Math vs fantasy

[PositiveVariance]

Spike, I am not saying you shouldn't be "curious" about beating/gaining an edge over the casino. We are all hear for this reason.


You are looking for an edge in the wrong way. Picking random numbers and/or varying your bets will not make you a winning player. As Elliot Jacobson likes to say, "You need INFORMATION". This is information that can swing the edge from them to you. Everyone discovers their interest in beating the casino at a different age. For me, it was in 7th grade, I was 13 years old. Just like you, I ordered a Roulette table to "practice" (lol) on. I independently (like many) discovered the Martingale and thought I was onto something. The difference, I realized within a few months that these are not winning systems, and this was before forums were common. I learned this by reading books. You Sir, have very smart gambling people that will tell you exactly why your methods do not work. You can choose to listen or keep chasing your tail (I hear you do like cats).

Your route was a little different. You have become quite possibly, the most prolific forum poster in gambling forum history. Some learn at 13 years old, while others are still searching/"practicing" (lol) at 75 years old.

[Spike]

edited

[Spike]

Spike, I am not saying you shouldn't be "curious" about beating/gaining an edge over the casino. We are all hear for this reason.


You are looking for an edge in the wrong way. Picking random numbers and/or varying your bets will not make you a winning player. As Elliot Jacobson likes to say, "You need INFORMATION". This is information that can swing the edge from them to you. Everyone discovers their interest in beating the casino at a different age. For me, it was in 7th grade, I was 13 years old. Just like you, I ordered a Roulette table to "practice" (lol) on. I independently (like many) discovered the Martingale and thought I was onto something. The difference, I realized within a few months that these are not winning systems, and this was before forums were common. I learned this by reading books. You Sir, have very smart gambling people that will tell you exactly why your methods do not work. You can choose to listen or keep chasing your tail (I hear you do like cats).

Your route was a little different. You have become quite possibly, the most prolific forum poster in gambling forum history. Some learn at 13 years old, while others are still searching/"practicing" (lol) at 75 years old.

Wow what a post, you act like I just started doing this 2 weeks ago. I've been doing it since 2004 and I make at least part of my living at it. And have been for awhile. I don't know what you think I'm doing but none of what you described is it. By the way I don't use a system, I have a method. And yes there is a difference of which I will gladly go into if you want.

[accountinquestion]

As usual the math works but the scenario it occurs within never works.

Wrong!!! The math works because the math works. That is why I do whatever it is that I claim or talk about. There are no special plays or betting into hot streaks gambling voodoo. The math works.

Now what you guys, the whole group of you that have a hard-on for discrediting me, do is nit pick some of the details, because you don't do what I do, so you are speaking from ignorance. You are speaking from hate that is about something else entirely. That is what your agenda is.

I try to explain some of what I do and how I do it. But it is like talking to a wall. People that only want to hear what they have predetermined they want to hear, based on their bias. And in the end, every time I try to explain what I do and how or why, it ends up hurting me. I share things I shouldn't and it puts me and what I do in jeopardy.

So just fuck off AccountinQuestion. You haters hating and making up lies.... you, Mdawg, Rob Singer, whoever else feels the need to jump on the bandwagon, changes nothing about me, what I do, or how I support myself. I am right here, living in a nice location, still making a comfortable living beating casinos for 20 years now. If anything I have branched out a bit, incorporating new things into my advantage play, including a whole new way of playing blackjack.

So Hate away. It doesn't effect me. You are trolls and haters on an internet forum.

Do you know if there is enough air circulating in the tunnels to maintain a proper oxygen level? Serious question.

[accountinquestion]

This isn't about me. I know you KJ haters and obsessed freaks think everything is about me. I am all you think about.

Hmm. When I had the bar in Santa Barbara there was a gay bar in the same block and we got a lot of their business. You are starting to sound like some of the self-obsessed Queens I got to know in those days. Everything was always about them, and if it wasn't about them they used extreme melodrama to make it about them. I don't know if this is your intent, but you're starting to sound just like that to me. You rant and rave and then say, oh my, why is everybody paying so much attention to little old me. Sound familiar?

Lol. Nailed it. Kewl managed to turn this whole thread into being about him. At least in his own head.

For the record. I don't think kewl lives in tunnels. It is humorous to me.

The truth is I'm rather certain he has money from something he feels shame over.
Most likely a prostitute but maybe family money or some unfortunate job.

Being some hero AP gives him purpose and a sense of accomplishment.

[accountinquestion]

Spike either believes his nonsense ot not but it is clear he is just here to talk in circles.

Ultimately he is likely as mentally ill as anyone on here.

If he does believe his claims then it is obvious.

If he doesn't believe his own claims then he is ill just from the fact he has done this over 10s of thousands of posts. It isn't an interesting claim. There are no personalities in his stories. Nothing to learn from him. No details. Absolutely nothing there except this guy getting attention and perpetually talking in circles.

He can't even explain why he can't tell people.

Imagine giving your life meaning from THAT. I can respect the germatria stuff. I can respect kewls nonstop fantasies because at least they all have some teachable moment. Tasha and her unrelenting interest in FP and small stakes gambling. Singer - who tries and seeks out credibility on the same level as kewl.

All these people have redeeming qualities but I haven't seen it with Spike. Awful.

[kewlJ]

Lol. Nailed it. Kewl managed to turn this whole thread into being about him. At least in his own head.

For the record. I don't think kewl lives in tunnels. It is humorous to me.

So you repeatedly say something you know is a lie? Doesn't that make you a compulsive liar? Or do you get some kind of pass because you think it is funny?

As for turning this thread about me, guess who did that beginning with post #34 and 36? This thread was about Evenbob, and the math (or lack of) concerning his claims, and how much of it is the same lack of math as claims by Singer and Mdawg. YOU, accountinQuestion felt the need to change that and start attacking me.

Maybe you don't realize how you and several others seem to be so obsessed. Or again, do you get a pass because YOU think it is funny?

[unowme]

Contrary to what the OP might think there isn't a single type of 'Math' that might apply to all gambling situations. There are branches of Math and indeed branches of probability theory. I sincerely doubt that KJ really understands 'The Math' but just goes with the math that others have worked out based on traditional statistical analysis. And that's ok.

I just wanted to point out another Mathematical possibility here. I've always thought that Bayesian Inference might be an alternative way to look at some gambling scenarios. This analysis is based on Bayes Theorem first posed by Mathematician Thomas Bayes in 1763. Bayesian analysis allows one to update conditional probabilities based on observed outcomes and then predict future outcomes with confidence levels based on those observations.

Here is Bayes Theorem in all its glory.


How can this be applied to gambling? Traditional analysis strictly based on probability theory makes a number of assumptions that may not be true. Like the roulette wheel is really random with no flaws or that the cards dealt are also random or that the random number generator in a machine is really random. But what if that's not true? Or what if you don't know all of the variables in the game? Bayesian inference might allow APs to adjust their play based on observation of outcomes by uncovering a lack of true randomness in the game itself or by overcoming a lack of knowledge on the inner workings of the game.

Now, is Spikes 'outcome-based method' steeped in a deep understanding of this alternative math? Unlikely. But that's not to say there might not be some basis for his outcome-based approach. What I do know with certainty is that Bayesian Inference and analysis has enjoyed a resurgence with some very high-end machine learning projects and it's becoming a key part of some new AI systems. And that's no fantasy.

[MaxPen]

This isn't about me. I know you KJ haters and obsessed freaks think everything is about me. I am all you think about.

Hmm. When I had the bar in Santa Barbara there was a gay bar in the same block and we got a lot of their business. You are starting to sound like some of the self-obsessed Queens I got to know in those days. Everything was always about them, and if it wasn't about them they used extreme melodrama to make it about them. I don't know if this is your intent, but you're starting to sound just like that to me. You rant and rave and then say, oh my, why is everybody paying so much attention to little old me. Sound familiar?

Lol. Nailed it. Kewl managed to turn this whole thread into being about him. At least in his own head.

For the record. I don't think kewl lives in tunnels. It is humorous to me.

The truth is I'm rather certain he has money from something he feels shame over.
Most likely a prostitute but maybe family money or some unfortunate job.

Being some hero AP gives him purpose and a sense of accomplishment.

FraudJ is rolling with some leftover Sugar Daddy cash while he looks for his next victim.....RIP

[coach belly]

You made up an alias and lied about having a friend, and carried on various conversations to cover up who you were, you made up an entire persona, you answered questions with lies to cover Your Tracks Etc.

He got caught using a sockpuppet?

Isn't that a nukeable offense?

How long was his suspension?

[MaxPen]

Contrary to what the OP might think there isn't a single type of 'Math' that might apply to all gambling situations. There are branches of Math and indeed branches of probability theory. I sincerely doubt that KJ really understands 'The Math' but just goes with the math that others have worked out based on traditional statistical analysis. And that's ok.

I just wanted to point out another Mathematical possibility here. I've always thought that Bayesian Inference might be an alternative way to look at some gambling scenarios. This analysis is based on Bayes Theorem first posed by Mathematician Thomas Bayes in 1763. Bayesian analysis allows one to update conditional probabilities based on observed outcomes and then predict future outcomes with confidence levels based on those observations.

Here is Bayes Theorem in all its glory.


How can this be applied to gambling? Traditional analysis strictly based on probability theory makes a number of assumptions that may not be true. Like the roulette wheel is really random with no flaws or that the cards dealt are also random or that the random number generator in a machine is really random. But what if that's not true? Or what if you don't know all of the variables in the game? Bayesian inference might allow APs to adjust their play based on observation of outcomes by uncovering a lack of true randomness in the game itself or by overcoming a lack of knowledge on the inner workings of the game.

Now, is Spikes 'outcome-based method' steeped in a deep understanding of this alternative math? Unlikely. But that's not to say there might not be some basis for his outcome-based approach. What I do know with certainty is that Bayesian Inference and analysis has enjoyed a resurgence with some very high-end machine learning projects and it's becoming a key part of some new AI systems. And that's no fantasy.

Probably the best post in this thread. Spike, are you ready to reveal your method?

[accountinquestion]

Lol. Nailed it. Kewl managed to turn this whole thread into being about him. At least in his own head.

For the record. I don't think kewl lives in tunnels. It is humorous to me.

So you repeatedly say something you know is a lie? Doesn't that make you a compulsive liar? Or do you get some kind of pass because you think it is funny?

As for turning this thread about me, guess who did that beginning with post #34 and 36? This thread was about Evenbob, and the math (or lack of) concerning his claims, and how much of it is the same lack of math as claims by Singer and Mdawg. YOU, accountinQuestion felt the need to change that and start attacking me.

Maybe you don't realize how you and several others seem to be so obsessed. Or again, do you get a pass because YOU think it is funny?

Kewl you've made a joke of yourself. I don't know why you expect anything less.

I told you to correct Spike's math and your queen nature turned it into being about yourself.

[coach belly]

I'm not ashamed of having done that, and I make no apologies.

Of course not, like all grifters you're amoral.

The return lady

Your story reads like one of those Hallmark Channel movies.

A confused little man's Machiavellianism is reinforced when he seeks out a Walmart clerk to teach him right from wrong.

[Spike]

Spike either believes his nonsense ot not but it is clear he is just here to talk in circles.
.

Please give examples of these so-called circles because I'm not seeing any.

[Spike]

Bayesian inference might allow APs to adjust their play based on observation of outcomes by uncovering a lack of true randomness in the game itself or by overcoming a lack of knowledge on the inner workings of the game.

Now, is Spikes 'outcome-based method' steeped in a deep understanding of this alternative math? Unlikely. But that's not to say there might not be some basis for his outcome-based approach.

'Might allow AP's to adjust their play based on observation of outcomes' is the best analysis of what I do I've seen in a long time. This is why I come to these places because once in awhile an insight like this comes along.

[Spike]

You are looking for an edge in the wrong way. Picking random numbers and/or varying your bets will not make you a winning player.

After reading my posts where in God's name did you get the idea that this is what I do. I must have said a dozen times in the last 2 days that I make non-random bets against random outcomes and out of that you think I pick random numbers. How could you possibly arrive at that conclusion. It's the polar opposite of what I do. I run into this all the time, I explain things in detail and people still get it 100% wrong. It's like no matter what they read they turn it into what they want it to mean.

[Spike]

Bayesian inference might allow APs to adjust their play based on observation of outcomes by uncovering a lack of true randomness in the game itself or by overcoming a lack of knowledge on the inner workings of the game.
.

I have always said the reason I can do this is because there's only 37 or 38 pockets on a wheel which isn't very many. If there were 60 or 90 I couldn't do this. I've gone to random.org and gotten random columns of numbers that are 60 or 70 or 80 numbers long and I can't do what I can do with the 36 numbers in roulette.

[Rob.Singer]

Bayesian inference might allow APs to adjust their play based on observation of outcomes by uncovering a lack of true randomness in the game itself or by overcoming a lack of knowledge on the inner workings of the game.

Now, is Spikes 'outcome-based method' steeped in a deep understanding of this alternative math? Unlikely. But that's not to say there might not be some basis for his outcome-based approach.

'Might allow AP's to adjust their play based on observation of outcomes' is the best analysis of what I do I've seen in a long time. This is why I come to these places because once in awhile an insight like this comes along.

If you've held kew speechless with that then you're doing something right. Especially to the nutbag who started this thread in order that he could make it all about himself.

But I'd like to hear more.

[Don Perignom]

I have always said the reason I can do this is because there's only 37 or 38 pockets on a wheel which isn't very many. If there were 60 or 90 I couldn't do this. I've gone to random.org and gotten random columns of numbers that are 60 or 70 or 80 numbers long and I can't do what I can do with the 36 numbers in roulette.

I'll never play this one against you:

[Spike]

I have always said the reason I can do this is because there's only 37 or 38 pockets on a wheel which isn't very many. If there were 60 or 90 I couldn't do this. I've gone to random.org and gotten random columns of numbers that are 60 or 70 or 80 numbers long and I can't do what I can do with the 36 numbers in roulette.

I'll never play this one against you:

I loved board games when I was a kid and I even invented a few when I was in junior high. But in those days making up board games was not really a career move but I wish I had done it anyway.