I need a little bit of help from you system and progression advocates.
If I could guess the correct dozen (1-12,13-24, 25-36) within 5 spins. What progression should I use to maximize my winnings?
double on my loss?
triple on my loss?
triple on winning?
any other suggestion?
Fibonnaci is not bad for dozens. Double is too high, a fixed ratio gets you decimals...
1-2-3-5-8-13-21
My take.
Quote from: Bigbroben on Oct 10, 04:03 PM 2018
Fibonnaci is not bad for dozens. Double is too high, a fixed ratio gets you decimals...
1-2-3-5-8-13-21
My take.
Thanks. So lets imagine the following;
spin 1)
I bet:10 - lose
-10
spin 2)
I bet:20 - lose
-30
spin 3)
I bet:30 - lose
-60
spin 4)
I bet:50 - lose
-110
spin 5)
I bet:80 - win
+130
If I had won 5 dozens in a row I would have been +150
That seems pretty close.
is this correct?
Use a cyclic 5 step progression
1-1-2-3-5
After a first cycle loses +1 on basebet
2-2-4-6-10
After 2 consecutive lost cycles -1
After a win after a lost cycle +1
After a WW after a lost cycle + 1
After a WWW after a lost cycle -1
Each double consecutive win thereafter -1 and each single win repeat previous bet
Reset at breakeven or profit.
(A win here is a win within the 5 steps)
Quote from: precogmiles on Oct 10, 03:49 PM 2018
I need a little bit of help from you system and progression advocates.
If I could guess the correct dozen (1-12,13-24, 25-36) within 5 spins. What progression should I use to maximize my winnings?
double on my loss?
triple on my loss?
triple on winning?
any other suggestion?
It depends on what exactly you would like to do. Do you want one as if you won all five? Do you want to preserve bankroll? Do you want to exploit bankroll? What are your table limits?
Quote from: foreverBOB on Oct 10, 04:19 PM 2018
Use a cyclic 5 step progression
1-1-2-3-5
After a first cycle loses +1 on basebet
2-2-4-6-10
After 2 consecutive lost cycles -1
After a win after a lost cycle +1
After a WW after a lost cycle + 1
After a WWW after a lost cycle -1
Each double consecutive win thereafter -1 and each single win repeat previous bet
Reset at breakeven or profit.
(A win here is a win within the 5 steps)
Interesting, Does this take into consideration the fact that I will always get 1 dozen correct within 5 spins or less? or is a general way to play dozens?
Quote from: Nimo on Oct 10, 04:20 PM 2018
It depends on what exactly you would like to do. Do you want one as if you won all five? Do you want to preserve bankroll? Do you want to exploit bankroll? What are your table limits?
Imagine table limits are same as MPR. I would like to preserve bankroll as much as possible and I want the a progression that will allow me to win a lot fast.
for example, Most of the time I will get a dozen correct on the first or second spin. But the maximum number of wins before I get a dozen right is 5. So I will always guess a dozen correct within 5 spins.
I need progression or method that will maximize my winnings with this in mind.
You can not win each cycle, but if you can win most, the cyclic progression will help
Quote from: foreverBOB on Oct 10, 04:32 PM 2018
You can not win each cycle, but if you can win most, the cyclic progression will help
Great thanks!
Ot depends what you bet. But try slightly increase bet size until you're up on your previous bankroll before progression started.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 10, 04:50 PM 2018
Ot depends what you bet. But try slightly increase bet size until you're up on your previous bankroll before progression started.
Intersting, thanks. Is there any particular progression I should increase by? for example if I was betting 10 units as my base. What would you recommend?
If youre betting single numbers, just add about 10-50% to previous bet size.
Keep the progression mild. You dont want to make it stressful.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 10, 05:15 PM 2018
If youre betting single numbers, just add about 10-50% to previous bet size.
Keep the progression mild. You dont want to make it stressful.
Great, I'll try that next time with single numbers.
% of bankroll
Hi ,
I've studied this document some time ago.
Maybe could give you some hints about that and about progression. Is about cycle something.. by Mike Goodman..maybe is really a good man, but
I've checked that sometimes only few spins and it works well ..but be careful don't play it for much time! it is looser in long run.
Bye bye
Gitano
Quote from: Taotie on Oct 10, 06:34 PM 2018
% of bankroll
Yes thats a good one too but not so easy with real chips
Depends on how your precognition works for you. Does your wins normally come in clusters, back to back? If so, I would use a positive up and you win progression. Otherwise, flat bet
Quote from: precogmiles on Oct 10, 03:49 PM 2018
I need a little bit of help from you system and progression advocates.
If I could guess the correct dozen (1-12,13-24, 25-36) within 5 spins. What progression should I use to maximize my winnings?
double on my loss?
triple on my loss?
triple on winning?
any other suggestion?
There are dz1, dz2, dz3
Long term average win rate of random selection is 1in 3
How has precognition help improve the win rate ?
1 in 5 is a temporary short term outcome due to variance(luck)
Your accuracy will improve itlr
Same for anyone, with or without precognition
And throw in 37pockets with unfair payout, you get a negative edge
Caleb and steve love to tell you the rest
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 10, 10:41 PM 2018Caleb and steve love to tell you the rest
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/10/10/sourcedb497.gif) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/T2MtH)
Quote from: precogmiles on Oct 10, 04:27 PM 2018
...... the fact that I will always get 1 dozen correct within 5 spins or less?
Have you tested millions of trials on millions of wheels to declare it a fact ?
In short, have you conducted statistically significant rigorous test to declare this a FACT ?
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 11, 01:53 AM 2018
Have you tested millions of trials on millions of wheels to declare it a fact ?
In short, have you conducted statistically significant rigorous test to declare this a FACT ?
I know it is real. Let me make what I am saying a little clearer.
If you (lucky fella) flipped a coin a million times you would expect to get 50% correct.
If I (precogmiles) flipped a coin a million times I would expect to get 80% correct.
It just is.
Your stats do not apply to my reality. I am getting knowledge from somewhere are not. I have an advantage over you.
If you practice and learn to develop your precognition you too can do it. You will go from getting 50% to 80%.
Quote from: precogmiles on Oct 11, 02:27 AM 2018
I know it is real. Let me make what I am saying a little clearer.
If you (lucky fella) flipped a coin a million times you would expect to get 50% correct.
If I (precogmiles) flipped a coin a million times I would expect to get 80% correct.
It just is.
Your stats do not apply to my reality. I am getting knowledge from somewhere are not. I have an advantage over you.
If you practice and learn to develop your precognition you too can do it. You will go from getting 50% to 80%.
Ofc it is real to many posters on here as well
You are saying that you have conducted a million trials on your one coin :thumbsup:
Try a million trials each of different coins
In roulette sense, a hundred wheels for starters
Post below your results pls
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 11, 01:53 AM 2018Have you tested millions of trials on millions of wheels to declare it a fact ?
Nobody has. Its not something you can run in a simulator. You know this. It is impractical do to this. That's why "proving" it beyond any doubt is difficult. It is not uncommon to have positive results over hundreds or even thousands of trials. But that's still inconclusive because of the volume.
So then you have to look at what additional data we do have, which includes a combination of different tests done by many other people, and in related phenomena. When we do that, it appears to be likely fact.
Quote from: Scarface on Oct 10, 09:53 PM 2018
Depends on how your precognition works for you. Does your wins normally come in clusters, back to back? If so, I would use a positive up and you win progression. Otherwise, flat bet
My wins are normally like this for dozens.
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
The maximum number of Loses in a row is 4. Never more than 4.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 11, 02:35 AM 2018
Nobody has. Its not something you can run in a simulator. You know this. It is impractical do to this. That's why "proving" it beyond any doubt is difficult. It is not uncommon to have positive results over hundreds or even thousands of trials. But that's still inconclusive because of the volume.
So then you have to look at what additional data we do have, which includes a combination of different tests done by many other people, and in related phenomena. When we do that, it appears to be likely fact.
The usage of the word FACT is inappropriate ?
How about provide the specific parameters and specify the conditions how this tests were conducted ?
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 11, 02:38 AM 2018The usage of the word FACT is inappropriate ?
That's why I said "likely fact". No it's not inappropriate considering the available information.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 11, 02:38 AM 2018How about provide the specific parameters and specify the conditions how this tests were conducted ?
A lot of data was posted in an earlier post by precog. Start there. I've also done by own trials which I've published. I also published the results of tests done by another group. There's even more. And when you look at it all, there's enough for any reasonable mind to conclude its likely to be real. But you cant just rely on what other people say, or what you see on TV - which is how most people draw their conclusions.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 11, 02:49 AM 2018
That's why I said "likely fact". No it's not inappropriate considering the available information.
Start with hypothesis
Conduct statistical significant test
Publish content for peer review
And so on for due process......
A long journey, if you have the stomach for it :thumbsup:
It has been done. Start with the information i suggested.
It's not something like proving repeaters systems dont work, because we can easily prove a negative in that case. Just like we can prove 1 + 1 does NOT = 42.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 11, 03:13 AM 2018
With roulette ?
Really ?
Yes, really. In particular with one study and accuracy enhancement software. I tested the process which was successful, which led to me creating the android apps i published in this forum. But i haven't yet had time to take it further.
I published the results from the other group.
I'll say it again. I believe this field of study will become the next generation of AP.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 11, 03:21 AM 2018
Yes, really. In particular with one study and accuracy enhancement software. I tested the process which was successful, which led to me creating the android apps i published in this forum. But i haven't yet had time to take it further.
I published the results from the other group.
I'll say it again. I believe this field of study will become the next generation of AP.
I don't discount the possibility
Just that this be done the right way
And not get ahead of what is
Done the right way likely takes years of practice, and the right lifestyle, foods etc. And if you do that, your consciousness will reach a level where you see little point of doing what you originally planned to do.
But for us mere mortals, it appears still possible to achieve an edge with reasonable practice. And it appears to be clearly improved with the majority vote algorithm used also in the free android app.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 11, 03:27 AM 2018And not get ahead of what is
Yes. Im convinced it's real. But i don't know for sure yet. It's important to keep a level head. Besides you don't get good results when you put emotions in it.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 11, 03:32 AM 2018Done the right way likely takes years of practice, and the right lifestyle, foods etc.
All ya need is some good cactus juice.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 11, 03:34 AM 2018you don't get good results when you put emotions in it.
Ipso facto. Without emotions it will never work.
I mean if you think, it interferes. If you let your own desires, and that kind of emotion in, you won't have accuracy.
The emotion you're referring to is a sense. It's easy to sense emotion. It's not so easy to sense a non- living number.
What !!!? Emotions ? Are you serious ?
Dude, emotions in roulette is the main cause of heart attacks, psychic problems... no wonder why some gamblers go suicide
Quote from: precogmiles on Oct 11, 02:36 AM 2018
My wins are normally like this for dozens.
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
The maximum number of Loses in a row is 4. Never more than 4.
A lot of my wins look like that too as well as others. Doesn't mean anything significant in precognition.
Read this book if you want to test your psychic powers properly (warning, contains some maths).
Quote from: precogmiles on Oct 11, 02:27 AM 2018
I know it is real. Let me make what I am saying a little clearer.
If you (lucky fella) flipped a coin a million times you would expect to get 50% correct.
If I (precogmiles) flipped a coin a million times I would expect to get 80% correct.
It just is.
Your stats do not apply to my reality. I am getting knowledge from somewhere are not. I have an advantage over you.
If you practice and learn to develop your precognition you too can do it. You will go from getting 50% to 80%.
All you have to do is to change your expectation to win.
That is it. It is really that simple. Precognition or astral templetes can be helpful, but not a prerequisite.
Of course you have to be grounded in your belief of doing so. That is the hard part for most.
The belief in your system sometimes can be helpful for some.
Quote from: precogmiles on Oct 11, 02:36 AM 2018
My wins are normally like this for dozens.
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
The maximum number of Loses in a row is 4. Never more than 4.
If a win follows a win more than 33% of the time, you can parlay. 1 unit will win 9. But, if it's true that you never have more than 4 losses in a row, a simple negative progression will work
Quote from: Nimo on Oct 11, 07:29 AM 2018
A lot of my wins look like that too as well as others. Doesn't mean anything significant in precognition.
Yes I am sure
some of your
winning sessions look like this.
But the difference is
ALL of my sessions look like this.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 11, 07:46 AM 2018
Read this book if you want to test your psychic powers properly (warning, contains some maths).
Great read, I concluded I am a psychic according to that book. :thumbsup:
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 11, 02:32 AM 2018
Ofc it is real to many posters on here as well
You are saying that you have conducted a million trials on your one coin :thumbsup:
Try a million trials each of different coins
In roulette sense, a hundred wheels for starters
Post below your results pls
Who on earth are you to demand I conduct a million trails?
Just so that you can accept the reality that precognition is real?
Again let me get this right....
You want me to spend my time and energy doing a million trails so that you can benefit of the knowledge that precognition works and it is a viable way to win?
That is pure arrogance.
I have a method and I know precognition is real. All I can do is point the way. Either you accept the reality precognition is true or live in denial.
It is your choice.
Quote from: Scarface on Oct 11, 08:11 AM 2018
If a win follows a win more than 33% of the time, you can parlay. 1 unit will win 9. But, if it's true that you never have more than 4 losses in a row, a simple negative progression will work
That is a great idea, I will try it out. Thanks!
Quote from: precogmiles on Oct 11, 04:41 PM 2018
Who on earth are you to demand I conduct a million trails?
Just so that you can accept the reality that precognition is real?
Again let me get this right....
You want me to spend my time and energy doing a million trails so that you can benefit of the knowledge that precognition works and it is a viable way to win?
That is pure arrogance.
I have a method and I know precognition is real. All I can do is point the way. Either you accept the reality precognition is true or live in denial.
It is your choice.
How I(one insignificant person) view precognition is definitely irrelevant
The readers properly understand how you conduct your test is important
The readers properly understand your claims is important
That bolded part is good
Just a word of advice
Don't get upset when faceless strangers on the net don't believe you
Don't go on threads try defend your claims
Don't try change the world
You can't, especially in the manner that you have done
Wall of text will never do it
Who knows, someday you may be officially accredited for your work as pioneer in the application of precognition in gambling games
The very best success to you
About your question
Negative progression
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20684.msg209859#msg209859
Positive progression
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20684.msg209880#msg209880
I found this software : link:://:.magicintuition.com/magic-roulette-intuition.html
Highly overpriced though. I'm tempted to write something similar for myself and practice for a while, just to see if there's anything to this precog malarkey.
Quote from: Scarface on Oct 11, 08:11 AM 2018If a win follows a win more than 33% of the time, you can parlay. 1 unit will win 9. But, if it's true that you never have more than 4 losses in a row, a simple negative progression will work
This got me intrigued; how many consecutive losses do you need to eliminate in order to make a profit flat betting, assuming everything else stays the same? So I wrote a simulation to find out. This is betting on a dozens (the particular bet selection is irrelevant). It only counts losses if the number in a row is 4 or less, otherwise it's a straightforward simulation of betting on a dozen.
const N = 10000000;
var
i,tstaked,bank : longint;
spin,conloss : byte;
begin
randomize;
tstaked := 0; // running total of stakes
bank := 0;
conloss := 0; // track consecutive losses
for i := 1 to N do begin
spin := random(37);
if spin in [13..24] then begin // win
conloss := 0;
inc(bank, 2); // add 2 units to bank
inc(tstaked);
end else begin // loss
inc(conloss);
if conloss <= 4 then begin // no more than 4 consecutive losses
dec(bank); // remove 1 unit from bank
inc(tstaked);
end;
end;
end;
// calculate yield
writeln('Yield = ', 100 * bank/tstaked:4:2, '%');
end.
The output was
Yield = 13.20%I ran it several times (10m spins per run) and the edge is always a little over 13%.
So if you really don't ever see more than 4 losses in a row, no need for a negative progression, just flat bet or use a positive progression based on a percentage of your bank.
All this is purely hypothetical of course. ;-)
A few more results...
Suppose your precog skills aren't so good that you will lose at most 4 in a row? I increased the LIAR (losses in a row) parameter in the program to find out when your edge evaporates. So what's the edge if you lose at most 5, 6,.. etc in a row?
5 LIAR => edge ~ 7.5%
6 LIAR => edge ~ 4.0%
7 LIAR => edge ~ 1.7%
Any more than 7 losses in a row isn't worth it; you need to get better at guessing. ;D
Even money bets with a 80% hit rate are even better to reduce the variance, so you can increase the amount of your bets.
Also most casinos have la partage rules, which further increase your edge by 1.35%.
See link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/tips/psychic-roulette-predictions/
I'll eventually write more detail about what I've found, and do the android app testing.
Quote from: Kairomancer on Oct 12, 07:37 AM 2018Even money bets with a 80% hit rate are even better to reduce the variance, so you can increase the amount of your bets.
Also most casinos have la partage rules, which further increase your edge by 1.35%.
I modified the program to find the results when betting the even chances. This is assuming la partage so a HE of 1.35% :
No more than 4 LIAR => edge ~ 2.1%
No more than 3 LIAR => edge ~ 5.8%
At 80% hit rate he claimed, he should rarely be concerned about a miss.
The problem is rather being in a proper state for wagering long enough.
That is why I almost exclusively play single numbers with a total 27 step stop loss negative progression. I only play max 3 spins at a time.
Even when I occasionally fail to get the correct number, I still only lose 12 units more compared to playing flat bet.
It's simple, if he never has more than 4 losses ..
From 2 losses he plays the maximum.
Quote from: Kairomancer on Oct 12, 09:02 AM 2018
At 80% hit rate he claimed, he should rarely be concerned about a miss.
The problem is rather being in a proper state for wagering long enough.
That is why I almost exclusively play single numbers with a total 27 step stop loss negative progression. I only play max 3 spins at a time.
Even when I occasionally fail to get the correct number, I still only lose 12 units more compared to playing flat bet.
I also found 11 step progressions work remarkably well for playing single numbers.
It only cost me around 12.6 units instead of 11 units playing flat.
As you can imagine I play online with 5000 local currency as a base bet unit. The smallest stake is 5. I correct the bet amount for each losing bet to win 35 units.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 12, 06:00 AM 2018
This got me intrigued; how many consecutive losses do you need to eliminate in order to make a profit flat betting, assuming everything else stays the same? So I wrote a simulation to find out. This is betting on a dozens (the particular bet selection is irrelevant). It only counts losses if the number in a row is 4 or less, otherwise it's a straightforward simulation of betting on a dozen.
const N = 10000000;
var
i,tstaked,bank : longint;
spin,conloss : byte;
begin
randomize;
tstaked := 0; // running total of stakes
bank := 0;
conloss := 0; // track consecutive losses
for i := 1 to N do begin
spin := random(37);
if spin in [13..24] then begin // win
conloss := 0;
inc(bank, 2); // add 2 units to bank
inc(tstaked);
end else begin // loss
inc(conloss);
if conloss <= 4 then begin // no more than 4 consecutive losses
dec(bank); // remove 1 unit from bank
inc(tstaked);
end;
end;
end;
// calculate yield
writeln('Yield = ', 100 * bank/tstaked:4:2, '%');
end.
The output was Yield = 13.20%
I ran it several times (10m spins per run) and the edge is always a little over 13%.
So if you really don't ever see more than 4 losses in a row, no need for a negative progression, just flat bet or use a positive progression based on a percentage of your bank.
All this is purely hypothetical of course. ;-)
Fascinating. So I have at least a 13% edge. Thanks for the calculations.
Quote from: plolp on Oct 12, 09:04 AM 2018
It's simple, if he never has more than 4 losses ..
From 2 losses he plays the maximum.
What do you mean by
From 2 losses he plays the maximum. ?
if you never have more than 4 losses in 5 turns,
After 2 losses what risk you play the maximum?
I have started to test this on MPR and have had very good results so far.
pwithp is my username on MPR. as in (precognition with progression)
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/10/12/source44b13.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/TTTm7)
25000 bankroll in 500 spins and a amazing winrate of 1.314 . I've realised I need to refocus on every attempt and combine my precog with a progression to get the best results.
Currently betting 25 units per spin as my base.
Then I am using a Fibonacci sequence negative progression.
I'll be trying other methods and will keep you guys updated.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 12, 07:41 AM 2018
See link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/tips/psychic-roulette-predictions/
I'll eventually write more detail about what I've found, and do the android app testing.
Very interesting read. I would definitely agree that any tests for precognition should be conducted on talented individuals not the general public. Same for telekinesis and other unique abilities.
Quote from: Scarface on Oct 11, 08:11 AM 2018
If a win follows a win more than 33% of the time, you can parlay. 1 unit will win 9. But, if it's true that you never have more than 4 losses in a row, a simple negative progression will work
Really? If I have a system that give "WW" 174 out of 297 times its 58,586 % ?
and 1x "LLLL"....
@ precogmiles, so when you're betting does looking at past results help? or do you ignore them and just wait for the outcome to pop into your head?
If you don't need to look at past results that would suggest it really is precognition, but if you do better when taking into account past outcomes may it's "intuition" which is giving you the edge.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 13, 03:34 AM 2018
@ precogmiles, so when you're betting does looking at past results help? or do you ignore them and just wait for the outcome to pop into your head?
If you don't need to look at past results that would suggest it really is precognition, but if you do better when taking into account past outcomes may it's "intuition" which is giving you the edge.
I find I have better results when I don’t know the history. I prefer to actually reload after a few spins on MPR so that I do not get distracted by seeing the history. Taking a small break also helps. I also find that I score better if I refocus my mind after every turn instead of sticking to one dozen and playing progression on that one dozen.
Maybe subconsciously I am making a note of the outcome history but I’m not intentionally thinking about it.