Everyone knows the odds do not change
It is a waste of your time to code a strategy and test a million spins. we know the outcome is a loss due to the house edge
that is why system players take advantage of "playing for a statistically irrelevant number of spins"
this is why hit and runners using larger units do so good for so long....can not tell them it does not work, if it works for them
maybe devote your time to something else rather than test for a million spins wasting your time with the outcome we already know.....
You can't have it both ways....you cant say that "the only reason people are being successful is that they haven't played enough spins" and then in the same breath tell them "it does not matter how many spins you play because the house edge exists every spin"
ya cant have your cake and eat it to
Its not all doom and gloom. There are ways to beat roulette that we already know about. And I'm sure there are ways we don't yet know about.
I only have a problem when players:
* Constantly repeat approaches that are guaranteed to lose
* Don't bother to test and try to understand why approaches wont work
* Don't try something NEW
* Think there's some grand conspiracy when someone tells them their system will lose.
* Ignore very clear proof that's right in front of their noses
Do players here really want to be the casino's fool? Or do they actually want to progress and maybe get something out of roulette?
I really dont care if you dont like my methods. They dont suit everyone anyway. Just please understand what works, what fails and why. Then focus your time and effort on something that hasn't already been tried a billion times before.
I think it's quite insulting to the coders that take their free time to code a system to test more spins than the author may not be able to do.
You said at GF that you test and play your systems, but if every system/method/bet are equally exposed to the HE, shouln't they all equally suck?
If so, why test it?
Very insuilting indeed. Dont hate the Messenger. Hate the game. They only tell whats gonna happen in the long run. And the time.....they spend 1 or few hours to code. How many days/months you test on paper ?
Ive got systems that win strong for few 100k spins and then tank. So this means some people can be Lucky all there life and some will lose right from the start.
If it wins keep going. If it starts to lose....abandon ship
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 05, 08:25 PM 2018You can't have it both ways....you cant say that "the only reason people are being successful is that they haven't played enough spins" and then in the same breath tell them "it does not matter how many spins you play because the house edge exists every spin"
This would be an excellent point if wasn´t based on false assumptions. The only reason is LUCK.
It’s not insulting
It’s true. All systems fail in the long term to house edge
It’s a waste of time in my opinion
Quote from: celescliff on Apr 06, 12:54 AM 2018
I think it's quite insulting to the coders that take their free time to code a system to test more spins than the author may not be able to do.
You said at GF that you test and play your systems, but if every system/method/bet are equally exposed to the HE, shouln't they all equally suck?
If so, why test it?
Hit and run. That’s why I test.
Long term will always go down
I’ve come to learn: to win everyday you must play for a statistically insignificant number of spins if you are not exploiting the game in some way
I believe in testing actual real world sessions.
For example a baccarat shoe or 40 roulette spins. Not a million.
100X40 spins is same stats as 4000 spins
So someone won money before a system tanked. You cant conclude that therefore you will be as successful if you only play for the short term. That person got lucky in the first place. What about those who won nothing? Thats the problem with only listening to the good news.
Think about how many systems are in all the web. The authors got lucky with the tests and published them. Now what about the millions of systems that never made it to the forums because the authors got unlucky and scrapped them. Same thing. Its all a matter of luck.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 05, 08:25 PM 2018Everyone knows the odds do not change
But they don't. If people really believed that they wouldn't bother to test systems at all, in fact they wouldn't even use them.
John Legend seems to believe his pattern breaker system will go on and on winning indefinitely. TurboGenius is convinced his hot number system is a long term winner. Everyone is looking for the holy grail, in other words a system which keeps winning.
I can't understand your logic at all. How much testing is enough? If you're going to test at all when is the optimum time to stop? As soon as you start to lose? LOL. It's clear you don't understand probability at all.
And yes it is insulting to those who put in the effort and time to write simulations, and programming isn't easy.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 05, 08:25 PM 2018this is why hit and runners using larger units do so good for so long....can not tell them it does not work, if it works for them
It makes no sense to say that a system "works for me" if it doesn't work for everyone. If it doesn't work for everyone then it doesn't "work" at all does it? That just tells you you've been lucky.
QuoteYou can't have it both ways....you cant say that "the only reason people are being successful is that they haven't played enough spins" and then in the same breath tell them "it does not matter how many spins you play because the house edge exists every spin
You've misunderstood. There's no contradiction here because even if you have a real edge or winning system you still have to overcome the house edge, and the point of testing a large sample is to find out whether your results are due to variance. If you use progressions you need to test a lot because they increase the variance. You might not find the losing sequences even over many thousands of spins if just playing manually and this fools you into thinking you have found a winner.
QuoteHow much testing is enough?
if in same spin frames does the same thing and you are able to make profit then that is good enough
Hi Maestro, but how many spins should be in the spin frame?
rouletteghost says it's a waste of time to test a million spins but you don't have to test that many. If you've already written a simulation you can test as many spins as you like including only as many as you would normally test if doing it manually. And using a simulation saves a lot of time, boredom and probably mistakes. But testing a large sample can give you a lot more information such as where the weak points are. You can then use this information to maybe improve the system. Just because the system fails over a million spins doesn't mean it's "a waste of time".
I always test my systems by computer and it gives me a lot of useful information including how much bankroll is needed, maximum drawdowns etc. If you're going to test at all, using a computer can only improve it. Otherwise just be a gambler and don't test at all. ;)
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Apr 06, 08:38 AM 2018
I believe in testing actual real world sessions.
For example a baccarat shoe or 40 roulette spins. Not a million.
By your own logic you should not test anything whatsoever. By testing systems you are exposing yourself to variance, since the wheel won't care if you previously bet money or not while testing. After you test the shit out of zumma, by the time you reach a real wheel you have already crossed the point of no return. Again by your own logic, right?
You should instead blindly take for granted every success story about a system and bet real money right away. Since you prefer to believe in the pied pipers of this forum instead of listening to reason, it should not be a problem.
Quote from: CoderJoe on Apr 06, 01:45 PM 2018But testing a large sample can give you a lot more information such as where the weak points are. You can then use this information to maybe improve the system. Just because the system fails over a million spins doesn't mean it's "a waste of time".
I always test my systems by computer and it gives me a lot of useful information including how much bankroll is needed, maximum drawdowns etc. If you're going to test at all, using a computer can only improve it. Otherwise just be a gambler and don't test at all.
Hi Coderjoe,
I hear what you are saying and I totally agree with your reasoning that a computer simulation, DESIGNED properly, can say a lot about a described method. You probably realize that I am a coder too and have found software like RX Xtreme very valuable in testing software. You mention that the information you can determine from a simulation with many million spins relate to bankroll needed, expected drawdown and ultimately the odds of winning in the long term.
So I want to know with your software you use do you code in these parameters when you test a method like PATTERN BREAKER or do you run the system without any of these parameters to see if it tanks?
You see, I have spent over a year developing a framework where I can plug in a method and define various progression methods like Martingale, D'Alambert, Labouchere, and positive ones too. I run the method with these different progressions to see which ones would work best when running continuously. This gives me a lot of information to determine level of risk a method is exposed to. Take PB for example. What I liked about this method is it limits the bets to 3 steps with only an eight pattern permutation.
I don't know if you know of a You Tuber called Charlie Barlie, but he described a similar method to PB called PERMUTATIONS where you get the casino to generate the bet selection for you. He had the theory that the roulette wheel could not generate a repeat pattern of 7 spins immediately after it spun it once. This method used a 5 step martingale. I got really burnt thinking how can I lose. Eventually, somewhere in those 5 steps the wheel cannot get all bets right. Well for a while I was doing really well. Made 400 in 2 hours betting between 3-6 base bets. Then I went one too many sessions and in one swoop found myself betting on the 5th step and lost the lot. Charley did warn that using this method it was like being in a ligntning storm. Most times you won't get struck with that pattern repeat but there is a chance you may get struck. So to play this method you can't play continuously. You need to do it hit and run. Sound familiar.
So I have been very wary of method that require you to use that steep progression.
John Legend describes a method that only requires 3 steps or even 2 if you skip the third and accept the loss. He also describes a way to make your bet selection based on what the wheel is doing. So the bet selection comes to a different conclusion each time. It create the random selection for you. You do not need to GUESS and be LUCKY. So if you lose then you give it to the casino. It got lucky.
So as a method I really like the idea and I am sure you were drawn to its cleverness too. So you did what I did and you tried to simulate it to see if it was the "HOLY GRAIL". But as JL said himself, this is not the HOLY GRAIL and should only be used sparingly. Well that's because there is no system that if run continuously will beat the casino. Luck has a great deal to do with the success of any system. BUT luck goes two ways. The casino has to be lucky too. I have terrible luck when it comes to selecting even the simplest of bets R/B. I always choose the one that loses. So why not use a method that makes that choice for you. Sometimes you will win sometimes you will lose.
Roulette is a hard game to crack. The whole design of it, with the house edge and the fact you are dealing with random numbers on each spin make it impossible to find the perfect system to run continuously. That's why you have to run it selectively. My idea, and I am sure you agree is, to run a system in a BOT continuously, you need to alternate between systems or bet selection methods. As DR says, he uses PB with a 1-2 progression about 2-4 times a visit to the casin. In between he is using other systems. Thats exactly what I am starting to do and it is working for me. If you have followed my posts I have actually been growing a bankroll from a starting $200. If you have read the book ROULETTE : Play to WIN by Brett Morton, he describes exactly what JL has been echoing in this forum for years. I know you have heard me say this constantly, but will say it again. He also explains that to win consistently you need to have PATIENCE and DISCIPLINE. These are human traits and not everyone possesses them. not even me but I am willing to learn to be both of these to enable me to get ahead and grow my bankroll. I need support from other members to share ideas on how I can slowly but surely grow that bankroll. People like DR inspire me to limit my progression to just 1-2 steps or even look for a FLAT BET bet selection. I do have one in my system which I will share with you later but its pretty straight forward but effective
I'll stop here as this post is starting to become a chapter in a book. Look forward to collaborating with you on new ideas that we can test
Cheers,
Ricky
Quote from: Ricky on Apr 07, 02:19 PM 2018This method used a 5 step martingale. I got really burnt thinking how can I lose. Eventually, somewhere in those 5 steps the wheel cannot get all bets right. Well for a while I was doing really well. Made 400 in 2 hours betting between 3-6 base bets. Then I went one too many sessions and in one swoop found myself betting on the 5th step and lost the lot.
If I may reply, don´t you think that run from hell could have shown right on your first session if you had arrived to the table at another time?
Or, do you and all hitandrunners defend that randomness itself is pretty neutral and every mechanical system will quickly adapt to it and profit no matter what?
Quote from: Ricky on Apr 07, 02:19 PM 2018You mention that the information you can determine from a simulation with many million spins relate to bankroll needed, expected drawdown and ultimately the odds of winning in the long term.
So I want to know with your software you use do you code in these parameters when you test a method like PATTERN BREAKER or do you run the system without any of these parameters to see if it tanks?
It depends. With pattern breaker I was only interested in finding out whether the win rate was anything like JL claimed he was getting, so I didn't add code to find other parameters. Actually with roulette much of the time simulations aren't necessary because it's quite easy to calculate the expected results using probability calculus, but if your progression is complicated or the system bets on different amounts of numbers, or both, then it becomes too difficult. That's when I use a computer.
Seriously people, the probability winrate of 3 steps JL PB is slightly less than 1:7 due to house edge.
That's not an opinion. It's math.
What JL suggested that with hit&run play the winrate will not dip below 1:7 plus the astronomical winrate he claimed can mean 2 things only -
1. he's one lucky bloke,
2. he's lying.
More important is for the readers to realise this hit&run play will not magically stay above 1:7. No it will not. Yes it dips below 1:7 Except when LUCK is in your favour.
Quote from: CoderJoe on Apr 08, 07:15 AM 2018
It depends. With pattern breaker I was only interested in finding out whether the win rate was anything like JL claimed he was getting, so I didn't add code to find other parameters. Actually with roulette much of the time simulations aren't necessary because it's quite easy to calculate the expected results using probability calculus, but if your progression is complicated or the system bets on different amounts of numbers, or both, then it becomes too difficult. That's when I use a computer.
Hi coderjoe
Hitrate is a good judge of a successful system. It is simple maths that if you are getting a hitrate greater than you progression cost of losing then you have a winning system.
When I did the 100 game test these are the results I got based on a 2 step progression. But this does not include using recovery to increase your profit. So you could say you don’t need a recover to test as if it does not even make break even you are fighting an uphill battle
Quote from: Ricky on Apr 06, 08:58 AM 2018
The figures show 81 wins and 21 losses. That’s a win rate of 3.85 which is above break even. So that’s a good start to work on improving as at least it’s positive.
My results include covering the house edge so my wins are slightly less than 1:1 and my losses are slightly more due to the loss of the zero bet as well as the E/C bet. But in this he long run this gets compensated by the zero wins which I usually size to 2 or 3 unit wins.
So for a method that is suggested to be played hit and run it does stand up to the test.
Now the dispute you have with jl is his claims the way he plays. If he is claiming above 10 over long term play then I agree there is a great deal of luck. But given he is spreading his risk among many casinos it’s not entirely unrealistic to be consistently getting high win rates.
If I looked at where my losses came they were mostly clumped with 3 or 4 consecutive losses. If I lucked out and avoided playing those games or used a different strategy to avoid playing back to back losses then my results may have been more positive. But that’svdown to luck, not the method. My next test is going to reflect more the hit and run over 10 days playing just 10 games a day rather than 17. So the breaks between sessions will be longer. But it will still add up to 100 games. Let’s see if I get lucky and avoid back to back losses. I will increase my bet size too to 10 euros to try and get a more reasonable profit. I will do a recovery using 15 euro base bets for 2 games
Cheers
Ricky
Quote from: psimoes on Apr 08, 04:22 AM 2018
If I may reply, don´t you think that run from hell could have shown right on your first session if you had arrived to the table at another time?
Or, do you and all hitandrunners defend that randomness itself is pretty neutral and every mechanical system will quickly adapt to it and profit no matter what?
Hi psimoes
I do not know if a single system invented that can defy the long term odds of the roulette wheel. Played continuously the house edge always has the upper hand. That why the casinos love offering this game. And America got even more greedy and added the extra zero.
So how do you defeat roulette given this long term statistical reality. Some say the only way is to play for a statistically insignificant time and then as soon as you have shown a profit through luck or use of a system or method that challenged the wheel to do something it cannot do in that short period of time you declare a win and ‘run’ before “luck†runs out or should I say before the casino gets lucky. So the difference between the player choosing red or black through some random guess and the wheel using its own randomness to choose red or black is we are putting the shoe on the other foot so to speak. We are challenging the casino to call the result black or red and see if it gets lucky
Given enough time playing the casino will get lucky but if it doesn’t in the short time we are playing then the system has delivered another victory
Whichever way you look at it it all comes down to luck. No system can claim to deliver a consistent profit over time without luck. But I would rather rely on a method to consistently bring me that luck than for me to be lucky using my own selection.
Cheers
Ricky
Quote from: cht on Apr 08, 07:50 AM 2018
Seriously people, the probability winrate of 3 steps JL PB is slightly less than 1:7 due to house edge.
That's not an opinion. It's math.
What JL suggested that with hit&run play the winrate will not dip below 1:7 plus the astronomical winrate he claimed can mean 2 things only -
1. he's one lucky bloke,
2. he's lying.
More important is for the readers to realise this hit&run play will not magically stay above 1:7. No it will not. Yes it dips below 1:7 Except when LUCK is in your favour.
Since you also claimed success (on the PB thread) using what can be called a mechanical method on baccarat, maybe the same accusations can be levelled against you.
So which one are you?
A lucky bloke?
A liar?
Or both?
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Apr 08, 02:36 PM 2018
Since you also claimed success (on the PB thread) using what can be called a mechanical method on baccarat, maybe the same accusations can be levelled against you.
It's your choice to make similar accusations against me.
Yes, I do include this possibility that JL aka FENDER aka Sentinel could be a liar, mostly for the wild obtuse claim of never go below that 1:7 winrate for everyone who plays hit & run. And that astronomically high winrate.
So which one are you?
A lucky bloke?
I must admit some luck is involved.
A liar?
No reason to lie.
Or both?
Mechanical play based on skewed statistical frequency distribution collated from my b&m casino.
I clearly posted that such claims can never be proven.
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Apr 08, 02:36 PM 2018
Since you also claimed success (on the PB thread) using what can be called a mechanical method on baccarat, maybe the same accusations can be levelled against you.
So which one are you?
A lucky bloke?
A liar?
Or both?
Is it your strategy to discredit messengers who propose math to destroy our arguments ?
I notice this consistency in your post. You seem to disagree with the validity of math especially that related to short term play aka hit & run.
It's good that you clarify your position about the validity of math with short term play.
Quote from: cht on Apr 08, 04:43 PM 2018
Are you trying to discredit messengers who propose math to destroy our arguments ?
I notice this consistency in your post. You seem to disagree with the validity of math.
I do not dispute the mathematical arguments against the effectiveness of all gambling methods/strategies (I am a professional engineer and I have a Ph.D. in an engineering field).
If you apply math (expected values calculations) strictly to every method/strategy proposed in this forum, you will end up with a negative outcome.
Yet, you
cherry pick methods on which to apply your math arguments to (and then criticize the people who propose those methods).
That is what I am objecting to.
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Apr 08, 04:52 PM 2018
I do not dispute the mathematical arguments against the effectiveness of all gambling methods/strategies (I am a professional engineer and I have a Ph.D. in an engineering field).
If you apply math (expected values calculations) strictly to every method/strategy proposed in this forum, you will end up with a negative outcome.
Yet, you cherry pick methods on which to apply your math arguments to (and then criticize the people who propose those methods).
That is what I am objecting to.
Ok now I understand your objection.
I do not criticise JL PB system at all. In fact, I posted earlier my appreciation on the thread.
This following 2 claims repeated many times is to me highly misleading.
1. Anyone playing with patience and discipline short term aka hit&run will somehow give a no worse than 1:7 winrate. It comes across as a guarantee.
This gives the false impression to the reader that he can't lose playing the system.
Personally, after too many emphatic repetition this has to be called out as false.
2. The winrates 100 games list published showed way much higher than this 1:7 winrate.
If it's sharing his good fortune no problem with that.
But the impression given is that anyone who plays hit&run will get this kind of high winrate. Majority of players fail to attain such high winrate is due to their poor patience and discipline.
This is definitely wrong.
I raise caution to the fallacy.
Not criticise him as a person.
However, ignorance and/or lying can be possibilities.
I hope I have clarified my specific objection to his claims.
To be correct, I join Coderjoe, psimoes and others to throw caution to the fallacy.
JL's big fallacy:
"For example I played two games today.
Just two games on two different wheels.
It will be 18 hours before I play again.
I fell out of the cycle for 18 hours."
--------------------------------------------------
I don't want detract anyone but it is a big fat fallacy!
You can play after 20 minutes or after 1 hour or after 24h. There's no difference.
The wheel/shoe has no memory.
There's no difference you play 100 games a day o 1game for 100 days.
The wheel/shoe don't give it a crap.
Quote from: Andre Chass on Apr 08, 05:48 PM 2018I don't want detract anyone but it is a big fat fallacy!
You can play after 20 minutes or after 1 hour or after 24h. There's no difference.
Hi Andre,
I am not supporting or rejecting what people like JL are saying about hit & Run having a better win rate than playing continuously. But What I think the point is here is if you are playing this system for a source of living you will protect your bankroll and your profit as much as possible to avoid losing it by exposing your risk to the wheel/shoe more than you need to. So by claiming you will only play 2 games today and not play for another 18 hours should not be taken as this is the formula to success. Its because he probably made his daily profit target or maybe had a loss and did not want to expose himself further. He had the discipline to stop. So to keep his daily win rate up he avoided playing further. Had he continued playing one of two things could have happened. He either continued winning or started losing. So to keep a statistically high win rate he is playing for a statistically insignificant time.
It all about the tortoise and the hare. You can run as quickly as possible to riches and fortune with the risk of ruin, or you can slowly make a small amount each day to sustain a living and over a long period of time amass a small fortune. This could be called HIT & RUN but it is also called being wise with your gambling and not exposing yourself to unnecessary risks if you can avoid it.
Cheers,
Ricky
Quote from: Ricky on Apr 08, 09:02 PM 2018
Hi Andre,
I am not supporting or rejecting what people like JL are saying about hit & Run having a better win rate than playing continuously. But What I think the point is here is if you are playing this system for a source of living you will protect your bankroll and your profit as much as possible to avoid losing it by exposing your risk to the wheel/shoe more than you need to. So by claiming you will only play 2 games today and not play for another 18 hours should not be taken as this is the formula to success. Its because he probably made his daily profit target or maybe had a loss and did not want to expose himself further. He had the discipline to stop. So to keep his daily win rate up he avoided playing further. Had he continued playing one of two things could have happened. He either continued winning or started losing. So to keep a statistically high win rate he is playing for a statistically insignificant time.
It all about the tortoise and the hare. You can run as quickly as possible to riches and fortune with the risk of ruin, or you can slowly make a small amount each day to sustain a living and over a long period of time amass a small fortune. This could be called HIT & RUN but it is also called being wise with your gambling and not exposing yourself to unnecessary risks if you can avoid it.
Cheers,
Ricky
I agree we have to avoid losing the bankroll by exposing our risk to the wheel/shoe.
But what's the difference you play after 1 hour or after 18 h? It's no sense.
You can play five games only one day for week... You can play once a day for five days...
Quote from: Ricky on Apr 08, 09:02 PM 2018
Hi Andre,
I am not supporting or rejecting what people like JL are saying about hit & Run having a better win rate than playing continuously. But What I think the point is here is if you are playing this system for a source of living you will protect your bankroll and your profit as much as possible to avoid losing it by exposing your risk to the wheel/shoe more than you need to. So by claiming you will only play 2 games today and not play for another 18 hours should not be taken as this is the formula to success. Its because he probably made his daily profit target or maybe had a loss and did not want to expose himself further. He had the discipline to stop. So to keep his daily win rate up he avoided playing further. Had he continued playing one of two things could have happened. He either continued winning or started losing. So to keep a statistically high win rate he is playing for a statistically insignificant time.
It all about the tortoise and the hare. You can run as quickly as possible to riches and fortune with the risk of ruin, or you can slowly make a small amount each day to sustain a living and over a long period of time amass a small fortune. This could be called HIT & RUN but it is also called being wise with your gambling and not exposing yourself to unnecessary risks if you can avoid it.
Cheers,
Ricky
I disagree with this that Rouletteghost propounds on this forum.
Yes, individual short term plays have too small samples to make meaningful inference. But the combined population of all these small samples(short term plays) will make the result of the entire data set to be statistically significant.
With the unfair payout fixed at 1:35 for each spin, without any external bias the sum total of the small samples must converge to give the probabilistic outcome of a little less than 1:7 in a 3 steps bet making it a losing system.
Quote from: cht on Apr 08, 10:11 PM 2018With the unfair payout fixed at 1:35 for each spin, without any external bias the sum total of the small samples must converge to give the probabilistic outcome of a little less than 1:7 in a 3 steps bet making it a losing system.
Hi CHT,
your mathematical argument is not being disputed. Thats why the casinos offer the game becuase they know over the long term with the built in house advantage and the knowledge that 99% of gamblers have no discipline to stop gambling and no patience to wait for the the right time to gamble they will always profit from this game of chance. But because of this mathematical advantage that does not make any system a losing system. As players of PB say, when they start losing they will stop playing. As long as its working for them they will continue playing. It as simple as that.
So at the end of the day its just a personal preference. If you like the PB idea then you will play it over randomly choosing red or black and hoping to get lucky.
Cheers,
Ricky