So here is my break! Here comes my chance to take a break from chasing the 20k and test out, energize myself and prepare myself for the next attack. I am going to use this break to hone my thought process further. There are several random thoughts (yeah random!) that flows across my mind now. But I am going to park them at the moment and jump straight to what I wanted to achieve in this break. I intend to share those thoughts during this quest as and when they become relevant to seek further feedback from my fellow forumers who have extended excellent support so far. Thanks!

Ever since I started playing for real and associated myself with this community, I have disciplined myself to ask 4 questions before I place every chip on the table. Which, where, when and how much.

Which – Which position to play. This is normally guided by the system that I am adopting. Let's say am playing Easy peasy system. Then the answer to "Which" is 1EC(high/low) and 1 line(3/4). If am playing GLC's even chance system, the answer to which is one even chance. If am playing GG's triple shooter the answer is 3 Even chance positions one of a kind.

Where – Where to place your chips. This is completely different from which position to bet. This "where" is normally guided by some conditions. Let me take an example of Easy peasy system. Depends on how you are playing it whether the last spin is "BO/RE/BE/RO" decides where to place your chips. While "Which" guides it is 1EC and 1line, "Where" guides the exact EC and the line to place your chips on.

Both of these combines to form your bet selection approach.

"When" – When to place your bets. There is a whole host of techniques around Virtual betting, "wait for x losses" before betting etc, stop session after 3 losses decides the when part. This can be essentially grouped under "Timing"

"How much" – How much to bet. This is essentially your money management within a session. All progression techniques, flat bet propositions will give the answer to this question.

Now that I have decided to ask these 4 questions before every bet, my next thought was, how do the answers influence the outcome and the bankroll. My thought process at this stage is (of course it will evolve over a period of time), Which and where is something that I control. For a moment, let us assume the outcome is perfectly symmetrical, i.e., I get 50 Reds and 50 blacks in 100 spins or I get all numbers from 1to 36 twice in 72 spins (give the green goblin a well-deserved rest for a moment. He must be tired working so hard for the casinos). Then "Which" and "When" leads us to controllable attributes. They are the elements where I can force my control on, just like I set a routine in my life to have breakfast every morning.

Now "Where" is something where eventhough I express my control on, the outcome is completely controlled by random. I can only predict what can come next. Prediction can be based on a number of parameters and in roulette when all pockets are equal, you cannot predict with any degree of accuracy unless you are GOD. It is like this, which all you gentlemen may be able to relate to, when Manchester United plays reading, you can predict with reasonable accuracy that Man U will win the match, but when Man U plays Man City, then it is a tough call. I wish in roulette some slots showed higher strength like this example. But unfortunately that's not the case.

"When" is a concept that's really tricky. I am neither mature not knowledgeable enough to discuss it. So will leave it at the moment.

So my quest during this break is real simple. If "Where" is not in your control, why lose sleep over it? Why can't you adopt a static selection. Why can't you adopt a selection which is pure random. I know there are hypothesis around that is against static bet selection. I completely agree with every one of you and to the record to me static bet selection does not sound right. But my question is, does a defined approach which is not static, is it right or is it a fallacy. E.g. FTL, is it right? How much better or different is it from static bet selection.

I am going to take simple systems that I am comfortable with. I am going to play them in Live wheel (I don't want to get into RNG/Live wheel questions at the moment, as I agree with most if not everyone here that live wheel is best as RNG is not a reflection of true random). I am going to play 5 games of 50-100 spins for every system using a static bet selection, dynamic bet selection defined by the system author and a random bet selection. When I say bet selection, I mean the "Where" part and not the "which" part. My objective is not to determine which one is best, but to determine fundamentally whether it has an influence on game play.

Mr. Roulette wheel, here I come!

You would of made a good chess player.....my 20 year obsession before it sent me nuts

Roulette is designed to produce a random number.  Roulette is not as random as one may think.  (Casinos would not make money
with it if they did not have some control over the outcome imo. whether it be because of skilled dealers or lack of player discipline.)

First test and only one session. Nothing conclusive. But if this is the indication of things to come, I am not surprised and I will be more than happy to accept the outcome as it is.  Agreed proof, casinos might have a say on the outcome, that is all the more reason to believe and not spend so much of effort on the "Where" part.

The system used for the test is Easy peasy from Atlantis. The play is across 50 spins in Dublinbet in three modes Using the methodical selection from Atlantis and greatgrampa (using BO/RE triggers), static selection (start with High and line3 and after a double loss switch) and random selection. The results are for here to see. As stated earlier I will do 4 more sessions on this before switching to another system.

Random is indeed a [smiley]aes/devil.png[/smiley]

[attachimg=1]

BO/RE/RO/BE - Is it all a myth? I have just completed the sample tests for Easy peasy system and it clearly tells that there is no  point in scratching your head over which location to bet if BO comes and scrapping into a tracker to track the numbers. You just need to taste a drop of wine to say how good it is.

Test strategy
3 sets of samples were independently and randomly taken from my spin database and tested for Easy peasy method as Atlantis plays it (using BO/RE selections), static bets (start with high and line 3 and switch to the opposites for every double loss), random bets.

Results
[attachimg=1]

Conclusion
For easy peasy system, it doesn't matter how you identify the "Where" part of bet selection. You could do it based on your phone number, you could count the number of bar ladies in the casino and bet based on that or you could simple bet looking at your watch, it doesn't have any influence on the game. What matters is you should bet either "High and line 3" or "Low and line 4". On a loss increase the EC bet by one and on a double loss increase the line bet by 1. Play in mini games with a target of +3. That's all that matters. "Where" part of the bet selection works equally bad or good irrespective of your bet selection being dynamic/static/random

"3 sets of samples were independently and randomly taken from my spin database and tested for Easy peasy method as Atlantis plays it (using BO/RE selections), static bets (start with high and line 3 and switch to the opposites for every double loss), random bets"--Priyank

May I suggest you test on American Wheels as well.  A good system
can win on both (and you never know when it is the only wheel availiable.)

Sure Proof. Can you point me to places where I can download spins from American layout?

just out of intetest...I went through flatinos file with a bet selection of 4 random choices from 6 instead of his for/against. Same  betting cycles exactly. It won more with less drawdowns. The progression was the power in this case. haven't repeated the exercise so its still spurious.

can't grasp it...you talking about this;

Flat...yes.that one. just a test of bet selection vs 4 random choices. No point to be made just seeing if the  excellant delambert held up to anything

For me atleast at the moment, there is a conclusive proof based on what I have tested and what the experts have said, "where" part of the betselection is pure guess work. If someone claims that he can improve the prediction level, I am confident enough to say "No, you can't". But as Sam always tells, "Only time will tell". May be tomorrow someone will come and prove that actually the "where" part matters. Until then, I am not going to rely too much on the "where" part to succeed. All I am going to do is go with the flow and probably try out with certain methodical "where" selection instead of random, with the fact that "IT DOESN'T MATTER" in the back of my mind. For this reason, I am  not going to continue the testing as rigorously as I started out, but will do them once in a while to keep reminding me of this fact.

Now, I am going to focus on the "when" part as this is another fascinating area for me, I am not able to get a handle on. There are a multitude of subjects that we can talk about, including virtual bets, triggers and so on. Some like "Number six" say there is personal permanance. Before I embark on another testing episode to put the facts to these, would like to know if any one wishes to test any of their beliefs/disbeliefs on the timing or the "when" part. Let me know and I shall start from there.

Yanks

Not trying to be argumentative; those who know me will tell you that is not my style.  (Hak-kaf-hak)

Joe Spiffy decides to wait for five of X in a row and then bet against it.  He sees five reds and bets black.  Does the "when" (five reds) not decide the "where" (black)?

TwoCatSam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on August 15, 2013, 01:11:00 AM
Does the "when" (five reds) not decide the "where" (black)?

You are so on the money Sam. In my humble opinion, you are right. Most of the cases I have seen in my limited knowledge, I stress most, "When" guides "where". However they are two individual topics and decisions. Let me explain with an example.

Joe spiffy decides to see five X in a row and bet against it. He brings a friend Joe bloggs to the casino who decides to see five X in a row and bet for it. The decision "for" or "against" is "Where". "Five X in a row" is when. Even though it is guiding the "where", it is an independent decision by itself. Both of them plays for five in a row, while Brett morton plays for 6 in a row. This is what I have as a question. Does it matter whether it is 5 or 6 or 7. Sam, I hope I am getting this right. It would be very useful to know what you think of this explanation. I may be completely wrong here.

Extending that thought, Now in a few cases, the when does not completely guide the where. For example, Speedy Gonzales, we play "for" and "against" alternatively independent of whether it was a win or loss the previous spin. There is no or very little when (very little because one might say when you last played for, play against next) involved here. However there is a strong "when" aspect comes in when Speedy advices us to play the last played selection after two consecutive losses. This is the one am trying to get to the bottom of? Does it really matters when you shift after two consecutive losses.

Yanks

Well, you're right.  Depending on the person and his/her desire, the bet would be placed differently.

Imagine this:  R R R R R  We've all seen it.  Now the next time you see R, you have ask yourself are there four more Rs coming?  Maybe; maybe not.  A flow of numbers will definitely alternate between singles and runs of X.  If my time ever permits, I will continue the study of the VLS Lw Methodology to see if I can truly capitalize on the flow.

Samster

QuoteImagine this:  R R R R R  We've all seen it

Sam, that in my opinion is not enough to go on, I treat each chop as an event, irrelevent of its size, RR has a value of 2 for me, so does RRRRRRRRRRR.

We know (don't forget I only talk about RNG) the seed decides the outcomes, so what's the seed doing at this moment in time is the question