(this question is related to myself and has NOTHING to do with any other methods going on at the present moment. PLEASE keep that in mind).
Would you say, testing like THIS counts as successful? >>

I test the SAME method that I play at the casino. Been playing a certain method for years now.  Why should I test something that I actually play? (lol) I have no idea. Maybe boredom?

Anyways, when I get smaller hits (testing) like +$200 or +$280 etc., I quit. I might quit for a few hours or a few days. I have many smaller wins that really add up. My issue (question) is, I insist on everything being the *SAME*....testing and live play. If I only won $200 at the CASINO, I would not simply quit.

So, would it matter to YOU if my (or any ones) testing was just that? Win a couple units.....start again three days later....win a couple units...start again seven days later? I do NOT believe in hit & run and NEVER will BUT does that only apply with actual playing OR can hit & run stats count in regards to practice play? I hope this made some sense?

Ken

In my opinion limiting exposure with hit and run helps. That is just my opinion

When i test a method and i test it a hundred times and a loss is never immediate but takes time then id say hit and run has merit

I think if something is more of a rare event that will happen maybe 5 times every hundred spins then limiting exposure increaes your chances

Isn't that exactly what Proof is doing?
I think it is very valuable. Testing sessions.

I guess I'm asking....should a person be consistent with hit & run. Testing vs. actual play? If a person only tests (and rarely plays for real money) I dont think they are qualified to answer this. Do a 8K buy in and tell me about hit & run then. I do hit & run with testing but I HATE HATE HATE HATE it !!!!!

Ken

You either have winning method or not.

Every losing method will get your bankroll to zero, sooner or later.

If you haven't tested it before real play against enough of triggers then you are not smart.

If you have winning method, then you will always start to be in plus at some point of the session. You will quit because your further staying and play might raise attention from pit bosses or you are simply running out of time to play.

Hit and run is a pure fallacy.

Stopping and starting vs continuous play ?
It's the same thing.
If you're playing a system that needs to be adjusted along the way then that's what you do - but it won't change the math.
"limiting exposure" sounds nice - it doesn't change the math one bit.
It might make you feel good to walk out ahead 10 times and give it back once, instead of
playing one long session and leaving with the same amount as the 11 ones combined...
but for practical value it has no meaning.
Something that happens once per 100 spins could happen 4 times in a row in the first 10 spins as well.
Kenny Rogers (you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em - know when to walk away - know when to run) comes in mind. Laughs.
You can walk away or not - if you're doing something right you'll keep winning, if you're playing
a losing system, you'll loose less - less often by leaving. That's it.

"It might make you feel good to walk out" >>> To walk out. I get it and I understand it but what about testing at HOME, practice money? Hit & run in NO situations?

Ken

Quote from: MrJ on Dec 12, 01:59 PM 2015
(this question is related to myself and has NOTHING to do with any other methods going on at the present moment. PLEASE keep that in mind).
Would you say, testing like THIS counts as successful? >>

I test the SAME method that I play at the casino. Been playing a certain method for years now.  Why should I test something that I actually play? (lol) I have no idea. Maybe boredom?

Anyways, when I get smaller hits (testing) like +$200 or +$280 etc., I quit. I might quit for a few hours or a few days. I have many smaller wins that really add up. My issue (question) is, I insist on everything being the *SAME*....testing and live play. If I only won $200 at the CASINO, I would not simply quit.

So, would it matter to YOU if my (or any ones) testing was just that? Win a couple units.....start again three days later....win a couple units...start again seven days later? I do NOT believe in hit & run and NEVER will BUT does that only apply with actual playing OR can hit & run stats count in regards to practice play? I hope this made some sense?

Ken

I think the proof is in the pudding here......so how many times you've doubled your bankroll + how many spins the system has survived.

So let's take an example:

If I presented a system that I played 40hrs per week for a year (2080hrs = roughly 100,000 spins) while doubling or matching my bankroll once per week (so 52x), we could safely say that it's an effective long-term winning system, as luck can only take you so far.

Perhaps this should be what we're searching for on these boards............just simply numbers strong enough to prove a working system to a reasonable degree.

This continues to be my biggest criticism of the forum; many members claim to have a winning system to some degree or another, and yet, no long-term profit.

Just present your numbers, and they should speak for themselves.   

Quote from: thelaw on Dec 12, 03:25 PM 2015
I think the proof is in the pudding here......so how many times you've doubled your bankroll + how many spins the system has survived.

So let's take an example:

If I presented a system that I played 40hrs per week for a year (2080hrs = roughly 100,000 spins) while doubling or matching my bankroll once per week (so 52x), we could safely say that it's an effective long-term winning system, as luck can only take you so far.

Perhaps this should be what we're searching for on these boards............just simply numbers strong enough to prove a working system to a reasonable degree.

This continues to be my biggest criticism of the forum; many members claim to have a winning system to some degree or another, and yet, no long-term profit.

Just present your numbers, and they should speak for themselves.   

Presenting numbers isn't good enough. Evidentally