I notice that others think they can run simulations non-stop and show results.
It will fail like all other methods, my opinion.
There will always be Good days, Average days and Bad days.
To handle the variation and keep away from the deep hole, we need MM and rules.
I am talking about Entering points and Exit points, when to attack and when to quit.
One Average day that would result in loses overall end up with positive expectation.
One Bad day that would result in catastrophic scenario end up with a small tiny loss.
That is my point.
You can not get away with fuzzy and sloppy attitude.
You see a winning strike jump on board and try you luck or you losing then stop, but when is that.
I don't give much for guess work.
I will post my results and ideas at this topic.
If you want to follow you are more then welcome.
Cheers
RULES TESTING
1)
The original WF3
Bet on up to 3 numbers which have repeated.
A game terminates (start re-tracking) when either a number hits a third time (a win) or a 4th number repeats without any number having hit 3 times (a loss).
2)
Entering point when one window loss and play until a win or three loses in a row.
First 900 trails from random org.
2014 02 15
Window strikes: LWWWWLWLWWWLWLWWW
Verdict: Good sample
Result: +109 units
2014 02 14
Window strikes: LLLWWLWLLLWLLWL
Verdict: Bad sample
Result: -19 units
2014 02 13
Window strikes: LLLWWWLLWLWWLW
Verdict: Average sample
Results: +32 units
TOTALS
+142
-19
= +122
i follow you
Quote from: Sputnik on February 15, 2014, 05:38:52 PM
RULES TESTING
1)
The original WF3
Bet on up to 3 numbers which have repeated.
A game terminates (start re-tracking) when either a number hits a third time (a win) or a 4th number repeats without any number having hit 3 times (a loss).
2)
Entering point when one window loss and play until a win or three loses in a row.
There's something missing here which is what I forgot to include in the first version of the program. If the stop loss kicks in (meaning a 4th number has repeated but no number has hit 3 times) then you play virtually until a number hits the 3rd time, then quit the session and start re-tracking.
Quote from: Sputnik on February 15, 2014, 05:26:15 PM
I notice that others think they can run simulations non-stop and show results.
It will fail like all other methods, my opinion.
No it will not fail like other methods given that your sources are valid, ie live spin samples or some RNG and about that further research must be done but my colleagues use BV with success.
The examples from Flatino demonstrate 26,000 live spins and our own work on Macao, 20,000 spins, and my private compilation of over 150,000 live spins from a dozen casinos shows a positive edge that continues to climb and not re-trace beyond a small level.
Throw away this nonsense about the hopeless and inevitable loss mind set.
There will always be Good days, Average days and Bad days.
To handle the variation and keep away from the deep hole, we need MM and rules.
I am talking about Entering points and Exit points, when to attack and when to quit.
Results will be enhanced by smart timing and MM application. My results however are for brain dead play, ie no discretion. and this conservative stance enables confidence that you have a platform here to build upon.
One Average day that would result in loses overall end up with positive expectation.
One Bad day that would result in catastrophic scenario end up with a small tiny loss.
That is my point.
You can not get away with fuzzyand sloppy attitude.
You see a winning strike jump on board and try you luck or you losing then stop, but when is that.
I don't give much for guess work.
Fuzzy is an unfortunate choice of word here by you because WF is warm meaning warm ( as contrast to hot or cold) numbers and fuzzy which is fuzzy logic as applied to design and mathematics. In design fuzzy enables not just on/ off decisions but degrees of fit and shades of grey as in lighting variation and even the fine detail of fitting precast modules in sophisticated car production plants like PORSCHE.
We want a fuzzy attitude. But not a sloppy attitude.
This is not guess work but shrewd judgement based on vast collective experience and mental and physical fitness.
I will post my results and ideas at this topic.
If you want to follow you are more then welcome.
Cheers
Thanks for your work Sputnik but don't start planning your marathon before you can learn to go beyond walking. Do not overlook the principle of simplicity that provides clear and elegant engineering solutions. You must know the KISS principle.
Best
XXVV
16 FEb 2014/ 0825
Quote from: Bayes on February 15, 2014, 07:00:24 PM
There's something missing here which is what I forgot to include in the first version of the program. If the stop loss kicks in (meaning a 4th number has repeated but no number has hit 3 times) then you play virtually until a number hits the 3rd time, then quit the session and start re-tracking.
I am not missing that part, i even mention it at another topic about the same subject.
I am just not sure if virtual play make any difference.
But i post 900 trails with my own rules to win with good days and average days and keep loses short at bad days.
I respect XXVV point of view and this strategy is not new.
Actually its based upon a old classical method that i have in one of my roulette books.
Not exactly the same, but very similar.
I still argue that there is good days at the tables and average days at the table and bad days at the tables.
Then simplicity does not cut it, we need to manage the waves of strikes.
We can not do that playing non-stop.
Maybe you argue here that virtual play is some kind of trigger that change things.
Well you can see my LW-Registry above and i will test same files with VP.
But i am pretty sure that if i play non-stop with VP i still will get into negative territories.
Mehtod like this needs skips or entering and exit points, some way to manage windows of strikes.
I base this on my own testing, where i get into negative territories if i play non-stop.
I lose if i don't apply entering points and exit points.
And i trust random org being as good as any existing live spins.
I apoliges for this XXVV but this is my humble opinion.
Quote from: Sputnik on February 15, 2014, 10:29:04 PM
I am not missing that part, i even mention it at another topic about the same subject.
I am just not sure if virtual play make any difference.
But i post 900 trails with my own rules to win with good days and average days and keep loses short at bad days.
I respect XXVV point of view and this strategy is not new.
Actually its based upon a old classical method that i have in one of my roulette books.
Not exactly the same, but very similar.
I still argue that there is good days at the tables and average days at the table and bad days at the tables.
Then simplicity does not cut it, we need to manage the waves of strikes.
We can not do that playing non-stop.
Maybe you argue here that virtual play is some kind of trigger that change things.
Well you can see my LW-Registry above and i will test same files with VP.
But i am pretty sure that if i play non-stop with VP i still will get into negative territories.
Mehtod like this needs skips or entering and exit points, some way to manage windows of strikes.
I base this on my own testing, where i get into negative territories if i play non-stop.
I lose if i don't apply entering points and exit points.
And i trust random org being as good as any existing live spins.
I apoliges for this XXVV but this is my humble opinion.
My friend you are entitled to a humble opinion (lol).
What I would be interested in though is a copy or reference to the classical text you mention.
R
My first comparison.
My test/tweak.
2014 02 13
Window strikes: LLLWWWLLWLWWLW
Verdict: Average sample
Results: 32 units
WF3 Original with VP
2014 02 13
Window strikes: LLLWWLWWLLL
Verdict: Bad sample
Results: -56 units
First i notice that VP slow down the game and give no advantage.
The game and give less action and also less windows with strikes during 300 trails samples.
But futher testing might prove me wrong.
Quote
What I would be interested in though is a copy or reference to the classical
text you mention.
I can look tomorrow ,,, but i think it was that you see three repeats and follow that one and the last most present two repeats up to certain amount of spins or window.
And one other is that you follow the number that has three repeats and add numbers that has two repeats up to six numbers ...
Nothing strange just similar.
Adding.
I find the methods i was refering to and i wrote about them 2009 ...
Classical systems - Plein Part 1 & 2 ...
Quote from: lucky_strike on April 18, 2009, 08:00:05 PM
Here we wait for one number to repeat 3 times and it has to do so with in 36 spins.
When it appears you play that number at most 18 times straight up.
The numbers that shows up twice with in this 18 times you also play straight up until 18 times have been played.
[table=]
Spins, Numbers, Repeats, +/-
1, 1,,,
2, 10,,,
3, 30,,,
4, 14,,,
5, 32,,,
6, 19,,,
7, 0,,,
8, 5,,,
9, 4,,,
10, 31,,,
11, 12, 12,,
12, 30,,,
13, 13,,,
14, 1,,,
15, 35,,,
16, 12, 12,,
17, 5,,,
18, 24,,,
19, 12, 12,,
-,-,-,-,
1, 15,, -1
2, 24,, -2
3, 33, 33, -3
4, 33, 33, -4
5, 7,, -6
6, 26,, -8
7, 28,, -10
8, 0, 0, -12
9, 0, 0, -14
10, 27,, -16
11, 6,, -19
12, 2,, -22
13, 11,, -25
14, 33, 33, +10
15, 31,, +8
16, 12, 12, +43
17, 20,, +42
18, 30,, +41
[/t]
Part 2 ...
Quote from: lucky_strike on April 19, 2009, 07:05:33 AM
Here we track the numbers to find one number that has repeat 3 times with in 36 spins.
We play this number straight up and we continue to do so for 36 spins.
If it hit then we play this number again for 36 spins.
Now we also add new numbers.
We play the numbers that has show twice up to a total of 6 numbers with the number that has hit 3 times.
At most we will play 6 numbers straight up.
Old numbers falls out for new numbers that has hit twice so we play the 6 numbers that qualify last at all times.
The exception is the first number that we always follow until it not hit once more in 36 spins, see above.
Every time one number hit you play this number with 2 units then back to 1 unit.
Here below can you see a short illustration when 6 numbers show and some hit but ends up with one cycle.
[table=]
Spins, Numbers, Repeats, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, +/-
1, 11,,,,,,,,
2, 36,,,,,,,,
3, 6, 6,,,,,,,
4, 6, 6,,,,,,,
5, 14,,,,,,,,
6, 22,,,,,,,,
7, 2,,,,,,,,
8, 36,,,,,,,,
9, 8,,,,,,,,
10, 19,,,,,,,,
11, 14,,,,,,,,
12, 6, 6,,,,,,,,
-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,
1, 32,,,,,,,,
2, 5,,,,,,,,
3, 35, 35,,,,,,,
4, 26,,,,,,,,,
5, 28, 28,,,,,,,
6, 14,,,,,,,,
7, 31,,,,,,,,
8, 22,,,,,,,,
9, 28, 28,28,,,,,,
10, 33,,,,,,,, -1
11, 11, 11,,,,,,, -2
12, 35, 35, 28,35,,,,, -3
13, 13,,,,,,,, -5
14, 35, 35,28,35,,,,, +30
15, 10,,,,,,,, +28
16, 3,,,,,,,, +26
17, 20,,,,,,,, +24
18, 7, 7,,,,,,, +22
19, 7, 7, 28, 35, 7,,,, +20
20, 1,,,,,,,, +17
21, 11, 11, 28, 35, 7, 11,,, +14
22, 8,,,,,,,, +10
23, 24,,,,,,,, +6
24, 7, 7, 28, 35, 7, 11,,, +41
25, 7, 7, 28, 35, 7, 11,,, +123
26, 29,,,,,,,, +119
27, 18, 18,,,,,,, +115
28, 19,,,,,,,, +111
29, 15,,,,,,,, +107
30, 35, 35, 28, 35, 7, 11,,, +143
31, 7, 7, 28, 35, 7, 11,,, +178
32, 21, 21,,,,,,,+174
33, 18, 18, 28, 35, 7, 11, 18,, +170
34, 0,,,,,,,, +165
35, 21, 21, 28, 35, 7, 11, 18, 21, +160
36, 4,,,,,,,, +154
[/t]
You can verify this with Swedish member if you want.
The books are very expensiv, above 100 Euro each.
Is a book from a Swedish author (Sten Nordland) and the main titel of the book is International Roulette.
There is two books with the same name, part 1 & 2 ...
QuoteI respect XXVV point of view and this strategy is not new.-Sputnik
It's been around since the invention of the game.
QuoteThere's something missing here which is what I forgot to include in the first version of the program. If the stop loss kicks in (meaning a 4th number has repeated but no number has hit 3 times) then you play virtually until a number hits the 3rd time, then quit the session and start re-tracking.
-Bayes
Bayes, on the RNG wheels it's simply not going to matter. All that will change is the number of spins on which a bet is made. A live wheel, is something different all together.
QuoteI notice that others think they can run simulations non-stop and show results.
It will fail like all other methods, my opinion.
There will always be Good days, Average days and Bad days.
To handle the variation and keep away from the deep hole, we need MM and rules.
I am talking about Entering points and Exit points, when to attack and when to quit.
One Average day that would result in loses overall end up with positive expectation.
One Bad day that would result in catastrophic scenario end up with a small tiny loss.
That is my point.
You can not get away with fuzzy and sloppy attitude.
You see a winning strike jump on board and try you luck or you losing then stop, but when is that.
I don't give much for guess work.
-Sputnik
Guys,
Regarding RNG: MM and rules don't matter a bit if you're attempting to play this on RNG data. Afterall, why should it?
Some logic and commonsense needs to prevail.
Regarding a live wheel: On a live wheel, what also determines when you should quit are the playing conditions. Your entry and exit points should be based on things like the wheel direction, wheel speed, the dealer, the ball, and the dominant ball drop zones. This is something that you guys can't see or measure when looking at just your raw data. I've already been down this road many years ago. If you're just chasing the raw data alone, then you're simply spinning your wheels.
-Good luck,
-Xander
@ Sputnik
Its like from the sublime to the ridiculous.....
Thanks for your very prompt access to that data and the references; most helpful. I was not aware of these posts or the book title which sounds impressive to me. But then according to Bayes as he suggested not so long ago, I am mesmerised by credentials (lol). Make of that what you will.
Will study, thanks and good luck with your endeavours.
R.
In reality there is one more side to this. You can't play for too long. You can't do it physically. Inevitably when you are tired you will make mistakes. Oh! I would win here if there was no mistake. But more you play -- more you get tired and more chances to make mistake. if you pay attention, when you start playing sometimes you can get away with your mistakes. But when you continue for too long it is an almost inevitable situation when you lose for this reason or that.
My 2 cents.
Quote from: iggiv on February 16, 2014, 01:39:11 AM
In reality there is one more side to this. You can't play for too long. You can't do it physically. Inevitably when you are tired you will make mistakes. Oh! I would win here if there was no mistake. But more you play -- more you get tired and more chances to make mistake. if you pay attention, when you start playing sometimes you can get away with your mistakes. But when you continue for too long it is an almost inevitable situation when you lose for this reason or that.
My 2 cents.
Iggiv you are so right. I have mentioned
reality in some recent posts, and it is well known that the ideal and peak time for perfect work ( let alone being prepared for it earlier, ie not tired, angry, drunk or upset over private affairs - money relationships, insecurities et al, ie life in general) is no more than
70-90 minutes, ie about 60 -90 spins or
3-5 games of WF.That is real play,
real time, and how you make or lose real money.
Parcels of experience. What I am excited about in recent proof has been the ability to seamlessly link sessions of WF play and transfer any debt to negate it next time. This is professional play.
Testing is another universe from real play.
Mind you I have played all nighters too, and I know Mr J over there, when on a roll will hit them hard and press his bets.
XXVV
Quote from: Sputnik on February 15, 2014, 11:03:19 PM
I can look tomorrow ,,, but i think it was that you see three repeats and follow that one and the last most present two repeats up to certain amount of spins or window.
And one other is that you follow the number that has three repeats and add numbers that has two repeats up to six numbers ...
Nothing strange just similar.
Adding.
I find the methods i was refering to and i wrote about them 2009 ...
Classical systems - Plein Part 1 & 2 ...
Part 2 ...
You can verify this with Swedish member if you want.
The books are very expensiv, above 100 Euro each.
Is a book from a Swedish author (Sten Nordland) and the main titel of the book is International Roulette.
There is two books with the same name, part 1 & 2 ...
[/quote
I was unaware of this particular writer but of course was aware of these general ideas while studying hot number theory and had been through trial and error testing of all sorts of variations of such, and as many glibly note such theories have been around a long time.
We ( Bryan and myself)decided to move attention to warm numbers, ie you will notice less demands on numbers of appearances to qualify and also remove time/ duration limits as the cycle is self enforcing, as long as the window of efficient opportunity to live bet is skillfully proportioned so the bet is efficient and has a reliable strike rate.
You are enthusiastic and energetic and will not be dismayed and distracted by the perennial chronic cynics that inhabit such forums as this. Such individuals are losers in the real sense of the term and try to assuage their own self condemnation by forever posting on threads that are suitable outlets for their negativity. it is pattern behaviour and is well understood by the moderators here. Anything with fresh ideas, energy and positive spark is a target, so you should be flattered. I note it was you though, in another life that posted these notes in 2009. Did they not meet your performance requirements? Did you apply these interesting ideas in practice and what were the results please?
There is a really really important principle here and please listen to what I am saying.
Warm numbers are bubbling along 'just below the surface' all the time as potential repeats not necessarily consecutive repeats. The activity does still get 'excited' from time to time and gets hot, but usually just simmers along on a steady temperature. Only rarely does it cool. It took 20,000 spins at Macao to see only one example where the energy cooled to enable there to be 17 targets, ie no repeater action for a while. And the phase lasted some while. It did not correct or re-heat in a hurry as a gamblers fallacy would like to naively believe.
Because of the simmering heat energy ( if you visualise this metaphor - like physics) the warm numbers are a consistent and more reliable bet opportunity, unlike hot numbers. Just ask the confused followers of showman theorist RWD Roy Ward Dickson.
This is a vital shift and this is where the intellectual property value is with this idea. WF has a unique character. Do not underestimate its value. It is not hot number theory. It has built into it through the live and virtual passages many safeguards as well as efficiencies. Ignore the cynics but focus on practical winning and as AJ on my thread says boldly, train yourself to win.
WF has built in flexibility also if you want to have less losing games, and risk exposure in that regard. switch to WF4. Please carefully reflect on this. Apply smart MM and psychology as well. Get synergy to work ( effective energy total is greater than the sum of the parts - that is physics and buckminster fuller). Good Hunting.\
XXVV 16Feb2014/1633
QuoteInviting Xander to dinner would have the unfortunate result of all the guests losing their appetites and leaving because he would have deflated the evening like a Led Zeppelin and insulted Chef Ramsey over his poor record at Glasgow Rangers.
Don't take it personally Xander remember the Bayes Mantra.
XXVV
Wow, if I made a comment like that then you'd be demanding that the mods ban me.
Try and stick to the thread XXVV.
Hey Xander (I see I have to go on point again), with your AP (cough) skills, do you have PROOF that you do well with it? (just like old times, hey buddy?)
Ken
Quote from: Xander on February 16, 2014, 12:23:01 AM
Bayes, on the RNG wheels it's simply not going to matter. All that will change is the number of spins on which a bet is made. A live wheel, is something different all together.
Maybe so, but I want to make sure that the rules given by XXVV are the ones which are actually used, that's the only reason I mentioned it. If I missed out that rule, I would be laying myself open to the charge that it isn't WF3 which was being simulated, but some variation of it.
Quote from: XXVV on February 16, 2014, 02:53:30 AM
Inviting Xander to dinner would have the unfortunate result of all the guests losing their appetites and leaving because he would have deflated the evening like a Led Zeppelin and insulted Chef Ramsey over his poor record at Glasgow Rangers.
Don't take it personally Xander remember the Bayes Mantra.
XXVV
XXVV,
Don't you think you're being a bit childish? and what's with the snide remarks directed at me? Xander's comments aren't personal, that's what you don't seem to realize. They are about the methodology, not "personal" in the sense of being about you or your character, whereas your comments about him are.
Reading some of these threads reminds me of one of my favourite Edward de Bono books (I am right, you are wrong)
We need to go from using 'rock logic' to 'water logic'.
Rock logic would argue that WF3 was a failure if it could not pass a continuous 1 million spin test.
Water logic (as the name suggests) would look to go with the flow and roll with the punches throughout those 1 million spins.
It's important not to think clever concepts such as WF3 are a grail within themselves. But they can be used skilfully by a player to win more sessions than they lose.
Thank you guys for all the hard work you are doing on this subject. It is much appreciated. :thumbsup:
Bally...Im shocked at the interest this idea has gathered considering that I've been playing like this and posting like this for years.
Having said that...the subtlty lies in the application.
Quote from: Turner on February 16, 2014, 01:31:05 PM
Bally...Im shocked at the interest this idea has gathered considering that I've been playing like this and posting like this for years.
Having said that...the subtlty lies in the application.
It's amazing what a few subtle changes to the framework of an idea can produce.
Take RWD as an example. It's a failure (IMO) in it's rigid format.
Then along comes a player and adds a bit of creativity and things can look decidedly different.
That's the great thing in the age of the internet. Information like this can be freely shared and our knowledge of the game can grow rapidly.
'It's all good' as the saying goes.
cheers
Quote from: Bayes on February 16, 2014, 08:46:52 AM
XXVV,
Don't you think you're being a bit childish? and what's with the snide remarks directed at me? Xander's comments aren't personal, that's what you don't seem to realize. They are about the methodology, not "personal" in the sense of being about you or your character, whereas your comments about him are.
The remarks are childish and I unreservedly apologise. I have removed the offending post and you can edit this also along with associated debris if you wish. This is Sputnik's thread and I will not be making any further initial or subsequent posts in this context. The intention of the publication of the WF work has been achieved and I thank you for the help in so doing. I have now much to get on with elsewhere.
XXVV
17Feb 2014/0525
XXVV, thanks for the apology. I appreciate it.
This is my problem. I get a bit confused. I always hate those films that split screen and have several camera shots at once.
There seem to be a lot of versions of this idea. Is egos version different than Bayes version different than XXVVs version?
There are several postes all on WF3
I seem to remember a max of spins that ends a game, as well as a 4th repeat or a win.
Which is which??
Here is the rules as i undertand them.
WF3
Bet on up to 3 numbers which have repeated.
A game terminates (start re-tracking) when either a number hits a third time (a win) or a 4th number repeats without any number having hit 3 times (a loss).
Incorporated VP (meaning virtual play), which means that if you've had no win after the 3rd repeat (a la WF3), play continues "virtually" until a number hits a 3rd time.
Now i will get back and test different version of WF3
All numbers will be from random org with data and size - so you can back track everything
Quote from: Turner on February 16, 2014, 09:10:41 PM
There seem to be a lot of versions of this idea. Is egos version different than Bayes version different than XXVVs version?
No, there is only one version. Short example:
1 36 +0
2 32 +0
3 18 +0
4 11 +0
5 14 +0
6 15 +0
7 28 +0
8 34 +0
9 16 +0
10 32 +0 #32 has now hit twice, so start betting on it.
11 31 -1 32
12 19 -2 32
13 19 -3 32
14 12 -5 32 19 #19 has now also hit twice, so bet on it as well as #32
15 20 -7 32 19
16 12 -9 32 19 #12 has hit twice, add it to the list to bet on from here on.
17 17 -12 32 19 12
18 24 -15 32 19 12
19 14 -18 32 19 12
At this point, #14 has also hit twice. As there are now FOUR numbers which have hit twice (but nothing has hit 3 times yet), go into "virtual" mode. i.e. keep tracking (but not actually betting) until any number has hit a third time. Note that this could be a number which hasn't actually appeared yet, or not.
VP means "Virtual Play"
20 30 -18 32 19 12 14
21 16 -18 32 19 12 14
22 24 -18 32 19 12 14 16
23 33 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24
24 34 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24
25 6 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34
26 17 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34
27 29 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
28 23 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
29 13 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
30 8 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
31 25 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
32 22 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
33 18 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
34 33 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17 18
35 28 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17 18 33
36 13 -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17 18 33 28
37 24 -18
At this point, #24 has hit 3 times and is the
first number to do so, therefore the game ends here and you start tracking again looking for repeats.
Thanks Bayes for making that clear.
I will not continue with this as i getting bad results.
I don't understand how some one can get good results using WF3.
I apoliges for this, but WF3 does not work with random org ...
Can either of you guys tell me what the game duration is?
Sorry I have not read the method; there is so much fluff surrounding it now that I am not sure I could even find the answers I am looking for. I see XXVV mentioned earlier 60-90 spins for 3-5 games.
This bet selection has no logic at all. Xander was right when he said stuff like this has been tested to death. But lets not take any of it personally. It's just an observation. I would rather see some maths that backs up the premise of the bet, but I suspect it does not exist. I have done simulations of this, or similar, myself, and I can say from experience that WF3 will not hold up in the long run, nothing will help including money management and progressions.
I have created a book of simulated statistics that attempts to find out categorically whether hot numbers can be defined mathematically in some optimum criteria, and, thus, predicted i.e. is there any point in time where a number has a higher probability of hitting that the expectancy.
I can say that WF3 is pretty wide of the mark really, for the most simple reason that it's betting on old "hot" numbers, and so the definition is incorrect. This is just like taking a wild, random punt.
Quote from: Number Six on February 17, 2014, 05:33:00 PM
Can either of you guys tell me what the game duration is?
Sorry I have not read the method; there is so much fluff surrounding it now that I am not sure I could even find the answers I am looking for. I see XXVV mentioned earlier 60-90 spins for 3-5 games.
This bet selection has no logic at all. Xander was right when he said stuff like this has been tested to death. But lets not take any of it personally. It's just an observation. I would rather see some maths that backs up the premise of the bet, but I suspect it does not exist. I have done simulations of this, or similar, myself, and I can say from experience that WF3 will not hold up in the long run, nothing will help including money management and progressions.
I have created a book of simulated statistics that attempts to find out categorically whether hot numbers can be defined mathematically in some optimum criteria, and, thus, predicted i.e. is there any point in time where a number has a higher probability of hitting that the expectancy.
I can say that WF3 is pretty wide of the mark really, for the most simple reason that it's betting on old "hot" numbers, and so the definition is incorrect. This is just like taking a wild, random punt.
I have the solution.
I can tell what number is bias or hot and not due towards random fluctuation.
The method comes from discussion between Laurance Scott and Edward Thorp.
The down side is that i don't share or make that kind of information public.
But i have to say it feels good having a complete playing model in my library.
I have all simulations software with cor charts and explanation how to determine what is what.
Sputnik,
I presume you're talking about AP here, considering the names you mentioned?
My experiment was geared up towards a mathematical solution really. For that reason I tend to use random.org as the source, so any results can't be due to physical bias or something else. The results were pretty enlightening, but like you say some things are not for public consumption for one reason or another.
Quote from: Number Six on February 17, 2014, 05:33:00 PM
Can either of you guys tell me what the game duration is?
Sorry I have not read the method; there is so much fluff surrounding it now that I am not sure I could even find the answers I am looking for. I see XXVV mentioned earlier 60-90 spins for 3-5 games.
This bet selection has no logic at all. Xander was right when he said stuff like this has been tested to death. But lets not take any of it personally. It's just an observation. I would rather see some maths that backs up the premise of the bet, but I suspect it does not exist. I have done simulations of this, or similar, myself, and I can say from experience that WF3 will not hold up in the long run, nothing will help including money management and progressions.
I have created a book of simulated statistics that attempts to find out categorically whether hot numbers can be defined mathematically in some optimum criteria, and, thus, predicted i.e. is there any point in time where a number has a higher probability of hitting that the expectancy.
I can say that WF3 is pretty wide of the mark really, for the most simple reason that it's betting on old "hot" numbers, and so the definition is incorrect. This is just like taking a wild, random punt.
Thanks for your 'opinion ' #6
Why you have to post here on Sputnik's site, and not directly to me or to a thread of mine is 'wide of the mark' also.
You can't be bothered to 'read the method ' and the tone of your entire passage is shall we say 'skewed', and not very supportive of the WF approach, but then if you have not read the detail, why comment so negatively.
I really regret having to write on Sputnik's thread but I had said to Bayes I would not because of the prior nonsense with Xander. It seems this particular thread is attracting some negative comment and as you have asked a specific question you deserve a specific answer, despite your clearly biased view.
The average duration of a WF game, whether WF3,WF4 or WF5 or more, is 21 spins, including qualification of targets. This total game duration will vary from as little as 3 spins for an optimal outcome, so some that go 30 spins or more.
If #6 you take the trouble to travel across to my blog section you will see on a thread a beautiful distribution graph that illustrates the outcomes on Macao and the consistent appearance at the peak of the bell curve for outcomes between 3 and 4 targets. These are the WF3 and WF4 modes.
Bayes was shown
this graph (appropriately numbered thread #6) at the outset and noted the clear pattern signal which encouraged him to put the effort into his programming.
Perhaps you would like to discuss the mathematical implications with him and enlighten us all in due course as to worth, through your eyes and considered experience. I would be most interested but respectfully ask, you do your homework first before expressing opinion. Nothing personal of course.
As for Sputnik, well I did say patience was needed and you have not demonstrated that to me as from the ouset I cautioned on RNG and particularly some sources therof. I am beginning to sound like Xander, and that is a worry(hmm) but I do suggest you first focus on small samples of reliable live spin data like Biagle has faithfully done on my blog using Wiesbaden#3.
In that we have struggled with passages of poor results and I have shown him there was a major accruing error as we measure results completed game to completed game, and #6 you might be interested in this, the seamless connecting of one night's last spins to the first spins the next day in order to complete the game. In Macao the 'gap' was 15 minutes we 'bridged, and in Wiesbaden, 9 hours or so. Also we seamlessly co-related the 31 days first game only sessions for a month as a random assemblage for Wiesbaden and that worked beautifully. Valid #6 ?
Further #6 you talk of old 'hotnumbers' being targeted. Quite the reverse and I can tell you have not read my reasoning on the generation of warm and warming numbers and the freshness and speed of those cycles, very different from hot number cycles.
I would appreciate your re-locating any discussion or queries of WF onto the appropriate and clearly marked sections on my blog.
If Sputnik you wish to assimilate my work into a larger library of data, all well and good, but again please write to me in the appropriate context or again we have the problem of opinionated intrusion ( such as Xander M/O ) which has been shown to be counter productive on all levels.
Thank you.
Thanks to you both for your time
Best
XXVV
18Feb2015/0710
QuoteI have the solution.
I can tell what number is bias or hot and not due
towards random fluctuation.
The method comes from discussion between Laurance
Scott and Edward Thorp.
The down side is that i don't share or make that kind
of information public.
But i have to say it feels good having a complete playing model in my library.
I have all simulations software with cor charts
and explanation how to determine what is what.
QuoteSputnik,
I presume you're talking about AP here, considering the names
you mentioned?
My experiment was geared up towards a mathematical
solution really. For that reason I tend to use random.org as the source, so any
results can't be due to physical bias or something else. The results were pretty
enlightening, but like you say some things are not for public consumption for
one reason or another.
True it is about AP.
But you have to make one important distinction when you read what i wrote.
The method is based upon math and probability and not defect spotting.
Defect spotting involve physical detections of the wheel.
The method Laurance Scott create after some discussion with Edward Thorp is pure math and probability.
I can mention he make a difference between pseudo STD and actually STD.
Then you have the COR charts - Chance of randomness.
Monte Carlo simulation softare to see how ofthen 123456789 numbers hit 3 STD randomly and so on ...
Then you use a matemathical hypotes of the likelihood that a number is due towards random fluctuation or not.
Based upon very clever parameters that i can not mention - the playing model.
XXVV,
Yes I did not read it. I read the criteria Bayes used for his program, so regardless I am pretty sure I understand what it's all about. Not sure I need to do my homework really, your opinion of this method of play does not tally with mine. I don't see the problem. There's nothing wrong with advising caution before someone plays it for real. If they do or not has no bearing on me at all.
My view is hardly biased, I'm not bashing any one here, I just don't see the logic. There is actually nothing to support that fact that your bet selections somehow offer an increased probability of winning. I feel like I've seen it all before.
Quote from: Sputnik on February 17, 2014, 06:13:58 PM
I can mention he make a difference between pseudo STD and actually STD.
Interesting. And what were the conclusions drawn about pseudo SD?
Are we talking about the difference between virtual bets and real bets? Do they think it's valid?
Quote from: Number Six on February 17, 2014, 06:22:42 PM
XXVV,
Yes I did not read it. I read the criteria Bayes used for his program, so regardless I am pretty sure I understand what it's all about. Not sure I need to do my homework really, your opinion of this method of play does not tally with mine. I don't see the problem. There's nothing wrong with advising caution before someone plays it for real. If they do or not has no bearing on me at all.
My view is hardly biased, I'm not bashing any one here, I just don't see the logic. There is actually nothing to support that fact that your bet selections somehow offer an increased probability of winning. I feel like I've seen it all before.
Fair enough the last sentence really sums your view and thank you for the directness.
What interests me about science and research or design, is trying to see something anew, from a slightly different angle. A fresh 'insight'.
Simply stated I believe WF does that in that in many cases, sometimes a majority of cases, a win van be achieved through a higher than expected grouping of winning bet outcomes when there are 3 or 4 targets in a game as we have defined. This fluctuates of course but in my experience and in substantial samples of live spin testing we have found there is a sufficient dominance of these characteristsics, especially WF1,2, and 3, in order to provide short term gain which can be captured and amassed.
Of course this varies and we flat stake and stop loss to try to maximise bet efficiency.
It works for me with addition especially of further detail to which I have referred.
The warm numbers often come and go and in my view most often do not become hot as in the RWD definition.
My original idea was that the 'warming' process' gives this view a freshness and slightly different quality, what is termed 'a point of difference' in commercial jargon. However if after all that, you still feel you have 'seen it all' then I need discuss this no further.
Thank you
Quote from: XXVV on February 17, 2014, 06:34:52 PM
The warm numbers often come and go and in my view most often do not become hot as in the RWD definition.
I don't think the RWD definition has much credence at all. Call me cynical or narrow-minded but I understand he was selling a book and so had financial interest to sugarcoat his ideas.
The problem simply remains that most "hot number" systems simply select whichever number is hitting above expectation in some past amount of spins. We can embellish that and talk about windows of opportunity and an attack ranges and whatever. But there is no clear prediction. It's all a bit up in the air. The numbers may remain hot or they may not. I don't believe you can ever get around that without drilling down into the probabilities and applying bets in a way Sputnik says with a "playing model". That is really the secret, isn't it?
I'll continue to keep up to date with any testing. And believe me if satisfactory conclusions are drawn about WF3, I'll be first to congratulate you.
All very interesting....and debated perfectly in my view
@ bayes
Thanks for the explaination
Quote from: Number Six on February 17, 2014, 06:52:41 PM
I don't think the RWD definition has much credence at all. Call me cynical or narrow-minded but I understand he was selling a book and so had financial interest to sugarcoat his ideas.
The problem simply remains that most "hot number" systems simply select whichever number is hitting above expectation in some past amount of spins. We can embellish that and talk about windows of opportunity and an attack ranges and whatever. But there is no clear prediction. It's all a bit up in the air. The numbers may remain hot or they may not. I don't believe you can ever get around that without drilling down into the probabilities and applying bets in a way Sputnik says with a "playing model". That is really the secret, isn't it?
I'll continue to keep up to date with any testing. And believe me if satisfactory conclusions are drawn about WF3, I'll be first to congratulate you.
Thank you for your observations and recommendations #6.
XXVV
Quote from: Sputnik on February 17, 2014, 06:13:58 PM
True it is about AP.
But you have to make one important distinction when you read what i wrote.
The method is based upon math and probability and not defect spotting.
Defect spotting involve physical detections of the wheel.
The method Laurance Scott create after some discussion with Edward Thorp is pure math and probability.
I can mention he make a difference between pseudo STD and actually STD.
Then you have the COR charts - Chance of randomness.
Monte Carlo simulation softare to see how ofthen 123456789 numbers hit 3 STD randomly and so on ...
Then you use a matemathical hypotes of the likelihood that a number is due towards random fluctuation or not.
Based upon very clever parameters that i can not mention - the playing model.
I will reply to this but only in my blog section under a new thread #10 Playing Model
Thank you.
R