeed possible."
If you're really looking for AGREEMENT that the math is flawed, you better
show us in what way it's flawed.
It's kind of hard to agree to something you keep secret don't you think?
Mail Profile Who are the experts that don't agree? >>
"It is unanimously agreed that statistics depends on probability. But, as to

what probability is and how it is connected with statistics, there has seldom
been such complete disagreement and breakdown of communication since
the Tower of Babel." Wikipedia.
You see the word 'disagreement' all the time when you read about
probability. They can't even agree on what it is, yet its the law.
No, it isn't. Its a suggestion, a vague way of expressing things.
Mail Profile HOW you can make an EDUCATED GUESS about something that
Mail Profile [If I look a sequence of EC's and make a guess, and I'm right, thats not
overcoming the probability math, its going around it. If I figure out how I did
it, and figure out a way to do it consistantly, thats going around it also. Why
is this so hard to accept?]
It's not hard to accept making a guess and being right, what's IS hard to
accept is doing it consistently, because there is no REASON why you or
anyone could possibly do it. All the reasons you give are fallacies. If they
weren't, roulette would not exist.
Give it up Spike. Every time you shift the goalposts or swear that black is
white you just make yourself look like an idiot. Donali has just pointed out
another contradiction which you will refuse to explain (because there is no
explanation - other than you wanting to have your cake and eat it too).
quote:
[I look at the last outcome and balance it against the last few outcomes and
balance THAT against my experience with random and make my educated
guess. There really is nothing more to it than that.]
Mail Profile [Because I use a non rule based and non deterministic method to bet on
random outcomes, and start over on every spin, the math of the casino
doesn't apply to me. Its really that simple.]
That isn't a valid reason. Flipping a coin to make your bet is non-rule based
and non deterministic, but the math still applies.
Mail Profile <<<"It is unanimously agreed that statistics depends on probability. But, as
to what probability is and how it is connected with statistics, there has
seldom been such complete disagreement and breakdown of
communication since the Tower of Babel." Wikipedia.>>>
This quote is from the page "Probability Interpretations", and is a quote

attributed to Savage (1954).
It is referring to applying Probability & Statistics to non-random systems

(Bayesian probability) where probability is incorporating non-tangible
elements such as beliefs [e.g. how is the outcome of human behavoir
changed simply because the belief system is altered?]
There is no such disagreement when dealing with random physical random

systems [e.g. a Roulette wheel. The next Roulette outcome is determined by
a physical random system. The Roulette wheel doesn't give a shit what you
believe, or don't believe]
From Wikipedia:
Probability is a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will

occur or has occurred. In mathematics the concept has been given an exact
meaning in probability theory, that is used extensively in such areas of study
as mathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science, and philosophy to
draw conclusions about the likelihood of potential events and the underlying
mechanics of complex systems.
The scientific study of probability is a modern development. Gambling shows

that there has been an interest in quantifying the ideas of probability for
millennia, but exact mathematical descriptions of use in those problems only
arose much later.
Pierre-Simon Laplace "It is remarkable that a science which began with the
consideration of games of chance should have become the most important
object of human knowledge." Thï¿½orie Analytique des Probabilitï¿½s,
1812.
<<<You see the word 'disagreement' all the time when you read about
probability.>>>
No you don't. The word 'disagreement' is not mentioned on the main

Wikipedia probability (or statistics) sites once. Where you find disagreement
is when probability is taken out of the physical and random space and starts
incorporating such elements as human beliefs.
What you do find are uses of the word "exact".
I encourage everyone to go to Wikipedia and read about Probability and/or

Statistics.
Mail Profile There are indeed many interpretations, but the AXIOMS of probability are
common to all.
The "Classical" interpretation/Definition:
[The probability of an event is the ratio of the number of cases favorable to

it, to the number of all cases possible when nothing leads us to expect that
any one of these cases should occur more than any other, which renders
them, for us, equally possible.]
Sounds like the random game of Roulette to me.
A Wolf Posted: 24-Feb-10 10:13 Delete Edit
Mail Profile OHHH mercy Spike, you are getting into water which is deep, far over your
head, and you're just before being drowned... lol
"Spike, if you TRULY had a method that wins 72% of the time, you WOULD
have a 72% chance of getting it right"
The above post by Laurance should be definative PROOF.
IMHO, most EVERYONE here (GG) is ASSUMING (wrongly) that Spike's

method is the pretty/sexy girl in the Topless bikini. Where actually its the
female monkey!
Several of your post were very interesting/imformative Laurance, I do like the

way you see things, great post.
Out of curiosity, how unlikely does the math say it would be to break 7SD on
the EC's for 1000 spins?
Wolf
[Edited by A Wolf on 24-Feb-10 10:48]
Mail Profile Kelly - "Gizmo, you can`t use probability to define WHEN a trend will occur."
I have said that the odds don't change. I've made the clear point that I can
see times when opportunities occur. The only things that change are
opportunities. If probability applies to opportunities then the math dictates
that I can NOT take advantage of opportunities. I find that to be a paradox.
Nobody can have the belief that probability is a force that is constantly and
completely against the player at all times. Yet our discussion here tends to
lean in the direction that probability is a continuous force. So what about the
opportunities in probability when it goes on vacation for brief periods? I
guess that kind of math is just a convenient and all purpose fix everything
solution.
I believe that probability has currents and eddies that constantly fluctuate. I
believe that probability can't possibly be a perfect and constant force. It must
have times where it explains itself as more or less average, regarding the
over all belief. The only argument then becomes the average probability
state. Can an average probability state dictate that opportunities can NOT be
taken advantage of? That's the argument most of you are attempting stand
on. If I know anything about randomness I know this. Probability must have
deviations from its base line average over time. Math is not a convenient
catch all axiom.
Mail Profile @Wolf,
The formula for calculating a confidence level (chance of randomness) given

a standard deviation (sigma) is fairly complex. I depend upon tables to give
me figures.
Here is the table from the Wikipedia Normal Distribution site (which also
contains the formula):
1 0.682689492137
2 0.954499736104
3 0.997300203937
4 0.999936657516
5 0.999999426697
6 0.999999998027
What this table means is that a specific probabilistic event (random), when
predicted IN ADVANCE of occuring (i.e. not curve fit), has a
99.9999998027% chance of falling within 6 standard deviations.
Therefore, the chance of the predicted event falling outside of 6 STDEV is

1/(1-.999999998027) = 1 out of 506,842,372
As a rough rule of thumb, the chance of randomness at this level increases

by about an order of magnitude for every 1.0 jump in STDEV.
Therefore, I would estimate the chance of randomness for a 7 STDEV event

to be 1 out of 5 billion.
The tables generally don't go above 6 STDEV because for all intents and
purposes, an event over 6 STDEV is considered close to impossible.
Maybe someone (Snowman/Kelly?) could provide a precise figure for 7

STDEV.
The sample size is independent of the STDEV. 7 STDEV is 7 STDEV

regardless if it is computed on a sample size of 1000, or a sample size of 1
billion.
Here is what it would take to exceed 7 STDEV on a sample size of 1,000:
1 STDEV = SQRT(1000 * .25) = SQRT(250) = 15.81
E = 500
E + 7 STDEV = 500 + 7*15.81 = 611 wins out of 1,000 bets.
The chances of somebody stepping up the wheel, placing 1,000 E/C bets
and winning 611 (or more) of them is somewhere around 5 Billion to one.
Spike's claim of 720 wins out of 1,000 attempts is almost 14 standard

deviations from the norm.
In retrospect, my estimate of Billions/Trillions to one is highly

underestimated. 14 Standard Deviations is more on par with being one of
the rarest events ever to occur within the known universe.
Mail Profile <<>>
Giz, with all due respect, the Roulette wheel - nor your local casino for that
matter - cares what you believe.
Step up, make the bets, and demonstrate that your results are in line with
your beliefs.
If you are successful, then someone will care.
A lot.
sherminator Posted: 24-Feb-10 11:33 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Gizmotron, these type of discussions will always end up going around in
circles. To take advantage of the opportunities you are talking about means
you have to be able to see them and understand them first. To be fair to the
maths guys/girls, they are asking questions, but the answers are not really
forthcoming and that is your right to keep what you want to yourself. So it
kind of makes me wonder what all the fuss is about. I certainly can't get
excited by it all.
Ava Tar Posted: 24-Feb-10 11:44 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Gizmotron wrote: "I have said that the odds don't change. I've made the
clear point that I can see times when opportunities occur."
When opportunities occur ... if the odds don't change ... it's still 18/37 to hit ...
19/37 to lose ...
"Opportunity occurs" ... to do WHAT and WHY exactly?

Bet at the same odds as usual?
Great opportunity!
Mail Profile Laurance, I appreciate your perspective. It's genuine and well thought out.
I just saw this: "The chances of somebody stepping up the wheel, placing
1,000 E/C bets and winning 611 (or more) of them is somewhere around 5
Billion to one."
It just occurred to me that I don't need to win any more than 47% of the time
to reach my goal. In my case where I bet 12, 24, or 26 numbers at a time I
must win 66% of the time to break even. When I don't bet that 66% I play
minimums on the EC's without much concern what might be an opportunity
there. I make my money by attacking the opportunities. They come and go
while the stats remain at their normal average state. I don't make claims of
72% on the EC's. If I was to grind that out. I could probably live with a 53%
win rate in the EC's. Out of that I could reach my goal several times per
session. In almost every case I would at some point be above the beginning
point in almost every session. To break the math you must leave above your
beginning point. It's that simple. So I have no idea how Spike gets his 72%
win rate. I do know that he knows how to read randomness. I do know that
he knows how to exploit opportunities.
Mail Profile Actually spike must have altered his way of play to the worse because it
used to be 80%. Someone send me this link from 4 years ago:
http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?
board=_master&act;
ion=opentopic&topic;=1872&forum;=Roulette_Archive_2005
Snowman, there are still people struggeling to register on the board. Can
you fix it ? Or is it the big dog (fish) who can do that ?
Laurance, i will find the number for 7 SD if we get in a situation where we

need it. So far i think you do just fine having provided up to 6. I doubt we will
ever need any beyond 2 SD when dealing with spike. Beyond 2 ??? It would
mean he had actually made some bets. Nah, ain`t gonna happen.
Wolf, i doubt you will find a way where you can find a way where probability
can predict something to happen in roulette. You get in situations where
what is happening at the table is not very likely to happen and suggests that
some kind of reversal is due, but that is exactly what gamblers fallacy is all
about.
Mail Profile <<>>
I guess the entire thread could be summed up with an answer to this

question:
How do you know this?
Mail Profile Here is a little more down to earth example that illustrates exactly how rare a
7 STDEV event really is.
In a 50% game, it is not even possible to get to the 7 STDEV level until you
reach 50 trials (spins):
1 STDEV = SQRT(50 * .5 * .5) = SQRT(12.5) = 3.5355
7 STDEV = 7 * 3.5355 = 25 (24.75)
Expectation = 25 wins
E + 7 STDEV = 50 wins.
To reach 7 STDEV over 50 spins, you would have to win EVERY spin.
For 100 spins? If you won EVERY SPIN, you would be at 10 STDEV.
13.9 STDEV? Think about it.
Mail Profile <<13.9 STDEV? Think about it.
Hey! That's not a high score. Richard achieved near 44SD with SIGNUM.
Mail Profile If you placed 1,000 E/C bets, and won EVERY ONE OF THEM, you would
only be at 32 STDEV.
44 is quite an accomplishment.
sherminator Posted: 24-Feb-10 12:40 Delete Edit
Mail Profile In the following chart is 23 spins which followed after the very first spin taken
from Weisbaden yesterday.
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5559/screenhunter01feb241815.gif
Betting 8 streets using my best method produced the following results.
WWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWW = 21 WINS AND 2 LOSSES.
From the three charts in the topic 'are all even money bets the same'
and using the same betting method would have produced these results on
the three seperate days.
WWWWWWWWWWW = 11 WINS.
WWWWWWLWWWL = 9 WINS AND 2 LOSSES.
WWWLWWWWWWW = 10 WINS AND 1 LOSS.
TOTAL = 51 WINS AND 5 LOSSES from 56 spins.
Probability would suggest I should have hit roughly 38 wins and 18 losses.
These results are not isolated and can be achieved many times.
There are days when I can get negative results but the good days
outnumber the bad days and a long term profit is gained.
Now you may call it whatever you like, educated guessing, intelligent betting,
elegant patterns and so on. The fact is there are people doing it. It is unlikely
that spike, gizmo, gr8player, swami, wolf and myself just to name a few are
all egotistical liars.
Some of you guys just need to live with it and get on with it instead of
wasting valuable time arguing who can and can't do what.
The casino pay the wages, not you guys, so relax.
[Edited by sherminator on 24-Feb-10 12:43]
Mail Profile If you were betting 18 numbers for 1850 spins and won all bets and no
losses you would arrive at 44 standard deviations
Mail Profile Sherminator, you hit 2.6 standard deviations in the first 23 spin sample.
Good result, but with only such a small sample like 23 spins, you will
frequently see results like that. If you could produce 210 wins and 20 losses
in 230 spins you would already have gone to 8 standard deviations.
Mail Profile I played it too...
I got....
Betting 8 streets using my best method produced the following results.
WWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWW = 23 WINS AND 0 LOSSES.
From the three charts in the topic 'are all even money bets the same'
and using the same betting method would have produced these results on
the three seperate days.
WWWWWWWWWWW = 11 WINS.
WWWWWWLWWWL = 11 WINS AND 0 LOSSES.
WWWLWWWWWWW = 11 WINS AND 0 LOSS.
TOTAL = 56 WINS AND 0 LOSSES from 56 spins.
That's how good I am at guessing!
Does it mean I am telling the truth? Only the casino really knows.
See, on the Internet you can be anybody you want and claim anything you
want. Doesn't make it true.
---------------------
"It is unlikely that spike, gizmo, gr8player, swami, wolf and myself just to
name a few are all egotistical liars"
No, but FOR SURE the ones that claim they can consistently win 72% of
their bets on the EC's ARE.
Mail Profile Ava Tar - >>>"Opportunity occurs" ... to do WHAT and WHY exactly?<<<
Exactly, randomness must pass through times when trend states will occur.
It's only an opportunity if you become aware of your own capability to take
advantage of the quality of trends. You must know how to get out of the
damage caused by guesses that don't come to fulfillment. It's literally a
competition with the current state of randomness. You make your attempt
and you monitor your effectiveness. It is in your effectiveness awareness
that you find your smooth swings in the waves of above and below your start
point. Patience and adjustment causes change to just happen. You can
cause smoothness, whether it be up or down, to occur. This is basically done
easier by using your experience with it. You then get out at an up point.
Getting out while ahead is an opportunity too.
Patterns, trends, dominances, and the globaling effect of connected types

flowing in swarms are all characteristics of the tools used to read
randomness. That capability alone is only part of the opportunity that I use.
In fact I just take all that for granted while focusing on the proper points to
attack. All it is is a war with nobody seeing the battle field. Systems are a
joke. Favorite numbers are a joke too.
Mail Profile Laurance - "I guess the entire thread could be summed up with an answer to
this question: How do you know this?"
Because he says he can. I might add here that many here said that nobody
can read randomness. I guess I need to go on Jay Leno.
Mail Profile Gizmo said:
<<>>
Laurance said:
I guess the entire thread could be summed up with an answer to this

question:
How do you know this?
Gizmo's answer:
Because he says he can.
-----------------
Well, there you have it, DEFINITIVE PROOF that Spike can do it.
Mail Profile [Richard achieved near 44SD with SIGNUM.]
Arte, where did you get this figure from? according to Mr Chips' site the final
z-score was 16.83 SD.
Mail Profile So it seems as though the mathboyzz have failed to meet Spike's challenge
(because it's impossible), and we know from experience that Spike has
failed to meet any challenge from the mathboyzz (for the same reason).
Time to move on perhaps?
Mail Profile Patterns, trends, dominances, and the globaling effect of connected types
flowing in swarms are all characteristics of the tools used to read
randomness.>>>
And the more you practice, the better you get at it. As far as the math goes,
the answer must be if you can read the randomness, the math goes out the
window. Thats the only explanation.
If you can hole card the dealer at BJ, your edge goes from 2% up to the
stratosphere. You're essentially cheating, and whats the math for cheating?
Reading random is short circuiting the game and the math. It wasn't
designed for it, thats why we never see eye to eye on the math. Reading
random is cheating and thats exactly how the casino would see it.
Mail Profile failed to meet Spike's challenge (because it's impossible)>>
I see now that it's impossible. The math can only be used to calculate the
present conditions of the game offered by the casino. When you throw the
monkey wrench of reading random into it, the math no longer applies. How
could it? When you throw an unknown into the equation, how do you do the
math when you don't know what the unknown is.
Mail Profile Time to move on perhaps?
----------------
You mean 4 years isn't long enough?
Mail Profile Spike good to see you've crawled back out of your hole, I have a question
for you that you seem to keep overlooking...

Mail Profile I might add here that many here said that nobody can read randomness.>>>
When you mark cards in poker or BJ, what does that do to the math? It
skews the odds totally in your favor, the math goes down the toilet. When
you can read the random, the math totally changes. Thats why we can't
agree on anything here, we're discussing apples and oranges.
Mail Profile The math doesnt totally go down the toilet, changing the game just changes
the odds exactly the same way as it does when online casinos remove the
0/00 from the roulette wheel.

Mail Profile SPIKE, why do you reject Mr Chips's claim since he too can read
randomness and has created a web site around his approach ?
Do you think only you can read randomness ?
Also, do you think Gizmo can read randomness ?
A Wolf Posted: 24-Feb-10 16:17 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Thank you Laurance, and Kelly. No need for a precise figure, I was only
looking for a "ballpark" answer. Using the formula you had posted to crunch
a few numbers for 1000 decisions I ended up right at 7sdv.
Just wondering about what the odds said about this occuring.
Billions to one odds against this occuring would also suggest the likelyhood
of it (hitting 7sdv on the EC's) being a "fluke" are equally as rare.
BTW... They couldnt pay me enough to fly to NY, and be on Leno <big grin>.
I suspect (may just be paranoia) also that several casinos would want you
DEAD, shortly after it was prooven ...lol
Mumm is the word!
Cheers
Wolf
[Edited by A Wolf on 24-Feb-10 16:35]
Mail Profile SPIKE, why do you reject Mr Chips's claim since he too can read
randomness>>>
Come clean, Arte. Is El Chippo realy your dad? He's your idol, thats for sure,
he must be your dad too.
Mail Profile [Richard achieved near 44SD with SIGNUM.]>>
Why is this hard to believe? Arte and Chippo are in charge of the asylum on
that site, its probably closer to 60SD.
Mail Profile It is unlikely that spike, gizmo, gr8player, swami, wolf and myself just to
name a few are all egotistical liars.>>
And these are all players that go to real casinos. Is that just a coincidence? I
don't thin so.
Mail Profile <<Arte and Chippo are in charge of the asylum on that site, its probably
closer to 60SD.
No, just 16.83 a bit above your score. But look, i won't complain. I am not
sure at 100% but you seem cooler to the faggots that are on that
bandwagon with you except that i think gr8player and swami are in a
different league than you and gizmo.
Mail Profile Oops! almost forgot. Now that Laurance has showed you what it is being a
pro or someone that knows roulette what's next? Are you gonnna keep
posting these idiot threads where you keep asking the same questions over
and over. I am sure in 3 years from now, you and gizmo will be at the same
stage where you'll argue about the possibility to read randomness as you
read a newspaper.
Mail Profile Arte, there is no doubt that reading you is far easier than reading
randomness. Ipso-Facto!
Mail Profile Richard achieved near 44SD with SIGNUM.]>> No, just 16.83>>
But why did you say 44? I'm confused.
>>but you seem cooler to the faggots that are on that bandwagon with
you>>
Poor bitter Arte. He's seeing fag's on bandwagon's again, never a good
sign..
Mail Profile SPIKE, do you think Gizmo can read randomness ? I ask this as he always
admitted he could not beat EC's so if he can't beat EC's why cann he beat
the other chances ?
That's funny as in one of his comment he wrote that he is happy to achieve

53%. You guys are making up your own story as you go. Here is something
for you:
The fill in the blank story generator:

http://www.worsleyschool.net/socialarts/generate/astory.html
Mail Profile Once upon a time about a month ago in math class. I was talking on the
phone when I realized that something wasn't right. You have probably had
that experience before. I felt elated, and I knew that soon I would have to
cover myself in embarrassment. My friend Matt had called me the previous
day, and told me all about Brent's problem with the letter she wrote to Brent,
and I was a little worried about both of them. Then, all of a sudden, I saw in
my mind what I realized was the problem I had ignored, and right then I wet
my pants! I remembered what my math teacher had told me about a
situation like this. It was very important that I not panic. Very calmly, I picked
up a big stick and waved my arms in the air. Before I knew it, I was laughing
at myself, and I cried like a baby. So you see, I really learned something,
and I decided I had to tell you all about it.
Gizmotron
Mail Profile 4 years bullshitting back and forth, ducking, diving, twisting questions, when
everything could have been settled if someone had joined spike to the
casino.
Spike is not short of calling peopele scammers and demanding proof of

everything, but spike, don`t you see you are the one in the glass house ?
What if it turns out that laurance can easyli operate steves device so he can
get an edge ? That means that at least steves product exists and works in
the hands of someone who can operate it.
You on the other hand is the one who claims completely ridicoulous hit rates
but refuses to back anything up, all it takes is 2 - 300 spins. What is it you
call such a person ? Scammer, liar, bullshitter ?
Mail Profile What if it turns out that laurance can easyli operate steves device so he can
get an edge?>>
What if he does? Knock yourself out with those cheating devices, I don't like
prison..
Mail Profile You missed the point.
Mail Profile You had a point?
Mail Profile Just that you are probably a bigger liar than steve is. Im not defending steve
but he is willing to back up his claims, so at least we will soon know wether
they are over rated or not.
Mail Profile Just that you are probably a bigger liar than steve is.>>
You can't get to me, Kelly. Not even a nice try.
slowdown Posted: 25-Feb-10 03:12 Delete Edit
Mail Profile No wonder these maths guys never win at roulette or any other casino game
i should imagine,because they seem to think that if the maths say no. it cant
be achieved.
Despite this guy Spike banging on about the fact that he can achieve a strike
rate of 72% in his last 14 thousand odd posts,because the maths say no
according to them he is lying,bull.
Last time i played craps with my mate ,we played the field bet and won 14
times in a row,now according to the maths guys that wouldn't be possible so
explain that whilst your at it.
snowman Posted: 25-Feb-10 04:21 Delete Edit
Mail Profile When you call other people mathboys or math guys, you're basically
bragging that you're not one. In other words, you're basically telling the world
that you're ignorant and proud of it.
In the ghetto it may be cool to brag about being stupid, but here it just makes
people think you're a fool.
Fortunately, you're not bragging that you're illiterate.
Snowman
Mail Profile slowdown,
So if someone makes outrageous claims but have written thousands of

posts then that counts as evidence does it? You have been brainwashed.
Your field bet win was a one-off event, the very fact that you mention it is
proof of it. The math can say very little about these kinds of events (except
that they do occur). Spike, on the other hand, claims consistently winning 72
bets out of every 100. Even someone ignorant of statistics would question
that.
Please engage brain before putting keyboard into gear!
Mail Profile <<When you call other people mathboys or math guys, you're basically
I agree, this is in the same league as this :

<< And these are all players that go to real casinos. Is that just a
coincidence? I don't thin so >>
Mail Profile Slowdown slowdown, No math has ever dictated that you cant win 14 times
in a row, it cant even dictate that you cant win 1850 times in a row. But if you
do win 1850 times in row, you have achieved a 44 standard deviation and
the probability for achieving that is so small that i am not gonna bother
calculate it. I actually dont think my calculator or myself can handle so many
digits and its not really that relevant.
Maybe slowdown can explain where the math says he cant win 14 times in a
row.
Mail Profile Any math oriented person is aware of the concept of an algorithm. I can
write an algorithm that proves my position that Roulette can be beaten. Not
only can reading randomness work but it can be utilized to take advantage
of opportunities. This can be done to such a degree as to prove that Roulette
can be beaten by a mind at work. The algorithm would be an indisputable
form of proof written in a form that math experts could not dispute. There is
only one thing preventing me from embarrassing all of you and bringing
praise to my stature in the same moment. You don't deserve to be treated so
well. I don't deserve to have my opportunities taken away from me. So here
is the dilemma. Why aren't you smart enough to figure this out on your own.
I say it's because you are already convinced that your world is just fine. I'm
humored by your expertise knowing what I know. Any time I feel like it can
can drop my bomb. In one single moment I can destroy the widely held view.
You must know that I'm toying with you out of curiosity and arrogance. I have
things to do. Chomp on that for a while.
Mail Profile Gizmo,
So you haven't actually written the code, you're just claiming that you CAN
write it. If you could come up with such an algorithm the implications would
reach far beyond mere gambling. The problem is (according to my
knowledge - I may be wrong) that you can't patent an algorithm because
they are considered to be mathematics. This is a bit of grey area, however I
believe you can get around it by building a dedicated machine which runs
the algorithm.
Having said that, I don't believe such an algorithm can be written.
Mail Profile <<There is only one thing preventing me from embarrassing all of you and
bringing praise to my stature in the same moment
Bullshit gizmo. You can't program anything that has some substance. Many
times you have proposed this or that and we never saw any prototype from
you. At best we saw a screen capture probably done in photoshop to
impress the crowd. I am sure you don't know jack shit about coding apart
from simple scripts that run in runrev or you can copy/paste from other
programmers.
Mail Profile Gizmo don`t let us stop you and don`t be afraid that you might hurt our
feelings with embarresment although it is a nice gesture to think about us.
Mail Profile Gizmo,
Sorry, but you're basically pulling a Spike and Jame Wendall. We simply just
don't believe you.
Mail Profile Kelly, I can appreciate that. There is only one person stopping me from
writing this program and, as I put it, dropping that bomb. That person is
Spike. He's the only other person currently using randomness to exploit
weaknesses in the currant state of the game. If Spike says it's OK then I'll do
it. Heck, I'll make a video of it working as a teaching tool and put that on
Youtube to go viral. I've thought this out extensively. I would produce the
computer program, with encrypted source code, that places bets before the
next spin, that are then tested against the next spin entered by the tester.
That way you can take published spins and enter them one at a time to see
if the computer can beat them. I was thinking of writing a free e-book
explaining it all. The only requirement being that they would have to
download my MTML browser and use it to surf the internet in order to get the
main points. In essence I would cause a great deal of interest in my browser
and it's advanced capability as an internet document tool. I could also sell a
tutoring version of this to teach how to read randomness.
Now all that would cause a great deal of buzz. The casinos around the world
would make an adjustment because of this. Imagine this. The entire world
would be able to read comments here from the archives. So here is how
things stand. I'm only waiting on Spike.
Mail Profile @Gizmo:
Propel, Propel, Propel your craft

Placidly down the liquid solution
Ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically,
Existence is but an illusion.
Mail Profile Gizmo,
I really don't understand why you're waiting on Spike to give you the ok. Or
maybe I do. It's because spike will say NO (and you know he'll say no) which
gives you a convenient get-out clause.
As snowman says, this is just another empty claim.
Mail Profile You have been brainwashed.>>
I'm sorry if I washed your brain, Slowdown. Feel free to get it dirty again.
Mail Profile Sorry, but you're basically pulling a Spike and Jame Wendall.>>>
Whatever that means. Where's the censor, he's never around when you
need him.
Mail Profile Whatever that means.
----------------
IT MEANS...
They CAN'T put up and to add insult to injury...they never shut up.
bombus Posted: 25-Feb-10 16:28 Delete Edit
Mail Profile
gizmotron: <<< I'm only waiting on Spike. >>>
Don't hold your breath!
Mail Profile Well the chances are very thin. We agree that if it were built it should be sold
to one person at a time for $250,000 per seat.
Mail Profile I'm not selling anything. Maybe someday when I'm too old to play anymore,
but now there is too much money to be made in the casinos. I have nothing
for sale, and won't have till the cows come home, if they ever do.
Mail Profile Tough luck guys, course you already knew that. It must have been an
educated guess.
Mail Profile This whole educated guessing and playing random against random is utter
nonsense.
Mail Profile This whole educated guessing>>
The player who sits down and makes a bet is making a guess. Are you
saying that no matter what he does, no matter how much research he does
to educate himself on his guessing method, he has absolutely no chance of
improvement?
and playing random against random>>>
Who plays random against random? Thats what your average ploppie does,
he sits down and picks a bunch of numbers randomly and bets them against
random outcomes and loses his butt.
Mail Profile Spike,
Random is random.
Mail Profile Random is random.>>
And apples are apples. I'm not seeing your point.
Mail Profile I know your not.
Mail Profile But thanks for the thoughtful input anyway. I just jotted down 'random is
random' in case I forget. <rolls eyes>
TurboGenius Posted: 26-Feb-10 09:00 Delete Edit
Mail Profile "that it is highly unlikely that your results (hit rate) will vary more than 3
standard deviations from expectation.
I would go so far to say that it is "impossible" for your hit rate to exceed
seven standard deviations.
You claim to have a hit rate in excess of 13 standard deviations."
I think that sums up the thread.
Mail Profile 13, is that all? I thought it was 16..

Mail Profile You can make a joke out of it, but the reality is, your claim makes you out to
be the real joke.
Mail Profile agreed. there almost isn't anything that you could compare it to.
It sounds 'not too far fetched' perhaps to say 72% but when you
look at the big picture - if someone said they hit the lottery every week for a
year you would laugh your ass off, and I'm pretty sure the odds of that
happening are about the same.
Always simple to prove in a test situation, something simple like 100 playing
cards - 50 red and 50 black, Spike guesses red or black. 72 out of 100 times
he would be correct (not counting the zeros < famous quote). It simply isn't
possible, no matter how you 'guess' or how many hours you practice. It won't
change the fact that 50 cards are red and 50 are black, and you will average
getting them right about 50% long term.
[Edited by TurboGenius on 26-Feb-10 23:08]
Mail Profile Always simple to prove in a test situation>>
Yup, I test it every day. Reading the random skews the math, just like
counting the cards skews the math in BJ. Not too hard to understand..
johno Posted: 27-Feb-10 05:24 Delete Edit
Mail Profile I will admit achieving a 72% hit rate on the EC's seems a bit over the top,
way over the top, a bit of exaggeration, massive exaggeration, 60% would
suit me. YES there are a few of Spikes posts which are contradictory. I'm
confident Spike doesn't achieve his claimed 72% strike rate each and every
session, although he could have more positive sessions in regards to hit rate
than negative ones.
We have read over the years constant arguments and ALL THE FLAWS
have been done to death regarding his claim. Place the character aside and
flip the coin for a second. We can't dispute that Spike doesn't know what he
is talking about (sometimes, at least for those sceptics).
Which leads to something which has interested me over the years. How the
HELL can ANYBODY maintain such a pretence for approx 3.5 years. Making
such a claim has no equal on the net to the best of my knowledge. It would
take a remarkable amount of patience / bullshit to maintain such a charade.
Not saying it's true, rather it's revealing that somebody would bother repeat
so called nonsense for so long.
To me it doesn't matter if it's true or not, I don't think 70% is achievable on

average. I don't lose sleep over it.
Mail Profile It would take a remarkable amount of patience / bullshit to maintain such a
charade
-------------------
NOT if you're psychotic

Mail Profile lol
Mail Profile How the HELL can ANYBODY maintain such a pretence for approx 3.5
years.>>
I wouldn't know. I've started more productive threads in the last 4 years than
anybody in the history of GG. Easy to dispute, look it up. But like I always
say, believe me, don't believe me, it changes nothing.
Mail Profile <<I've started more productive threads in the last 4 years than anybody in
the history of GG
Define "productive". You certainly do not mean quality, do you?
Mail Profile I've started more productive threads in the last 4 years than anybody in the
history of GG.
---------
P-R-O-D-U-C-T-I-V-E ?
Then you evidently don't know productive means.
Controversial, stupid, worthless, unnecessary, egotistical, self-aggrandizing,

self absorbed, ridiculous, absurd, bone-headed...yes, productive, no.
Lone Wolf Posted: 27-Feb-10 16:39 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Productive? You've got to be kidding.
Most of your posts are talking about how everybody you see at the casino
are dumb assholes who know nothing about gambling, bitching about almost
everyone you come across at the casino and how they bother the hell out of
you, telling everyone who happens to post any method they use on this
board how stupid their way of play is and oh yeah ...... your hit rate always
falls around 72%. If that's your idea of productive then maybe you should
rethink your posting method.
Mail Profile Productive and relevant and interesting. Here are just a few threads I started
from 2008. I can go to 2006, 2007, 2009, if you like.
Riding the Waves of Variance
W/L Results are NOT Playable as EC's
4 Types of Roulette
Variance Is a Killer
The Monty Hall Problem
Can The Law of Probability Be Proven?
The Nature Behind the Distribution of Events
Dealer Influence (Again)
Battling Chaos
Probability Again
Is There Fluctuation in Roulette
Ego's & Emotion Have No Place At The Table
Chaos Revisited
One Spin At A Time
Trends Again
Interesting Question
Money Management
Ed Thorp And Educated Guessing
Not A Bad Roulette System
Is 10,000 Spins Enough To Evaluate A Wheel
Mail Profile I admit SPIKE the titles are quite enticing but the content found in these
threads is quite basic and repetitive and most of the time these discussions
transform into ego battles. What gives ? I think your father did not teach you
how to discuss.
Mail Profile A few more. Find somebody who has started more productive threads and
has engendered more roulette discussion here than me. Go ahead and look.
I have just scratched the surface, want to see more?
The Human Element
Understanding the EC's
How Many 'Gamblers Fallacies' Are There?
Origami & Martingale
Proving Why It Works
Mathematical Proof that Progressions Cannot Overcome Expectation
What Is SD and Why Is It Important
Roulette & Chess
Quoting The Wiz Thread Continued
Perceived Risk and Actual Risk
The Wheel's Timeline
RNG is NOT The Same As Actual
Let It Ride
OK, What's the 'Matrix?'
What Is Dispersion Of Hits. Exactly
Mail Profile transform into ego battles>>
LOL! You should know, Ipso. Like most threads here don't eveolve into ego
battles Checked the bac threads lately? I don't post there anymore, can't
blame any of that on me.
I start interesting roulette threads that sometimes go over 150 posts. People
don't post in threads they aren't interested in, do they.
Mail Profile Find somebody who has started more productive threads and has
engendered more roulette discussion here than me.
---------------
You obviously confuse quantity with quality.
VERY few of the threads you've started have been PRODUCTIVE.
VERY few of the threads you've started ENGENDERED ROULETTE

DISCUSSION.
MOST are nothing more than a grand display of a twisted mind from
someone suffering from a massive dose of NPD. Not to mention the fact that
your ego is so big that it arrives 2 days before the rest of you does.
Often times, less is more. A little bit of you goes a long way.
Please keep that in mind in your future posts.
BTW...You can't seem to answer this:

We're waiting Chumlee.
slowdown Posted: 28-Feb-10 05:12 Delete Edit
Mail Profile "When you call other people mathboys or math guys, you're basically
Fortunately, you're not bragging that you're illiterate."
Snowman
Thanks for the insults.
At the end of the day you can go on and on about how you can't beat the
maths in roulette,but its not the maths that beat most people is it.
Now go and actually have a look how people play the game at the roulette
wheel(if your old enough to enter the Casino that is) and then come back
here and apologise to me for calling me ignorant.
Then admit your ignorant for thinking its just maths that beat most people.
[Edited by slowdown on 28-Feb-10 05:24]
Mail Profile Based on my experience, GREED is what wipes out most people who play
ANY table game.
Asians (Orientals primarily, at least where I play) will erratically bet more and
more until all their chips are gone. It's almost like they think they can win
72% of their bets .
*They also tend to think they are the only person at the table, pushing and
leaning over and bumping other players and could care less. I can't figure
out if they're so caught up in the game that they don't realize it OR that they
just don't give a shit. I tend to lean towards the latter.
**I also find it amazing how many of them can't speak English UNTIL the
dealer does something they don't like, like shorting them on a payout.
Mail Profile There are lots of things which account for people losing, greed is one of
them. You could also add impatience and lack of discipline. But lack of greed
doesn't make you a winner. Greed implies "wanting more", so curbing your
greed and being satisfied with small wins means you may lose less, but it
also implies "quitting while ahead", which does not in itself give you an
advantage. To think otherwise is to believe the fallacy perpetuated by people
like John Patrick - 3 losses in a row and quit, set loss limits and win targets
etc. If you have a real advantage, greed is a non-issue. If you have a real
edge, greed is a good thing. Why would you not continue to play when you
have the edge?

Why would you set arbitrary loss limits and win targets when the odds are in
your favor?
carefree Posted: 28-Feb-10 10:14 Delete Edit
Mail Profile for pete's sake,U R telling the whole world that everybody loses to the house
edge in you millions of posts and now you want the maths to be on your
side?? get real,everybody loses 72% all the times and that means you too.
for being a pro,you never touch on money,how odd? What else is there,if not
$$$$$$$$$. Hello,R U real?? how much are you winning?? and dont tell us
it's 72% loser rate!
then you're paranoid abt casino wanting to spy on you and the whole world
may discover yr skill. already enough of this stuff or ppl here still think that
we're going to continue this to the 'oneder years'.
ooophs,I forgot,the casino pay you and then we've to stay tunes.....
hard lucks to everyone.
Mail Profile Why would you not continue to play when you have the edge?>>
Because you want to play in that local casino for years, thats why. Alerting
them to what you do is last thing you want.
Mail Profile Alerting them to what you do is last thing you want.
-----------
And EXACTLY HOW are they going to figure out that you're psychic?
Mail Profile Look at Donali's profile. She's listed as a Moderator. Isn't that special. She
has one purpose. She has a fetish with Spike. Some women are just
destined to attempt to make one other person miserable. I don't think it's
working though.
Mail Profile Jismo,
Wipe your mouth, I think some of Spike is running down your chin.
Mail Profile Donali = troll (again)
Have you all seen the multi-millionaire that has nothing better to do than to
hum on the end of my dangling gila monster?
Mail Profile Hitting 72% on the EC's would mean the worst run of outs would be 6 or 7 at
the most. It would be easy for Spike to participate in a test where he calls
the bet after each spin is called. Even if he hit a horrid run of 6 losses it
would still only take at most 100 or so spins to show whether or not 72% is
achievable. I donï¿½t think anyone would be able to work out Spikes
method with so few spins, so there is really no risk at all to Spike. It would
certainly not take as long as writing out 10 + posts a day of dribble.
If Spike was unable to maintain 72% over 100 or so real wheel spins, this
would be mathematical proof that guessing doesnï¿½t work.
The spins could be verified through a number of members.
Mail Profile 10 + posts a day of dribble.>>>
Is there a posting limit? Don't read them if it bothers you. And dribble is
something you do with a basketball or when you drink from a glass. You
mean 'drivel', something you do on RF and VLS. And here.
Mail Profile
Dribble, drivel, poppycock, claptrap, waffle, blather, twaddleï¿½
whateverï¿½ Once again Spike dodges the core issue withï¿½ dribble.
I have suggested a suitable way to resolve the issue that YOU raised by
starting THIS thread.
You claim that to be proficient at your game you practice 5 hours a day. Well
if that is the case then there is little to no chance anyone will be able to
decipher your technique in a few hundred miserly spins. Your game is safe.
Get kj smooth to supply the numbers. Get him to send them to gizmotron &
snowman for authentication.
Call the bet after each number is posted by kjs.
If after 100 spins you manage to hit 72% then you win. No one can deny the
value of educated guessing. You are free to continue harvesting the casinos
to whatever level you desire. No one will ever question Spikes integrity ever
again.
But if after 100 spins you only manage to hit 60% - which is pretty good
going -then you will need to hit 84% in the second set of 100 spins to correct
strike rate.
If in the second set of 100 spins you again only manage to hit 60% -which is
pretty good going - then you will need to hit 96% in the third set of 100 spins
to correct strike rate.
If in the third set of 100 spins you again only manage to hit 60% -which is
pretty good going - then you will need to hit 108% in the fourth set of 100
spins to correct strike rate.
That of course would be game over. In fact any point at which you need to
attain beyond 100% in the next spin set would be game over - educated
guessing at 72% mathematically disproved.
Well?
Mail Profile I have suggested a suitable way to resolve the issue>>
Whats in it for me? You're approval? Gee, why don't I think I need that.. LOL!
Mail Profile
It's your thread.
Read the title.
What's in it for you?...Here's your chance to shut everybody up.
What in it for me?..Absolutely nothing.
Spike - AKA - the artful dodger.
Mail Profile Prove With Math That Guessing Won't Work For Spike.
The probability of you guessing your color is 18/37 in the long run.
The payoff is even money.
Consequently, you lose at a rate of 5.26% in the long run.
The End.
SPIKE Posted: 01-Mar-10 00:32 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Consequently, you lose at a rate of 5.26% in the long run.>>>
But thats assuming I guess at the rate of 47.37%
Because I can read the random, it doesn't apply to what I do. Just like card
counting, it skews the math. Quit trying to pound a square peg into a round
hole.
[Edited by SPIKE on 01-Mar-10 00:38]
bombus Posted: 01-Mar-10 01:01 Delete Edit
Mail Profile
snowman: <<< The End. >>>
Amen to that, brother.
[Edited by bombus on 01-Mar-10 01:01]
snowman Posted: 01-Mar-10 01:54 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Sorry Spike,
But according to logic, common sense, and probability you are dead wrong.
There you have it.
Checkmate.
So says the Consortium of Wise Men. /.\
Snowman
Mail Profile according to logic, common sense, and probability you are dead wrong.>>
Actually, thats what the experts said about card counting. Thorp's book was
mocked and ridiculed by the casino's when it came out, they thought he was
nuts. When they realized card counting turned the math in favor of the
player, they went bonkers. Literally.
Why do you think reading random is not possible? You know it would totally
change the math, and it does. Put your efforts there, indtead of directing
them at ridiculing me, and you might get somewhere.
Kelly Posted: 01-Mar-10 02:56 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Why do you think reading random is not possible?
You and gizmo are the only ones in the world who says you can do it, and
you both refuse to give an example. That pretty much end future productive
discussions right there. How on earth should it be possible for us take a
different view when you refuse to represent your case ? We got plenty of
examples that support our view points and zero that represents yours, so
there you got it. You are your own road block in changing our views.
snowman Posted: 01-Mar-10 03:09 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Spike mistakenly wrote, "Actually, thats what the experts said about card
counting. Thorp's book was mocked and ridiculed by the casino's when it
came out, they thought he was nuts. When they realized card counting
turned the math in favor of the player, they went bonkers. Literally."
Actually Spike, that's just not true. Casinos knew there was a potential threat
because risk consultants could follow the mathematics as Thorp had laid
them out.
You simply can't compare your method which is based on gambler's fallacy
to a lucid, well thought out method like card counting.
Snowman
Mail Profile
Sorry to say this, but Spike's roulette record is much the same as his military
record...He's never fired a single bullet.
Chow, bella.
Mail Profile but Spike's roulette record is much the same as his military record...>>
You know nothing about my military record, you weak puke draft dodging
coward. I know your kind like a book. You hide under rocks and cry 'mama',
while the real men save your sorry ass..
Mail Profile So far i can only see 1 or 2 in here hiding and dodging.
Donali Posted: 01-Mar-10 04:57 Delete Edit
Mail Profile but Spike's roulette record is much the same as his military record...>>
You know nothing about my military record, you weak puke draft dodging
coward. I know your kind like a book. You hide under rocks and cry 'mama',
while the real men save your sorry ass..
--------------------
The above post is the PERFECT example of why Spike can't correctly guess
72%.
Here's why...
bombus says something about Spike's military record.
Spike blasts him for doing it by saying "You know nothing about my military
record" but then he does EXACTLY THE SAME THING TO BOMBUS.
So how does that mean Spike can't hit 72%?
Because you will never see someone who's really 'dumb' be able to do a
really intelligent feat, not to mention the math says it's impossible. And don't
bring up idiot savants as a way to refute that because they are actually
intelligent. Besides that, Spike is not one, he's only half of one.
You can't fix stupid.
Mail Profile ...you weak puke draft dodging coward. I know your kind like a book. You
hide under rocks and cry 'mama', while the real men save your sorry ass..
Mama!
Hahahahaha!
forester Posted: 01-Mar-10 06:14 Delete Edit
Mail Profile
200 posts
Interesting, in past 2-3 years nothing have changed here.

Spike has 22% advantage over the house and all are trying to find out how.
Sounds reasonable, Iï¿½ve seen some claiming constant 300%+ advantage

and nobody cares.
hmmmm
johno Posted: 01-Mar-10 09:01 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Productive doesn't equate to substance. It's quality that counts not quantity.
The board owner maybe more interested in quantity as it's traffic that count,
board members care more for quality.
Anyway here is something else to consider.
Do you believe Spike gambles on a weekly basis? He does appear

knowledgeable about matters concerning roulette, in my opinion the answer
would be yes.
Do you believe Spike flat bets?
Yes I believe he does. This could be due to two reasons. Either previous
experience has taught him progressions have proven useless and perhaps
he has lost too much money in the past for him to contemplate using them
again. And / Or he has discovered an edge were he doesn't need to use any
progression.
All of the above could apply. Discovered an edge but not necessarily to the
degree he claims. On the other hand, Spike would also be a unique gambler
having switched from playing BJ to now playing the EC's on the game of
roulette, a strange move.
Which leads to the final consideration. Assuming some of the above is true
(regualr play/flat betting). What system would ï¿½at a minimum break
evenï¿½ in regular play, considering the 5.4% negative expectation. It would
be a decent system if only managed to break even, never mind return any
profit. It would also be truly remarkable to hit 60% or beyond.
While I personally don't subscribe to any 72% claim, as you have to factor in
volatility, each session can't be the same. Rather I think possibly a lucky
session consisting of very few bets presented Spike with the opportunity to
boast on the forum and he has possibly repeated the stats not only to boost
his own ego, but also to wind people up on the board.
Any person who placed either 1 bet and won could claim a 100% strike rate,
or 2 from 3 a 75% strike rate, even if it happened only once. So leaving
aside the 72% claim. What is it that he is doing, that allows him to play on a
regular basis and at a minimum break even?
Is the stake so low that there is negligible risk? While he once told me in an
email, he played $1 units. I don't know if that was meant as a joke, or a
mistake, as in he plays $1 units but bets 5 or 10 per time. If Spike was
indulging himself in $1 action games. Letï¿½s not forget he did play
Baccarat for a short while and I would be pretty confident nobody will find $1
tables in the Michigan area.
So I think it is safe to assume his playing level is not restricted to $1 stakes.

Given Spikes knowledge about the game, along with his 14000 posts, I
would conclude he is also not an average player and would find it surprising
if he experienced the normal ups and downs regular punters go through. So
in this case, he must be doing something, assuming you subscribe to some
of the above (regular flat bettor), the 72% aspect/claim is irrelevant.
Mail Profile No one would have lifted an eyebrow if the claim was that he regularly was
winning. Estimated hit rate maybe 52%. And on a regular basis maybe for 2
- 4 years. Just about everybody claims that and in many cases it might just
be the truth. The probability that shit happens is not so small at all.
But spike has to claim something pretty unbelieveable. which already after
200 spins is just about impossible.
gizmotron Posted: 01-Mar-10 11:25 Delete Edit
Mail Profile johno, those are reasonable questions and probably true conclusions.
I don't think that Spike's long term average is 72% either. I think that when
he is in the groove that the session tends to wind up as a 72% win rate. I
think he sits out some spins. He plays to win, to reach a goal. I think this
72% crap got out of control here at this forum. Spike won't admit to divulging
the real win rate over the years. If he has a 55% - 60% win rate, and he sits
out unfavorable spins then he has all he needs to reach his goal. That
should be enough for almost every time that he goes too. He does openly
admit that there are times when he can't read the randomness and that it's
chaotic. I think the 72% slipped out as a generalization and that others here
jumped on it in order to make him out to be a lier. He does not care what
others think. That has been established to no ending. Johno is asking the
correct questions.
Mail Profile It is my opinion that the ability to break even at least every session would be
pretty remarkable, even more so if the player was flat betting, then it
becomes very impressive.
Spike has never posted the average on the number of bets made for any
given session, which is a crucial bit of information. Other than some post
where he stated, it once took him 40 bets before he was one unit up, or
something along those lines.
The clue here, as he has often stated, breaking even is like winning, which
he has repeated many times. If occasionally it has taken him 40 bets before
he has made a unit, then this would be another example of not hitting hitting
anywhere near a 72% strike rate.
Gambling is gambling, tall stories and pork pies (lies), we are all prone to
remember the good sessions & forget the bad ones. I have bet selections
that can hit close to 60% over 10k of decisions (BS = AS), doesn't mean a lot
in real play. I've had runs where I have lost approx 3 bets in 40, a 86% hit
rate, yet it was a one off. But it gets the "wet behind the ears crowd excited.
<<He does openly admit that there are times when he can't read the
randomness and that it's chaotic. I think the 72% slipped out as a
generalization and that others here jumped on it in order to make him out to
be a lier>>
Agree. It's impossible to hit 72% each session, there is no doubting Spike
doesn't understand random.
For me, if any player can keep their head above water flat betting, which I
think Spike does at least manage that, that is impressive for me. Breaking
even 5 or 6 times per month and making a profit the rest of the time, is not to
be sniffed at, who knows the odd 60~70 percenter once a months would be
icing on the cake.
And when it comes to this board, what are you going to post about?
Occasionally it might slip about the sessions where you broke even, but
most would be focusing on those odd-ball dream sessions, wouldn't we.
Because these excite gamblers, gamblers get excited by them, it's human
nature to rant about them and forget about the also rans.
Nobody is interested in the posts " I lost xxxx, last nite, plz help me out",
everybody want to read about "I made, or I can do xxxx," because others
want to do it to. And it doesn't take a rocket surgeon [sic] to figure out the
players from the pretenders.
Mail Profile can't compare your method which is based on gambler's fallacy to a lucid,
well thought out method like card counting>>
And never having seen what I do, you would know this how??
Mail Profile It's impossible to hit 72% each session>>
I do it every session. Also, I fixed the break even problem, as I said a few
weeks ago.
>>there is no doubting Spike doesn't understand random>>
Reading the random is the only way to achieve a high hit rate. It puts the
game in your favor and throws the usual math out the window.
Mail Profile I don't think that Spike's long term average is 72% either.
-------------
Gizmo,
Thank you for FINALLY publicly stating that you don't believe that Spike can
average guessing correctly 72% of the time.
I mean this sincerely.
I KNEW you never believed it because I know you understand standard

deviation well enough that you know that it's simply impossible.
-----------
I just heard they've changed the saying to:
No man is an island, except Spike.
Mail Profile it might slip about the sessions where you broke even>>
Nope. I added another EC line and I no longer break even. I just made up
my own EC out of streets that perfectly balances the normal H/L and
because when one side isn't hitting, the other side is, no more breaking
even. Simple.
Mail Profile So hereï¿½s this guy right, who plays the ECï¿½s @ 72%. Has done for
years. Practices the game 5 hours a day. Has done for years. The
consummate professional. Then, all of a sudden he realizes he can put a
few streets together and make another EC? - Huh? - So now he has
complicated his game some more while simultaneously starting a thread

titled K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid).
This guy is tossing it up just like the rest of us.
Mail Profile So now he has complicated his game some more>>>
Stay on VLS where the kindergarten players hang out, there's a good little
lad. Don't try and figure out whats simple and whats complicated, it will just
make your head hurt.
Mail Profile Your game may remain relatively simple, but you have unquestionably
added a level of complication by including a new fabricated EC component.
And you're a tosser, no question.
Mail Profile Then, all of a sudden he realizes he can put a few streets together and
make another EC?
-------------
Added another EC and strangely enough, his 72% didn't move up or down
one iota. Then WHY DID HE NEED TO ADD IT. Just more BS from a BS'er.
He's a tosser alright, a salad tosser.
laurance Posted: 01-Mar-10 23:23 Delete Edit
Mail Profile What's the record here for the most number of posts on a thread?
If we're close, I say we go for it.
Mail Profile High speed connections are a great invention, in the old days it would have
taken the most of a lunchbreak to load this one.
Stefano Posted: 01-Mar-10 23:33 Delete Edit
Mail Profile Post # 216.. 5 seconds to download. Pretty good.
Mail Profile The longest one I can remember was almost 400.
This one isn't even close...yet.
May as well close it, Gizmo finally admitted that HE DOESN'T even believe
Spike's 72% BS. That now makes a total of ZERO people who believe him.
Stick a fork in him.
gizmotron Posted: 02-Mar-10 02:47 Delete Edit
Mail Profile I do believe that he wins all the time, that he reaches his goal, and that he
leaves the casinos a winner. I also believe that you can't do that. Donali is
nothing but a control freak.
Mail Profile <<It's impossible to hit 72% each session>>
"I do it every session. "
Now you have blown it. Care you post how many bets you make on average
per session?
Is it less than 10
Between 10 and 20
More than 20?
My 'educated guess is' you won't answer.....
Mail Profile Care you post how many bets you make on average per session?
Depends on what my goal is. It varies, sometimes its 20 units, sometimes 15

or 25. The average is always the same, no matter how many placed bets
there are.
Mail Profile You didn't really answer the question. I was asking on average how many
bets do you place, in a typical session, irrespective if you are trying to
secure 15~25 units...
Sheridan Posted: 02-Mar-10 06:14 Delete Edit
Mail Profile [The average is always the same, no matter how many placed bets there
are.]
How can the average always be the same if your profit varies, and you
always win 72% of your bets?
More evidence that Spike makes up this stuff as he goes along.
It could well be that he doesn't understand the math well enough to know
what an "average" actually is.
[Edited by Sheridan on 02-Mar-10 06:17]
Mail Profile Depends on what my goal is. It varies, sometimes its 20 units, sometimes 15
or 25.
---------------
I think I have it figured out why you vary your goal...
Some days you just get the buffet with your winnings and so you need 20
units or $20.
Some days you get ice cream after the buffet so you need 25 units or $25.
And on Senior Citizen's day the buffet is $5 off but you dont feel like having
ice cream so you only need 15 units or $15.
That must be one snoozy ride back to the assisted living center on the bus
after a big chomp at the buffet AND ice cream.
Mail Profile Sheridan,
That's why I have been telling Spike for almost 4 years...
"The more you post, the dumber you look"
AND
"Once again... Spike opens mouth, inserts ass"
He's so consumed by his desire to achieve fame that he can't even see how
stupid all his contradictions make him look.
A Wolf Posted: 02-Mar-10 10:03 Delete Edit
Mail Profile "Added another EC and strangely enough, his 72% didn't move up or down
one iota."
Aint that some shit!
"Depends on what my goal is. It varies, sometimes its 20 units, sometimes

15 or 25"
Yeah, added 18 more numbers, yet the goal still varries 5 units "one way ,or
the other" with a constant hit rate, keeping it simple huh.
I believe you also claim all these units are won "strictly" with flat bets, every
session, most every day (fast as possible then gone, right)
ROFLMAO!!OMG!
Humor me here Spike, answer this, how many hours per day do you play
ON AVERAGE, before reaching your goal, 2,4,6,8?
Wolf
Mail Profile Yeah, added 18 more numbers, yet the goal still varries 5 units "one way ,or
the other" with a constant hit rate>>
What does the number of EC streams bet or the unit goal have to do with hit
rate? I can't 'add 18 numbers', I'm always looking at 36 no matter how many
EC streams there are. All adding an EC stream does is look at the same 36
numbers from a different angle. I can make 12 EC streams if I like and I'm
still looking at only 36 numbers. Please tell you understand this. You people
really need to think these things thru.
>>How can the average always be the same if your profit varies, and you
always win 72% of your bets?>>
What difference does it make what the profit is? If it takes 35 bets to make
15 units or 55 bets to make 25, why would that change the hit rate average?
You're not making any sense.
Mail Profile Au contraire, mon frï¿½re, 'tis you who makes NO SENSE.
Mail Profile Spike,
Johno asked you how many bets on average you make per session. You
replied "the average is always the same". Were you talking about your hit
rate? I think you must have been, because it doesn't make sense if you were
were referring to the average number of bets made per session (the answer
to Johno's question).
laurance Posted: 02-Mar-10 11:16 Delete Edit
Mail Profile <<<The longest one I can remember was almost 400.>>>
Not even close with this one.
I vote we let this die a quite death, and start another one.
<<<You replied "the average is always the same". Were you talking about
your hit rate?>>>
WTF really cares at this point?
[Edited by laurance on 02-Mar-10 11:17]
Mail Profile [WTF really cares at this point?]
Who indeed, Laurance.
Mail Profile I vote we let this die a quiet death, and DON'T start another one as it has
only served to further prove Spike's ignorance when we already knew it from
the first time he said he averaged 72%.
Mail Profile I see now that Johno asked about bets and because it was very late I
misread it. My bad. How many bets I make depends on my goal is what I
should have said.
Mail Profile
Ok,
The next person who posts in this thread is a WANKER!
Mail Profile *walks into the room grasping his wrist*
Hey guys, what's going on?
Oh what's in my pocket? It's a roll of $500 chips, of course.
[Edited by Stefano on 02-Mar-10 20:08]
Mail Profile
WANKER!
Mail Profile Bombus dont act like you haven't lost over 80% of your eyesight.
Post a Reply on This Topic

Gambler&#39;s Glen Message Boards Prove With Math That Guessing Won&#39;t Work

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gambler&#39;s Glen Message Boards Prove With Math That Guessing Won&#39;t Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/3/24, 11:24 PM Gambler's Glen Message Boards : Roulette Message Board : Prove With Math That Guessing Won't

uessing Won't Work

The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20171005172333/http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin…

Post a Reply on This Topic

Author Topic: Prove With Math That Guessing Won't Work

kj smooth Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:15 Delete Edit

SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:21 Delete Edit

>>But I know spike, I'm a scammer.>>

Sheridan Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:22 Delete Edit

Mail Profile Spike,

Donali Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:22 Delete Edit

Ok Chumlee, this has been answered before by me but at your age I

Doctors treating MANY hard to cure diseases such as brain tumors,

Once again... Spike opens mouth, inserts ass.

SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:30 Delete Edit

Sheridan Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:39 Delete Edit

Mail Profile [Does it say you can't guess correctly?]

SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:41 Delete Edit

Mail Profile I said it covers ALL cases.>>

Donali Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:47 Delete Edit

We've had this conversation before too Chumlee.

It's upon me to prove I can defy a proven law.

Sheridan Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:56 Delete Edit

Mail Profile [Guessing falls outside the math.]

He just guessed correctly without knowing how he did it.

Now you've really surpassed yourself Spike. Priceless.

laurance Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:57 Delete Edit

All it can do is tell us how unlikely it is to be a true claim.

SQRT(100 *.5 *.5) = SQRT(25) = 5

Expectation is to win 50 spins.

1 STDEV = 5 extra wins

22 = 22/5 = 4.4 Standard Deviations from the norm.

1 STDEV = SQRT(1000 * .5 * .5) = SQRT(250) = 15.81

Expectation = 500 wins

Wins over expectation = 720 - 500 = 220

220 / 15.81 = 13.9 Standard Deviations from the norm.

That's what the math tells us.

SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:57 Delete Edit

Mail Profile it means that guessing DOES work>>

laurance Posted: 23-Feb-10 17:58 Delete Edit

SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:01 Delete Edit

So does educated guessing.

SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:04 Delete Edit

>Spike is correct. Math cannot prove guessing doesn't work.>

Probability is an inexact science at best.

laurance Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:06 Delete Edit

That's fine if the claim is true, and it is so easy to prove if it is:

laurance Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:10 Delete Edit

Mail Profile <<<Probability is an inexact science at best.>>>

No, it is a very exact science.

The casinos are a testament to how accurate it is.

SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:10 Delete Edit

laurance Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:14 Delete Edit

Mail Profile <<<I'm not whining>>>

Yes, you are.

When, it is so simple to prove you are right.

SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:14 Delete Edit

Mail Profile The theoretical equations are very exact>>

laurance Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:15 Delete Edit

Who are the experts that don't agree?

laurance Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:16 Delete Edit

Mail Profile <<<The long term does NOT apply to guessing>>>

SPIKE Posted: 23-Feb-10 18:17 Delete Edit

Gambler's Glen Message Boards Prove With Math That Guessing Won't Work

Gambler's Glen Message Boards Prove With Math That Guessing Won't Work

SQRT(100 .5 .5) = SQRT(25) = 5