Gizmo,

Wait until after tomorrow before you start coding it. My previous results didn't take into account the zero, but if you subtract the losses due to the zero (using the expected number of zeros) then the result is as per mathematical expectation. And don't forget that you get a trigger only once every 60 spins or so, which means that you would have to run a huge number of spins to get a million BETS, so the results I posted aren't quite as impressive as they might seem. I wouldn't say that in this case the trigger is simple and mindless. And aren't all triggers "mindless" in a sense? No matter how complex and "clever" the trigger is, it doesn't change the odds one iota.

MarignyGrilleau, I just did that this morning. It fails right along the mathematical lines that it should. In fact my complex version asks for five exact five sleepers in a row without a higher than five in a row occurring first in order for it to lose. And each bet is not consecutive. Each step of the progression is triggered by the next unique 5 gap (sleeper)

Having a unique trigger when to start placing five bets in a row is not that complex. Even if you have a magical moment when you start your sessions it won't make you a holy man.

Quote from: Bayes on January 17, 2013, 08:29:08 PM
Gizmo,

Wait until after tomorrow before you start coding it. My previous results didn't take into account the zero, but if you subtract the losses due to the zero (using the expected number of zeros) then the result is as per mathematical expectation. And don't forget that you get a trigger only once every 60 spins or so, which means that you would have to run a huge number of spins to get a million BETS, so the results I posted aren't quite as impressive as they might seem. I wouldn't say that in this case the trigger is simple and mindless. And aren't all triggers "mindless" in a sense? No matter how complex and "clever" the trigger is, it doesn't change the odds one iota.

The total mis-understanding here is what makes this bet different to another 5 step prog.

We arent betting against a code here. WE ARE BETTING AGAINST A VIRTUAL LIMIT. there's a world of difference. But ill prove that difference nonetheless. As I said before-if I have zero losses after 950 games. And not even a single challenge. I can see no worse than 15 losses per 10,000 games.

In my playing style. That will do very nicely.

Bayes, my sim, this morning, it does factor in the zero. A zero breaks the string of sleepers. In JL's rules the zero counts as a gap. But it loses if it hits on a fifth step of a progression. I guess you see that. So if all goes well this is just more of the same.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 08:22:21 PM


The problem for you Giz and your counterpart. Is you think you know too much. As if your years guarantee unlimited wisdom.

And the problem with you is, you don't understand how
random works. You think you can trick it, outsmart it,
make it your slave. This monstrosity will be found to lose
right where its supposed to lose. Because it doesn't give
you the EDGE. To win consistently, you must have the
EDGE. You never talk about that, because you don't understand
it. You're too busy trying to be tricky..

Quote from: spike on January 17, 2013, 08:56:16 PM
And the problem with you is, you don't understand how
random works. You think you can trick it, outsmart it,
make it your slave. This monstrosity will be found to lose
right where its supposed to lose. Because it doesn't give
you the EDGE. To win consistently, you must have the
EDGE. You never talk about that, because you don't understand
it. You're too busy trying to be tricky..

Spike the day you have the nads to put up instead of talk a load of tosh. You might get somewhere.

You don't have an edge or the means to prove it. Just pure hot air. And condescending swipes. Put up or zip it.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 08:40:59 PM
The total mis-understanding here is what makes this bet different to another 5 step prog.

We arent betting against a code here. WE ARE BETTING AGAINST A VIRTUAL LIMIT. there's a world of difference. But ill prove that difference nonetheless. As I said before-if I have zero losses after 950 games. And not even a single challenge. I can see no worse than 15 losses per 10,000 games.

In my playing style. That will do very nicely.

Rose colored glasses. I wonder why mathematics takes a holiday for this guy?

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 17, 2013, 08:48:16 PM
Bayes, my sim, this morning, it does factor in the zero. A zero breaks the string of sleepers. In JL's rules the zero counts as a gap. But it loses if it hits on a fifth step of a progression. I guess you see that. So if all goes well this is just more of the same.

Because the zero counts as a gap, it means you get more triggers, but it also counts as a loss so there are 13 chances to lose a bet instead of 12. That might not seem much of an increase, but with such a short progression it does make a difference over a large number of spins. IMO it's crazy to use a progression on anything over an EC because in order for it to be effective it has to rise fast, and in so few spins (the number of spins over which you use the progression), anything can happen.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 17, 2013, 09:02:57 PM
Rose colored glasses. I wonder why mathematics takes a holiday for this guy?

Youll get your answer on July 19th. don't be shy then will you. Remember you can dispute sim results till your blue in the face. Cold hard cash has a sobering effect.

Two years ago I created a sim that I was sure beat this game. I messed up on the zeros. Once I added them in, the sim dropped back to the expected rate. It was so insignificant, but it made the difference.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 17, 2013, 09:12:52 PM
Two years ago I created a sim that I was sure beat this game. I messed up on the zeros. Once I added them in, the sim dropped back to the expected rate. It was so insignificant, but it made the difference.

In continuous play house edge means something. In H.A.R it means little that's why I play H.A.R it is the only sure way to negate the house edge.Again youll get it this year.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 09:01:35 PM
Spike the day you have the nads to put up

Anybody can put up stuff that doesn't work, why would
I have any interest in doing that. Its meaningless. You
put up something that beats the house edge? Where
is it, I missed that.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 09:16:18 PM
In continuous play house edge means something. In H.A.R it means little that's why I play H.A.R it is the only sure way to negate the house edge.Again youll get it this year.

So that's it. Please explain how you use HAR in this system. With an average of triggers coming every 60 some odd spins how could you possibly pick a strategic point to start tracking for triggers?

Quote from: Bayes on January 17, 2013, 09:07:27 PM
and in so few spins (the number of spins over which you use the progression), anything can happen.

Finally, a voice of reason. Where this system fails is
when it loses, it loses big time. To think that never
happens, just because it didn't in practice, is folly.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 17, 2013, 09:16:18 PM
In continuous play house edge means something. In H.A.R it means little that's why I play H.A.R it is the only sure way to negate the house edge.

My god. Its all ONE BIG GAME! Jumping to another
table or casino with hit and run does NOTHING
NOTHING NOTHING to change or negate the edge.

This is roulette 101 stuff. This is newbie folly. I
can't believe the smarter people here (Victor?),
let you get away with the statements you make.

Wrap your head around the fact that random is
random, jumping from one table of random outcomes
to another table of random outcomes changes
nothing. HOW COULD IT? Random outcomes are
not connected to anything, they're RANDOM.

Good grief.