It is sometimes said that probabilistic combinatorics uses the fact that whatever happens with probability greater than 0 must happen sometimes;
One may say with equal justice that many applications of probabilistic number theory hinge on the fact that whatever is unusual must be rare.
If certain algebraic objects (say, rational or integer solutions to certain equations) can be shown to be in the tail of certain sensibly defined distributions, it follows that there must be few of them;
This is a very concrete non-probabilistic statement following from a probabilistic one.
From Wikipedia: link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics (link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorics)
Could you please elaborate in laymen's terms? Just sounds like rhetoric waffle written by academics pretending to be intelligent.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 02, 11:24 AM 2016
Could you please elaborate in laymen's terms? Just sounds like rhetoric waffle written by academics pretending to be intelligent.
If you (or anybody else) can say that this event has slim chances to occur, this is a certain definition.
If you also say that this or that event happens frequently, this is a specific definition.
If casinos didn't have a clue about what could happen, how would they be able to establish payouts for all bet types?
All of the above statements mean that
there is a degree of certainty, which it could never existed with completely independent outcomes!
I don't know how they could design such an almost flawless game in the first place... but I heard the inventor went mad when he couldn't beat his own creation... a bit like 2d Schmup game I made back in uni... I still can't get past level 3.
I think they set the payouts to break even in the long run - then added the zeroes to give them the house edge.
The best explanation I ever heard was from Priyanka: everything is random play unless you include a non-random component.
Before Priyanka, whenever I tested something the results would be independent, i.e. equally likely - or if I tried to look for triggers with the law of third then the results would be different across different data sets.
Manrique (Priyanka's supposed teacher) believed that all bet selections were the same, i.e. they are all designed to break even over the long run, so his specialty was trying to manipulate the negative distribution/variance known as dispersion (opposite: concentration). However, Priyanka seems to have pioneered a method of not only killing dispersion, but also gaining edge using Non-Random components that creates dependency so that bet selections in certain situations no longer break even but begin to tilt towards profit.
I think Priyanka is set to become the most influential guru of Roulette in the 21st century. What he says seems to make sense, and I've glimpsed this "edge" with my own testing...
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 02, 11:51 AM 2016
I don't know how they could design such an almost flawless game in the first place... but I heard the inventor went mad when he couldn't beat his own creation... a bit like 2d Schmup game I made back in uni... I still can't get past level 3.
I think they set the payouts to break even in the long run - then added the zeroes to give them the house edge.
The best explanation I ever heard was from Priyanka: everything is random play unless you include a non-random component.
Before Priyanka, whenever I tested something the results would be independent, i.e. equally likely - or if I tried to look for triggers with the law of third then the results would be different across different data sets.
Manrique (Priyanka's supposed teacher) believed that all bet selections were the same, i.e. they are all designed to break even over the long run, so his specialty was trying to manipulate the negative distribution/variance known as dispersion (opposite: concentration). However, Priyanka seems to have pioneered a method of not only killing dispersion, but also gaining edge using Non-Random components that creates dependency so that bet selections in certain situations no longer break even but begin to tilt towards profit.
I think Priyanka is set to become the most influential guru of Roulette in the 21st century. What he says seems to make sense, and I've glimpsed this "edge" with my own testing...
I don't know what Priyanka is using, but you just confirmed indirectly what I said.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 02, 11:51 AM 2016
then added the zeroes to give them the house edge.
The zeros have very little to do with the H.E.
A 0 is no different than a 34.
Ken
The house edge exisrs on every number because the payout on a win is short of what the odds dictate as being fair.
Quote from: MrJ on Aug 02, 02:46 PM 2016
The zeros have very little to do with the H.E.
A 0 is no different than a 34.
Ken
Actually is about the payout, x36 instead of x37.
I consider it as taxation on profit.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 02, 02:52 PM 2016
Actually is about the payout, x36 instead of x37.
I consider it as taxation on profit.
I always laugh when somebody is playing the 1st and 2nd dozen (as an example) and the zero hits. They get all pissed off..."that damn zero screwed me up" ... "not the zero again".
The ball hitting the 29 is no different than hitting the 0.
Ken
(I should be more specific).....In some casinos (0 wheel) losing half your bet on that 0 playing the EC's I THINK is the rule?? I've never seen it before.
Ken
Why probability is (almost) never being confirmed?
For example you start a session and after 10 results or more you hardly find a balance on EC's, most of the times there will be at least a few hits difference on every EC pair and even if they do balance it doesn't last for long but just a few spins.
The name is Even Chances, do you see the irony?
After 37 spins you are looking the numbers and never notice 37 different numbers in 37 spins, so here goes the 1/37 too!
Seems that law of thirds is overriding 1/37 probability fortunately for the casinos and unfortunately for gamblers.
I would rather drag my nutsack through 5 miles of broken glass compared to playing the EC's.
You have zero (pardon the punn) chance of winning long term with the EC's. Sorry, its my view.
Ken
Quote from: MrJ on Aug 02, 03:13 PM 2016
I would rather drag my nutsack through 5 miles of broken glass compared to playing the EC's.
You have zero (pardon the punn) chance of winning long term with the EC's. Sorry, its my view.
Ken
A winning EC strategy is possible, but the profit would be so puny in comparison with inside payouts.
A player should play with "blacks" in order to worth bothering.
Quote from: MrJ on Aug 02, 03:01 PM 2016
(I should be more specific).....In some casinos (0 wheel) losing half your bet on that 0 playing the EC's I THINK is the rule?? I've never seen it before.
Ken
It's called "la partage"
Quote from: denzie on Aug 02, 03:24 PM 2016
It's called "la partage"
It's hard to find at Europe, let alone rest of the world.
Quote from: MrJ on Aug 02, 03:13 PM 2016
You have zero (pardon the punn) chance of winning long term with the EC's. Sorry, its my view.
I would agree if you play (almost) every spin. But ec's always have and always will show certain patterns. If you can play the waiting game you can actually make them win. But nobody gonna sit there for few k spins of course.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 02, 03:27 PM 2016
It's hard to find at Europe, let alone rest of the world.
That's for sure. Online I've seen it. But in our b&m here nope.
Maybe in France?
QuoteIf you can play the waiting game you can actually make them win
Very boring :lol:
Yes, at France is more common that kind of rule, as is "en prison" too.
As "the general" would say, all EC's are losers in long term and I agree or at least someone could be happy break even or make tiny profits.
The same goes for other EC games too, an amateur has different perspective, he is very grateful for breaking even or with small profit, but for the rest this doesn't worth the time, simply as that, take it or leave it.
"Bayes" is fan of EC's and of trackers too, let's just say that if you remove his trackers, then he is becoming "blind"!
In a BM casino such practices are useless or at least impractical, keep on writing EC's...and all these for what?
For "peanuts"?!
Then "Bayes suggested replacing an EC with 3 lines, even with slightly improved results, does it worth to triple-fold the bankroll requirement?!
I'm just saying my opinion, maybe some pc geeks like those ideas, but I don't and this will not change.
Wasn't your "hg" on ec's?
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16089.120
Reply 130...making 200/1000â,¬ isn't peanuts for me. All I did was play it almost daily to measure the variance. It does pretty good but yes boooooooring. :yawn:
Quote from: denzie on Aug 02, 03:49 PM 2016
Wasn't your "hg" on ec's?
This was something like an experiment for me, I've found the worst 200 spins for any EC in history of roulette and immediately considered it as a challenge.
That's why I tried to make a positive total out of such session (EC nightmare actually), eventually I concluded with what I've shared with you and thought that if it performs that well with such horrible 200 spins, it could be something for EC bets.
Anyway, EC's are not my cup of coffee, let's just leave it there.
I already said to "Bayes" what I wrote here and do you know what he was his reply??
"Not everybody has the same risk tolerance"
You can draw your own conclusions from this answer.
About the "Fallacious Holy Grail", try to make a positive total out of 65 wins VS 135 losses with maximum bet of 64 units and only if you do so come and tell me your system sucks!
A lot of smart-ashes know how to criticize but they have not even done what they are criticizing!
What can I say...you find the worst 200 spins in roulette history (65 wins/ 135 losses) and you are finding a way to beat the monster!
Then instead of keeping it to yourself you decide to share it and instead of some kind of gratitude or appreciation are coming smart-ashes with Excel spread-sheets to create a NEW WORLD RECORD in history of roulette in order to prove that you were wrong and they are right!
And then you are expecting others to help you out in one way or the other, go figure...!
I'm feeling disappointed and disgusted, not from "FHG" but from the behavior of some individuals!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 02, 03:27 PM 2016
It's hard to find at Europe, let alone rest of the world.
Yep, I've heard of it, have never seen it.
Ken
@ Blue Angel,
You obviously don't understand what "independence" means otherwise you wouldn't have started this ridiculous thread. Get a life.
Quote from: Bayes on Aug 03, 04:16 AM 2016
@ Blue Angel,
You obviously don't understand what "independence" means otherwise you wouldn't have started this ridiculous thread. Get a life.
You are just being a
smart-ashe lol
Quote from: Bayes on Aug 03, 04:16 AM 2016
@ Blue Angel,
You obviously don't understand what "independence" means otherwise you wouldn't have started this ridiculous thread. Get a life.
Don't hide behind semantics, don't see the tree and miss the forest...
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 03, 06:45 AM 2016
Don't hide behind semantics, don't see the tree and miss the forest...
That's the main problem with our slave society... they ALWAYS miss the forest.....
A L W A Y S!
Start with basic statistics and understand results to expect in tests, and how meaningful they are. Then you understand the required tests, and can do meaningful tests that lead to the truth.
Quote from: Bayes on Aug 03, 04:16 AM 2016
@ Blue Angel,
You obviously don't understand what "independence" means otherwise you wouldn't have started this ridiculous thread. Get a life.
:smile:
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 03, 06:45 AM 2016
Don't hide behind semantics, don't see the tree and miss the forest...
Semantics are important because they are concerned with meaning. If you knew what independence meant then you wouldn't have written the following:
QuoteIf you (or anybody else) can say that this event has slim chances to occur, this is a certain definition.
If you also say that this or that event happens frequently, this is a specific definition.
If casinos didn't have a clue about what could happen, how would they be able to establish payouts for all bet types?
All of the above statements mean that there is a degree of certainty, which it could never existed with completely independent outcomes!
Probability 101: Events are statistically independent if the occurrence of one doesn't affect the probability of the other. Notice that there are at least two events involved. This has nothing to do with the degree of certainty. Casinos can establish payouts because of the law of large numbers. Statistical independence means that given some previous results I can't predict future results; it doesn't mean that I can't say that events happen frequently, or that there are degrees of certainty.
You might as well say that just because an event has a probability then it is dependent, which is nonsense.
QuoteEvents are statistically independent if the occurrence of one doesn't affect the probability of the other.
In a "closed" environment which its elements are finite, aka roulette with 37 or 38 numbers, each and every subsequent combination of the main 37 elements is finite too.
The event horizon is definitely not ever expanding, there might be fluctuations but
within certain limits.
Don't you think the words limits and independence have contradicting meaning??
Try to imagine it as an artesian well, or as 2 connected jars filled with fluid, if you deduct fluid from one it affects the level of the other side and vice versa.
So if you keep on deducting you would eventually reach the bottom of the one, while the other would be topped up.
Probable, limits, degree of certainty, all of these meanings are contradicting independence!
By saying "I believe in Santa Claus despite that I've never seen him" makes thee same sense with what you are saying!
It's very contradicting!
I think it's not that you cannot understand but that you don't want to understand, either way is not my problem.
QuoteStatistical independence means that given some previous results I can't predict future results;
So why mr wiseman are you using trackers??
Why are you using past results to decide what to bet??!
You should read the GUT ebook... there's some useful information in there about distribution/variance, and somebody once described it on here.
Rather than 2 jars affecting each other, it goes something like this...
When you begin a trot, the trot will try to keep within the mean or the line that we expect it to travel. When it goes astray it sometimes will correct it self - other times it doesn't correct itself - it just behaves randomly. So now we scrap that trot and move onto the next trot. Now, the next trot has no influence from the previous trot.... generally, we expect it to regress towards the mean as they say, but again it has a mind of it's own and can often deviate. And without the need to try to offer an opposing reaction to the previous trot, all trots together will still average out and resemble a rough line. So at the end of the day, it's all independent and random - unless we consider Priyanka's Non-Random methods.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 03, 09:46 AM 2016
You should read the GUT ebook... there's some useful information in there about distribution/variance, and somebody once described it on here.
Rather than 2 jars affecting each other, it goes something like this...
When you begin a trot, the trot will try to keep within the mean or the line that we expect it to travel. When it goes astray it sometimes will correct it self - other times it doesn't correct itself - it just behaves randomly. So now we scrap that trot and move onto the next trot. Now, the next trot has no influence from the previous trot.... generally, we expect it to regress towards the mean as they say, but again it has a mind of it's own and can often deviate. And without the need to try to offer an opposing reaction to the previous trot, all trots together will still average out and resemble a rough line. So at the end of the day, it's all independent and random - unless we consider Priyanka's Non-Random methods.
No, at the end of the day are not all random and independent, you perceive it this way because your personal permanence/session is just 1 "tree" out of a "forest"...it really comes down to perception.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 03, 09:53 AM 2016
No, at the end of the day are not all random and independent, you perceive it this way because your personal permanence/session is just 1 "tree" out of a "forest"...it really comes down to perception.
No, it's from testing and experimentation. You take a trot and try to simulate the next trot or you take 3541 (3 not shown, 5 appeared once, 4 appeared 2 times, 1 number appeared 3 times or more). The independence doesn't always present itself as equally likely because of variance - but you know it's chaotic because the results are different across different data sets. So the next spin after 3541 is random and independent of the 3541. GUT can only potentially win because it knows when to scrap a bad trot (or how to handle losses; see Manrique's the perfect loser). Priyanka can go one step further with her methods.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 03, 10:14 AM 2016
No, it's from testing and experimentation. You take a trot and try to simulate the next trot or you take 3541 (3 not shown, 5 appeared once, 4 appeared 2 times, 1 number appeared 3 times or more). The independence doesn't always present itself as equally likely because of variance - but you know it's chaotic because the results are different across different data sets. So the next spin after 3541 is random and independent of the 3541. GUT can only potentially win because it knows when to scrap a bad trot (or how to handle losses; see Manrique's the perfect loser). Priyanka can go one step further with her methods.
What you see is never the whole picture, it's nothing more than a tiny fraction of a much larger picture...
So your "angle" defines
your reality and
your reality is just one of the many possible...nothing more than that.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 03, 10:35 AM 2016
What you see is never the whole picture, it's nothing more than a tiny fraction of a much larger picture...
So your "angle" defines your reality and your reality is just one of the many possible...nothing more than that.
When it comes to Roulette that is pretty much the whole picture in terms of the random way of playing. Test triggers and you will see there is no pattern regardless of what you do - everything will break even on BV because is independent with the same constant odds. Check the leaderboard on Steve's multiplayer: 0.95 win ratio for most people. So in this scenario my tree is a microcosm for all types of random play. There exists no other fields within the forest other than Non-Random. We can test and confirm everything ourselves as being true through experimentation, so with a mathematical game like roulette we don't need to look at the bigger picture because we've gathered enough evidence already from the top down. Likewise, crossing the road isn't down to perception... we know the whole picture already... you got the distance from one side of the road to the other, the vehicles, the speed everything is moving, and potential hazards, so you know you will get across safely most of the time. You go to a third world country the same laws apply - but the drivers are just more crazy. The bigger picture need only come into it when the subject is less clear cut and certain evidence is lacking or we have no direct way of testing.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 03, 09:35 AM 2016
Don't you think the words limits and independence have contradicting meaning??
Try to imagine it as an artesian well, or as 2 connected jars filled with fluid, if you deduct fluid from one it affects the level of the other side and vice versa.
So if you keep on deducting you would eventually reach the bottom of the one, while the other would be topped up.
Probable, limits, degree of certainty, all of these meanings are contradicting independence!
No, they don't contradict independence as defined. You're getting confused (just as R.D.Ellison did) because you refuse to understand the difference between the word "independence" as used in everyday language, and the technical definition of independence. Independence as applied to probability does not mean "free from influence". If you're going to make an argument, first define your terms.
It means the occurrence of one event doesn't affect the probability of the other. If you can't see the difference between the definitions it's not my problem.
Yes I use trackers, but these are for tracking my own targets and success rate, and for money management. I don't track for triggers, which are useless.
QuoteIndependence as applied to probability does not mean "free from influence".
QuoteYes I use trackers, but these are for tracking my own targets and success rate, and for money management. I don't track for triggers, which are useless.
Those statements made the situation a bit more clear, I cannot argue this way.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 03, 11:21 AM 2016
Those statements made the situation a bit more clear, I cannot argue this way.
But independent in its broader sense
does mean free from influence.
I've borrowed a small part from Mad Professor (professional dice roller)
''Their logic is to “Ignore the rainstorm and just consider that it is single droplets of water that are flooding your basement.
It doesn’t matter if it is pouring cats and dogs; a storm is only made up of individual drops of water.
Therefore, storms only happened in the past-tense, and whatever is happening now can only be considered as individual raindrops.
You have to overlook and disregard the totality of the deluge, no matter how much damage is being wroughtâ€.
Obviously, their logic is just plain FLAWED, and they don’t use the brains that God gave dogs, to have enough sense to come in out of the rain. ''
Devoted to all ''math experts'' like Turner.
Blue,
There are a lot of naive craps players as well.
Perhaps you can articulate why we should believe some craps player instead of all mathematicians and recorded history itself? ::)
Quote from: The General on Aug 31, 03:35 PM 2016
Blue,
There are a lot of naive craps players as well.
That's simply a lie, or attempt of deception.
You cannot judge a book by a single page...
Do you pretend the loser? That's why you've changed your avatar?
Regardless what people might think of him, I like him better than Hillary, she looks like a typical American housewife, she is in wrong place.
I can understand why aliens/immigrants hate him, but why the rest dislike him is beyond my understanding.
Wait a minute, I had a glimpse, perhaps because he reminds them their boss or dad...!
Blue,
Please articulate your position. Why do you believe that results are NOT independent when all of the experts, mathematicians, and history say that you're wrong?
Why are you so eager to believe some craps player over the experts? Is he a mathematician/actuary perhaps?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 31, 01:03 PM 2016Devoted to all ''math experts'' like Turner.
I did degree level Maths in my HND Electronics and Electrical Engineering
Maths interests me. I read a lot of Astophysics and Quantum Mechanics type books. A good knowledge of Maths is essential or you get lost in that genre of literature.
I don't know why you describe me as a Maths Expert. Perhaps it was sarcasm.
I hope I didn't use too many big words in my little rambling soliloquy
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2016/08/31/temp_175076.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/swWF)
''The math-guys will also tell you that you cannot look at a string of sequences no matter how long or short, and that if you consider the effect of anything more than one roll at a time, it is just utter nonsense and complete foolishness.
To their way of thinking, you must restrict your view to each separate roll as though nothing came before it and nothing will come after it.
It is with this myopic and narrow-minded view that they want you to appraise any and all bets, and they will tell you quite candidly that to do anything contrary to that advice would be quite foolhardy on your part.
However, some astute craps players including myself; look at the game as a whole. Instead of just considering individual and independent rolls, we look at how they are strung together.
We look at the big picture of trends and streaks instead of the minutia of each separate roll.
That being the case, we consider the overall expectation of the 7, and integrate it into a workable betting-method.''
Blue,
Can you show us some math that supports their wildly absurd claims?
Quote from: Turner on Aug 31, 04:07 PM 2016
I did degree level Maths in my HND Electronics and Electrical Engineering
Maths interests me. I read a lot of Astophysics and Quantum Mechanics type books. A good knowledge of Maths is essential or you get lost in that genre of literature.
I don't know why you describe me as a Maths Expert. Perhaps it was sarcasm.
I hope I didn't use too many big words in my little rambling soliloquy
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2016/08/31/temp_175076.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/swWF)
Because you have a tendency to correct people, so you remind me someone who knows better than anyone and wants to get them straight.
Like a teacher is doing in class, but people have the right to be wrong, to do mistakes and learn from them.
There is no point to pretend that you are good when you aren't, everyone is different and needs to express his individuality in his own way, there's no point of creating an entire population of clones and robots which would do and say as we please.
Quote from: The General on Aug 31, 03:35 PM 2016There are a lot of naive craps players as well.
No Shit....
Probably why the casino set half the table to Big 6/8, The Field and Proposition bets with eye watering house edges
Nice big pass line and Come, tiny little dont pass bar and dont come, microscopic un-named place bet boxes
I love playing bubble craps
To date i am up big
I hit a 12 on the field with a few hundred on it
Double pay
Was glorious.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 31, 04:24 PM 2016
Because you have a tendency to correct people, so you remind me someone who knows better than anyone and wants to get them straight.
Like a teacher is doing in class, but people have the right to be wrong, to do mistakes and learn from them.
There is no point to pretend that you are good when you aren't, everyone is different and needs to express his individuality in his own way, there's no point of creating an entire population of clones and robots which would do and say as we please.
Oh Dear....Someone got out of bed the wrong side this morning
Quote from: The General on Aug 31, 04:13 PM 2016
Blue,
Can you show us some math that supports their wildly absurd claims?
If you are looking for answers, then look at your past results.
What you see there, is it possible to go on forever?
If yes, then that's your answer, because if previous performance couldn't affect the future one, you would be a loser and not pro.
You have to have some consistency in your results, with everything possible such consistency would be impossible.
Since you are not influencing the ball with telekinesis or your hands, or any other parts of your body, you are predicting.
Your predictions based on past results, your confidence lies on the knowledge that you have done it before and you can do it again, all these would be impossible if everything could happen and there was not a degree of consistency.
Why are you looking for answers when you already know them??
Blue Angel,
I'd really like to see you back up your wild claims by showing some logic and some math.
I know that XVV, Gizmotron, and YOU are all system sellers... and/or serving for donations/investors... for your systems... and you're all making some rather absurd and unsubstantiated claims regarding your systems. Often times you all use words and phrases that have been cut and pasted, out of context, from science and market articles in vein attempts to dazzle gullible readers. All under the protection of your blogs...where you can have any difficult questions or criticism instantly removed via moderation. ::)
So now I'd like to see some real substance from you. Something that doesn't lOOK like it's just part of a SCAM. In other words, show us some math!
Sincerely,
The General
QuoteIn other words, show us some math!
If you want to see math you are looking in the wrong place my friend, I'm not here to educate you, you may believe what you want but that doesn't change a tiny bit of my reality.
The real deal is by using a method, not by selling it.
Ill be frank with you
If you keep talking in terms of build-up....like "why random does this" and "why random does that" it looks like you are pre loading some kind of sell.
If you are legit, and want to share a system, just post the rules, or it just looks like marketing
Your audience here is educated. Not naive. You cant ply them like dough into a "wow" frenzie to the point where they are putty in your hands.
(Too many metaphors)
Just post a method. Lets see if it has an edge.
Proof of the pudding is in the eating (sorry...another one)
never pay for a system or strategy
the only thing id pay for is coding
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 31, 05:42 PM 2016the only thing id pay for is coding
and Beer!
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2016/08/31/temp_955269.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/sEws)
Quote from: Turner on Aug 31, 06:36 PM 2016
and Beer!
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2016/08/31/temp_955269.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/sEws)
as i sip a wonderful microbrew 9% alcohol by volume imperial IPA
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 02, 11:51 AM 2016However, Priyanka seems to have pioneered a method of not only killing dispersion, but also gaining edge using Non-Random components that creates dependency so that bet selections in certain situations no longer break even but begin to tilt towards profit.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 02, 11:51 AM 2016What he says seems to make sense, and I've glimpsed this "edge" with my own testing...
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 03, 09:46 AM 2016So at the end of the day, it's all independent and random - unless we consider Priyanka's Non-Random methods.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 03, 10:14 AM 2016Priyanka can go one step further with her methods.
So what does Priyanks says and what are his/her methods? (You don't even specify gender. You either use He or She at times). You say that you have glimpsed this "edge" with your own testing. So how is this edge generated? What does Priyanka's non-random methods/approach say that differ from all the other methods since you have glimpsed them?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 02, 03:19 PM 2016A player should play with "blacks" in order to worth bothering.
Why "Blacks" are superior to "Reds"? Except if I didn't understand something or I missed something written before
Quote from: BellagioOwner on Aug 31, 07:02 PM 2016
Why "Blacks" are superior to "Reds"? Except if I didn't understand something or I missed something written before
By blacks I mean 100 value chips.
Quote from: BellagioOwner on Aug 31, 07:00 PM 2016So what does Priyanks says and what are his/her methods? (You don't even specify gender. You either use He or She at times). You say that you have glimpsed this "edge" with your own testing. So how is this edge generated? What does Priyanka's non-random methods/approach say that differ from all the other methods since you have glimpsed them?
It's complicated and requires a whole syllabus of learning. I am still learning new things everyday. The methods are based on Non-Random: when something has to happen. They are different because there is less variance involved and they follow more stable ratios based on repeats and limiting combinations. I think edge is gained by increasing predictability/ratios for different events and also using VdW to provide a road map for when random becomes predictable. Check out Random Thoughts A concise reference for more info.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 01, 06:47 AM 2016By blacks I mean 100 value chips.
Now it makes sense. I knew something was missing.
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Sep 01, 07:05 AM 2016It's complicated and requires a whole syllabus of learning. I am still learning new things everyday. The methods are based on Non-Random: when something has to happen. They are different because there is less variance involved and they follow more stable ratios based on repeats and limiting combinations. I think edge is gained by increasing predictability/ratios for different events and also using VdW to provide a road map for when random becomes predictable. Check out Random Thoughts A concise reference for more info.
I'll check the thread but it still looks pretty vague to me and probably others without examples or evidence. Thanks replying though.
you've done some impressive and extensive explanation on some points on the random thoughts. I must admit that part. Haven't read the whole but really extensive :o :thumbsup:
QuoteA winning EC strategy is possible, but the profit would be so puny in comparison with inside payouts.
A player should play with "blacks" in order to worth bothering.-Blue Angel
Not true.
There simply is NOT an EC strategy that would enable the player to remain in profit over time.
QuoteProve it!-Blue Angel
The general principles apply to almost all gambling games, and when they apply, they guarantee that systems cannot give the player an advantage.
To help you filter and reject systems, here are conditions which guarantee that a system is worthless.
1. Each individual bet in the game has a negative expectation. (The random game of roulette has a negative expectation.) This makes any series of bets have a negative expectation.
2. There is a maximum limit to the size of any possible game. (This rules out systems like the Martingale and up as you lose.)
3. The results of any one play of the game do not "influence" the results of any other play of the game.
(Note that we are talking about the "game of roulette", not the "gaming device."
4. There is a minimum allowed size for any bet. (This is necessary for the technical steps in the mathematical proof.)
Under these conditions, it is a mathematical fact that every possible gambling system is worthless in the following ways:
1. Any series of bets has a negative expectation
2. This expectation is the (negative) sum of the expectations of the individual bets.
3. If the player continues to bet, his total loss divided by his total action will tend to get closer and closer to his expected loss divided by his total action.
4. If the player continues to bet it is almost certain that he will:
a. be a loser
b. eventually stay a loser forever, and so never again break even;
c. eventually lose his entire bankroll, no matter how large it was.
-Please note the source "The Mathematics of Gambling", by Dr. Edward O. Thorp.
Attack the gaming device, not the game.
All these don't prove that EC's could be more profitable than betting straight up numbers.
So I'm asking you again, who has less exposure to HE, the one who bets 1 unit on a single number or the one who bets 1 unit on an EC?
Numbers have the faster gain and the slowest loss, regarding payout and probability that's the best option.
But in order to become long term winner you need also good timing, it's all about synchronizing with the rhythm of the game, every event has a momentum which fades away sooner or later and another one replaces it.
Therefore, it never ends, but morphing through time like chain reaction.
QuoteA winning EC strategy is possible
Blue,
My comment was directed towards your misleading comment regarding a winning EC strategy. Furthermore, I handily provided the proof that you were WRONG.
I dont think it is black and white. Right or wrong
Anything is possible
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 01, 03:56 PM 2016
I dont think it is black and white. Right or wrong
Anything is possible
If anything is possible then why don't we see the same number for 10 consecutive spins?
If this has the same possibility with 10 different numbers in 10 successive spins then I'm an alien!
The problem is that most likely another number will come is not so helpful.
On the fantasy casino number 69 hits twice in a row, players around the table considering it normal and decide to ignore it, 69 comes again and raises a few eyebrows but as everybody considers it highly unlikely to hit for fourth consecutive time, they decide to ignore it again.
69 surprises everyone by coming four times in a row, a few are thinking to place 1 chip on top of it but they decide that it would be a waste of a chip and ignore it eventually.
Number 69 hits for fifth time in a row and at that time 'General' and friends are arriving at their fantasy table.
General gazes the matrix and sees 69 came five consecutive times, as he considers it an ordinary event which happens everyday he says: ''hey guys, why don't we put our invisible bets to that biased number?''
All of his companions agree and number 69 hits for sixth time in a row, everybody except 'General' and his friends are in awe but 'General' acts like nothing happened.
Furthermore he decides to bet once again as it's so obvious that is a biased number and wins a second time as 69 hits for seventh time in a row!
Suddenly 'General' wakes up at his bed and realizes that he was dreaming!
Literally anything can happen
Like 30 reds in a row
Doesnt mean it will though
Roulette has limits. Not true limits. But things we will never see
When i develop and test a mechanical roulette strategy i choose selections and triggers that rarely have losses so that when i do have a loss im still in the plus.
Fallacy? Yes. But if it works i dont care what you call it.
When money is being made who cares if the general says its worthless. Lol. Its the internet. He will be gone eventually.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 01, 04:21 PM 2016why don't we see the same number for 10 consecutive spins?
If this has the same possibility with 10 different numbers in 10 successive spins then I'm an alien!
No they don't have the same because you don't describe the same thing. In one example you say the same (SPECIFIC) number 10 times(so actually 10 SPECIFIC NUMBERS) and on the other example you say "10 different numbers in 10 successive spins" (not 1 specific each time so not 10 specific numbers)
It's not the same 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 with 10 7 34 12 16 3 19 20 25 5 (10 any different numbers).
But if you wait to see the SPECIFIC sequence 10 7 34 12 16 3 19 20 25 5 without ANY other number coming and the SPECIFIC sequence 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 then yes. THESE 2 have the same chance
And by the way I think not any one of us have seen or will ever see these 2 exact 10number-sequences since both occur 1 in 37^10. Have anyone seen 4 808 584 372 417 849 spins? Lol... not all of gamblers together in total history :)
Quote from: BellagioOwner on Sep 01, 07:32 PM 2016
No they don't have the same because you don't describe the same thing. In one example you say the same (SPECIFIC) number 10 times(so actually 10 SPECIFIC NUMBERS) and on the other example you say "10 different numbers in 10 successive spins" (not 1 specific each time so not 10 specific numbers)
It's not the same 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 with 10 7 34 12 16 3 19 20 25 5 (10 any different numbers).
But if you wait to see the SPECIFIC sequence 10 7 34 12 16 3 19 20 25 5 without ANY other number coming and the SPECIFIC sequence 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 then yes. THESE 2 have the same chance
Ten times 1, ten times 2, ten times 3...ten times the
SAME is
NOT as possible as 10 different numbers!
Pick
any number for 10 consecutive times and
any 10 different numbers for 10 consecutive spins, it's
not the same,
it's like you are claiming that 1 number is as possible as the combined probability of 10!And by the way, if you were the Bellagio owner you would knew what color have the 100 chips!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 01, 09:26 PM 2016ten times the SAME is NOT as possible as 10 different numbers
Obviously....but what ever 10 do come out has the same probability.
Do you get that bit?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 01, 04:21 PM 2016
If anything is possible then why don't we see the same number for 10 consecutive spins?
This is the HG. Just double up 10 times on any 36 numbers. Thanks BA!
BA your logic is wrong, and exact details why have been explained by multiple members but you are still not understanding it.
Have you ever seen the sequence 1,9,34,7,2? I bet you haven't. Historically it has happened as often as 1,2,3,4,5. Just test with billions of rng spins and see for yourself. You are still not understanding this.
You are stuck in classic gamblers fallacy. Don't believe it? Just test. Use the free software i published
Quote from: Bayes on Sep 02, 06:09 AM 2016
This is the HG. Just double up 10 times on any 36 numbers. Thanks BA!
By the way, holy grail exists and I've it!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 02, 03:27 PM 2016
It's hard to find at Europe, let alone rest of the world.
Every casino in the UK must pay the La Partage rule by law.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 02, 07:14 AM 2016
By the way, holy grail exists and I've it!
349,289 spins
3,000 units initial capital
5,155 units net profit 171.83% ROI
3,211 units max drawdown
Out of the Blue...
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 02, 09:03 AM 20163,211 units max drawdown
That summarises it :). Thx for sharing.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 02, 07:14 AM 2016
By the way, holy grail exists and I've it!
How much are you selling it for
Quote from: Priyanka on Sep 02, 09:25 AM 2016
That summarises it :). Thx for sharing.
You focus on what you want to see and missing the ''big picture''.
The big picture says 5,155 units net and as 5,155 is greater than 3,211 it says a lot about
balance between risk and reward.
Try your fallacious method for 350,000 spins and then come back to tell me what's summarize all!
Sorry, not for sale.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 02, 06:24 AM 2016
BA your logic is wrong, and exact details why have been explained by multiple members but you are still not understanding it.
Have you ever seen the sequence 1,9,34,7,2? I bet you haven't. Historically it has happened as often as 1,2,3,4,5. Just test with billions of rng spins and see for yourself. You are still not understanding this.
You are stuck in classic gamblers fallacy. Don't believe it? Just test. Use the free software i published
Hey Steve, how about these numbers?
349,289 spins
3,000 units initial capital
5,155 units net profit 171.83% ROI
3,211 units max drawdown
Quote349,289 spins
3,000 units initial capital
5,155 units net profit 171.83% ROI
3,211 units max drawdown-Blue Angel
It depends. Are you in this to make money, or for some other reason?
Here's my ten cents. It's paltry. I wouldn't cross the street to play if the results were that dismal. The draw down is also garish. It looks like just another up as you lose progression.
Nice graphs. ...
But assume you play 1000 spins a day online which is a lot....you get dd of 10-20 days before your out the hole. How is this playable?
B&M it would take .....well to long
Quote from: denzie on Sep 02, 11:56 AM 2016
Nice graphs. ...
But assume you play 1000 spins a day online which is a lot....you get dd of 10-20 days before your out the hole. How is this playable?
B&M it would take .....well to long
Spot on Denzie!
In B&M casinos is not playable due to lot of waiting and tracking, not impossible but very hard.
That's why I'm keeping the bot always on to online casinos, milks them on autopilot and I'm just checking it once per day.
For B&M casinos I'm using 2 other methods.
So will there be an explanation of play, or just gloating?
I did warn you BA...tough audience lol
A learning experience for you
You cant kid a kidder lol
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 02, 12:10 PM 2016
So will there be an explanation of play, or just gloating?
By combining accurate ideas from maths perspective we could get an edge on roulette.
For example betting 1 number has the least exposure to house edge and because this is not enough to turn things upside down, we could apply the regression towards the mean concept on singles.
For example a number delays for 120 spins, in other words its interval between its last 2 hits is 120 spins, we could bet with high degree of certainty that its next interval will be up to 120 spins, usually much less.
Unfortunately even this scenario isn't good enough, we need a non linear money management to complete the picture.
BA you can't build a working winning system from fallacy. Your theories are wrong, and you refuse to test properly. I could show you a system that wins over millions of spins, but:
1. It is tested with unrealistic table limits
2. It skips lots of spins
3. Is lucky when bets are large, and mostly loses with low bets. That's luck.
It is not personal but i haven't seen anything from you to show you know what youre talking about. But you take it personally, like others.
Ps:
Alabalah being banned from my forums was because people complained they were scammed by him, and after giving him ample opportunity to prove his claims about his system for sale, he could only repeat more bs, and after removing votes from fake accounts, he was voted off the forum. It had nothing to do with his opinion of me. He hates me with passion because me banning him upset his dishonest income. He can't justify any of his rubbish claims about my approaches being ineffective, but anyone with basic knowledge can reveal his systems as simple scams. It's hard for him to accuse me of scamming when i give away free computers, so he refers to my stock case which is irrelevant, and anyone who took my illegal advice would have made a huge profit. Al doesn't care because of blind hatred.
Warrior is CEH. He misled many people for so long. I sent him a free basic computer for partnership before i knew who he was. He returned it because he wasn't able to play, not because of the computer. Later i found out he was CEH and asked him why on earth he misled so many people. His response was he liked making people think. I mean wtf? Of course he attacks me too. But as if i wouldn't ban someone who wilfully misleads people for amusement.
A lot of people with no justification attack me. For personal reasons. And some sheep follow.
Don't take what i say about your systems personally. I just say to you test properly. And if the results aren't convenient, blame the universe designers, not me, general or anyone else that tries to help.
In all there's so much bs in the forums. All of them. And it centers around the same people with problems. BA just do proper testing and understand you arent arguing with people like general. You are arguing against logic and verifiable fact.
And i completely agree with general about the "infection of ignorance". Unfortunately it's the truth. I think he and i value truth over popularity. NOBODY SHOULD TAKE IT PERSONALLY
He can be an asshole, but overall his contributions are far more beneficial to members, than they cause problems. The truth is often unpopular.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 02, 10:11 AM 2016Hey Steve, how about these numbers?
349,289 spins
3,000 units initial capital
5,155 units net profit 171.83% ROI
3,211 units max drawdown
BA,
I am a system player myself. However, if you look at your draw down, and your initial bankroll. There is something wrong.
You or I as a matter of fact nobody, can predict when that will happen. What if it happens the moment you walked in and started playing?
QuoteI just say to you test properly.
Steve
So 350K is not enough?
QuoteIn all there's so much bs in the forums.
Steve
Indeed and you are part of it.
QuoteBA,
I am a system player myself. However, if you look at your draw down, and your initial bankroll. There is something wrong.
You or I as a matter of fact nobody, can predict when that will happen. What if it happens the moment you walked in and started playing?
Azim
That event has very tiny possibility.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 03, 04:05 AM 2016Alabalah
Funny you should mention Ali-blah-blah
BA reminds me of him.
Hes the teacher...we are the students
He sets the syllabus and naughty students shouldnt be allowed in the class
This is his University.
Albeit a bogus one with an up-sell
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 03, 06:02 AM 2016Quote
In all there's so much bs in the forums.
Steve
Indeed and you are part of it.
BA,
I can assure you there is no BS. As much as I hate to say this, Both Steve and General are right in there ways.
I am sure people will agree, I have also come out and said, some of the systems are good, however they will drown you if not played properly with caution.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 03, 06:02 AM 2016Indeed and you are part of it.
I'm only part of it because people like alabalah don't want their scam banned. And because other people don't like being told they're wrong. These are people i wouldn't mention at all normally. For every 20 times they attack me i mention them once
BA i know nothing about your testing but i know your logic is wrong, so have good reason to belive your system is the same. and i don't doubt your testing wasnt done properly. Most likely the bet limits were not realistic. Even the martingale will win if bet limits aren't realistic. Really i want to be proven wrong. I have no problem at all admitting when I've made a mistake.
Quote from: Steve on Sep 03, 06:14 AM 2016BA i know nothing about your testing but i know your logic is wrong,
I see no explanation about the system that produced the graph.
Is it me or did I miss something?
QuoteMost likely the bet limits were not realistic. Even the martingale will win if bet limits aren't realistic.
You've mentioned several persons but I'd prefer not to comment about situations and/or individuals I don't know.
However, I don't understand what do I have to do with all these, if you have a message for them, just let them know.
Why a seller has to be equivalent with a scammer?
There are tons of low quality products being sold every day, if you think it for a while it does make sense, there is no faking way to buy a ''HG'', only mediocre systems are for sale.
The one who possess ''HG'' simply doesn't care for convincing and selling, knowledge is the greatest treasure and it's a reward by its own.
What I care and I do know is what I'm doing, results are the ultimate judge.
Every bet could be a winner with infinite bankroll and no bet limits.
In my case I've specific betting limits, of course you prefer to accuse before asking about something you don't know and is important.
You revived an old thread, almost 2 years old, which brought my attention to junk being said.
I really dont care what Alabalah sells. I dont care about him. He only became an issue when people were complaining about him to me, and he was using my forums to sell systems that everything indicated didnt work. A system that doesnt work, when the seller claims its a HG, to me is a scam. Intentional dishonesty to get people to buy is scamming. Anyway the internet is full of scams. Its up to people to use their own brains.
If you really have the HG, then really good on you. But Im being honest and direct in what I said. Im not trying to argue anything. And anyone can decide for themselves. Mostly what I'm saying is you need to properly test to determine the validity of your logic.
Quote from: Turner on Sep 03, 06:02 AM 2016
Funny you should mention Ali-blah-blah
BA reminds me of him.
Hes the teacher...we are the students
He sets the syllabus and naughty students shouldnt be allowed in the class
This is his University.
Albeit a bogus one with an up-sell
QuoteFunny you should mention Ali-blah-blah
That username reminds me the old time classic: ''Alibaba and the 40 thieves''
QuoteBA reminds me of him.
Should I receive it as compliment, or are you implying that I'm him?
QuoteThis is his University.
Life is the greatest university of all times.
''As long as I'm living, I'm keep on learning'' Plato
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 03, 06:55 AM 2016Should I receive it as compliment, or are you implying that I'm him?
No...dont think you are him lol.....just remind me of him
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 03, 06:02 AM 2016In all there's so much bs in the forums.
Steve
Indeed and you are part of it.
I cant always get to grips with Steves world views but can not doubt his understanding of roulette. I have to add Caleb to the above but dont tell him I said so.
I admire Steves thick skin. He is fkin bomb proof
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Sep 01, 09:26 PM 2016Ten times 1, ten times 2, ten times 3...ten times the SAME is NOT as possible as 10 different numbers!
Pick any number for 10 consecutive times and any 10 different numbers for 10 consecutive spins, it's not the same, it's like you are claiming that 1 number is as possible as the combined probability of 10!
And by the way, if you were the Bellagio owner you would knew what color have the 100 chips!
Are you kidding me? Did you even read or understand what I wrote you? You are telling exactly the same thing I wrote you. That Ten ANY numbers don't have the same probability as 10 SPECIFIC numbers. Please do read better before quoting or saying I don't understand.
And no. Ofc I'm not bellagio 's owner. If I were, I would approve and promote your HG system that has draw down as big as the bankroll. LOL. Or that has been tested for 350K spins ONLY and should be enough. LOL :)
I just like Bellagio from Oceans 11
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 02, 04:12 PM 2016About the "Fallacious Holy Grail", try to make a positive total out of 65 wins VS 135 losses with maximum bet of 64 units and only if you do so come and tell me your system sucks!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on Aug 02, 04:52 PM 2016What can I say...you find the worst 200 spins in roulette history (65 wins/ 135 losses) and you are finding a way to beat the monster!
Is THIS any specific serie of spins (with specific streaks of wins and loses) as you say it as the worst 200 spins in roulette history?
I would like to give it a test with one of my sytems. I think it's really promising. I may not come in profit as you did but I'm pretty sure I can be in pretty low bets (10-12units)after so many loses.
Do you or anyone have any really bad serie of spins as you decribe or any serie with predetermined amount of wins/loses that I can just come up with would do? I wanna put my system/idea up to the test. ;)
Quote from: BellagioOwner on Sep 05, 07:24 PM 2016
Is THIS any specific serie of spins (with specific streaks of wins and loses) as you say it as the worst 200 spins in roulette history?
I would like to give it a test with one of my sytems. I think it's really promising. I may not come in profit as you did but I'm pretty sure I can be in pretty low bets (10-12units)after so many loses.
Do you or anyone have any really bad serie of spins as you decribe or any serie with predetermined amount of wins/loses that I can just come up with would do? I wanna put my system/idea up to the test. ;)
Below is the worst set of 200 spins for red, the ''x'' is for reds, without ''x'' means black.
Nobody pointed out that even I won in the end but exceed slightly the 200 spins in order to win.
The worst ever 200 are the first from the top.
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / FRENCH ROULETTE WITH "LE PARTAGE" RULE
S=Spin R=Result T=Total
S R T
1 -1 -1
2 -1 -2
3x +1 -1
4 -1 -2
5x +1 -1
6 -1 -2
7x +1 -1
8 -1 -2
9 -1 -3
10x +1 -2
11 -1 -3
12x +1 -2
13 -1 -3
14/ZERO -0.5 -3.5
15 -1 -4.5
16x +1 -3.5
17 -1 -4.5
18 -1 -5.5
19 -1 -6.5
20 -1 -7.5
21x +1 -6.5
22 -1 -7.5
23x +1 -6.5
24 -1 -7.5
25 -1 -8.5
26 -1 -9.5
27 -1 -10.5
28 -1 -11.5
29x +1 -10.5
30 -1 -11.5
31x +1 -10.5
32x +1 -9.5
33 -1 -10.5
34 -1 -11.5
35x +1 -10.5
36x +1 -9.5
37x +1 -8.5
38x +2 -6.5 BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
39 -2 -8.5
40 -2 -10.5
41 -2 -12.5
42x +2 -10.5
43 -2 -12.5
44 -2 -14.5
45x +2 -12.5
46x +2 -10.5
47 -2 -12.5
48 -2 -14.5
49 -2 -16.5
50 -2 -18.5
51 -2 -20.5
52x +2 -18.5
53 -2 -20.5
54 -2 -22.5
55x +2 -20.5
56 -2 -22.5
57 -2 -24.5
58x +2 -22.5
59 -2 -24.5
60 -2 -26.5
61 -2 -28.5
62x +2 -26.5
63 -2 -28.5
64 -2 -30.5
65x +2 -28.5
66 -2 -30.5
67 -2 -32.5
68x +2 -30.5
69x +2 -28.5
70 -2 -30.5
71x +2 -28.5
72 -2 -30.5
73 -2 -32.5
74 -2 -34.5
75x +4 -30.5 BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
76 -4 -34.5
77x +4 -30.5
78 -4 -34.5
79 -4 -38.5
80x +4 -34.5
81 -4 -38.5
82 -4 -42.5
83 -4 -46.5
84 -4 -50.5
85 -4 -52.5
86 -4 -56.5
87 -4 -60.5
88 -4 -64.5
89 -4 -68.5
90x +4 -64.5
91 -4 -68.5
92x +4 -64.5
93 -4 -68.5
94 -4 -72.5
95x +4 -68.5
96 -4 -72.5
97x +4 -68.5
98 -4 -72.5
99 -4 -76.5
100 -4 -80.5
101x +4 -76.5
102x +4 -72.5
103 -4 -76.5
104x +4 -72.5
105/ZERO -2 -74.5
106 -4 -78.5
107 -4 -82.5
108 -4 -86.5
109 -4 -90.5
110 -4 -94.5
111 -4 -98.5
112 -8 -106.5 BET RAISES TO 8 UNITS
113 -8 -114.5
114x +8 -106.5
115 -8 -114.5
116 -8 -122.5
117x +8 -114.5
118 -8 -122.5
119x +8 -114.5
120 -8 -122.5
121 -8 -130.5
122x +8 -122.5
123 -8 -130.5
124 -8 -138.5
125 -8 -146.5
126 -8 -154.5
127 -8 -162.5
128x +8 -154.5
129x +8 -146.5
130x +8 -138.5
131x +8 -130.5
132 -8 -138.5
133 -8 -146.5
134x +8 -138.5
135 -8 -146.5
136 -8 -154.5
137 -8 -162.5
138x +8 -154.5
139 -8 -162.5
140x +8 -154.5
141 -8 -162.5
142 -8 -170.5
143x +8 -162.5
144 -8 -170.5
145x +8 -162.5
146x +8 -154.5
147x +8 -146.5
148 -8 -154.5
149x +16 -138.5 BET RAISES TO 16 UNITS
150x +16 -122.5
151 -16 -138.5
152 -16 -154.5
153/ZERO -8 -162.5
154x +16 -146.5
155x +16 -130.5
156 -16 -146.5
157 -16 -162.5
158x +16 -146.5
159 -16 -162.5
160 -16 -178.5
161 -16 -194.5
162 -16 -210.5
163x +16 -194.5
164x +16 -178.5
165 -16 -194.5
166 -16 -210.5
167 -16 -226.5
168x +16 -210.5
169 -16 -226.5
170 -16 -242.5
171x +16 -226.5
172x +16 -210.5
173 -16 -226.5
174x +16 -210.5
175x +16 -194.5
176 -16 -210.5
177 -16 -226.5
178 -16 -242.5
179 -16 -258.5
180x +16 -242.5
181 -16 -258.5
182 -16 -274.5
183 -16 -290.5
184x +16 -274.5
185 -16 -290.5
186/ZERO -16 -306.5 BET RAISES TO 32 UNITS
187x +32 -274.5
188 -32 -306.5
189 -32 -338.5
190/ZERO -16 -354.5
191 -32 -386.5
192x +32 -354.5
193x +32 -322.5
194 -32 -354.5
195 -32 -386.5
196x +32 -354.5
197 -32 -386.5
198 -32 -418.5
199/ZERO -16 -434.5
200 -32 -466.5
201 10 -32 -498.5
202 6 -32 -530.5
203 14 +32 -498.5
204 21 +32 -466.5
205 30 +32 -434.5
206 11 -32 -466.5
207 12 +32 -434.5
208 10 -32 -466.5
209 22 -32 -498.5
210 34 +32 -466.5
211 10 -32 -498.5
212 16 +32 -466.5
213 0 -16 -482.5
214 14 +32 -450.5
215 8 -32 -482.5
216 34 +32 -450.5
217 18 +32 -418.5
218 19 +32 -386.5
219 25 +32 -354.5
220 35 -32 -386.5
221 34 +32 -354.5
222 29 -32 -386.5
223 16 +64 -322.5 BET RAISES TO 64 UNITS
224 21 +64 -258.5
225 12 +64 -194.5
226 30 +64 -130.5
227 9 +64 -66.5
228 34 +64 -2.5
229 32 +64 +61.5 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT
230 15 -1 +60.5
231 0 -0.5 +60
232 17 -1 +59
233 2 -1 +58
234 3 +1 +59
235 0 -0.5 +58.5
236 1 +1 +59.5
237 36 +1 +60.5
238 22 -1 +59.5
239 34 +1 +60.5
240 11 -1 +59.5
241 20 -1 +58.5
242 1 +1 +59.5
243 28 -1 +58.5
244 11 -1 +57.5
245 21 +1 +58.5
246 29 -1 +57.5
247 15 -1 +56.5
248 15 -1 +55.5
249 34 +1 +56.5
250 10 -1 +55.5
251 16 +1 +56.5
252 4 -1 +55.5
253 35 -1 +54.5
254 17 -1 +53.5
255 4 -1 +52.5
256 19 +1 +53.5
257 25 +1 +54.5
258 11 -1 +53.5
259 0 -0.5 +53
260 5 +2 +55 BET RAISES TO 2 UNITS
261 22 -2 +53
262 31 -2 +51
263 0 -1 +50
264 2 -2 +48
265 10 -2 +46
266 6 -2 +44
267 28 -2 +42
268 27 +2 +44
269 4 -2 +42
270 1 +2 +44
271 3 +2 +46
272 11 -2 +44
273 11 -2 +42
274 9 +2 +44
275 5 +2 +46
276 1 +2 +48
277 19 +2 +50
278 11 -2 +48
279 28 -2 +46
280 10 -2 +44
281 15 -2 +42
282 27 +2 +44
283 23 +2 +46
284 13 -2 +44
285 7 +2 +46
286 17 -2 +44
287 35 -2 +42
288 27 +2 +44
289 14 +2 +46
290 21 +2 +48
291 14 +2 +50
292 34 +2 +52
293 11 -2 +50
294 10 -2 +48
295 36 +2 +50
296 24 -2 +48
297 36 +4 +52 BET RAISES TO 4 UNITS
298 34 +4 +56
299 7 +4 +60
300 5 +4 +64
301 6 -1 +63 BET RESETS TO 1 UNIT
302 16 +1 +64
303 34 +1 +65
304 34 +1 +66
305 33 -1 +65
306 26 -1 +64
307 1 +1 +65
308 5 +1 +66
309 0 -0.5 +65.5
310 33 -1 +64.5
311 0 -0.5 +64
312 9 +1 +65
313 0 -0.5 +64.5
314 21 +1 +65.5
315 23 +1 +66.5
316 13 -1 +65.5
317 3 +1 +66.5
318 20 -1 +65.5
319 34 +1 +66.5
320 28 -1 +65.5
321 28 -1 +64.5
322 14 +1 +65.5
323 20 -1 +64.5
324 30 +1 +65.5
325 25 +1 +66.5
326 36 +1 +67.5
327 1 +1 +68.5
328 31 -1 +67.5
329 35 -1 +66.5
330 36 +1 +67.5
331 5 +1 +68.5
332 29 -1 +67.5
333 28 -1 +66.5
Summary}
6 cycles of 37 spins / 333 outcomes / +66.5 units total / highest balance +68.5 units/
lowest balance -530.5 units / highest bet 64 units
BETTING ALWAYS ON RED / AMERICAN 00 WHEEL
1. 26 -1 -1
2. 17 -1 -2
3. 27 +1 -1
4. 9 +1 0
5. 33 -1 -1
6. 35 -1 -2
7. 19 +1 -1
8. 5 -1 -2
9. 4 -1 -3
10. 8 -1 -4
11. 8 -1 -5
12. 24 -1 -6
13. 22 -1 -7
14. 11 -1 -8
15. 2 -1 -9
16. 17 -1 -10
17. 26 -1 -11
18. 1 +1 -10
19. 22 -1 -11
20. 7 +1 -10
21. 28 -1 -11
22. 24 -1 -12
23. 13 -1 -13
24. 18 +1 -12
25. 36 +1 -11
26. 20 -1 -12
27. 15 -1 -13
28. 13 -1 -14
29. 13 -1 -15
30. 15 -1 -16
31. 15 -1 -17
32. 12 +1 -16
33. 13 -1 -17
34. 11 -1 -18
35. 24 -1 -19
36. 00 -1 -20
37. 00 -1 -21 GO UP TO 2 UNITS
38. 28 -2 -23
39. 4 -2 -25
40. 19 +2 -23
41. 26 -2 -25
42. 9 +2 -23
43. 24 -2 -25
44. 34 +2 -23
45. 14 +2 -21
46. 9 +2 -19
47. 8 -2 -21
48. 24 -2 -23
49. 23 +2 -21
50. 27 +2 -19
51. 25 +2 -17
52. 24 -2 -19
53. 13 -2 -21
54. 29 -2 -23
55. 18 +2 -21
56. 4 -2 -23
57. 1 +2 -21
58. 12 +2 -19
59. 00 -2 -21
60. 10 -2 -23
61. 8 -2 -25
62. 20 -2 -27
63. 18 +2 -25
64. 18 +2 -23
65. 18 +2 -21
66. 7 +2 -19
67. 33 -2 -21
68. 31 -2 -23
69. 21 +2 -21
70. 28 -2 -23
71. 23 +2 -21
72. 22 -2 -23
73. 21 +2 -21
74. 31 -2 -23 GO UP TO 4
75. 35 -4 -27
76. 9 +4 -23
77. 31 -4 -27
78. 25 +4 -23
79. 32 +4 -19
80. 35 -4 -23
81. 27 +4 -19
82. 29 -4 -23
83. 31 -4 -27
84. 23 +4 -23
85. 6 -4 -27
86. 20 -4 -31
87. 1 +4 -27
88. 13 -4 -31
89. 7 +4 -27
90. 27 +4 -23
91. 26 -4 -27
92. 34 +4 -23
93. 29 -4 -27
94. 33 -4 -31
95. 00 -4 -35
96. 17 -4 -39
97. 34 +4 -35
98. 28 -4 -39
99. 1 +4 -35
100. 6 -4 -39
101. 22 -4 -43
102. 3 +4 -39
103. 35 -4 -43
104. 4 -4 -47
105. 2 -4 -51
106. 34 +4 -47
107. 5 +4 -43
108. 36 +4 -39
109. 33 -4 -43
110. 10 -4 -47
111. 3 +4 -43 GO UP TO 8
112. 15 -8 -51
113. 24 -8 -59
114. 27 +8 -51
115. 36 +8 -43
116. 16 +8 -35
117. 23 +8 -27
118. 9 +8 -19
119. 2 -8 -27
120. 22 -8 -35
121. 21 +8 -27
122. 11 -8 -35
123. 33 -8 -43
124. 00 -8 -51
125. 19 +8 -43
126. 12 +8 -35
127. 16 +8 -27
128. 14 +8 -19
129. 31 -8 -27
130. 8 -8 -35
131. 1 +8 -27
132. 19 +8 -19
133. 11 -8 -27
134. 8 -8 -35
135. 20 -8 -43
136. 15 -8 -51
137. 19 +8 -43
138. 25 +8 -35
139. 28 -8 -43
140. 31 -8 -51
141. 32 +8 -43
142. 11 -8 -51
143. 4 -8 -59
144. 21 +8 -51
145. 6 -8 -59
146. 28 -8 -67
147. 8 -8 -75
148. 00 -8 -83 GO UP TO 16 UNITS
149. 33 -16 -99
150. 35 -16 -115
151. 20 -16 -131
152. 5 +16 -115
153. 34 +16 -99
154. 4 -16 -115
155. 21 +16 -99
156. 8 -16 -115
157. 3 +16 -99
158. 20 -16 -115
159. 0 -16 -131
160. 00 -16 -147
161. 10 -16 -163
162. 10 -16 -179
163. 22 -16 -195
164. 0 -16 -211
165. 16 +16 -195
166. 9 +16 -179
167. 0 -16 -195
168. 11 -16 -211
169. 35 -16 -227
170. 9 +16 -211
171. 00 -16 -227
172. 26 -16 -243
173. 29 -16 -259
174. 33 -16 -275
175. 0 -16 -291
176. 11 -16 -307
177. 29 -16 -323
178. 32 +16 -307
179. 24 -16 -323
180. 16 +16 -307
181. 30 +16 -291
182. 24 -16 -307
183. 20 -16 -323
184. 20 -16 -339
185. 30 +16 -323 GO UP TO 32
186. 14 +32 -291
187. 33 -32 -323
188. 30 +32 -291
189. 19 +32 -259
190. 9 +32 -227
191. 15 -32 -259
192. 4 -32 -291
193. 1 +32 -259
194. 10 -32 -291
195. 33 -32 -323
196. 14 +32 -291
197. 26 -32 -323
198. 20 -32 -355
199. 31 -32 -387
200. 7 +32 -355
201. 23 +32 -323
202. 22 -32 -355
203. 7 +32 -323
204. 28 -32 -355
205. 9 +32 -323
206. 00 -32 -355
207. 14 +32 -323
208. 22 -32 -355
209. 24 -32 -387
210. 3 +32 -355
211. 26 -32 -387
212. 31 -32 -419
213. 14 +32 -387
214. 22 -32 -419
215. 29 -32 -451
216. 25 +32 -419
217. 9 +32 -387
218. 12 +32 -355
219. 35 -32 -387
220. 31 -32 -419
221. 18 +32 -387
222. 30 +32 -355 GO UP TO 64
223. 7 +64 -291
224. 16 +64 -227
225. 9 +64 -163
226. 7 +64 -99
227. 4 -64 -163
228. 1 +64 -99
229. 26 -64 -163
230. 24 -64 -227
231. 32 +64 -163
232. 1 +64 -99
233. 18 +64 -35
234. 9 +64 +29 RESTART AT 1 UNIT
Summary}
234 outcomes / +29 units total / highest balance +29 units/
lowest balance -451 units / highest bet 64 units
Interesting. The only thing that worries me is that when you reached the 64 unit bet step you made 7 wins in a row. Quite helpful. But if just one of these 7 wins was black you wouldn't have finished the progression and afterwards there were coming 4 losses in a row.(-256 more in total). So you actually saved almost 256 units dent in bankroll because you made the 7 in a row and not 6 in a row at such high bets. Yes it works so far but it's quite risky when you reach such height. anyway. good luck in general.
I tested on te same numbers as you wrote my system/idea.
I ended up in these 333 spins to be:
-378 units total
highest balance +6 units
lowest balance -716 units
BUT
highest bet : only 29 units. And just 3 times 29 units/ not 7 in a row 64.
Yes it ended up negative but it is designed with much lower bets that can make it withstand i think in long runs. And it's designed in a way that ANYTIME the distribution reaches within 1 σ it ends up in profit. It just have to continue until the difference is within 1σ. not more wins than losses needed. Just within the normal range.
I'll experiment with this delayed martingale as well but I think it is too high for my taste :/
Quote from: BellagioOwner on Sep 06, 08:46 AM 2016
Interesting. The only thing that worries me is that when you reached the 64 unit bet step you made 7 wins in a row. Quite helpful. But if just one of these 7 wins was black you wouldn't have finished the progression and afterwards there were coming 4 losses in a row.(-256 more in total). So you actually saved almost 256 units dent in bankroll because you made the 7 in a row and not 6 in a row at such high bets. Yes it works so far but it's quite risky when you reach such height. anyway. good luck in general.
I tested on te same numbers as you wrote my system/idea.
I ended up in these 333 spins to be:
-378 units total
highest balance +6 units
lowest balance -716 units
BUT
highest bet : only 29 units. And just 3 times 29 units/ not 7 in a row 64.
Yes it ended up negative but it is designed with much lower bets that can make it withstand i think in long runs. And it's designed in a way that ANYTIME the distribution reaches within 1 σ it ends up in profit. It just have to continue until the difference is within 1σ. not more wins than losses needed. Just within the normal range.
I'll experiment with this delayed martingale as well but I think it is too high for my taste :/
You might want to cap it on 8 units max bet and wait for 1 up to 3 consecutive cycles to go one way (any EC) and then start.
I was thinking something like that or to elongate further the cycles. Like doubling every 100 spins and not every 37 (usual cycle)
By doubling every 100 we end up at 200th spin to be -82.5 (instead of -465.5)
And by the end of the 333 spins we get a summary of:
-44.5 units total
highest balance -1 unit
lowest balance -100.5 units
highest bet 8 Units
It ends up negative but after such a hellish run to be only -44.5 units and max down -100.5 instead of -530.5 is totally worth it (with just 137 wins in 333 spins on EC- almost 2σ outside mean)
Quote from: BellagioOwner on Sep 06, 10:12 AM 2016
I was thinking something like that or to elongate further the cycles. Like doubling every 100 spins and not every 37 (usual cycle)
By doubling every 100 we end up at 200th spin to be -82.5 (instead of -465.5)
And by the end of the 333 spins we get a summary of:
-44.5 units total
highest balance -1 unit
lowest balance -100.5 units
highest bet 8 Units
It ends up negative but after such a hellish run to be only -44.5 units and max down -100.5 instead of -530.5 is totally worth it (with just 137 wins in 333 spins on EC- almost 2σ outside mean)
Certainly an improvement, we should focus on the big picture of
totals, in other words law of large numbers.
Predicting how many times an event should happen and predicting in which order the same event will occur are two
completely different things!
For example, let's say red hits 44 times within 100 spins, 44% hit rate which is pretty average, now can you imagine how many possible combinations you could find with 44 reds in 100 spins??
Every combination/sequence is equally possible,
BUT there are MORE combinations of 50/50 (ignoring 0) than any other category of combinations/sequences.
100 reds in 100 spins is just
1 of many possible combinations, 1 is never equal with all the rest.
You could find without much waiting time 1 EC out of the 6 which is the coldest (less hits) from all the rest within 74 or 111 spins and follow it till profit achieved, then check again your record to find the EC which is trailing and make it your new target.
Don't forget, aim for totals within a specific number of spins, don't try to predict in which order are going to occur!
That's why linear progressions fail, they aim to win in a certain way instead of keeping the options open in order to win with
ANY possible way.
any of my methods i'm trying are at this direction anyway. looking at the total of the EC. In a nutshell i try to find any of the 6 EC with important difference from the mean and then trying to stay at it with minimal bankroll not too progressive until it reaches closer to mean and profit in general.
I was also experimenting now with cycles of 111 instead of 100 (to be exact proportion of the 37 normal cycle.) I'll post once I finish it.
Cycles of 100:
-44.5 units total
highest balance -1 unit
lowest balance -100.5 units
highest bet 8 Units
Cycles of 111
-57 units total
highest balance: -1 unit
lowest balance: -103 units
highest bet 4 Units
I think the differences in lowest balance and total are not so big. I like the biggest bet 4 though for such run
Not a CLEAR EASY winner between these 2 though I think...
Quote from: BellagioOwner on Sep 06, 11:10 AM 2016
Cycles of 100:
-44.5 units total
highest balance -1 unit
lowest balance -100.5 units
highest bet 8 Units
Cycles of 111
-57 units total
highest balance: -1 unit
lowest balance: -103 units
highest bet 4 Units
I think the differences in lowest balance and total are not so big. I like the biggest bet 4 though for such run
Not a CLEAR EASY winner between these 2 though I think...
Indeed, consider the following: the minimum ever recorded for any 100 EC outcomes is 25 hits (25%), for 111 EC outcomes is 26 (23.42%), for 200 EC outcomes is 65 (32.5%), for 222 EC outcomes is 69 (31.08%), if you could find a money management which could win even with such totals, you would be a winner in 99.99% of all situations.
100 or 111 has to be the starting point because from there start to decline even the most intensive deviations, from 25% or 23.42% raises to 32.5% or 31.08% after 100 or 111 outcomes respectively.
Regression towards the mean has to be applied in such samples, of length and deviation degree in order to be valid.
I believe though that the more spins the most possible is that sometime even for just a single moment the deviation will move towards the mean and reach 1σ from the mean. Sometimes even for just 1 spin it should reach 1σ and then let it break loose to 3σ and 4 away from the mean. once it reaches just one time i'm fine with it
So what do you mean? That it should not be tested for above 100-111 spins as it gets away from the mean?
Quote from: BellagioOwner on Sep 06, 12:21 PM 2016
I believe though that the more spins the most possible is that sometime even for just a single moment the deviation will move towards the mean and reach 1σ from the mean. Sometimes even for just 1 spin it should reach 1σ and then let it break loose to 3σ and 4 away from the mean. once it reaches just one time i'm fine with it
So what do you mean? That it should not be tested for above 100-111 spins as it gets away from the mean?
Exactly the opposite.
ok. we're on the same boat then. I wasn't sure you meant this when you first wrote it