Author Topic: Another debate about ramndomness  (Read 1169 times)

0 Members and 168 Guests are viewing this topic.


Re: Another debate about ramndomness
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2019, 12:23:37 PM »
MickyP stats:
Total Posts: 2781 posts.

Total Topics Started: 142 topics.

Yes, I appear to be all over the place.

Is this not what the forum was designed for?
I am proud

So, MickyPeacock is proud to talk about his 2800 peacock feathers! the purpose of a forum is to post useful and intelligent things. For MickyPeacock, quantity is important. Another idiocy, because "too much information kills information".

Members are leaving this forum little by little because its quality is declining from month to month. Personally, I was attacked too much by MickyParanoid, so I don't want to develop my very technical discussions (too technical for MickyPeacock, it prevented his feathers from doing the complete wheel). Other members who have potential come less often.

Who has done an analysis on this phenomenon and can give a thoughtful explanation (an ego story cannot explain everything)?

I quoted your full post so what I have to say is in line with the context of your very words.

"Too much information kills information". The truth always prevails no matter how much you try and twist it. one plus one will always equal two. The truth always kills lies and misinformation (a fancy word for lie).

If you consider questioning your train of thought as an attack then you will never progress in life. You do realize that people differ with each other and this is normal human behavior. If you post a write up (even a copy paste one) you must be prepared to explain your writing and address its importance to its application. You have presented some good debatable ideas but are unable to accept opposing opinions and you populate the idea with not related nonsense.

Both you and Septic tried to trash negative progressions simply because they failed for both of you. Guess what? Negative progressions used in a controlled manner serve an important function in many "winning" roulette methods. That's the truth. deal with it.

In many of your discussions you isolate a small part of a holistic approach to prove that it is worthless. With some things this is true but other components of an approach may depend on the inclusion of the "worthless" component. On its own it may appear worthless but as an integrated support mechanism it has great value to the player. A Martingale negative progression is a good example. It is useless without a good bet selection and is useless if played continuously to a win; you may hit the table max or run out of bankroll. A Martingale negative progression has value in limited use combined with a high hit rate bet selection. Hope you see my point.

Please do not blame me for your not wanting to post. Maybe you don't have anything of value to contribute and you are looking for a scapegoat. Be a man and stand your ground. The truth will prevail.



Re: Another debate about ramndomness
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2019, 03:40:05 PM »
   give peace a chance brothers.  that means be the bigger man and make the first move!!! 
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 08:05:51 PM by kav »


Re: Another debate about ramndomness
« Reply #32 on: October 09, 2019, 09:08:41 AM »
I will not have anything useful to bring! It's a joke?  ;D He recognizes that my discussions have been helpful. The poor guy! If I opened a theme like "Epistemology" is that there is a lot to say. A little revelation for the reader who had the patience to read me until then. Members know that my discussions on roulette are very structured. It's because my work has paid off. How? My game consists of looking for gaps and playing at most 5 units (in 5 spins). My results are positive. But one day, analyzing the lost parts (those at -3 and -5), I found that 7 times out of 10 (it's huge), there were the same cases that had made me lose! To say simply that is to say that there is interdependence between spins. Not a piecemeal interdependence but an overall interdependence between the spins in a sufficiently large set.

On this forum, this notion of "interdependence" is very poorly understood. The reason: a roulette culture of forums of an "eternal beginner" level, then, impossible to open a discussion on this central theme, logically unavoidable, because it represents a blind spot in the players in their fantasy relationship with roulette. However, when they speak of their progression negative, for example, they imply this interdependence of spins, if not, if in their mind there was the idea of ​​an "independence" between the spins, they could not consciously to wait for a profit, and they would give up their hopes of wealth with roulette.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 09:27:26 AM by kav »


Re: Another debate about ramndomness
« Reply #33 on: October 09, 2019, 12:50:46 PM »

MickyPHero Member

« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2019, 08:14:22 AM »

Congratulations Stratege, this thread has value. I really mean that so please don't think I am being sarcastic.

Your quote below caught my attention. Thank you for this. It is the basis of my play style.

"Only one game criterion (or one technique) cannot win. Because there are different forces in the random currents that form a history of spins. These forces are a set of laws. We need to identify the main forces that will guide the currents that will produce a favorable spin distribution for us. This is why I have already said that "a law taken alone does not bring any advantage to the player, it is the combination of the laws between them" which form the phenomena that we seek."

;D  I do agree with you from time to time. You happen to be a thinking man with value to offer.
Peace or piece of my