Let s see if some members can help the others to get out of the dark

[iggiv]

Bayes, u admit that different bet selections help but deny that hit-n-run helps. that's a contradiction.
because different bet selections are kind of hit-n-run. u stop playing one method and start another.
it does not matter how u call it but it's related.

Woods is right. if u state that a certain method may work for long long hours with the same success rate...that's a clear gambler fallacy. such a thing does not exist in nature. We are not talking VB or biased wheels now of course.

on another hand if u use different bet selections for short periods of time, u may win -- call it luck or whatever.

[Bayes]

Bayes, u admit that different bet selections help but deny that hit-n-run helps. that's a contradiction.
because different bet selections are kind of hit-n-run. u stop playing one method and start another.
it does not matter how u call it but it's related.

iggiv, well, that's why I wanted to find a definition of hit & run that we agree on, so that it can be tested.

What I understand by it is that using a system (same bet selection over all spins) works better if you skip spins (short sessions) even if you don't care what spins are skipped. Just the fact of skipping spins is enough.

If there is a REASON for your entry and exit points (stop wins and losses) then it's not hit & run. Others may disagree on the definition.

Woods is right. if u state that a certain method may work for long long hours with the same success rate...that's a clear gambler fallacy. such a thing does not exist in nature. We are not talking VB or biased wheels now of course.

on another hand if u use different bet selections for short periods of time, u may win -- call it luck or whatever.

The idea of "long hours" is a red herring. What's important is the NUMBER of spins played, don't you agree? I agree that if you play more spins you're more likely to hit a sequence from hell, but why does it matter if you skip spins if the total number  of spins played is the same?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

[woods101]

I guess it all starts with the question-

What exactly is hit and run?

........
          link:://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=7547.0

[Chrisbis]

Do U think my Bet Selection looks big in these 200 Spins? 


[attachimg=]

Will this do as a Classic example of Hit, Hit, Hit and Run to make the excel file?
(thank U David, for the spins/result)

Its got plenty of those Hits in it, though not many Loses.

Then again, we are discussing :- Hit & Run, and not its Arch Enemy- Lose & Cry!!

[XXVV]

I think the reason why hit & run might seem plausible to some is because of:

1) the house edge.
2) deviation.

It's true that the longer you play, the more the house edge nibbles away at your profits. It's also true that if you keep playing the same system, sooner or later you will hit a really bad downturn. The hit & run brigade think the solution is to keep sessions short, but they forget that every short session contributes to a long session. X number of spins is no different whether you break it up into 10 sessions of X/10 or play the whole X spins in one go If you knew when to end your session it would mean you have a bet selection which gives you an advantage, in that case hit & run isn't necessary - you just wait for the next opportunity.

Thank you Roulette Explorer for introducing this much debated ( and misunderstood) subject and Bayes for providing such lucid explanations and definitions.


May I suggest that Hit and Run methodology should be avoided as it is flawed.


Those current practitioners who currently credit their good fortune through this approach however, may actually be using other (successful and valid) methods.


As you say, when to end a session is critical, and I would suggest the two extremes might be in the worst case a stop-loss where the towel is thrown into the roulette 'ring' temporarily at least, and (on the hopefully most common event) a suitable profit has been obtained. Positioning of the stop-loss, whether in the financial markets or in the roulette banking business is essential.


Through heuristics a bet with its unique characteristics may be engineered and after substantial testing via live spin results ( and a substantial sample means a suitable statistical sample) a net result can be observed. Through this work though various cycles of bet performance will be observed - short, medium and longer where there may be valid observations made for relatively optimum return ( both profit and loss variables). By timing exits to suit this will assist more favourable returns. In other words you know the typical peaks and troughs of the bet cycles.


What may influence the end result more though may not only be the judicious timing of the exit but the timing of the entry.


Some bets enable ( bet selection is critical and that is a subject in its own right), peering through the mists of random behaviour, a glimpse of the Ecart/Equilibre cycles which are well understood in European Roulette circles.


These may be able to be measured ( and one way I use is a moving average based on result outcomes which transform spin outcomes to some other measurable return) and in many instances cyclic behaviour may be observed. Please note the qualifications inserted here.


Thus timing of entry and exit can be improved with the results able to be objectively tested by random stop/ start ( ie hit and run) or reasoned interventions.


These work sometimes.


However if the net improvement in results is relatively consistent and exceeds (say) a +10% improvement overall based on large samples, then surely that is a step forward. As long as you are consistently making profits that is good.


Even though the bet may be a zero sum, break even, type deal, the opportunities are still available
to more consistently make profit.


If you have a bet that can demonstrate a consistent edge, despite the Ecart cycle overlaid, then all the better. But that's another debate and I suspect some of the participants here have their minds already firmly set on that (non ?)possibility (LoL).

[woods101]

....By timing exits to suit this will assist more favourable returns. In other words you know the typical peaks and troughs of the bet cycles....

You HAVE to know this. XXVV- You've hit the nail on the head! You have to know your system or else all other observations are fruitless. You have to know how long the avg and extreme lengths of a wait for your system to work. If you play a waiting game on the dozens for example then you HAVE to know that you could wait for 25+ spins for a dozen to show in extreme cases. if you never knew this and you play dozens then you will more than likely lose  very big at some point!
Know your system inside out. This is the claim JL makes with each of his that is something that seems to be passed by until now.
There are cycles within randomness, absolutely, and if your system capitilises on certain requirements then over time you will recognize them. This is the key.
What this is reflective of is exit point and stop/loss. How this relates to hit and run? Well with hit and run you exit when the cycles of randomness are immediately against you. If they are in your favour then you surf the waves for a bit and then get out the water.

Hang ten.
Woods

[XXVV]

By the way, and I have given this some thought, it is necessary to comment upon the humourously flawed nature of the title of this thread to which, in spite of the overtone, I did reply as the general subject interests me.


Implicit in the title is the hint that there are some members who are not 'in the dark' and that they may 'help' the 'others'.


We are not dealing with a subject which is polarised into black or white, right or wrong, light or dark, the saved and the damned, and in fact in dealing with matters random, it pays to be extremely modest and if possible prepared for just about anything.


My own attitudes have shifted a lot in twelve months and although there are methods I use which sometimes work, in all honesty there are many times when it is very difficult. Ways have been found by much hard work to soften or mitigate the difficulties of loss or exposed risk, and enhance
the opportunities to win, and when winning to accentuate those events. I have changed my mind and my views several times.


The exponents of hit and run, at best, are applying heuristic methods that over large samples do work, and much of that has to do with timing and reading of a game which skill comes through experience. We agree that if there were no other skills involved the hit and run approach alone is an empty and flawed mistake.


Instead, it is a fuzzy business and the shades of grey may not appeal to some minds and disciplines/training/backgrounds. However this fuzzy logic is increasingly a way forward that deals with realities that are far more complex than many have previously admitted.


We are fortunate in the B+M casinos that the variables are kept relatively fixed and known. We are not in the bigger wider world. There certainly is no need however to expose yourself to extra risk such as double zero or RNG or internet live streaming unless your methodology is very very simple and your aims very very modest.


Please accept that any offerings from myself are qualified ( in the fullest sense) and that the suggestions offered are merely acting as red flags and a lamp in fog that can vary from fine mist to pea soup.


Yes, the way forward is to know your bets, strengths and weaknesses, tune your timing,and do your best with dignity and modesty - no fanfares.

[Chrisbis]

I don't mind pea soup, as long as the bread is hot, and the spread is REAL butter.

Don't like imitations! 

There are so many "Imitators" on the forum these days. 

[woods101]

@XXVV


Absolutely everything you just said!


@Chrisbis


Absolutely on the real butter. It's like when you're given 'light' mayo - IT'S JUST NOT MAYO!

[hanshuckebein]

after following this topic I wonder if the question "does hit and run work in the long run?" is a really a question of wether you believe in the phenomena of a personal permanence.

those who say it works seem to somehow deny the existence of personal permanences.
and those who say it doesn't work do somehow rely on the existence of personal permanences. 

what do I think about it? I must admit I haven't come to a final conclusion, yet.

cheers

hans

[speed]

"does hit and run work in the long run?"

if u have constant long run winning system hit and run will work otherwise, not.

[woods101]

"if You have constant long run winning system hit and run will work otherwise, not."

I absolutely love this point that gets put forward repeatedly all the time.
It is always presented by a type of person that says that "hit an run won't make a difference because of maths. Mathematically it is the same as playing continuously".
So quite simply the maths says it is a myth, unless....you have a consistently winning system that will win in 'the long run' in which case hit and run will work?!?

So....the thinking must be something like this:

"I as a roulette player who applies maths to try to create a system with which to beat roulette which is mathematically proven to be impossible to beat (unless you have the Holy Grail) will continue to state that something else that is impossible to be true ('hit and run') can only be true if you apply the impossible state of a Holy Grail, which I will continue to try to find even though it is mathematically impossible!" (?!?!)

Which means:

My impossiblility is only ever allowed to be true if your impossiblity is allowed to be true first!

This is fine except I think that there is a certain arrogance/ignorance ratio to claim one thing doesn't exist whilst searching for the other.

If you belief that a Holy Grail doesn't exist and hit and run doesn't work either, no worries I have no beef with ya- have a good laugh at all of us! A bit of advice though -you might consider that fact that this site is a complete waste of your time then or your a VB player. If you're not, then go and do something worthwhile you crazy fool!

But.....if you spend hours of your time trying to fashion a way to beat the hallowed game of roulette with maths and you KNOW it is a negative outcome game, then you'd be wise to look within before you tell someone else their ideas are ridiculous, else you might just be painting yourself as a crazy fool also!

Go figure (mathematically speaking).

Woods

[woods101]

@  hanshuckebein


I think you can work to personal permanences as well as those of a singular wheel, say.

[speed]

@ woods101

What I think I have explained on reply # 33..
And what u think?! You write a lot of text, but few answers, ok tell me is this your teory;
we have losing system, but we can turn him in winning on long run with hit and run?
Pl dont write whole story only answer on this question ;)

[woods101]

Hi Speed,

I guess by your reply #33 that makes you a physics player so you may enjoy laughing at all of us! 

My perspective is illustrated in my past posts also, but my point above is that it is contradictory for a system player to claim a point of view is wrong because the maths doesn't work, when they themselves are investing time and effort to beat a mathematically negative outcome game. Does this make them a masochist? I don't know. I'm just happy to throw the maths back at them and see if they wear it. 

The title of this thread, as an example (as XXVV politely pointed out), is something of an oxymoron:

Hit and run doesn't work mathematically, and let's try to beat the game over 1,000,000 spins er...mathematically.

Kinda doesn't make sense.

Woods (a believer in hit and run theory who does not have ANY issue at all with how anyone else wants to play the game of roulette, be it maths, VB or black magic voodoo but will happily defend his...sometimes!).