QuoteThat is a very simplistic way in which to view the game.   I haven't witnessed anybody play the game of Baccarat flat betting, fair to assume we all are aware a negative (or positive)  progression is required.

Yes, but this itself won't give you an edge, although it can keep you in the game long enough until you have a profit. The problem is those times when you never get a profit and end up chasing losses.

Quote from: james on March 09, 2018, 09:38:37 AM
https://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/use-math-to-beat-roulettebaccarat/
Click on the link above. Everything you want to know about Van der Waerden theorem is in this interesting thread.

Thanks James. Very interesting indeed, I can see lots of applications for this, and not just for the even chances.

Quote from: Bally6354 on March 08, 2018, 08:57:14 PM
Now for something a little more interesting for the VDW/AP fans.

Hi Bally,

I know what AP is, but what's VDW? Thanks.

I still don't see how that improve the odds. And John doesn't do any of that, he just plays a few games at a time and miraculously it results in 10-1 instead of 7-1. I code the simulation the same way but somehow that's unacceptable and the results are deemed invalid. 

Quote from: Sputnik on March 07, 2018, 07:43:56 AM
For example you have more winnings then losing selections - so when you use hit and run you are more certain to hit a winning bet then a losing bet - let me illustrate this - assume you have 15 winning selections and one losing selection for the next eight hours - then you decide to jump on board with this particular live wheel online to play pattern breaker - then the probability is on your side that you will hit one of does 15 winning strikes with your first Banker bet - the true odds is 15 to 1 with this situation.

Why are you more likely to hit a winning bet if you hit and run? Sure there are winning and losing sequences, that's just variance but you can't know in advance when the bad sequences will arrive. Playing a few games at a time doesn't change this, how could it?

QuoteSo when coder joe code the pattern breaker he make it continues flow where there is no beginning or end of the results.

I said it isn't a continuous flow. I coded it as 5 games at a time and then skip100-150 spins. And anyway my tests show it makes no difference. Are you really suggesting that the difference between a win-rate of 10-1 and 7-1 is down to hit and run? And if that was true why would you need to play pattern breaker? A simpler system which didn't require any waiting would do just as well if hit and run was the key to success!

Quote from: JOHN LEGEND MK2 on March 06, 2018, 04:01:06 PM
But Einsteins attitude never stopped him from making his living from roulette.

Quote from: alrelax on March 06, 2018, 06:28:48 PM

I am curious sir, is 'your' or the 'PATTERN BREAKER' something you are selling or represent?

Hi alrelax, he does come across that way doesn't he? But as far as I'm aware he's not selling anything.

Quote from: JOHN LEGEND MK2 on March 06, 2018, 04:01:06 PM
Not test a bunch of spins. Then tell me im telling porkies. Because they didn't match what I claimed to achieve.

John, if you actually read my posts I explicitly denied that you were making up the stats, so I'm wondering why you feel the need to attack by calling me names.

I followed your instructions to the letter when writing the sim.  I used real spins, and skipped 100-150 spins before starting a new set of games.

I think you owe me an apology, but I'm not going to press it. People can make up their own minds, and course before playing any system with real money they should consider whether it makes any sense, and do their own tests.

And by the way, I've been looking at some of your previous threads from several years ago on this and the other forum. You don't exactly have a great track record of winning systems, but you are a great talker.

I have to admit I've always given RNG a wide berth, but your success has inspired me to take a closer look. Well done. 

Quote from: Sputnik on March 04, 2018, 10:12:51 AM
But the code was a waste of time

I disagree. John Legend claims that the win rate is way above what it should be according to the maths, but the simulation shows it's not so. Surely that has to be worth something for those who were thinking of testing it? Of course there are a lot of other analyses you could do on the system so I've modified the code to generate data on the streak lengths (winning and losing streaks), and the file is now in csv format so you can load it into a spreadsheet for further analysis.

All the testing shows that waiting for the last pattern makes no difference to the end result. You would get exactly the same stats just betting red with a 3 step martingale. According to theory, without the zero the win rate is 87.5% and a ratio of 7:1 wins to losses, this is very close to what the data in the file tells you.

Quote from: james on March 03, 2018, 02:10:22 PM
Thanks for taking the time to code and publish the results.

You're welcome James. I'm glad at least some members appreciate the value of a simulation.

Hi Victor,

Thanks for the reply, but the issue seems to have resolved itself. No problem now replying to posts using Firefox, and actually there is no image verification at all. Maybe it only exists for a new user's first posts on the forum?

Hi Sputnik,

I'm not saying all these people are lying, but think about it. What do you actually know about any of these people, and what does success mean? They may have only played the system for a couple of hundred spins. You can't come to any sensible conclusion based on that. Do you really know that these people are  playing full time using the system? and do you know that they are continuing to be successful?

I'm not saying that you can't win for a while with the system and I'm not really interested in getting into long arguments about the merits of systems because my simulations do the arguing for me, so to speak. Hard data and numbers are more persuasive to me than hype and rhetoric.

Hello John,

I didn't use an RNG for the simulation, but actual spins, I just ignored the zeros and coded red/black as 1/0. You say that your system is mechanical so I don't understand what difference there is between actual play and my simulation. A simulation, if coded correctly, has no issues with patience or discipline, which I agree are very important. A simulation is no different than real play as long as you are following the system's rules perfectly. If there are other rules which you follow then let me know and I can code them, but if that's the case why didn't you tell us about them in your opening post?

Hi guys, I've attached the results of a simulation of PATTERN BREAKER. I used a kind of generic EC, labels 0 & 1, and there is no house edge of any kind but that doesn't detract from the results. Here are the first 3 games in the output file which I've attached :

*** GAME #1 ***
Waiting for 7 unique patterns...
111
001
011
001
000
110
111
001
100
010

Opposite of remaining pattern :010
1 Bank :  -1
1 Bank :   1
Bank after game #1:   1   W

*** GAME #2 ***
Waiting for 7 unique patterns...
101
101
001
111
011
001
100
101
101
011
111
101
000
101
100
110

Opposite of remaining pattern :101
1 Bank :   2
Bank after game #2:   2   W

*** GAME #3 ***
Waiting for 7 unique patterns...
111
110
101
101
000
101
000
001
001
011
101
010

Opposite of remaining pattern :011
0 Bank :   3
Bank after game #3:   3   W

And here are the final results after 20,000 games:

------ SUMMARY ------

Final Balance : 104 units
Gain from Wins = 17513
No. Busts = 2487
Check : 17513 - 2487 x 7 = 104
Ratio of wins:busts : 7.04 to 1

The final balance of +104 is almost certainly due to there being no house advantage, and given that, it's not statistically significant anyway. The ratio of wins to busts is right about where it should be assuming no house edge.

To be honest I wasn't expecting anything different. I'm not denying that John Legend may have had a lot of success with his system, only that it's probably due to sheer luck. If I knew exactly how many games he has played I could figure out just how lucky he has been.