+ Register

[audiokinesis]

Hi, with a bit roundabout but here it is, reply#1 from BetJack:

http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/why-i-fail-in-the-long-run/

[Blue_Angel]

Hi, with a bit roundabout but here it is, reply#1 from BetJack:

http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/why-i-fail-in-the-long-run/

Thanks

[Sputnik]

Session #13: This may be the worst one ever seen:

    446 Losses vs  354 wins

ONLY 65 WINS IN FIRST 200 SPINS
NEXT 200 SPINS BRING 89 WINS ONLY
NEXT 100 SPINS GOT 46 WINS ONLY
NO BIG WINNING STREAK EVER TO HELP with compare to losing streaks




outcome
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L'
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
W

This session is easy to win, you only hit 3.0 SD once or 14 contra 2
And 15 contra 2 once which is 3.15 SD - nothing extreme about that sequense, very common.

He is caculating the SD wrong and don't understand that the imbalance happend within a window around 16 to 25 events or you skip that particular imbalance.
The limit goes around 16 to 50 and better 16 to 40 which make the strenght behind the SD signficant, when you stretch things over 50 to 100 to 150 you lose strenght and the path for regression gets weaker.

[TheLaw]

Hey Sputnik,

So we should try to keep it under 50 spins to calculate SD?........I assume mathematically there is an exact number, but a rough estimate is probably close enough.

Thanks!

[Albalaha]

This session is easy to win, you only hit 3.0 SD once or 14 contra 2
And 15 contra 2 once which is 3.15 SD - nothing extreme about that sequense, very common.

He is caculating the SD wrong and don't understand that the imbalance happend within a window around 16 to 25 events or you skip that particular imbalance.

              Which book of maths you refer that tell u it is only 3.0 SD?
65 hits of an EC in 200 spins is 4.5 SD below mean, one of the toughest situation ever recorded in ECs.

It is easy to win? Show us how u can win this easily playing every spin.

[Blue_Angel]

              Which book of maths you refer that tell u it is only 3.0 SD?
65 hits of an EC in 200 spins is 4.5 SD below mean, one of the toughest situation ever recorded in ECs.

It is easy to win? Show us how u can win this easily playing every spin.

His tactic doesn't bet every spin but only after 3 SD

To wait to happen 3 SD without betting is very boring, it's like waiting for 15 reds in a row before to bet black by doubling up.

[Albalaha]

Dear BA,
  Even I had a similar approach earlier for my positive gambling module as you can still read that but after lots of introspection I found that:
1. No waiting can give you very good time later. Even if you wait for 10 successive losses and play just 1 spin thereafter, u will still get the same amount of wins/losses as in a random game. So why wait?

2. No trigger can safeguard you from getting tough long stretches of losses or below average number of wins. So why wait?


      Only exception to this is, if you attack a virtual limit by waiting for its 70%-80% going virtually and then attacking with a brute force do or die progression. As you can see here: http://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/hg-for-baccarat-and-all-even-chances-bets-for-free/

Hence playing after 3SD doesn't offer any advantage by itself.

[Sputnik]

Poor understanding and do the most basics wrong.

For example if i have 14 contra 1 event - then we know for the next 24 events we will recive at least 4 hits - we know this for a fact.
But is not the same as having a crystal ball which tell you what will happen in the furthure - but it is the expectation and probability after several million simulations and you will probably not break a new World record you time at the table.

So you can not assume getting more hits to recover from 20 loses and 2 wins - that is a false positive and why his method does not work.
And his assumption is wrong about waiting for 3.0 SD - that is just one example - they can grow to 3.5 or 4.0 or 4.5 SD without betting - you just observe.
Betting against 4.5 SD is silly and you can not recover with any existing staking plan.

The hole concept he present is wrong from the beginning.
And we can get 3.0 SD and above without betting at anytime without Charting and tracking or wait.
You only attack when there is a change present, so any SD can grow without you do nothing.

[Blue_Angel]

Poor understanding and do the most basics wrong.

For example if i have 14 contra 1 event - then we know for the next 24 events we will recive at least 4 hits - we know this for a fact.
But is not the same as having a crystal ball which tell you what will happen in the furthure - but it is the expectation and probability after several million simulations and you will probably not break a new World record you time at the table.

So you can not assume getting more hits to recover from 20 loses and 2 wins - that is a false positive and why his method does not work.
And his assumption is wrong about waiting for 3.0 SD - that is just one example - they can grow to 3.5 or 4.0 or 4.5 SD without betting - you just observe.
Betting against 4.5 SD is silly and you can not recover with any existing staking plan.

The hole concept he present is wrong from the beginning.
And we can get 3.0 SD and above without betting at anytime without Charting and tracking or wait.
You only attack when there is a change present, so any SD can grow without you do nothing.

But like this you are an observer, not a player.

Unless you are using another method as your primary, what you suggest has no practical value.

[Sputnik]

Missunderstanding again, you attack when regression is present not before.
Any one show belive they can bet against 19 contra 2 and recoup with no real expectaion measuring a the statistical Ecart & Variance is silly.

[Albalaha]

For example if i have 14 contra 1 event - then we know for the next 24 events we will recive at least 4 hits - we know this for a fact.

wow!! havenly revelation.From where did u get this wisdom?
nothing in past can indicate anything about future. Anything else you learnt is pretty fallacious.

and even if you know there will be atleast 4  wins in the next 24 spins, you can't win then by knowing that.

[Sputnik]

and even if you know there will be atleast 4  wins in the next 24 spins, you can't win then by knowing that.

Yes you can but i don't Selling any solution and will not talk more about the subject.
You can continue this topic and i will not be part of it.

Cheers

[Albalaha]

Yes you can but i don't Selling any solution and will not talk more about the subject.
You can continue this topic and i will not be part of it.

Cheers

   Nice way to run away when have nothing to prove what you said.

I did not invite you to participate and put your dream fallacies without any mathematical basis.

Even if we know for sure that the next 24 spins will have at least 4 wins, we can't win with this knowledge alone. 4 wins could come in any scatter and there is no way to beat them in any reasonable table lime. So how did playing after certain SD help? It does not.

[albertojonas]

   Nice way to run away when have nothing to prove what you said.

I did not invite you to participate and put your dream fallacies without any mathematical basis.

Even if we know for sure that the next 24 spins will have at least 4 wins, we can't win with this knowledge alone. 4 wins could come in any scatter and there is no way to beat them in any reasonable table lime. So how did playing after certain SD help? It does not.

It is possible and it is real, despite what you may think. I have seen it proven and i experience it everyday. It is a perception of reality you have to embrace and live with. Others might know some things you ignore.
I understand sputnik getting away from the discussion, as it doesn't seem you have the humility to learn otherwise. It seems to me you expect knowledge to be given to you for free with no effort or interest on your side. To prove you wrong isn't a motive strong enough to make others share their knowledge. It's the attitude. No hard feelings.

[Albalaha]

Sorry buddy,
              I do not find most of the members even talking of sense. Most are taking dip still in age old proven failure fallacies. Sputnik claimed that playing after 3 SD is advantageous, I asked how. He gave example of if 16 spins have 1 win next 24 will have atleast 4 more.

First, it is a fallacious thinking in itself. We can't determine these things by observations. 4/24 is rare by itself but in no way it is a virtual limit.
Even if we take it as one, how will you beat each case of 4/24? He got no answer and ran away. Would you mind answering?

Playing after a very bad stretch is no guarantee of great times ahead or even average ones. It is always like playing all over, in terms of probability. You can not bypass the harshness of randomness by opting to play at time A or time X. It will be as random as ever.

Similarly, Gizmotron tried to preach that he can identify a streak, if it is a start or middle or end. This statement is another poor fallacy. If I see WWW, we can't say it will go WWWL or WWWWWWW or WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ahead. Anybody claiming to "sense" future is either a fool or a crook.

Anybody claiming to use patterns in making is either a fool or crook.

Anybody claiming to win a game of house edge flat or without risk of any loss is a fool or a crook.
In lesser harsh words, he may be an ignorant fellow incapable of simulating ideas in long run.