- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Location
- Albuquerque, NM
errrr.....uhmmmmmmmmmm
what is the topic of this thread?
what is the topic of this thread?
Lessons learned from the Cipher thread
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Location
- USA
Thread is closed, but saga continues to unfold - and thanks.
CM,
After reading the posts, I understand why the thread was closed here. As many people here probably know, the "watching a car wreck" saga continues to unfold over at the Online Players Union forums. It is almost amazing to watch. Wouldn't you say PinaBaby?
I don't usually post much, but I have to admit I'm enjoying skewering the rat over there (under a different name than Riff) and hopefully some good will ultimately come of it. If boards like this and others like it did nothing else but expose these kinds of actions and behaviour, that alone would be worth the price of admission (free does NOT equal of no value).
Lucky for us, there's also lots more here to learn and talk about.
Thanks for the site.
-Riff
CM,
After reading the posts, I understand why the thread was closed here. As many people here probably know, the "watching a car wreck" saga continues to unfold over at the Online Players Union forums. It is almost amazing to watch. Wouldn't you say PinaBaby?
I don't usually post much, but I have to admit I'm enjoying skewering the rat over there (under a different name than Riff) and hopefully some good will ultimately come of it. If boards like this and others like it did nothing else but expose these kinds of actions and behaviour, that alone would be worth the price of admission (free does NOT equal of no value).
Lucky for us, there's also lots more here to learn and talk about.
Thanks for the site.
-Riff
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2004
- Location
- USA
Wrong Stanford
I am getting PMs from people thinking they are talking to Stanford Wong. That's the wrong Stanford - as opposed to the Wong, Stanford.
You can reach that Stanford at BJ21 but he seldom post on the free board. But lots of good players do
.
Stanford (not Wong).
I am getting PMs from people thinking they are talking to Stanford Wong. That's the wrong Stanford - as opposed to the Wong, Stanford.
You can reach that Stanford at BJ21 but he seldom post on the free board. But lots of good players do
.Stanford (not Wong).
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Location
- America
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Location
- A Vault!
QUOTE=pangloss;144899
I would be one of those who you classify as "high number of it's participants" and you are right I do have my hand in the players pocket !
I AM THE PLAYER ! 
You say "It is not a thread that has the average player's (gambler's) interests at heart"....Are you saying that you think when an average player (gambler) walks thru a casino that they had rather see people losing instead of winning? Are you nuts ? This is no different that where the State Lotteries show all the pics of the Lottery Winners on their web site....exactly the same.
You say "It is the very nature of the winner screenshots thread existence that I find so offensive"....Would you feel better if we had a Thread titled "Loser Screenshots" ?
You say that the Winner Screenshots thread is "entirely inappropriate in the promotion of responsible gaming"....The Winner Screenshots thread was never meant to promote responsible gaming !
I would be one of those who you classify as "high number of it's participants" and you are right I do have my hand in the players pocket !
I AM THE PLAYER ! You say "It is not a thread that has the average player's (gambler's) interests at heart"....Are you saying that you think when an average player (gambler) walks thru a casino that they had rather see people losing instead of winning? Are you nuts ? This is no different that where the State Lotteries show all the pics of the Lottery Winners on their web site....exactly the same.
You say "It is the very nature of the winner screenshots thread existence that I find so offensive"....Would you feel better if we had a Thread titled "Loser Screenshots" ?
You say that the Winner Screenshots thread is "entirely inappropriate in the promotion of responsible gaming"....The Winner Screenshots thread was never meant to promote responsible gaming !
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Location
- A Vault!
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
The OP of the WS thread is a player, and everyone who posts in that thread are players. The majority of all webmasters/affiliates/whatever are players. It would be a different situation if the affiliates who are posting there were posting their aff-links claiming "look what you can win at my casino - get a bonus too!" Like Simmo! said, it's just people showing off.
"Screenshots that suck". I initiated this thread to give the other a bit of a balance and made it sticky. Do you find this offensive as well?
Please - any more comments on the Winners Screenshots should be made in a separate thread. Please initiate one if you want to discuss this further. Thanks!
Let me drink my coffee, and I'll get right on thisGrandmaster said:
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2004
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario - Canada
Let me drink my coffee, and I'll get right on this
I think I need to buy a vowel Vanna.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Location
- Hungary
Right, my post was more theoretical than practical. I agree, and in practice if the algorithm is good and random source field is big enough, the statement "that's good enough for most practical purposes" will be true unless P=NP will be disproved.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Location
- still progressing
I think I need to buy a vowel Vanna.
Oh no! I know this accent; its from the german/danish border.
They dont use vowels there. Only thor helmets for their beer!
And this means nothing less than: GM is no longer the voice of reason but
from now on the voice of FRIESEN (thats how those folks are called)
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Location
- USA
I think I need to buy a vowel Vanna.
Unless of course the vowel is also generated by an RNG, or PRNG, or umm...whatever.
I haven't seen that show in a while. Is Vanna still even on? Did she have the best job in the world or what?
-Riff
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Location
- California
If the Random Monkey Theory is to be believed.......then this is evolving to become a sonet.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Location
- USA
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Location
- South Orange County
Addemdum to thread: Grandmaster
Grandmaster ... ,
I can not proof my theory for you, but as a simple example I deposited $25 and by betting .50 to $1.50 I raised it to $70 without using any larger bets than $3 (aprox.) , I believe. This is on BJ. I used single deck. There were aprox. 10 sessions+, ranging from 30 to 200 hands each. This is without using any bonus. This was repeated several times on previous tests. The mathematics used were the same for each test. The casino(s) shall remain anonomysis.
This is , I agree, not up to empirical standards, but its all I can offer. Ironically, I cannot seem to withdraw the money to the U.S. as easy as I made it. Oh well, easy come, easy go ..............
I would wonder, do you understand the Power of the mathematics you know so well ??
Grandmaster ... ,
I can not proof my theory for you, but as a simple example I deposited $25 and by betting .50 to $1.50 I raised it to $70 without using any larger bets than $3 (aprox.) , I believe. This is on BJ. I used single deck. There were aprox. 10 sessions+, ranging from 30 to 200 hands each. This is without using any bonus. This was repeated several times on previous tests. The mathematics used were the same for each test. The casino(s) shall remain anonomysis.
This is , I agree, not up to empirical standards, but its all I can offer. Ironically, I cannot seem to withdraw the money to the U.S. as easy as I made it. Oh well, easy come, easy go ..............
I would wonder, do you understand the Power of the mathematics you know so well ??
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Location
- still progressing
Grandmaster ... ,
I can not proof my theory for you, but as a simple example I deposited $25 and by betting .50 to $1.50 I raised it to $70 without using any larger bets than $3 (aprox.) , I believe. This is on BJ. I used single deck. There were aprox. 10 sessions+, ranging from 30 to 200 hands each. This is without using any bonus. This was repeated several times on previous tests. The mathematics used were the same for each test. The casino(s) shall remain anonomysis.
This is , I agree, not up to empirical standards, but its all I can offer. Ironically, I cannot seem to withdraw the money to the U.S. as easy as I made it. Oh well, easy come, easy go ..............
I would wonder, do you understand the Power of the mathematics you know so well ??
fine. You found it. Get rich without labour. And without maths.
Are you posting seriously?
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Location
- South Orange County
fine. You found it. Get rich without labour. And without maths.
Are you posting seriously?
Oh, make no mistake. It involves labor and math. But its far more lucrative than playing off the seat of your pants!
I am in the U.S. . We're screwed. Getting rich isn't likely but I'm working on an Offshore account.
Yes, I'm serious.........
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Location
- Pennsylvania
Which goes to show that it's pure luck that you've made money on each session, and cannot be repeated constantly over any long-term play.
It's the ones that think they can "never lose" that end up losing the most.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Location
- still progressing
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Location
- South Orange County
Hello Win and M-pipe ...
You are correct in that it is not Linear. 30 hands would represent a rapid up-trend in Wins and 200 hands would be a flat and/or downtrend and then a final uptrend to a gain, or profit. In each case a profit is achieved. Also a break even or a slight loss may occur when terminating the session, but not not enough to significantly offset any gain already achieved. The aspect of playing 30 hands or 200 hands is not important; what is important is to know how much to bet and when to stop. But there is more to it than that. Most important, is a discipline. Several years of continued success with this discipline does not indicate a huge, long lucky streak. Winning most of the time is not what its all about; I've had plenty of losing streaks. Knowing when to bet high and when to bet low and when to stop is the ruling factor.
I want to repeat, what I'm speaking of has nothing to do with Cipher or his system. Cipher is not the only one that plays by some kind of discipline. Gamblers, for ages, have used many kinds of playing disciplines. Mine is just another type; one that works for me. Your over simplifying things when you use Cipher as a measure for disciplined play. If you play by the seat of your pants, you will lose in the long run.
I play Blackjack. A movie I saw which was quite interesting, was about Poker. You may have seen it, its called 'ROUNDERS' with Matt Dammon. Throughout the movie he talks about the discipline of playing Poker and about 'Tells' . Although they're completely different games, the principle of discipline still applies.
You are correct in that it is not Linear. 30 hands would represent a rapid up-trend in Wins and 200 hands would be a flat and/or downtrend and then a final uptrend to a gain, or profit. In each case a profit is achieved. Also a break even or a slight loss may occur when terminating the session, but not not enough to significantly offset any gain already achieved. The aspect of playing 30 hands or 200 hands is not important; what is important is to know how much to bet and when to stop. But there is more to it than that. Most important, is a discipline. Several years of continued success with this discipline does not indicate a huge, long lucky streak. Winning most of the time is not what its all about; I've had plenty of losing streaks. Knowing when to bet high and when to bet low and when to stop is the ruling factor.
I want to repeat, what I'm speaking of has nothing to do with Cipher or his system. Cipher is not the only one that plays by some kind of discipline. Gamblers, for ages, have used many kinds of playing disciplines. Mine is just another type; one that works for me. Your over simplifying things when you use Cipher as a measure for disciplined play. If you play by the seat of your pants, you will lose in the long run.
I play Blackjack. A movie I saw which was quite interesting, was about Poker. You may have seen it, its called 'ROUNDERS' with Matt Dammon. Throughout the movie he talks about the discipline of playing Poker and about 'Tells' . Although they're completely different games, the principle of discipline still applies.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Blackjack
I once ran an autoplay experiment on an MG casino covering 100,000 hands of Blackjack, flat betting 1 per hand. The end result was a 800 PROFIT!
I considered this to be an abnormally long uptrend, even though it had many ups and downs during the run.
I once ran an autoplay experiment on an MG casino covering 100,000 hands of Blackjack, flat betting 1 per hand. The end result was a 800 PROFIT!
I considered this to be an abnormally long uptrend, even though it had many ups and downs during the run.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Location
- South Orange County
100,000 hands !!! whoa!! That's a lot of blackjack. I'm surprised the Casino didn't bump you off !! lol . Yea its interesting. You experienced a high order trend. If it was fun money it might have been biased. If it was real then it was a high order trend. There are short, medium, long, very long, and extremely long trend cycles interwoven together, like harmonics that combine to form still a larger harmonic wave. It could easily have been the other direction. If you play enough with a fixed bet and perfect strategy, I suppose you might catch a high order trend wave like that. I'd think somewhere in the next 100,000 hands you would hit a significantly larger negative figure. Unless the game was biased.
Good question. Was it a fixed Bankroll or did you have to add to it to keep it going ??
I like your conceptualization here.
I've looked at it a bit more simple-mindedly
Imagine, in slots, a probablilty model of free spins every 135 spins on average.
It could look like this (if formatting stays put) |-----| equals 135 spins
|--------------------|
. |----------------------|
. |---------------------|
|----------------||-----------------| |----------------------|
The 'hit' can occur anywhere within each |--136---|, several times, or not at all for several 'sets'.
They can overlap, they can be spaced several units apart, etc.
I like your analogy better, it is much more elegant.
But sadly, shy of quantum imaginings, there is no way to consistently predict a future trend based on past trends or current conditions. Even with the quantum argument, the act of observing to interact with the trend will change the trend itself.
We're fexed in reliably predicting a microcosmic event (my 'spin' or your 'hand') in the mix of all the hands and spins "randomly" occuring in the macrocosm.
Having less than an eighth grade education and a sometimes insatiable appetite for numbers, I have independently arrived at the golden ratio, Fibonacci sequences, and crudely created fractal like things. I don't believe the answer lies in any of this, and certainly not in trend analysis. (unless you can parlay the peaks and hedge against the booboos somehow
A card counter can gain an edge, and win over time (but who can count more than a five deck shoe? An Autist or someone with williams syndrome maybe?)
A slots player can manage their bets and get lucky enough to win in the long run if they quit before the longrun runs
assuming a penny is equal to a dollar to the program.A craps player can control the dice, etc.
I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that if you are able to, consistently, over time, beat the EV in a game like blackjack without counting cards or using bonuses (and only you know for sure) then there is something else going on here. A knack, if you will, a prescience that may or may not be observable, repeatable, and verifyable.
And certainly I don't see you trying to convince anyone of a system that can be transfered person to person as a stepping stone to selling that system. The moral of this thread is that systems can only bite you in the bum in the long run.
But I'm willing to explore unconventional avenues to beat the house edge, but we might want to do it in wildcards or another thread altogther
Best of luck
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Location
- South Orange County
And certainly I don't see you trying to convince anyone of a system that can be transfered person to person as a stepping stone to selling that system. The moral of this thread is that systems can only bite you in the bum in the long run.
But I'm willing to explore unconventional avenues to beat the house edge, but we might want to do it in wildcards or another thread altogther
Your right about this; this is not the right thread. I'll pick it up in Wild Cards when I get back to the computer later. Maybe under a title like 'Random number Theory' or 'Quantum Mechanics and Blackjack' ... Lol!Similar threads
- Sticky
