I can reward with a month of free usage of the tool to anyone who can code a 12-number system for MrChips.
I've been delaying him because I really do not have the time.
The deal is simple, you make him the tester program and in exchange you one month free usage of the tipping tool when online.
System is mechanical.
I'm quite busy right now and really can't deliver this private coding at the moment. Wouldn't like him being delayed anymore, but I can't deviate from my most important project.
Anyone willing to devote some time on the side to this? :)
Hi Victor,
Sounds like a reasonable deal to me, but how complex is the system? if it's going to take me a week I might have to reconsider... :D
Thank you dear Bayes.
I instructed Richard (Mr. Chips) to come here and contact you :thumbsup:
Back to the IDE! (--oops! to programming :))
Hi Bayes,
Victor has very kindly mentioned that you are willing to consider coding my 'Dozen project',
the full details can be found on my forum, with the link to the website explaining in detail
how the 'Dozen's' are selected.
link:://roulettesolutions.vls.cc/program-for-dozen-project/5-000-select-spin-hand-test-stage-1/ (link:://roulettesolutions.vls.cc/program-for-dozen-project/5-000-select-spin-hand-test-stage-1/)
From a coder's point of view I don't know how complex it will be to code it. I am in no hurry
to get it completed, but I am hoping some progress can be made on it.
I hand tested it up to 5,000 select spins and already I think I have shown it to have made
a significant improvement over the usual selection of dozens.
I am of course willing to explain any aspect of the project, which is unclear.
I have been very interested in this project and I hope you also will find it of some
interest and thank you very much for taking a look at it.
Regards
Richard
Welcome to the forum dear Richard.
Looking forward to you and Bayes to get rocking on the project while I focus in my other big code :)
It is always very good to see the good people like yourself around :thumbsup:
Cheers!
Hi Richard,
You mention on your forum that you will need to give a deeper explanation of the system than is shown on your web site, would you be able to give that explanation here? It might generate some interest seeing as your results appear to be quite good so far.
Hi Bayes,
I thought there may be some aspects of the Dozen project that may need clarification.
The construction of the 'sections' is straight forward and is detailed on the website and
is an essential component of the 4Selecta system, which I am currently using at the casino's.
Having understood how to construct a 'section', then it should be easier to follow the
first stage of selecting a dozen.
On the layout you will of course be aware that 1,2,3 & 10,11,12 belong to the 1st dozen.
For the purposes of the Dozen project they are also part of the Lower group of numbers:
Lower Group
1 2 3
10 11 12
19 20 21
28 29 30
It just so happens that 1,2,3 & 10,11,12 comprise 50% of the Lower group of numbers
contained in the 1st dozen.
Likewise 13,14,15 & 22,23,24 make up 50% of the Middle group of numbers in the
2nd dozen.
Lastly 25,26,27 & 34,35,36 make up 50% of the Higher group of numbers in the
3rd dozen.
If there was a result from a 'section' as follows:
7
13
27
----
7 belongs to the 1st dozen, but the 'home' of 7 being a Higher group number belongs
to the 3rd dozen, as 50% of the Higher numbers are found in the 3rd dozen. So in effect
7,8,9 & 16,17,18 are assigned to the 3rd dozen.
I'll stop here so that you can let me know if the explanation on the website and the above
makes it any clearer, as how this first stage is set out.
Richard,
Thanks, I think I understand now how your system works. When you refer to 'select' spins does this mean the number of PLACED bets?
On page 2 I can't read the last sentence (at the foot of the page on the left) because it's cut off - the sentence which starts: "we will however assign 9 as..." but I assume it was from the 1st dozen (even though it belongs to the higher group).
And, I'm not clear about what the tables mean on page 1. I understand that you're trying to reduce the number of spins between hits for the dozens, but could you explain what the figures in the tables are referring to? for example, on page 1:
1st Dozen
10 x 12
11 x 15
12
13 x 3
etc..
I assume that this isn't a complete system yet, because you will presumably need to use some kind of progression, but you want to find out whether you can reduce the "distance" between hits over a larger number of spins, am I correct?
Bayes,
Usually the number of select spins refers to the number of placed bets, but there will be
occasions when there is a no bet, as the selection in column A may be 1st dozen and
column B may also be 1st dozen, which would make it impossible to select a dozen for
column C.
The text at the end of page 2 reads :We will however assign 9, as being part of the 50%
group and therefore the 3rd dozen.
Referring to the Tables on page 1, I elaborated a bit more on the thread in the forum,
showing results supplied by rjeaton and random. org. Therefore 1st dozen, the number
of intervals between hits at intervals of 10 was 12 times.
Yes you are correct, I cannot at this stage refer to it as a complete system. I am usually
not in favour of progressions, most are used in an attempt to recover losses, with the
inevitable result of going bust. However if it could be shown that the maximum interval
between hits for a dozen was 18 for example, that would be incredible, as then a
progression could be applied at some point, with the confidence of a 1 in several million
chance of it failing :o
It has been shown that the maximum intervals between hits for all dozens is 39 and
therefore a progression is out of the question and so 18 for example would make a
progression a reality. A 5,000 select spin test is not much granted, but the results are
encouraging enough to go for a 80,000 test, as I am certain it would be a fascinating
result :)
Richard,
I understand how to generate the columns, that seems simple enough. However, on page 4 you say that when a column shows the correct result, the next selection will be from that column. But how to make your selection when you first start playing?
I will post a few spins so you can check my understanding of how it works.
5 (middle Group)
2 (lower Group)
Since we're expecting a "perfect" section, the next number should be from a higher group. So under column A we write 3D.
A
3D
To generate the first entry under column B, we note that the digit sum of 5 + 2 = 7, therefore 1D comes under column B
B
1D
Now we see that 2D must come under column C (to complete a section).
C
2D
As I understand it, we can't place a bet because we don't yet have a result, which means that we can't choose a column from which to make a selection.
The number 9 came in next. Which colours should I assign to the entries in the columns, as you have done in your table on page 4?
Bayes,
I'm pleased that you understand the workings of the Dozen project :thumbsup:
I have withdrawn page 4 on the website, as I intend to display it differently and will
show spielbank spins 1. 1. 2010. Hopefully I will complete it today. I haven't worked out
the best way to denote when a dozen is correct and when a particular dozen is chosen,
e. g. * for the correct result and the next bet will follow this and ^ for the chosen dozen.
If the chosen dozen is correct then display *^. If you can think of a better way to indicate
the dozens then I would appreciate your input.
I don't think indicating by colour is satisfactory.
When starting the Dozen project the assumption is that column A will have the correct
result.
The results for 1. 1. 2010 Spielbank Table 3 are as follows:
-1
-2
+
-1
-2
-3
-4
+
-1
-2
+
-1
n/b
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
n/b
-9
n/b
-10
-11
n/b
+
+
-1
n/b
-2
-3
-4
n/b
-5
+
-1
+
+
-1
n/b
+
-1
+
-1
-2
+
-1
n/b
-2
+
n/b
+
+
+
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
n/b
+
-1
n/b = no bet
Bayes,
I have now changed page 4 on the website to pages 4A & 4B and shows how the Dozen
project develops into the three columns.
Strange I can't get the smileys to work :(
Hi Richard,
Just a suggestion, but you might like to include a short sample where you show not only the SELECT spins, but also the non-selected spins. In other words, ALL the spins as they come in, because then you can see how the 'sections' work.
I'm not clear whether you are supposed to draw a line under a section after a bet and then start afresh, or do you take some previous spins as included in the currently developing section?
Also, if you do this, please could you show every spin from the very beginning of play?
Sorry, don't mean to make more work for you. :-[
Bayes,
Sure it's no problem, it does take a little while to get used to how the sections are formed.
It is very easy to make a mistake and I still do on occasions, so when I am at the casino
I have to double check they are correct.
I will list the sections relating to page 4A on the website as follows :
12
24
0
---
0
11
2
25
11
---
6
12
1
---
3
18
26
---
2
28
23
6
---
35
17
25
3
1
---
19
16
6
---
15
7
21
---
32
17
25
---
11
33
34
---
29
35
17
---
25
6
23
---
25
0
8
16
16
25
3
15
---
13
22
22
12
29
---
29
4
3
---
19
13
0
---
15
10
23
---
11
7
1
---
31
28
14
---
33
24
3
21
---
5
25
34
---
2
23
26
---
12
28
18
22
---
28
27
26
---
18
20
18
---
26
27
28
26
---
2
5
30
---
4
11
27
---
15
9
27
---
Thanks Richard, I meant that I'd like to see the sections together with the selected spins, such as you might actually write down if you were playing this in a casino.
Is this correct? I have shown all spins, not just the 'select' ones.
[table=,]
spin, group, A col, B col, C col
5,M,-,-,-,
2,L,-,-,-,
9,H,3D*,1D,2D
36,H,-,-,-,
10,L,-,-,-,
16,H,2D*^,1D,3D
26,H,-,-,-,
8,H,-,-,-,
31,M,-,-,-,
30,L,1D^,2D,3D*
[/table]
So no bets were made until the 10 came in, then the bet was on the 2nd dozen resulting in a win. The next bet was after no. 31 on the 1st dozen, but the 3rd dozen hit, resulting in a loss.
I will do a few more when I have the thumbs up from you that this is ok. :thumbsup:
Hi Bayes,
The way you have set it out is just fine. I am used to underlining sections, but it may be
unnecessary in the way you have set it out.
It's not set in stone how a session starts. When testing I decided to assume A would be
the chosen column. In your example column A as you have correctly shown requires a 3D,
but the * indicates a correct result and instead it should show ^ which donates a chosen
dozen, with the correct result 1D*, as the 1st dozen 9 came in.
On the line showing 16, 2D* 1D^ 3D.
The line showing 30 is correct.
Ok, it makes more sense that the very first selection should be marked ^ and not *, but you said in a previous post that:
QuoteWhen starting the Dozen project the assumption is that column A will have the correct
result.
Whereas it should be that "column A should contain the chosen dozen"
I'll post a few more spins later just so you can check that I've got it 100%.
Sorry Bayes, what I meant to say was it is assumed that by choosing the A column on the
first bet will hopefully result in the first win.
I think you are 100% there and will check your spins as soon as you post them.
Hi Richard,
Here are some spins taken from Dublin Bet, this time I've left gaps to show the sections.
[table=,]
Spin,Group,A col, B col, C col, Result
10,L,-,-,-,-
13,M,-,-,-,-
35,H,3D*^,1D,2D,(+)
-,-,-,-,-,-
30,L,-,-,-,-
4,M,-,-,-,-
26,H,3D*^,1D,2D,(+)
-,-,-,-,-,-
8,H,-,-,-,-
21,L,-,-,-,-
28,L,2D^,1D,3D*,(-)
-,-,-,-,-,-
29,L,-,-,-,-
31,M,-,-,-,-
32,M,3D*,1D,2D^,(-)
-,-,-,-,-,-
27,H,-,-,-,-
20,L,-,-,-,-
31,M,2D^,1D,3D*,(-)
-,-,-,-,-,-
1,L,-,-,-,-
18,H,-,-,-,-
35,H,2D,1D,3D*^,(+)
-,-,-,-,-,-
18,H,-,-,-,-
30,L,-,-,-,-
22,M,2D*,1D,3D^,(-)
-,-,-,-,-,-
9,H,-,-,-,-
2,L,-,-,-,-
8,H,2D^,1D*,3D,(-)
-,-,-,-,-,-
33,M,-,-,-,-
8,H,-,-,-,-
19,L,1D,2D*^,3D,(+)
[/table]
You seem to have changed the rules regarding 2 situations (either the digit sum > 36 or col A and col B have the same dozen) with the latest update to your website. In these cases didn't you say to take the correct result from the previous section if a bet wasn't possible in the current section?
A simple "no-bet" is easier to deal with from a programming point of view, so it suits me. :)
Yes Bayes, what you have stated is what I intended to convey rather poorly! Unfortunately
my command of the English language is deteriorating due to roulette fatigue ;D
As you completely understand the Dozen project would you be able on a scale of 1 to 10
be able tell me the degree of difficulty in having the project coded? Taking 1 to be no
problem.
It appears the smilies are working :) ;) 8) well almost :(
Quote from: Richard on Sep 05, 05:31 AM 2010
As you completely understand the Dozen project would you be able on a scale of 1 to 10
be able tell me the degree of difficulty in having the project coded? Taking 1 to be no
problem.
Glad to hear I've got it nailed. :)
Actually, the trickiest part is often understanding the 'specification', so now I have that clear I would say maybe 5-7? It's not going to be trivial, but not too hard either.
Do you have your own spins you want me to test against? I have a few thousand from wiesbaden and can easily get more.
Bayes,
Most probably 7 is about right.
If you were to send me some of your spins I will do them by hand and then we can compare
the results.
Thanks
Richard
Richard,
I have uploaded some spins here:
link:://rouletteforum.cc/other-software/utility-for-wiesbaden-spins/ (link:://rouletteforum.cc/other-software/utility-for-wiesbaden-spins/)
Bayes,
I'm having trouble downloading the spins. I've had problems with other downloads and
warnings from my security, it's a real pain.
If it's ok with you I'll continue with spielbank 2.1.2010 which follows on from pages 4A & 4B
on the website.
Richard,
Actually, I've just realized that the link I gave you was for downloading the program, not the spins. Your security might have objected because the zip contained an exe (executable file). I have uploaded the spins file here, it might be worth trying this, but if you can't download it, no worries.
Thanks i've got the spins :thumbsup:
I should have the program written some time this week, but don't sue me if I haven't. :D
The problem with roulette is that there are always more avenues to explore, and sometimes I bite off more than I can chew.
Richard,
In the event of a zero, do you just take the loss and start a new section? or do you carry on and wait for the section to complete? I assume that if a zero comes at any other time you just ignore it.
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 06, 08:09 AM 2010
I should have the program written some time this week, but don't sue me if I haven't. :D
The problem with roulette is that there are always more avenues to explore, and sometimes I bite off more than I can chew.
Bayes,
I'm very grateful for you writing the program, so slow but sure would be great :thumbsup:
I'm working my way through the spins, gives me something useful to do when I'm
travelling.
With regard to the zero's I 'll give the following example from the spins you gave me :
[table=,]
spins,Group,A col,B col,C col,Result
12,L,2D,1D*^,1D,+
0,,1D,2D,3D,-
17,G,3D,2D*^,1D,+
[/table]
Hi Richard,
It's tough to deduce a general rule from one example, help me out here! ;)
Does it mean you DO see a section through to 'completion' when you're interrupted by a zero?
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 06, 03:37 PM 2010
Hi Richard,
It's tough to deduce a general rule from one example, help me out here! ;)
Does it mean you DO see a section through to 'completion' when you're interrupted by a zero?
22
36
0
---
0 completes the section, so it's recorded as a loss in the above example and its treated
similar to an n/b, that is again in the example 12 col B had 1D*^ and the same column
is chosen after the 0 with 17 getting the correct result 2D*^.
I think you guys would be better off talking on the phone !
Or use our chat room ?
Just a thought :thumbsup:
Quote from: Twisteruk on Sep 07, 03:55 AM 2010
I think you guys would be better off talking on the phone !
Or use our chat room ?
Just a thought :thumbsup:
I think at this stage we have just about sorted out the problems.
Regards
Richard
Cool :thumbsup:
Quote from: Richard on Sep 07, 04:13 PM 2010
I think at this stage we have just about sorted out the problems.
Yep. :thumbsup:
Hi Bayes,
Just to let you know I am working my way through your spins, so far 357 select spins
(placed bets not including n/b) and just one 10 with reference to the number of intervals
between hits :thumbsup:
@ Twisteruk
Those unfamiliar with Richard's system would find this thread of great value as Bayes works his way through the steps.
It serves a very useful educational function. And that, surely, is what this forum is about...
So, no. Using the phone or chat would not have been a good idea!!
Quote from: esoito on Sep 08, 09:26 PM 2010
@ Twisteruk
Those unfamiliar with Richard's system would find this thread of great value as Bayes works his way through the steps.
It serves a very useful educational function. And that, surely, is what this forum is about...
So, no. Using the phone or chat would not have been a good idea!!
Yes, I see your point of view. I had not thought of that. :thumbsup:
@ esoito,
Good point, If Richard's system has merit in the long term, this thread could be useful reference, since the system is not that simple to understand.
@ Richard,
I've more or less finished the coding, but I need to do some testing to make sure the program behaves correctly in the no-bet cases. All being well, I'll upload some output tomorrow (or maybe later today) so that you can check against your results.
Bayes,
Great news, look forward to your output.
I've managed to get up to 487 select spins and just two intervals between hits 10 and
above, 10 and 13 :)
Hi Richard,
Ok, everything seems ok and I've uploaded the results from the first couple of thousand spins in my file. All being well (ie; no errors/bugs) I'll get some more spins from wiesbaden for the big test. :)
In the big test I'll add some code to collect statistics (frequencies of the 'gaps').
Note: I've shown all the spins so that you can see each complete section, but NOT the zeros in cases where it has hit before the actual bet is placed. This was just to make the programming easier and in any case a zero contributes nothing to a section so can effectively be ignored. A win is shown as "+0". Also you will notice that sometime in n/b situations a Dozen can be marked with a ^ or *. Again, this isn't an error but just a consequence of the way I coded (working sequentially and from left to right). Just ignore it, it doesn't mean that the column in the next section will be chosen by referring to this n/b situation.
The maximum length 'gap' was 13 in this sample.
P.S. I've just run the whole file (11,241 spins) and the longest gap was 15. So assuming the code is ok this seems to back up your previous testing. Note that this isn't 11,241 placed bets, which I'm guessing is about 3000 - 4000, but I'll add code to count them later.
Many thanks, Bayes I'm most grateful for coding it for me :) :thumbsup:
So it's edged up from 14 to 15 :'( It really is though a great result. Combining all the
results so far, my tests and your spins, I'm sure no one could replicate those results
and therefore we are in new territory 8)
The big test will be the first really important hurdle and hope for the best.
I have got some further questions regarding the big test, but will wait for the results first.
I'll download and check the results this evening.
Bayes,
I have checked the results of the program and just two errors relating to zero.
7
5
0
---
13
17
0
---
They are both showing as a loss when it should be n/b.
Col 1 expects 1D and also col 2 1D and therefore n/b
Ok, that was easily fixed. I've uploaded the new results file. :thumbsup:
I've been trying to download spins from wiesbaden but there's something weird going on there. Sometimes I get a file without any spins, or spins are duplicated. I just don't think it's a very reliable source. Any other ideas? I assume you'd rather not use random.org spins for the 'big' test.
I would prefer actuals for the first test, then depending on the results perhaps consider
random.org.
They have spins available at VLSroulette:
link:://vlsroulette.com/actuals-permanences/wiesbaden-t3-spins-01-04-2003-31-12-2008/ (link:://vlsroulette.com/actuals-permanences/wiesbaden-t3-spins-01-04-2003-31-12-2008/)
Hi Richard,
Here are the results of another test using the first 20,000 spins in the file you linked to in your above post. The frequencies of the gaps are listed at the end of the file. In order to make a true comparison, and to find out whether your method of picking dozens has any merit, I will generate some results using a RANDOM bet selection for the same number of bets. I'll post this later today.
Hi Bayes,
Thanks for the further test. I found the 17 gap and examined it (no n/b), but somehow
I missed finding the 18 gap, which shows at the end of the results?
The gap of course was bound to increase and just hoping 18 holds :thumbsup:
I will have to try and find the 18 gap a bit later on.
Richard, in the test I uploaded the maximum gap was 17:
Gap Frequency
-----------------
0 1561
1 1070
2 715
3 486
4 319
5 207
6 132
7 86
8 57
9 40
10 23
11 14
12 8
13 5
14 2
15 1
16 1
17 1
Tip: if you want to find a gap length, just use the "Find" or "Search" feature in a text editor. e.g to find the gap of 17, just enter "+17" in the search field.
Running the same number of spins using a random bet selection, I got the following frequencies:
Gap Frequency
------------------
0 1565
1 1047
2 698
3 463
4 318
5 221
6 144
7 101
8 60
9 37
10 23
11 19
12 14
13 6
14 5
15 3
16 2
17 1
18 1
As you can see, the longest gap in this case was 18, but more significantly, compare the total number of occurrences beyond 10. Using your bet selection the total from 11 to 17 was 32, but using the random bet selection it was 51 - an increase of 59%. This suggests that there is some merit in your method, at least if you look at the number of longer losing streaks, but I'll run the full 700,000 spins to get the bigger picture.
Bayes,
It definitely shows 18 gaps at the end of the result?
It's certainly interesting to compare the two results and I'm eagerly looking forward
to the results of the 700,000 spin test, with trepidation naturally ;)
Bad news I'm afraid Richard. :(
Here are the results from the 700,000 spins. First, here are the frequencies for your bet selection:
Gap Frequency
------------------
0 54472
1 36837
2 24877
3 16851
4 11334
5 7580
6 5206
7 3521
8 2410
9 1662
10 1152
11 757
12 518
13 363
14 240
15 160
16 98
17 74
18 56
19 44
20 25
21 15
22 9
23 6
24 6
25 3
26 2
27 1
28 1
And here are those for random bet selection:
Gap Frequency
---------------
0 54497
1 36813
2 24780
3 16898
4 11403
5 7693
6 5183
7 3510
8 2402
9 1622
10 1108
11 751
12 496
13 340
14 240
15 170
16 109
17 77
18 56
19 37
20 26
21 19
22 14
23 11
24 10
25 6
26 4
27 1
28 1
29 1
30 1
31 1
As you can see, there is very little difference, certainly nothing of statistical significance. Doing the same calculations as before for those gaps > 10, the total for your BS is 2,378 and for random it's 2,371 - a very close match. The results from the previous much shorter trial just reflected the fact that "anything can happen in the short term", and with a much bigger sample any apparent advantage was "ironed out". :'(
Well Bayes, as you say certainly bad news :o.
You may recall in a previous post I mentioned I will have some questions concerning the
big test.
What I need if possible is to examine in detail all those gaps from 18 and above. Obviously
I have missed something when working this out! I don't give up at the first hurdle. It took
me years to work out Signum.
It's a pity a 18 gap or above didn't show in the early tests.
No problem Richard, I've uploaded the results file.
Bayes, thanks I've downloaded the results file.
I must admit I was surprised it went as far 28 gaps,so examined this first of all.
I thought the zero problem was nailed, (please see replies 28,29 & 30) the following
occurred :
[table=,]
spins,col1,col2,col3,result
35,,,,
12,,,,
1,2D,1D*,3D^,+5
---,,,,
31,,,,
19,,,,
0,3D,1D,2D,+6
---,,,,
28,
7,
4,2D,1D*^,3D,+0
---,,,,
[/table]
The program recorded +7 ?
I'll take a look at gap 27 next.
Used the text editor to find 27 and it could not find it.
It found 26, so will examine it next.
It's ok I found gap 27 ::)
Found a gap 22, with the zero problem :
[table=,]
spins,col1,col2,col3,result
20,,,,
33,,,,
6,3D^,1D*,2D,+6
---,,,,
8,,,,
4,,,,
32,1D,1D,-,n/b
---,,,,
32,,,,
22,,,,
4,,,,
35,,,,
0,1D,2D,3D,+7
---,,,,
35,,,,
8,,,,
16,,,,
5,,,,
27,1D,3D*^,2D,+0
---,,,,
[/table]
Hi Bayes,
Ok, was tired last night looking at this and had a fresh look this morning.
Gap 28 as mentioned above has a zero fault.
I thought I found gap 27, but it turned out to be part of gap 28. The editor highlights
the +27 and I missed the fact that it's part of +28. I searched up and down, but could
not find any other +27?
Found only one gap 26 and this appears to check out ok. I have an idea to solve the
gaps above 18, but of course it will take a fair bit of work, as I need to apply it all of
the results above +18 to know if is effective.
Those pesky zeros! :D
Ok, I can see the problem, I'll take a look at the code. There is only 1 gap of 28 and 1 of 27, 2 of 26...
Ok, I fixed the problem and re-ran the program. The longest gap is now 26, file attached.
Ok, thanks, I've downloaded the amended results :thumbsup:
There still appears to be a problem with the totals at the end of the results. It is still
showing 1 27 and I can only find 1 26 and not 2 26 as shown on the results.
I don't know if any of the other totals are affected. It seems strange the program should
count a total that does not exist?
Anyway I shall press on with finding a solution to the gaps above +18.
Thanks again for the excellent program, much appreciated.
Hi Bayes,
I'm having difficulty if reconciling the discrepancy in the total gaps.
I put in the editor find +22 and get the following result:
22 3
23 2
24 2
25 1
26 1
At the end of the results it's showing the following:
22 14
23 8
24 6
25 4
26 2
27 1
I would be grateful if you could look at this, as I presume the earlier gaps will be
affected as well.
Ah, sorry Richard, these are the correct stats:
Gap Frequency
---------------
1 17519
2 11919
3 8023
4 5583
5 3783
6 2376
7 1707
8 1147
9 751
10 525
11 400
12 227
13 154
14 122
15 78
16 65
17 27
18 22
19 13
20 15
21 11
22 5
23 3
24 2
25 2
26 1
27 1
I checked the last few (from 21 - 27) and they are all correct.
Bayes,
Previously you showed 0 54472 and your latest list of gaps starts at 1?
I have checked again and when I put in find +27 it cannot find it?
I don't want to incur additional work on your program as I am very pleased that you
have written the program, but it is essential that I have accurate info on the number of
gaps, so I can decide on the next steps to take to improve on the current method.
Many Thanks
Richard
Yes, I should have explained the difference in the way the stats are generated - it amounts to the same. Instead of marking a win with a zero, it now gets a +1, like this:
23 M
1 L
25 H 3D^* 1D 2D +1
------------------------
4 M
16 H
17 H 1D^ 1D n/b
------------------------
19 L
15 M
17 H 3D^ 1D 2D* +2
------------------------
15 M
3 L
12 L 3D 1D* 2D^ +3
------------------------
29 L
24 M
34 H 3D* 1D^ 2D +4
------------------------
24 M
36 H
5 M 1D^* 2D 3D +1
------------------------
32 M
16 H
4 M 1D^* 1D n/b
------------------------
23 M
12 L
34 H 3D^* 1D 2D +1
------------------------
32 M
15 M
22 M
32 M
18 H
11 L 1D^* 3D 2D +1
------------------------
So instead of the 'gap length' you could think of it in terms of 'the number of spins until the next hit', which means that previously where there was a gap length of 0, there must now be at least 1 (because you can't have 0 bets until the next hit).
Next Hit Frequency
---------------------
1 17519
2 11919
3 8023
4 5583
5 3783
6 2376
7 1707
8 1147
9 751
10 525
11 400
12 227
13 154
14 122
15 78
16 65
17 27
18 22
19 13
20 15
21 11
22 5
23 3
24 2
25 2
26 1
27 1
28 0
29 0
30 0
I made this change because the way I was marking the hits and misses (using a zero for win) messed up the stats calculations - my fault for being careless. The amended results are attached. Note that the actual outcomes (results) are identical, it's only the way wins and losses are recorded and the stats which are different.
I've checked the numbers and there were no discrepancies, at least from 21 - 27.
I can state that this is my final, definitive word on the subject! :D
Bayes,
Ok, thanks at first I didn't get it, now the penny has dropt ;D
Hi Bayes & All Members,
Unfortunately I won't have time until next year to do further work on this Dozen project.
It has however unexpectedly produced some ideas for what I call a "Super Complex" system,
which I am currently testing at the casino's. It has components of the Dozen project and
the 4Selecta system and out of all the systems I have created is the most amazing system.
At the moment I am waiting for the first loss, which of course has to appear at some point,
but unlike all previous systems I have designed has not appeared as yet :)
Regards
Richard
Dear Richard,
Congrats on your new "Super Complex" system.
May you always be missing the appearance of that elusive loss :thumbsup:
Cheers!