• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

WARNING: Forums often contain bad advice & systems that aren't properly tested. Do NOT believe everything. Read these links: The Facts About What Works & Why | How To Proplerly Test Systems | The Top 5 Proven Systems | Best Honest Online Casinos

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

Baccarat Blog

Started by wiggy, Aug 04, 04:08 PM 2018

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wiggy

The following in order are....

PPP
PPB
PBB
PBP

"You can lead a human to intelligence, but you can't make him think''

ozon

The concept of this EC bet selection is very good because it is mechanical and certainly has an edge.
But he does not have the edge to beat the baccarat house edge playing flat.

You will need something more, or some extra concept for the bet selection.
Or very good MM
Some time ago I carried out tests and a delicate edge for the EC gave a short positive progression, but it would not work, becouse  banker side  pay  less.

MM 4 step positive progression.
10
22
49
110

Kan@am@

Quote from: wiggy on Aug 05, 05:24 AM 2018
Kan@am@,

For a better idea, watch the second video in the opening post and then read reply 25.

link:s://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/use-mathstatistics-to-beat-roulettebaccarat-part-2/

cheers

An interesting concept,but looks like just not enough power for any significant advantage unless someone run on very choppy situation.

wiggy

Quote from: ozon on Aug 05, 12:55 PM 2018

You will need something more, or some extra concept for the bet selection.
Or very good MM


I think you are right Ozon. Author Philip Koetsch wrote an excellent book titled 'conquer the casinos' where he did some very in-depth computer analysis of different types of MM (both positive and negative) and came up with some interesting conclusions.
There are some good charts in his book comparing different MM strategies and their effectiveness. I am going to try his favourite (G3M1) against the idea above to see how it fares. G3M1 is allowing a winning bet to ride 3 times and betting 2 chips after losing any 1 chip bet.

Examples for that would be as follows....

1 w
2 w
4 l
2 w    You have won a unit here.

1 l
2 l   lost 3 units here, start again.

1 l
2 w  won a unit here, start again.

1 w
2 w
4 w  won 7 units here, start again.



His book shows the average chips you can expect to win with a 100 unit bankroll using the different MM strategies and importantly something he calls reversals which tells you roughly how many times you can expect to go in the red and back into the black over a session.
"You can lead a human to intelligence, but you can't make him think''

ozon

Exactly.
If we combine this bet selection, with something that will raise the edge in a small degree, we will have a very strong strategy.

wiggy

An example of a quick game I just recorded using the G3M1 with the triplets strategy.

cheers
"You can lead a human to intelligence, but you can't make him think''

Nickmsi

Hi Kan@am@

Yes, you are correct, the EDGE created by the Triplets is very small indeed, but an EDGE none the less.

Have you or anyone previously seen a real honest to goodness mathematical EDGE in NZ Roulette, Baccarat or Craps or any other binary game?

Probably not and neither did I, until now.

What I am exploring is my theory of Group of Spins that create a DEPENDENCY rather than the INDEPENDENT single spin theory.

You can create a DEPENDENCY with a Group of 2 Spins (Doublets), a Group of 3 Spins (Triplets) or a Group of 9 Spins (VDW).

This DEPENDENCY created by the Group of Spins is the only way that I have found in the last 10 years that creates a truly mathematical EDGE.

So the question becomes would you rather continue to test systems that have a built in EDGE for the Casino (Single Spin Independence) or would you rather develop systems that have a built in EDGE for the player?

Although the EDGE is small you can still capitalize on it with smart progressions or by combining several other Group of Spins to run together or separately, etc.

In my opinion, we should be using the Group of Spins theory as a foundation for developing winning systems.

Cheers
Nick
Don't give up . . . . .Don't ever give up.

wiggy

Hello Nickmsi,

The boss has arrived!  :thumbsup:
"You can lead a human to intelligence, but you can't make him think''

Mako

Nick I've been following your "Math" posts on the other board, great job, keep up the good work and thanks for the effort.

RouletteGhost

nick is a horse! good man

this peaks my interest because it is actual math

obviously the better choice is baccarat due to the lower house edge with no zeros

but the lower payout on banker bites the arse
the key to winning with systems : play for a statistically irrelevant number of spins

link:[url="s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmJKY59NX8o"]s://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmJKY59NX8o[/url]

junscissorhands

The grouping of spins is not something  new, the old win3m or constant winning bet is based on groups of spins. This all boils down to cluster analysis. But sadly it doesn't give any edge, I've tested doublets and triplets on all ec's, doz and col. It's all the same losing against the 2.7 HE.
Don't be so naive.

wiggy

Scissorhands, Some people will look at Nick's stuff and other non-random concepts (not necessarily VdW or cycles) and find what they are looking for.....others will look and find nothing (like yourself) and come to the conclusion that It makes no difference.
The 'HG' if you want to call it that is out there and anybody who has it isn't in a desperate need unlike some others on here to reveal all. 
"You can lead a human to intelligence, but you can't make him think''

Nickmsi

Hi Junscissorshands

Yes, I used to think that way too until a recent mathematical study proved otherwise.

Both Lisa Goldberg, PHD UC  Berkeley and Joshua Miller and Adam Sanjurjo in their dissertation attached “Surprised by the Gambler's and Hot Hand Fallacies? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers”  have concluded:

“We prove that in a finite sequence of data that is generated by repeated realizations of a binary i.i.d. random variable, the expected proportion of successes, on those realizations that immediately follow a streak of successes, is strictly less than the underlying probability of success.”

This means that a “finite sequence of data” is a Group of 3 Spins/hands.

“binary random variables” is Red or Black, Banker or Player, Pass or Don’t Pass.

“immediately follow a streak of successes” is Red following Red, Player following Player etc.

“is strictly less than the underlying probability of success” is the bias or EDGE.

That’s the math of it.

Cheers
Nick
Don't give up . . . . .Don't ever give up.

junscissorhands

I know it was merely my opinion/observation and tests, nonetheless very good effort and always interesting subject.

Also look up hans' thread about the Linus sequence it might help some of you guys even more. Good food for thought.
Don't be so naive.

maestro

QuoteScissorhands, Some people will look at Nick's stuff and other non-random concepts (not necessarily VdW or cycles) and find what they are looking for.....others will look and find nothing (like yourself) and come to the conclusion that It makes no difference.
The 'HG' if you want to call it that is out there and anybody who has it isn't in a desperate need unlike some others on here to reveal all.

good one
Law of the sixth...<when you play roulette there will always be a moron tells you that you will lose to the house edge>

-