Thanks Bally & Sputnik. So do your results show that these stats have any value in actual play?

I think the first thing I need to do is see if I can replicate Koetsch's stats. So I am going to compile 100 rounds of 100 bets and compare the two. It's a bit of a bold claim to say that you can quit a winner in 90% of (100 bet) rounds. Then I suppose it's a case of seeing if the 10% of losing rounds add up to more than the 90% of winning rounds on average. So I thought of giving it a helping hand testing with the VDW/AP which in all my testing so far produces lower variance than a random bet selection. The G3M1 looks like a good fit.....but it's early days.

cheers

Ok final question - what is VDW/AP?

Quote from: Mike on July 03, 2017, 06:56:58 PM
Ok final question - what is VDW/AP?

The following thread pretty much explains it on the first page. Nicksmi kindly uploaded a spreadsheet so anyone can play around with it and see how it all works.

http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/use-math-to-beat-roulettebaccarat/

cheers

Here is G3M1-3.

End result = -12.

A peak of +10.

A low of -13.

3 reversals.

cheers

Quote from: Bally6354 on July 03, 2017, 07:06:06 PM
The following thread pretty much explains it on the first page. Nicksmi kindly uploaded a spreadsheet so anyone can play around with it and see how it all works.

http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/use-math-to-beat-roulettebaccarat/

cheers

Thanks. You say that this bet selection has produced a lower variance than a random bet selection. Can you quantify this ? One way of doing it is to count the gap lengths between hits for the VDW and a random selection. Then take the standard deviation of the gaps in both cases. If you're correct, the Stddev of the VDW selection should be lower.

For those struggling with Standard Deviation here is an excellent, step-by-step explanation:

http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-deviation-formulas.html

I have found it most useful in coding SD calculations in several of my programs.

Thanks guys for the tips regarding calculating the SD with regards to variance.

Regarding VDW/AP.....there are a couple of interesting threads going on at the moment on the German Forum.

https://www.roulette-forum.de/forum/115-einfache-chancen/

just use google translator to get the gist of it. Loads of charts with info and different ways to attack.

G3M1-4 results....

End result = -1.

A peak of +2.

A low of -21.

2 reversals.

I will do a more detailed analysis compared to Koetsh's stats every 10 games.

cheers

The stats are pretty meaningless after only 4 games, but here they are anyhow.

[attachimg=1]

Regarding the variance, I am going to keep my eye on the average of the peak loss.
Koetsch's stat was 24.9 where I am at 12.5 at the moment.

cheers

G3M1-5 results.....

End result = +46

A peak of +46

A low of -4.

1 reversal.

cheers

Quote from: Bally6354 on July 04, 2017, 06:50:00 PM
G3M1-5 results.....

End result = +46

A peak of +46

A low of -4.

1 reversal.

cheers

Correct me if i am wrong, but i see two reversals. You start from no bet and fall into negative results and then get to break even and then once more into negative result and then again back to positiv results. That count as two reversals as you fall into the negative area twice and get back to even the first time and positiv result the second time. It does not matter if the second reversal only is -1 and then back to even and positiv results. Each negative to even is one reversal.

Cheers

Hello Sputnik,

The way I have always interpreted it is that if you are in plus, go negative and then go plus again = 1 reversal.

So +  -  +  = 1 reversal. So strictly speaking according to my rules, I could say there was no reversal in G3M1-5, however, it started out losing to begin with and then went positive. I do see how you are interpreting it based on what you wrote.

Koetsch writes....''I am only considering a reversal to mean when a net-loss situation reverses to become a net-gain.''

I never was good at following instructions! 

cheers

Bally are you saying i am wrong or right. Assume you fall into negative results from beginning and then break even, then based upon my understanding that is one reversal.
Does situation where he state there has not been one reversal present at all is does rounds where the result is negative from the beginning and never climb back to even during the 100 trail sample.
Based upon that i see any minus to even as one reversal.

Bally i read what you wrote above, but don't fully understand if you agree or not.

Cheers 

If I take literally what Koetsch wrote, then I interpret it as the following.....

-1, -2, -1, 0, +1 is a reversal because he writes 'a reversal means where a net-loss becomes a net-gain.'

So if it goes....-1, -2, -1, 0.....I don't think that's a reversal because that's not a net-gain. You started with zero profit and still have zero profit.

My original interpretation of needing to be in profit, then losing and then going back into profit was wrong (I think)

So you were closer than me anyhow! 

I will readjust the reversals according to the rules. Thanks for bringing it up because obviously it's important to go by the author otherwise we are playing our own game.

cheers

Updated chart.....

[attachimg=1]


cheers