ROLLING SPLITS TWO UNCLES WAY-win as much as you want.

[F_LAT_INO]

---Show us how it would lose in cycle of 5,first 115 spins...if it didn't in cycle of
   9 it CAN NOT lose in cycle of 5

--Well since you haven't I'm going to show you that you are bla-blabing without
  any credo.......here is attached your alleged losing 115 spins of about 900 un.
  Aren't you ashamed of yourself for these empty allegations.

----Have a look attach.of your numbers....115 spins,in cycle of 5 spins.

[soggett]

If I may ask Flat, why cycles of 5? how did you come up with this?
and if 5 works better than 8 should we then try it with 4 or 3? (assuming lesser is better offcourse)
or does it not matter at all if we use 3,4,5,8,15... ?

[F_LAT_INO]

If I may ask Flat, why cycles of 5? how did you come up with this?
and if 5 works better than 8 should we then try it with 4 or 3? (assuming lesser is better offcourse)
or does it not matter at all if we use 3,4,5,8,15... ?

--Those are Wundarosa numbers/where he claims,few posts above that lost c/c 900 /then I
checked it up with cycle of 9 /won/-and in next post he said he meant cycle of 5,so I checked
it with cycle of 5 same numbers/won/---that's way both cycles here...by the way if one cycle wins,the other will also.

[F_LAT_INO]

--Back to your question sogget;
  It wouldn't be same playing 2,3,4 and so......it depends on method.
  For instance the smaller sample less,largest more....hope you got it.

[amk]

Thanks again for everything Flatino,


I have gained a lot of insight from your recent posts. It has made me ponder our approach to the game. Most of us test against vast amounts of RNG numbers. A very dedicated player might play 300,000 spins in 10 years. 200 spins per day +-3 times per week.


I think it might only be realistic to test against this amount of spins anymore is really stretching it. I wonder where this 1 million spin test concept originated?? Is this realistic?? Me playing 200 spins per day everyday for 13 years??


JohnLegend had made this concept clear to us as well sometime ago.

Perhaps the bar is set to high and we are not testing in a realistic manner? Flatino, through his live experience sees the game from a different angle. Only few players will see extreme fluctuations and even if you do the proper method should have you recover.

[superman]

I wonder where this 1 million spin test concept originated?? Is this realistic??

I am sure this wont be only my opinion, so here goes

Testing over a large sample, more than 1000, gives a good idea as to how often a system may fail, if you play 100 spins per day at a real casino, at some point you will hit a bad run and lose some/most/all of your previous winnings, however, you may also be very lucky to miss those runs, the choice is yours, either you want to pre warn yourself what could happen or you don't want to know the truth! simple as that.

Those of us, me included, who choose the safer route, by testing over plenty of spins, are armed with the added knowledge that at ANY session it could go t1ts up and we also know how often, say every 300 spins on average. It could go t1ts up for 5 sessions in a row, don't you want to know that that is possible and may happen? I do.

Those of you who don't, clearly want to remain in the self belief that because you won your first couple of sessions with what you 'think' is a method/system that is good to play, isn't going to let you down, or you just hope luck is on your side for long enough to cover any upcoming losses, it may be, fingers crossed.

I don't think knocking those that do mega run tests, and report the results here, is going to stop them, usually the people that shout back at them are the ones who either invented the method or those that are blinded by the belief the originator knows his stuff, sometimes he does, but then why so many "new" methods? or changes like wait for 2 virtual losses then another bad set of numbers and they adjust to waiting for 3 virtual losses, until the system makes a bet a month, slightly exagerated, but you get the point.

I was asked last night to code this method, my reply to the member was nah, haven't bothered yet, but today it was pi$$ing down and blowing like h3ll so I decided to test it in a tool that runs from text file lists of numbers, from live real wheels, real money rng and computer random, yes over thousands of spins. The results were not what I thought they would be for a 50/50 bet, they didn't look like streaks of red/black or any other EC bets, the runs of losses in a row reached a max of 11 on rng, 9 on real wheel and 12 on computer random, overall average was 7 BUT 7 losses then a win and 11 losses after it make it impossible to recover with the current progression, I didn't run it with a progression, I just wanted to see how long and how often $hit would happen, my opinion, too often.

The concept MUST have some merit as having a 50/50 bet with a max loss length of 12 is far less than 26 reds if you were betting black so the selection seems to have some merit, the lengths of wins was good too and fairly constant, so yes 'most' of the time you will recover as with all systems, fairly cost effectively, but at some point I know $hit's expected and you don't want to know.

The above is not aimed at this method, the question was asked why a certain group of members test extensivley, the above is only my opinion, nobody has been targetted as someone who says we shouldn't test over huge numbers of spins, choose how much you want to know or keep the head in the sand, it's your perogative.

[F_LAT_INO]

---If it has to be tested with drillion spins,as some do.......


     why don't they divide those drillion spins by 350-400 spins
   /usual night session/--and test thatway then shall see real
   happenings...win/los sessions.My 2 chips.

[amk]

Hello again Superman!


Ironically I agree with you. Thank you for the great post. Hope I can make one that good someday to. I would rather contemplate my reply longer but have little time.


There are many great testers on this forum, probably the best in the world. Few of us actually play. As great testers we should also test live with actual funds and a managed BR, in a sense fun money.


After all, this is why we would like to succeed in this game


Most of us here can apply wise methods and MM.


If we lose no harm done.


My feeling is that most players will be successful.

[soggett]

--Back to your question sogget;
  It wouldn't be same playing 2,3,4 and so......it depends on method.
  For instance the smaller sample less,largest more....hope you got it.

Yes, perfect now, thank you

[Robeenhuut]

I am sure this won't be only my opinion, so here goes

Testing over a large sample, more than 1000, gives a good idea as to how often a system may fail, if you play 100 spins per day at a real casino, at some point you will hit a bad run and lose some/most/all of your previous winnings, however, you may also be very lucky to miss those runs, the choice is yours, either you want to pre warn yourself what could happen or you don't want to know the truth! simple as that.

Those of us, me included, who choose the safer route, by testing over plenty of spins, are armed with the added knowledge that at ANY session it could go t1ts up and we also know how often, say every 300 spins on average. It could go t1ts up for 5 sessions in a row, don't you want to know that that is possible and may happen? I do.

Those of you who don't, clearly want to remain in the self belief that because you won your first couple of sessions with what you 'think' is a method/system that is good to play, isn't going to let you down, or you just hope luck is on your side for long enough to cover any upcoming losses, it may be, fingers crossed.

I don't think knocking those that do mega run tests, and report the results here, is going to stop them, usually the people that shout back at them are the ones who either invented the method or those that are blinded by the belief the originator knows his stuff, sometimes he does, but then why so many "new" methods? or changes like wait for 2 virtual losses then another bad set of numbers and they adjust to waiting for 3 virtual losses, until the system makes a bet a month, slightly exagerated, but you get the point.

I was asked last night to code this method, my reply to the member was nah, haven't bothered yet, but today it was pi$$ing down and blowing like h3ll so I decided to test it in a tool that runs from text file lists of numbers, from live real wheels, real money rng and computer random, yes over thousands of spins. The results were not what I thought they would be for a 50/50 bet, they didn't look like streaks of red/black or any other EC bets, the runs of losses in a row reached a max of 11 on rng, 9 on real wheel and 12 on computer random, overall average was 7 BUT 7 losses then a win and 11 losses after it make it impossible to recover with the current progression, I didn't run it with a progression, I just wanted to see how long and how often $hit would happen, my opinion, too often.

The concept MUST have some merit as having a 50/50 bet with a max loss length of 12 is far less than 26 reds if you were betting black so the selection seems to have some merit, the lengths of wins was good too and fairly constant, so yes 'most' of the time you will recover as with all systems, fairly cost effectively, but at some point I know $hit's expected and you don't want to know.

The above is not aimed at this method, the question was asked why a certain group of members test extensivley, the above is only my opinion, nobody has been targetted as someone who says we shouldn't test over huge numbers of spins, choose how much you want to know or keep the head in the sand, it's your perogative.

Hello Superman

These results are very interesting. I was just wondering how the streaks in FLAT method would compare with the streaks in other ECs. And with a large BR you could recover even from RFH but once in a while you are bound to lose. Thanks for testing.

Regards

[TwoCatSam]

Might as well join the fray.........

I like to test things.  That alone is enough for me.  I love to run robots.  See those chips fly into place.  Makes me feel powerful!!   

But I do play for money daily.  That in itself is a test.  Mostly it's a test of me and can I stick with the plan and not go chasing shadows.

Today was a very good day for me at both casinos.

But I see the other side..........the FLAT side.  Heck, just go play.  Spend your whole life testing and what have you got?  Reams of paper and bloodshot eyes.

And so to bed!

Sam

[Ralph]

I think most of us behave different while testing, and play with tokens than with real money.
If you use I blind method, without any decisions on the  way, then a very long test can tell something. Probably you will have losses, hard to recover.

I switch methods often, some works well during a period, but soon or later a switch is better.

Any method can works for 3000-10000 spins, and crash the first time in real play, the opposite will be more profitable.  There are other methods to find out the quality of a method then running numbers.  You can often see what should not happen, that you play against in most of methods.

[ginger]

Hello Sir,

Would it be possible to make a bot for this system.
By simply enter the last number hit in the tool so it will show the next 9 splits.

I know somebody who can do that.

Kindly regards


John     Rotterdam

In excel of first post.

[jarabo002]

Hello Sir,

Would it be possible to make a bot for this system.
By simply enter the last number hit in the tool so it will show the next 9 splits.

I know somebody who can do that.

Kindly regards


John     Rotterdam

Thanks ginger

[F_LAT_INO]

Hello Sir,

Would it be possible to make a bot for this system.
By simply enter the last number hit in the tool so it will show the next 9 splits.

I know somebody who can do that.

Kindly regards


John     Rotterdam

Suppose you could,but me no,as don't believe or trust online gambling,as have a proof
that they all cheat...hash one way.Be carefull with this mafia.