You are giving away the secret! http://www.thesecret.tv/
Terry On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:51 PM, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well then there is: www.thewinningsage.com > If you believe it, she has apparently won every contest she has ever won and > she has entered thousands. > > Tony Robbins recounds how at one of his seminars he told people to choose > something and to really believe in it to make it happen, they told him they > planned to win the lottery and though he was a bit doubtful he didn't > object. > > So they told everyone that they had already won it and sure enough they won > some large figure prize. > So later he told others at his seminars about this and some people selected > to try it and they won. > And then the (couple I think) who won the first lot did it again. > > I'm also reminded of that retropsychokinesis experiment where people had to > try and influence a past unobserved random event, radioactive decay, > apparently successful. > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> Randomness, like beauty, and even physics itself, is relative. >> >> Kinda like when my spell checker decides to take-five. >> >> >> Apparently the initiator of the 'randum' thread has the same model. >> >> (spell checker) >> >> >> Have you ever played Lotto? If so, no one needs to tell you that there are >> patterns. Can they be deciphered? The compulsive gambler probably thinks >> that they can. Compulsive gamblers are losers, and cannot be trusted- as we >> see time and again in the popular press. >> >> >> But "patterns" - even patterns in ostensibly random strings, can be >> deciphered. Relatively speaking. >> >> >> Never mind that the odds are greater than 50,000,000:1 for most lotto >> games. Sometimes there will be multiple winners; every once in while there >> will be a 'baker's dozen' ;-) and once in a blue moon there will be over 100 >> ! (this happened once on PowerBall) >> >> >> In fact, there have been a surprising number of cases where there were so >> many winners that the odds of that happening - according to statisticians - >> were (previously determined to be) in the 100,000,000,000,000,000 to one >> range ... that is, if you did not realize the power of the "fortune cookie". >> >> The fortune cookie is a California invention, inspired by the Chinese love >> of making dough, so to speak. Often crafty Asian bakers print "random >> numbers" for lotto on the back of the laughably fake predictions disclosed >> in the slip baked into the cookie. >> >> >> Anyway that little facet of anti-randomness (too many winners) is just the >> tip of a much larger and more mysterious 'randumb' iceberg - of how fate is >> cheated on a regular basis by the very few and the very perceptive (which is >> close to "very smart" but not exactly the same thing). This rarity of >> individual may have been a wash-out at University. >> >> >> Hey - don't laugh - this is similar to the kind of random iceberg that >> sunk the Titanic ;-) ... i.e. failing to realize ALL of the variables that >> can alter apparent randomness in special or hidden circumstances. Not to >> mention: do not "tempt fate", as they say. >> >> At casinos, over 999 out of 1000 regular players are net losers. That is >> no secret. And it is of almost no deterrence to the losers. >> >> Most of the regular "players" are losers with an occasional large winning >> night that serves to make them compulsive in a self-destructive way. It is >> an addiction, not unlike nicotine or heroin. >> >> There are, however, set amongst this sad cast, a very few consistent >> winners. The statisticians hate mention of them, and generally deny that any >> reference to them is accurate. But the real experts - Casino security - >> *know* they are there and also know that that most of them are honest but >> well-disciplined. >> >> When interviewed, the most most visible trait that the few net winners >> seem to have in common is that they claim that they can sense a 'lucky >> streak' (which is a personal fortuitous point in time) and yet they can walk >> away from the tables without dropping very much - *any and every other >> time*. This is important - most of the time they walk away. Most of them (in >> the USA) live in Nevada for logistics reasons. >> >> The temple of Apollo at Delphi in ancient Greece, bore the inscription >> Meden Agan - 'Nothing in excess'. Doing something "in moderation" means not >> doing it excessively in the naive POV. Actually and for present purposes >> (figuring out how to beat-the-odds) - avoiding excess is not quite the whole >> truth. Meden Agan must connote balancing the rare "planned excess" against >> much more frequent "near-abstinence". Fine distinction there. >> >> This is the critical and unappreciated detail - the inner strength to deny >> the thrill - and the ability to "know yourself" vis-a-vis an instant in >> time, and to be able to walk away on any other 'normal' night. IOW the >> 'compulsive gambler' is NEVER a net winner; only the one-in-a-thousand who >> can sense the 'streak' and who can abstain most of the other times without >> the "thrill" of playing. That is very counter-intuitive, and very rare. >> >> Another way to cheat 'randumb' fate is 'spotting the trend', in addition >> to spotting the best time. Put both of these two traits together, and you >> can get yourself only to the threshold of beating the odds. There are no >> guarantees, of course. >> >> It is not unusual to notice certain patterns and trends appear in random >> numbers, random cards or random-whatever, and to try to anticipate those >> trends carefully. When questioned about this phenomenon, mathematicians >> respond by saying, "you haven't run enough trials yet". And they are >> correct. There are no "long term trends" in randomness. Duh! >> >> But beating the odds is NOT about long trials and Excel spreadsheets- it >> is about knowing your "own" special timing, and about recognizing trends, >> anticipating trends, and NOT making careless errors; but most of all - it is >> about self-denial - walking away the rest of the time. >> >> >> Statisticians are focused on long-term results because the results >> vindicate the theoretical stance of true randomness. >> >> >> On the other hand, the short term results are the only thing of interest >> to the few who do manage to beat the odds. >> >> There is a lesson in there somewhere for alternative energy advocates, but >> it is hard to verbalize... >> >> >> Jones >> > >
