+ Register

[Sputnik]

I have a book that says that average loss is -8 units flat betting for 60.000 trails.
Around 83% include at least one reversal.

Test one selection and won 99 sessions out of 100.


Won +60
Lose -8
break even 39


Cheers

[jsintl]

Hi Sputnik,

Can you elaborate your bet selection and MM?

Thanks,
jsintl

[Sputnik]

I use Philip Koetsch book as a reference when testing to compare results.
If I am not hovering around +10 units and -8 units overall I know I have something.
But we all know that all selections should have an equal chance, that is why Philip Koetsch results apply to anything you test.

Cheers

[Jimske]

where do we find Philip Koetsch's stuff to see what the selection is?

[alrelax]

http://barricadebooks.com/authors/philip-koetsch/

Lots of sex, gay, off the wall, corrupt cops, how to kill people and get revenge galore, stuff, LOL 

[Sputnik]

There is no selection that he uses, but I test one among others and they all should have the same results.

Cheers

[alrelax]

With all due respect and seriousness.

How about testing and carrying over that same test into actual play?

What I mean is, doing the theory test with XYZ number of shoes/hands, 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000, whatever the appropriate amount of total numbers are. 

Then carrying over that same number, divided by say the, 1 or 3 or 5 shoes that someone will actually play in a casino with the number of hands the player would actually wager on. 

I say that because to me, results from theory of testing are correct.  But, a player has to be able to replicate that when he sits down to play.  And the player is not going to play 60,000 or 200,000 hands. 

That should give you the actually wins or losses of what the person would have realized, no? 

[Sputnik]

That's correct - I also notice some difference with theory and real play.
Even one famous legend says the same thing - Playing the game change the game.

Cheers

[alrelax]

PLEASE do not take what I ask or post as an attempt to demean or show you up.  It is NOT!

My views are strong yes.  My experience is tremendous compared to most and smaller compared to some.  However, I do not know anything about on-line play or theory testing except a cursory read on both, once in awhile.  So I am biased to B&M real life gaming.  I know it well and I experienced it extensively. 

Yes, I have plotted and planned and tried outside of the casino to pre-plan countless things and agendas.  From my own experience, every single one of them failed or would not hold up anywhere close to 50%.

The whole point I am making or trying to discuss is not that theories and numbers form any statistics are not correct.  But how to apply those statistical outcomes and results of winning hands/events/presentments/triggers, etc., to actual play?  To me, that is the same as saying I am going to drive down a section of interstate highway for a regular trip i make every week covering a distance of 500 miles.  Sometimes there are police cars out there with radar and sometimes they are not.  As well, some of the states also stash empty police cars on the interstate exposed to motorists without anyone inside of them.  But if I track all this and record it all, how would I apply it in order to get away with being able to speed and be guaranteed I know exactly where each police car will be positioned? 


I value your input and threads, I read them.  I value almost all opinions and input.  I just cannot tolerate the one liners and the drama driven people that want to spa without offering anything of value or sense.  With that said, carry on. 

[Sputnik]

One other way to use Sputnik's march is to play against bias sequence to develop.
Then you have 66% to win or break even.

Again I like the idea to stop after one reversal as you get 83% of them.
The last test gave me two losing sessions with -8 units and 98 sessions that won or break even.

The main idea comes from one topic talking about the Johnson Progression where one member state that you will get less variance where the selection is tilted in your favour.
In this case, you would play against one event/sequence to repeat twice or more.

You can compare the situation to dozens on a roulette table.
Each time you get a new dozen to hit you win and each time a dozen repeat you lose.
Only convert that into 1/3 principal using sequential betting.

Cheers

[audionut]

Again I like the idea to stop after one reversal as you get 83% of them.
The last test gave me two losing sessions with -8 units and 98 sessions that won or break even.

The main idea comes from one topic talking about the Johnson Progression where one member state that you will get less variance where the selection is tilted in your favour.
In this case, you would play against one event/sequence to repeat twice or more.

Hi Sputnik! LOVE your march!!! Works great in sports betting, also... But I'm wondering..in the above statement, "betting against one event/sequence to repeat twice or more" Is that what your referring to when you say "stop after one reversal"??

Peace

[Sputnik]

This is the Sputnik's March Delux.
There is three no more or less.

Then we can call them three waves, events, elements, sequences.
One sequence/event is where you have one isolated single between two series.

BBB P BB or PP B PPPP

The second sequence/event is where you have two series after each other.

PPP BB or BBB PPP

The thirs sequence/event is where you have two singles or more after each other.

B P B P or P B P

Now if one sequence repeats you have a double.
Each sequence/event has a 33% chance to show.
And you can cover two with 66% with two attempts, win or break even.

That is the selection.

Reversal is something else, when you reach -2 units and doesn't win or break even.
Then you have 83% chance to get back to zero, break even, one reversal.

I test two different selections and end up with good results.
This can be random fluctuation and luck.
So is up to you to do the same.

I start Roulette Extreme and begin a session.
If I win I stop and start a new session.
Same if I break even.

This way you simulate your personal permanence.
Hit & Run.

Here is a short sample from random org today. One shoe +7 units flat betting.
But I would not play this way on a rolling basis, win and change table.
Then the bad sequence has to catch up with you and not the other way around.
So this example is only for illustration.


2
1
2
2
1
1 W +1
1
1
2
1 W +1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2 W +1
2
2
1
2 W +1
1
1
2
2 W +1
1
2 W +1
2
2
2
1
2 L -1
2 L -2
1
1
2
1 W -1
2
1
1
2
2 W +0
1
2 W +1
1
2
2
1
2 L -1
1 L -2
1
2
2
1
2 W -1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2 L -2
2 W -1
1
2 L -2
2 L -3
1
2
1
2
2
1
1 W -2
2
2 L -3
2
1
2 W -2
2
1
1 W -1
2
1 W +0
1

[poluvolo]

HI  I  Wonder if could be possible someone explain to me the last example from Sputnic
Even i can understand his post theory i can not understand the example
so need only little help
i would very thankful for that

[poluvolo]

I Swear to my life guys i have a MM about even chances never seen in your life like that
i promise i will share my mm if someone explain to me sputnik bet selection
you will impress with my MM GURANDEED
NO FAKE CLAIMS ONLY TRUE

[andrebac]

poluvolo:
i can do it
ill make a play by play of this sample
just eml me at this address
wolfat@libero.it