Assuming a single zero wheel, let's find out how PB is expected to perform, according to probability. This will include the likelihood of winning/losing runs. But first, what's the probability of winning a game?
A game is defined as playing against a pattern of 3 spins. You have won a game as soon as you get your first win, and you lose the game if you don't get a hit in the 3 spins, so there are 4 possibilities:
1. win on the 1st spin - call this p(1)
2. win on the 2nd spin - call this p(2)
3. win on the 3rd spin - call this p(3)
4. loss - call this p(0)
Note that p(0) + p(1) + p(2) + p(3) = 1 In other words, there's a 100% chance that you'll either win or you won't!
Also, to win, it must be on either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd spin, so p(game-win) = p(1) + p(2) + p(3)
Now p(1) = 18/37 = 0.4865
p(2) is the chance of losing on the 1st spin and winning on the 2nd. The chance of loss is 1 − 18/37 = 19/37
so p(2) = 19/37 × 18/37 = 0.2498
p(3) is the chance of losing on the first 2 spins and winning on the 3rd, so p(3) = (19/37)2 × 18/37 = 0.1283
adding them all up gives the chance of winning a game:
p(game-win) = 0.8646 or 86.46%
Note that, for comparison, this is the same probability (to 3 decimal places) as winning when betting on 32 numbers: 32/37 = 86.49%
and the chance of losing a game is:
p(game-loss) = 0.1354
So you should expect to lose a game, on average, once in every 7.4 games.
Winning & Losing runs
to be continued...
......now that starts intresting !!! Awaiting the continuation !!!
Ray
So you should expect to lose a game, on average, once in every 7.4 games.
May I take it as we are going to win 7 units (or even more), prior to losing 7 units (in three steps of marty), averagely?
Quote from: KingsRoulette on November 29, 2012, 04:39:36 AM
So you should expect to lose a game, on average, once in every 7.4 games.
May I take it as we are going to win 7 units (or even more), prior to losing 7 units (in three steps of marty), averagely?
Hi KR,
Maybe, but that's down to variance. On average, because you need to win once in every 8 games just to break even, it means you don't make enough in the winning runs to offset the losses. But I don't want to stress this too much because it applies to every system.
Winning runsRather than posting tedious calculations, I'm just going to present the results in a table. The left-hand side shows the length of the winning run going up in steps of 5 after the first 4 and the right-hand side tells you what the chance is of seeing it. The first 4 results are given in % form and the remainder are in "1 in X" form.
Winning Chance
Run
2 75%
3 64%
4 59%
5 48%
10 1 in 4.3
15 1 in 8.9
20 1 in 18.4
25 1 in 38.0
30 1 in 78.6
35 1 in 162
40 1 in 337
45 1 in 697
50 1 in 1,443
55 1 in 2,986
60 1 in 6,181
65 1 in 12,794
70 1 in 26,481
75 1 in 54,809
80 1 in 113,443
85 1 in 234,803
90 1 in 485,991
95 1 in 1,005,895
100 1 in 2,081,980
Yes if all of the worlds population try, about 4000 will make it, one of them seems to be JL. If we count those not try it is more than 4000 fold less. My be only one. It must be JL. :bored:
Quote from: Ralph on November 29, 2012, 05:53:27 PM
Yes if all of the worlds population try, about 4000 will make it, one of them seems to be JL. If we count those not try it is more than 4000 fold less. My be only one. It must be JL. :bored:
Ralph what exactly are you saying here? If the entire world played Pattern breaker. Longterm just about the entire world should show a profit.
Bayes is excellent at statistics, but what even he cannot accommodate for, is the FREAK RUNS H.A.R is capable of showing you.
I might plod along with a win loss pattern as follows WON 4--LOST 1--WON 9--LOST 1--WON 2--LOST 1--WON 8--LOST 1-------------------------THEN SOMETHING HAPPENS.
WON 24--LOST 1--WON 9--LOST 1--WON 17--LOST 1. You see the first string of wins and losses BARELY gave me 5/1. And I've experienced these kind of breakdowns many times. Then the second string of wins and losses takes me to a level where I want to be. around 9/1
Or more often between 10/1---12/1 Then by raising and lowering stakes usually after a loss. I secure a profit margin. Anyone who stays with PB long enough will experience something similar to this.
What happens to alot of the casual people is they will play 30 or 40 REAL GAMES. Get that poor breakdown and then completely dismiss the method as a failure. The detractors standing on the sidelines then say, "See I told you so, JL is full of it". STAYING POWER, is seriously lacking in most people.
That's why im so adamant about the virtues of this method. I've seen it all. And why I've unsertaken to show it works, aswell as have an independant player do a test. I already know this baby works. None of you have ever asked yourself this question. "WHY IS THIS JL CHARACTOR GOING TO PUSH A METHOD SO HARD IF HE KNOWS IT doesn't WORK?? :thumbsup:
Jl I just said yhat I wrot, the odds are so it will not happen always, if the whole world used it they will not win at your rate. It is not at all impossible to win 1000 times in a row, not common anyhow.
Quote from: Ralph on November 29, 2012, 06:20:58 PM
Jl I just said yhat I wrot, the odds are so it will not happen always, if the whole world used it they will not win at your rate. It is not at all impossible to win 1000 times in a row, not common anyhow.
Ralph hold on a minute. Where have I ever stated I won a 1000 games of PATTERN BREAKER in a row???
May be not yet, but it in fact possible. The chances are small but even 10000 is not impossible, I am waiting.
"WHY IS THS JL CHARACTOR GOING TO PUSH A METHOD SO HARD IF HE KNOWS IT doesn't WORK??
Jl
This is not a comment on you, but on FlAtMaN. Why did he push so hard on a system he very well knew was a loser? Why does anyone? Hear me now and believe me later----I've seen this more times than I've got fingers and toes. Frankly, I think I've seen it all!! I'm sure there are people on this forum who followed the mess on the "other" forum. They know what I'm talking about.
Long before I knew you, I studied the idea of just dropping in. I had a system that worked 90% of the time doing it. That 10% ate my lunch and gave me the check!
Hang in there. I, for one, am always pulling for you to win and for snubby to win.
Sam
Quote from: Ralph on November 29, 2012, 06:33:56 PM
May be not yet, but it in fact possible. The chances are small but even 10000 is not impossible, I am waiting.
I can tell you with absolute certaintly Ralph, no one will ever win 1,000 consecutive games of PATTERN BREAKER.
FIVE possible. 8 ON 1 very POSSIBLE. But not PATTERN BREAKER. If you even break the 100 barrier celebrate. You have done something very special. And put yourself way ahead.
Losing runs
Losing Chance
Run
1 1 in 7.4
2 1 in 55
3 1 in 403
4 1 in 2,975
5 1 in 21,973
6 1 in 162,288
7 1 in 1,198,586
8 1 in 8,852,190
Quote from: TwoCatSam on November 29, 2012, 06:37:43 PM
"WHY IS THS JL CHARACTOR GOING TO PUSH A METHOD SO HARD IF HE KNOWS IT doesn't WORK??
Jl
This is not a comment on you, but on FlAtMaN. Why did he push so hard on a system he very well knew was a loser? Why does anyone? Hear me now and believe me later----I've seen this more times than I've got fingers and toes. Frankly, I think I've seen it all!! I'm sure there are people on this forum who followed the mess on the "other" forum. They know what I'm talking about.
Long before I knew you, I studied the idea of just dropping in. I had a system that worked 90% of the time doing it. That 10% ate my lunch and gave me the check!
Hang in there. I, for one, am always pulling for you to win and for snubby to win.
Sam
Sam I will tell you this. You have a very special guy heading your Speramus team. If you stay with Subby. He can win all of you guys a small fortune. And once and for all. Show everyone PB works. And he is not even using any recovery staking.
I will attempt to do the same on BV. But regardless I will do it live in the near future too. I will hand one of my accounts over to Superman so he can verify my success. Everyone will know this method is a winner in the future. From the most ardent maths boy. To a man who sells expensive computer gimmicks. For sums that could buy a nice house down south.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on November 29, 2012, 06:37:43 PM
"WHY IS THS JL CHARACTOR GOING TO PUSH A METHOD SO HARD IF HE KNOWS IT doesn't WORK??
Its usually because they haven't discovered they don't
work yet. Every guy who pushes these things always
has a boatload of bragging to back him up. Why, I've
done this for 9 years and 7600 games and bought a house
and a boat and a $100K car with the proceeds.
The truth is, they discovered the thing a short time ago,
have never bet real money with it, and want the
forum to prove if it works or doesn't work so they can
save themselves the time of doing the heavy lifting
themselves.
Unless the laws of probability have changed and nobody
told me, all of these systems are doomed. But they can
be fun to work on as long as you do it without investing
real money.
Quote from: spike on November 29, 2012, 06:56:13 PM
Its usually because they haven't discovered they don't
work yet. Every guy who pushes these things always
has a boatload of bragging to back him up. Why, I've
done this for 9 years and 7600 games and bought a house
and a boat and a $100K car with the proceeds.
The truth is, they discovered the thing a short time ago,
have never bet real money with it, and want the
forum to prove if it works or doesn't work so they can
save themselves the time of doing the heavy lifting
themselves.
Unless the laws of probability have changed and nobody
told me, all of these systems are doomed. But they can
be fun to work on as long as you do it without investing
real money.
Spike you will be proven wrong and shallow in your thought process. I GAURANTEE YOU THAT.
JL is completely correct that PB has long sequences of wins, win streaks. I just had my simulation break out win streaks and display them. At 100 sessions at a time it's easy to see that long win streaks are very common. I just had 33 wins in a row on a 100 session test. That test produced a 6.7 to 1 hit rate. I also had two 25+ win streaks in a 100 session test that produced a 9 to 1 hit rate. It's not a verification or validation of PB but more it's a validation that PB can look like a winner in the short run but that it will always be a loser in the long run. 6,400 is not a large number sample.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 29, 2012, 07:03:13 PM
JL is completely correct that PB has long sequences of wins, win streaks. I just had my simulation break out win streaks and display them. At 100 sessions at a time it's easy to see that long win streaks are very common. I just had 33 wins in a row on a 100 session test. That test produced a 6.7 to 1 hit rate. I also had two 25+ win streaks in a 100 spin test that produced a 9 to 1 hit rate. It's not a verification or validation of PB but more it's a validation that PB can look like a winner in the short run but that it will always be a loser in the long run. 6,400 is not a large number sample.
Gizmotron heres my problem with what youre saying. It simply doesn't pan out that way. Yes in the big picture 6.400 games may not be a large sample.
But do you really think I am going to surrender 6,000 units profit. Of course I can have periods of downturn and loss. But overall it will always level out and clearly ahead resume on the road to additional
profit. The type of bankroll devastation you talk of simply doesn't happen with a method like PB.
That's why I will play it until the day I die.
JL, I clearly believe that you have been lucky when it comes to your results for recovery bets. You think it's "HAR" and the common occurrences of win streaks. By your own statements you have yet to experience a triple loss. That alone is a validation of experiencing a lucky break. It's completely believable. It's also naive to think that your luck is because you know something that we don't. You are one of the free thinking type personalities that have an explanation for the most common forms of random occurrences. This is getting old and tired.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 29, 2012, 07:22:39 PM
JL, I clearly believe that you have been lucky when it comes to your results for recovery bets. You think it's "HAR" and the common occurrences of win streaks. By your own statements you have yet to experience a triple loss. That alone is a validation of experiencing a lucky break. It's completely believable. It's also naive to think that your luck is because you know something that we don't. You are one of the free thinking type personalities that have an explanation for the most common forms of random occurrences. This is getting old and tired.
Success never gets old Giz. But do NOT take my word for it. This is what Speramus is all about. And what I am doing on BV. Two years from now even you may raise an eyebrow.
Quote from: JohnLegend on November 29, 2012, 07:31:57 PM
Success never gets old Giz. But do NOT take my word for it. This is what Speramus is all about. And what I am doing on BV. Two years from now even you may raise an eyebrow.
What the heck.
I have a thread going right now that is dedicated to telling specific instructions on how to attack randomness and the opportunities that it has to offer. In two years everyone will know that I have been right all along. See. Anyone can do it.
Quote from: JohnLegend on November 29, 2012, 07:01:54 PM
Spike you will be proven wrong and shallow in your thought process. I GAURANTEE YOU THAT.
Odd, that's what they all say and so far, none
of them have proved anything except what
they do isn't based on the reality how things
work.
Quote from: Gizmotron on November 29, 2012, 07:03:13 PM
It's not a verification or validation of PB but more it's a validation that PB can look like a winner in the short run but that it will always be a loser in the long run.
Throw a little curve fitting into the mix and that's
where we always end up with these scenerios.
Curve fitting is nasty, you can do it without even
realizing it. You think you have a winning system
when your thumb has been on the scale the
whole time, screwing up the true results.
Quote from: spike on November 29, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
Throw a little curve fitting into the mix and that's
where we always end up with these scenerios.
Curve fitting is nasty, you can do it without even
realizing it. You think you have a winning system
when your thumb has been on the scale the
whole time, screwing up the true results.
Bankrolls don't grow by themselves. Hard cash will prove my point. those are my final words in this to you Spike and Gizmotron.
any update on this topic?
Doubt it.
Have you tried PB m, & if so what has been your experience?