Max,
There is a reason why people behave like the way they do. I am normally a very quite and calm person and the thing that puts me off is double standards. Read the following post from Al on this subject. Its an attack on Ad to disclose method when he said he has completed the challenge.
-------------------------------------------
Ad,
This is the last time I am asking you to put your work openly here, if you have beaten it really. So far, whoever claimed to beat it is only doing reverse engineering of this particular data or calculating wrongly. Whether you played like a tournament or a 100 meter sprint, doesn't matter much. Why will you show your work to Victor, Privately? It shows you are not confident of doing it correctly or you merely used reverse engineering or you just lied about it. Flat betting will never work in such situations unless you are a clairvoyant who knows when exactly you will bet and fetch wins in such wild scatter of wins and losses.
--------------------------------------------
So why double standards. Has he ever disclosed his work openly anywhere apart from posting graphs. I can make graphs and post it the way I like. Before "officially declaring" why can't he post the results? Its very clear for me that the intention is not good. I can pick up multiple such posts posted by the same person.
I am not saying am for personal attacks, but it needs to be considered what is causing the personal attacks and the cause should be addressed and not the effect. I am one of the persons who is glad that he is gone. Best for the forum. Just my 2 cents.
[Edit: Adulay, as a moderator, would have acted if he had thought the wording was a personal attack.]
Now coming to the challenge itself. I don't know why he had to do a gigantic project to overcome this. With all due respect to him, (Yes, i do respect him for the work he has done and have gone through the recycle bin in www.rouletteforum.cc (http://www.rouletteforum.cc) for his personal page. IT IS GOOD and there are lots of logical discussions), any one who is good at maths can beat the challenge. If someone beats the challenge, without reverse engg, does it mean they have the holy grail? I need to think about it. Any views?
Now there is no point in saying that anyone good at math can beat the challenge without a proof. So let me explain how to beat it without reverse engineering. And yes, method is playable on hot and cold numbers. This will give an output of 22636units at the end of 15000 spins for the number 3 which is the worst.
Before I explain, I said to be good at math. Not that good :) but enough good :) . Simply put, see the graph below.
[attachimg=1]
It is generated through 10 million spins in single zero wheel. X axis represents the number of spins before a tracked number hits. Y axis represents the percentage of attacks that got completed within those number of spins. See the highlighted portion. From that point onwards the graph tapers towards extreme deviations. When does that happen? Closer to 90 to 110 spins. Why so? It is 2.5 to 3 times the total possible 37 outcomes. This is the basic.
What does it teaches us? Never chase extremes and hence do not chase lets say beyond 90-110 spins. Sam will ask me i know, 90 or 110. Lets close at 100.
Now another observation you can see is the tapering is steep towards the start and then it is a gradient. Why so? Remember law of third? 2/3rd of the outcomes come within one cycle of outcome. That is why. What does this say?
If you are using a progression, use it so that it returns heavily at the start and progress with a percentage that gradually decreases as you progress.
Look at D'alembert. it's a strong progression, when it starts. Why? because in the start it takes care of this concept. It gradually goes to a point deeper into the progression where the percentage becomes negligible. So rightly used it's a blessing. So we need to use something for straightups which will adopt to this principle.
Coming to the final observation. Remember what Bayes says. Do not treat spins as individual outcomes. Combine 3 spins, combine 4 spins and so on and so forth, you get a series. That will give you the ability to use probability theory in a better way. Treat every spin as an individual outcome you will never come out of the game's negative expectation. How do we use it here?
Treat spins in attacks of 36 spins and cycles of wins. What does it mean. Lets consider a scenario where you have your tracked number hitting at 3rd spin, 20th spin, 60th spin, 125th spin, 128th spin. So we attack exactly for 36 spins. Our cycle for tracking ends whenever there is a hit and retracking begins. So here.
1-3 - both attack and 1st cycle ends
4-20 - both attack and 2nd cycle ends
21-56 - attack ends, 3rd cycle ends only at 60th spin
61-96 - attack ends, 4th cycle ends only at 125th spin
126-128 - attack and 5th cycle ends.
Ask if you are not understanding this portion. This is a key. This is what will help us getting through extremes when a number sleeps for long spells for multiple cycles.
Pockets
As you may or may not know, my wife had surgery on her ankle ten days ago and I am a 100% caregiver with limited time.
I really want to examine this when time permits.
Sam
Pockets...I posted something called indiscrete tracking where I showed an idea that emphasised that sweet spot of 80 to 110 (ish) spins....so this is familiar.
I only mean this in a kind way Albalaha.
You have a long term winner which you can play live.
You will not disclose any solid information on how you can accomplish this.
We who do not have a winning method cannot gain anything from your posts except for the possibility that a longterm winner is achievable.
It is time for you to just play and enjoy the profits.
If you wish to coach other players then you have to provide some solid clues, even Sherlock Holmes needs some solid clues.
If I had a long term winner then I would make a final post in which I leave some solid clues for dedicated researchers or I would just leave without a standing ovation.
Sorry I deleted some posts as they were not relevant and I didn't want someone to be muted again on a post I started. It was heading in that direction.
Note to other Mods.
Is there any point in this thread/topic being left open now?
(I'm asking just in case other staff think or expect other members to contribute anything meaningful)
Chris
Please leave the thread open for Pockets to further explain his method. If you lock it, he might get a burr and delete the whole enchilada.
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 18, 2014, 03:13:03 AM
Chris
Please leave the thread open for Pockets to further explain his method. If you lock it, he might get a burr and delete the whole enchilada.
Sam
Agreed.
Pockets.....just deleted my off topic comment. Back on track now
Please continue.
QuoteDo not treat spins as individual outcomes. Combine 3 spins, combine 4 spins and so on and so forth, you get a series. That will give you the ability to use probability theory in a better way.-Pockets
Why is that?
QuoteTreat every spin as an individual outcome you will never come out of the game's negative expectation. How do we use it here? -Pockets
Every spin is an individual outcome. It's not possible to overcome the game's negative expectation so why combine the outcomes of a random game?
Quote from: Pockets on January 17, 2014, 01:14:50 PM
Coming to the final observation. Remember what Bayes says. Do not treat spins as individual outcomes. Combine 3 spins, combine 4 spins and so on and so forth, you get a series. That will give you the ability to use probability theory in a better way. Treat every spin as an individual outcome you will never come out of the game's negative expectation. How do we use it here?
Treat spins in attacks of 36 spins and cycles of wins. What does it mean. Lets consider a scenario where you have your tracked number hitting at 3rd spin, 20th spin, 60th spin, 125th spin, 128th spin. So we attack exactly for 36 spins. Our cycle for tracking ends whenever there is a hit and retracking begins. So here.
1-3 - both attack and 1st cycle ends
4-20 - both attack and 2nd cycle ends
21-56 - attack ends, 3rd cycle ends only at 60th spin
61-96 - attack ends, 4th cycle ends only at 125th spin
126-128 - attack and 5th cycle ends.
Ask if you are not understanding this portion. This is a key. This is what will help us getting through extremes when a number sleeps for long spells for multiple cycles.
I'll ask. I don't get any of it.
Sam
Before I answer Sam and Xander, let me explain one variation of hte method using the concepts i explained above. Note, this is just one variation using these concepts. Sorry, took sometime to go through the 15000 spins manually using this and hence did not reply on the post for a day.
Start attacking numbers using the progression below.
1st attack - 10th (note it says attack and not spin) - 6u
11th - 19th - 5u
20th - 29th - 3u
30th - 100th - 1u
Why? Purely based on our observation, 2/3rd of numbers should appear within one cycle. So our spend in the start is huge and as spins increases we decrease our bets. Using this, what we are trying to do is trying to gain the maximum in case where cold turns hot, trying to gain maximum when hot remains hot, trying to lose less when a number goes cold.
Now the attack above need to be done in 36 spin attack cycles. Using the example i posted above.
1-3 - both attack and 1st cycle ends - +198u
4-20 - both attack and 2nd cycle ends - +85u
21-56 - attack ends, 3rd cycle ends only at 60th spin - continue from attack37 in the progression when next attack cycle starts
61-96 - attack ends, 4th cycle ends only at 125th spin - continue from attack73 when next cycle starts
126-128 - attack and 5th cycle ends. -145u
At the end of 128 spins, we end +138u.
Now, there is a possibility that the whole progression runs out. In this case we start the next attack cycle with 2 times the progression. On a win, stay at the same level until recovery. on a loss, next attack cycle with 4times the progression. We can go up to 16times the progression with a table limit of 1-100. Note this is done only when progression runs out before a hit. It is not done when a you get negative during the progression. In that case we just restart the progression and do not double up.
Albalaha's posted numbers end with profit of over 4000u in 15000spins with this variation of playing. At any point in time the draw down from peak did not exceed 3600u. So a bank roll of 5000 should be absolutely fine.
Quote from: Xander on January 18, 2014, 11:41:37 PM
Every spin is an individual outcome. It's not possible to overcome the game's negative expectation so why combine the outcomes of a random game?
Let me be clear. I never said I have a holy grail. It is not mathematically possible to overcome the negative expectation. See below. That is where I agree with you 100% because I share your view about fools and money.
Quote from: Pockets on January 17, 2014, 12:48:26 PM
If someone beats the challenge, without reverse engg, does it mean they have the holy grail? I need to think about it. Any views?
But imagine this, assume that there are 37 random outcomes. How large a sample do you need to have exactly all 37 outcomes in 37 chances. My server crashed multiple times trying to find this out. The funny thing it might happen tomorrow when i start spinning bv. Why? Probability is indeed common sense. It is a funny subject and it cannot say anything for certain.
Coming to you question of combining multiple spins. Forget roulette. Say you are tossing a coin. Every toss of a coin is independent just like roulette spins. What is the probability that the next spin is head? Always
50%. Here your trial covers 1 chance.
Now lets combine two tosses. Both are independent. What is the probability that head appears at least once in these two tosses.
75%. Here your trial covers 2 chances. This is why am saying combine spins so that the
probability of your outcome appearing atleast once increases.
If you treat a trial as 1 chance you will never get here. After increasing the probability, now the question boils down to the money management that will help you reap this. I have put things simply as money management, where as it goes far deeper than that covering right from micro level covering the optimal number of chances for your trial based on the returns to a macro level. That's the toughest part.
Pockets,
You probably need to make the distinction between simply observing an event with no wager, and the probability of winning a wager on that event. They are two different things and they will affect you differently.
With that in mind you can use a single spin, a series of 2 or 3 or as many or as few as you like, but the probability always remains relative to your wager. Therefore, it actually makes no difference how you treat the outcomes. You can only gain an upperhand if you can prove that somehow the short term odds do not represent the true odds of the game between two optimum points in time; and then proceed to exploit that difference with a bet selection. This can be done in its most effective form by analysing the numbers, which also offers the best payout in the game and therefore the best rate of return.
I think you are doing pretty good work, best of luck.
Quote from: Number Six on January 19, 2014, 06:02:28 PM
You probably need to make the distinction between simply observing an event with no wager, and the probability of winning a wager on that event.
How would you treat a dummy bet in BVNZ? We are placing a wager, but it will end up in no loss/no gain.
Quote from: Number Six on January 19, 2014, 06:02:28 PM
You can only gain an upperhand if you can prove that somehow the short term odds do not represent the true odds of the game between two optimum points in time;
My take-away from your post.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 19, 2014, 02:30:35 AM
I'll ask. I don't get any of it.
Sam
Sam, Let me try to explain this with an example. Following are the wiesbaden spins from yesterday. I am just going to play 0. I have explained spin by spin.
Now as you can see here, 0 doesn't hit for quite sometime. So we attack for 36 spins, stop attack wait until it hits, then start attack for another 36 spins and so on. If we get a hit, the attack count starts again from 1. Hope going through this example, the spin cycle gets more clear. Let me know if sitll in doubt.
[csv=,]
Spin,Attack number,Units on bet,Result,Bankroll,Remarks
28,1,6,-6,-6,
24,2,6,-6,-12,
34,3,6,-6,-18,
32,4,6,-6,-24,
32,5,6,-6,-30,
8,6,6,-6,-36,
16,7,6,-6,-42,
6,8,6,-6,-48,
34,9,6,-6,-54,
32,10,6,-6,-60,
36,11,5,-5,-65,
29,12,5,-5,-70,
23,13,5,-5,-75,
21,14,5,-5,-80,
15,15,5,-5,-85,
35,16,5,-5,-90,
10,17,5,-5,-95,
36,18,5,-5,-100,
3,19,5,-5,-105,
3,20,3,-3,-108,
26,21,3,-3,-111,
25,22,3,-3,-114,
11,23,3,-3,-117,
18,24,3,-3,-120,
27,25,3,-3,-123,
5,26,3,-3,-126,
23,27,3,-3,-129,
13,28,3,-3,-132,
11,29,3,-3,-135,
9,30,1,-1,-136,
23,31,1,-1,-137,
33,32,1,-1,-138,
18,33,1,-1,-139,
9,34,1,-1,-140,
8,35,1,-1,-141,
13,36,1,-1,-142,"End attack. Wait for a hit, before attack starts again."
10,,,,-142,
20,,,,-142,
2,,,,-142,
6,,,,-142,
17,,,,-142,
16,,,,-142,
1,,,,-142,
8,,,,-142,
33,,,,-142,
33,,,,-142,
29,,,,-142,
17,,,,-142,
25,,,,-142,
15,,,,-142,
18,,,,-142,
7,,,,-142,
1,,,,-142,
20,,,,-142,
34,,,,-142,
2,,,,-142,
4,,,,-142,
10,,,,-142,
26,,,,-142,
1,,,,-142,
25,,,,-142,
27,,,,-142,
11,,,,-142,
24,,,,-142,
34,,,,-142,
3,,,,-142,
29,,,,-142,
10,,,,-142,
3,,,,-142,
1,,,,-142,
36,,,,-142,
36,,,,-142,
19,,,,-142,
14,,,,-142,
5,,,,-142,
23,,,,-142,
10,,,,-142,
16,,,,-142,
28,,,,-142,
12,,,,-142,
24,,,,-142,
22,,,,-142,
21,,,,-142,
6,,,,-142,
35,,,,-142,
34,,,,-142,
2,,,,-142,
14,,,,-142,
29,,,,-142,
18,,,,-142,
7,,,,-142,
12,,,,-142,
6,,,,-142,
14,,,,-142,
25,,,,-142,
15,,,,-142,
24,,,,-142,
34,,,,-142,
13,,,,-142,
7,,,,-142,
7,,,,-142,
10,,,,-142,
35,,,,-142,
36,,,,-142,
27,,,,-142,
23,,,,-142,
14,,,,-142,
7,,,,-142,
23,,,,-142,
30,,,,-142,
6,,,,-142,
23,,,,-142,
12,,,,-142,
28,,,,-142,
13,,,,-142,
0,,,,-142,Hit. Resume attack again from where we left. We left at progression 36. So start at progression 37.
18,37,1,-1,-143,
30,38,1,-1,-144,
18,39,1,-1,-145,
29,40,1,-1,-146,
36,41,1,-1,-147,
8,42,1,-1,-148,
0,43,1,35,-113,Hit. Reset progression to 1
35,1,6,-6,-119,
5,2,6,-6,-125,
25,3,6,-6,-131,
5,4,6,-6,-137,
3,5,6,-6,-143,
26,6,6,-6,-149,
9,7,6,-6,-155,
0,8,6,210,55,Hit. Reset progression to 1
24,1,6,-6,49,
29,2,6,-6,43,
11,3,6,-6,37,
16,4,6,-6,31,
30,5,6,-6,25,
5,6,6,-6,19,
15,7,6,-6,13,
28,8,6,-6,7,
1,9,6,-6,1,
6,10,6,-6,-5,
27,11,5,-5,-10,
13,12,5,-5,-15,
7,13,5,-5,-20,
20,14,5,-5,-25,
24,15,5,-5,-30,
25,16,5,-5,-35,
6,17,5,-5,-40,
35,18,5,-5,-45,
12,19,5,-5,-50,
36,20,3,-3,-53,
1,21,3,-3,-56,
31,22,3,-3,-59,
0,23,3,105,46,Hit. Reset progression to 1
25,1,6,-6,40,
2,2,6,-6,34,
36,3,6,-6,28,
10,4,6,-6,22,
32,5,6,-6,16,
26,6,6,-6,10,
8,7,6,-6,4,
20,8,6,-6,-2,
3,9,6,-6,-8,
12,10,6,-6,-14,
10,11,5,-5,-19,
30,12,5,-5,-24,
32,13,5,-5,-29,
0,14,5,175,146,Hit. Reset progression to 1
14,1,6,-6,140,
35,2,6,-6,134,
3,3,6,-6,128,
18,4,6,-6,122,
20,5,6,-6,116,
28,6,6,-6,110,
13,7,6,-6,104,
32,8,6,-6,98,
18,9,6,-6,92,
4,10,6,-6,86,
33,11,5,-5,81,
1,12,5,-5,76,
22,13,5,-5,71,
33,14,5,-5,66,
8,15,5,-5,61,
1,16,5,-5,56,
34,17,5,-5,51,
18,18,5,-5,46,
15,19,5,-5,41,
0,20,3,105,146,Hit. Reset progression to 1
24,1,6,-6,140,
22,2,6,-6,134,
26,3,6,-6,128,
25,4,6,-6,122,
1,5,6,-6,116,
11,6,6,-6,110,
[/csv]
Thank you, Pockets.
Man, if you get the slightest nod from 6, which you did, you must be onto something.
I'll give this days of study.
Sam
Quote from: Pockets on January 20, 2014, 01:08:46 AM
How would you treat a dummy bet in BVNZ? We are placing a wager, but it will end up in no loss/no gain.
Hard to say specifically with straight-up bets. This doesn't just apply to engineering a no win/no loss situation while you wait for some kind of trigger. It's all about increasing and lowering wagers at the right time. Some people might consider that a progression, others might consider it flat betting. So, really a dummy bet is not required. Instead, we are trying to pull a feint while waiting for the right opportunity.
But anyway, covering every number is not required on the face of it. It would also be pretty absurd. You could not do that on a live wheel or in a real casino. If you're betting only 6 or 8 numbers, covering every one is overkill because only a small percentage of those numbers represent your actual bet, plus losses would mount up unecessarily in this scenario (because eventually you'll have to bet more on some numbers while still betting one on others).
Now we need to look at an incremental staking plan where the bet size for a winner is a bit bigger than your base bet, that way you can profit while also covering the losses on the feint.
The efficiency of the staking plan would hinge entirely on timing. And of course if you didn't get a winner in said cycle or attack the losses would be slightly larger than usual. It also hinges on whether you can introduce some degree of predictability within the cycle i.e. whether you can say for sure that between points A and B, the odds for a hit on 6 numbers is better than the longer term maths. If you can do that, it doesn't matter how many attacks fail, you will always come out ahead (with a big enough bank).
It's easier said that done, of course, there does have to be a real correlation between the numbers you bet and when they are most likely to hit.
::)
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 20, 2014, 03:57:47 AM
Thank you, Pockets.
Man, if you get the slightest nod from 6, which you did, you must be onto something.
I'll give this days of study.
Sam
Have fun!
:upsidedown:
Aw, geez!! I got up "upside down guy". One more thing to worry about....
OK
I have studied this and it is beastly simple. I suspect Nick could easily create a sheet for the ExcelBot and we could just plug in a number and see what shakes out.
Nick and I are currently working on an idea I stole and when we're finished with that, I'll approach him about this.
I would do this: I would wait for a number to sleep X number of times and then use it for the sought-after number. While some may disagree with this, I feel it is indisputable fact: When something does not happen, it moves one spin closer to happening. Example: We know the zero will eventually hit. If it did not hit this spin, it is one spin closer to hitting. So why not move a tad closer??
Samster
QuoteI would do this: I would wait for a number to sleep X number of times and then use it for the sought-after number. While some may disagree with this, I feel it is indisputable fact: When something does not happen, it move one spin closer to happening. Example: We know the zero will eventually hit. If it did not hit this spin, it is one spin closer to hitting. So why not move a tad closer??-Twocat
FACT: You've fallen prey to the Monte Carlo Fallacy. Furthermore, playing the coldest numbers/sleepers on a live wheel is one way that you could actually manage to LOSE at a rate that exceeds the house edge in the long run. The reason is that you could actually be playing on the "negatively biased numbers". (Meaning numbers that don't hit as often as they should because mechanical problems with the gaming device.)
If you add a bot, then you can lose more efficiently, even when you don't have the time to play. -
BAD IDEA :no:
The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo casino in 1913)[1] or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[2] Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due. This is an informal fallacy. It is also known colloquially as the law of averages. -Source below
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Gambler_s_fallacy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
http://www.skepdic.com/gamblers.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8SkCh-n4rw
-Xander
Sir, your post is worth no longer a response than this!
Oh, I see! You're one of those that feel that all of the experts are wrong or part of a vast conspiracy to spread lies. Ok. ;)
De Nile is the longest river in the world. :no:
Unfortunately many posted systems are fallacious in some way, many critically so.
But the question can be posed: when does a fallacy STOP being a fallacy, even though according to traditional belief, the said fallacy can't be anything other than a fallacy. Can it ever be disproved in a certain way? Isn't it just too square to stick categorically to the assumption that nothing makes a difference? Such a reactionary view does nothing to enhance collective knowledge, even if that knowledge leads to something we already knew before.
Obviously there has to be proven logic for why something should work. And that's what it all boils down to. There is still a large degree of ignorance of randomness, and other things like virtual tracking and the personal permanence, and even probability.
For records,
I have given zumma w/l for all numbers to Pockets. Whether he simulates that or not and put it here or not, is his prerogative.
Quote from: Number Six on January 26, 2014, 11:16:55 PM
But the question can be posed: when does a fallacy STOP being a fallacy, even though according to traditional belief, the said fallacy can't be anything other than a fallacy. Can it ever be disproved in a certain way? Isn't it just too square to stick categorically to the assumption that nothing makes a difference? Such a reactionary view does nothing to enhance collective knowledge, even if that knowledge leads to something we already knew before.
Good question. In the case of GF, and most other fallacies, it stops being a fallacy when the conclusion doesn't contradict one of the premises. The fallacious gambler reasons like this:
1. I think this is a fair roulette wheel.
2. I've just seen 10 blacks in a row.
3. Since the wheel is fair, black and red come up equally often.
THEREFORE:
red has to come up pretty soon.
I'd better start betting red.
maybe red won't come up on the next spin, but a lot of reds have to come up soon.
Premise (1) says that the wheel is fair, and there are two ways of being fair: unbiased and independent. If outcomes are independent it means that previous outcomes don't affect future outcomes - there is no regularity in the sequence of outcomes.
The fallacy is about being inconsistent. So red being more likely after 10 blacks could only be true if outcomes weren't independent, and, they may not be! But if the gambler's premise is that the wheel is fair (premise 1), then he should think that the outcomes are independent.
The question as to whether outcomes actually ARE independent is a different matter, and you can't get the answer by just logical reasoning, but GF is a logical error.
BTW, pockets, sorry if this is a bit off-topic. Thanks for posting your method.
Bayes
Whether you or anyone else believes it, I am not working under any GFs. I said, basically, a number would come up sooner or later--eventually. Now a person can believe that statement or they can believe that the number in question will never come. Which is most likely?
So I pick a number, say 6. I can, with a fair amount of certainty, say that 6 will come up eventually. It may be hit the next spin or 160 spins later, I don't know. I do know this: If I mark that number 6 and it does not come up in 100 spins, it is 100 spins closer to the eventuality of hitting.
I can't believe this is so hard to understand.
I know I am going to die--eventually! Every day I live, I am one day closer to the Reaper!
Not you, Bayes, but some people are so salivating to find that a person made a tiny mistake so they can jump on that person. Sickening...
TwoCat
Sam, I wasn't picking on you, just responding to No. 6, but I think you know that. :thumbsup:
Quote
I do know this: If I mark that number 6 and it does not come up in 100 spins, it is 100 spins closer to the eventuality of hitting.
I agree, with that no-one can argue, although Xander will give it his best shot. :P
Thanks, Bayes.
I also agree. This is the type of unknowing I referred to in a past post. I don't mean there is a blissful ignorance but rather, yes the number will hit, but the questions remain, even though it is 100 spins closer to hitting, we still don't know when it will hit. Or, really, why it will hit when it does and why it hasn't hit before.
We just put it down to an anomaly in the distribution and say that, anyway, it is within the realms of probability. But that doesn't help at all. Is there something else happening beyond what is seen on the surface, for example.
Quote from: Bayes on January 28, 2014, 09:00:04 AM
The fallacy is about being inconsistent. So red being more likely after 10 blacks could only be true if outcomes weren't independent, and, they may not be!
Well we have talked about this before. But are we talking about outcomes, or are we talking about the results of BETS? Isn't simply observing outcomes the root of the fallacy? But when you bet, you are making connections between the outcomes. So, in that case, red being more likely after 10 blacks is a reasonable supposition. Certainly should start a new thread about this sometime. It would be interesting to see what the holy grail windbags make of it.
Every spin is of course completely independent of previous spins. This isn't even up for debate unless we're talking about testing the fitness of an RNG algorithm, or the live wheel.
Kind of off topic...
What matter most is the fitness of the wheel. If a number hasn't shown for a long time, then the most foolish bet a person could make would be to chase the coldest number. I have solid prove if anyone would like to argue the point further.
The opposite is true as well. If you're on a live wheel, and you know very little about the fitness of the wheel, then the best bet that you could make would be to bet on the most recent number or few numbers to have hit, and what is listed as being the hottest number. It would be unlikely to overcome the house edge, but it can cut the house edge down and on rare occasions over come it. If you're someone that loves to chase numbers with the up as lose progressions, then at least chase the most recent and hottest numbers, but stay away from the cold ones.
-Xander
QuoteIf a number hasn't shown for a long time, then the most foolish bet a person could make would be to chase the coldest number.
Nothing is hottest or coldest number. This statement is a fallacy in itself.
The question as to whether outcomes actually ARE independent is a different matter, and you can't get the answer by just logical reasoning, but GF is a logical error.---From Bayes
Guys
I don't need Bayes approval or disapproval--or anyone else's for that matter--but I've always thought of him as one of the people who make sense in a senseless environment. So I'm not trying to "get on his good side".
As I read the above statement, I must assume the jury is still out in Bayes' mind as to whether spins are independent or not.
I have long stated--before I heard of Bayes--that certain numbers inspire other numbers to come. When Nick has has time to catch his breath, I am going to ask him to write the ultimate test sheet to prove or disprove this theory. I was just waiting for Stef to complete the import feature on the bot. I can test thousands of spins quickly.
Notice I said prove or disprove. Lord knows, I could be wrong!!! :D
Samster
I have some powerful simulators at my disposal and can already tell you the answer. I also have over one million live spins from 00 wheels.
The answer on the live wheel has to do with the playing conditions, like the dealer, wheel speed, ball used, dominant diamond smack, etc. It's not that the previous number(s) triggers another number to hit. Numbers will sometimes cluster because of the wheel's current state and fitness. Also, sometimes the numbers only appear to cluster.
-Xander
Quote from: Xander on January 28, 2014, 06:31:19 PM
Every spin is of course completely independent of previous spins. This isn't even up for debate unless we're talking about testing the fitness of an RNG algorithm, or the live wheel.
Spins may be independent in the sense that each number is POTENTIALLY available, as it were, on every spin, unlike in a deck of cards where cards are removed but not replaced (in which case it's impossible that the removed card can be re-drawn), but that's not the only way dependence could arise.
For example, suppose the dealer is concerned to keep the outcomes as random as possible, so every time a ball lands in the same sector 3 times in a row, she changes the ball, or speeds it up. Or, perhaps there is some faulty mechanism in the wheel which triggers a temporary bias when a certain sequence of numbers or sectors hits, or maybe it's a cheating casino which has magnets in the wheel, and when some particular outcome occurs (which might be the trigger for some "whale" to start playing his favourite system) they switch them on.
In all these case, past spins have affected future spins, so outcomes are not independent.
Quote
As I read the above statement, I must assume the jury is still out in Bayes' mind as to whether spins are independent or not.
I have long stated--before I heard of Bayes--that certain numbers inspire other numbers to come
Sam, I don't think that some numbers are inherently disposed to come out following certain other numbers; that sounds like pure voodoo to me. If there seems to be some dependence, we should look for more prosaic explanations before we turn to numerology etc.
Quote from: Albalaha on January 28, 2014, 06:37:25 PM
Nothing is hottest or coldest number. This statement is a fallacy in itself.
Why is it a fallacy?
The so-called hottest number may turn the coldest any moment you try to extract from it and vice versa.
Quote from: Albalaha on January 29, 2014, 08:07:26 AM
The so-called hottest number may turn the coldest any moment you try to extract from it and vice versa.
It likely is a fallacy if the wheel is unbiased and outcomes are independent, but that may not be. The cause of certain numbers being "hot" may be bias, in which case it's no fallacy to bet on them. You can't make the sweeping statement that betting on hot or cold numbers is always a fallacy.
I think we all know what Xander is saying: up until this point in time, exploiting the physics of the game is the only method that has ever been proven to work. No one has ever demonstrated beyond doubt that the game is mathematically beatable. Posting graphs and results of phantom bets is utterly meaningless.
Defining a hot number according to observation or "experience" or playing some inane instinct trigger won't work. But that doesn't mean it's not possible to predict what range of numbers will hit before any other range, using maths and empirical stuff alone. You can even narrow it down to a single number. All you need to do is define the parameters of the experiment and run them over and over within a certain time frame. In reality, probability seldom holds true in very short cycles, considering that 37 numbers allows for a large margin of error from the expectancy. But the more data there is, or the longer the time frame, the more diluted the premise becomes; the "long term" maths starts to take over.
This isn't like running a long sim of a bet selection, it's drilling down for conditions that allow some level of predictability within the time frame. Then you can look at, according to what has hit and when, what is more likely to hit again within your limits. I have already posted results of a long simulation to back this up.
Bayes
My statement should have been separated from yours by a mile. Did not try to piggy-back you in any way. I have published that belief for years--right or wrong. Sorry.....
I once read, and I paraphrase, <While the wheel has no memory, we must treat it as if it does.>
Rather sorry I ever posted on this thread!!
Sam
Twocat,
Don't be so fragile. Nobody's "just waiting to pounce on you".
It's a forum, where people will sometimes disagree. When it comes to winning, learning the facts and correcting mistakes can be important. Otherwise gullible people can get sucked into the ridiculous and absurd. Don't mistake it as being a personal attack and don't let your feelings get hurt. And no, I'm not implying that you and your methods are any of the above.
-Xander
4 days back, Pockets took entire zumma w/l from me, claiming to beat each and every number of it, with his concept which he revealed here. I think he has realized that his so-called "system" which according to me was a "suitable plug" made for #3 only, is not working on other numbers. So far, about a dozen topics were raised over me and my grail but nobody bothered to test this open claim, including the claimant himself.
"So far, about a dozen topics were raised over me and my grail but nobody bothered to test this open claim, including the claimant himself."
Nothing stopping you from testing it, and publishing the results here.
Quote from: esoito on January 30, 2014, 10:01:46 AM
"So far, about a dozen topics were raised over me and my grail but nobody bothered to test this open claim, including the claimant himself."
Nothing stopping you from testing it, and publishing the results here.
I told you it is suitable "plug" meant for a particular hole only. Pockets PMd me that he will do it shortly but he got silent after knowing its reality. Betting 1 to 96 units and earning only 4000 units can always ruin the bankroll.
All
I spoke to Nick about writing the sheet to test this. No, I don't have the 15,000 in Excel format and I'm sure not going to type them all in. However, I have tons of spins from Dublin and Smart Live which the bot will import and test.
But I have decided I'm just too fragile for such an undertaking. If the idea wins, I might have a heart attack from pure joy. If it loses, I might get out the old Smith and Wesson. (And if it did win, I'd be caught on the horns of a dilemma: Do I tell? Do I move to Jersey?)
Besides, people who know know it won't work anyway. Why should we try anything on this forum anymore? Let's just get us a panel of "experts" and ask them. Oops, I got on my soapbox again!!
TwoCat
Pockets
I have done some real-money play with your idea. I think I won .33!
I quit when I came to a problem. Let's say you go through the first 36 spins. You go to virtual and wait for a hit. Then you resume at level 1. Question: Do you just keep betting at that level until you finally get a hit on the selected number? And then resume at level 6?
Question 2: I'm not sure when you should double your bet. After losing X number of bets? What?
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 30, 2014, 03:47:07 PM
Pockets
I have done some real-money play with your idea. I think I won .33!
I quit when I came to a problem. Let's say you go through the first 36 spins. You go to virtual and wait for a hit. Then you resume at level 1. Question: Do you just keep betting at that level until you finally get a hit on the selected number? And then resume at level 6?
Question 2: I'm not sure when you should double your bet. After losing X number of bets? What?
Sam
Thanks for testing Sam. Let me post a spin by spin example of playing number 3 in zumma. Then may be things will be clearer. Gimme a day or two.
Quote from: Albalaha on January 30, 2014, 10:48:53 AM
but he got silent after knowing its reality
Albalaha - You seem to have a good knowledge of what others are doing. I think i might do a search on my house for any spycams and microphones.
Quote from: Albalaha on January 30, 2014, 08:22:05 AM
4 days back, Pockets took entire zumma w/l from me
Albalaha - Only you and me know the reason why i requested for it. I wanted to confirm something and that confirmation is not on the strategy that I posted. I asked you over here and in rf.cc. You comfortably replied with the file in one and not in other :) I will not get into further details, as i got what i wanted.
Now, coming to zumma tester.
1. My brother runs owns a set of subway outlets. He hates it when someone pays for one unlimited cocacola and shares it with the entire group.
2. I own the complete zumma tester library, bought around a year back for around 100 quids.
3. Patience is a virtue.
Pockets,
I am not against you. If it beats all numbers, it will be worth considering for everybody. You know that number 3 has -3 SD and there are a few numbers with positive SD too. All going good with one single technique means the technique is good enough. Take your time. Your method can be converted into a tracker and a bot too, if it is as good as you say. Without testing all sort of numbers with it, your claim of beating all with it or my claim of calling it a "pre-sized plug" both are prejudiced.
I could have tested it myself but I could hardly understand what are you trying to do.
I albahala--not worth my time or yours!
Pockets
Is the "Zuma Tester Library" a .txt file or books?
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 31, 2014, 04:05:42 PM
Pockets
Is the "Zuma Tester Library" a .txt file or books?
Sam
What i have is a .pdf file.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 30, 2014, 03:47:07 PM
Pockets
I have done some real-money play with your idea. I think I won .33!
I quit when I came to a problem. Let's say you go through the first 36 spins. You go to virtual and wait for a hit. Then you resume at level 1. Question: Do you just keep betting at that level until you finally get a hit on the selected number? And then resume at level 6?
Sam, it goes like this. Lets say there is a progression that goes from level 6 to level 1 for 100 spins.
First 36 spins - no hit. You are at progression number 36. Wait for virtual hit. Now once the virtual hit is complete, proceed from progression number 37 for another 36 spins.
Question 2: I'm not sure when you should double your bet. After losing X number of bets? What?
You double your bet only when you lose all the 100 steps in the progression. If you get any win in between, even if you are in negative, you will not double up your bet.
Sam
I have tested against the following.
34 - 1084u
29 - 1552u
00 - 2990u
2 of best performign and the next worst number after 3.
Pockets
Let me see if I got it........
1. Bet for 36 spins (6 units down to 1) Stop and go virtual after spin 36 if you have not won.
2. Do not bet until you get a hit.
3. Bet for another 36 spins at 1 unit. Stop and go virtual until another hit if you have not won.
4. Anytime you reach 100 lost spins without a win, double your bet.
Is that it? If I bot it, Nick needs exact rules.
Sam
Pockets,
Why don't u put your calculations right here, for everyone to see and understand clearly? Let everyone see whether the winnings come at which cost and a single MM being followed in all bets or not. Your rules as you wrote are not very clear to me and many more.
First, pockets claimed:
So let me explain how to beat it without reverse engineering. And yes, method is playable on hot and cold numbers. This will give an output of 22636units at the end of 15000 spins for the number 3 which is the worst.
Then,he made some "variations" and said:Albalaha's posted numbers end with profit of over 4000u in 15000spins with this variation of playing. At any point in time the draw down from peak did not exceed 3600u. So a bank roll of 5000 should be absolutely fine. Time to verify his claims. Stef should come up with testing with Pockets "variations" any time soon.
My HG is a secret formula under a closet of my brain. Pocket's is with everyone, in open. If his claim is correct, none should look at any other way of playing and if his is wrong, it will only strengthen me to never share any winning method because none bothered to do, even one, so far.
He created this topic all of a sudden when I decided to not to talk anymore on any forum. My challenge was open for all for more than a year but none could do that. Isn't it a bit strange?
Be careful of your choice of words Sumit...within the realm of the topic.
No goading or baiting please.
Just keep your comments to the central theme.
(or else your posts will not get approval)
Quote from: Albalaha on February 02, 2014, 10:20:35 AM
If his claim is correct, none should look at any other way of playing
Al, what exactly is pockets' claim? He has said himself that it's not a HG. I thought this thread was about trying to beat a specific number in a specific sequence of spins, isn't that your challenge?
It seems to me that you're trying to pin on pockets something which he never actually asserted.
Also, your "challenge" could be seen as a cynical attempt to goad other members into providing you with winning method, because you haven't been able to find one; nothing more than stamping your foot in a petulant display and screaming "find me a winning system, waaaah!!".
Bayes,
#3 challenge was to beat a bet that is having negative variance, bad hit rate, a little cluster of wins and a standard deviation of more than -3 throughout 15000 spins of American roulette.
Many funny approaches were told and tried upon this challenge. Nothing except reverse engineering ideas (knowing how and variance will attack beforehand gives ample opportunity to prove anything without having any depth in it). A famous system author, when asked said that he will play a number when it did not hit 250 spins (seeing the worst run of 276 times, no hit) and thereby beat this challenge. This way, anything can be beaten but it doesn't prove as a way to play generally.
If we are playing say an EC and we know that there are no 10 Ls in a row, even a kid would advise playing martingale. If it has successive losses, followed by successive wins, anyone can name Oscar's Grind as a panacea. Similarly, every progression widely known to masses, will work great in one particular situation but not in another.
#3 challenge was never meant to provide a plug seeing the hole's size but a money management (with or without other kind of safety measures) that can sustain along bad stretches without hits and lesser number of hits than the mathematical expectancy of that bet.
Pockets claimed his way is not reverse engineering upon #3 W/L but it beats all numbers alike. He even wrote a way to do that and later suggested some tweaks on it too. If a single approach really does this, it is not lesser than any holy grail. If his method and claim are true, it should benefit all and albalaha is not going to carry the method in his pockets to earn from it.
If you see #29 of zumma, it wins entire 15000 spins even flat bet. Should and can one advise playing flat bet, seeing that, on all numbers?
Quotea cynical attempt to goad other members into providing you with winning method, because you haven't been able to find one; nothing more than stamping your foot in a petulant display and screaming "find me a winning system, waaaah!!".
LOL, exactly what he's after!
[quote author=Bayes link=topic=3375.msg26789#msg26789 date=13913490
Also, your "challenge" could be seen as a cynical attempt to goad other members into providing you with winning method, because you haven't been able to find one; nothing more than stamping your foot in a petulant display and screaming "find me a winning system, waaaah!!".
Right on the nail....what I said few years back.
"Phishing" season in full swing.If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 31, 2014, 05:04:47 PM
Pockets
Let me see if I got it........
1. Bet for 36 spins (6 units down to 1) Stop and go virtual after spin 36 if you have not won.
2. Do not bet until you get a hit.
3. Bet for another 36 spins at 1 unit. Stop and go virtual until another hit if you have not won.
4. Anytime you reach 100 lost spins without a win, double your bet.
Is that it? If I bot it, Nick needs exact rules.
Sam
Sam,
I have PMed you the exact step by step rules, as you seem to be the only person interested in this at the moment.
Quote from: Albalaha on February 01, 2014, 06:55:35 AM
Pockets,
Why don't u put your calculations right here, for everyone to see and understand clearly? Let everyone see whether the winnings come at which cost and a single MM being followed in all bets or not. Your rules as you wrote are not very clear to me and many more.
I don't answer to ghosts. I thought Albalaha left all public forums long ago. Can you prove that you are not ghost? I will prove that my system works.
In case you are not ghost, I don't care if the rules are not clear to you. I have given step by step explanation. Read them over and over again and try working your way through the concepts. I can only show you the way to the toilet, can't wipe the dirty thing for you.
Now, this is what we call shying away after shouting. The method that you posted (and later tweaked) is not clear to TCS and Stef too and many more.
Quote from: Albalaha on February 03, 2014, 12:58:31 PM
Now, this is what we call shying away after shouting. The method that you posted (and later tweaked) is not clear to TCS and Stef too and many more.
I can't help it. If someone doesn't understand they can ask me. TCS asked. I have clarified to him.
If many more ask I can clarify to them. I will clarify to everyone WHO I FEEL is open enough.
A bent tail of a dog, can be straightened only temporarily. I realized after reading through your posts for the last few days. You are so desparate to understand my method in detail and am not going to post any further details of it. If you want to figure out a way, figure it out through what is posted already.
You can't hide the truth by deleting my posts. Stef will confirm your failure soon. I know that it was done just to provoke me to give my HG.
Quote from: Albalaha on February 04, 2014, 02:16:21 AM
......... I know that it was done just to provoke me to give my HG.
Uh, yeah. Right.
AD :zzz:
Quote from: Albalaha on February 04, 2014, 02:16:21 AM
You can't hide the truth by deleting my posts. Stef will confirm your failure soon. I know that it was done just to provoke me to give my HG.
I dint delete any of your posts.
I confirmed to you that i have nothing to do with zumma and number 3 and any of the numbers. I didn't beat any of them.
Yes, it was done just to provoke you to give out your HG.
Now?
I WILL POST THE RESULTS IN A SEPARATE TOPIC. Enough drama done, so far from 26k wins to 4k while it is actually, in negative.
Quote from: Albalaha on February 04, 2014, 10:42:09 AM
I WILL POST THE RESULTS IN A SEPARATE TOPIC. Enough drama done, so far from 26k wins to 4k while it is actually, in negative.
Yes Albalaha. it is in negative. You are right. Satisfied?
Stop feeding the troll :thumbsup:
QuoteI have PMed you the exact step by step rules, as you seem to be the only person interested in this at the moment.
I was absent for a few days... Pockets or Sam - can you PM me exact step by step rules PLEASE!
Thanks!
I done went'n did it...