Alright!
I finaly came up with my own system. Its an 8 number bet.
Tommorow when i am a little less tired i Will explain the rules.
I hand tested it for +- 670 spins.
Betting Numbers 1 till 8.
Props to ignatus for hotzone 8, it was my insperation.
Anyone knows a good betselection for the 8 Numbers?
Was that flat betting?
Good job Rob, once the details are out we'll put it through thousands of actual spins, give you some feedback on where it's strong and where it's weak.
Its with progression, involving quads/splits/singles.
Alright here it goes.
Begin betting 2 quads (any quads?) with 1 unit., so 2 units.
With the progression 111/222/44
If you occur a loss, transform those quads into splits and again 111/222/444. Stay until new high.
Lost again? Transform the splits into singles with again the prog 111/222/444
If you lose that one. Return to the quads but then go for the 222/444/888 progresion and so on so on until you have reached a new high.
Feedback is welcome!
I am a sucker for elaborate parachute systems, particularly those extend my losing session into endless marathons of grinding torture, so I'm game...
Jokes aside, thanks for posting Robbert, appreciated. Will definitely test. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Mako on Nov 12, 04:32 PM 2018
I am a sucker for elaborate parachute systems, particularly those extend my losing session into endless marathons of grinding torture, so I'm game...
Jokes aside, thanks for posting Robbert, appreciated. Will definitely test. :thumbsup:
No problem! Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: Robbert on Nov 12, 04:21 PM 2018
Alright here it goes.
Begin betting 2 quads (any quads?) with 1 unit., so 2 units.
With the progression 111/222/44
If you occur a loss, transform those quads into splits and again 111/222/444. Stay until new high.
Lost again? Transform the splits into singles with again the prog 111/222/444
If you lose that one. Return to the quads but then go for the 222/444/888 progresion and so on so on until you have reached a new high.
Feedback is welcome!
Always stay on the prog until you reach new high or lost, only if lost go to the next.
So I've been goofing around with another quad/corner bet that's been doing well, and thought I'd apply a piece of it to yours Robbert.
Basically I start fresh, spin the wheel, and wait until there are just 3 corners that haven't yet had a number hit in them. 3 unhit corners essentially.
Once that happened (typically 10 to 16 spins in) I began betting 2 of the 3 unhit corners using Robbert's progression/method, choosing the 2 corners that are in different dozens.
On a hit, I reset the process, starting fresh, and waiting for 3 unhit corners again before proceeding.
First test below, used downloaded spins from Duisburg, consecutively at the same table. As if you had sat down at Table 13 there and played for 306 spins. The progression never got past Robbert's 111/222/44 first level, the two largest dips are the first and second "4" bets winning on the initial corner bets.
Looks good, fun to play, easy, will continue testing later tonight. :thumbsup:
Great!
Only, its not my progression. Its from ignatus, so props to him!
Mako, how is the testing going?
I fooled around last night and didn't get to test more, will put it through another session today. It's good though, can tell that it would take a long time to bust using the hybrid method where you're starting the parachute after already having probability in your favor anyway by selecting corners that are overdue anyway.
I've said it previously but if it's all fallacy, (and it is yes of course we admit it freely, not a problem) then at least lets use fallacy systems that can go a good bit before having trouble, or ones that don't demolish the bankroll so quickly when the black swan finally arrives. :thumbsup:
I love a graph like that Mako !
But we don't seem to have a stop-loss. How about just using 111-222-444 and then reset, as I notice you didn't get past that point in your test?
Think its better to stick with the prog. Cant wait for the graph with many many spins mako!
Programming the original version with any corner would be rather easy. If playing the ''coldest'' 2 corners it would be harder,at least for me, since a decision has to be made between 3 or 4 corners.
Could do the 1st version with Excel, it's pretty simple if all corners split nrs remain the same.
First fun game I tried with cold corners is promising. Did not bust yet.
Quote from: Mako on Nov 12, 05:13 PM 2018
Basically I start fresh, spin the wheel, and wait until there are just 3 corners that haven't yet had a number hit in them. 3 unhit corners essentially.
Hi Mako,
Is number 2 one corner, or two corners?
Problem with the corners is that they aren't balanced.
1 corner is 4 numbers, but is impossible to cover the 36 numbers with 9 corners (this is what I mean by being unbalanced).
I used to use the first nr in the middle column for upper corner, and second nr for bottom corner. Example:
Nr 2 will be corner [2,3,5,6]
Nr 5 will be corner [1,2,4,5]
Is [5,6,8,9] a valid corner, or you play the "standard" ones only?
Have you tried to pick the first two corners that repeated?
Robbert, Mako,
did a little test of 10k runs to check how many spins it would take to hit the coldest 1,2,3,4... corners.
Focusing on 2 corners, longest it took was 46 spins.
Distribution is as follows:
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/11/14/source.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/T7BsB)
Expressed in percentage y hitting in x spins.
Overall, 80% hit within 8 spins, 99% within 24.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/11/14/sourceee3db.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/T7IY9)
Maximum spins to hit, depending on the corners that were hit before, is:
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/11/14/sourceeb186.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/T7LmZ)
Voilà .
Thanks Big Ben, exactly, any time I look at a "cold" process I look to the big spin sets that we use as a base for misses. For quads/corners, the miss numbers are what you'd guess they would be, which is any 4 numbers (per quad).
Just like a full dozen can miss over 25 times, which is insane when you think about it, cold number systems tend to fail spectacularly when they fail to arrive over ridiculous amounts of time.
I hate them, any system that bets anything "cold", I discard, because I've never had one work under testing conditions with live spins. For this particular one I let it pass, because we're resetting the target "cold" corners every say 25 spins, so the chance of hitting two of them, and those two being the coldest of the cold are probably pretty rare?
I like the idea though from davey, with the hitrate being as high as it is, I can see the testing ultimately producing an optimal balance on the progression, like say two full levels, if miss, then take the loss and reset to 111/222/44, etc.
That way even if you did manage to be "Mako lucky" and find the two quads that from that point forward are going to miss for 46 spins, you'd get off of them after X amount of attempts and cut your losses.
I didn't get a chance to do more runs yesterday, we'll see what the numbers say as we accumulate more data.
Quote from: ahlidap on Nov 14, 06:01 AM 2018
Hi Mako,
Is number 2 one corner, or two corners?
Problem with the corners is that they aren't balanced.
1 corner is 4 numbers, but is impossible to cover the 36 numbers with 9 corners (this is what I mean by being unbalanced).
I used to use the first nr in the middle column for upper corner, and second nr for bottom corner. Example:
Nr 2 will be corner [2,3,5,6]
Nr 5 will be corner [1,2,4,5]
Is [5,6,8,9] a valid corner, or you play the "standard" ones only?
Have you tried to pick the first two corners that repeated?
Yes ahlidap, exactly, there's some subjectiveness in how you pick those corners, what I've been doing is the following:
I wait for 3 full quads to be unhit, 12 total numbers. I never allow overlaps, it has to be 3 full quads with 12 unique numbers that haven't yet arrived. If I accidentally wait too long and there are only 2 full quads, that's fine of course, the only reason I wait for 3 full quads is that it's easier to achieve/start betting.
So no overlapping quads, each has to be a 4 number group. But as you correctly mentioned, what about the number 2, or any central number that could be a part of two different corners?
In that case, you'll see it's rare. Because the corners get eaten up by hits so quickly, that by 10 to 15 spins you won't be worrying much about multiple open corners and having to stress about which ones are the "right' ones. Your options will be limited, and you'll say "ok there are 3 quads left unhit, I'm going to pick these 2 to start the method on" and the bet selection process for those 2 can be whatever you want (lucky numbers, location on the wheel-sectors or neighbors-etc, whatever) so long as you obey the rule that there are just 3x full quads/corners left unhit totalling 12 unique numbers.
So far that's worked, but the sample sizes are small. I've done 500 spins on the trigger itself, plus the 306 spins on the trigger+Robbert's parachute, so while that trigger looks good more data may show it needs to be dialed in more, we'll see. :thumbsup:
As far as going the other direction, which I'm always a big fan of (hot corners being the trigger instead of cold corners), I would say definitely try it.
It can't hurt, you'd have to create a definition for the trigger in terms of what a hot corner is, and is not, maybe any quad with 2 hits within 10 spins or something similar would be the definition of hot, but I would guess over tens of thousands of spins they would wind up roughly similar (betting unhit quads versus 'hot' quads as your trigger).
It's a nice way to play no matter how you play it, the foundation gives you a lot of options. None of them may escape the house edge of course, but they may allow you to dance between the raindrops for longer than other methods for sure.
Quote from: Mako on Nov 14, 01:59 PM 2018I hate them, any system that bets anything "cold", I discard, because I've never had one work under testing conditions with live spins. For this particular one I let it pass, because we're resetting the target "cold" corners every say 25 spins, so the chance of hitting two of them, and those two being the coldest of the cold are probably pretty rare?
Rare happens
You must have read where talk of the missing doz for 5 spins posted by a programmer for casino. That wins in another 11 spins, total 16.
Well bruv got a mate who played this missing doz after 5 spins, betting 4 quads, so if middle column hit big win. He doubled from .25p.
It lost, then another game started and lost, the doz lost over 30 spins twice, so rare? oh yeah it was played on Smartlive
Quote from: nottophammer on Nov 14, 03:13 PM 2018
Rare happens
You must have read where talk of the missing doz for 5 spins posted by a programmer for casino. That wins in another 11 spins, total 16.
Well bruv got a mate who played this missing doz after 5 spins, betting 4 quads, so if middle column hit big win. He doubled from .25p.
It lost, then another game started and lost, the doz lost over 30 spins twice, so rare? oh yeah it was played on Smartlive
I believe it, you play long enough you see everything possible...mostly negative haha...but yes definitely.
Progressions in my mind always have to stop/reset at some point to try and avoid catastrophic BR loses, the problem is that usually that progression stop winds up 'stopping' over time at exactly the house edge.
Only an unlimited progression can exceed expected returns...right up until it hits the table limit and kills you, or an outlier 1 in 1,000,000 event occurs and kills you... :xd: :thumbsup:
Another test, same parameters as my first but with a different spin set.
Now in this group we can see three large drawdowns, they occurred at these spins in the progression: 9, 10, and the largest, 12.
But those aren't the total amount of spins that the 2 corners/quads missed, as I'm not placing chips on them until there are just 2 or 3 remaining unhit quads.
With those blank non-bet spins factored in, as if you had just played Robbert's method without waiting for the unhit quads, the total spins were 24, 21, and 21.
Those numbers are more in line with what Ben showed you, which is that two sets of four numbers can go missing for 45+ spins. That's why you have two choices if you're going to base a play method off of something like this, either the Parachute/grind that Robbert suggested in his first post, or a more aggressive base betting unit, but with a built in stoploss/reset point in the progression as davey mentioned (111/222/44-STOP/RESET).
Now with the other test and this test we only have data on basically 40 overall betting attempts, and in those 40 attempts, 35 of them hit within the first level mentioned above (again, 111/222/44), while 5 of the attempts went longer (up to the 12th spin for the longest one I mentioned above).
If we had used davey's idea, the gross units gained equal +229u, while the losses for the 5 attempts that went beyond the first level total out at -90u.
Which nets out at a positive gain of +139u for the two sessions combined (716 total spins, 40 bets attempted).
We'd need at least 500 betting attempts (approximately 9000 spins worth) of data to really 'see' where the level progression cut-off should be, and if said progression cut-off is exceeding the house edge in terms of net units at that point.
It's worth pursuing, will continue to test a bit each day, I would encourage others to do so also.
Quote from: Mako on Nov 14, 03:27 PM 2018
I believe it, you play long enough you see everything possible...mostly negative haha...but yes definitely.
Progressions in my mind always have to stop/reset at some point to try and avoid catastrophic BR loses, the problem is that usually that progression stop winds up 'stopping' over time at exactly the house edge.
Only an unlimited progression can exceed expected returns...right up until it hits the table limit and kills you, or an outlier 1 in 1,000,000 event occurs and kills you... :xd: :thumbsup:
Well
That’s a very interesting fact !
In roulette there is nothing called event is due in x spins !
Of course many believe that, but it’s clearly a sort of gambler fallacy ..
The question is what can the player do in order to win in this devil game ? What are the left options ?
I guess not much, but hit and run is an option, play the shortest time, hit and run, play one spin every day, only one ! If lost, keep your anger off and come the next day and play again a new spin...
What do you think of this approach ?
Quote from: Roulettebeater on Nov 15, 03:23 AM 2018
Well
That’s a very interesting fact !
In roulette there is nothing called event is due in x spins !
Of course many believe that, but it’s clearly a sort of gambler fallacy ..
The question is what can the player do in order to win in this devil game ? What are the left options ?
I guess not much, but hit and run is an option, play the shortest time, hit and run, play one spin every day, only one ! If lost, keep your anger off and come the next day and play again a new spin...
What do you think of this approach ?
Equilibrium approaches are a foolish waste of time due to the gambler's fallacy. Your only options are...
1.Visual ballistics
2.Wheel bias
3.Exploit sub par rngs
Quote from: Bigbroben on Nov 14, 11:19 AM 2018
Robbert, Mako,
did a little test of 10k runs to check how many spins it would take to hit the coldest 1,2,3,4... corners.
Focusing on 2 corners, longest it took was 46 spins.
Distribution is as follows:
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/11/14/source.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/T7BsB)
Expressed in percentage y hitting in x spins.
Overall, 80% hit within 8 spins, 99% within 24.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/11/14/sourceee3db.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/T7IY9)
Maximum spins to hit, depending on the corners that were hit before, is:
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/11/14/sourceeb186.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/T7LmZ)
Voilà .
:love: ::) ::)
99% within 24....Good!! BigBroben could you bring available the excel for check the averages ?
If I wait 24th spins and start to bet the missing quads or singles numbers Do you think it 's a good idea?
Good system Robbert! Thank you
Another test, same parameters as my last one.
As time passes I'm applying more of the averages that we have access to thanks to notto's near thousand full cycles to base my "entry" point at.
So for instance, lets say I'm at spin 12, there are just 3 unhit corners/quads remaining, which indicates that in those 12 spins there have been 0 or say just 1 repeat in total.
I would hold off entering in that circumstance, because I would rather have at least 15 spins on record anyway, and more importantly, I want to see a few repeats 'catch up' before I start betting anything that's unhit at that time.
And conversely, during this run there were multiple times when there were 5+ repeats within the first 12 spins (including a run of 8 repeats within the first 13 spins haha), and in that case you want to badly jump in and bet because you know unhits are about to go on a run to 'catch up' to were the normal averages are in terms of unhits versus repeats in a given cycle, but you can't yet because there are 5 or 6 fully unhit corners/quads at that time.
In that case I wait until the bare minimum of 3 unhit remaining quads is present to jump in, as soon as possible basically, but never with more than 3 (or 3.5 if one quad is overlapped with another and shares 2 of the numbers) unhit before I actively place bets.
The end result of applying notto's (and to some extent Gordon's) excellent work on cycles to our unhit trigger is that it's lowering the amount of actual betting spins are needed before a hit, and providing a better picture of what you should, and shouldn't do, mechanically.
In this run the largest drawdown at spin 276 won on the 7th bet of the first level of the progression (111/222/44, winning on that first 4). All of the other bets won at spin 4 or less, with an average betting spin total of just 2.7 for this particular spin set.
Too early to draw any conclusions, just fun to speculate on where the 'right' set of rules to engage in betting might wind up after a thousand of these triggers are done.
Hi Mako! I just adore this trend in the graph! Really appreciate
could we have the .dgt for Rextreme software to each test by itself some own spins and share with you all / among us, the results?
Thank You
Gitano
Seems like too much work :yawn:
Quote from: The General on Nov 15, 12:07 PM 2018
Equilibrium approaches are a foolish waste of time due to the gambler's fallacy. Your only options are...
1.Visual ballistics
2.Wheel bias
3.Exploit sub par rngs
@Caleb! - Your "only" options are... blah blah blah :yawn:
*Let's play the ego trip here ::)
'Only'
- I don't think so!
....from my experience - there is a greater chance of profiting from this game playing single numbers instead of the ECs - granted there is a greater variance within the individual numbers (**need decent BR) as opposed to the outside bets but none the less - this is where it can be beaten
* there are systems that can achieve this *and no they are not raw mechanical systems
Nice thread Robert :thumbsup:
Nope. What's missing is "your experience". History, common sense and math say that you are wrong. There aren't any systems that prove your point, and the mpr results are still dismal.
@ the so called general!
Yeah sure!
You and many others are right!
....what would we do
......where would we be
........and what could be
-without history, common sense and math gurus! ........I wonder
*MPR - (no disrespect intended Steve & other forum members) - but it’s for wannbes!
-Best Wishes Caleb-
Quote from: -Katalyst- on Nov 16, 09:10 PM 2018
@ the so called general!
Yeah sure!
You and many others are right!
....what would we do
......where would we be
........and what could be
-without history, common sense and math gurus! ........I wonder
*MPR - (no disrespect intended Steve & other forum members) - but it’s for wannbes!
-Best Wishes Caleb-
You'd be where you are now...losing, lost, and day dreaming.
Study the history of the game pal!
Quote from: The General on Nov 16, 09:27 PM 2018
You'd be where you are now...losing, lost, and day dreaming.
You made your point....seemingly, your point is continuously poo poing threads and make assumptions about peoples success.
No need to poo poo this thread anymore. People can make their minds up now you have made your point.
Lets see if people want to expand on your comments or continue with the thread subject.
Turner,
Reality is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. ::)
Need we say - reality is perspective!
But then again - you know better ::)
Some of what was considered reality 100yrs ago - ain't so today!
Enough said! - moveon your troops - that’s if you still got control of them!
-I AM-
:thumbsup:
Quote from: The General on Nov 17, 07:28 AM 2018
Turner,
Reality is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. ::)
But even the most profound statement in the world, which came first in "The most profound statement in the world awards", dilutes with endless repetition.
Another test today, same conditions as previous tests. This one had a parachute ripcord pull early to preserve the BR, but then recovered.
The winning progression bet spin # for that downdraw was 13, meaning it went to the 13th bet attempt on those two particular corners before it hit. And this was after the natural trigger didn't happen until spin 22...for a total of 35 spins that those two corners had missed.
If we had stopped at the first tier of the progression and just logged the loss (111/222/44-RESET) it would have brought the bankroll to -34u at that point, but the parachute progression I'm using limited the loss to -22u instead. Not a big difference obviously.
For now the final progression is unknown, need a lot more tests obviously, but it's interesting to compare a few options along the way. Personally I'm leaning towards using the limited first tier progression only (111/222/44-RESET) while using a larger base bet of say $10 chips, but we'll see how it goes.
As with the previous tests, very easy to play, enjoyable, and so far, profitable no matter what progression was chosen.
Hi Mako! Can i get dgt? Thanks.
The problem is the waiting time. Full time job and maybe more than that. I was wondering if you can apply this to lines?
100 spins, just selecting 2 quads, lost the progression twice. Still nice!
2 more.. playing just 111/222/44
:)
:twisted:
Ha, good job Robbert. And that's with no trigger at all either...just rolling the 111/222/44...like it.
Looks like even in your worst sets you've never had more than 3x losses in a row of that first tier progression. And the 3x loss streak occurred only once so far?
When I stop screwing around in Red Dead Redemption II I'll run another test with the unhit trigger today. :thumbsup:
Yes. Its all the tests i have done!
This looks gooood!
:xd: :xd:
Well done Robbert!
Do you know how I can do tests with my spins (airball) without using paper and pen ? Do we have some excel file for the purpouse ?
Thanks
if you are playing 2 quads
and lose 111/222/44
then what? reset back to 1?
Yes
Alright, playing for real money 0,10 cents. Started with 100 unit BR.
Quit after +50 or at +-100 spins.
+400 units atm.
Yeah!
O0
+500...
plus 100 units :D
Choosing and random two corners?
Yess, just random.
do you think that choosing the coldest 2 winrate will change?
Doesnt change, its all fallacy.
Can someone please test my system with a set of different rules with RX?
The rules:
You bet any 2 quads with one unit.
Progression:
2 quads: 111/222/44 Lost?
4 splits: 111/222/44 until profit. Lost?
8 numbers: 111/222/44 until profit. Lost?
Start over but the starting bet is 2 units on 2 quads and so on and so on.
update on 2 quads method please
how is it going?
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Nov 30, 06:38 PM 2018
update on 2 quads method please
how is it going?
I need to get back on this, it's tough because the trigger I use for bet selection can't be done in RX, so it's all manual. And tracking unhit quads each bet cycle slows down the testing.
My last variant I was testing was the following:
Bet Selection Trigger: Start at spin 0, track numbers hit until a maximum of 3.5 quads remain that are unhit. Pick two of the 3.5 quads remaining at random (any other bet selection you prefer can be added here to help you choose the 2 quads to bet), and play using a progression of 111/223/45 (-38u for total progression).
If win, start over at spin 0. If lose, do not continue progression, just take the loss and also start over at spin 0.
That variant had done the best for me for my specific version, performing at a profit with a player edge. The sample size is too small to make that claim however, that's just where I was at when I stopped testing.
Extending the trigger out using say just 2 remaining quads each time put the time period between bets at too long a range (and also had you accidentally finding the 'sleeping' quads more often than randomly picking the 2 quads to bet at 3.5 quads unhit remaining). And likewise adding other rules to the trigger to bet didn't help much in terms of the base win rate (like say 3.5 unhit quads + 15 minimum non bet spins to start each cycle, etc).
I've been screwing around playing too much Red Dead Revoultion 2 and World of Tanks, will put some work in again RG. :xd: