Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:03:09 PM
On the 1M actuals. Total losses were 48 + 3 on the zero = 51. It's not so much the losses due directly to the zero which killed it, but those times the zero hits when you're in the post-trigger zone - how many busts would have been saved if there was no zero? according to my previous simulation, enough to make a profit overall. There are some stats at the end of the results file, I'll post the results for all 3 dozens tomorrow.

Bayes I couldnt read your spreadsheet. It looked like Russian backwards to me. that's why im digging deep here. A few nore questions please.

So you are telling me that the zero caused 51 losses on just Dozen 1. When on your previous test without zero. There was only half that many losses on all three dozens combined? It seems a bit incredible to me. But anyway I will continue to manually test your one million actuals. As live results are the only ones that mean anything to me really.

It might take me a year or more to do it. But I will do it. In the first 65 games just as in my real play. There have been zero challenges on the progression. There has to be something different between live results and sims Bayes. There really does.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 18, 2013, 06:49:49 PM
Spike explained his method in one of those 16,000+ posts at GG.

I couldn't find it, can you post a link or something?

Quote from: Bally6354 on January 18, 2013, 08:10:26 PM
Surely the answer then is to play on the NO ZERO wheel at betvoyager and pay them the 10% tax from your winnings.

Could be Bally. If the zero realy does that much damage. But im not convinced on that. I believe H,A,R is the equivalent of playing on the no zero. Because in my first 950 odd games. Its done little damage to me.

Remember ZERO is just like anyother number it can get hot and cluster several hits together. And when its cold sleep for hundreds. But I will bet my catfish basket. That when im playing H.A.R im not getting the same devastation as that continuous 1 million spins is giving out.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 08:12:02 PM
Bayes I couldnt read your spreadsheet. It looked like Russian backwards to me. that's why im digging deep here. A few nore questions please.

So you are telling me that the zero caused 51 losses on just Dozen 1. When on your previous test without zero. There was only half that many losses on all three dozens combined?.It seems a bit incredible to me.

John, you couldn't read it? it's not a spreadsheet just a text file, you should have opened it using notepad or any text editor. Did anyone else have problems reading it???

The previous sim didn't test all 3 dozens, only one.

Quote from: soggett on January 18, 2013, 09:35:21 AM

I agree with you
btw, it says "only" 15144 posts
will take a look, thanks

I have another 1000 posts under spike100 to make
it over 16,000 posts.

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:19:35 PM
John, you couldn't read it? it's not a spreadsheet just a text file, you should have opened it using notepad or any text editor. Did anyone else have problems reading it???

The previous sim didn't test all 3 dozens, only one.

You mean the tests without the zero were only ONE DOZEN per million spins Bayes??

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 06:07:19 PM
And then he attacks others who say they can win at this game.

I attack you because you make flat out wrong
statements about the game and about random.

Quote from: JohnLegend on January 18, 2013, 01:48:17 PM

The only way ill ever get H.A.R superiority stamped in reality

The only way that'll happen is if the nature of random
changes. Fat chance.

Final Bank = -5105 units
Total wins = 7237 units
Losses due to zero = 322
Losses other than zero = 3686
Progression loss due to zero = 3
Progression loss due to D2 or D3 = 48

QuoteYou mean the tests without the zero were only ONE DOZEN per million spins Bayes??

That's right. I wanted to test the program first so ran it on one dozen. Since the code for the other dozens is exactly the same, if you know the result for one dozen then you know it for all of them.

Regarding the results file I uploaded, you did unzip it first, right? sounds to me like you were trying to read the compressed archive.

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 08:29:34 PM
I attack you because you make flat out wrong
statements about the game and about random.

Yeah well if that's the case you have to prove with a written method that you are RIGHT. Just stating the obvious about random doesn't bake the peach cobbler.

You claim you can beat this game without ever going anywhere but the even chances. And without using progressions. Wheres the method that shows you can do this?

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:09:20 PM
Gizmo, JL didn't ask me to code it,

The problem with a system like this is, it's a real brick
wall monster. Just lose the progression once and
you're screwed. You hit the brick wall. But you don't
know when it will happen, you just know that it will.

And with roulette, its always sooner rather than later..

Could I get a summation on Bayes study?  Was the system a success?  Failure.

Can't understand the losses to zero.

Anyone?

Sam

Quote from: spike on January 18, 2013, 08:31:29 PM
The only way that'll happen is if the nature of random
changes. Fat chance.

Then prepare to have your ego blown to smitherines. Because its going to happen.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 18, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
Could I get a summation on Bayes study?  Was the system a success?  Failure.

Can't understand the losses to zero.

Anyone?

Sam

The method tanks with the Zero. And wins handsomely without it Sam. But Im getting similar results to the no zero with my Voodoo H.A.R So im staying in Voodoo land.

Quote from: Bayes on January 18, 2013, 08:31:55 PM

That's right. I wanted to test the program first so ran it on one dozen. Since the code for the other dozens is exactly the same, if you know the result for one dozen then you know it for all of them.

Fender doesn't understand stuff like this. He see's the
layout and the first dozen can't be identical to the other
two. If you were testing EC's and only tested H/L because
the results for R/B and O/E would be identical to H/L, Fender
would have a fit. That can't be right in the world he lives in.