I am the author of Cracking PI Cracking Random. I have worked extensively with Zumma's System Tester. There is a near precise flat bet advantage: .08333 over the 15k trials. I discuss it in my site: CrackingPi.com. I'll answer any questions you may have.

Quote


Please read over my challenge once again and if you understood it, try to play number 3 and beat it with any well-defined method.  

Where are all so-called mathematicians and system authors who have filled many forums with lots of "systems" and "money management" rules? There are many guys who have written dozens of them.
             All these so called systems are workable in "favorable" cases only. If your betselection gets favorable, you will win with flat bet as well. What is the merit of these systems? They all bleed dry if a little adverse situations come and if adverse starts running little harder, you would lose what you can never recover.
               If anyone can work out this, it would guide and help all to fight with randomness in real world situations.

Quote from: albalaha on November 14, 2012, 05:04:11 AM
Where are all so-called mathematicians and system authors who have filled many forums with lots of "systems" and "money management" rules? There are many guys who have written dozens of them.             

As much as I don't really want to respond to this, I'm afraid I have to.

The people who write this stuff, or at least attempt to, do not get sidetracked with silly "challenges" of what basically amounts to chasing a single number on the wheel.  What person in their right mind would want to?

As well you know, "singles" can run for hundreds of spins without showing.  Why attempt to chase it down?

Yes, we all know you've beaten the game and have told us many, many times, yada-yada-yada.   

Now for some reason you decide to see if somebody can win on a single that's missing for several hundred spins.  It still doesn't make sense as a valid challenge.

However, perhaps this "challenge" needs to be presented in a more logical way.  I'll leave that up to you but for the mean time, it just looks like a question on how to beat a single number that won't come up for 300 spins or so.

Why would anyone try?   Obviously any progression won't work, as a simple spreadsheet will confirm.  If you're not including any other wagers, a missing single for 300 spins is a pointless quest!

Very odd.

AD (posted here as nobody on your own forum will speak up anymore due to veiled threats of banishment)

Ad,
           Number 3 is just a representative of a bet selection that can go perpetually bad. It can be anything else too, for that matter. If I ask all of same kind of variance in any other bet selection like any one dozen, people won't believe. That is why I had to pick a betselection from most known data in the world called as "zumma testers' book".

                              For your kind information, I have opened my forum now for all to see since I found that you guys are doing no positive thing over there apart from attending my free lectures. I do not allow filthy language or mudslinging in my forum and I am very strict with my rules.


If you guys are just looking forum to forum (as esoito named as butterflies) for anything that will change your luck and u will get a mysterious winner method somewhere, u r mistaken. The hard fact is, earning from roulette is not a cheesecake.

Unless you have a sound money management idea that can win in adverse cases too apart from good ones, you can't succeed ever in gambling.

                                   When I am asking for a worthwhile debate, instead of supporting me, frustrated guys start bashing me. If we can solve this query jointly or severally, we will all be winners in long run.


                          Any taker?

ok albalaha, I will try something. It will be an interesting experiment.
Give me a few days and I will come back with the results and tell you how I played it.

cheers

Just to whet your appetite!

I am playing Roy Ward Dickson's hot numbers.

The first coup for anybody that knows it had a 3/9 split and came up on the 7th spin.

The formula boils down to this...

It's a number that comes up three times within 20 spins or less, after an absence of 30 spins or more - except when it does so three times in a row.

You play it for 9 spins.

1 chip on the first 6 spins and 2 chips on spins 7,8,9. (12 chips per coup)

There are a few notation rules which I will mention if it's successful in the challenge.

That only took about an hour doing it manually, lol.

3/9 win on 7th spin +64.

4/10 loss +52.

10/6 loss +40.

10/8 loss +28.

5/6 loss +16.

3/6 loss +4.

7/1 loss -8.

5/4 loss -20.

After such a promising start as well. I can't think of any other method to take on your challenge. I thought the RWD method might crack it as well.

Quoteok albalaha, I will try something. It will be an interesting experiment.Give me a few days and I will come back with the results and tell you how I played it. cheers

                  I love this attitude and want to see fighters like you. It is what we call "fire in the belly" 

Please try to illustrate here whatever you play or find.

Quote from: albalaha on November 15, 2012, 07:02:43 PM
                                   When I am asking for a worthwhile debate, instead of supporting me, frustrated guys start bashing me.

Al,

Nobody is "bashing" you.  You're starting to act like a lot of people who think everyone is attacking them by merely questioning their actions.

Deal with it.   No bashing allowed.  The "challenge" still makes little sense but I'm willing to listen to others debate it.

AD

Hey Captain,

Personally I have nothing against you or anybody else.

I want to learn something from you guys too, who are playing these games for decades but most of the veterans are still not ready to share anything worthwhile ( a few veterans like flat_ino and GLC are just opposite and they share all their fancies and fantasies) .

If we do not test new ideas and accept challenges and try to find new ways, it is useless to roam around forums and make a big gathering just to chit-chat.

Hello,

I'm the author of Cracking Pi.

I've had to re-register since my password was not accepted the second time I tried to log in and an email to rewrite my password was not sent.

I spent several days in Dallas with the author of Zumma's Roulette System Tester. I tested all 15 k trials with the methodology of "action at a distance." This is the methodology of Quantum Mechanics. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance." You can repeat my experiment and I'm quite certain you will get the same result. That is, a flat bet advantage: .08333 .

There are two matters of note. The first is minor. The original copy of System Tester contained several errors in which strings of numbers were erroneously repeated. When I pointed this out to the author, he patched them. I don't know if he went back to his original data, but my feeling at the time was that he used an RNG. Given that these were less than a hundred numbers total, I don;t think the difference would be particularly statistically significant.

The second matter is very much of significance. The author reported he recorded the data mainly from downtown casinos in Las Vegas. The casinos he named were not particularly mainstream. This may be because he required his data recorders to place bets and the lesser casinos had cheaper minimums. The significance of the less than mainstream casinos is that their dealers were not necessarily required or trained or supervised or encouraged to use a random release. When I questioned him on this point, I was told the dealer's were "throwing from the green all night long." The term refers to a dealer releasing the ball over one of the green house numbers (or a right angle thereto). This has obvious consequences in terms of randomness.

In my own Pi-odds study, I carefully selected dealers who were releasing randomly. From that study, using "action at a distance," I got a flat bet advantage close to what is now expected from a random release: .16666 .

Clearly, the factor of a dealer's release protocol invites deeper inspection.

GM3,


Welcome and some very interesting stuff.  It appears we would be better served using a RNG for your statistical probability of achieving a positive result.  Unfortunately, these are necessarily unplayable as the sheer volume could not withstand the human element.


Your website is a good read, though.  Many thanks.


Gator

Hey Baly and Geometricsman,
                          Either I can't convey what I want or you are not getting my point of challenge. I am not saying about beating zumma in any manner (as geometricsmen is talking of flat bet advantage which is not possible while betting number 3 and Baly talks of some hot number betting idea). We have a static bet here, i.e. number 3 that is having huge variance throughout 15k spins.
                       Can we beat it or other data of such bad flow by any system, strategy, money management etc?

Quote from: albalaha on November 16, 2012, 03:29:48 AM
Hey Captain,

Personally I have nothing against you or anybody else.

I want to learn something from you guys too, who are playing these games for decades but most of the veterans are still not ready to share anything worthwhile ( a few veterans like flat_ino and GLC are just opposite and they share all their fancies and fantasies) .

If we do not test new ideas and accept challenges and try to find new ways, it is useless to roam around forums and make a big gathering just to chit-chat.

Dear Albalaha,
I didn't know you knew I was a "veteran".  US Army to be exact.  Military Police.  Hehe
Sorry I can't help you with your challenge.  Since I've posted every thought I've ever had about roulette (I'm not so sure Ivo has) then you should know that I don't mess around with straight up numbers.  Time constraints.  If I didn't have a family, a job, and public service, or need a few hours of sleep every couple of days, I might consider it.

Actually, I think it's kind of like asking if God can make a rock too big for Him to lift.

Your challenge reminds of the story of David and Goliath.  You know, where Goliath would come our every morning and challenge the Isrealites to send out a champion to fight him.  David, only a boy, didn't have enough sense to know he couldn't defeat the 9' giant.  So he took his sling shot and nice smooth stone and before he got close enough for Goliath to reach him, he smote him right between the eyes.  It was like taking a gun to a knife fight.  Goliath never knew what hit him.

Maybe Bally or GM3 will turn out to be our David.

Cheers my friend,

GLC

Welcome to the Fray dear George

The fellows around sure are glad to see you here. (count me first!)

Cheers!