I found something that was happening rare.
I was betting the oposite.
The betting was 2 2:1 bets(eg 2 dozens OR 2 Colums at once) CHANGE
When it was losing , I was betting 1 Dozen OR 1 Colum. RUN
So in most of the spins 2 chips bet and less of the spins 1 chip bet. All Flat betting
I faced 16 Zeros!
I was betting in every single spin.
Result :
900 spins
+47 chips
Is this normal?
I completed 100 more betting spins and now I am in total 1000 bet spins.
The balance is higher/
1000 bets +59 chips
Please tell me is this normal?
I am gonna get crazy!
1100 spins +65 chips
23 zeros
Can it be that the bet faced a veryyyyyyyyyyyy nice fluxuation?
Is this normal? LoL
(//)
The abnormal betting system is born ;)
The best way to tell is to throw a million spin to the method. If it survives, we know it *IS* abnormal!
It is the only way my friend. Mind you, the author of Manucher's Hot Numbers (link:://rouletteclub.cc/discussion/58/manuchers-hot-numbers) (flat betting method) was up in great proportions... but yet we see it posted for a reason...
He boasted being a hardcore "math guy", with huge lengths of numbers crunched before considering something.
By all means do continue with your trials and may your method hold up to make these abnormal wins something normal :thumbsup:
Cheers!
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 26, 10:52 PM 2012
I am gonna get crazy!
1100 spins +65 chips
23 zeros
Can it be that the bet faced a veryyyyyyyyyyyy nice fluxuation?
Is this normal? LoL
To find the z-score we need the number of wins and the total number of bets. A little algebra will find the wins -
(1) W + L = 1100
(2) W - 2L = 65 (because you lose 2 units on each loss)
From (1), L = 1100 - W
Substituting this into (2) gives W - 2(1100 - W) = 65
Now solving for W gives W = 755
Now we can find the z-score:
z = (755 - 1100*0.6486) / sqrt(1100*0.6486(1 - 0.6486)) = 2.62
Pretty good, the chance is about 1 in 227. But time will tell as always. ^-^
Thanks for the nice answers.
I ll test mote today and I ll let you know about the results.
I am 99.9% sure that it was a nice fluxuation that favoured my bet selection....maths are always right ,so when i will keep testing ,the ballance must go down.
1.100 spins isn t a little testing, and this is why I am curious.
But as a roulette researcher I have to continue testing to see the results in 3.000 spins.
Yes bayes I have also calculated that the advantage is close to ur calculation.
I started the testing again from the spin that I stoped.
I tested 100 more spins and now I am at 1.200 spins.
In those last 100 spins it won +15 more chips.
I must call an ambulance to be stand by outside my house because I am afraid ;D
1.200 spins
+80
26 zeros
IF this bet selection will start losing badly after those 1200 spins , then this must be a big lesson to all of us.A lesson that show us what things randomness is capable of doing.
i tested 300 more spins. It lost -39 chips on those.
Total 1.500 spins +41 chips.
The -2.7 is started showing its face after 1.100 spins! What abnormal randomness can be?
I ll test more and let u know.
1.800 spins and it started recovering.
Total +64
44 zeros
1900 spins +59 chips(dropped a little)
ATTENTION!
2.100 spins +79 chips
It recovered really good.
should I call the ambulance to leave or to stay put?
Ok this isn t funny any more.
2.200 spins +85 chips. (there was a stage that is was +98)
2300 spins +92 chips.(there was a stage that went to +98 chips)
I havet tested UNLIMITED flat bet selections in my life....This has never happened!
and what is your bet selection exactly?
2 doz or cols and if that lost, 1 doz or col ?
Yes Stepkevh
Ok 2.500 spins and the session numbers are finished.
It dropped to +67.
So 2.500 spins = +67 chips
I will continue testing with an other session numbers and I will reach 3.000 spins total.
Ps. I have a feeling from my testing observation that the bet selection can become even stronger if i will include one more bet inside it....but I need 1st to finish the 3.000 spins and If i am reasonable UP then I will start engineerinf the other part of the bet to see how it will go.
I'm gonna follow this closely ;D
and on what do you base your bet ?
i mean if what comes in, then on what do you bet ?
ex. if doz3 comes in then you bet on 1 & 2 (flat 1-1)
if it wins, you stay with doz 1 & 2 ?
if it loses you bet 1u on doz3 ?
Stephan :D
2.600 spins +72
2.700 +75
2.800 = +55 Droped by 20 chips (there was a stage that it was +88)
Sorry mistake ... 2.800= +59 ( it dropped 16 chips)
3.000 spins +44 ( it dropes a lot on the last spins)
So math guys what is the advantage in this result?
Ps. let me tell you that the bet selection was just voodoo and no logic behind it.
I think is close to +6%
Voodoo works sometimes, When you are lucky,go for it, parlay winnings. Did some today on a split, and 1 out of 4 hit. The window is short, retreat in time.
z-score is still about the same - 2.65. Very slight increase but it doesn't mean much.
By the way, you might find this software useful - link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=1784.0 (link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=1784.0)
Sample size is still too small and MOP you preached the need for more testing.
You just got lucky. Now move to other bet selection and hope for similar result.
Do not push it for too long. ;D
Thanks Bayes I already have ur cool software.
So u mean that this result doesn t mean anything?
Rob changing the bet selections isn t making any good....because u never know when a bet selection will start curving down or up.
Anyway I ll add or remove some things to the bet selection and we will see what it is capable of doing in the next 3000 spins.
MOP,
I don't know whether you remember No. 6 from the VLS forum? he did a lot of testing using the Marigny methods and was up to over 4 STD over 100,000 bets. Eventually it dropped, but it just goes to show that some bet selections are better than others, at least for a while. ;D
The problem is that sooner or later, if you do enough testing of systems, you'll find something that SEEMS to be really good.
You say that changing the bet selections doesn't help, but if one isn't working, isn't it better to change to one with a higher probability of not losing? Assume that all bet selections have their losing and winning runs, (which is mathematically TRUE) a bet selection that is on a downswing is more likely to either break even or move into an upswing rather than repeat another downswing immediately, that's the simple idea behind the 3 STD trigger for the Marigny methods.
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 27, 07:28 AM 2012
2300 spins +92 chips.(there was a stage that went to +98 chips)
I havet tested UNLIMITED flat bet selections in my life....This has never happened!
O0
98 diff in EC on 2300 spins thats not unussual. The trick in follow an EC is just to chose the best, which is for most of the time will be one. Its goes for all bets. Betting 2/3 looks as you will have better chans you win 2/3, but I think this is one of the hardest. A good streak give one out of two, and a bad takes 2 out.
The thing will show, if it rise or goes down permanent after some more 1000 spins.
I never stick with a method so long its crash1 8) ::) ::) ::)
Bayes when u include in the bet selection the STD is a dif animal.
In my testing it was every spin bet and NO probability(std-maths) in....
3.000 pure bets and not spins.
This is why its very unusual....
And NO by changing the bets You can t take any advantage because as i said u never know when 1 bet will be favoured or not....so by changing is exactly the same thing-risk.Tunferuk(or something like this) agrees on that.
The 2.7% says that in 3.000 spins my bet would have lose approx. 145 chips...and instead of this its +44.
I don't support my bet..because I need to test more and also make some modif. to see if it can become stringer...maybe it is like all bet selections-losers....but what i say is that in 3000 bets the result is extraordinary....
I was playing a similar or may be the equal method, my be I got it from you. A modification on a two dozen bet. It went very good, and I think I got better than you now. After a while things become worse. Did not lose much of the winnings because I stopped. I have today wonderful winnings with new or old methods, but they will not stay so. Some stays very long, "Ernahrungssysteme" which win or lose a few chips, which just target 2/3 bets can stay long, but never give much during the time.
this is not new. this system has been tested in 'stone age' by VLS himself and me! look at the thread 'VLSMarch3 and Breakeven point' --you will be amazed!
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 27, 10:25 AM 2012
Bayes when u include in the bet selection the STD is a dif animal.
In my testing it was every spin bet and NO probability(std-maths) in....
3.000 pure bets and not spins.
This is why its very unusual....
And NO by changing the bets You can t take any advantage because as i said u never know when 1 bet will be favoured or not....so by changing is exactly the same thing-risk.Tunferuk(or something like this) agrees on that
I don't know why you say the STD is different when you're using a bet selection - it isn't. A high STD like the one I calculated for your bet selection can mean one of two things:
1. You really do have a superior bet selection which gives you a mathematical advantage.
2. You don't have a superior bet selection, you just happen to have hit a lucky streak. All bet selections will have runs where they hit 3 or 4 STD, you happen to have chosen this particular method at the right time.
Either way, more testing will give you the truth.
It's not true to say you never know when one bet will be favoured or not. I'm not talking about the very next bet, of course the odds don't change, but mathematically, a severe downswing will be followed by a more average sequence. I can prove it. :D
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 27, 08:55 AM 2012
Sample size is still too small and MOP you preached the need for more testing.
You just got lucky. Now move to other bet selection and hope for similar result.
Do not push it for too long. ;D
Hehe its just beginners luck MOP. Havent'u noticed when you test a new stuff it behaves super duper in 1 or 2k spins and after that it tanks like a russian submarine. Bet seriously i dont see any bet selection for double dozens that could produce any good runs. Just playing on gut feeling will probably give you better results than any fixed progression. Today 41 won 8 step progressions in a row within around 200 spins betting for repeat of a single DZ but i did not bet ;D Generally very allergic to bets that pay you less than you put in.
Yeh, might get (bet)ter of flat bet zero!
Quote from: Bayes on Jul 27, 10:54 AM 2012
I don't know why you say the STD is different when you're using a bet selection - it isn't. A high STD like the one I calculated for your bet selection can mean one of two things:
1. You really do have a superior bet selection which gives you a mathematical advantage.
2. You don't have a superior bet selection, you just happen to have hit a lucky streak. All bet selections will have runs where they hit 3 or 4 STD, you happen to have chosen this particular method at the right time.
Either way, more testing will give you the truth.
It's not true to say you never know when one bet will be favoured or not. I'm not talking about the very next bet, of course the odds don't change, but mathematically, a severe downswing will be followed by a more average sequence. I can prove it. :D
"""1. You really do have a superior bet selection which gives you a mathematical advantage.
2. You don't have a superior bet selection, you just happen to have hit a lucky streak. All bet selections will have runs where they hit 3 or 4 STD, you happen to have chosen this particular method at the right time.
Either way, more testing will give you the truth.
""""""""""Yes we are saying the same thing...this is what I want to find out by testing more.
""""""It's not true to say you never know when one bet will be favoured or not. I'm not talking about the very next bet, of course the odds don't change, but mathematically, a severe downswing will be followed by a more average sequence. I can prove it."""""""""""Then prove it LoL. Prove how and when u are obsearving the indications that u must change ur bet in order the other bet to win ...
Rob We are speaking about FLAT betting here and mostly betting 2 2:1 bets at the same time....Don t interfear progressions in the thread, because a win in 10.000 spins is easy with progressions....but 3.000 spins flat betting 2 chips in every spin is extraordinary to be UP in the end....
anyway...enough said...there is no reason to post anything else....only testing will show if it was alucky 3000 bets run or not....
Sure by thinking mathimaticaly it was just a lucky run....we all know this....
but einstein also said this : ;D
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 27, 11:06 AM 2012
"""1. You really do have a superior bet selection which gives you a mathematical advantage.
2. You don't have a superior bet selection, you just happen to have hit a lucky streak. All bet selections will have runs where they hit 3 or 4 STD, you happen to have chosen this particular method at the right time.
Either way, more testing will give you the truth.
""""""""""
Yes we are saying the same thing...this is what I want to find out by testing more.
""""""It's not true to say you never know when one bet will be favoured or not. I'm not talking about the very next bet, of course the odds don't change, but mathematically, a severe downswing will be followed by a more average sequence. I can prove it."""""""""""
Then prove it LoL. Prove how and when You are observing the indications that u must change your bet in order the other bet to win ...
Rob We are speaking about FLAT betting here and mostly betting 2 2:1 bets at the same time....don't interfear progressions in the thread, because a win in 10.000 spins is easy with progressions....but 3.000 spins flat betting 2 chips in every spin is extraordinary to be UP in the end....
anyway...enough said...there is no reason to post anything else....only testing will show if it was alucky 3000 bets run or not....
Sure by thinking mathematically it was just a lucky run....we all know this....
but einstein also said this : ;D
Hehe MOP you were a poster boy for negativity here and suddenly you got excited after winning few units in 1k spins. Come on... what happened? We all know it was just a lucky run Flat Betting. :D No reason to dissect STD or other statistical stuff.
Not 1K ...3K ;D
And flat betting 2 2:1 bets that as You know its a bad bet....
Anyway as I told you I am also 99.9% sure it was a nice run...but I can t let it...i must test more.
but i have never seen a 2 2:1 flat bet winning in 3000 spins....and i have tested so many flat bets that it could take 3 lifetimes to do it. LoL
catalyst
The thread that u gave me in VLS forum is deleted....
Did this thread had a bet selection of 2 2:1 bets that won after 3.000 bets Flat betting???
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 27, 11:14 AM 2012
Not 1K ...3K ;D
And flat betting 2 2:1 bets that as You know its a bad bet....
Anyway as I told you I am also 99.9% sure it was a nice run...but I can t let it...i must test more.
but i have never seen a 2 2:1 flat bet winning in 3000 spins....and i have tested so many flat bets that it could take 3 lifetimes to do it. LoL
catalyst
The thread that u gave me in VLS forum is deleted....
Did this thread had a bet selection of 2 2:1 bets that won after 3.000 bets Flat betting???
MOP you always claimed to posses ultimate knowledge of roulette. So i ask your question you always asked here - Give me a one reason why this should win ;D ? And 1k or 3k? I can give you a long list of systems that tanked FB after 10k....Just for demonstration purposes apply only 2% or 3% of your bet total during any amount of spins. It represents just a small variation of STD - ask Bayes. If it wipes out your profit it means you just got lucky. So good luck.... :D
Quote from: Robeenhuut on Jul 27, 11:30 AM 2012
MOP you always claimed to posses ultimate knowledge of roulette. So i ask your question you always asked here - Give me a one reason why this should win ;D ? And 1k or 3k? I can give you a long list of systems that tanked FB after 10k....Just for demonstration purposes apply only 2% or 3% of your bet total during any amount of spins. It represents just a small variation of STD - ask Bayes. If it wipes out your profit it means you just got lucky. So good luck.... :D
Luck is not JUST! It s the major reason we win. If we accept that, and always must put our skill as reason, we will do better. Still use a method, and pray it will work on the outcome.
Rob which part of the: "Anyway as I told you I am also 99.9% sure it was a nice run...but I can t let it...i must test more." you can t understand?
And there is no flat bet selection that was a winner after 9.000 spins in order to crach after 10000.
So don't make up things from your mind.
I also told its Voodoo.....we have 100 posters that beliave in voodoo in here so i think i can also have my voodoo moments...LoL
anyway...your character is always to be negative in anything and try to pick up fights for no reason....
so I won t reply anything more to your posts....
its not you or me or anyone else that can judje this bet selection...only the testing can judje it...
The only thing that I have said is that this 3000 bets result of +44 is really rare-extraordinary and nothing else/././. I never claimed that it is a sure winner....
Bye for now...my next post will be testing result....
By 99.9% the next testing result will be bad.according to mathematics
cya
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 27, 11:39 AM 2012
Rob which part of the: "Anyway as I told you I am also 99.9% sure it was a nice run...but I can t let it...i must test more." you can t understand?
And there is no flat bet selection that was a winner after 9.000 spins in order to crach after 10000.
So don't make up things from your mind.
I also told its Voodoo.....we have 100 posters that beliave in voodoo in here so i think i can also have my voodoo moments...LoL
anyway...your character is always to be negative in anything and try to pick up fights for no reason....
so I won t reply anything more to your posts....
its not you or me or anyone else that can judje this bet selection...only the testing can judje it...
The only thing that I have said is that this 3000 bets result of +44 is really rare-extraordinary and nothing else/././. I never claimed that it is a sure winner....
Bye for now...my next post will be testing result....
By 99.9% the next testing result will be bad.
cya
No reason to get upset. We all post the stuff that does not work as i did in the past but some fun criticizing never hurt anybody. Relax... i always liked your pain in the behind attitude. :D
I should not stand waiting for 44 chips in 3000 spins. I expect faster win or problem, today I got more than 4000 (in 1 Euro chips).
I do not use a bot (anymore, I can program a such and a new). 4000 spins to get a win is not for a manual player, its 10 to 100% of the account money, at most 300 spins..
3.700 bets +73
But I guess Rob has alreay seen something like this before LoL.
No pain behind my attitude...just logic and education...
This is the only thread that I posted that includes voodoo. and its fun :)
3.800 bets +93 chips
What the hell is happening?
3.900 bets +91 chips
z = 3.37, or 1 chance in 2261 :o :o
Now you're going to say it was all a joke. >:D
i PROMISE to my life this is NOT a joke!
And the real fun is that I think i found a way to reduce the downs and make it more profitable...but I need more testing!
4.100 spins +59 (it droped a lot)
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 27, 02:52 PM 2012
4.100 spins +59 (it droped a lot)
Should stop and let the downswing come while observing.
Then strike again on the uptrend.
You know how to do it. You are familiar with STD, however different from Ecart...
:thumbsup:
sharing the voodoo?
LoL..All roulette is voodoo.
The serious trackers and hot/cold Red Blackers
Labbies and Martys
The wait and then starties
Dozens and Streeters
Splits and repeaters
Visual Ballistics
Best guess and Heuristics
No matter what you do
Roulette is all voodoo!
(even when you really believe you arnt doing voodoo...you are)
I agree .
But VB and Bias ain t Voodoo.
The point that today wheels offer less advantages isn t making those 2 methods voodoo.
The methods may not be WOOHDOO ,but many are convinced that they can approach it, though it is pure chance, in common with all wooddoo methods, which can sometimes work well, most important still is winning. Sometimes I think I use the unconscious precognition, or called it luck?
Quote from: Master_of_pockets on Jul 28, 01:11 PM 2012
I agree .
But VB and Bias ain t Voodoo.
The point that today wheels offer less advantages isn t making those 2 methods voodoo.
Wheel bias and dominant drop zones for VB are very real things
All I can say is dont bother with them if your in the UK
I have personally recorded hundreds of thousands of spins on huxley mark 7 wheels in the uk and it just dosent exsist on these wheels
The new huxley marks 7's even have a computer built into the base of the wheel and if it senses any bias at all it sends a text message to the casino managers phone to tell him there is a problem with the wheel.
Older wheels can develope bias and dominant drop zones and if you have them available to you they are worth studying
D1.