Coding request in exchange of 1 month unlimited use of the tool!

[Bayes]

Ah, sorry Richard, these are the correct stats:

Gap   Frequency
---------------
1      17519
2      11919
3       8023
4       5583
5       3783
6       2376
7       1707
8       1147
9        751
10        525
11        400
12        227
13        154
14        122
15         78
16         65
17         27
18         22
19         13
20         15
21         11
22          5
23          3
24          2
25          2
26          1
27          1

I checked the last few (from 21 - 27) and they are all correct.

[Richard]

Bayes,

Previously you showed 0  54472 and your latest list of gaps starts at 1?

I have checked again and when I put in find +27 it cannot find it?

I don't want to incur additional work on your program as I am very pleased that you
have written the program, but it is essential that I have accurate info on the number of
gaps, so I can decide on the next steps to take to improve on the current method.

Many Thanks
Richard

[Bayes]

Yes, I should have explained the difference in the way the stats are generated - it amounts to the same. Instead of marking a win with a zero, it now gets a +1, like this:

23 M
1 L
25 H  3D^*  1D  2D   +1
------------------------
4 M
16 H
17 H  1D^  1D      n/b
------------------------
19 L
15 M
17 H  3D^  1D  2D*   +2
------------------------
15 M
3 L
12 L  3D  1D*  2D^   +3
------------------------
29 L
24 M
34 H  3D*  1D^  2D   +4
------------------------
24 M
36 H
5 M  1D^*  2D  3D   +1
------------------------
32 M
16 H
4 M  1D^*  1D      n/b
------------------------
23 M
12 L
34 H  3D^*  1D  2D   +1
------------------------
32 M
15 M
22 M
32 M
18 H
11 L  1D^*  3D  2D   +1
------------------------

So instead of the 'gap length' you could think of it in terms of 'the number of spins until  the next hit', which means that previously where there was a gap length of 0, there must now be at least 1 (because you can't have 0 bets until the next hit).

Next Hit      Frequency
---------------------
1          17519
2          11919
3           8023
4           5583
5           3783
6           2376
7           1707
8           1147
9            751
10            525
11            400
12            227
13            154
14            122
15             78
16             65
17             27
18             22
19             13
20             15
21             11
22              5
23              3
24              2
25              2
26              1
27              1
28              0
29              0
30              0

I made this change because the way I was marking the hits and misses (using a zero for win) messed up the stats calculations - my fault for being careless. The amended results are attached. Note that the actual outcomes (results) are identical, it's only the way wins and losses are recorded and the stats which are different.

I've checked the numbers and there were no discrepancies, at least from 21 - 27.

I can state that this is my final, definitive word on the subject!  

[Richard]

Bayes,

Ok, thanks at first I didn't get it, now the penny has dropt

[Richard]

Hi Bayes & All Members,

Unfortunately I won't have time until next year to do further work on this Dozen project.

It has however unexpectedly produced some ideas for what I call a "Super Complex" system,
which I am currently testing at the casino's. It has components of the Dozen project and
the 4Selecta system and out of all the systems I have created is the most amazing system.

At the moment I am waiting for the first loss, which of course has to appear at some point,
but unlike all previous systems I have designed has not appeared as yet

Regards
Richard

[VLS]

Dear Richard,

Congrats on your new "Super Complex" system.

May you always be missing the appearance of that elusive loss 

Cheers!