Quote from: Sputnik on March 04, 2018, 10:12:51 AM
But the code was a waste of time - we who has experience and been around for 10 year or more know that all existing systems fail after several simulations.
When are we going to see a test that show us what a system is made of - what kind of variance and imbalance it create during the short term.
We know everything even out towards expectation in the long run.

For example - why did you not show us the true odds?
Assume you would count for how many times you win before the eight pattern show for each and every cycle and measuring does values to give us the median value for the 50% probability benchmark in the short term.

The coding modell below is what i use then exploring sleepers (no matter amount of numbers) and i never get the true odds and where the 50% benchmark is something else then the true odds.

Cycle's - Strikes - Skips

We can use different spread of numbers/sectors.
They will come in cycles.
Sometimes they will sleep and not hit with expectation.

This method can you use with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 numbers

I see this as you measuring the random fluctations hit ratio or bias.
Where the numbers hit ratio give us a medium value that we can take advantage of.

We can chose to play when our numbers hit or we can attack when they have fall to sleep.

Skip Streak System by Apache:

First I want tell I build this system using Ion Saliu concepts :
Skip, Streak, and Median Value.

Example :

Roulette Number: 6
Hits > 24 times
Skips > 51 43 104 1 2 29 37 77 79 15 130 15 12 7 11 131 11 129 8 16 20 14 21 12

* Sorted Skips: 1 2 7 8 11 11 12 12 14 15 15 16 20 21 29 37 43 51 77 79 104 129 130 131

* Median Skip: 16

So number 6 hit 24 times. The first row - called Skips - show ( to the right to left) the skips of number 6. Number 6 show. After 12 spins, show again, after 21 spins show again, after 14 spins number 6 show again etc. The last three skips of number 6 are 104, 43, 51.

The second row - called - Sorted Skips show all the skips for a particular number in ascending order.

The three row called - Median Skip - show the median value of the sorted skips. The median is the middle value of a string of numbers. In this example the median value of skips is 16. It should not be confused with the average. So the Median Value is the middle value in a string of values.

Therefore 50% of the values are within the median or less, and 50% are within the median or more. In my example of number 6, the skip median is 16. That mean that 50% of the time number 6 hits within a skip of 16 or less.

Now if in the string of skips of number 6 I mark :

with sign (+) I mark if the skip is greater than median value of skips
with sign (-) I mark if the skip is small than median value of skips
with sign (=) I mark if the skip is equal with median value of skips

I obtain this :

Code:

51  43  104  1  2  29  37  77  79  15  130  15  12  7  11  131  11  129  8  16  20  14  21  12

+   +    +  -  -   +   +   +   +   -    +   -   -  -   -    +   -    -  -   =   -   -   -   

1. THE STRATEGY :

We bet on the numbers which have a 3 consecutive streak of skips greater than the median value of skips. ( That mean three consecutive + )

In our example number 6 is qualified because the last three skips ( consecutive ) are 104, 43, 51. We have + + + ( three consecutive value of skips, greater than median value of skips. 16

(104 > 16) (43 > 16) (51 > 16)

1.Bet on numbers with encounter 3 consecutive signs +
2.Bet on numbers with encounter 4 consecutive signs + (tight bettors)
3.Bet on numbers until hit.
4.Bet on numbers for 37 spins
5.Bet on numbers for a number of spins equal with the median value of skips. ( In this example we bet number 6 for 16 spins)

Money managament : Flat bet.

Not bad idea but takes a lot of time in order to qualify your bet selections.
Yesterday I saw number 30 hit only once in about 150 spins and then returned after approximately 280 spins, therefore 150 + 280 = 430 spins / 2 hits = 215 average but you still would need a third skip before you start betting it!
Your method is not so practical, just my 1 cent.

Quote from: Mr J on March 01, 2018, 09:04:33 PM
Yes they should be treated differently. Don't play them. Straight ups is where its at son.

Ken

Once again benevolent Ken shares his wisdom graciously, I'd like to add:


"Great empires (aka casinos) fall from the inside (aka numbers)"
Thus don't be the outside(r) looking in(side)...because sometimes you lose and less times you win!

Just for clarification purposes, after 7 different permutations you are betting against the 8th possible permutation/pattern?


If that's the betting principle then Albalaha would argue about the validity of the reasoning.


I don't consider myself as an expert on EC's betting, that's why I've mentioned user Albalaha who, according his mentality, considers every bet selection to be the same and only a money management could make the difference.


I'm somewhat neutral regarding EC betting but I would like to be further explained the reasoning about WHY it IS better or NOT.


Thank you

 

2 hits in a row for 18 out of 37 has less chance than a single hit for 12 out of 37.


On first case you have 24.32% probability and on the second 32.43%.


There's 8.11% difference.


Just the facts

Quote from: Mike on October 29, 2017, 05:45:37 PM
...it's not clear whether they need to be a "Sponsor" of the forum or not? There seems to be some inconsistency here. 'Mathemagician' who markets the Roulette Key Gold software and who posts regularly on the forum with updates doesn't appear to be a sponsor, nor is 'VRSEDGE', but 'Autobetic' is.

So can just anyone who has something to sell do so on this forum? What are the restrictions, if any? Recalling the recent Stephen Tabone fiasco, is there a distinction between systems and software with respect to sales?

Very good questions Mike, systems/methods don't come with stamp of authorization as proof of quality.
So what's the standard around here?
Some have been expelled as scams while others became sponsors, whether you are allowing sales or not, it's this simple.

I personally have logged numerous 12 to 20 hour runs. Alrelax


How could someone spend so much time inside a casino?!

Quote from: Lungyeh on October 29, 2017, 08:04:36 PM
This win was on one trip where I played for 22 hours from a bankroll of S$4,500. I thought long and hard about whether I should post it. And decided to do it to show that Baccarat can allow a transfer of wealth. Will discuss further later. Just to get the interest going

All well but 22 hours??!
The only reasonable explanation I can imagine is the consumption of steroids, amphetamines...

Quote from: Lungyeh on October 29, 2017, 08:41:53 PMYou need S$25,000 to open a rolling program and be entitled to rolling commission of 0.6-1%. The commission is paid in cash only on closure of program. This particular trip I rolled @S$9,000,000. I opened and closed the program about 3 times to cash out the rolling commission.

Nice idea about such program, I had similar long time ago.
Is this program originated by you or you just pay your "rent"?
Are you UK or US based?

Quote from: alrelax on October 29, 2017, 07:39:05 AM
Blue:

#5 spot on. Huge answer imo to it all!  But ideal versus realistic versus what will actually happen.  99 percent of all gamblers are so stubborn, hard headed, know it alls, never admit their weaknesses, etc., etc.  So that's the way and what you are dealing with here.

Last paragraph you wrote also the same as above.

I will add, you might not agree or care to consider.  1. People do not pour their heart out but rather coincide with that last paragraph you wrote.  2.  People mislabel a participating member and numerous others do not want to say anything for fear or the concern sparring will start.  3. People misunderstand here because of lack of English-language comprehension.  4.  People cannot or do not explain their trials, tribulations and explain themselves properly.  Again that relates to that last paragraph you wrote. 

All imo.

Thank you Al, I understand and agree with the explanations you've provided.
I'm glad when I see that there are still some people who realize what I do.

This was originally posted as reply at another thread, why end up here?


It's not only the participation issue, readers to posters ratio is incredibly disproportional, but for the old timers like me and Garnaby, is quite obvious this lack of interest in general.


It's strange how suddenly from year 2015 (2nd half) till now a lot of people who were frequenting forums like this have just vanished!
You could notice this pattern not only on this forum, but in general, before 2015 were topics/threads less interesting/important than others which have been posted more recently but those from the yester years received an astonishing amount of views and replies.


In my point of view it doesn't have to do with the quality of content, much better subjects have been publicly released without receiving the participation they deserved.


What I say is objectively true, it has been noticed and mentioned by other popular old timers, on other forums too, such as TurboGenius and MrJ at gamblingforums, Kav at roulette30 and Bayes at rouletteforum.


What caused this sudden loss of interest?
Did all those people suddenly, around year 2015, found what they were looking for years?
Did trolls suddenly emerged on 2015?


It doesn't make sense for me, focus on year 2015 before and after, what changed?
I've to confess that I've spent plenty of time sharing around forums my knowledge and experience and I got responses but to be completely honest I'm bit discouraged and disappointed because I was expecting larger and better participation.


Did I have to share what I did?
Certainly no, I wanted, it was my decision, but when someone is sharing something it doesn't do it in order to read it himself and speak with his self, the original author seeks participation in one way or the other.
Since the topic is not aiming for sales it expresses a genuine intention for mutual interest/benefit, participation is not only about rejecting others ideas but also about feedback and constructive criticism.


There is distinction between what we call trolling and the constructive criticism, the first is bad intentioned while the second provide reasoning, explains why something is not as good as it could be and suggests ways to improve it.


Participation is not only about praising and debating, but also about testing and sharing feedback, this aspect is very valuable because it establishes a consensus which in turn will save time and money for many others.


My idea about the ideal forum includes the following:


1) It's ads free


2) It's fair and objective without being influenced by those who pay money in one way or the other


3) It has consistent participation with emphasis on quality rather than quantity


4) Its sole purpose is the common benefit through the interaction, exchange of ideas, knowledge and experience could be more rewarding than attempting to receive money by sales/subscriptions/ads


5) All members work together as a team, they have the same goal and are striving to help each other in the best way they can, they are honest and loyal to their goals, they are highly motivated and focused without bosses, not because someone else tells them to do so, but because they are their own boss


The only forum I've witnessed which is near to what I've described is at VR tech, it's private and initiated from member "theMagician".
Thomas, like myself, it's highly driven, very well educated and experienced individual, he takes his activity very seriously.
Such person is the ideal partner to work with, I could name a few more around the web but it's not the point, the point is the profile of a forum which attracts equivalent members.


It's so pointless to begin an online presence for using it as advertisement space, when there's really good content then good sponsorships will be attracted, not because it was the original purpose but as a result of the long term determination, effort, discipline, dedication, motivation, professionalism, honesty, altruism.


All these, in my consideration, have to be in place before expecting any reward, but frankly, who's going to do it the way it should be?
Almost all are looking for the easy solution but unfortunately there is not such.

Quote from: Gizmotron on January 08, 2013, 12:17:26 AM
Very good.

I wonder how long it will take for us to figure out that it only took about 2,000 people to give us all this. Imagine a civil war where only 2,000 targets exist.

...it took 2000 years to make such progress in debt, after 2000 years more the same debt level will has astronomical values! 

Quote from: Mike on October 27, 2017, 03:52:41 PM
Yes, many players do that, but this irrelevant to my previous posts about the stats. You seem to be assuming that I'm recommending that it's a good idea to choose your bets this way, presumably because I cast doubt on your 10% figure. But I only commented on that because it would be miraculous if after so many thousands of shoes the stats didn't conform to the 'official' statistics. But actually I'm in full agreement with you regarding the merit of betting by following the stats. There is no merit it in because although the outcomes do approach the theoretical probabilities, they don't necessarily do so in the present shoe, or from shoe to shoe or even the next few shoes. You may actually be correct quite often in terms of the NUMBERS or ratio of B to P, or the numbers of streaks of 1, 2, etc, but generally not in the ORDER in which they arrive in a shoe, except sometimes by luck. If you try to do this you're just committing the gambler's fallacy. Trying to apply the stats to the next few hands, or the next few shoes doesn't work because as you rightly point out, the stats are not derived from just a few hands or shoes; at least a few dozen shoes are needed before the stats converge to the 'true' probabilities, and the smaller the probabilities are, the more shoes you need.

Hello Mike, I'd like to listen to your opinion regarding my hypothesis;

1) In order the house edge to take its toll events have to balance, or at least come very near equilibrium state.
Do we agree so far?

2) If the statistical certainty (?) of large numbers it's only matter of time to occur then why this equates to doom for the players?

Let me provide an example, let's say that a player by knowing these statistics had developed a strategy being based on the eventual and unavoidable (?) equilibrium state.
No, I'm not talking about an idiotic Martingale progression on what is "due"! 
As casinos are so certain for their built in edge based on lesser payouts (according probability), so could be the player who aims for long term profit instead of short term.

To become more specific, let's say that we were sure (?) that after 5000 spins black and red would be very close, like I said the aim is in long term and we could divide 5,000 into 10 checkpoints of 500 bets each.

So we pick 1 of the 2 sides and stick with it always, if we are ahead then we made nice profit by flat betting, when we are down we would increase by 1 unit for the next 500 bets, in short, the application of d'Alembert (+1 on loss, -1 on win) in a much greater scale, like 1:500 or even 1:1000.

Of course events won't balance perfectly but ain't necessary in order d'Alembert equilibrium principle to come out on top of the house edge.
As a matter of fact we would need 40% to 41% wins out of the total, from 48.65% there is from 7.65% up to 8.65% difference, in which if being translated in units for many thousands of bets it would be very rewarding, especially when the unit value is green, black or higher.

All come down to the wrong mentality of the majority, I call it snatch mentality which is short-lived.
I have to admit that such long term approach might seem unattractive on first glance, but what if it was the only viable solution?

Since we cannot dispute the facts the next sensible conclusion is that with a strong BR and the patience of Job one could turn winning into formality!

Why we won't see gamblers doing so, like I said it begins from the mentality, gamblers have not the investors mindset and are reaping what they sow.

The bottom line is that the coin has 2 sides, if casinos can be certain when dealing with variance, the same could be for the players!


Yet you see all those Cassandras preaching doom from forum to forum like after Jesus Christ prophets!
Sorry to be blunt, but we don't need anymore parrots and monkeys, we need more out of the box thinkers!

@21Aces,


Higher payouts? In Baccarat?
The only higher payout is for the tie, is this what you meant?
Could you define your interpretation of harder sequence?
Do you know any specific sequence which is harder for any bet selection?


As long as everybody can bet anything the casino will take its cut from the total action regardless of which side will prevail.
That's the greatest success of the casino, to set players against each other in order to have sufficient wagers on all possible outcomes, that's how house percentages work, but just imagine what would happen if all players would bet continuously the same side...a real gamble not only for the players but the casinos too!

Quote from: 21 Aces on October 03, 2016, 05:18:30 PM
Let's say the cut is at hand 25 of shoe 1.  Now you cut it at a different location.  It may cut exactly at the end of a hand for that exact shoe (let's say this cut is after hand 33). Now you have the exact same hands of the shoe, but just displaced by 8 hands.  If the cut does not strike and displace exactly this way (at the end of a hand of the first shoe), then you have an entirely new shoe.

The most likely outcome of additional cuts is NOT to strike precisely for a displacement of the original shoe, but to create a new shoe that results in entirely different outcomes.  The only ways a house can rig the shuffle is to rig the shuffling machine some way, add or remove cards they believe will result in less high payout bets or more difficult outcomes, or create a shoe by hand with certain progressions they select.

You are wrong, depending on where the cut circumvents the decks, till that point everything would be the same and since after the cut, the remaining cards are not being dealt nothing would change except the total of dealt hands.
If I'm not mistaken the cut reduces the playing cards from the 8 decks by 20% up to 50%.
Never all 6 or 8 decks are being dealt, thus it's not changing results but how many hands will be dealt.
On other hand, the shuffle rearranges the order of the cards, therefore results will be different due to shuffling and not because of the cut.
Think of it this way, all cards can produce all possible results (bankers,players,ties), therefore are "neutral" and the only thing which makes the difference is only their order.
The shuffler could be rigged but what's the point when the player can bet either side and the casino doesn't know which in advance?!
Exception could be if they observe by the cameras the betting action and control the device remotely in real time.
It's possible but not necessarily true.

Quote from: The Crow on October 25, 2017, 12:52:39 PM
Win 1,924.00 per week and you can start giving advice again.

The Crow

What if it's 1,999.99 ?


Last time around you were complaining about casinos...now I assume you realize they don't cheat, congratulations!