Author Topic: Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.  (Read 4939 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.
« on: September 04, 2014, 04:37:32 PM »

Quote
In the scientific community, claims are always backed up with evidence, and that evidence is always subject to peer review.
 
We should expect no less than that here.-Esoito

 
 
Good point.  Where is the peer review that proves Martin Blakey's absurd system works???     I don't see any!

 
 
I see that they like to pretend that Martin Blakey was a Phd mathematician, so let's have his "peers" review it.  Let's post it on the Wizardofvegas and the math and physics forum so that  other mathematicians (his, cough, "peers") can review it. 
 
If Martin Blakey, Jason Chan, and XXVV want us to believe his absurd claims that he made a living off of roulette for 40 years, in the same casino - I might add, then lets see the following:


"* a statement his methodology (peer review is important)

* a review of the equations and math supporting the system

* the specific MB claims that have been made and written.  (always possible these are not accurate)

* some examples of the output from which he formed his conclusions."

Until these are provided, will we all be forced to believe that Esoito,  and crew are nothing more than hucksters trying to propagate a scam???  Note, most of the requirements listed above were what Esoito requested.  I like his idea of peer review.  So let's go out and get some REAL peer review!

--------------------

I'll post the system and links to it on the math and physics forum. 


Who would like to be the person that posts it on the Wizardofvegas forum? 


Esoito,

Let's get the peer review started!


-REAL
« Last Edit: September 04, 2014, 05:09:04 PM by Real »


 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
  • Thanked: 48 times
Re: Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2014, 08:09:01 AM »
Ha! Exactly! This is what I was talking about in that other thread; esoito is demanding  I prove that MB's system does not work, but is quite happy to accept that it does without any proof whatsoever (and that goes for all of XXVV's reports and claims too).

Unbelievable.

Unfortunately, in spite of Jason Chan's help, the system is still pretty ambiguous, and on the one hand he says it's not tolerant of mistakes, but also that it's flexible and it's really only the count which is important - go figure. The reason why I haven't posted the details of my simulation is because there's bound to be some little discrepancy which will be seized on as the reason why it failed, and I really don't have the time or inclination to work on this any longer.

As usual, there's always a get-out clause when the system tanks, and it's always the fault of the player, not the system. There's always some kind of "human" but undefinable element which turns out to be crucial, and the fact that you can't define it makes peer review or computer simulation impossible. I suspect that this is deliberate, system junkies know in their hearts that none of it will stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny, so the solution is to  keep the rules vague and ambiguous, that way they don't have to prove anything to anyone, even themselves. When the system tanks, they move on to the next one, ad infinitum.

Harsh, perhaps, but true.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2014, 08:12:02 AM by Mike »
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
  • Thanked: 48 times
Re: Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2014, 08:25:07 AM »
A recent post from Jason:

Quote
if Mike has the coding correct and can produce an example of where the technique failed, it may provide a platform for me to show you how a change in play may have improved his position.  Then he might truly find a method of play which will work and provide that "winning strategy".  Remember, the method I've outlined is one I would not recommend to play. I think it would lose too often.  But once you get it working, I can show you how to make some modifications that might just change your perception of whether you think Martin truly did find a "winning strategy"

Here we go... see what I mean by get-out clauses?

But you're right, something needs to be done to expose this kind of scam. Perhaps the wiz will post a warning on his site like he has done for scammers like Izak Matatya (who, by the way, also claims to have a string of qualifications pertinent to gambling).
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1933
  • Thanked: 923 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2014, 09:42:44 AM »
Please try to make your point without mentioning names of people who do not participate in this forum.
We do not care about personnal issues. We only want to learn about anything roulette related.
Let's talk about strategies not persons.
Thank you.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2014, 09:46:02 AM by kav »
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2014, 10:11:03 PM »
Mike,

There's really no reason to even try explaining the system on the Wizard's board.  Simply post the system as it's written.  Forum members that read the system, as it's written, will immediately recognize that Martin Blakey was NOT a PhD mathematician.  Furthermore, there is no variation to the system that could enable it to work.

Mathematically, we can already prove that the system is fake.

If Jason, XXVV and crew had really wanted peer review, then they would have posted more information on a board where there are real mathematicians, like the Wizardofvegas forum.

For the record, back in 2010 or so, they did try to run a scam over there, but everyone quickly saw right through it.

-Real
« Last Edit: September 05, 2014, 10:14:41 PM by Real »
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2014, 12:07:50 AM »
Here's the link to where they attempted the scam on the wizardofvegas forum.  http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/1693-has-anyone-studied-martin-blakey/2/

The forum members laughed.

"Authors of roulette systems always claim to have a degree in math, thus instantly announcing the whole thing to be a con .Perhaps a degree in logical thinking would be more beneficial to themselves."  - A poster on the Wizardofvegas
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 12:12:34 AM by Real »
 

albalaha

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 122
  • Thanked: 26 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2014, 02:39:48 AM »
OMG. You guys will make MB bigger(positive or negative) than he actually was. He just wrote a method that you may try or not that is purely ur own discretion. Did he ever say that you can't lose if you play his method?
 

Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
  • Thanked: 48 times
Re: Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2014, 07:38:35 AM »
Xander,

Yes, I know that the system can't win, no matter how much it's tweaked, that's why I think it's a waste of time to pursue this any further on betselection-cc or post my simulation results. They will just say (in fact XXVV already has) that MB deliberately left out certain details (apparently the ones which make the difference between winning and losing, thus making the whole system worthless).

@ Albalaha

"did he ever say that you can't lose if you play his method?"

Not in so many words, but the message is clear enough. Not that you can't ever lose a session but that overall you will make a consistent profit. If that were not the case why would he say that he made a living for 40 years, call the book "A winning strategy", include all the testimonials etc?

But of course, when challenged, and like all these kinds of scams, MB and the devotees will attempt to minimize or even completely retract the claims made on the website - it's the small print you don't actually see. The sales pitch is there to sell the book, and others back up the claims even if they've never played the system, because they want to believe it's possible.
System sellers are in the business of selling dreams, not reality.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 09:23:19 PM by kav »
 

palladio

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 18
Re: Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2014, 02:13:37 AM »

Yes, I know that the system can't win, no matter how much it's tweaked, that's why I think it's a waste of time to pursue this any further on betselection-cc or post my simulation results. They will just say (in fact XXVV already has) that MB deliberately left out certain details (apparently the ones which make the difference between winning and losing, thus making the whole system worthless).

Greetings Mike

You appear to have a remarkable ability to see into the future. Let us say your assumptions are faulty.

The system as you refer to it is a 'strategy' and is a way of viewing the outcomes and dealing with them in an ordered and efficient manner. I say this not as a student of MB or an interested party ( in the sense of any commercial benefit) but as someone who listens to others and evaluates what they say, and if reasonable gives the writer or speaker the goodwill of hearing them out, suspending disbelief, or giving the benefit of the doubt  which is a fine principle of law.

Thus when Jason Chan who is a professional man based in Melbourne, and a player at the same casino/ table, then I respect what he has to say, even though I may wonder at times over the lack of wisdom in MB having no editor or P/A to evaluate and test his book drafts.

I do not consider that a simple well intentioned book published over a 25 year period is a scam or the product of some sort of conspiracy amongst intelligent individuals. The tattle that is put out by Real or Xander is lowest level slander and abuse much as we have to witness with many blogs written by individuals who seek attention.  I am surprised you position yourself beside this troll figure Real.

Mike, I am in agreement with you that in hindsight so much more could have been done better in discussing and communicating the strategy of MB play. However that does not mean the work is corrupted or without value; far from it, given patience, understanding and practice with effective communication, then I believe there is much to gain from such effort, if we are to believe Jason and some colleagues.

That is being open-minded rather than closed.

I would prefer you did not assume or predict outcomes or behaviour when it comes to a reasoned evaluation of this work. Why did you not publish your results in the context of my BLOG where there would have been no editing or disruption, and a valuable dialogue could have ensued between yourself and Jason or others. By refusing to show this 'result' you have prevented dozens of interested readers from learning the strengths and weaknesses of this work.

You side with someone who is renowned for not listening or answering queries, someone who has blatantly lied regarding myself and others, and someone who takes no responsibility for such action. It does not ring true. Therefore why would we believe your ' results' of tests/ simulation.

Your view that 'escape clauses' would be used to fog the truth is not my way of doing things.

Sadly, all this demonstrates is just how difficult it is to effectively communicate, especially when dealing with one party that has a biased view, and another who appears anyway to have all the answers, yet who may wisely withhold some detail for reasons of intellectual property privacy.

It is a fine line sometimes and I fear that the subtlety of this point goes way over the head of your colleague here Real who seems to have a shotgun mentality and who remains blind to reason. The recent post by Real regarding bias on a US wheel giving reasoning that perimeter table numbers are less likely to be bet, and that certain other numbers ( according to data) are more likely to be skewed by bias, was outrageous infantile nonsense, and I was astonished that such was viewed as 'great post' by Kav.

Personally, I am interested in truth, and if you are able to demonstrate that the MB strategy was a failure ( once you have access to sufficient information , or how else could you evaluate it) or that it sometimes worked, or that it frequently worked, that would be outstanding and I would publish your results without hesitation as long as all parties communicated honestly and in good spirit with an open mind.

It is frustrating isn't it that such an opportunity is unlikely because on one side there is valuable information, and on the other unhealthy scepticism.

No professional is going to fully outline all details on a public forum - they would be mad to do so.

The best that can be achieved is to agree to discuss principles which can tip the balance in the favour of a strategy, and agree that given this is on the right track then a winning strategy can be reasonably foreseen. I was hoping that this is what could be achieved in this case.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 09:23:30 PM by kav »
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1416
  • Thanked: 211 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Martin Blakey System Peer Review. The Truth.
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2014, 02:20:41 AM »
Pallido/XXVV,

Implying that Martin Blakey was a professional is a joke.  His principles, also absurd.

Researching his sleeper system and the absurd progression that it uses is a complete and utter waste of time.  Numbers never become "due to hit", and "up as you lose progressions" are a fools folly.

There is no variation of it, whatsoever, that could possible make it work, which is why even Jason seems to be admitting that it was a failure.

Even the members of the wizardofvegas forum called it like it was, "a scam". 

"Let me give you some advice....don't waste your energy typing out this stuff on this site. You won't find a receptive audience.Instead, point your web browser to google.com and enter "Gambler's Fallacy".  Read and repeat."  -a poster on the wizardofvegas forum

"Authors of roulette systems always claim to have a degree in math, thus instantly announcing the whole thing to be a con .Perhaps a degree in logical thinking would be more beneficial to themselves."  - a poster on the wizardofvegas forum

"True, the shame comes on gradually as you realize you've been conned."- a poster on the wizardofvegas forum

Here's why the Martin Blakey system, and every variation of it will fail in the long run.  The following are the facts:

1.  Too much emphasis is put on the money management/progression.  If a system doesn't provide the player with an edge, then the progression can't make it work for the same reason that someone can't multiply a negative number times a positive number and produce a positive outcome.
2. The bet selection relies on a sleeper system/ triggers.  Such a system implies that numbers become "due to hit" or "due to catch up".  This is the gambler's fallacy.  It doesn't matter when or what the triggers are, or how they're applied, the long term expectation will remain unchanged. (A net loser)

 
 
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future, or that if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e. independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false.

 In the end, despite hoity-toity posters claiming otherwise, and all of the pretentiousness,  the Martin Blakey system does NOT work. 


-Real
« Last Edit: September 07, 2014, 08:47:57 PM by Real »