BetSelection.cc

Please login or register.

Topic: does this look like a stable result?  (Read 2636 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HansHuckebein

  • Steady Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
does this look like a stable result?
« on: May 05, 2015, 09:47:43 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • hi folks,

    does this look like  a more or less stable result for an even chance 1 unit flatbet? or does it lie within the usual 'what one has to expect range'?

    the spins are 4000 real spins from dublinbet. I simulated 39 sessions, each session exactly 100 spins. 2407 bets were placed.  Zero counted as a loss of one unit.

    opinions welcome.  :)

    cheers

    hans


    Offline TwoCatSam

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 1440
    • Bailey reads a book!
      • View Profile
    Re: does this look like a stable result?
    « Reply #1 on: May 08, 2015, 11:21:19 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • I think it looks great!

    Pray, how did you do it?

    TwoCat
    If dogs don't go to heaven, when I die I want to go where dogs go.   ...Will Rogers

    Offline HansHuckebein

    • Steady Member
    • **
    • Posts: 53
      • View Profile
    Re: does this look like a stable result?
    « Reply #2 on: May 14, 2015, 05:39:34 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • same concept but this time testing wit RNG spins.

    2414 spins played.  >:(

    Offline XXVV

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 1576
    • Gender: Male
    • Legio XX Valeria Victrix LVX
      • View Profile
    Re: does this look like a stable result?
    « Reply #3 on: May 14, 2015, 07:43:53 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • Greetings H.

    Too small a sample to tell. Sorry, because when is enough, enough?   30x100  is not enough ( sorry Charles), or 40 x 100.

    Intriguing. Suggest you prepare several more equivalent sample tests. Say for example 7 sets of 4,000 and compare.

    10,000 spins might be a better single sample module, and then compare say at least 3 samples. I have one colleague who generated several million RNG spins to test his method which has a family of bets showing about +2 to +5% edge.***Such a small degree of tuning, but it needed vast samples 'to be sure'. He now plays the methods live ( requires comparative cycle analysis from 100 to 300 spins - takes a huge amount of patience - not for me). He plays now with larger value units live and has been doing this ( despite a few personal behaviour blips/ meltdowns- these can be trained out) for the past 12 months. We meet several times a week at the casino.

    Also compare live vs RNG. Why would one result differ so much? One suggestion is that your bet choice is very 'transparent'/ legible ( easily read)  to the RNG program so as it is designed to beat you ( this is a fact) you cannot camouflage your bet. My own bet methodology is harder to read because it involves multiple spreads of 9 number targets. In theory if I had say six or seven sets going simultaneously the poor program would become confused because all numbers might be covered at any one time ( but of course and even though flat staking ) were at different stages of a six or seven step bet method ( earning from +27 to -27).

    However I am keen to see  the sort of bet you placed and why the RNG seemed to be so comparatively negative, or perhaps over a set of several samples these results might be equivalent between live and RNG. However I suspect the simple flat bet RNG result is doomed.

    I was surprised nevertheless with a very small RNG sample test I did recently at how the bet dealt with RNG ( just like any other source) but it was a ridiculously small sample of only 98 spins ( although spread over 4 sets ( so 4x 98). Still way too small to form any valid opinion.

    What actually were you seeking to demonstrate? It has raised several issues so thanks Hans.

    *** The flaw with the approach from my friend S. is that his generated samples in RNG were not generated in response to any bet. They were neutral. In live RNG play the program will generate results in response to what you lay - takes only micro seconds to process. S used to play online in a shadowy style where there would be other players at the table, and so he could 'hide' behind their smoke screen. This will not work in the live RNF in the casino as he may be the only player active, and he has been caught out there in this manner, so I think now prefers the Rapid Roulette live table. I will check to see his latest comments. His bet is vulnerable because it may only expose say 3 to 5 targets occasionally.

    Offline HansHuckebein

    • Steady Member
    • **
    • Posts: 53
      • View Profile
    Re: does this look like a stable result?
    « Reply #4 on: May 14, 2015, 10:36:25 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • Hi XXVV,

    thanks for replying.  :)

    the method I'm fiddling around with at the moment is to try and catch "the runs of changes" (i.e R B R B R) and simply put the "runs of runs" (R R R R R) aside.
    as there are several different possibilities to do this I guess you're right, there is much more work and testing to do.



    Also compare live vs RNG. Why would one result differ so much? One suggestion is that your bet choice is very 'transparent'/ legible ( easily read)  to the RNG program so as it is designed to beat you ( this is a fact) you cannot camouflage your bet.


    as I just downloaded the spins of already played sessions (both live wheel and RNG) there is no way for the  RNG to read my  betting style and adapt the results to it  so there should be a different reason (if any besides randomness)  why the bankroll went down south.

    it's almost one o'clock in the morning. I need to get some sleep .

    so cheers for now  :)

    hans

    Offline TwoCatSam

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 1440
    • Bailey reads a book!
      • View Profile
    Re: does this look like a stable result?
    « Reply #5 on: May 16, 2015, 01:46:15 pm »
  • ReplyReply
  • as I just downloaded the spins of already played sessions (both live wheel and RNG) there is no way for the  RNG to read my  betting style and adapt the results to it  so there should be a different reason (if any besides randomness)  why the bankroll went down south.

    I totally agree with the part about RNG not "wanting" to beat you as they are "dead" numbers.  Fear no dead numbers!

    But why would the RNG be less likely to win?  Tthat is, to go south?  Wouldn't that mean that instead of throwing chops, the "wheel" is throwing tons of streaks?  An alert person before this screen would surely notice that and bet on a few streaks, no?

    I play Riverwind RNG almost weekly.  I notice that the marquee may be almost totally black or red and it may stay that way for five or six hours.  The next time I come it will be different--either in color or chops.

    I think your second graph is just what happened and you will find the same graph with spins from Spielbank if you look hard enough.

    Sam
    If dogs don't go to heaven, when I die I want to go where dogs go.   ...Will Rogers