Hector's Grail.

[Twisteruk]

I would love to see this in action.
Maybe if your willing and Bayes is willing you could do a Challenge like JL has done, just so we can experience Flat Betting to Profit ?
That would be so awesome !

Fancy it ??

[ll l ll l lll ll]

Fancy it ??

If the numbers are verified from a real wheel, not RNG.  I'll think about it.

If anyone truly wants to learn to do this Flat betting, study this: link:://anomaly.org/ThinAir/charactr.html

3.6 Runs
"One interesting characteristic of a sequence of numbers concerns runs. When each successive number in a subsequence is larger than the previous number, we have a run up. When each successive number in a subsequence is smaller than the previous number, we have a run down. In a good random sequence we would expect the number of runs up to be pretty close to the number of runs down. We would also expect that longer runs would be less likely than shorter runs."

Notice they say a "good random sequence."  Most sequences are "good random sequences," that is the nature of random and that is random behaving the way it should.  Anything else can be taken advantage of when the tide is turning, you have to anticipate it and strike when the time is right.  With practice and experience, this is not blind guessing, this is a skill and reading randomness becomes possible.

[Twisteruk]

If the numbers are verified from a real wheel, not RNG.  I'll think about it.

Bayes, do you have the time and inclination to set this up like you did for JL ??

[Bayes]

go here: link:://:.gametheory.net/mike/applets/random/random.html
This tool is what helped me read and practice reading random.  See if you can get your sample to be 'random' by the applet's definition on your first try.  I now get 'random' all the time.

Thanks for the link, very interesting. I was meaning to post one of those runs tests in the math section some time ago, but forgot about it. It would be interesting to run some spins through it (and maybe the other 2 tests on the site) to see if there's any difference between RNG and actuals. The paradoxical thing about randomness is that it's necessary for it to be non-random at times. Not random!!! comes up quite often in that applet, but it must be the exception rather than the rule, it'll be interesting to do some research on this too.

There are quite a few things you can look out for in a stream of binary data, other than the obvious streaks vs singles. This topic came up recently in another thread. e.g. there should be as many isolated streaks (a streak of any length with at least one chop either side of it) as series of streaks. You can also examine each side independently of the other, so instead of R/B being one stream of data, it's actually 3.

I'm happy to give you the software for a test, if you're up for it. But I'll have to think of where to get the actuals, seeing as you don't want RNG. This being the case, have you actually tried doing what you do on RNG? or is it just prejudice that you don't want to play against it? 

[ll l ll l lll ll]

Thanks for the link, very interesting. I was meaning to post one of those runs tests in the math section some time ago, but forgot about it. It would be interesting to run some spins through it (and maybe the other 2 tests on the site) to see if there's any difference between RNG and actuals. The paradoxical thing about randomness is that it's necessary for it to be non-random at times. Not random!!! comes up quite often in that applet, but it must be the exception rather than the rule, it'll be interesting to do some research on this too.

There are quite a few things you can look out for in a stream of binary data, other than the obvious streaks vs singles. This topic came up recently in another thread. e.g. there should be as many isolated streaks (a streak of any length with at least one chop either side of it) as series of streaks. You can also examine each side independently of the other, so instead of R/B being one stream of data, it's actually 3.

I'm happy to give you the software for a test, if you're up for it. But I'll have to think of where to get the actuals, seeing as you don't want RNG. This being the case, have you actually tried doing what you do on RNG? or is it just prejudice that you don't want to play against it? 

It can get very complex if you make it complex, I prefer to keep it as simple as possible.  I mostly pay attention to series in a typical random stream.
I prefer real spins from a real wheel, I've tried doing what I do on RNG and I end up running in place, breaking even alot of the time.  I seem to have more success on real actual spins for some reason.

[Tomla021]

bar code
are you counting the the way in which the numbers are going up or down? betting the reverse. I think some baccarat systems are based on this

[ll l ll l lll ll]

bar code
are you counting the the way in which the numbers are going up or down? betting the reverse. I think some baccarat systems are based on this

Actually No.  But it's something to consider and pay attention to.  Just another tool that can be used.

[Tomla021]

ahh one of may factors--ok Got ya

[donik7777]

Around 1920 the French roulette-researcher Henry Chateau analysed the relationship of singles and series for the even money chances in 56,534 ideal-spins and came to following results

[donik7777]

     21 X  35 X   9 X  20 X   7 X  1 X  31 X   18 X  19 X  8 X   26 X   3 X  2 X   17 X   32 X  26 X   7 X  4 X   11 X   34 X  26 X   29 X   34 XDid you win here barcode?

[Bayes]

I prefer real spins from a real wheel, I've tried doing what I do on RNG and I end up running in place, breaking even a lot of the time.  I seem to have more success on real actual spins for some reason.

That's what Spike says. Have you tried playing the spins from random.org? Anyway, you might want to see how you get on with my RNG. You can download it from the JL Challenge thread (reply #146).

[Bayes]

By the way, sorry George that this thread seems to have been hijacked. Great story.

[ll l ll l lll ll]

     21 X  35 X   9 X  20 X   7 X  1 X  31 X   18 X  19 X  8 X   26 X   3 X  2 X   17 X   32 X  26 X   7 X  4 X   11 X   34 X  26 X   29 X   34 XDid you win here barcode?

Not sure what your asking here?  My bet is not based on a trigger, it's not static, it's never the same, it's always changing.  Every situation is different.

[ll l ll l lll ll]

Around 1920 the French roulette-researcher Henry Chateau analysed the relationship of singles and series for the even money chances in 56,534 ideal-spins and came to following results

Yes and the same can be said for a short sample of 15 spins as well.  On average you will see similar statistics.  You will see more 1's than 2's, more 2's than 3's, etc.....  This is how random behaves and you can't change it, that's how it can be exploited.
If I see 15 spins of nothing but 1's and a few 2's, I KNOW that it cannot continue forever, probability will not allow it.  Eventually the 3's and 4's and 5's are coming, and sooner rather than later.

[Twisteruk]

I'm happy to give you the software for a test, if you're up for it. But I'll have to think of where to get the actuals, seeing as you don't want RNG. This being the case, have you actually tried doing what you do on RNG? or is it just prejudice that you don't want to play against it? 

Awesome ! Sounds like Game On !!