I've written a simulation to test XXVV's WF3 system. I'm still not 100% sure my code is correct (because the results are so good ;) ) which is one reason why I've posted a sample here. When I'm sure it's ok, I'll run the sim against a much larger file of spins (both RNG and actuals, to see if there's any difference).
Note that this is a simulation of the WF3 bet only:
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).
UPDATE: Due to a bug in the code which generated the results, they are invalid and should be ignored.
Nice work Bayes ...
Cheers
Hello Bayes,
Thanks for sharing the simulated results of XXVV's WF3 system.
Regards
Hello,
I went through the first few games and everything adds up the way it should......
nice job :thumbsup:
It will cut the house edge slightly, but it won't win in the long run. I've already run such simuations like this one countless times over the years and over several hundreds of thousands of live spins.
QuoteIt will cut the house edge slightly, but it won't win in the long run. I've already run such simuations like this one countless times over the years and over several hundreds of thousands of live spins.
Show it to us dear Xander
Short of doing a screen share so you can witness the simulations first hand, I don't know how you could see it.
just put some proofs for your words...
Bayes,
In what program is the simulator written?
I can't seem to open the file.
@ Xander,
Not sure what you mean? It's just a plain text file which you need to unzip before you can read it. The actual simulation is written in a version of BASIC (see below).
@ Bally, thanks for the feedback.
I'm posting the source code because I've just tested the 50,000 spin file and the result was over 25,000 units profit. :o My first reaction was that there must be a mistake somewhere, but the code is pretty simple and I'm damned if I can see any problems with it. Anyway, all you programmers please could you look over it. I've included comments so it should be fairly easy to read. Note that this is a simplified version of the program; I've removed some code which marks the end of each game and keeps count of the wins and losses.
Ironically, what I've actually coded isn't what XXVV had in mind but a variation of it. Perhaps I've inadvertently discovered a HG. :D
[attachimg=1]
I'm not seeing anything like that. I'm seeing an occasional profitable run for 30k spins with an edge of up to 7% before it tanks into negative territory on another set of 30k. The long tem edge is still in negative territory.
The wheel used, and the dealer combinations is going to matter.
Look deeper for bugs in your simulation.
there gonna be times when it all goes down terribly :thumbsdown: . Overall even if you gonna be ahead on different wheels, it won't be too much.
"Ironically, what I've actually coded isn't what XXVV had in mind but a variation of it."
Then shouldn't the code be modified accordingly? To ensure you're testing the 'right' method?
XXVV,
Back in 1984, Frank Barstow published, "Beat the Casino". Within the book, there was a nearly exact description of this system. It's nothing new. Back then, I believe he referred to it as the Pyramid System. People have been betting "hot numbers" since the invention of the game. In all fairness, it's one of the best ways to win, since it's a very crude form of biased wheel play, but in the end it's not going to show a profit.
(In short: 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).)
Countless people, including myself have simulated this stuff over a million spins. And yes, I did say a million. Some of us have been at for far longer than only ten years. The overall end result is that it does sometimes work, but in the long run, on the more random wheels it simply won't work. Your experience is your experience. My belief is that you've been very lucky, or perhaps you haven't played as many spins as you believe that you have. Anytime that you're betting just one to a few numbers you will have extended periods of success.
Anytime that you want to see the simulations run live, on my computer using my live spin archives, I'll be happy to show you the results. I can run the simulations on a screen share so you can see the results first hand. I'm sure I can find individual wheels where it runs a small profit for 100k spins or so at a time, but not many of them. Over several different wheels, however, the result is negative.
There's no disputing that playing the hottest numbers is a step in the right direction, and that it's far better than betting on the sleeper nonsense. But as it is, it's not the holy grail that you believe it is.
-Regards,
-Xander
QuoteI developed my own method for hot numbers called 3 in 30, and prepared variations finally settling on 3 in 35 and used an IBM mainframe computer to test millions of RNG spins with major partnership from a trusted and dear colleague. I did this 20 years ago. -XXVV
XXVV,
Sorry, but my testing results don't show anything of the kind. I don't want to say that you're exaggerating, but my extensive experience on more spins tested shows that your results are... unique to your testing. Perhaps there was an error in your program? If anyone wants to actually see the simulations run, then they can contact me.
There's nothing novel about 3 in 30. It's simply betting any number that's hit 2 to 3 times above expectation in a horizon of 30 spins. It's like a very crude biased method that won't quite work well enough to win in the long run.
Also, the Frank Barstow progressions have no strength. They're only value is for entertainment.
By the way, if you don't like constructive criticism, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting on a public forum. Maybe try sticking to a blog.
Best of luck,
-Xander
Guys,
Don't order those porsches just yet. I've found a bug in the code. :(
Not sure how it's going to affect the overall results, but I'm guessing not favourably. I spotted the error in this sequence of numbers:
32 +0
13 +0
12 +0
27 +0
34 +0
30 +0
25 +0
9 +0
10 +0
4 +0
13 +0 -- number 13 repeated
3 +35 -- but obviously this profit isn't warranted
I'll look into it...
Ok, I've found the bug. Apologies to all, especially XXVV. :-[
The culprit was in line 28 (see code above). The INSTR() function looks at the list of numbers which have hit twice and if the current spin is in that list it means a win. In the sequence posted above, no. 13 had hit twice, but INSTR() saw the final "3" as "in" the no. 13 and so recorded a win. The solution was to add a space before each number, so that " 3 " is no longer a subset of " 13 ".
Unfortunately, re-running the code resulted in an overall loss. Amazing how much difference that missing space made to the results! oh well, that's programming for you. :stress:
However, I still need to modify the code so that it implements the actual system which XXVV had in mind. So watch this space...
XXVV's WF3 is nothing else but a variation on my finest method (I asked to limit upto 4 numbers and he modified it to 3). It is an interesting way to play and earns well when positive variance strikes but it has no edge in itself to be called a "winner".
It is just a way to play the hottest number/s of the moment.
Aimlessly playing spin after spin until you are in the negative makes no sense. Even Charlie scammer
said If we hit a losing streak and get to plus 3 we stop. Anything that you play goes up and down and if
learn to leave while ahead you will eventually stop losing. That being said one must still find a method
that gets you consistently in the positive. Could this be it ??? ??? ???
Happy hunting
Art Jay
Keep going XXVV. Im enjoying your stuff.
Turner
I am doing some testing on this as outlined in the first post of this thread by Bayes. This is nothing to scoff at............
If you're going to mess around testing it, then at least use a computer. Hand testing is a waste of time, since you couldn't hope to test enough spins. Furthermore you're going to make mistakes with the hand testing.
If you're gong to test, then use live spins. RNG spins will not work.
Quote from: Xander on February 13, 2014, 06:40:10 PM
If you're gong to test, then use live spins. RNG spins will not work.
can you tell us what is the REAL diference?
Believe it or not ...
RNG does work with WF3 ;)
Quote from: Stepkevh on February 13, 2014, 06:56:44 PM
Believe it or not ...
RNG does work with WF3 ;)
maybe you want to share spreadsheet only?:)
Quote
Believe it or not ...
RNG does work with WF3 ;) -Stepkehv
NOT. :no: There's no logical reason for it.
Besides, I've already tested RNG in the past. It's a waste of time.
The only reason betting the hottest number cuts the edge slightly is because of a slight bias that can exist with the dealer/wheel combination.
@XXVV >> Thank you very much for this method. Been reading it all, looks promising!!
Thanks again for all your hard work and also thanks to Bayes. You guys rock. :cheer:
Ken
"we all love 'a Quest'. I think we are hard wired for it and nothing beats searching, and there is never an end, because there is always more to seek" >>> BINGO, 100% correct. Find/create a decent method, then TWEAK the f**k out of it until it bleeds cash.
Ken
Biagle,
Everyone knows that i wouldn't have a problem with sharing sheets.
But the problem is that this is a sheet that i have created for a client of me to run in his excelbot.
So obviusly i can't share this here.
BUT...
Like i said believe it or not, this WF3 really works no matter what you think Xander.
There will always be nay-sayers that don't believe that something else works because in their eyes
the only way to win with roulette is AP.
Maybe its time to get out of your own world ???
Tell me Xander, where is the slight bias that can exist with the dealer/wheel combination on RNG ???
Just learn to think out of the box ;D
who wants to make group buy of sheet?
Quote because in their eyesthe only way to win with roulette is AP
what is AP?
Quote from: Xander on February 13, 2014, 07:22:39 PMNOT. :no: There's no logical reason for it. Besides, I've already tested RNG in the past. It's a waste of time.The only reason betting the hottest number cuts the edge slightly is because of a slight bias that can exist with the dealer/wheel combination.
So basically, RNG doesn't have hot numbers and real wheel does because the wheel is wonky or there is "debris"in the pocket...or it's a bit humid or the dealer eat a cake and didn't wash his hands?
Turner,
It will slightly reduce the house edge on some live wheels for reasons that most people will not understand. The physics involved are outside of what the ordinary gambler can grasp.
QuoteTell me Xander, where is the slight bias that can exist with the dealer/wheel combination on RNG ???-Offline Stepkevh
QuoteJust learn to think out of the box ;D - Stepkevh
Stepkevh,
There isn't one. That's why betting the hottest number(s) on an RNG is futile.
I know you think that I can't think outside of the box, but what you don't realize is that I've been at this game far longer than most people. I don't just gamble for the hell of it. It's what I do professionally. I have some extremely advanced simulators written by some of the best and brightest people out there. I know what works, and I know what's a fool's folly.
If you want to attempt to beat an RNG, record several million trials, and then start using some of the online RNG fitness testing programs that are available from people like random.org.
This 3 in 30 stuff has been simulated a zillion times over the decades. There's nothing new or novel about betting the hottest number. It's been simulated to death. It's by far better than betting on the coldest numbers because there's an outside chance that the dealer/wheel combination may yield and edge do to some kind of bias.
AP stands for advantage play. Basically, it's what everyone on this board is chasing - A way to actually get the edge over the casino, so that they can win in the long run. Anyone that tells you otherwise is probably lying.
The simple fact is, if you can't find a way to get the edge, then you simply can't win in the long run. Anyone that says otherwise is likely illiterate, or a drunken imbecile with a gambling problem.
-Xander
QuoteI've been at this game far longer than most people. I don't just gamble for the hell of it. It's what I do professionally. I have some extremely advanced simulators written by some of the best and brightest people out there. I know what works, and I know what's a fool's folly
I know that you don't want share with me your knowledge. But can you just point the way?
He might tell you to find a dirty wheel first then tell you how to win.
The only problem is,there are not dirty wheels around anymore.
Quote from: FLAT_IN_O on February 13, 2014, 10:01:03 PM
He might tell you to find a dirty wheel first then tell you how to win.
The only problem is,there are not dirty wheels around anymore.
Throw some mud on it then it will be dirty :))
Xander, who says that i don't know that you're probably longer at this game then most of us ;)
And btw, i don't need those b*llsh*t stuff like random.org .
I'm capable enough to do that all by myself :thumbsup:
I'm not going to dicuss further on what we said because
a) were getting off-track
b) we both have other opinions on it
Stef
few questions... how much is WF sheet cost and if wins on RNG once bought would it bring constant profit and if fails would i get refund money spent on WF sheet..thanks
Quote from: Xander on February 13, 2014, 09:26:44 PMTurner,It will slightly reduce the house edge on some live wheels for reasons that most people will not understand. The physics involved are outside of what the ordinary gambler can grasp.
That's just esoteric and helps nobody
Just because you type yourself an impressive CV doesn't answer the question
So if I have 100000 spins from random.org and 100000 spins from live wheel, what will the differences be.
I've tested them and noticed that they are same from a hit point of view.
Red hits 18, 19 in a row, all numbers have a period of hitting many times (4 in a row), all numbers sleep for 400+ etc
no discernible difference
There are the results and conclusions of my testing.
What is your angle?
"The only problem is,there are not dirty wheels around anymore" >>> that's when the real fun begins. You fill up the car with gas and start your journey driving thousands of miles all over the country IN SEARCH OF A WHEEL and that's even if, one is out there AND the casino does not switch it out or level that wheel at 6am.
Guess what? Back in the car and START OVER AGAIN. (lol) Talk about.........illiterate, or a drunken imbecile with a gambling problem. :P
Ken
"I found a few right in your back yard at your reservation" >>>
Of course you did and I found a purple duck at a bowling alley eating pizza while singing AC/DC tunes.
Ken
One was at the table where you told people that you bet $40 to the number. The funny thing was that when I looked at it the max bet at the table, it was only $25. Kind of funny hmmmm. ;)
Who is that? Me? You mean that thread like 4 years ago regarding RE here? that's kind of vague, could I (we) get more info? I don't HIDE nor do I get embarrassed, tell us more man. I'm off to look at new appliances so the floor is all yours.
Ken
Quote from: Xander on February 13, 2014, 10:40:11 PM
I don't see how to post graphs from Excel Spreadshets.
click choose file...simple
Thanks Xander....this is instructive ;)
If the samples were small, it would be virtually impossible to tell the difference. The larger the sample, the easier it is to tell the difference.
In the example above, you'd have to run a large number of RNG simulations in order to find one that was similar to the live wheel on the left.
QuotePaul, my Attorney, has no sense of humour at all, and gets very irritated my lack of precision in speech and action.-XXVV
I can see why. You need to add the word "by" in the blank space.
"gets very irritated _________ my lack of precision in speech and action."
Not to worry, I make erroRrr time often too. ;)
wow....this gets weird...or funny.
<clears throat loudly> Yes, perhaps we can get back on topic now. Anyone remember what it was?...
Ok, I've fixed the bug and can't see any others, but now you can run it for yourself using your own spins. This isn't a nice GUI point & click solution but it will enable anyone (regardless of operating system) to do their own tests.
You need to follow this procedure:
1. Copy the following code (click "Select" to highlight it) -
REM online version
CONST TARGETS = 3
CONST F = 2
DECLARE freq[37]
DECLARE n, tobet, virtual, w TYPE int
bank = 0
tobet = 0
tobet$ = " "
virtual = 0
SUB reset()
tobet$ = " "
tobet = 0
virtual = 0
FOR i = 0 TO 36
freq[i] = 0
NEXT i
END SUB
OPEN "input.txt" FOR READING AS spins
WHILE NOT(ENDFILE(spins)) DO
READLN spin$ FROM spins
spin$ = CHOP$(spin$)
n = VAL(spin$)
INCR freq[n]
IF spin$ = "" THEN
CLOSE FILE spins
END
END IF
IF INSTR(tobet$, " " & spin$ & " ") THEN
w = 1
IF virtual = 0 THEN
INCR bank, (36 - tobet)
END IF
reset()
ELSE
DECR bank, tobet
w = 0
END IF
PRINT spin$, bank, tobet$ FORMAT "%5s%+10ld%2s\n"
IF w = 1 THEN
PRINT " *****"
END IF
IF freq[n] = F THEN
tobet$ = tobet$ & spin$ & " "
IF virtual = 0 THEN
INCR tobet
END IF
END IF
IF tobet > TARGETS THEN
PRINT " VP"
tobet = 0
virtual = 1
END IF
WEND
2. Go to this website (http://www.compileonline.com/convert_basic_to_c_online.php). The page is divided into two panes. The left pane consists of a code editor (the tab titled "main.bac") and input area (the tab titled "input.txt"); there is some code already in the editor which you need to delete. Do that, then paste the above code into the editor.
3. Having done this, you need to put some spins into the input area. Click the "input.txt" tab and you will see some text which says
"This is the file you can use to provide input to your program and later on open it inside your program to process the input."
Delete this text and input your spins. There are two ways of doing this: either you can enter the spins manually (one on each line), or from a file. If using a file, again it's important to make sure that there is one spin per line with no other data. It's ok to use Weisbaden data but you need to remove the dashed lines which indicate dealer changes, and make sure there is no other text (statistics etc) apart from the spins. The easiest way to do it is to open a spin file in a text editor, then "select all", copy, and then paste into the "input.txt" area.
4. Now you're ready to run the code. Still in the left pane, click the button at the top which says "Generate, Compile & run C". It may take a few seconds depending on how large your spin file is. The results will be generated and displayed in the right-hand pane. You might need to scroll down to see them all.
Changing the system parameters
You can change two of the parameters in the code and thereby simulate a whole "family" of WF systems. You need to change two numbers which are found in the 2nd and 3rd lines of the program, they are:
CONST TARGETS = 3
CONST F = 2
What do these numbers mean? The "TARGETS" refers to how many numbers repeat before ending a session and retracking. The default is 3, meaning that when more than 3 numbers have repeated once and none of them have hit a 3rd time, the session will be abandoned (i.e. after a 4th number has repeated). This is the default and the shortened variation which I tested above.
If you want to test using the variation which XXVV recommends, then set the TARGETS to a large number (say 30). This will mean that each session plays out until a win, regardless of how many numbers repeat; it means you don't end a session until a number has hit 3 times ( think that's correct, if not I'm sure XXVV will set me straight).
Of course, feel free to experiment with other values.
The second parameter, F, refers to the number of hits any number gets before it is added to the bet list. i.e. the default is 2, meaning that any number has to hit TWICE before it's regarded as "warm", and therefore ripe for betting on. I suppose that XXVV would recommend sticking to this value, but there's nothing stopping you from trying others.
IMPORTANT: Don't change anything in the code other than those two numbers!
I'm pretty sure the code is sound now, but it might be a good idea to input a few spins for which you know the results, just to confirm that the program gives you same.
Happy testing!
Hm.. Bayes I am sure there are some members who can find this too complicated and problematic to do.
I believe your simple verdict can explain better then someone trying to find on their own like this...
Drazen
Me for instance.....Bayes you should do it more simpler for us over 70......and there are few of those here/except some hide their ages as if they are womans/...oh maybe some are.
goes up and down and ends -300 something in 5000 spins with original settings Bayes done...thanks for source code Bayes... :thumbsup:
Hi All
Very entertaining thread at times and also somewhat childish in places :thumbsdown:
I have studied XXVV's WF work very closely over the last 3 years or more, and also helped him with testing the method with Live and RNG spins, I was very skeptical of RNG until having studied the 20.080 non stop recorded live wheel spins from Macao, extracting the WF data and then comparing the results to BV RNG
I currently play WF on RNG with good success but anyone thinking that if they play a method in its most basic form thinks that it will be the answer to their HG is living in a dream world
I would like to thank XXVV for his contributions and also to Stef who has developed an incredible Roulette bot that I have used nearly everyday since last year.........as Stef pointed out in an earlier post you have to think outside the box when using any strategy, and its the combination of a good method coupled together with utilizing the power of the bot features that proves its worth long-term
I will finish off by quoting that anyone who believes that a HG exists and that it would be given away on any forum needs to wake up and smell the coffee.....Forums like this allow members to share ideas and its often down to the individual how they interpret the methods and/or develop with their own experience ways to apply correct money management/emotional control to achieve their goals :thumbsup:
Bayes....feel free to edit this post as you see fit !!!!!
Good luck to all :)
Bayes would the code change if i change declare frequency to number different than 37..thanks
Quote from: Drazen on February 14, 2014, 10:38:10 AM
I believe your simple verdict can explain better then someone trying to find on their own like this...
Drazen, Although I have done some simulations using a large number of spins I don't want to pronounce any verdict because (a) I'm not sure that the parameters I've chosen are the same as XXVV has used in getting his results, so I would rather wait for his input, and (b) There may still be a bug in the code which is why I would like others to do some testing.
@ FLAT, have you been able to access the website I linked to? Don't be intimidated by the look of it. Just follow the steps and you should be ok. Not sure what else to suggest unless I post some screenshots.
@ Gordon,
Thanks for your input.
QuoteI will finish off by quoting that anyone who believes that a HG exists and that it would be given away on any forum needs to wake up and smell the coffee
Not sure how to take this. XXVV has stated categorically more than once in regard to WF3:
IT WORKS
He has also posted full details of HOW it works. Therefore anyone following the method as described should get similar results, IF his results aren't merely a fluke, do you agree?
Quote from: maestro on February 14, 2014, 11:35:10 AM
Bayes would the code change if i change declare frequency to number different than 37..thanks
Hi maestro, don't change anything other than the two numbers I indicated. If you do either the program will crash or you'll get unreliable results. I realize this isn't the best solution, but it's better than nothing until I write a javascript version with a GUI.
i thought so ...so any test o post to be voided..sorry
quick test original settings from source code
Hi Bayes
Not sure how to take this. XXVV has stated categorically more than once in regard to WF3:IT WORKSHe has also posted full details of HOW it works. Therefore anyone following the method as described should get similar results, IF his results aren't merely a fluke, do you agree?
You're right in what you say, but with any method you still have to apply effective MM which is key to anyones success, I'm sure you'll agreee that we should look at long term gains that incorporate losing sessions to conclude whether a method holds up, the WF does work and as I said I use it nearly every day but it doesn't mean that it gaurantees to win everytime, sometimes it can have large retraces where natural Equilibrium takes place, so expecting this is key when playing live
Hope that assists :thumbsup:
[size=78%]Gordon [/size]
Quote from: Bayes on February 14, 2014, 11:41:13 AM
Hi maestro, don't change anything other than the two numbers I indicated. If you do either the program will crash or you'll get unreliable results. I realize this isn't the best solution, but it's better than nothing until I write a javascript version with a GUI.
i get this:
WARNING: temporary files found! Do you want to delete them (y/n)? Exiting...Quote
hi, using Bayes program ran jan-1 jan-10 spins from Wiesbaden here is some info:
each day has about 300 spins(http://i.imgur.com/oasYmNO.png)
Attached is a simulation of the 3 in 30 and a 4 in 30 qualifying bet. There are two separate simulations attached.
I used numbers from random.org. It's a very good RNG. 10k trials were used. Millions of simulations can easily be run, but there's no point to it. As we run more trials, the results will approach the long term expectation of -2.7% on the single zero wheel. It's true that there would be the occasional lucky winning 10k spin sample, but the sum of all the samples will still be a net loser.
After all why should we expect anything different when using an RNG?
The horizon is set at a rolling horizon of 30 spins.
There is no stop loss limit, because there's no reason whatsoever to have one if you're going to be using RNG numbers. Using a stop loss limit would produce the same results as not using one. The difference would be that you would not be betting on as many spins. As your test trial sizes increase, you will discover that this is the case.
On the live wheel, the stop loss should be based on whether or not it's the same dealer. Since you don't know whether it's the same dealer in your current simulations, and since you don't know if the playing conditions are the same from one spin to the next, the stop loss will not change your long term expectation in the simulations.
QuoteEssence of the WF game is trap as many winners at that peak of the bell curve and minimise your losses in that endeavour so to work ever more efficiently. As the curve moves, sways in a range of behaviour you need to note its limits but where it is most fertile and attack there, especially when its moving into optimum phase. That is really exciting work and very rewarding. Enjoy the chase and the quest for that perfection. Go for it! -XXVV
XXVV,
The money management part of your method (stop loss) isn't doing anything to help the edge. Especially on RNG wheels for reasons that are described above. RNGs do not produce
"fertile" moments or a
"range of behavior" that you can capitalize on. So the
"chase and the quest for perfection" is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
I suggest you stick to the live wheels, and use some real stop loss indicators, such as the one partially described above.
The result of the 3 in 30 test over 10k trials (8924 bets) was
Edge -3.17%
Loss of 537 units
It's very close to expectation.
-Xander
Hi Xander
I think you're going off topic again.....WF is not 3 in 30 or 4 in 30....The mini games are either 3 spins long or rarely upto 35 spins before stop loss kicks in at 5th Target....this of course is an example of stats from WF4 which can be a bit more riskier due to targeting a maximum of 4 numbers
I know XXVV mentioned about (3 in 30 and 4 in 30) but that's not the core of the WF method, so I'm confused that you're ethos is to discredit what is a proven basic method of playing Roulette :(
For others who think outside the box with their glass always half full, continue to study hard and learn every inch of a strategy so nothing can surprise you and never play except with a positive winning attitude instead of thinking that you're going to lose when you play (Law of Attraction)
@Biagle....Positive results from your example which are typical with this method :thumbsup:
Gordon
Gordonline,
It's close enough for reasons which I've already described in the post above.
@ Xander,
XXVV is right, and you've had a good run. I'd like to keep this thread on topic and I still have more testing to do. In fact, although there are no bugs in the code, I've just realized that I've left an important rule out of the simulation (so all those who have run the program at compileonline.com, take the results with a pinch of salt).
I know you think that all "hot number" systems are basically the same, but I'd like to keep the thread specific to this particular one, which is the one I'm actually testing.
Thanks for your cooperation.
"However most items you (Xander) have posted seem to want to discredit someone or other, and yet promote your own views" >>> Ohhhh, he's just getting warmed up.
Ken
Here's a short sample from a file generated with the updated program. I've now 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.
12 +0
1 +0
26 +0
31 +0
30 +0
24 +0
1 +0
22 -1 1
16 -2 1
9 -3 1
3 -4 1
8 -5 1
21 -6 1
1 +29 #1 is a winner. Stop game.
*****
10 +29
6 +29
15 +29
30 +29
12 +29
5 +29
14 +29
21 +29
10 +29
31 +28 10
32 +27 10
17 +26 10
29 +25 10
2 +24 10
8 +23 10
31 +22 10
30 +20 10 31
30 +53 #30 is a winner. Stop game.
*****
30 +53
27 +53
11 +53
35 +53
24 +53
17 +53
15 +53
34 +53
2 +53
20 +53
27 +53
28 +52 27
18 +51 27
26 +50 27
33 +49 27
11 +48 27
34 +46 27 11
20 +43 27 11 34 3 numbers have repeated, go into "virtual". Note bank stays constant.
VP
16 +43 27 11 34 20
30 +43 27 11 34 20
4 +43 27 11 34 20 30
32 +43 27 11 34 20 30
31 +43 27 11 34 20 30
26 +43 27 11 34 20 30
19 +43 27 11 34 20 30 26
30 +43 #30 has hit a 3rd time, stop game.
*****
31 +43
18 +43
2 +43
31 +43
3 +42 31
4 +41 31
16 +40 31
7 +39 31
31 +74 #31 is a winner. Stop game.
*****
18 +74
19 +74
21 +74
8 +74
8 +74
3 +73 8
33 +72 8
13 +71 8
22 +70 8
28 +69 8
22 +68 8
4 +66 8 22
33 +64 8 22
10 +61 8 22 33
34 +58 8 22 33
31 +55 8 22 33
35 +52 8 22 33
30 +49 8 22 33
22 +82 #22 is a winner. Stop game.
*****
16 +82
29 +82
28 +82
24 +82
27 +82
27 +82
27 +117 #27 is a winner. Stop game.
*****
26 +117
1 +117
24 +117
23 +117
8 +117
0 +117
17 +117
9 +117
8 +117
23 +116 8
36 +114 8 23
33 +112 8 23
5 +110 8 23
24 +108 8 23
28 +105 8 23 24
11 +102 8 23 24
0 +99 8 23 24
VP 3 numbers have repeated, go into "virtual" mode.
4 +99 8 23 24 0
19 +99 8 23 24 0
34 +99 8 23 24 0
28 +99 8 23 24 0
6 +99 8 23 24 0 28
20 +99 8 23 24 0 28
13 +99 8 23 24 0 28
0 +99 #0 has hit a 3rd time. Stop game.
Hi XXVV,
Thanks. Hopefully the program now reflects the TRUE method, but I'd still prefer to check it against some known results before running it on a larger spin file. I might get in touch with Gordon about that.
Quote from: XXVV on February 15, 2014, 10:21:19 AM
simply run the 14 completed games on Wiesbaden#3 for January 1 2014. I have a manual check on that and Biagle did an earlier version which differs a little.
Ok, I'll do that first. :thumbsup:
@ All,
I've amended the code in reply #63 where I posted the instructions for compileonline.com, so all those who are testing should start again with the new program. Any problems or if any results don't seem right please let me know. Thanks.
Screenshot:[attach=1]
Last 7 weeks am testing this manually on my 26k Dublinbet live spins/which are not in continuation,but I put
it as a whole for sake of testing/and can report that the final score is;2138+...once it hit about 300+never
went back.....Bravo xxvv....and am now making studies how to applay best way in B&M play.
Hello Bayes,
Thank you very much for the updated program.
Regards @ Best wishes
hats off to Bayes and XXVV did test on 5000 random spins from random.org
hallo maestro
thank for your
test
question
do you use the ew wf3 with virtual play
is it the result of your test
5000 spis +170 at the end ?? (you don't use virtual play )
it is winning but there alot up and down ansd +170 after 5000 spin
do you think its enough to say it will continue positiv
it is justt a question
as i just read the topic
i just used source code Bayes done and put spins and run the test it should ply by new rules
thank maestro
is it including the virtual play or not
do you know about that
thank maestro
There should be clear entering points and exit points.
Entering points when to enter the game and attack.
Exit points when you want to end the game and keep a profit and keep loses short.
There has to be some kind of MM to keep you away from the deep hole.
When it appears you not following it and quit in time keeping loses short.
My opinion.
300 trails with good results with many winning strikes.
+11
+26
+34
+13
+25
= +109 units
300 trails with bad strikes and many loses.
-5
-25
+13
+30
-32
-31
+27
-26
+30
TOTALS
-119
+100
= -19 units
i aggree you sputnik
some more testing
Quote from: Sputnik on February 15, 2014, 02:26:23 PM
There should be clear entering points and exit points.
Entering points when to enter the game and attack.
Exit points when you want to end the game and keep a profit and keep loses short.
There has to be some kind of MM to keep you away from the deep hole.
When it appears you not following it and quit in time keeping loses short.
My opinion.
There
are clear entry and exit points, aren't there? Enter at first double, exit on a treble or when 4 doubles have appeared with no treble.
4000 dublin result -100
thank to maestro test
so its nor good with virtual play ?
Quote from: Blood Angel on February 15, 2014, 02:29:21 PM
There are clear entry and exit points, aren't there? Enter at first double, exit on a treble or when 4 doubles have appeared with no treble.
I don't know if the first double is part of a window with 123 repeats, that means you randomly jump on board.
If i wait until i have a window with one loss, then i start from scratch with a clear window to begin my personal permanency with.
Just one example that entering points and exist points is not so clear.
And when you get a window with 4 numbers with no third repeat, you have a window with no strike.
But that does not mean you quit playing, so that is not a clear exit point.
If i state i start after each losing window and attack, then i have a clear entering point.
And i start my personal permanence in the same manner each time.
Then when i hit three loses in a row i quit as my exit point, then i have a clear rule when to quit.
My abstract thinking about the subject and my opinion.
I might be right or wrong or just made a point about the subject.
With my example above a bad day with many loses result with -19 units.
And a good day with many winnings result with +109 units.
LLLWWLWLLLWLLWL "bad day"
LWWWWLWLWWWLWLWWW "good day"
Here is one more ...
LLLWWWLLWLWWLW "average day"
-15
-26
+23
-33
+28
+28
+27
-74
+106
= +32
Cheers
My point is ...
You can not go all in with out clear entering points and exit points.
Does will define how you will do with
bad days
good days
average days
Quote from: Sputnik on February 15, 2014, 02:37:36 PM
If i wait until i have a window with one loss, then i start from scratch with a clear window to begin my personal permanency with.
Cheers
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.
With my thinking, then it could also mean a complete window with a win as starting point.
Some one might want to play only when there is winnings present.
I just feel its better to start after a complete window with result as entering points.
Then if you keep doing so in the same manner each time, then you create a solid personal permanence to follow.
Cheers
Quote from: RouletteFan on February 15, 2014, 02:23:54 PM
is it including the virtual play or not
do you know about that
RouletteFan, yes virtual play is now "hard-coded" into the simulated system. You can change two other parameter though, as I explained in reply #63.
Guys, can we please keep this thread on topic and not go off on tangents, however interesting they may be. This thread should be for testing/results of WF3 and simple variants
only.
"I have given a huge amount of information for free and I don't think anyone has yet said, hey thanks" >>> I did.
Ken
Thank YOU XXVV!
For your work, patience, a willingness to give us your experience.
Best wishes from Poland!
thanks XXVV for time and dedication....
Thanks XXVV
just question @XXVV what is the biggest draw down you have seen flat bet ...thanks
TANK YOU XXVX
best from France
XXVV,
Ok, got them. There are 292 spins. I assume this is using WF3 - go to "virtual" after the 4th target has appeared?
Here's what I got:
$main
4 +0
4 +0
13 -1 4
31 -2 4
9 -3 4
34 -4 4
36 -5 4
20 -6 4
22 -7 4
4 +28
*****
35 +28
35 +28
1 +27 35
26 +26 35
11 +25 35
21 +24 35
7 +23 35
35 +58
*****
36 +58
10 +58
22 +58
32 +58
17 +58
19 +58
8 +58
28 +58
11 +58
28 +58
25 +57 28
31 +56 28
28 +91
*****
24 +91
33 +91
30 +91
13 +91
34 +91
1 +91
6 +91
29 +91
35 +91
19 +91
28 +91
36 +91
28 +91
20 +90 28
14 +89 28
5 +88 28
0 +87 28
16 +86 28
17 +85 28
11 +84 28
19 +83 28
12 +81 28 19
1 +79 28 19
31 +76 28 19 1
9 +73 28 19 1
36 +70 28 19 1
VP
3 +70 28 19 1 36
13 +70 28 19 1 36
6 +70 28 19 1 36 13
6 +70
*****
1 +70
5 +70
16 +70
9 +70
23 +70
31 +70
28 +70
31 +70
18 +69 31
2 +68 31
26 +67 31
12 +66 31
9 +65 31
28 +63 31 9
4 +60 31 9 28
11 +57 31 9 28
20 +54 31 9 28
30 +51 31 9 28
14 +48 31 9 28
30 +45 31 9 28
VP
15 +45 31 9 28 30
23 +45 31 9 28 30
14 +45 31 9 28 30 23
6 +45 31 9 28 30 23 14
23 +45
*****
34 +45
2 +45
10 +45
27 +45
25 +45
28 +45
10 +45
23 +44 10
0 +43 10
34 +42 10
29 +40 10 34
5 +38 10 34
18 +36 10 34
22 +34 10 34
2 +32 10 34
13 +29 10 34 2
5 +26 10 34 2
VP
22 +26 10 34 2 5
13 +26 10 34 2 5 22
19 +26 10 34 2 5 22 13
11 +26 10 34 2 5 22 13
28 +26 10 34 2 5 22 13
33 +26 10 34 2 5 22 13 28
12 +26 10 34 2 5 22 13 28
3 +26 10 34 2 5 22 13 28
2 +26
*****
29 +26
31 +26
27 +26
18 +26
30 +26
14 +26
23 +26
4 +26
7 +26
1 +26
20 +26
36 +26
4 +26
35 +25 4
9 +24 4
6 +23 4
5 +22 4
11 +21 4
18 +20 4
29 +18 4 18
11 +15 4 18 29
VP
34 +15 4 18 29 11
7 +15 4 18 29 11
13 +15 4 18 29 11 7
7 +15
*****
16 +15
36 +15
24 +15
11 +15
7 +15
2 +15
11 +15
31 +14 11
29 +13 11
17 +12 11
1 +11 11
20 +10 11
36 +9 11
5 +7 11 36
33 +5 11 36
9 +3 11 36
22 +1 11 36
29 -1 11 36
6 -4 11 36 29
2 -7 11 36 29
VP
30 -7 11 36 29 2
7 -7 11 36 29 2
2 -7
*****
25 -7
12 -7
5 -7
26 -7
11 -7
0 -7
1 -7
19 -7
5 -7
24 -8 5
3 -9 5
21 -10 5
10 -11 5
0 -12 5
31 -14 5 0
15 -16 5 0
22 -18 5 0
20 -20 5 0
25 -22 5 0
21 -25 5 0 25
VP
18 -25 5 0 25 21
18 -25 5 0 25 21
11 -25 5 0 25 21 18
14 -25 5 0 25 21 18 11
28 -25 5 0 25 21 18 11
26 -25 5 0 25 21 18 11
6 -25 5 0 25 21 18 11 26
18 -25
*****
29 -25
32 -25
5 -25
24 -25
11 -25
25 -25
4 -25
24 -25
21 -26 24
11 -27 24
34 -29 24 11
23 -31 24 11
14 -33 24 11
1 -35 24 11
1 -37 24 11
10 -40 24 11 1
17 -43 24 11 1
36 -46 24 11 1
18 -49 24 11 1
6 -52 24 11 1
22 -55 24 11 1
23 -58 24 11 1
VP
28 -58 24 11 1 23
12 -58 24 11 1 23
19 -58 24 11 1 23
13 -58 24 11 1 23
35 -58 24 11 1 23
13 -58 24 11 1 23
3 -58 24 11 1 23 13
11 -58
*****
35 -58
10 -58
16 -58
28 -58
3 -58
26 -58
23 -58
34 -58
14 -58
23 -58
2 -59 23
28 -60 23
28 -26
*****
4 -26
18 -26
31 -26
22 -26
30 -26
17 -26
36 -26
29 -26
20 -26
4 -26
22 -27 4
18 -29 4 22
19 -32 4 22 18
14 -35 4 22 18
32 -38 4 22 18
16 -41 4 22 18
22 -8
*****
26 -8
28 -8
31 -8
3 -8
2 -8
27 -8
18 -8
29 -8
18 -8
6 -9 18
19 -10 18
36 -11 18
10 -12 18
1 -13 18
21 -14 18
16 -15 18
25 -16 18
22 -17 18
13 -18 18
10 -19 18
10 +15
*****
35 +15
2 +15
30 +15
2 +15
30 +14 2
10 +12 2 30
6 +10 2 30
3 +8 2 30
4 +6 2 30
27 +4 2 30
5 +2 2 30
1 +0 2 30
1 -2 2 30
30 +31
*****
36 +31
23 +31
22 +31
24 +31
1 +31
32 +31
19 +31
10 +31
13 +31
If you're using spins from Weisbaden I'll have to add a line to the code because at the moment it doesn't take into account gaps and non-numeric characters (like the ---- which signifies dealer changes). Easily fixed though. Using a "raw" Weisbaden file will screw things up. I should have made it clear that spins have to be in form
1
23
12
34
17
i.e., no gaps like
1
31
14
5
17
or any other data.
Goodo. :thumbsup:
I'll get in touch with Gordon for that Macao data. Right now I'm going to start winding down for the evening. :beer:
Hi Bayes
I'm happy to help you clarify any samples of WF3 data and can let you have stats on the following data....
High,Low and end result
Number of Bets placed
Average target number
Average game length
Gordon :thumbsup:
Thanks XXVV. Don't be a stranger.
Thanks to Gordon for sending me the first 3030 results from XXVV's Macao data. I put the spins through my program and the results exactly match. :thumbsup: :cheer:
Final Balance: 866 units
Low: -45
High: 962
Results are attached.
Nice results... Good job Bayes!
Quote from: XXVV on February 17, 2014, 05:17:41 PM
Not necessarily suggesting this but it would be fascinating Bayes to compare WF3 results with WF4 results on various samples.
That can be done by anyone who's running my program at compileonline.com; simply change the second line in the code from CONST TARGETS = 3 to CONST TARGETS = 4. But I can easily do some tests on WF4 in parallel with WF3. I'll post the results here. :thumbsup:
Hi Bayes
Always glad to help where I can, if you need a spin sample clarified just let me know :thumbsup:
@XXVV Appreciate your kind words
Gordon :)
Here are the results from a 10k spin (single zero) file I got from here (http://www.rouletteresearch.com/downloads.aspx). The results files for both WF3 & WF4 are attached.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
Quote from: XXVV on February 18, 2014, 07:59:03 PM
You say 'I got from here'. BetSelection source/ RNG/ live casino? Macao?
Click on the word "here" in my previous post. :thumbsup: I'll post the graph of the Macao spins tomorrow.
Plot of the 3030 Macao spins which Gordon sent me:
[attachimg=1]
50k spins downloaded from rouletteresearch.com:
[attachimg=1]
I was just curious to see what happens in the really long term, so I also downloaded the 1M spin file:
[attachimg=1]
:(
Can we verify these Macao spins?
Because clearly those results appear to be abnormal. Not just the constant upswing, but the actual size of it. None of the other graphs show a return anything like that. There is a similar trend in the rouletteresearch results, but it climbs back over something like 18k spins. Not ideal is it? Just appears random. I am struggling to see the 5% proposed advantage here!
Well Bayes, what is your final conclusion on this?
I mean, does this bet differs than any other with playing 3 numbers?
Apparently it has no mathematical edge, but can we say at least variance is lower?
Cheers
Quote from: XXVV on February 19, 2014, 06:46:30 PM
I suspect Bayes is in no position yet to make any judgment as the source of data is essential to be verified and from what I am observing depending on source wildly conflicting responses.
Yeah it seemed to me too that results are somehow conflicting from few different testers and your personal results.
Bayes.....a verified set of spins
I have noticed something
In RX....if you download spins from a casino, it does 1 table at a time.
So I set the time to several months and one continuous file. (see attachment)
Also, as long as I cut off the download before todays date, I have a massive spin file from 1 casino and 1 table.
(see attachment)
Attached is a notepad file (weus20130205_20140212_2.txt) with 30K spins from table 2 Spielbank Wiesbaden Casino May2013-Jan2014
Pretty verified if you ask me
(if I set to 2010 or so, I would get 1M spins from table 2)
XXVV....as a man of my word...I haven't even seen the contents of this file.
I hope Bayes can run it.
It's a file of integrity......as far as I trust RX to do the work for me (Yes...I am trying to trust something on face value....not like me at all)
XXVV,
There are many threads opened about this now, are we referring to the Weisbaden simulation Bayes posted here:
http://betselection.cc/xxvv-studio/wf3-testing-and-variations-discussed/msg27821/#msg27821 (http://betselection.cc/xxvv-studio/wf3-testing-and-variations-discussed/msg27821/#msg27821)
Yes it shows a nice upswing at least from negative territory from about -100 at spin 2000 to +600 at spin 3800. (I am looking at WF4 here, but the trend with WF3 is similiar anyway). And yes the end results are fairly positive. But lets interpret the behaviour a bit instead of just looking at the lines.
I am not sure what the projected edge is supposed to be (I am figuring 5% from a previous comment of yours). But the graph is not indicative of that. The bet is still negative after 2000 spins, which is clearly a concern considering there is supposed to be a mathematical advantage.
Once the upswing takes place and the BR rises to around 600, there is no more positive gain made after that in the remaining 6200 spins. Bear in mind I am estimating the interval of spins here! Nor am I trying to shoot this down. It seems reasonable to voice opinion for anyone who is thinking of investing real money in this.
The simulation does end positive, but no gain in more than 6000 spins suggests the bet was simply treading water and therefore was probably enjoying a period of positive random fluctuation.
As for the Macao spins file, the results look suspect to me. I understand you have tested those spins manually, or some of them. In my opinion manual testing is pointless because it can lead to false conclusions. The reason is, with manual testing, you always know the outcomes in advance. It then becomes too easy to make mistakes, make ad-hoc adjustments to the bet and ultimately begin curve fitting the results. This can all happen subconsciously. It appears that WF3 was practically tailor made for that spins file. And now against outcomes from other sources, it's struggling. I don't accuse anyone of doctoring results or moving the goal posts. It just happens. I have fallen for it myself in the past.
Undoubtedly TwoCatSam has the best method of testing systems and progressions by having them "sheeted" and run through ExcelBot. But credit to Bayes for the simulation.
:upsidedown:
Hi Number 6
I can assure you that the WF3 & WF4 testing on the Macao spins was done through an excel sheet with 100% accuracy and therefore no mistakes of the human kind
It took me many hours of manually scanning and double checking the numbers before converting them into a usable spin file from the authenticated booklet that came with the Roulette for the Millions book
Hope that answers your query
Gordon :thumbsup:
I do not understand why so much hue and cry over this idea. It obviously can not have an edge, in long run. No method can filter out better numbers to bet and can win flat bet. If it is even remotely possible without any MM requirements,it would kill casinos.
Old ideas wrapped in new names do not make a winner. Without a classy MM, all betselection will lose.
Quote from: Albalaha on February 20, 2014, 03:57:28 AM
I do not understand why so much hue and cry over this idea. It obviously can not have an edge, in long run. No method can filter out better numbers to bet and can win flat bet. If it is even remotely possible without any MM requirements,it would kill casinos.
Old ideas wrapped in new names do not make a winner. Without a classy MM, all betselection will lose.
So, just to clarify, you're basically
suggesting XXVV is a liar, are you?
In fact, Albalaha, why don't you come right out with it and actually
call him a liar?
XXVV,
It doesn't mean to be offensive, it's a mere observation that in manual testing, results can easily be corrupted. Read around anywhere, time and again you'll see people complain of rigged RNGs. They hand test for a few hundred spins and think they've got the grail. They lose first time with real money, and think they must have been cheated. You'll see people like John Legend who also hand tested his systems. He thought he would change the world with a martingale. When he engaged in some meaningful test with Superman, he lost his BR almost instantly and has never been heard from since.
Obviously I believe your tests to be more comprehensive and sensible, but regardless corruption is still possible. The Macao spins show a clear reversal compared to outcomes sourced from other places. The question I pose is pretty simple: can those results be trusted? Not, as in, have they been fabricated? Or has the bet been reverse engineered to beat those spins?
It just means, in the grand scheme of things, can we rely on them when gauging WF3 or analysing it? Because the nature of the trend is very different. It could be a real edge in play, or could be a fluke. Those results are at odds with others. So, can Macao be discounted for some reason?
For now I would run Turner's Wiesbaden download through the simulation. If the results are positive it would warrant another round of testing.
Either way, you're correct I think the testing is become too divided and slapdash. I do think "official" tests should be done with spins from a verified source.
Quote from: XXVV on February 20, 2014, 06:44:02 AM
The arguments and presentation of rogue sourced 50K spins or worse 1million spins is so out of touch with what is real, valid or worthwhile it astonishes me, and I would have thought the individuals concerned would have had better judgement. Real play is in the context of 1-say 200 spins ( 3 hours +). That is the foundation of our success as players reading short cycles.
Actually I don't care what you find in your testing because in some cases as Mr #6 so smartly observes 'subconscious conditioning ' can affect preparation of results and distort findings. Well, that principle applies to testing as well as writing or interpretation or review. We cannot escape it. If you are a cynic you will perceive the world with that mindset.
We have seen some of this.
XXVV,
Oh dear oh dear... Where to start?
In the first place, how do you come to the conclusion that the spins from RR are "rogue sourced"? and what does that even mean? By "rogue" you're implying that they are biased or corrupted in some way I assume, but where is your evidence for this? simply that the simulator generated a negative result?
Why would the owner, who, judging by the quality of his site and products, is a serious researcher, put these spins in the public domain if he knew they were corrupted? Furthermore, if they are biased they can only be so with respect to some number/group of numbers or system. But without knowledge of what system the spins are to be tested against (which is impossible, given that anyone can download them), it would be pointless. The only "universally biased" set of numbers (in the sense that no system will have an edge with respect to them) are those which are generated by an
unbiased wheel, which is why the casinos make such efforts to keep the wheels as random as possible.
Not only that, but I'm sure the owner would have put the spins through one of his own testers to check for corruption before uploading them. For those without such proprietary software, there is the Dieharder (http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/General/dieharder.php) suite of programs which are in the public domain. It's worth mentioning that the 1 million spin file in question has been available in this forum and rouletteforum.cc for several years, and no-one has complained about them.
And as for your statement that "real play is in the context of 200 spins", well I can't believe you're dragging up such nonsense. Quite apart from the absurdity of "hit & run", may I remind you that you yourself stressed more than once that
WF3 should be tested against at least 20,000 spins, in order to eliminate any short term fluctuations.
You can't have it both ways.
I'm not sure what the take-away message is from your second paragraph above. You seem to be saying that objectivity is not possible because of the dangers of 'subconscious conditioning' and 'interpretation'. Again, this is hogwash. If that really were the case, it would apply as much to your positive Macao results as anything else, so those results would also be worthless on your own terms. If what you suggest is true, then no scientific progress would be possible and we would flailing hopelessly around in a sea of skepticism. Yes, there are real dangers such as #6 highlights, but it's for that reason that statistical and scientific methodology has been developed over many years; anyone with a background in a STEM discipline would understand this.
I find your choice of words curious: "Actually I don't care what you find in your testing". It comes across as rather arrogant and with a touch of the petulant childishness you've sometimes displayed at other times when things don't appear to be going the way you'd like them to. Does it not occur to you that others DO care what the testing reveals? I for one care, and I hope others do too.
@ Turner,
Many thanks for gathering and uploading the Weisbaden spins. I'll post the results shortly. :thumbsup:
lets say it in short WF system is not better than any other method no edge gained or whatever ...Bayes great dedication and thanks for your time coding it.....
Turner's spins (file attached under plot) -
[attachimg=1]
I will ask a question which will probably, once and for all times, show my ignorance!! :fight:
How does one corrupt a spin file? I've ran a few millions spins through various bots, and if the file was anything but numbers, the bot stopped. By "corrupt" are you guys meaning numbers have been added to cause the thing to win or lose?
Here is corrupt to me:
34
2
Unicorn
5
Sam
QuoteBy "corrupt" are you guys meaning numbers have been added to cause the thing to win or lose?
That would be my view Sam, maybe "corrupt" in this instance means "manipulated".
As sputnik put it... The graph shows good days....bad days and average days
Having said that.... I wouldn't of minded being on table 2 in June and over christmas :thumbsup:
Quote from: Number Six on February 20, 2014, 10:34:35 AM
Either way, you're correct I think the testing is become too divided and slapdash. I do think "official" tests should be done with spins from a verified source.
One of the basic rules to follow when you're doing any kind of statistical inference is to get data from as many and varied sources as possible, otherwise you run the risk of bias. Since XXVV is adamant that WF3 does
not depend on any particular wheel, but only on "natural" cycles (although it's still not clear to me why he excludes RNG), it seems appropriate to apply this methodology in full. Multiple verified sources would be ideal. If you're going to get ALL the spins from Weisbaden, you should at least make sure they're taken from different tables and over multiple time spans.
Quote from: esoito on February 20, 2014, 05:21:11 AM
So, just to clarify, you're basically suggesting XXVV is a liar, are you?
In fact, Albalaha, why don't you come right out with it and actually call him a liar?
XXVV isn't a liar, necessarily. He could just be mistaken. You've seen the plots: there are long stretches of good results, that's why you have to test over many spins to get the true picture. Having seen it, you can still decide to go ahead and play the system (or use it as a base for any tweaks and modifications). But would you rather know or not know the long-term results? I know which I prefer.
XXVV,
You haven't addressed any of my points about the spins from roulette research. The question remains: why are those spins unacceptable and "rogue"? And why are the Weisbaden spins deemed "Approved"?
Can we please stay on topic. In what sense is my testing flawed, in your opinion? Please be specific and suggest how you think it should be done, and why.
You talk about how the bet can be "tuned" and modified. This is not the place for that; my concern is to test WF3 specifically and present the results for that system and that system only.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on February 20, 2014, 02:48:34 PM
I will ask a question which will probably, once and for all times, show my ignorance!! :fight:
How does one corrupt a spin file? I've ran a few millions spins through various bots, and if the file was anything but numbers, the bot stopped. By "corrupt" are you guys meaning numbers have been added to cause the thing to win or lose?
Here is corrupt to me:
34
2
Unicorn
5
Sam
Sam, spins can be corrupted in various ways. For example, the reader boards in casinos can misread, omit, or duplicate spins. Also if spins are hand written mistakes and duplications can occur. I remember seeing a file some time ago in which a long sequence of spins was repeated exactly (the odds against such a sequence would be trillions to one). I'm not suggesting that spins are necessarily deliberately added or removed.
Bayes.
Taking my spins and method of extraction...do you feel they are more reliable or fall foul of the same issues. (obviously the hand written issue is elliminated)
XXVV.
what is your view on the result from Bayes test using my numbers?
Quote from: Turner on February 21, 2014, 09:34:05 AM
Bayes.
Taking my spins and method of extraction...do you feel they are more reliable or fall foul of the same issues. (obviously the hand written issue is elliminated)
Turner, it seems to me that your method of extraction is reliable. In any case the spins can be checked against the existing database at Weisbaden. I think the Weisbaden spins themselves can be trusted.
XXVV,
QuoteFrom the outset I have requested live spins. You know that
Yes, and what makes you think that they aren't? I told you I had a reply from the owner confirming that the spins were taken from a real wheel under licensed gaming conditions.
By the way, I had a heads up from Xander telling me that the owner of the site is probably the chief wheel engineer for TCS Huxley George Melas (and I can confirm it because that's the name he used in his email reply to me).
http://www.worldgameprotection.com/speakers/george-melas.html (http://www.worldgameprotection.com/speakers/george-melas.html)
I don't think there should remain any doubts as to the reliability of those spins.
You seem to want everything on your terms. You don't trust the spins, and yet we're supposed to take on trust
your Macao data, which isn't even in the public domain. A clear case of double standards, don't you think?
And I note you've ignored my point above that
you were the one who emphasized that at least 20,000 spins should be tested, and yet appear now to have taken a complete u-turn on that issue.
Nevertheless, I'll continue to test using the Weisbaden spins which members are helpfully providing.
we can try Weisbaden spins witch i prepared in other theard (40k spins is enough to see how it going) if it show some promise i can continue.
Table 3, Weisbaden 01/02/03 2013. Thanks to Biagle for providing the spins.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=1]
Quote from: XXVV on February 21, 2014, 07:16:19 PM
However the Macao data has been in the public domain since 1972. refer 'Roulette for the Millions' - Patrick O'neil-Dunne. Henry Regnery Company. Chicago. 1972... with a full schedule of spins for one month of live play.
Hmm... 1972?
I'm guessing Xander may have a comment or two about that. Wheels have changed a bit since then, although that may not be the main issue. I'm not suggesting that this is what happened, but if you were using that particular set of spins for your testing of various systems there is a chance you may have done a little unintentional curve-fitting. Note that I wouldn't have mentioned it if all other results had been as good, but they're clearly not. The question is: why not?
Guys, as things were getting off-topic again I've put the posts after the last one into a separate thread (Personal Permanence).
As far as I'm concerned this thread has served its purpose. Thanks to those (especially Biagle) who have uploaded spins and of course to XXVV for the system and other contributions. There doesn't seem to be much interest now in further testing - and why should there be? It's pretty clear that WF3 offers no advantage. Anyone who wants to test further or use different parameters is welcome to use my code on compileonline.com (see post #60 for details on how to do this).
Quote from: XXVV on February 23, 2014, 12:55:40 PM
It is pretty clear that WF3 offers no advantage to you.
Or anyone else. What would be the point of doing this testing if the results only applied to me? just so people can say "thanks for sharing"? :P
Table 3 04/2013
[attachimg=1]
XXVV,
Sure. I was just making the point that this particular incarnation of WF3 - the one you gave explicit rules for - has no advantage. Obviously there can't be any results or conclusions for promissory notes or as yet undeveloped versions.
Your post just came across as taking relativism a little too far. ;)
@XXVV >> A bit of advice (its really for anyone). I know most here will jump on me for this, it may even get deleted. I have been posting for MANY years and have come to this conclusion a couple years ago...... don't post methods/systems/ideas etc., there, I said it.
This has NOTHING to do with Bayes, Xander etc.
A) You may get attacked for simply posting an idea you have. (afterall, we are not suppose to do well with roulette).
B) Results of testing might suck and people reading it then question your "skill" as a player.
C) Someone may post fake test results to make you look bad.
D) If the method is "decent" and playable, you may get no THANK YOU or worse, people not even registered go play your method.
E) Instead of posting the method and answering 329 questions, you could be spending your time doing other non-forum related things.
The list goes on.
F**k it, if you have something of value, keep it to yourself, just my opinion sir.
Ken
Right on the nail.
--And ppl.usually don't test as suggested,but in trillions unnecessary spins.....
You right,keep it to your self.
Quote from: Mr J on February 24, 2014, 04:03:11 PM
A) You may get attacked for simply posting an idea you have. (afterall, we are not suppose to do well with roulette).
who attacked him? Hi got many great ideas as he said from comments about his method.
B) Results of testing might suck and people reading it then question your "skill" as a player.
nobody questions it. XXVV is XXVV, igantus is ignatus.
C) Someone may post fake test results to make you look bad.
Who posted it? I worked hard to provide 40k spins from casino witch you can verify every number anytime online.
D) If the method is "decent" and playable, you may get no THANK YOU or worse, people not even registered go play your method.
Who commented here and gived advice/opinion/idea said thank you. Not directly as XXVV asked, but with ideas and work on his base bet.
E) Instead of posting the method and answering 329 questions, you could be spending your time doing other non-forum related things.
Yes you can. Unregister and good luck.
Quote from: FLAT_IN_O on February 24, 2014, 04:33:04 PM
Right on the nail.
--And ppl.usually don't test as suggested,but in trillions unnecessary spins.....
You right,keep it to your self.
He self offered to test on FULL months, you are testing on xxxx spins file, so? And this method has stop loss/games. So you can run test with bayes program for 5 or 55555 games.
Quote from: Biagle on February 24, 2014, 07:53:12 PM
He self offered to test on FULL months, you are testing on xxxx spins file, so? And this method has stop loss/games. So you can run test with bayes program for 5 or 55555 games.
--Was talking generally,not about xxvv...
@Biagle >> (lol, what?) As already stated, my post has NOTHING to do with Bayes, XXVV, Xander etc.
I'm speaking in general terms and I back up my gripe to the fullest. Nothing to GAIN by posting a method and only headaches if you do. Now don't get me wrong....... if a person does post a method, I respect that choice.
Ken
Quote from: Mr J on February 24, 2014, 08:50:55 PM
@Biagle >> (lol, what?) As already stated, my post has NOTHING to do with Bayes, XXVV, Xander etc.
I'm speaking in general terms and I back up my gripe to the fullest. Nothing to GAIN by posting a method and only headaches if you do. Now don't get me wrong....... if a person does post a method, I respect that choice.
Ken
your points was not on the right theard.
The last chart is interesting.
[attachimg=1]
You see these up and downs in all charts.
There is always something that is working and something that isn't working.
I will start a topic in my blog and go into more detail.
cheers
Quote from: Bally6354 on February 24, 2014, 09:01:46 PM
The last chart is interesting.
[attachimg=1]
You see these up and downs in all charts.
There is always something that is working and something that isn't working.
I will start a topic in my blog and go into more detail.
cheers
Above graph proves my words in another thread....It is all up to the player.
Quote from: XXVV on February 25, 2014, 08:12:50 PM
The Player is the one in control, and go with the flow.
You have control of your money, you have no control over the random process. By trying to fool it (virtual play) you are actually going against the flow rather than with it.
Virtual betting makes no difference to any sort of expectancy, either a single bet or long term profitability. This is an irrefutable truth, no matter how complex the environment in which it is applied. It can be proven to be a fallacy and has been time and again.
I have explained in another thread how virtual play can be avoided and how triggers can be used with the real SD as oppose to a pseudo SD. Yes it is all dependent on timing, and yes you can use mechanical triggers, it simply involves some kind of specific staking plan and betting larger amounts at opportune times, and then lowering bets when any condition is diminishing or has passed. Achieving a mathematical edge is almost impossible, I have never seen anything on any forum that would even come close. In the event, however, we'd be lucky to get 3-5% long term. Even with that, flat betting would not suffice, the risk of ruin is simply still too high.
Every condition of the winning bet has to be proved, however, to offer odds where the expectancy is higher that what the conventional maths suggests. Otherwise we will no doubt end up at -2.7%. The reason WF3 offers no advantage is because the premise is too floppy. There is no evidence to suggest the WF3 bet has a sound mathematical foundation, even though I do like the concept.
I have also posted stats from a long simulation in the maths section which, if you can decipher it, shows the true distrubution model of a 37-spin cycle. It proves that the true odds of each number hitting in the cycle is not representative of expected distribution (we knew this already, to be honest, but not really with any accuracy).
Quote from: Number Six on February 26, 2014, 12:52:48 AM
Achieving a mathematical edge is almost impossible, I have never seen anything on any forum that would even come close. In the event, however, we'd be lucky to get 3-5% long term. Even with that, flat betting would not suffice, the risk of ruin is simply still too high.
A bit of creativity may help things.
I like to group things together instead of betting for just single decisions.
So for even chances... BBB, BBR, BRR, BRB, RRR, RRB, RBB, RBR. A 7/1 payout.
but even better in my opinion are the dozens/columns.
1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3. An 8/1 payout, but with a lot more leverage for all kinds of MM techniques.
So it all becomes less of a grind compared to the up 1, down 1 (going nowhere fast) routine.
Bally,
Not sure if you're merely making a comment about the grind, or if you think that's what I was suggesting. I wasn't. In the scenario of upping and downing wagers at optimum times, that sort of staking plan has to be designed especially for that bet, when the bet is in play during a certain time frame. It is all about timing. There wouldn't seem to be any generic sort of wagering that would work for it. The staking plan is pretty simple, there is no one rule, it's just calculated precisely to always achieve some kind of profit, whether it is one chip, or where the bank is greater, one hundred chips.
Sceptical myself about grouping outside bets like that. I wouldn't know though, I only bet straight up, where there are more possibilities to drill down into the random.
Hello Number Six,
I was just making the comment that you have more leverage on the dozens/columns as opposed to the E/C's.
Suppose you were playing a 3 step parlay on the E/C's for 7/1. You are risking the profit and original stake on step 2.
With the dozens/columns, a 2 step parlay and you can take back your original stake if you win the first step and at least guarantee a break even situation. But of course the possibility to still come out with a 6 unit total profit. So less of a grind than some E/C bets.
cheers.
Thanks.
It's sound logic, and all this depends on preference I suppose. I aim to compound a small buy in over a few games, I actually find it less stressful than betting outside. The rewards are much greater too, when you hit that lucky streak.
No. 6...what about semi-virtual bet...as I have used many times
Lets say I have an idea to play 6 numbers inside...for what ever reason and have ridden a tough patch on the table min.
I will often reduce my bet even further to 3 of my 6....a bit like people ride out a bad patch virtually...knowing I would really prefer to be playing all 6.
So I bet every spin...even if that means 1 of my 6.
I bet normally, in plus....and go into stavation mode in negative.
Somedays...no matter how you strangle it....you lose. But the loss is very slow and no rush of blood comes to cause rash decisions
Betting 6 inside was just a made up example
Bayes ? :beer:
Thanks Biagle - an optimist if ever I saw one! :D
[attachurl=2]
[attachimg=1]
Turner,
You aren't betting every spin though, in that context, not on all 6 numbers, which you should be doing anyway in order to achieve a read SD across the whole bet. I have never tried this so I don't know what sort of difference it would make, if any.
My suggestion to up and down at the right times and bet the minimum at all other times is based on the assumption that the bet selection is of a non-floppy premise.
I mean, it has been proved to work in an acceptable way (isn't just random), therefore you know you can have bad days or a series of bad sessions but still come out ahead if you have enough reserves. It helps to have a real edge, but you don't really need one to be adequately successful; you just need to know the long term volatility. With that in mind the staking plan can be formed exactly around the bet and applied at very specific times without worrying that you're going to go bust. Yes, you could end up in a pretty large draw down, but such is life. You just need the stones and patience to bet through it (bearing in mind that you know it will end).
It's my opinion that if a player is virtual betting, they are on the road to ruin and it can't be avoided. I've said it before: probability needs to apply to an action i.e. a bet. With no bet, there is no probability of the expectancy affecting the outcomes of your bets and, in turn, your bankroll.
I don't know about your semi-virtual concept. It would seem that when you drop half of your numbers, you are simply dividing your bet in two and would end up having to run two staking plans side by side.
Me and the wife added a trip to Grosvenor in the mix today as part of a day off work.
I went armed with Wf3 and my R C R.
I can talk through the session if people are interested
@Turner
Yes I would be interested for one please, for both approaches live.
R
Regarding the XXVV W3 and W4.
Of course it has failed, and will continue to fail. As a professional AP player, I will simply tell you like it really is. Intuition, feelings, biorhythms, and meditation doesn't help you win. Physics does. Cause and effect.
After reading the XXVV thread, I decided that it was time to post some real things that you should look for if you're going to attempt to play on the hot numbers. And for the record, what you're attempting to do is not really play just hot numbers, you're hoping that there's some kind of bias/dealer effect that will enable you to win in the near term.
1. Wheel spin direction. Using a very simple program, you can sort by spin direction. You can also use the sort function in Excel. Even though you don't know the spin direction of the online sample, you can still combine every other spin, so that you have one column of numbers for each direction. When betting, you should have individual numbers (or possibly mini sections) on which to bet for each unique spin direction.
2. Dealer breaks. Different dealers spin at different wheels speeds, and have different roulette ball preferences. Since you don't know where they start and stop within the Wiesbaden samples, you're going to be at a disadvantage right from the start. When you can, note your dealers. It's best to have two dealers with similar rotor speeds and ball preferences.
3. Track more spins. Tracking only 21 spins and then playing isn't going to cut it. Especially if the wheel is alternating spin direction. That's only 12 spins for each direction! The simple fact is, the more spins you can write, the more you will learn about the true payoff tendencies of each number on the wheel. At least track one half of a shift. It's far too few spins, but it's still much better than tracking for only 21 spins. By cutting the shift in half, you'll be playing against the same dealers on the second half of the shift. Shifts are broken down into day, swing, and grave. You need to know when each shift begins at your casino. (You should actually track several thousand spins, but most people can't imagine completing such a task).
4. Play only statistically relevant numbers. Most people on this board have no idea as to how to calculate standard devition and it's not practical at the table, so I'll keep it simple. Don't play hot numbers unless they have at least two or three more hits than the next hottest numbers. The larger the spin sample, the bigger that lead gap should be. Ideally, you'll take into account the location of the weakest numbers or section in relation to the location of the hottest numbers. You want the weak numbers to be very weak, and the best numbers to be very strong. Subtract the number of hits for the weakest number(s) or section from the hottest number(s) or section. Here's the quick "at the table" formula:
(Hot Numbers) - (Weak Numbers) = (Crude Wheel Fitness Test Value)
The higher this value is, the better. If the value is too low, don't play.
5. End the play when the playing conditions change. Playing conditions refer to the wheel speed, ball used, etc. In the real world of gambling you will have draw downs. Random losing periods with an edge of only 3 to 5% can exceed 1000 units. Quitting when the playing conditions change can help dampen the draw downs. But still expect some big ones, since variance is a double edged sword. If this is too much for you, then you'll need to find a way to get a bigger edge, or you'll need to start with a bigger bankroll. If you're the short term tracker, then assume that your edge is very small or likely nonexistent.
6. Money management. It's really quite simple. Just bet anywhere from .5 to 1.5% of your bankroll at each spin. This way your bets increase as you win, and it gives you a real shot at winning some real money, since your initial bets can be much higher than when using an "up as you lose" progression. Set a win goal. Nobody is ever happy with just a one unit win. Grow a pair! Go for it, until you reach your win goal or until the playing conditions change too much. When the playing conditions change, quit. When the playing conditions are stable, bet more. When the playing conditions are less stable, bet less or quit. When you bet using this kind of money management, "gaming discipline" and "feelings" are no longer an issue. They're simply something that other gambler's use as an excuse for not winning. A loss is a loss. A win is a win. When either happen, it's the result of randomness, variance, and procedure, not discipline.
Now a fun test question. The player has a 6% edge, and plans on playing off and on over a period of several days for a total of 10k spins. The player's starting bankroll is $1,000. Which player will likely win the most money, and receive the most attention in the form of sex and love from his/her spouse or friend. Player 1,2, or 3?
1. The player flat bets $50 every spin on the top numbers.
2. The player bets 1% of his bankroll distributed over his best numbers. His initial bet is only $10 in total.
3. The player runs an up as you lose progression using a Fibonacci sequence.
If a player would have properly tracked the Macau wheel that has often been referenced within this thread, then the player could have won substantially more money and could have had a much higher edge than the paltry 3 to 5% shown.
Learn to rely on observations, physics, and common sense, not just feelings and intuition.
I realize that this post may upset some forum members. So in order to help prevent this post from upsetting too many people, and to help soften the blow, I've added a unicorn below. :)
(http://virtualhorsegames.net/wp-content/uploads/unicorn.jpg)
/.\
-Xander
An interesting post Xander. The concept of two number generators (clockwise and anticlockwise) is one I have considered for many years. The fact I can't tell from weisbaden spins, which is anticlockwise and which is clockwise has stopped me thinking about it. But you clicked something there. It doesn't matter as long as you separate them.
Having said that, when I go and swim, I really enjoy it. I do breast stroke. I see men get in the pool and they go hell for leather in a crawl like its some macho thing. It looks a tad silly in a Gymnasium pool.
Im not a professional swimmer but I can swim. Swimming isn't my life, but I enjoy it very much when i get in a pool.
Im not a professional gambler either, but I get by. I have a few techniques that do me well. I did well today.
When I don't do well, I lose very little. I make sure of that. Losing is never an issue. Winning is great fun.
I am very glad you posted this and I will take great notice of your words.
But when I am swimming in the gym, I wouldn't want Michael Phelps shouting at me how I was doing it wrong, and more so, if I approached the pool next time and saw Phelps stood there, it may put me off getting in the pool !!!
If you get my drift
And at the risk of great embarrassment...
I came to the table tonight and noticed the only repeat was 35, and last number was 35 so I placed 1 chip on 35.
35 came out.
I played the numbers in between the 2 occurrences of 35 which was 4 numbers. As I had just won, I included 35 (I would normally leave out the repeat)
No win.
No win
27 hit, which was one of the numbers between the 2 occurrences of 35
This left 2 numbers sandwiched between the two 27's which was 16 and 35.
I included 27 as it was only 3 numbers. 2 hit and this was a repeat, so I added it, now 4 numbers.
36 hit twice so I played just 36. After 5 spins, 36 hit again, and there were 4 numbers between the 2 occurrences of 36. I played these 4 and 36
Then the dealer changed and I stopped.
When the numbers between repeats was 5 or below, I played them.
When the numbers between repeats was high, like 8 or 9, I played WF3.
Some time, I was playing both.
Perhaps I'm just lucky.
its hard to play simpler...and most difficult to play at all, what with several confetti players leaning all over you trying to die as quickly as possible.
Great fun!
I'm sorry Turner, but that's unacceptable. Please go back and return the money that you have unfairly won, as you will likely not be able to sleep at night. >:D
Quote from: Xander on March 05, 2014, 07:56:17 PM
I'm sorry Turner, but that's unacceptable. Please go back and return the money that you have unfairly won, as you will likely not be able to sleep at night. >:D
I will sleep like a baby.....
Xander...I would like you to post more like your last post. Very interesting (for me anyhow)
I can't take on everything, I can't become a pro gambler....but I respect your view as "learned the hard way"
Some Gems in there....and I thought the Unicorn was very beautiful.
After investigating the Macau data further, I've found why the XXVV system appeared to perform so well on this specific sample. The sample was the one that produced the largest win for the WF3/WF4 system.
It's because there are several repeating strings of data. The repeating strings of data are highlighted in different colors. Only the repeating strings seven spins or longer are highlighted. Attached are only the first 3030 spins. There are likely several shorter strings of repeating numbers.
In short, the original data was very corrupt. Please note that I do NOT believe that XXVV is responsible for the bad data, and I doubt that he knew it was bad. The average player would likely not know how to examine the data in order to find the repeating strings and would not know how to measure it's quality. Such techniques are closely guarded secrets among APs.
The responsible party was probably the original source of the data or the person that keyed it.
-Caleb
QuoteXXVV Studio / Re: THREAD FIFTEEN - live play 28 Feb 2014 and updated comments
« on: March 01, 2014, 11:27:39 pm »
Regarding Macao,
Recall the tests were done in 1970 and the data published in POND book was methodically analysed by the Author's team and all charts are published in this excellent book -XXVV
QuoteApparently, according to Xander it is unlikely I was aware of the degree of 'corruption' in this spin data.-XXVV
I don't believe that you knew that it was corrupt data. Finding repeating strings over so many spins is way beyond the expertise of a new player or layman. I don't see how you could have known. I think it was probably the result of one or some of the following: The person that keyed the data, because the original authors wanted to increase the number of spins that they had, or because their data collection proceedure was very amateurish.
QuoteHowever, what of the reputation of the Irish born, Canadian/US businessman Mr O'Neil-Dunne, a wartime RAF fighter pilot who flew with distinction night fighter mosquito aircraft equipped with radar, and an outspoken advocate for health warnings to be provided by Rothmans where he was a senior partner.-XXVV
What of it? Aren't you being a bit dramatic here? Or are you implying that the repeating sequences of numbers are random and that I'm exaggerating all of this? So he's a great pilot. Big deal! But that doesn't mean that he's good at collecting and recording data. Tracking and organizing data is more difficult than most people realize. Try tracking a few thousand spins sometime. Then you'll understand how it can happen.
QuoteWhat of the reputation of Mr Stanley Ho and his management team who daily certified numbers, and Mr Ho frequently accompanied the Author in his sessions.
What of it? I believe that you may be over estimating the efficiency and accuracy of casino staff. My experience is that they are about as efficient as your local parks and rec division or water department. In other words, not that great.
QuoteThe implications of this are fascinating, and true to form, the trouble maker strikes again.
I'm sorry, I guess I should have let everyone falsely believe that the WF3 could produce big wins based on the Macau testing?
Look, the system isn't that bad.
Your WF3 system and the numerous clones of it invented since the inception of the game, really will slightly reduce the house edge on live wheels. It really is a step in the right direction. Betting the hot numbers is far better than chasing the cold ones.
Quote'Give me a Sign' to have nothing further to do with divisive and pointless posting by individuals who have little understanding yet distort interpretation and consider themselves authorities.-XXVV
Sorry XXVV. But don't you're being just a bit melodramatic? I'm simply posting the facts. I'm sorry if the facts are divisive, and If the methods that I've laid out so that you can improve the system seem pointless to you.
-------------
Below is the list of the duplicated sequences of numbers within the first 3030 spins of the corrupt Macau spin file. The file is also attached:
Please note that there are likely several more repeating sequences that are less than seven spins in length. I've only highlighted the repeating sequences that are seven spins or longer in length.
Lines 484 to 490
7 spins that are the same as lines 1171 to 1177
Lines 519 to 554
36 spins that are the same as lines 1284 to 1319
Line 623 to 643
21 spins that are the same as lines 1076 to 1096
Line 1076 to 1096
21 spins that are the same as lines 623 to 643
Lines 1101 to 1111
11 spins that are the same as lines 1224 to 1234
Line 1116 to 1156
41 spins that are the same as Line 1238 to 1278
Lines 1171 to 1177
7 spins that are the same as lines 484 to 490
Lines 1224 to 1234
11 spins that are the same as lines 1101 to 1111
Lines 1238 to 1278
41 spins that are the same as Lines 1116 to 1156
Lines 1284 to 1319
36 spins that are the same as lines 519 to 554
Lines 1792 to 1804
13 spins that are the same as lines 1923 to 1935
Lines 1808 to 1825 2
23 spins that are the same as lines 2515 to 2537 with other spins added in between 21
Lines 1827 to 1853
27 spins that are the same as lines 2539 to 2565
Lines 1855 to 1863
9 spins that are the same as lines 2567 to 2575
Lines 1923 to 1935
13 Spins that are the same as lines 1792 to 1804
Lines 2515 to 2537
23 spins that are the same as lines 1808 to 1825 with other spins added in between
????? Data that has been inserted in between a repeating string of numbers
?????
???
???
Lines 2539 to 2565
27 spins that are the same as lines 1827 to 1853
Lines 2567 to 2575
9 spins that are the same as lines 1855 to 1863
-Xander
Quote from: Xander on March 06, 2014, 08:07:33 AM
Such techniques are closely guarded secrets among APs.
Yeah I heard about you AP guys...secret handshakes...decoder rings...the works
Sorry...in one of those moods today...big kitchen remodel and in the middle of it one of the "air, cruise, tilt" ovens goes on the blink with a party tonight so I have to turn into the friggin Maytag man (it's not really a Maytag...just getting my point across)
I just like the "closely guarded secret" thing going on in a public forum regarding a game few people give anyone a chance at winning at.
Now that I'm thinking about it...shoulda PM'd Sam and pulled him outta retirement :nod:
All is well now...I am calming (kinda like Buford T Justice in the Smokey and the Bandit sequel) ummmmmmmmmm....ummmmmmmmmmm
Xander...so what would good data look like....I mean...do you expect some repeat of data...or is there none...or is there a limit...say 5 numbers may repeat 1% in a certain sample....6 may repeat 0.1% etc...or am I trying to penetrate your inner sanctum :D
Oooh matron !!!!!
QuoteXander...so what would good data look like....I mean...do you expect some repeat of data...or is there none...or is there a limit...say 5 numbers may repeat 1% in a certain sample....6 may repeat 0.1% etc...or am I trying to penetrate your inner sanctum :D
Oooh matron !!!!!-Turner
Using some basic probability, you can calculate the odds of a specific string repeating. For example, the probability of seeing a specific seven number sequence repeating is the same as seeing a specific number repeating seven times in a row 1/37 ^7
Strings of three numbers in length are more common than you might think. An occasional string of four numbers in a row is very unusual, but not out of the question. A string of five numbers repeating is quite unusual, but I've actually seen it twice, possibly three times in my life in the form of a number that his five times in a row. (Two of the times I witnessed it as it happened. The third time I only saw three of them hit and the other two hits were already on the board.) I've seen more four repeating sequences than fives. And I see a three string sequence regularly. Keep in mind that I have access to massive quantities of spins.
If there are more than a few sequences of five numbers repeating in sequence - in a large file, then they should be removed.
On the XXVV file I simply removed the sequences of seven spins or longer because it was faster than a full scrub.
QuoteYeah I heard about you AP guys...secret handshakes...decoder rings...the works -Roulette Key. I just like the "closely guarded secret" thing going on in a public forum regarding a game few people give anyone a chance at winning at.
Yes, there really is a TOP SECRET AP HANDSHAKE. Here's the link to it. (But please! Be discrete! Do NOT share!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_IJCpZfrPA
I probably should have explained what I meant by a closely guarded secret. Sorting data in that way and the programming code used wouldn't be of use to anyone on this board. It wouldn't help anyone here win. Don't read anything into it. It's more of a programming thing. I didn't mean for that to come across in the way that it did.
-Xander
Xander....very interesting. Thanks
Very nice Snowman ...
You for sure know what you talking about, thanks ...
Thanks Xander for your "system", and nice unicorn!
Also interesting regarding the repeats in the Macau data. I wonder how it happened? Presumably the spins were copied manually from the book so a lot scope for errors there.
so that xxvv or whatever name has got did play stuff system on stuff data and won.....that's what i call professional gambler :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
Quote'Xander' - your claim is feeble and spurious. And this is your first line - you can't even get that right.
XXVV,
You're obviously not looking at the correct file. Please check again. The data is quite corrupt.
The dupes for the first 3030 spins are shown below. And they matter! The actual file is once again attached to this post as well.
QuoteOne of my colleagues, a scientist, is refreshing in the objective view he has of many of his colleagues who happily and knowingly 'paper over the cracks' in terms of orthodoxies and refusal to answer difficult questions. It is wise to not be too certain about anything or to trade using others assumptions. These can be false. -XXVV
Why are all of these repeating sequences in this data? Why didn't your "scientist" that you work with notice the duplicated spins??? ???
Now, let's examine my "spurious" claim.
8 Lines 484 to 490 They mysteriously show up again 687 spins later!
28 seven spins that are the same as lines 1171 to 1177
9
3
19
29
30
------------------------
29 Lines 519 to 554 They mysteriously show up 765 spins later!
32 36 spins that are the same as lines 1284 to 1319.
22
8
17
25
4
17
7
17
3
29
27
20
32
3
22
5
29
4
12
28
10
21
14
28
4
14
35
35
11
14
36
13
21
33
--------------------
36 Lines 623 to 643 They mysteriously show up 453 spins later!
12 21 spins that are the same as lines 1076 to 1096.
18
32
29
36
36
8
28
6
6
25
12
35
18
29
11
26
3
8
24
------------------
36 Line 1076 to 1096
12 21 spins that are the same as lines 623 to 643 They've already hit 453 spins ago!
18
32
29
36
36
8
28
6
6
25
12
35
18
29
11
26
3
8
24
---------------
22 Lines 1101 to 1111. They mysteriously show up 123 spins later!
19 11 spins that are the same as lines 1224 to 1234.
26
29
5
9
7
9
10
9
36
--------
8 Line 1116 to 1156. They mysteriously show up 122 spins later!
10 41 spins that are the same as Line 1238 to 1278
9
5
0
22
35
0
22
9
24
34
25
25
11
23
19
32
27
7
35
36
11
25
25
11
15
10
10
4
22
10
21
18
13
26
11
34
20
12
35
-------
8 Lines 1171 to 1177. They've already hit 687 spins ago!
28 7 spins that are the same as lines 484 to 490
9
3
19
29
30
--------
22 Lines 1224 to 1234. They've already hit 123 spins ago!
19 11 spins that are the same as lines 1101 to 1111
26
29
5
9
7
9
10
9
36
---------------
8 Lines 1238 to 1278. They've already hit 122 spins ago!
10 41 spins that are the same as Lines 1116 to 1156
9
5
0
22
35
0
22
9
24
34
25
25
11
23
19
32
27
7
35
36
11
25
25
11
15
10
10
4
22
10
21
18
13
26
11
34
20
12
35
------------
29 Lines 1284 to 1319. They've already hit 765 spins ago!
32 36 spins that are the same as lines 519 to 554
22
8
17
25
4
17
7
17
3
29
27
20
32
3
22
5
29
4
12
28
10
21
14
28
4
14
35
35
11
14
36
13
21
33
-----------
33 Lines 1792 to 1804. They mysteriously show up again 131 spins later!
36 13 spins that are the same as lines 1923 to 1935
11
11
20
23
33
11
8
25
18
16
12
------------
2 Lines 1808 to 1825
21 23 spins that are the same as lines 2515 to 2537 with other spins added in between. Weird!
13 13
9 9
6 6
2 2
18 21
26 13
14 9
21 6
0 2
11 18
3 26
21 14
33 21
25 0
19 11
26 3
-------------
18 Lines 1827 to 1853. They mysteriously show up again 712 spins later!
15 27 spins that are the same as lines 2539 to 2565
17 19
18 26
29
35
15
23
3
7
34
25
35
11
22
4
16
14
17
5
22
3
24
6
19
11
19
-------------
30 Lines 1855 to 1863. They mysteriously show up again 712 spins later
23 9 spins that are the same as lines 2567 to 2575
2
27
7
29
1
5
16
-----------
33 Lines 1923 to 1935. They've already hit 131 spins ago!
36 13 Spins that are the same as lines 1792 to 1804
11
11
20
23
33
11
8
25
18
16
12
-----------------
2 Lines 2515 to 2537. Wait a minute, we've seen these number before! Someone's trying to fool us?
21 23 spins that are the same as lines 1808 to 1825 with other spins added in between
13
9
6
2
21
13
9
6
2
18
26
14 ????? Data that has been inserted in between a repeating string of numbers
21 ?????
0
11
3
21 ???
33 ???
25
19
26
-------------
18 Lines 2539 to 2565. We've seen these spins before. They hit 712 spins ago!
15 27 spins that are the same as lines 1827 to 1853
17
18
29
35
15
23
3
7
34
25
35
11
22
4
16
14
17
5
22
3
24
6
19
11
19
--------
30 Lines 2567 to 2575. We've seen these spin before. They hit 712 spins ago!
23 9 spins that are the same as lines 1855 to 1863
2
27
7
29
1
5
16
--------
Well, what do you think now? Do you still feel that my claim is spurious? Unlike your supposed experts and scientists, I really know how to examine the data. If I chose to, I could run a battery of additional tests on it that would make your brain bleed out your ears. ;) (For example, there's an unusual tendency for a number to show up roughly halfway across the wheel 17 spins later, which could mean digit flips This means the person simply is turning a 1 into a 2, a 3 into a 4, a 21 into a 22, a 22 into a 23,... etc.... It looks suspicious) I suspect that some of the data is likely fake.
I'm not blaming you for the bad data. I just don't appreciate you taking unwarranted jabs at me for pointing out the data was corrupt.
Rather than throwing anymore rocks, what do you say we pick up some of the stones that have been thrown and start over? 8)
Sincerely,
-Xander
Note regarding the number flip investigation attachment: The graphs shown are standard deviation value graphs.
Xander
...pretty damn conclusive if you ask me
Listen, some (not all) of you guys are just not catching on. When Xander, Snowman, Caleb, Farnsworth, Keyser are ON SCENE, there is not much point of posting a method (as you see).
The "you can't win" & "you'll never win playing methods" will be STUFFED down your throat until you are foaming at the mouth. You're better off keeping your IDEA to yourself (imo). Besides, you really don't need approval from others, correct? That's one thing that took me years to figure out.
Oh, Bob Smith doesn't like my method? Well, f**k Bob Smith and the horse he road in on. (lol)
Xander, Snowman, Caleb, Farnsworth, Keyser has NO PROOF he does well with his AP (cough) tactics, so, why listen? Fair question, again, its only my opinion. The other ODD thing.....some of the members that AGREE with him.......DRUM ROLL........ play methods! ??? Pure comedy.
Ken
Quote(Advantage-play is for suckers) Gambler's Fallacy is a term coined by unsuccessful gamblers to validate their reasons for losing. Why would I take advice from a person who has dedicated no more than 9 hours to roulette?
He/she is a quitter in my book and I have no use for quitters!! No person has yet convinced me that their way of playing roulette is better than my way.....STILL WAITING -Mr. J.
Mr. J.,
Do you know the secret AP handshake?
That's a cute comback. Perhaps more pics of unicorns, maybe more members will take that road to nowhere with you. It's a lonely road, you'll need company.
Ken
Relax Ken.
Let's pick up some of the stones and hold off on throwing new ones. :)
#Xander.
Thank you for your work in analysis of the Macao spin data. Indeed it seems the portion you tested has serious problems far more than we realised but only Gordon and Bryan as my colleagues were familiar with this book. Bryan had pointed out some general concerns years ago and we were aware of two passages at fault, certainly the 41 number overlap, but the degree of corruption is shocking.
I am endeavouring to seek an explanation, but as it is so many years ago, this may be academic. It is rather poignant that a fine book, so loved by many may have significant flaws, but that is another story.
I apologise for my statements regarding this issue over the spin data as I was in a state of shock at the time after having been a major advocate of Mr O'Neil-Dunne for many years.
You have done a fine job in the analysis.
XXVV
8 March 2014
0745
Hi All
As far as I'm aware when I scanned the data I put it into Excel using a separate tab for each day, so I will have a look at the file when I have some time to check these discrepancies, I had no reason to think that the data is/was flawed in any way and I think when I had a look at the deviation of the numbers overall I recall there was nothing too out of the ordinary
Will do my best, but as you're aware I've a bigger fight on my hands getting to the bottom of Betvoyager and my missing funds
Gordon
@Gordon
Your priority is dealing with the BV attitude which is also a shock. It has been a month of shocks!
Clearly there seems to be some sort of major stuff up and cover up with that Macao data to a level that is fraudulent if proven. I can't tell you how much time I had invested in studying that data for its sheer convenience and internal set out. Now I am mad at that lot! Unless there is some other answer.
What it does show though Xander, despite all the apparent meddling and butchery and 'not so seamless' editing, the principle of repeating numbers is evident, yet oddly, at the more favourable range of tested data from a very wide variety of sources. It might have gone the other way. However for the time being we shall discard that package as a potential can of worms until further questions are asked and we all do more research.
Nevertheless I am very grateful to Xander for cleverly illustrating the dangers in using spin data sources, and just how careful we should be.
That is why I now use ONLY data I have seen and sourced myself and of course that is why it is usually in small parcels ( which of course can be 'seamlessly' tied together but even over that I now nervous).
I am glad all this has cleared the air, but there are more questions than ever now to be asked.
Sorry, do any tell me how do wf3 system works?
What is it about?
regards
ybot
Thanks ybot for your interest.
Leis be very clear from the outset. I have developed this simple method over the past 25 years or more with the help of several colleagues but especially one who is a well known analyst and savvy IT specialist. We observed earlier that chasing sleepers can be erratic and that hot number focus alone can leave you waiting a long time without live action.
The action is in the middle ground where warm turns to very warm and hot. There is plenty of action in looking at repeats and we believed that a qualifying WF number appears twice and we target a third appearance.
This is not a unique method - it is an amendment to a generic bet and several well known authors use it. What makes the difference is the level of detail and efficiency in assessing targets and the MM in so doing.
I have written very fully on this and you will need to look at my writing on roulette forum and especially in my Blog section on this forum.
Good Hunting.
R.
Hi xxvv,
I appreciate your informátion.
As any hot numbers system, has its weakness in the time to start and stop playing.
You can not know when to do it.
We could try to find out the cause a number hit twice is due to hit better than the others.
With random tools you are not capable to predict it
Chasing sleepers might be the best way to lose more than house edge because these sleepers could be defective
Playing after a repetition is not harmfull but -2.7% to 0.
I would like to know more about it
Warm regards
Quote from: Mr J on March 07, 2014, 02:33:53 PM
Listen, some (not all) of you guys are just not catching on. When Xander, Snowman, Caleb, Farnsworth, Keyser are ON SCENE, there is not much point of posting a method (as you see).
The "you can't win" & "you'll never win playing methods" will be STUFFED down your throat until you are foaming at the mouth. You're better off keeping your IDEA to yourself (imo). Besides, you really don't need approval from others, correct? That's one thing that took me years to figure out.
Oh, Bob Smith doesn't like my method? Well, f**k Bob Smith and the horse he road in on. (lol)
Xander, Snowman, Caleb, Farnsworth, Keyser has NO PROOF he does well with his AP (cough) tactics, so, why listen? Fair question, again, its only my opinion. The other ODD thing.....some of the members that AGREE with him.......DRUM ROLL........ play methods! ??? Pure comedy.
Ken
This post says so much in the way of intelligence and rationalizing out it's not even laughable Ken is so spot-on about attitude and aura basic 101 forumolgy!