Dear Bayes,
You are among a very few members, who talk of sense only and never deviate from logic. You can see that a big discussion is going on regarding test of Pattern Breaker over 1 million spins in Private Discussion Board (http://betselection.cc/private-general-board/) section meant for subscribed and charter members. Whatever tests I did so far, specially on large data, the method failed badly. Not only it failed but it never won anything considerable ever.
Now, I want to know your opinion over playing Martingale (as PB looks to me, no offence meant) with Hit and Run. Do you feel that it is capable of yielding considerable profit, if we keep on playing it, with random sessions (they assert that it is very different from testing a million spins together)?
Hi Al,
I told myself I'm not going to participate in these debates regarding hit & run, I've spent a good deal of time and effort in the past, not only arguing against the merit of it (showing that there is no logical basis for its claimed effectiveness), but also demonstrating through simulations that it doesn't work. So there's your answer. :thumbsup:
It's one of those topics, like actuals vs RNG, that will probably never go away.
One point I'd like to make regarding PB specifically though: The system has been shown to not yield positive long-term results using Ophis' MST (and other simulations have been done). Those who claim that it does win long-term must therefore be attributing its success entirely to hit & run. ie; it loses on its own merits, but wins when you "add" hit & run. That's giving an awful lot of power to such a simple methodology which has no logical basis (simply keep your sessions short) and it raises the question why you couldn't use any system + hit & run and get the same (claimed) results. It's claimed that the merit of PB lies in the fact that you're asking random to hit some preselected pattern, and that this is "hard" for random to do, but in fact it's no harder than any preselected outcome which is bet against at a random time. The uniqueness of the PB outcome is an illusion.
What confuses users of a system is simply that when you keep playing it for long the expected happens: you lose the limited bank of the session. Then when you make it a habit to stop playing in profit you have money sitting in your pocket with your bank there and perhaps with some important benefit.
It is misleading. So right. But even so the player gets used to leave the table with something and while the game in the future is expected to take it all that future might not come for the player. An example is he can die or stop playing on religious claims or family.
Our goal should be to find gaming systems that could give thousands of possible sets in advantage, although in the simulation then they lose everything. Say the player is not going to play more than 100,000 sets in his life and say there is a system that overcomes 900.000 sets won and lost everything in a single set of 100,000.
This gives at least 9 out of 10 players the chance to live his entire life in a positive game and does not violate the long term expectancy for the math of the game to happen as proven in the simulation.
Thank you.
Thanks Bayes,
I have got my answer from a source(yourself), that I can trust. Now, I am 100% sure that hit and run is nothing. If you are lucky you can win with everything but this gives no advantage over regular use.
Locking debate.
In the blue corner we have JohnLegend.
In the red corner we have Bayes.
Both offering opposite opinions.
This debate is far from over...
Therefore, I've unlocked the thread so others may contribute if they wish.
Esoito,
My this question was meant for Bayes only, who can be taken as an expert of mathematics and statistics ( and I think Victor and you must be thinking him as same if he is moderator of Math & Statistics section) and not for mass debate. This leads to frustration of an expert opinion, as Bayes himself said: I told myself I'm not going to participate in these debates regarding hit & run, I've spent a good deal of time and effort in the past, not only [/size]arguing[/size] against the merit of it (showing that there is no logical basis for its claimed effectiveness), but also [/size]demonstrating[/size] through simulations that it doesn't work.
If you want to get this topic running as public debate, I am afraid it will again become a misleading debate with no conclusion ever.
Al,
Please don't set me up as an expert because I'm not. I probably know more than most on this forum about statistics, but I don't have any formal qualifications in the subject (yet). Even if I had a Phd in Stats, that in itself wouldn't be enough to write off PB; conclusions should be based on evidence, not eminence.
And evidence is not opinion. So often these days you hear that "everyone has a right to their opinion". Of course, but that doesn't mean that their opinion is right - all opinions are not equal. Opinions backed up by facts and evidence have more value than subjective feelings and mere assertions, surely that's just common sense?
JL himself has recognized this, otherwise why would he have offered to demonstrate that he can win long-term, rather than just posting pages of rhetoric and unsubstantiated stats? (and he admits himself he doesn't know why hit & run works, while claiming that it does).
The problem is that there is no foolproof way of facilitating that demonstration. There's a challenge underway at the moment which superman is administering, but it's not ideal. I'm still keen on the idea of building an online roulette game which I talked about a while ago on the other forum, but I haven't got very far with the project yet, partly due to other commitments.
Quote from: Bayes on November 20, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
I'm still keen on the idea of building an online roulette game which I talked about a while ago on the other forum, but I haven't got very far with the project yet, partly due to other commitments.
Hello Bayes
I always liked that idea of yours.
It would be great for the forum as well. We could have a monthly competition or something like it which would be fun.
I would be be prepared to stump up some cash for something like that. I don't know about anybody else. How time consuming would something like that be to build?
cheers
Hi Bayes.
I agree with Bally,would be very useful to have a TRUSTED platform to experiment with systems and concepts.
What time frame do you think your work on this would be completed ?
I'd be up for any type of competition.
All the very best to your Brilliant idea.
Cheers.
Dino.
What a brilliant idea..! :thumbsup:
I'll have a word with Victor and see if it can't be hosted on the forum. As to how long it will take, er.. dunno. I don't have a lot of spare time but maybe 2-3 months?
ish... :P
It would certainly be an asset to the forum and would attract more members.
2-3 months or 6 months even! You are right Bayes. It would be a great addition to this forum as something unique to differentiate us from the rest.
cheers
So....with the online roulette idea,that would mean any member could Play/trial/test/experiment Live with other members watching at the same time ?
If that could be achieved it would be Fantastic !!
I have always thought that so many good concepts just seem to fade away with no one knowing if any member is still active playing it or not.
THIS idea would bring them all to life again.
I know i have a Portfolio of about six concepts to compete with.
Can,t wait.....
Dino.
dino,
I don't think it would work like that - not live with other members able to watch at the same time (that would be cool though). But the good news is that Victor says it would be easy to incorporate the "casino" into the forum and show each members bankroll etc.
This thread is going waaaay off topic. :P
QuoteThis thread is going waaaay off topic.
No harm if useful discussions are coming through any source.
Quote from: Bayes on November 20, 2012, 05:20:32 PM
This thread is going waaaay off topic. :P
That would be my fault. :D
Back on topic......
I was thinking about card counters back in the day.
You could argue they had a hit and run strategy. The term 'wonging' it was used when players just stood in the background monitoring the count waiting for it to turn positive.
They would then jump in and place some bets. They stopped playing once the count went negative again. This could also be applied to shuffle tracking techniques.
Now you may say what's that got to do with roulette and what does a negative expectation game have to do with a game which can be positive at times for the player.
Well it's my experience that 'wonging' it in roulette works just as good (if not better) for me than it ever did in blackjack. The triggers in blackjack are a positive count. The trigger in roulette is something working well along the lines of gizmo's theory of the three states.
(It's working, fair to middling, it's not working at all) And I always bail out at the first loss and look for the next opportunity.
I just don't think everything is as black and white as maybe some would like it to be.
Sure, some mathematical proof would back things up but you also have experienced players saying a 'kind' of hit and run works for them.
cheers.
Bally,
I agree. I've tried to make this point several times but it seems people just don't get it. I play this form of HAR myself - look for "favourable" opportunities, get in then get out. There's a big difference between doing that and the kind of HAR JL recommends in PB and his other systems. Take PB: the "trigger" to bet is determined by random itself, not by any favourable conditions. The number of spins you have to wait when playing PB is a random variable, ie; anywhere between 21 spins and 60 or more.
Now someone might say that waiting for favourable conditions is a fallacy because roulette is a game of independent trials (unlike blackjack) so there is no such thing as a "favourable" condition, but that's irrelevant to the validity of the argument which only says that IF conditions are favourable, then bet and IF conditions become unfavourable, then stop betting. The logic of PB ignores any concept of favourable conditions because you enter the game at a random point in the stream and the random stream itself determines when you actually make the bet, so both "triggers" are randomly determined.
Playing short sessions (HAR) does nothing to change this, it just means you're entering at different points along the stream of data, but in both cases (either playing HAR or continuously) the trigger is selected randomly. Placing 100 bets in one mode or the other (HAR or continuously) thus amounts to the same thing in terms of favourable conditions, ie: they're not taken account of in either case because it's not part of PB's remit to find any favourable conditions; PB is supposed to be an absolute winning bet - the final pattern will materialize at a constant rate which is higher than 7-1 and this will guarantee you a profit. But this simply isn't the case.
I think random has times when it is as random in its spins as it can be, i.e. a fairly "normal" irregular trip around the wheel for 6 spins....then there are slots in the day when for whatever reason, random will land the ball 6 times within three numbers. I had this happen to me this morning...6 spins in a row that were in the 26, 0, 32 three square area.
Two or three times it can land there and little will be noticed but when there were 6 spins in a row where it landed in the same area of the board and managed to avoid 92% of the rest of the board.....six times in a row, then I see that as an example of ebb and flow.
IMO it's being fortunate to start a game while not in one of those "not random at all" times in the day when the board plays funny beggars with the ball, that is when you win units.
Nobody knows when those "not random at all" times will hit but random, by its very name and nature, is just that....random more often in its spins during the day as opposed to regulary "not random" in its spins....if that makes sense...it kind of does in my head but maybe I'm not writing it up properly lol
Quote from: Bayes on November 21, 2012, 09:44:06 AM
Bally,
I play this form of HAR myself - look for "favourable" opportunities, get in then get out. There's a big difference between doing that and the kind of HAR JL recommends in PB and his other systems.
Bayes,
I totally agree with you on your style of play, this is exactly the way I have been playing for a long time now, I't works and I don't think of it as HAR just common sense game-play.
I call it my "satisfaction point", when I get to my satisfaction point in a session I exit.
That was a great post Bayes. :thumbsup:
Quote from: subby on November 21, 2012, 10:46:53 AM
Nobody knows when those "not random at all" times will hit but random, by its very name and nature, is just that....random more often in its spins during the day as opposed to regulary "not random" in its spins....if that makes sense...it kind of does in my head but maybe I'm not writing it up properly lol
I don't wish to be the same old "stick in the mud" around here (but) there is no such thing as
not random. Wild occurrences of strange sequences are actually common aspects of what you will see and expect to see on any Roulette wheel. I tried to tell everyone to be prepared to attack the "Elegant Pattern."
To call six numbers, found in the same area of the wheel, next to each other, all hitting in just six spins, to call this sequence of events "not random," well that's just magical thinking. The truth is that this wild action is normal. Superstitious reaction might cause a player to react to situations that are actually positive in nature. But for some reason those reactions tend to be negative for them.
When ever possible I always attack the wild and extreme possibility with as large a bet as looks practical. If I had noticed the same area of the wheel hitting three times in a row I would have bet that area strongly until it ended. And I have in the past. I see patterns like this at least one in ten sessions to the casino. They are not bad things. They are gifts of normal randomness.
True randomness means wild scattering of numbers. It may go in your favour or entirely against you.
Quote from: albalaha on November 21, 2012, 04:51:29 PM
True randomness means wild scattering of numbers. It may go in your favour or entirely against you.
Absolutely true. There is no way to predict a future spin unless you attempt to use physics, as has been proven to work. Unfortunately it is not legal to use computers.
Everyone knows well I sing the praises of H.A.R. Why? Because I am trying to be a clever clogs and laugh in the face of reason, logic. Hundreds of years of maths teachings? NO! I sing its praises for no other reason than it has worked for me.
I would also argue that Supermans BV challenge isn't of good merit. IT WASN'T. While I was piddling around with pennies. And lacking drive and focus to do what I know I am capable of.
Now, Superman can log in see CLEANLY where I have tracked, and where I have bet. There will only ever be a maximum of 3 methods used. PATTERN BREAKER, FIVE and 8 ON 1. Each has its progression.
So it will be very easy to now see that I am winning OR losing. With those three methods. There are no smokescreens now. My minumum bet for PB will always be 0.50 EUROS. For FIVE and 8 ON 1 O.25 EUROS.
I've been saying for years I play and win using H.A.R as my key play strategy. And so it will be shown. Anyone who adheres to it faithfully will show favourable results longterm, so long as it's coupled with a decent bet selection. And smart money management.
A method like 8 ON 1 will never need anything but a one level progression. Its already been shown that 8 ON 1 would struggle to win even 200 straight games.
Against a large sample of static numbers played H.A.R I am now 580/0 and Twister even more. There is the argument for H.A.R right there.
The bigger the odds, the more effective it will be. 8)
Quote from: JohnLegend on November 23, 2012, 08:02:19 PM
Against a large sample of static numbers played H.A.R I am now 580/0 and Twister even more. There is the argument for H.A.R right there.
John, are you saying you've played 580 games without a single loss? :o
Good luck with the challenge anyway.
Quote from: Bayes on November 24, 2012, 09:29:43 AM
John, are you saying you've played 580 games without a single loss? :o
Good luck with the challenge anyway.
Yes Bayes, that's where I am right now. Twister is even better than that on BVNZ. Its never been challenged once either Bayes. Was taken to step 4 of the progression only 3 times over that 580.
But never to the 5th step, this could never have happened if I played continuosly. Thanks I will enjoy the challenge now at a decent level.
Just ran eight 540 session simulations. That's including h&r. These were high/low only.
Results:
Wins - 489
Losses - 51
Double Losses - 1
Triple Losses - 0
Strike Rate - 9.58 / 1
Wins - 440
Losses - 100
Double Losses - 20
Triple Losses - 6
Strike Rate - 4.4 / 1
Quote from: JohnLegend on November 24, 2012, 12:53:15 PM
Yes Bayes, that's where I am right now. Twister is even better than that on BVNZ. Its never been challenged once either Bayes. Was taken to step 4 of the progression only 3 times over that 580.
But never to the 5th step, this could never have happened if I played continuosly. Thanks I will enjoy the challenge now at a decent level.
So, what is your conclusion, Gizmo?
Quote from: KingsRoulette on November 27, 2012, 06:40:30 PM
So, what is your conclusion, Gizmo?
I've already stated it. Hit and Run is nothing more than another layer of randomness in the device used to generate random outcomes. It is not an odds changer.
Playing the changes in changing conditions is not the same thing. If you are good at it then actually do change the odds. You can prove it too. Probability is about the future. But the past shows what actually happened.
It is not an odds changer.
Perfect. It neither changes randomness nor can it change the house edge. Hence, opt it or not, is merely a choice, nothing special about it.
So, When the casino closes and dealers are playing around practicing and trying to hit zero 3 times in a row, they are messing "the random stream"?
And next time i go and play, of course, i catch the random stream at point D instead of the expected point X.
It messes my bets and i loose.
>:D
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on November 28, 2012, 09:36:45 PM
So, When the casino closes and dealers are playing around practicing and trying to hit zero 3 times in a row, they are messing "the random stream"?
And next time i go and play, of course, i catch the random stream at point D instead of the expected point X.
It messes my bets and i loose.
>:D
Are you sure that anything like this actually happens?
I Know that dealers do practice.
However, the Random Stream is independent from time. Time does not get into the equation.
If you pick the first 10 results of 10 different tables, and look for statistics, the results will be similar to 100 spins in a row on those same 10 tables. In the end you will get 11 statistically similar permanences.
I was joking around the idea of getting in and out at a specific point of the random stream. O0
Lets take this further and specifically observe red and black.
When will we choose to interact with the game (get into the Random stream)? Suggestions:
a) Once we detect perfect balance. Ex. 5 Reds & 5 Blacks (crossing as in GUT from Winkel).
b) When there is one pattern left from groups of 3 (RRR, BBB) as in JLegend systems.
c) When a statistical imbalance is measurable and hits 2.5 or 3.0 Standard Deviations.