Greetings,
IF there is a way to earn 2.5 to 3.0 approx. units average per game before commission over 80 games
while using a mechanical bet selection and a small progression who will believe it is a possibility
or who will believe its hogwash?
The idea is to beat the worst or absolut extreme - i have a theory based upon that.
The limit is around 5.0 SD after several million simulations.
That is 31 loses and 2 wins.
So lets say you make a spread of assets using multi level progression.
For example 40 singles and 2 series or 5.86 SD
I have the progression that beats that and take care of the regression towards the mean.
Great to hear this, Sputnik.
Quote from: Sputnik on October 23, 2015, 06:34:24 PM
The idea is to beat the worst or absolut extreme - i have a theory based upon that.
The limit is around 5.0 SD after several million simulations.
That is 31 loses and 2 wins.
So lets say you make a spread of assets using multi level progression.
For example 40 singles and 2 series or 5.86 SD
I have the progression that beats that and take care of the regression towards the mean.
Yeah okay. Now what? YOu are either going to post it or not. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other but it would be nice if you'd say.
I have contact my personal coder and i wait to see if he has the time to make the RX code - then i will share some charts.
Cheers
I would be interested to hear about this progression, it sounds interesting. Why not just post it instead of charts?
Quote from: Big EZ on October 25, 2015, 03:20:14 PM
I would be interested to hear about this progression, it sounds interesting. Why not just post it instead of charts?
Hey, are you familiar with New York City? Let me know if you are, I have a good deal for you....
I have a few "bridges" for sale, pretty decent price.....
Let me know if interested and I will have my "coder" draw up the GPS coordinates on a paper napkin and parcel post it to you. One caveat, you MUST have the Capt. Crunch secret decoder ring to decipher the exact location (which will come in a separate parcel post). PM me if interested....
I play by hand and got 3.0 SD against me and i continue and got some regression without fully recover from the 3.0 SD and then i face 2.5 SD again against me.
So i got a hell twice and still recover all loses and break even.
First was 14 loses and 2 wins and the secound was 12 loses and 2 wins - LOL this feel great :-)
This progression use differcification very good with spread of risk (assests) ...
With this methodology you need to win among the first 50/100 - because if you get into hell you might need 200 to recover.
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi66.tinypic.com%2F11lj3uv.jpg&hash=03cf7419d189b0ce89320e3ff1e15f129725d27b)
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2Fke6vtg.jpg&hash=6d9af01cee8ea62d1412a79bccb55d90858398c4)
Max drop only 80 units, it looks very good.
Could you please share more about the progression? Still really interested to see what you are doing here
don't you get it yet? People start fairy tales and never finish because they don't know how to! They don't gamble! LOL, you thought people here actually did! TSK, TSK, TSK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have a 32 std dev magical graph and secret coders that can make billions/week. MESSAGE ME FOR DETAILS
verifiable edge? what are you talking about! the game has negative expectation and you can not turn that around, no matter how you play or bet ...
Quote from: Jimske on November 07, 2015, 08:28:23 PM
....when it doesn't you are losing and must either stop and wait for another trend to appear OR change the placement to follow the next trend and bet it will continue . .. or not.
I much prefer the "stop and wait" over the "change the placement", Jimske. IMHO, changing placements negates the edge that one's variance can offer the stop and wait (read: consistent) player.
But that is strictly on opinion based upon my preferred style of play. It by no means makes me right or anyone else wrong; it just means that my play is based almost in its entirety on my variance statistics, without which I would be like a ship sea with no rudder.
Take care.
This is one example trending:
Lets assume you decide to have a base mode, one way that is the core behind your betting, for example follow the last.
Then we know that you will catch all strikes when they happen.
BBBB PPPPP BBB PPPPPPPPP
WWWLWWWWLWWLWWWWWWWW
Now each lose will be when you have one single, then you have to guess or play mechanical.
There is two things that can happen, you can get zig zag or isolated ones.
Zig Zag looks like this B P B P B P B P B P B P
Isolated ones looks like this BBBB P BBBBBBB P BBB
Now assume you pick isolated ones and get zig zag to strike, then your resould would look like this LWLWLWLWLWLWLWLL
If the isolated ones strike your result would look like this WWWLWWWWWWWLWWW
There is many combinations that can happen and that you can aim for, some are better then others.
My point is that you should pick a base mode for your play, then when the play end to strike you are left with two decisons.
When trending you have three states of waves.
Quote from: Sputnik on November 08, 2015, 11:03:13 AMThere is many combinations that can happen and that you can aim for, some are better then others.
Better than others? In what way?
QuoteMy point is that you should pick a base mode for your play, then when the play end to strike you are left with two decisons.
When trending you have three states of waves.
Agreed. At some point you got to either guess or switch to a new mechanical decicions based on a new base.
Quote from: gr8player on November 07, 2015, 09:59:04 PM
I much prefer the "stop and wait" over the "change the placement", Jimske. IMHO, changing placements negates the edge that one's variance can offer the stop and wait (read: consistent) player.
But that is strictly on opinion based upon my preferred style of play. It by no means makes me right or anyone else wrong; it just means that my play is based almost in its entirety on my variance statistics, without which I would be like a ship sea with no rudder.
Take care.
There is no "verifiable edge" as you have stated more than once. So how can any change in placement "negate the edge"?
We all have the same variance in this random game. There is no personal variance as you suggest above. The fact that I win over 52% of all placed bets does not change that. Even thousands of bets are a small subset.
If you or anyone has a variance that is different than what occurs in random events you should be able to state what and where it is. There must be some pattern, asymmetry, occurring group of decisions or specific placement that provide an advantage (read: verifiable edge).
Stop when your placement doesn't match the outcomes if you want. But having several placements that match multiple outcomes shouldn't negate anything. It's a guessing and betting game.
Quote from: Jimske on November 08, 2015, 01:42:22 PM
Stop when your placement doesn't match the outcomes if you want. But having several placements that match multiple outcomes shouldn't negate anything. It's a guessing and betting game.
"Betting" game, yes. "Guessing" game, no.
That's exactly why I don't change placements; I've no faith in any guesswork, not mine, yours, or anyone's.
Consistent bet placements lead to reliable (or at least trackable) variance stats.
Look, guys, I couldn't say that on Thursday, when my bet placements turned to fairy dust right before my eyes. (You can refer to my Trip Report thread to read more about it, but, for some reason or another, the thread has been locked. Not sure why.) So nothing is written in stone, and, in the end, we are all reliant on the whimsy of the turn-of-a-cards.
Still, that said, we need a valid reason to put our money onto the felt, and exactly where and how much of it to put up, and with that in mind I just happen to believe in consistent bet placements with a money management plan wrapped around the variance statistics of same.
Quote from: gr8player on November 08, 2015, 05:44:38 PM
"Betting" game, yes. "Guessing" game, no.
That's exactly why I don't change placements; I've no faith in any guesswork, not mine, yours, or anyone's.
Consistent bet placements lead to reliable (or at least trackable) variance stats.
Look, guys, I couldn't say that on Thursday, when my bet placements turned to fairy dust right before my eyes. (You can refer to my Trip Report thread to read more about it, but, for some reason or another, the thread has been locked. Not sure why.) So nothing is written in stone, and, in the end, we are all reliant on the whimsy of the turn-of-a-cards.
Still, that said, we need a valid reason to put our money onto the felt, and exactly where and how much of it to put up, and with that in mind I just happen to believe in consistent bet placements with a money management plan wrapped around the variance statistics of same.
For the record I'm not one that thinks you have any obligation to explain specifics about your play process. I also am getting tired of this same old discussion.
By guessing I'm not saying "roll the dice." Track what you will. I track. I use different bet placements because I play every hand (to a point depending on MM rules). One placement won't do. I don't have to track multiples. I could track one thing and use one placement but then I would be betting less hands. So I track several "variances" and use several placements. But I'm still basically guessing that certain things will happen more often than not. And when not I am guessing that my bigger bets will outnumber my smaller bets. Otherwise I'd just flat bet.
But read what you wrote above. "whimsy of the turn-of-a-card" You can't have it both ways. We either have a predictable advantage or not - a "verifiable edge" or not.
If your "variance stats" show ANY significant distinction from the expected values then you have a "VERIFIABLE EDGE." Said in another way you then have a predictable and measurable advantage.
I win over 52% of real live bets. I have not verifiable edge.
Quote from: ezmark on November 08, 2015, 10:37:10 PM
Thanks Jimske,
You asked, "Don't you still have to guess which + or - pattern to bet?
Without going into great detail. The attempt in this example is to produce a more choppy shoe by using + and - than playing p and b .
In this example one would want to bet for a choppy pattern. This works only for certain kind of shoes those with isolated short runs of p or b as shown.
Long runs of p b patterns will produce long runs of + or -
Overall the percentages of 1's 2's 3's etc. will be similar to p and b percentages itlr 50% , 25% , 12.5% etc.
ez
I don't think you'll find similar but exactly the same as P and B. My point is it does not produce more choppy shoe. One can look for a choppy shoe and bet that bias. Nothing wrong with that. Still guessing. I can see it may be less confusing just looking at the + and -.
I have been playing Dr.Tom with a bit of a twist but using his basic theme and I gotta say part of a successful run is you gotta know when to walk and end the session winning or losing that's the hardest thing to teach it has to come from deep within..... I have that down due to the fact I realize the alternative........ Driving for a living sucks that said my win goal is met I'm out of the shoe out of the door
Do a search on YouTube
Or you can google Dr Tom Baccarat
I tend to disagree EZ