Hit and Run vs Mathematical Probability

[Bazeegar]

.

it was not intended as a personal assault, rather as my evaluation of your understanding the roulette nature. Sorry if I sounded rude.

Hi Iggiv

I have studied roulette and I actually play in land-based casinos. I may not be as regular in the casino as you, but definitely I am not new or naive. I have studied roulette enough to form opinion about certain things and I agree to what Skakus stated. Also, I am entitled to express my opinion on this board.

Though I do not have to prove myself, I am attaching my betting history at a land-based casino for your perusal so that you will know that I am not talking fibs. This was roulette - even chance. I have stopped playing roulette as I play even chance and found that it is better to play Baccarat at -1.06% house edge than roulette at -2.70%. The play is for approximately 6 months and I do trend/variance betting. It's all flat betting. Had I played Baccarat the results would have been better as there were 39 zeros wherein I lost.

In the legend PB means placed bets. I placed ~ 1550 bets and was ~ +57 units. Till now, I atrribute these results to luck as my Z score is less than 3. If I could get z score consistently above 3 (>1000 bets) then I will consider that my betting strategy is working.

I will request the starter of this thread to remove this post once iggiv has read this so that the thread remains relevant and, iggiv, nothing personal about what I have written.

Bazee

[Skakus]

I won't do it sorry...

Pity, it could have been very constructive and someone might have learned something.

@ bazeegar,

Your Z score might not be huge, but it does appear to be steadily going up, which is good.

[iggiv]

Bazeer and Skakus, sorry again if i made it look like i was against  expressing your opinions or something like that.

and i don't claim myself to be a super roulette hero, blah-blah-blah. I am just saying things which are commonly aknowledged in a roulette world. no more than this.

what u r guys saying is like either roulette is beatable by the same method on a long run or
that it doesn't matter how -- but u don't stand a chance, be it short runs or long run.
Bazeer, individual case could  of course make it look like u r right. i have never said it is impossible at all that u won't win on  longer runs. u can be lucky. (or u can have some super method, which most don't know about).

i am talking what typically happens to roulette on a long run with well know methods. Sorry if i made myself looking arrogant or superior or something like this. But this is a common sense and common knowledge and u try to argue this.

well, we made our points, so here we go.

[Johnlegend]

THanks John for your response. Your methods rely on hit and run it seems, so I assume you're an advocate- your results seem testament to the fact. I thought I'd start this thread to provide a place for the dissenters in your method posts but they seem to be very absent at the mo....

Woods I suppose they do. The only thing I can tell you with absolute certainty, is my OVERALL STRIKERATE is higher a lot HIGHER playing shorter broken up sessions. As opposed to long drawn out ones.

It comes down to WHEN YOU ENTER THE CYCLE. Example. I played Scoobies excellent DIVIDE AND CONQUER last week in a land casino. When I commenced playing I won the first game. Then lost the second game. Now I know from the 800 games I had already played. This is when a nice winning streak is likely to occur. So instead of snatching a couple of wins and recouping my 7 point loss. I played the next three games at a higher level. Then dropped down to level one and played on.


After winning 22 times in a row I quit, as the longest winning streak I have in my records is 26. A loss finally occurred in game 25. I wasn't there. Ended play for the night with some tidy profit. You have to know what is LIKELY to occur with your method, and this can only happen through testing it. With my PATTERN BREAKER concept. I have won 112 times in a row by playing short sessions. Whenever I have recorded 500 plus consecutive spins, no winning streak has gone beyond 24 in a row. So there you go.

What never ceases to amaze me is how the maths boys never talk about randoms weaknesses. They go on and on about methods that fall flat against the layout. While avoiding the real crux of the argument. PATIENCE is the lacking ingredient of success in this game. A player must first defeat their own lack of this precious attribute before they can defeat this game. When I first began playing roulette I lost just like most do because I neither had the methods nor the patience to do anything but lose.

15 years later that is a distant memory, and I am trying to help others reach a similar level. But They have to find it in themselves to move forward. Whenever I have encountered a negative player who has sided with the maths fraternity over Roulettes supposed invincibility. I find the same human blueprint. A person of above average intelligence who has fallen for the lie because they themselves couldnt marry a strong method with the necessary patience to be successful longterm.

So instead of risking their ego and admitting they missed something/lacked something. Its easier to go with the flow and perpetuate the flawed myth. Right now I have a maths lecturer bowing to MATRIX VERTICAL 5. He simply cannot explain why it works, but he has conceded it WORKS. AND SO WILL ANYOTHER WORSHIPPER OF THE NUMBERS ONCE THEY LEAVE THEIR FRAGILE EGO at home and see it for themselves.

So hit and run overall has brought me great success, and I advocate it married to a method that is already STRONG. The winning streaks you enjoy can be RIDICULOUS. I yet to update my MATRIX VERTICAL 5 results but they are just maintaining solid success. MATRIX VERTICAL 5 is a n achilles heel for roulette it really is.

[iggiv]

"The only thing I can tell you with absolute certainty, is my OVERALL STRIKERATE is higher a lot HIGHER playing shorter broken up sessions. As opposed to long drawn out ones."

that's what most of pros playing "mechanical" methods know

[woods101]

Hi John,

thanks for your detailed response. Wise words. Thank you.
Iggiv, I take it that you are an advocate of John's words above then?

Woods

[iggiv]

Hi John,

thanks for your detailed response. Wise words. Thank you.
Iggiv, I take it that you are an advocate of John's words above then?

Woods

yes, 100%.

one successful player i know even put it that way: "a real pro  has always one of his eyes looking at the door". something like that. this is very important in gambling -- to quit before u get in trouble.

but VB and bias guys are a total different story as much as i know. For them it is "more you play -- more u win".

[crownroyal]

I have to agree with the hit and run guys. The longer you play the more vulnerable you become to the house edge. In my opinion the pay outs combined with zero and double zero will kill even the best strategy in the long run. Whenever I’m ahead by a few units, I run like hell before those little green monsters can catch me.

[MrJ]

"Whenever I’m ahead by a few units, I run like hell before those little green monsters can catch me" >>> Thats fine but when is it 'okay' to go back and play that method again? How many hours LATER is a good rule?

Ken

[iggiv]

"Whenever I’m ahead by a few units, I run like hell before those little green monsters can catch me" >>> that's fine but when is it 'okay' to go back and play that method again? How many hours LATER is a good rule?

Ken

this is all individual, every method is different

[crownroyal]

"Whenever I’m ahead by a few units, I run like hell before those little green monsters can catch me" >>> that's fine but when is it 'okay' to go back and play that method again? How many hours LATER is a good rule?

Ken

I’ll wait 5 minutes and then go back. Just for the record, I play mostly RNG because the table minimums are too high. A hit and run strategy works the best for me because I don’t have the bankroll to support long term sessions. The inevitable draw down would wipe me out. My sessions end with either a small profit or a small loss.

[Johnlegend]

yes, 100%.

one successful player I know even put it that way: "a real pro  has always one of his eyes looking at the door". something like that. this is very important in gambling -- to quit before you get in trouble.

but VB and bias guys are a total different story as much as I know. For them it is "more you play -- more you win".

Exactly prevention is better than cure. I understand the temptation to outstay your welcome hoping luck is on your side, but IT ISNT LIKELY TO BE. If you already know the average strikerate of your method, you know with smart controlled play you will show a profit. And lots of little pockets of profit add up

Overtime you will increase the unit value of each win. One win of ten units is far more achievable than 10 wins of one unit. Keep these things in mind less really is more longterm.

[esoito]

A few more posts here would be helpful!

link:://rouletteforum.cc/roulette-and-gambling-framework/consistently-profitable-hit%27n%27run-strategies-and-methods/

[woods101]

Ok. Thanks to everyone for their input on this topic so far. This post was originally created as a response to certain maths heads jumping all over one of JLs methods when
first posted a while back. It's now turning into an interesting debate and source of worthwhile information. I will always take note of advice given by those that have put a lot of time, practice, experience and not to mention, money into the exploration of randomness. I don't doubt that each persons results are testament to the importance of hit and run, despite the fact that it contradicts mathematical odds. My own limiited testing shows this to be the case. This begs me to ask this question, why do you guys think this is? Do you have a personal analogy that would describe why this is the case or is just an accepted phenomenon and not questioned?

Thanks again to all so far.
Woods

p.s @ esoito - why not take a look at my 'misery' post under notepad section as a possible contender. Chrisbis takes it and runs with it. Both provide short term positives.

[esoito]

Yep. Looked at that.

What do others think? A possible contender?