Author Topic: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems  (Read 936 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vitorwally

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 27 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2018, 12:08:09 PM »

I'll have to agree with Mike. Regarding simulations, a computer will only lack the "human element" if not well instructed. System players can't find a boundary between coded systems and the "human element" because every now and then they face possibly new scenarios, possibly red flags, in their gameplay. Then they add a new "rule" to the system, in the spot, and they think, of course, a simulation of their method will be inconclusive because it won't display the effectiveness of the new "rule" and other possible "rules" and "adjustments". Simulations need to be judged as a test for the method as it is without the "adjustments". By cause of the subjectivity of each one and the quality of the "adjustments". If you want your system to have the capacity of the "human element" maybe machine learning is what you need. Otherwise just keep your method in continuous developing as DrTalos (I could name others that stated they had killer strategies), facing simulations as a test of the method itself and not as a test of the method and what you could possible change in front of the wheel.

I will like to declare as well myself as a guy not divided by the dichotomy SP vs AP. I'm just a roulette enthusiast that keeps an eye open for everything I know that works or the things I don't perceive.
 
The following users thanked this post: kav, Mike

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 743 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2018, 12:27:34 PM »
Wow. So much time and energy trying to prove a point that has no merit.
First it was that all systems fail. Now we are getting more specialized. That a system has to be mechanical and be able to become coded. Otherwise it's not a system. And neither a strategy.
If you claim that all systems fail, y this analysis regarding the mechanical or non mechanical nature of a system?
It's redundant ,
Since you  believe that all systems fail, you don't  have to analyze the situation.
it's just that you want to leave a door open, to code a system to YOUR SPECIFICATIONS and prove that after 50 years will fail
To me all that, is a suspect that you thrive in arguing.
 Especially if you don't offer your winning alternative.
And nobody else does,  in this forum. You know y?
Because there is no alternative.
The AP is  wishful thinking.  A myth. There is no such a thing.
Defective wheels, causing numbers to become biased is also a myth.
Casino will know a defective wheel long before a player knows about it.
A typical player who believes in the AP systems is a player who has suffered losses in his roulette career. And the only way to fight back is develop a belief that they can only win with a ghost system.
And their belief is so strong, they actually convinced themselves that such ghost method actually exists.
it is stupid to assume that a casino will allow a wheel to operate, knowing that it is seriously defective. And they have much better ways of telling than any AP player. ESPECIALLY IF HE IS OBSERVED TO WIN BEYONG LUCK.
The only way  to beat the so called wheel is to use a computer. And it has been done.
Which is illegal. Impossible for a human to do it thru his eye sight alone.
The whole thing about dominant diamonds, and ball jump and ball scatter is nothing more than science fiction.
However it does create doubts to some system players or prospective players, especially if they notice the vulnerabilities of some systems, that are poorly designed. 
And I think allowing so much doubt to flourish is counterproductive.
So unless someone PROVES that an alternate winning method exists, their systems analysis doesn't count in any way. And should be ignored.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 12:36:18 PM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, MickyP

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 743 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2018, 01:43:06 PM »

 Then they add a new "rule" to the system, in the spot, and they think, of course, a simulation of their method will be inconclusive because it won't display the effectiveness of the new "rule" and other possible "rules" and "adjustments". Simulations need to be judged as a test for the method as it is without the "adjustments".
Really?
Is it illegal to re simulate a previous simulation after improvements have been made?
A system starts with a hypothesis. Then improved after home testing or field testing or both.
Adjustments from the INITIAL HYPOTHESIS until its final version is part of every system development
Y should I be locked in the initial hypothesis? If simulation is an option a player can do, then he can re simulate and re simulate, until a final version is developed. What is wrong with that?
If adjustments were illegal, then we would still be flying hot air balloons, riding steam railroads and cars without air bags.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

vitorwally

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 32
  • Thanked: 27 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2018, 01:57:37 PM »
I could have explain my understanding in the wrong way. What I intended to write is that for every "adjustment" you make you'll need to do a new simulation. You can't be too harsh in a simulation that doesn't test the new factors.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 743 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2018, 02:12:38 PM »
Ok. That sounds much more reasonable.  But the fact is that  rarely  a player simulates a system before he hits the casino floors. Because he doesn't know how.
 Some players test a system for a long time before they start playing it in the casino. 
Others test it while they are playing.
It's their money  and they can do what they want. But adjustments are part of the system building process. if simulation is available, it follows the adjustments.
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Thanked: 117 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2018, 02:17:14 PM »
palestis,

In your previous to last post you decided to first attack me and my motivation for posting, then continued with a rant against AP. I've given a good argument for the pointlessness of taking arbitrary decisions during play, but you've ignored it.

Quote
So unless someone PROVES that an alternate winning method exists, their systems analysis doesn't count in any way. And should be ignored.

Wow. Seriously? so nobody is allowed to criticize a system unless they can provide a winning alternative? That's one of the most nonsensical statements I've ever seen on a roulette forum.

Quote
If adjustments were illegal, then we would still be flying hot air balloons, riding steam railroads and cars without air bags.

Nobody is saying adjustments are illegal, but what you and others DO say is that arbitrary decisions made during play are necessary, and that computer simulations are ultimately invalid because they fail to model "real" play correctly. I've just explained why that is flawed thinking and why it's senseless to make those decisions. Go back and read my post again.

And whether I believe all systems will fail or not is beside the point. I'm criticising the methodology of system players and THEIR critique of computer simulations as a valid way of testing systems. Anyway, it seem as though you're back-pedalling now, so I'm out of this thread. I've made my point.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 02:18:57 PM by Mike »
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Thanked: 1446 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2018, 07:14:31 PM »
I want to criticize system play.  I don't want to help system players play better by designing intelligent software.  The reason is because I don't really care about system play anyway; I just want to bash it.

If you put as much effort into coding as you do writing long winded posts about how system players must lose, you would beat roulette with a system; but that's not your motivation.

Don't get me wrong, I am guilty of being lazy too but I am not the one bashing system play.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 04:59:31 AM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis, scepticus, MickyP

DrTalos

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Thanked: 193 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2018, 08:40:58 PM »
In my opinion, a system that works is one that is done without guessing of any sort, that works in a very predictable way and bring the same result every time.
  It doesn't have to make you wonder what to do. Its rules are set when you start playing, when you are testing it, and when you are coding it. All possibilities must be covered. Even the profit must be always the same, with a small variance due to a "lucky" or "unlucky situations" (if my system wins 25 units an hour, I consider it safe if sometimes wins 23 units an hour, or 26. I will consider the system not bulletproof if this variance is too high).
  Every system can be improved, sure, but with testing and new upgraded rules, not because of the feeling of the moment.
  I know that the common believes is that such a system do not exist, and is known that I think otherwise. Is not what I wanna affirm.
  For a system to be called like so must be very predictable, no brainer at all, so me and you, with the same system, at the same table, will we play exactly the same. If you use your experience, at the table, or your intuition, you are not playing a system, but a strategy, at best.

I would love to explain better how to approach the creation of a system that works. if this cold keeps me chained at home sure I will.

 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, MickyP, cht

MickyP

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Thanked: 332 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2018, 09:29:48 PM »
DrTalos, I would be very interested to read how you approach the creation of a system. If it's too much to write at once you can post it in stages or steps. I'm sure many players including mysef will benefit from the instruction
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2401
  • Thanked: 521 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #39 on: February 11, 2018, 10:50:11 PM »
dr Talos
By " Guessing " I mean that if we don't have all the information then we cannot be certain of any outcome therefore all we can do is make an educated guess.
Once we have decided on our course of action there is no further guessing .Just bet our beliefs. 
 

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 743 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2018, 02:36:39 AM »
@ Mike.
1. Your opinion is that there is no system available that can win, nor a new system can be made that can win, unless it concentrates on beating the wheel.
We've heard that so many times, and the reason is always the HE and probability.
We got the message.
Would it make any difference to you if a system was coded to your exact specs? As opposed to allowing on the spot decisions? You still would not approve any system even if it was coded the way you described.
So what's the point of your arguing if your ultimate opinion will still be the same?
2. You don't just criticize a specific system. You denounce every system.
Well, when you do this it's only natural  to be asked to provide an alternative, especially if you call upon it, but in vague terms and no details whatsoever. 
That's an insult to everybody's intelligence.
As far as attacking the AP, it's about time we take a stand.
We are being bombarded with negativity about systems, and the only solution offered is a ghost method called AP.
Which rests upon the premise that casino people are ignorant, and oblivious to what is going on around them. 
Don't expect to be taken seriously if you really believe that.
I see brand new ultra clean wheels, I see pit bosses checking for leveling, I see cleaners wipe and clean the ball track every 8 hours,  I check the fret separators and they look identical, the spacing between numbers is the same and no signs of deterioration on the wheel itself. I also check for dominant diamonds, but none seems to prevail.
And you expect me to accept your implied alternative?
If you want to be taken seriously, then you better be forthcoming with you winning alternative.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 02:40:21 AM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: scepticus, Reyth, MickyP

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2401
  • Thanked: 521 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2018, 02:54:29 AM »
Well said  Palestis .
The AP in this forum are like bloody parrots " You Can't Beat Roulette" -" You Can't Beat Roulette." All they  leave out is the Pretty Polly - Pretty Polly bit.
 They are a bunch of Fundamentalists who are firmly in their box and cannot think outside that box." We need to know the cause "- "Your method must be able to be coded"  etc.. Its a  wonder that previous generations got by without coding ! Just using their brains seemed to be sufficient for them  . 
The pr0blem with not answering them is that newbies are likely to believe them !
Perhaps we should just answer their posts with  " Pretty Polly - Pretty Polly "?   ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis, Reyth, MickyP

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 743 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2018, 03:39:00 AM »
I wish HARRYJ was around. He would definitely have something to say about the coding of his systems 50 years ago.
Debates and arguments happen all the time. In politics, religion  sports everywhere.
But you have the opposing political agendas out in the open, religions are known,  football teams are known. Here we have a ghost variable arguing against a known variable (systems). 
And they expect us to accept that the former is superior to the later, when they have nothing to back it up. And it's been going on for too long.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth, MickyP

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Thanked: 1446 times
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2018, 05:06:02 AM »
I'm content with equal space -- heck I grant them equal space, this forum grants them equal space -- but no, that is not good enough.  Their views are simply their opinions regardless if they are willing to admit it or not.  I simply will not allow them to have anything but a 50:50 playing field.  For too long people have let them get away with the false notion that they have an objective proof that systems cannot work.  Its simply an opinion at best and a deliberate lie at worst.

Their mania is such that if they even grant us equal space, they will have nothing to post about.  That is simply sick.  It goes against the spirit of this forum, period.

Unfortunately, I must agree with the following post because I have had the same thought myself, independently:

A typical player who believes in the AP systems is a player who has suffered losses in his roulette career. And the only way to fight back is develop a belief that they can only win with a ghost system.
And their belief is so strong, they actually convinced themselves that such ghost method actually exists.  EDIT: I replace ghost method with AP method and it pretty much fits.

Its the only thing that makes logical sense for their behavior.  When they come back we should just pepper them with quotes from this thread.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 05:14:16 AM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis

MickyP

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Thanked: 332 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Mechanical vs Nonmechanical systems
« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2018, 06:41:00 AM »
I fully agree with Reyth and Palestis. The constant disruptions to discussions are annoying.

I have engaged with AP in discussions and could see them beginning to lead the discussion astray. It was for this reason that I started the thread dedicated to Real so that the veil could be lifted to reveal the ghost. With this dedicated thread I have realised that AP use past spins to detect an awakening biased number or wheel and that a biased number is not a hot number. Permutation and pattern...

It is best to insist on "proof of win and proof of method" when discussing roulette matters with AP.
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis