Definition of Hit and Run: The belief that MERELY by keeping sessions short, and splitting up what would otherwise have been a "long" session (say 100 bets) into (say) 10 sessions each consisting of 10 bets, a player will have gained some advantage and that he will be less likely to encounter a losing sequence. So the idea is that if you "reset" the game after short sessions, either by perhaps moving to another table, or leaving the casino and coming back the next day, you will have significantly increased your chances of winning.
THIS BELIEF IS FLAWED :broken:
An analogy might help to see why. Suppose you have a bunch of faulty light bulbs which are destroyed when the filament gets too hot, so if you leave a bulb switched on for more than about 5 minutes, the filament breaks due to the heat.
Is there a way of using these light bulbs without breaking them? Yes, by leaving them on for only 2 or 3 minutes and then switching them off for a while so that the filaments cool down. You can carry on like this indefinitely and the bulb will be fine. If you leave the bulb on for 3 minutes at a time, then switch it off for 10 minutes and then switch it on again for 3 minutes, you can do this 20 times and you will have had 1 hour of light. But you can't leave the bulb on for 1 hour continuously because after about 5 minutes the heat will break the filament.
This is like the H.A.R. model of playing roulette. Why is it inappropriate? Simply because unlike the light bulb, there is no law of physics or property of the "material" which says that results will get worse if you play beyond a certain point. You will not necessarily get "burned out" after 10, 20, 50 or some other number of bets because the outcomes are RANDOM.
Suppose your system cannot tolerate any more than 10 losses in a row. Are those losses more likely to appear in the 3rd set of ten spins than in the 1st? or more likely in the 7th rather than the 4th? The answer is that if you're entering the infinite stream of outcomes at a random point (which you are, according to the definition of HAR above), then no particular set of 10 spins is more likely to contain the losing sequence than any other. You are just as likely to get destroyed in the first 10 spins as in some 10 spin set which is 50 or 100 spins away. This would be like the light bulb filament not being broken due to the increase in heat over time, but by some random quantum fluctuations which don't depend on changes of state (in this case the change of state being the increased motion of the atoms in the filament).
Although you could say in a sense there are "changes of state" in roulette outcomes, they aren't "caused" in the same way that the increased motion of the atoms in the lightbulb filament are caused by switching on the current to the bulb. Unlike roulette outcomes, in the case of the lightbulb, the outcome is deterministic, meaning that all other things being equal, the lightbulb being turned on will inevitably lead to heat and destruction of the filament within a predictable timeframe.
According to proponents of H.A.R., what does "cause" the outcomes to go against you? ???
Since there is no law that says the run from hell will appear after X or Y spins, it must be the mere fact that you started playing! :o
Think about how absurd this is - the HAR guy says that the game will start to "blow up" BECAUSE he started playing it, and not only that but what anyone else does is irrelevant! ie; it's not only the fact that you started playing which sets in motion the eventual losses, but the fact that YOU started playing (and not someone else). So in effect, he is saying that HAR is independent of the actual outcomes.
This is absurdity piled upon absurdity. You can see this by imagining the following scenario:
Suppose player A starts playing his system, and after 20 bets decides to end his session (as dictated by the law of HAR). Just as he leaves the table, player B turns up. As it happens, he is also a proponent of HAR, and coincidentally, is playing the very same system as player A. So the situation is this -
* Player A has just left the table, because he "knows" that it was the right thing to do (if he had kept on playing, this would have been contrary to HAR, and he would have lost).
* Player B has just arrived. He might look at past spins in order to get a trigger for his system, but apart from that, the the point at which he starts looking for the trigger is random (in other words, he doesn't know or care that player A has just left having completed his HAR session).
By HAR, player B is expected to do better merely by keeping his session short, regardless of what is expected (in terms of outcomes) at the actual table. But recall the faulty light bulb example, it's like thinking that the lightbulbs failing has nothing to do with how long it's been on, but only on whether someone is AWARE of how long it's been on, which is obviously nonsense - either there is a real physical law at work or there isn't. To believe that your mere perception of an event is sufficient to influence it is to believe in magic.
If you have a hypothesis and assume it's true, then work out the consequences, if you end up with an absurd result or conclusion, then it must mean that the hypothesis is false.
I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make, and why HAR as defined above cannot work. :nope:
A lot of gamblers believe in HAR and they probably always will, but it doesn't have a leg to stand on. Here's another analogy -
Bill & Bob
Bill & Bob are two hedgehogs who both live in an area divided by a road. At night both of them cross the road at random times, but only once per night. The road isn't a busy one, with an average of maybe 1 car per hour. Bill is a purposeful kind of chap who doesn't dither when crossing the road; it takes him ten seconds. Bob, on the other hand, is more laid back, he likes to soak up some of the heat absorbed by the road during the day, so it takes him a full minute to cross - six times longer than Bill.
Question: Who is more likely get squashed first?
If you said Bob, you'd be right! (http://betselection.cc/Smileys/newfacies/aplausos.gif)
So does this validate HAR?
NO!!!
Bob may be the FIRST to get squashed, but don't forget, his time spent on the road is 6 times as much as Bill's. The number of road crossings isn't the same as the time actually on the road, and this is the only factor which determines how likely it is that one or other of them will be squashed.
Similarly, if you play 6 games per session then you're going to lose a game, in terms of the number of sessions, BEFORE someone who only plays one game per session. It does NOT mean that HAR is a superior strategy, it just means that the one-game-per-session guy will have to play more GAMES, on average, before he loses.
Thinking the HAR way can be dangerous. How often do you hear that someone thinks that they can "get away with" using a martingale because they're just "in and out" quickly (and therefore, it's implied, they will be less likely to be caught out)? Too many players think that HAR gives them some kind of immunity from randomness.
Good analogies Bayes, let's put the last bit into context, had player B got his 2 or 3 wins in a row, player A (had he stayed at the table just to watch) would have had an extra 2 or 3 virtual wins, maybe that would have told him HAR was flawed. It all boils down to luck.
Having a goal to reach is different in my opinion, let's say each session you want to reach 10 units, playing with 1£$Euro chips could it be classed as hit n run? maybe, I know JL says he makes a target 2 or 3 times a day, why call it hit n run? because he knows that eventually there will come a loss, so it isn't really hit n run its playing dodge, eventually you get caught.
My target is 10 chips per session twice a day, not playing dodge, but because I get bored playing manually which can lead to higher risks/mistakes, I have done a few long sessions with no big issues/risks but find it too stressful in the concentration department, even with the tracker running so I decide to just have a target to reack and close. As I play similar to you, Bayes, we both know the run from hell type loss a method/system has will not appear, are we playing HAR or GR (Goal Reaching)
Quote from: Superman on December 22, 2012, 10:52:12 AM
Good analogies Bayes, let's put the last bit into context, had player B got his 2 or 3 wins in a row, player A (had he stayed at the table just to watch) would have had an extra 2 or 3 virtual wins, maybe that would have told him HAR was flawed. It all boils down to luck.
Having a goal to reach is different in my opinion, let's say each session you want to reach 10 units, playing with 1£$Euro chips could it be classed as hit n run? maybe, I know JL says he makes a target 2 or 3 times a day, why call it hit n run? because he knows that eventually there will come a loss, so it isn't really hit n run its playing dodge, eventually you get caught.
That's right. Nothing wrong with quitting a session if you feel tired, or if you've made your predetermined profits. The crucial thing in HAR is that the entry and exit points are random, so how are you to know whether the conditions are right to start or quit?
Take blackjack card-counting; a card-counter will enter the game at a random time but not actually place any bets until the composition of the deck is in his favour. At that point he'll start making bets, then when the deck is heavy in low cards and low in tens he'll stop betting.
Suppose player B knew that player A had just lost his game. If the system was such that 2 losses in a row were very rare, that would be a better reason for starting play at that point in the random stream than a purely random entry, although of course the math says it makes no difference. The point is more to do with consistency than anything else. If you're using a trigger based on past spins then knowing nothing about the past spins with respect to when you enter and exit cannot possibly IMPROVE your chances of winning (assuming that observing past spins does make a difference).
Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2012, 11:45:26 AM
That's right. Nothing wrong with quitting a session if you feel tired, or if you've made your predetermined profits. The crucial thing in HAR is that the entry and exit points are random, so how are you to know whether the conditions are right to start or quit?
Take blackjack card-counting; a card-counter will enter the game at a random time but not actually place any bets until the composition of the deck is in his favour. At that point he'll start making bets, then when the deck is heavy in low cards and low in tens he'll stop betting.
Suppose player B knew that player A had just lost his game. If the system was such that 2 losses in a row were very rare, that would be a better reason for starting play at that point in the random stream than a purely random entry, although of course the math says it makes no difference. The point is more to do with consistency than anything else. If you're using a trigger based on past spins then knowing nothing about the past spins with respect to when you enter and exit cannot possibly IMPROVE your chances of winning (assuming that observing past spins does make a difference).
I guess im supposed to respond to this with my usual defiance. ALL I can say to both of you is July next year will give you your answer.
What will be seen will be enough to show the virtues of what I do. And of course it would have been highly unlikely those numbers would have been reached with continuous play. Especially with methods that are according to one forum owner are pure garbage.
If for exampLe you can sit there and win more than 40 games of PATTERN BREAKER in a row. Do let me know.
I posted this on another thread already but is more fitting here.
A longtime ago a friend tested PB over 100K continuous spins.
These results are over 1781 games. From this we can calculate what the expected results would have been over 6000 games
TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 1781
TOTAL GAMES WON 1530
TOTAL GAMES LOST 212 ........ in 6000 games JL had 531 losses (in 6000 games +-714 losses would be expected)
DOUBLE LOSSES 36 ......... in 6000 games JL had 7 double losses (in 6000 games +-121 double losses are expected)
BALANCE negative
JLs current 6000 game stats clearly show that his live HAR playing style is significantly different from continually computer testing.
RESULTS UPDATE FOR *PATTERN BREAKER* FOR 07/11/2012
TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 6,000
TOTAL GAMES WON 5,469
TOTAL GAMES LOST 531
STRIKERATE APPROX 10/1
BALANCE 5,640 POINTS PLUS
DOUBLE LOSSES 7
TREBLE LOSSES **ZERO**
QuoteI guess im supposed to respond to this with my usual defiance
It's your choice to respond, nobody has to respond to anything.
You've seen a few members lately posting losing runs for PB, Trebor was one of them, he also played your style, HAR, it failed for him, how do you sum that up? was he player B in Bayes example? I think what is trying to be highlighted here is the fact that HAR is not something that works for everyone, and if it does not work for the majority then it can't really be classified as a method of play, you must be keeping some sort of mental note of how many people are actually winning with HAR style play as opposed to those that it has failed for, the ones who have posted they are winning following HAR are just a drop in the ocean and strangley they are new or newer members, which as you know always looks iffy to say the least.
Wether you are winning or not is not the contention here, the fact is, it's timing which equates to luck, you've been lucky that you played at the times you played.
As with everything in roulette, what works for ONE person may not work for the majority, maybe the difinition of HAR is wrong, is hitting your session target really HAR?
Quote from: AMK on December 22, 2012, 12:35:29 PM
I posted this on another thread already but is more fitting here.
A longtime ago a friend tested PB over 100K continuous spins.
TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 1781
TOTAL GAMES WON 1530
TOTAL GAMES LOST 212 ........ in 6000 games JL had 531 losses
DOUBLE LOSSES 36 ......... in 6000 games JL had 7 double losses
BALANCE negative
JLs current 6000 game stats clearly show that his live HAR playing style is significantly different from continually computer testing.
RESULTS UPDATE FOR *PATTERN BREAKER* FOR 07/11/2012
TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 6,000
TOTAL GAMES WON 5,469
TOTAL GAMES LOST 531
STRIKERATE APPROX 10/1
BALANCE 5,640 POINTS PLUS
DOUBLE LOSSES 7
TREBLE LOSSES **ZERO**
AMK its no good posting those stats. Everyone thinks I just make them up. That's why July next year is a month few will forget. The realization that I am no liar will finally come to rest in most reasonable minded people.
Persistent negatives will continue to doubt. And I will continue to play and win until I am shut down. And that will be the ultimate verification that what I do, if done faithfully and persistently. Is indeed a threat to the powers that be.
QuoteThe realization that I am no liar
Nobody here is calling you a liar, you should stop saying that.
QuoteAnd I will continue to play and win until I am shut down
You say you have been playing this way for years (I think the last time I read that you said 4 years, not sure), but you also keep saying you stand the chance of getting shutdown within the next 6 months, why is that?
Quote from: Superman on December 22, 2012, 12:45:03 PM
It's your choice to respond, nobody has to respond to anything.
You've seen a few members lately posting losing runs for PB, Trebor was one of them, he also played your style, HAR, it failed for him, how do you sum that up? was he player B in Bayes example? I think what is trying to be highlighted here is the fact that HAR is not something that works for everyone, and if it does not work for the majority then it can't really be classified as a method of play, you must be keeping some sort of mental note of how many people are actually winning with HAR style play as opposed to those that it has failed for, the ones who have posted they are winning following HAR are just a drop in the ocean and strangley they are new or newer members, which as you know always looks iffy to say the least.
Wether you are winning or not is not the contention here, the fact is, it's timing which equates to luck, you've been lucky that you played at the times you played.
As with everything in roulette, what works for ONE person may not work for the majority, maybe the difinition of HAR is wrong, is hitting your session target really HAR?
Superman, I never guarantee what I do will work for everyone. Most people are already negative towards this game. Totally jaded. All I do is present what I do when its worked for me. Its then up to the individual to make of it what they want.
For some it will work. For others its may not. I never said PB was bullet proof. You don't get bullet proof for 7 units. Everyone must surely know that. You don't even get bullet proof for 242 units.
But you do get CLOSER to it. Everyone wants something for next to nothing. Human nature at its best. The reason im doing the challenge is to prove I CAN WIN. Not anyone else. Because I've been called every low down term associated with bad people in this game.
You have to have iron self belief. Some people arent made to beat this game period. Trebor and Shogun both simmered around 7/1 after two or three hundred games. For them failure. But NOT FOR ME that's the difference. I know how to make this method pay EVEN when it drops below its break even point 7/1.
When its flying as it is at the moment for me. You don't need any smart MM you just let it GO. So NO, not everyone will get stellar results with PB. Most will fold before they ever see what is really possible.
They want INSTANT GRATIFICATION. And when it doesn't come they will bend and drop out. STAYING POWER. its lacking in most people Superman. 7/1 doesn't buy you a miracle. You have to work at it.
242/1 that's another story. Bayes has a surprise coming his way next year with that one.
Quote from: Superman on December 22, 2012, 12:56:59 PM
Nobody here is calling you a liar, you should stop saying that.
You say you have been playing this way for years (I think the last time I read that you said 4 years, not sure), but you also keep saying you stand the chance of getting shutdown within the next 6 months, why is that?
Superman you know who has called me a liar, and worse. No not 6 months Superman. But you will of course be to the first to realize I am going to take PP to pieces. Now if you were them. And you know that unless you stop me. You are going to lose millions over the next 3-5 years. What would you do?
On the "other" forum, ego will prove/disprove the thing with his eight-sided dice.
As I read this a thought comes to mind: Luck can hold math at bay--for a while.
Sam
JL,
I stayed away from the main PB thread so I wouldn't see you say about me what I have now seen you say.
For the record. I remain unconvinced about the virtues of HAR as it makes no sense to me either but decided to have a go testing according to your methods. I accept that if I had carried on my results might have become better, of course they might also have become worse.
This has nothing whatsoever with a lack of staying power or impatience on my part. There was always advice on how my results might improve if I made some subtle change to my playing, BV suddenly became suspect, for some unknown reason one EC was "better" than the other two, I was playing too many sessions, the list goes on.
I would love for you to be right so I hope your supervised test lives up to your claims and it remains verifiable.
I think I'm right that you claim to have been winning with your methods for at least 13 years.
Trebor
Quote from: TwoCatSam on December 22, 2012, 02:38:55 PM
On the "other" forum, ego will prove/disprove the thing with his eight-sided dice.
As I read this a thought comes to mind: Luck can hold math at bay--for a while.
Sam
Yes but can it hold math at bay for 4 years Sam? You can't prove or disprove H.A.R, because its random entry into the cycle. Of course there are elements of luck, timing whatever involved. I've proved to myself that H,A.R is a superior play strategy for me. It might not work for everyone.
But as long as I play this game. Its how im going to play. I've played roulette for 20 years this coming february. In the first 11 years I played the game I could NOT WIN. And the reason was I played like most people play. Since I adopted the H.A.R style of play. I have never had a year I didn't make good profit.
You stay with what works for you personally no?
Quote from: Trebor on December 22, 2012, 03:04:38 PM
JL,
I stayed away from the main PB thread so I wouldn't see you say about me what I have now seen you say.
For the record. I remain unconvinced about the virtues of HAR as it makes no sense to me either but decided to have a go testing according to your methods. I accept that if I had carried on my results might have become better, of course they might also have become worse.
This has nothing whatsoever with a lack of staying power or impatience on my part. There was always advice on how my results might improve if I made some subtle change to my playing, BV suddenly became suspect, for some unknown reason one EC was "better" than the other two, I was playing too many sessions, the list goes on.
I would love for you to be right so I hope your supervised test lives up to your claims and it remains verifiable.
I think I'm right that you claim to have been winning with your methods for at least 13 years.
Trebor
Trebor what have I said about you? I am talking in general terms. Rest assured come July next year the numbers will tell my story. The following year if Im still alowed to do this. Its going to be something. Superman may still not believe in H,A,R but he will sure be glad he is involved with me playing it. Lets put it like that.
Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2012, 03:26:12 PM
John, this thread isn't about attacking you or your systems. A lot of gamblers believe in HAR and they probably always will, but it doesn't have a leg to stand on. Here's another analogy -
Bill & Bob
Bill & Bob are two hedgehogs who both live in an area divided by a road. At night both of them cross the road at random times, but only once per night. The road isn't a busy one, with an average of maybe 1 car per hour. Bill is a purposeful kind of chap who doesn't dither when crossing the road; it takes him ten seconds. Bob, on the other hand, is more laid back, he likes to soak up some of the heat absorbed by the road during the day, so it takes him a full minute to cross - six times longer than Bill.
Question: Who is more likely get squashed first?
If you said Bob, you'd be right! :applause:
So does this validate HAR?
NO!!!
Bob may be the FIRST to get squashed, but don't forget, his time spent on the road is 6 times as much as Bill's. The number of road crossings isn't the same as the time actually on the road, and this is the only factor which determines how likely it is that one or another of them will be squashed.
Similarly, if you play 6 games per session then you're going to lose a game, in terms of the number of sessions, BEFORE someone who only plays one game per session. It does NOT mean that HAR is a superior strategy, it just means that the one-game-per-session guy will have to play more GAMES, on average, before he loses.
Thinking the HAR way can be dangerous. How often do you hear that someone thinks that they can "get away with" using a martingale because they're just "in and out" quickly (and therefore, it's implied, they will be less likely to be caught out)? Too many players think that HAR gives them some kind of immunity from randomness.
Bayes I know this isn't a personal attack on me. But im giving my side of the story. All I say is this. If I sat there and played 40 games of Pattern Breaker in a row. You can be certain I would lose at least once. So now tell me why I can win 40 or more playing H.A.R if it has NO ADVANTAGE?
They don't call you legend for nothing.
So here is where hit and run really works. In this place and these conditions, any person depending on luck or magical beliefs gets killed as a reward for their miscalculations. The place is Mt. Everest. You screw around with promises and you die. I prefer the real world.
If I didn't know better, and I can't prove anything, I would say that this is an elaborate hoax, JL is some kind of new type of troll craft, and that in reality he is some under paid and frustrated junior high school math teacher. This is the same person that was Fender1000 and promised that the future would prove his preaching was true. Now we are asked to wait once again. What I'm waiting for is someone that got burned by this to walk up and hit him and don't run. There should be a consequence for trashing a forum by posters publishing outright fabrication designed specifically to deceive.
WARNING: Gizmo, you're treading a fine line here. No personal attacks please.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 01:04:36 PM
You have to have iron self belief. Some people arent made to beat this game period. Trebor and Shogun both simmered around 7/1 after two or three hundred games. For them failure. But NOT FOR ME that's the difference. I know how to make this method pay EVEN when it drops below its break even point 7/1.
When its flying as it is at the moment for me. You don't need any smart MM you just let it GO. So NO, not everyone will get stellar results with PB. Most will fold before they ever see what is really possible.
They want INSTANT GRATIFICATION. And when it doesn't come they will bend and drop out. STAYING POWER. its lacking in most people Superman. 7/1 doesn't buy you a miracle. You have to work at it.
242/1 that's another story. Bayes has a surprise coming his way next year with that one.
If that's not saying it's my fault for having no staying power then I'm a chinaman (no offence).
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 22, 2012, 03:34:31 PM
They don't call you legend for nothing.
So here is where hit and run really works. In this place and these conditions, any person depending on luck or magical beliefs gets killed as a reward for their miscalculations. The place is Mt. Everest. You screw around with promises and you die. I prefer the real world.
If I didn't know better, and I can't prove anything, I would say that this is an elaborate hoax, JL is some kind of new type of troll craft, and that in reality he is some under paid and frustrated junior high school math teacher. This is the same person that was Fender1000 and promised that the future would prove his preaching was true. Now we are asked to wait once again. What I'm waiting for is someone that got burned by this to walk up and hit him and don't run. There should be a consequence for trashing a forum by posters publishing outright fabrication designed specifically to deceive.
Exactly what im in the process of doing now Giz. And where is your method and proof that you are right? Deceive who? You are overexaggerating everything here Giz.
You should know that if you tell a 1,000 people you can beat this game. Not even 10 will take you seriously. Please tell me you know this already. But then show a 1,000 people success. And then maybe 11 will take you seriously out of that 1,000. But at least those 11 will know I am not what you are implying.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 03:32:03 PM
Bayes I know this isn't a personal attack on me. But im giving my side of the story. All I say is this. If I sat there and played 40 games of Pattern Breaker in a row. You can be certain I would lose at least once. So now tell me why I can win 40 or more playing H.A.R if it has NO ADVANTAGE?
John,
You admit yourself that it works FOR YOU. To my mind, something that "works for me" is a method that just doesn't work, period. The natural conclusion to draw if some have won with it and some haven't is that it's just a matter of luck.
I wish you luck with the challenge, but even if you "destroy" PaddyPower it won't mean that you've proved that HAR works. To show that HAR is effective we need a control group. If HAR is as effective as you claim then it shouldn't take long to show beyond reasonable doubt whether it works or not.
Quote from: Trebor on December 22, 2012, 03:36:08 PM
If that's not saying it's my fault for having no staying power then I'm a chinaman (no offence).
Trebor I simply name checked you and Shogun. As you both had similar breakdowns. Im not saying anything is your fault.
So what we have is a little boy with a cardboard spaceship in his backyard. He's telling us that next July he will be in orbit. And if we don't believe him he's going to hold his breath.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 03:40:45 PM
Exactly what im in the process of doing now Giz. And where is your method and proof that you are right? Deceive who? You are overexaggerating everything here Giz.
You should know that if you tell a 1,000 people you can beat this game. Not even 10 will take you seriously. Please tell me you know this already. But then show a 1,000 people success. And then maybe 11 will take you seriously out of that 1,000. But at least those 11 will know I am not what you are implying.
Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2012, 03:44:21 PM
John,
You admit yourself that it works FOR YOU. To my mind, something that "works for me" is a method that just doesn't work, period. The natural conclusion to draw if some have won with it and some haven't is that it's just a matter of luck.
I wish you luck with the challenge, but even if you "destroy" PaddyPower it won't mean that you've proved that HAR works. To show that HAR is effective we need a control group. If HAR is as effective as you claim then it shouldn't take long to show beyond reasonable doubt whether it works or not.
Okay Bayes we will leave it at that then. Its just all luck if I go from 200 units to 2 million.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 03:50:44 PM
Okay Bayes we will leave it at that then. Its just all luck if I go from 200 units to 2 million.
That's not what I meant. If you do that then it could be HAR at work or it could be the system. The point is, you won't have shown that it's specifically HAR which has given you the results.
Hey MISTER LEGENDARY MAN, show me one person that can tell me when the mathematical probability for the next quality trend will start and how long it will continue to be effective. If you are handed the real method that works and you can't see it then you of all people have experienced the greatest lesson in irony. What's more, Your 7.4/1 magic pill is known.
Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2012, 03:55:37 PM
That's not what I meant. If you do that then it could be HAR at work or it could be the system. The point is, you won't have shown that it's specifically HAR which has given you the results.
Its always a three prong attack Bayes. Bet Selection, Money Management and H.A.R (LUCK) If one of them is missing I am not going to make it. All working in conjunction with eachother. Executed by a disciplined steadfast player. Great things are possible.
That's all I will show.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 22, 2012, 03:58:33 PM
Hey MISTER LEGENDARY MAN, show me one person that can tell me when the mathematical probability for the next quality trend will start and how long it will continue to be effective. If you are handed the real method that works and you can't see it then you of all people have experienced the greatest lesson in irony. What's more, Your 7.4/1 magic pill is known.
Its time you stopped playing Mr superior Giz and throw down. POST A METHOD and PROVE IT WORKS. I DARE YOU?
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 04:02:44 PM
Its time you stopped playing Mr superior Giz and throw down. POST A METHOD and PROVE IT WORKS. I DARE YOU?
Let's see if I have this right. I've been discussing my methods and theories with people that I know have long ago given up on inadequate systems that never have proven to be useful. And in this past year openly shared every secret and attempted to successfully communicate every answer to every question asked of me. Including the answer that the only proof that anyone will accept is proof one gets for himself. I worked on this method for more than fifteen years. It takes years of playing experience to master it. And most important of all. I know human nature. The majority of people here hope that you are right. Nobody wants to work hard for a method that fulfills their dreams or plans. Having you demand that proof is like listening to a baby demand that his diapers be changed or to feed him. All I have for you is wait until July.
I personally feel that Bayes scientific explanations regarding Hit and Run is basically perfect but if the way PB is being played is wrong, what is the right way?
Isn't every method basically merely a Hit and Run? We enter casinos at random times, start playing at random tables and with random sessions. Does this save us from getting bad runs even if we play random methods as well. There is always a fight with random versus random, whatever you play.
Every method has same fate. Can anybody disprove this?
Every method or system has the same mathematical fate. At least from spin to spin. I'm an advocate that proposes that to win you must play the current conditions. Now there must be a syntax of communication with these conditions in order for there to be this communication. With regards to my technique that requires my charts. Without my charts very little of what I have shared can make sense. I have known this for years and had deliberately kept this secret. But you have it. Only at this forum I might add.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 22, 2012, 04:18:17 PM
I personally feel that Bayes scientific explanations regarding Hit and Run is basically perfect but if the way PB is being played is wrong, what is the right way?
Isn't every method basically merely a Hit and Run? We enter casinos at random times, start playing at random tables and with random sessions. Does this save us from getting bad runs even if we play random methods as well. There is always a fight with random versus random, whatever you play.
Every method has same fate. Can anybody disprove this?
Same fate KR?
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 22, 2012, 04:16:47 PM
Let's see if I have this right. I've been discussing my methods and theories with people that I know have long ago given up on inadequate systems that never have proven to be useful. And in this past year openly shared every secret and attempted to successfully communicate every answer to every question asked of me. Including the answer that the only proof that anyone will accept is proof one gets for himself. I worked on this method for more than fifteen years. It takes years of playing experience to master it. And most important of all. I know human nature. The majority of people here hope that you are right. Nobody wants to work hard for a method that fulfills their dreams or plans. Having you demand that proof is like listening to a baby demand that his diapers be changed or to feed him. All I have for you is wait until July.
No good. Post a clearly defined method for ALL to see. And prove it works or have it tested. You are so above us all, this should be a walk in the park.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 04:32:53 PM
No good. Post a clearly defined method for ALL to see. And prove it works or have it tested. You are so above us all, this should be a walk in the park.
I won't take orders from the peanut gallery. The truth is that this thread questions the validity of HAR being a provable theory. A request for properly conducted research under peer review is needed. My own research has already confirmed the position that HAR has no capacity to change long term values expected in a testing of large numbers. That's all the proof I need. There has never been a rule based system, progression, or set of rules that have effectively beaten the game of Roulette. There is no way in Hell that you have achieved what everyone else on Earth has failed to achieve at. There is no way that a magical three stepped Martingale is that successful method. Who is kidding who?
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 22, 2012, 04:43:04 PM
I won't take orders from the peanut gallery. The truth is that this thread questions the validity of HAR being a provable theory. A request for properly conducted research under peer review is needed. My own research has already confirmed the position that HAR has no capacity to change long term values expected in a testing of large numbers. That's all the proof I need. There has never been a rule based system, progression, or set of rules that have effectively beaten the game of Roulette. There is no way in Hell that you have achieved what everyone else on Earth has failed to achieve at. There is no way that a magical three stepped Martingale is that successful method. Who is kidding who?
Then youll have some explaining to do in 6 or so months. This I can't wait for...
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 04:45:58 PM
Then youll have some explaining to do in 6 or so months. This I can't wait for...
.
Having you take me literally is nothing but childish. Look in the mirror Bub. You are the one claiming "we will all see, just you wait." I've been around for years. I've seen lots of claimers just like you come and go. When you come back as alias Number Three would you please first take a big number two. Cause you are full of it.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 22, 2012, 04:55:35 PM
.
Having you take me literally is nothing but childish. Look in the mirror Bub. You are the one claiming "we will all see, just you wait." I've been around for years. I've seen lots of claimers just like you come and go. When you come back as alias Number Three would you please first take a big number two. Cause you are full of it.
Not going anywhere, claims that will be proven unlike yours. That's the difference.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 04:59:49 PM
Not going anywhere, claims that will be proven unlike yours. That's the difference.
You might be. This childish behavior might not be dignified with all do respect for this thread. Feel free to trash anything here considered beyond the bounds of this discussion. "I know you are, but what am I" does not cut it.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 04:29:52 PM
Same fate KR?
Yeah. So far, I can see on various forums. Not even a single method posted so far on any forums hold any good.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 22, 2012, 07:15:13 PM
Yeah. So far, I can see on various forums. Not even a single method posted so far on any forums hold any good.
Do you mean they lose in the longrun, or they're not grails? If you mean they're not grails agreed. If you say they ALL lose in the longrun.
I disagree. And will prove that fact.
I was thinking about all this tonight....
Suppose a card counter has a 3% edge over the house! So the guy is likely to win $9 for every $100 he throws over the table.
Now let's say the guy is playing and is down about 2k after some pretty bad cards. Would this not be a great time for the casino to ban this player from ever playing BJ with them again. The guy is expected to win long-term but now the casino has him by the proverbials. This would be the ideal time in my opinion for the casino to execute their own 'hit and run' policy.
The same thing happens in sports betting. Trading decisions are made to terminate an account even if the player has had a few losing bets based on the players MO. This also strikes me as a kind of 'hit and run' policy to limit potential damage further down the line.
I am getting to my point.......
So the gambler who is playing a negative expectation game and who is up a certain sum of units may decide to execute his own 'hit and run' strategy just based on the fact that he has hit a nice positive swing and does not want to push his luck and face the inevitable 'gamblers ruin'. You could argue that the more times you do this could save you money in the long run.
(I don't think this is going to fly but thought I would share it anyway) :))
QuoteYou could argue that the more times you do this could save you money in the long run
Yes you could argue that point but, think of (JL + HAR) together they could be a good match for however long, if you considor his betting angle, wait until a lot has happened and bet the next thing that hasn't yet happened won't happen AT THIS POINT IN TIME considering it's a long winded method, random may not be ready to show this string at this point in time, that's all it is a hope that THAT last string of EC at exactly the same you decide to play it, you could even play it as soon as you arrive at the table, no history just place your bet, odds are the same.
The point I am making is he could go on forever hitting the odd loss along the way but not enough to take it all back, it's not the fact of HIT n RUN as nobody knows when the best time to play is, it's pure luck that he has timed it right a high percentage of the time, so maybe he is lucky to miss the bad bits, so far, but it can't only work for one person or a minority, it should be doable by others to some degree.
Quote from: Bally6354 on December 22, 2012, 09:06:00 PM
I was thinking about all this tonight....
Suppose a card counter has a 3% edge over the house! So the guy is likely to win $9 for every $100 he throws over the table.
Now let's say the guy is playing and is down about 2k after some pretty bad cards. Would this not be a great time for the casino to ban this player from ever playing BJ with them again. The guy is expected to win long-term but now the casino has him by the proverbials. This would be the ideal time in my opinion for the casino to execute their own 'hit and run' policy.
The same thing happens in sports betting. Trading decisions are made to terminate an account even if the player has had a few losing bets based on the players MO. This also strikes me as a kind of 'hit and run' policy to limit potential damage further down the line.
I am getting to my point.......
So the gambler who is playing a negative expectation game and who is up a certain sum of units may decide to execute his own 'hit and run' strategy just based on the fact that he has hit a nice positive swing and does not want to push his luck and face the inevitable 'gamblers ruin'. You could argue that the more times you do this could save you money in the long run.
(I don't think this is going to fly but thought I would share it anyway) :))
I cannot imagine being down 2k Bally. Not even 500 units. That type of loss never occurs with a method like PB. And certainly none of the others Im using. This is why I argue so ardently about the set in mind attitudes. That this bad run of numbers is going to suddenly appear and wipe out thousands of units.
If that's the case you never had a method worth a hoot to begin with. All the people who argue about playing light martingales. Then in the same thought tell us they had a drawdown of 300 plus units today but just survived or didn't. Make no sense to me at all. They would tell me im insane to risk for example 242 units to win 1.
While they are risking their entire BR if things go pear shaped. I cannot fathom this attitude. I am risking 242 units on something that may win for years that's the difference. I don't expect to battle my way back from a 300 plus units drawdown on a regular basis. That's pure gambling. No sense of certainty there at all.
Quote from: Superman on December 22, 2012, 09:18:41 PM
Yes you could argue that point but, think of (JL + HAR) together they could be a good match for however long, if you considor his betting angle, wait until a lot has happened and bet the next thing that hasn't yet happened won't happen AT THIS POINT IN TIME considering it's a long winded method, random may not be ready to show this string at this point in time, that's all it is a hope that THAT last string of EC at exactly the same you decide to play it, you could even play it as soon as you arrive at the table, no history just place your bet, odds are the same.
The point I am making is he could go on forever hitting the odd loss along the way but not enough to take it all back, it's not the fact of HIT n RUN as nobody knows when the best time to play is, it's pure luck that he has timed it right a high percentage of the time, so maybe he is lucky to miss the bad bits, so far, but it can't only work for one person or a minority, it should be doable by others to some degree.
Superman, if you got 10 people to TRULY play like me and I mean TRULY. I believe the majority of them will garner similar results.
They have to bet on the same thing. Never wonder from the MM side of things. And maintain a positive attitude. Heres the thing. With PB no ones going to lose any real money if they follow it properly. They may not match mine or Subbys or Chauncy47s results. But they will probably break even over a 2--3 hundred game span. I've done similar. But I stayed in there long enough for it to come around.
That's why you have 3 or 4 solid methods. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. If ones underperforming. The chances are the others are doing alright. My winning streak with PB ended tonight after 41 games. In fact I had my first double loss.
But I didn't panic. I employed another method. And pulled all the loss back and ended in a small profit for the night. That's how its down. You don't run and hide as soon as things arent so rosey. Losing is part of the game. Just as winning is. Only not losing 2k in a session that's pure gambling madness. That requires huge BRs to survive. Im talking about holding 200 units and making it grow to a fortune.
You don't do that if every game you play has the entire BR on the line. That's madness as far as im concerned.
"I cannot imagine being down 2k Bally."
I was speaking in general terms JL.
A card counter with a 3% edge and a 10k bankroll could be easily down 1k-2k after a really bad shoe.
So us guys facing 2.70% or 5.40% are going to run into some right nightmare situations (hit and run or not)
But I agree with you about attitudes and discipline. It's a much tougher game without them.
Of course hit and run is absurd. Anybody who says it isn't
doesn't understand the nature of random outcomes. The
only way hit and run would be effective is if you could accurately
predict the next outcome, and you can't. This subject was
discussed to death on the old GG and nobody ever proved
hit and run was any more effective than any other system.
They all lose right at the house edge. Anybody who believes
otherwise is deluding themselves.
Call me crazy spike : )
To be honest I can really only play 100 spins live per day perhaps 4 times per week.
What this breaks down to is in 10 years I will play 200,000 spins.
I believe there is a good chance I can do alright over 200,000 spins.
Combine a playing style with different methods/stocks and 3 winners out of the 5 systems could support each other well.
At the moment I am looking into your approach of reading random like music.
I like to look for logical patterns:
10 ... I bet 10, 11,9
25 ... I bet 25,26,24
35 ... I bet 35,36,34,15
Just some ideas.
If you take 300 spins sessions and randomize all permutations, you do the stats and you get a distribution no different than the original ones.
Then you randomize short bursts of 10 spins or so, to simulate HIT, and then you run.
Why and for how long will you escape fluctuation?
don't you think PB is a method with flawed principles?
I will tell you the truth in what you will find.
You can ride a good tram for a while but then everything will correct. There is no escape. It is like time. Everything gets older.
Thinking that you can slalom the bad results is ignorance.
You have the wright to have faith and hope. What you can not do is defy the nature of a system, and others intelligence too.
I have written to you you before that if you can present any logical corroboration of HAR you must do so, otherwise your insistence, for me, is at the fringe of disrespect for our minds.
We are not always correct, and truth is a relative thing. But there is a line, we can discuss ideas and exchange arguments.
So please, do not take this as persecution, open your mind, your eyes and your intellect to a sane, fair and objective discussion.
Best Regards.
If you take 300 spins sessions and randomize all permutations, -- what the heck does that mean?
you do the stats and you get a distribution no different than the original ones.
-- What the heck does that mean?
Then you randomize short bursts of 10 spins or so, to simulate HIT, and then you run. --That almost makes sense.
Why and for how long will you escape fluctuation? -- Who the heck knows?
don't you think PB is a method with flawed principles? -- No. I think that the flaw is magical thinking.
I will tell you the truth in what you will find. -- that's a relief . Your credibility is unquestionably flawless.
... and more gibberish
Quote
You can ride a good tram for a while but then everything will correct. There is no escape. It is like time. Everything gets older.
Thinking that you can slalom the bad results is ignorance.
You have the wright to have faith and hope. What you can not do is defy the nature of a system, and others intelligence too.
I have written to you you before that if you can present any logical corroboration of HAR you must do so, otherwise your insistence, for me, is at the fringe of disrespect for our minds.
We are not always correct, and truth is a relative thing. But there is a line, we can discuss ideas and exchange arguments.
So please, do not take this as persecution, open your mind, your eyes and your intellect to a sane, fair and objective discussion.
Best Regards.
@ Gizmotron
The above post is directed to JohnLegend.
Confucius - "
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."I present data to backup up my claims. that's all.
I will explain better: find all the permutations of 300 spins of a binary distribution. it is something like: 2.03703597e+90
Apply PB bet to each of them.
All the permutations will describe the well known bell curve.
And if you then take small samples from each of them and make a collection of bets, only in less than 1% of the possible cases you will get a std >= 3. Which would grant you the safe use of a progression to survive against average fluctuation.
I don't know how to explain it better.
@Gizmotron
:no: Gibberish is your way of directing to others with such paternalism and lack of modesty.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 22, 2012, 04:55:35 PM
.
Having you take me literally is nothing but childish. Look in the mirror Bub. You are the one claiming "we will all see, just you wait." I've been around for years. I've seen lots of claimers just like you come and go. When you come back as alias Number Three would you please first take a big number two. Cause you are full of it.
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on December 23, 2012, 03:15:14 AM
@ Gizmotron
The above post is directed to JohnLegend.
Confucius - "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
I present data to backup up my claims. that's all.
I will explain better: find all the permutations of 300 spins of a binary distribution. it is something like: 2.03703597e+90
Apply PB bet to each of them.
All the permutations will describe the well known bell curve.
And if you then take small samples from each of them and make a collection of bets, only in less than 1% of the possible cases you will get a std >= 3. Which would grant you the safe use of a progression to survive against average fluctuation.
I don't know how to explain it better.
@Gizmotron
:no: Gibberish is your way of directing to others with such paternalism and lack of modesty.
Marigny given your attitude to H,A,R and PB and all that I do. I should have no chance in hell of turning a fragile 200 units into thousands and eventually millions. YES?
This is why im putting myself on the line here. The rest talk a good fight but theyll never put it on the line. Bankrolls don't grow themselves. If everything I do is so flawed and ignorant as you put it. There is no possible way I can succeed.
That's the surprise for all who think like this on its way. You will then say, uh he was just lucky. And as I continue your hold on that belief will become weaker and weaker.
KR says he goes around all the forums and finds everything fails. really, is it the method that fails OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM?? That's the million dollar question. I already know the answer. And as time goes on some of you will come to know the answer too.
I don't understand one thing, why two dozens posts written to bash or support PB and its writer JL? He is written a method that he claims to win in long run and all others say he will not.
Can't we wait for Speramus and superman and other guys who are using it, give verdict after playing it? Don't trust JL claims if you can't believe them. Personally, I think PB has no mathematical advantage and agree with most of the arguments against it by gizmo, spike, bayes etc.
If PB is bad which one is good and playable as a winner method? It is good that Bayes explained the mathematical side of HAR but bashing any method on that is childish.
We are all sitting on the same sinking boat. Every method is hit and run and trial and error. Isn't it?
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 22, 2012, 03:32:03 PM
Bayes I know this isn't a personal attack on me. But im giving my side of the story. All I say is this. If I sat there and played 40 games of Pattern Breaker in a row. You can be certain I would lose at least once. So now tell me why I can win 40 or more playing H.A.R if it has NO ADVANTAGE?
Shogun lost 5 times out of 7 playing HAR. This is far less probable than your winning streak of 40. I think that you need to learn some statistics. Your chance of having 40 winning streak is around 1 in 200. Hardly out of ordinary. You are wrong.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 23, 2012, 05:46:26 AM
Shogun lost 5 times out of 7 playing HAR. This is far less probable than your winning streak of 40. I think that you need to learn some statistics. Your chance of having 40 winning streak is around 1 in 200. Hardly out of ordinary. You are wrong.
Wrong about what matt? Statistics don't grow BRs Matt this is what you all will have to scratch your heads about in 28 weeks.
You can call me wrong until the cows come home. But none of you can explain how wrong will translate into great success. There is for example a new method sitting on this forum. NOT MINE. That is an ABSOLUTE DIAMOND. I already know this. While you are all arguing about the virtues or lackoff for H.A.R and PB whatever.
I've been putting it through the REAL arena of success and failure. And its another winner. Like I said of KRs attitude. IS IT THE METHOD/S that FAIL. OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
I know the answer to this and more and more of you will come to know it in the next 6 months and beyond.
One thing I've noticed Matt is you are quick to criticize when you think you have the upperhand. Like when you thought you had me on this 70 wins on the fourth step for FIVE. Now you keep going on about Shoguns run from hell with PB.
But the overall picture remains the same. In only 200 games played he was still slightly above 7/1. Its the LONGRUN. I've carried 5/1 across 200 games AND STILL MADE A PROFIT. Now tell me how im going to fail.
IS IT THE METHOD/S THAT FAIL OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM??
QuoteIS IT THE METHOD/S THAT FAIL OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM??
Methods because they are not based upon any scientific or mathematical framework but on a blindfaith that this can't happen to me.
No method here talks of how to handle "sessions from hell" they just believe that "sessions from haven" will come to rescue.
Quote from: KingsRoulete
We are all sitting on the same sinking boat. Every method is hit and run and trial and error. Isn't it?
My method is probe & attack. I clearly wait for a continuing state of effectiveness and then probe its continuing effectiveness by attacking it. Anything else is just waiting. So it's not hit and run it's wait and attack. I wonder if there really is a difference.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 23, 2012, 06:22:58 AM
Methods because they are not based upon any scientific or mathematical framework but on a blindfaith that this can't happen to me.
No method here talks of how to handle "sessions from hell" they just believe that "sessions from haven" will come to rescue.
So KR given your answer, attitude. there is NO WAY I can succeed. turn a mere 200 units into thousands and potentially millions right?
The method handles NOTHING, that's the players job. What if a method has no session from hell? Now there's a thought.
What if it suffers a loss so rarely that it is merely a minor setback? And played H.A.R it might lose once in 3,000 games at worse. And H.A.R has no value they say.
Maybe it can't be seen on a method with a small buy in like PB by most. But it will certainly be seen on the next one I publish. You don't bring a single club to the golf course and expect to lift the trophy. You have a bag full of tricks to get the job done.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 23, 2012, 06:25:22 AM
My method is probe & attack. I clearly wait for a continuing state of effectiveness and then probe its continuing effectiveness by attacking it. Anything else is just waiting. So it's not hit and run it's wait and attack. I wonder if there really is a difference.
I think there is no difference. Can your so called "wait and attack" face "sessions from hell"? Can they survive the blunt attack of variances? Can they gain in negative sessions? If your answer is "yes", you are the best person in the world to learn the art of gambling.
P.S.: All the negative aspects which I talked of is in the context of your betselection, irrespective of how do u chose them.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 23, 2012, 06:22:58 AM
No method here talks of how to handle "sessions from hell" they just believe that "sessions from haven" will come to rescue.
I don't have sessions from hell because I deliberately refuse to bet during them. Hint number one: the absence of useful effectiveness.
Gizmo,
you didn't answer my last three questions after reading P.S.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 23, 2012, 06:06:06 AM
Wrong about what matt? Statistics don't grow BRs Matt this is what you all will have to scratch your heads about in 28 weeks.
You can call me wrong until the cows come home. But none of you can explain how wrong will translate into great success. There is for example a new method sitting on this forum. NOT MINE. That is an ABSOLUTE DIAMOND. I already know this. While you are all arguing about the virtues or lackoff for H.A.R and PB whatever.
I've been putting it through the REAL arena of success and failure. And its another winner. Like I said of KRs attitude. IS IT THE METHOD/S that FAIL. OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM.
I know the answer to this and more and more of you will come to know it in the next 6 months and beyond.
One thing I've noticed Matt is you are quick to criticize when you think you have the upperhand. Like when you thought you had me on this 70 wins on the foruth step for FIVE. Now you keep going on about Shoguns run from hell with PB.
But the overall picture remains the same. In only 200 games played he was still slightly above 7/1. Its the longrun. I've carried 5/1 across 200 games AND STILL MADE A PROFIT. Now tell me how im going to fail.
IS IT THE METHOD/S THAT FAIL OR THE PEOPLE PLAYING THEM??
My point was that according to stats your runs of 40+ wins are nothing out of ordinary and don't demonstrate advantage of HAR approach. With Shogun stats my point was that his bad run was just less probable. Naming it RFH is a bit of overstatement. What about your 100+ winning streaks. RFH as well but H now stands for Heaven. :D Its just ups and downs. Using statistics can verify claims that you can only have some stats playing HAR. As to FIVE i based my stats on your initial claim that you later changed. As to a new method you called DIAMOND is it the one with 5 triggers?
Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 23, 2012, 06:50:01 AM
My point was that according to stats your runs of 40+ wins are nothing out of ordinary and don't demonstrate advantage of HAR approach. With Shogun stats my point was that his bad run was just less probable. Naming it RFH is a bit of overstatement. What about your 100+ winning streaks. RFH as well but H now stands for Heaven. :D Its just ups and downs. Using statistics can verify claims that you can only have some stats playing HAR. As to FIVE i based my stats on your initial claim that you later changed. As to a new method you called DIAMOND is it the one with 5 triggers?
There was no change Matt, just a misunderstanding by you of how the BET TRIGGER worked. FIVE is a winner. It demands PATIENCE of the highest order. So does 7 ON 1.
DIAMOND, that's for you to figure out. There are two new gems on the forum. Both are worthy of serious interest and perseverance. Neither will get them except from me. Its time more people put the work in for themselves. And stop waiting for the miracles to be handed to them.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 23, 2012, 06:36:35 AM
Gizmo,
you didn't answer my last three questions after reading P.S.
That's because I was responding to your comment further up. No questions to answer... and my phone battery died.
Can your so called "wait and attack" face "sessions from hell"? -- Why ask that question? It's ridiculous to do something you know is confirming the very opposite of what you are seeking.
Can they survive the blunt attack of variances? -- My method deliberately seeks the "blunt attack of variance." - what is that? a new clever cliche?
Can they gain in negative sessions? -- My method does not need to ever dig my way out of steep holes. I don't get in them in the first place.
If your answer is "yes", you are the best person in the world to learn the art of gambling. -- you know it's true. And you didn't have to climb a mountain to ask a "one question only" from some over dressed zin master.
Gizmo,
I think u have yet to read my Post script in red.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 23, 2012, 07:57:47 AM
Gizmo,
I think u have yet to read my Post script in red.
KR if I believed what you wrote in red. I would have shut up shop and left this game behind long ago. THANKFULLY I don't.
JL,
my question is meant for Gizmo. He is showing exceptional brilliance. Maybe he can do that.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 23, 2012, 06:30:51 AM
P.S.: All the negative aspects which I talked of is in the context of your betselection, irrespective of how do u chose them.
I hope you can understand this. There are no negative aspects to Roulette. Further more there is nothing targeting my bet selections. It's just common randomness. It just happens. I decided to control the session instead of the session controlling me. Every spin is a signal from the flow of information coming from the effectiveness track.
Gizmo,
Please do not distract from my straight question. I am asking if your bet selection (by whatever ability or clairvoyance you chose them), gets tough variance attack, can you still win or you do rely upon same fallacy that it can't happen to me?
Clearly I can see you don't understand what I've written here at this forum.
My technique operates through a process of detachment. My bet selection method is nothing but a detached tool. The tool is used to cause movement in the effectiveness track. I deliberately manipulate the effectiveness track by probing it. I know from experience how to perceive useful changes as they occur. That's what gives me control instead of the changes controlling me.
Perhaps you recall topics like the list and the chart?
Gizmo,
With due respect, I do not doubt your knowledge and brilliance but any bet selection (howsoever chosen) can suffer variance ( at least temporarily). Can you beat that?
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 23, 2012, 08:44:52 AM
Gizmo,
With due respect, I do not doubt your knowledge and brilliance but any bet selection (howsoever chosen) can suffer variance ( at least temporarily). Can you beat that?
All I have for you is fallacy. Those that seek only fallacy, only fallacy is offered. No matter what I say, all you can see is fallacy.
This answer of yours show that you are as much empty handed as all others. Keep preaching.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 23, 2012, 09:55:50 AM
This answer of yours show that you are as much empty handed as all others. Keep preaching.
Hey be nice now its Xmas time. Time to put our differences to one side. Until the new year. Merry Xmas everyone.
Quote(howsoever chosen) can suffer variance
Not if it's variance that you are using for your decisions. You have to follow the flow.
@ RK in a previous post you mentioned me testing PB, for the record I am not testing PB
Quote from: Superman on December 23, 2012, 11:06:59 AM
Not if it's variance that you are using for your decisions. You have to follow the flow.
@ RK in a previous post you mentioned me testing PB, for the record I am not testing PB
I think that u had a challenge of some kind regarding PB. http://betselection.cc/methods%27-results/jl-bv-challenge/ (http://betselection.cc/methods%27-results/jl-bv-challenge/)
QuoteI think that u had a challenge of some kind regarding PB
That's correct, basically I gave JL the use of my account so I can see and verify his efforts, we had to close the BetVoyager challenge for account purposes and moved the funds over to PaddyPower where he is now performing the challenge, once a month I will login and check the progress.
And how much progress did u witness? ???
Here is another form of PB where you won't have to wait 6 months to see any results (if you are lucky!)
http://baccaratforums.com/t7202/ (http://baccaratforums.com/t7202/)
@ JL
PB has been around in one form or another for years. I first wrote about it on a forum about 5/6 years ago. A lot of people have tested it and reported it as a failure. The reason I don't knock it is because the basic premise can be improved upon. There is no point in going down with the ship. You wouldn't need to prove anything to anybody if it actually worked in it's basic format. Roulette would no longer exist if it worked like that.
Many thanks for posting that link Bally.
I really like it. Since it is still on topic HAR I thought I would discuss it a little.
If we switch this to roulette our first week prog would be 5,10,20,40 75BR or 10,20,40,80 150BR
Theoretically if you had a 5000 BR you would have 40 attempts to get one successful 4 week session and still come out +2000 units
For fun I think I am going to give this a go but don't hold me to that : )
I would allocate two 75 unit BRs
If I get a successful 4 week session, then I change my tactic. Now I can afford to risk my 5000 BR on 40 attempts to achieve 1 winning 4 week session.
Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 23, 2012, 09:55:50 AM
This answer of yours show that you are as much empty handed as all others. Keep preaching.
All it shows is that you are happy with the conclusions that you maintain are the only possible truth. And to reinforce your belief all you have done is take my word. Nobody can research an issue in just a few hours when it has clearly been explained to them that it is a skill that requires years of experience from both practice and real play. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from any person that seeks so desperately to impress others with such flimsy conclusions. I leave that for you members of this forum to decide what that is. It is frowned on to openly describe this obvious conclusion because of censorship and an almost total lack of free speech allowed by speech police. Anyone that knows me knows that when I'm personally attacked by one of these quick to judge individuals I freely express my resentment for their opinion. I don't have to imagine where lies and ungrounded conclusions are protected by mother hens. Lies are the mainstay of this forum. You can say anything you want and it won't be challenged because in this reality we are all winners. Take this topic for instance. HAR is the excuse for one person's success while many have stated that this is impossible, after providing proof. If you listen closely you will hear someone laughing at you for being suckers, HAR HAR, HAR .
Quote from: Bally6354 on December 23, 2012, 12:28:04 PM
Here is another form of PB where you won't have to wait 6 months to see any results (if you are lucky!)
http://baccaratforums.com/t7202/ (http://baccaratforums.com/t7202/)
@ JL
PB has been around in one form or another for years. I first wrote about it on a forum about 5/6 years ago. A lot of people have tested it and reported it as a failure. The reason I don't knock it is because the basic premise can be improved upon. There is no point in going down with the ship. You wouldn't need to prove anything to anybody if it actually worked in it's basic format. Roulette would no longer exist if it worked like that.
Bally, roulette will always exist. If you gift wrapped a HOLY GRAIL. And gave it to 10 million gamblers. How many of them do you think would even try it?
Of course it can be improved upon. Its called MONEY MANAGEMENT. Pattern breaker isn't supposed to beat the game in its basic form. You don't get that for 7/1. That's common sense. It has to be worked at and money managed to success. Played in short bursts to avoid downturns.
I have a method I consider already to be a H,A,R HOLY GRAIL. Its so strong. I may report a loss in 2020. But when I put it on this forum. I guarantee you not even 10 people will take it seriously. Because it requires 242 UNITS to buy in. Those same people will be prepared to risk their house to get rich in one day.
But not risk 242 units for one of the surest bets that will ever be seen. Such is the human mind. So like I say Bally the games beatable. There just will NEVER be enough people who mentally have what it takes to beat it. That is absolute FACT.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 23, 2012, 05:28:23 PM
If you gift wrapped a HOLY GRAIL. And gave it to 10 million gamblers. How many of them do you think would even try it?
There is no holy grail! You may be able to get lucky and win more than you lose over periods of time. That's the best you can hope for in roulette.
Quote from: Bally6354 on December 23, 2012, 06:12:37 PM
There is no holy grail! You may be able to get lucky and win more than you lose over periods of time. That's the best you can hope for in roulette.
Yes Bally I was simply illustrating how indifferent and jaded the masses are about beating this game. Even if there was one. 99% wouldn't use it.
I don't know. I have to be pretty darn unlucky to lose all 40 attempts.
Quote from: MarignyGrilleau on December 24, 2012, 12:52:46 AM
:scared:
If you lie to yourself then you might be the last to know it.
I think, in another post Gizmo said that playing HAR is nothing but adding an extra layer of randomness and I do not think anything can define HAR better. Since randomness knows no rules, it will work differently for different people and in different sessions with different systems.
No one can guarantee any profit or loss of playing HAR over long period of time. It is always random.
I guess it's time I make a statement like this about randomness. All randomness does is flow and change, change and flow. It does this without regards to your desires or your plans. If you are clever it allows you to tag along for a ride.
Gizmotron wrote: "Lies are the mainstay of this forum."
Your evidence? Kindly provide objective substantiation -- divorced from your subjective opinions.
Quote from: esoito on December 30, 2012, 12:14:32 AM
Gizmotron wrote: "Lies are the mainstay of this forum."
Your evidence? Kindly provide objective substantiation -- divorced from your subjective opinions.
Please don't forget the context. It was with regards to mother hens. I've already proven that HAR is a fallacy. At the start I wrote a sim that tested Six Million spins per test. Written into the sim was actual mindless hit & run tactics.
In every test there was no significant difference in using it or in leaving it out. It changed nothing. I ran the tests more than 100 times. There was no significant difference. THE CLAIMS BEING MADE ON THIS FORUM REGARDING HAR BEING THE SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE ARE FALSE. MY CHOICE OF DESCRIPTION IS THAT THIS QUALIFIES THESE CLAIMS AS LIES. THIS CONCLUSION IS AN EARNED RESPONSE TO THE PAST DISPLAY OF CHARACTER ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THIS CLAIMER.
If these are not intentional lies then they are the illusions of a person that has been fooling himself for many years, also his own claim.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 30, 2012, 12:59:08 AM
Please don't forget the context. It was with regards to mother hens. I've already proven that HAR is a fallacy. At the start I wrote a sim that tested Six Million spins per test. Written into the sim was actual mindless hit & run tactics.
In every test there was no significant difference in using it or in leaving it out. It changed nothing. I ran the tests more than 100 times. There was no significant difference. THE CLAIMS BEING MADE ON THIS FORUM REGARDING HAR BEING THE SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE ARE FALSE. MY CHOICE OF DESCRIPTION IS THAT THIS QUALIFIES THESE CLAIMS AS LIES. THIS CONCLUSION IS AN EARNED RESPONSE TO THE PAST DISPLAY OF CHARACTER ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THIS CLAIMER.
If these are not intentional lies then they are the illusions of a person that has been fooling himself for many years, also his own claim.
Hello Gizmotron,
Would it be possible to run a test over 6 million spins playing a specific tactic?
The tactic is to play PB after a virtual loss.
Once a loss is observed we bet that the next game will not be a loss.
Would be interesting to see what the results are.
With all due respect I think it is possible to perform well with HAR, the longterm is relative.
In essence 6 million spins might be irrelevant. See how many sessions of 20,000 spins succeed. 20K spins would represent 1 year of play. These 6 million spins then represent 300 years of playing. I only need the next 5 to be successful.
I would also stress that a method like PB should not be played in its basic format. There is MM and knowledge needed of winning aspects of the method, such as its double loss performance. Based on JL stats I can only conclude that if this methods strikerate is under 5/1 at times the double losses can keep the overall strikerate positive.
My published telemetry from my tests show a confirmation of the expected double losses that any average player will experience. I also included triple losses. HAR being used or not never changed these expected values of double and triple losses.
Now even in the most innocent of worlds it's possible to have a very long lasting lucky streak. By JL's own statements he has experienced a far less than average amount of double losses and no triple losses. That's proof that he is in a lucky streak. His conclusion of why he is doing better does not stand the light of day with regards to a scientific approach. The approach here is to wait years. That is a huge waste of time.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 30, 2012, 12:59:08 AM
Please don't forget the context. It was with regards to mother hens. I've already proven that HAR is a fallacy. At the start I wrote a sim that tested Six Million spins per test. Written into the sim was actual mindless hit & run tactics.
In every test there was no significant difference in using it or in leaving it out. It changed nothing. I ran the tests more than 100 times. There was no significant difference. THE CLAIMS BEING MADE ON THIS FORUM REGARDING HAR BEING THE SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE ARE FALSE. MY CHOICE OF DESCRIPTION IS THAT THIS QUALIFIES THESE CLAIMS AS LIES. THIS CONCLUSION IS AN EARNED RESPONSE TO THE PAST DISPLAY OF CHARACTER ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THIS CLAIMER.
If these are not intentional lies then they are the illusions of a person that has been fooling himself for many years, also his own claim.
Illusions, lies. There is no prize for guessing who these accusations are directed at.
YOU don't FOOL YOUR BANKROLL. If what I do didn't work I would have been homeless many years ago. And when I prove this by doing with a mere vunerable 200 units. What NO ONE HAS EVER DONE with verifiable proof.
You Mr Gizmotron will be the first person put on the spot. To explain how a liar, fool, charleton. Was able to produce such success. With a style of play that doesn't work.
With methods that all fail, when played continuously.
JL - " With methods that all fail, when played continuously."
How would you know does come to mind.
This is truly funny. A guy says his three step Marti is going to vindicate his posturing. After 200 years that Martingale progression was actually right all along. It just has to locate the magical mystery points. And these points are only known by the legendary one himself.
I don't need to have someone like you tell me its H.A.R.
How do you know?
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 30, 2012, 05:05:02 AM
How would you know does come to mind.
This is truly funny. A guy says his three step Marti is going to vindicate his posturing. After 200 years that Martingale progression was actually right all along. It just has to locate the magical mystery points. And these points are only known by the legendary one himself.
I don't need to have someone like you tell me its H.A.R.
How do you know?
Three step marti, get over that first.My success has nothing to do with a three-step-marti. there's your biggest mistake right there.
You think how you think and play is the only way to be successful. that's the lesson
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 30, 2012, 05:12:59 AM
Three step marti, get over that first.My success has nothing to do with a three-step-marti. there's your biggest mistake right there.
You think how you think and play is the only way to be successful. that's the lesson
Why does everything change when results and challenges confront you? Now the Marti is gone. This tactic is hit and run excuses.
Try all you want to make this my issues. You might want to take notice to the title to this thread.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 30, 2012, 05:19:37 AM
Why does everything change when results and challenges confront you? Now the Marti is gone. This tactic is hit and run excuses.
Try all you want to make this my issues. You might want to take notice to the title to this thread.
You are no different to anyother detractor Giz. YOU ASSUME you have all the anwsers. Like everyone else is a fool if they don't DO IT YOUR WAY.
There lies true ignorance. The marti IS NEVER GONE. It is the backbone of ALL my methods. Your MISTAKE like many. Is in assuming it is my KEY reason/claim FOR SUCCESS.
NO, The KEY REASONS and ONLY REASONS I will be successful until the day I draw my last breath. Is H.A.R together with a decent BET SELECTION. And SMART MM on the more vunerable methods like PB.
On FIVE, and 7 ON 1 no human factor no MM is required. PLAYED H.A.R they simply WIN. Secure profit. To play them requires the biggest reason this game is still thought of as unbeatable. PATIENCE, PATIENCE AND MORE PATIENCE.
That is lacking in the masses. And it's a key ingredient to success with this game.
Hence why the game will ALWAYS be there for the patient and clever to use for monetary gain.
And an excuse for maths devotees to say 1+1=2 and that's all she wrote regarding your chances of being a longterm success.
Just in case you haven't heard, hit and run is absurd.
:
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 30, 2012, 05:33:54 AM
You are no different to anyother detractor Giz. YOU ASSUME you have all the anwsers. Like everyone else is a fool if they don't DO IT YOUR WAY.
There lies true ignorance. The marti IS NEVER GONE. It is the backbone of ALL my methods. Your MISTAKE like many. Is in assuming it is my KEY reason/claim FOR SUCCESS.
NO, The KEY REASONS and ONLY REASONS I will be successful until the day I draw my last breath. Is H.A.R together with a decent BET SELECTION. And SMART MM on the more vunerable methods like PB.
On FIVE, and 7 ON 1 no human factor no MM is required. PLAYED H.A.R they simply WIN. Secure profit. To play them requires the biggest reason this game is still thought of as unbeatable. PATIENCE, PATIENCE AND MORE PATIENCE.
That is lacking in the masses. And it's a key ingredient to success with this game.
Hence why the game will ALWAYS be there for the patient and clever to use for monetary gain.
Now, this is going beyond a healthy debate and admin/global moderators should interfere and stop this.
Quote from: albalaha on December 30, 2012, 05:55:24 AM
Now, this is going beyond a healthy debate and admin/global moderators should interfere and stop this.
Albalaha, you don't debate with Gizmotron. You agree with everything he thinks/says. Or you are a liar,fool,charleton.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 30, 2012, 05:33:54 AM
You are no different to anyother detractor Giz. YOU ASSUME you have all the anwsers. Like everyone else is a fool if they don't DO IT YOUR WAY.
There lies true ignorance. The marti IS NEVER GONE. It is the backbone of ALL my methods. Your MISTAKE like many. Is in assuming it is my KEY reason/claim FOR SUCCESS.
NO, The KEY REASONS and ONLY REASONS I will be successful until the day I draw my last breath. Is H.A.R together with a decent BET SELECTION. And SMART MM on the more vunerable methods like PB.
On FIVE, and 7 ON 1 no human factor no MM is required. PLAYED H.A.R they simply WIN. Secure profit. To play them requires the biggest reason this game is still thought of as unbeatable. PATIENCE, PATIENCE AND MORE PATIENCE.
That is lacking in the masses. And it's a key ingredient to success with this game.
Hence why the game will ALWAYS be there for the patient and clever to use for monetary gain.
And an excuse for maths devotees to say 1+1=2 and that's all she wrote regarding your chances of being a longterm success.
Is 7 on 1 betting against 7 consecutive 4 gaps after 2 triggers? You can use tracker made by Stef and simulate HAR by pressing F9 key that generates 500 spins. It shows max number of gaps in each dozen. Would you agree John that is a valid testing of HAR? You just get sometimes only 2 or 3 games in 500 spins.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 30, 2012, 06:13:05 AM
Is 7 on 1 betting against 7 consecutive 4 gaps after 2 triggers? You can use tracker made by Stef and simulate HAR by pressing F9 key that generates 500 spins. It shows max number of gaps in each dozen. Would you agree John that is a valid testing of HAR? You just get sometimes only 2 or 3 games in 500 spins.
Hello Matt, I've never waited 500 spins to get 2 or 3 games.
I am now playing 7 ON 1 on both dozens and columns. As its simply not even being challenged on dozens alone. Yes its betting against 7 consecutive 4 gaps after a double trigger. Keep in mind now Matt I only PLAY LIVE. Matt you know well I only truly trust live play. Its the format im profitting against. Therefore its the ONLY format you can truly use to make a comparison.
Anything else is the lazy mans way to try and perpetuate the myth on this games longterm invincibility. To some that myth must be upheld at all costs. That's where I come in, to show its always been a myth.
The idea was innitialy born out of the fact that over several years of results for the ZONE. I could only highlight two times 6 consecutive 4 gaps. I could find nothing greater.
I am also currently testing 7 ON 1 against 1 million real spins. One dozen at a time. For my own peace of mind. As I will know whether in a continuous play fashion it stands up or not. And this will also prove H.A.R as a superior play strategy for 7 ON 1.
I personally already consider it a virtual H,A,R grail. Its so difficult to land dead on top of a losing run. It could win for years. And when it does eventually lose it will be of no real significance. This is the best we can do in this game.
But if we CAN DO IT the game is beaten. No ifs, buts or maybes.
Now this thread is hijacked.
Quote from: albalaha on December 30, 2012, 05:55:24 AM
Now, this is going beyond a healthy debate and admin/global moderators should interfere and stop this.
It was a moderator that demanded I give an "objective" explanation. So I gave it. JL flipped out. That's ok though. We can all go back to holding our breaths.
Quote from: Gizmotron on December 30, 2012, 06:41:15 AM
It was a moderator that demanded I give an "objective" explanation. So I gave it. JL flipped out. That's ok though. We can all go back to holding our breaths.
Gizmotron, all that you think believe will be turned upside down. Do you really think your tests proved ANYTHING?
I don't flip out, I give my side of the story. Then people who think they have a monopoly on correct thinking and success. Jump in and attack. But you cannot attack monetary success. That's what it will all boil down to.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 30, 2012, 06:44:42 AM
Gizmotron, all that you think believe will be turned upside down. Do you really think your tests proved ANYTHING?
I don't flip out, I give my side of the story. Then people who think they have a monopoly on correct thinking and success. Jump in and attack. But you cannot attack monetary success. That's what it will all boil down to.
So the legend continues.
Guys,
I am no one to stop all these but please think of your standards too. Both of you are merely teasing each other now. Debate has been over way back.
Quote from: JohnLegend on December 30, 2012, 06:20:53 AM
Hello Matt, I've never waited 500 spins to get 2 or 3 games.
I am now playing 7 ON 1 on both dozens and columns. As its simply not even being challenged on dozens alone. Yes its betting against 7 consecutive 4 gaps after a double trigger. Keep in mind now Matt I only PLAY LIVE. Matt you know well I only truly trust live play. Its the format im profitting against. Therefore its the ONLY format you can truly use to make a comparison.
Anything else is the lazy mans way to try and perpetuate the myth on this games longterm invincibility. To some that myth must be upheld at all costs. That's where I come in, to show its always been a myth.
The idea was innitialy born out of the fact that over several years of results for the ZONE. I could only highlight two times 6 consecutive 4 gaps. I could find nothing greater.
I am also currently testing 7 ON 1 against 1 million real spins. One dozen at a time. For my own peace of mind. As I will know whether in a continuous play fashion it stands up or not. And this will also prove H.A.R as a superior play strategy for 7 ON 1.
I personally already consider it a virtual H,A,R grail. Its so difficult to land dead on top of a losing run. It could win for years. And when it does eventually lose it will be of no real significance. This is the best we can do in this game.
But if we CAN DO IT the game is beaten. No ifs, buts or maybes.
John
You can test much faster by pressing F9. You played on BV and you are ok with RNG? I saw 7 gaps 3 times within 5000 spins.
It went also 50000 spins without single loss. :D You never know where you will land.
Quote from: albalaha on December 30, 2012, 07:17:40 AM
Guys,
I am no one to stop all these but please think of your standards too. Both of you are merely teasing each other now. Debate has been over way back.
Another mother hen. What's this? You lobbying for moderator too. This thread has a legitimate right to exist. It's about the clarification that hit & run has no capacity to improve the odds and therefore is only wishful thinking, fallacy, and confirmation bias all rolled up into altruistic hype.
Quote from: albalaha on December 30, 2012, 07:17:40 AM
Guys,
I am no one to stop all these but please think of your standards too. Both of you are merely teasing each other now. Debate has been over way back.
Yes Albalaha you are right. I pledge to leave this alone now. Let the results do the talking.
So no matter how obvious it is, im being ridiculed. Or singled out. I will abstain from becoming involved. The time will arrive where I need to argue no more.
Moderator's Comment
Gizmotron stated: "This thread has a legitimate right to exist."
It does indeed...for as long as commentators play the issues and not have a go at the person posting.
Once or twice it's been a bit borderline.
And just remember -- nobody HAS to post in this thread. And nobody HAS to read this thread.
So those that don't like the debate can simply ignore it.
As to the ones left -- play nicely, folks.
I am not asking to delete the debate but to stop repetitive comments upon each other that looks more like mudslinging than debate. If it looks good and healthy, carry on.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 30, 2012, 07:25:06 AM
John
You can test much faster by pressing F9. You played on BV and you are ok with RNG? I saw 7 gaps 3 times within 5000 spins.
It went also 50000 spins without single loss. :D You never know where you will land.
Matt I believe BV is fair at the level I played. What im not sure of is the formation of patterns. I believe there's a difference there to the physics of a real wheel.
I didn't pull this concept out of thin air, its power was always there. I just didn't see it. I believe it's a virtual limit of TRUE RANDOM. A live wheel. Im putting the time in to test it continuously on 1 million live results. Something I've never done before. That's how much I believe in this. Live on dozens Matt, its so strong. I could go after a SINGLE TRIGGER. And use a 6 step progression 726 units. And never lose or lose rarely with H.A.R
What people don't get about PB is its not the ideal model to prove H.A.R as a superior strategy to CONTINUOUS PLAY. Its odds of 7/1 don't offer an obvious advantage. Although there is still one in my experience. 7 ON 1 however will end the argument for alltime.
Remember I ran into two 7s myself on Columns on BV. Live I have something very special here Matt. It demands the patience of a saint with two triggers, with one its INSTANTLY PLAYABLE.. ITS REWARD. You just all wait for this. It will never ever be forgotten in the history of this game.
Everyone wants to know how you turn a forum into an icon of success. Just wait for this.
Hi JL,
If 7 on 1 is really as strong as you say then "the patience of a saint" is not required.
Just bot it.
Trebor
Gizmotron,
I think you would agree that even by your standards your own play cannot be validated to be effective longterm.
You play in your style, and you have done well for years.
JL plays in his style and he has done well for years.
For people researching roulette you are both great examples of how we can be successful playing a game which is determined to be impossible to prosper from longterm. In this case longterm is several years.
Instead of going back an forth why not see the connection between you two, you are both successful playing with methods which cannot possible win longterm mathematically speaking.
Your comments about HAR are duly noted. But your comments about HAR being pointless to try could just as easily be said about your style of play which has also been duly noted.
All we can do as fellow roulette players is state how we have been performing and this is what I honestly believe everybody on this forum is doing.
To say another is lying etc just doesn't make sense. Sure there are those sort of people but the odds are very very small we will come across them : )
Aaaaaaahhhh...at last -- a Voice of Reason!
Well put, AMK! :thumbsup:
Your comments put this whole debate in the proper perspective.
Hopefully the main protagonists will take note and behave accordingly.
I guess its time I stop attempting to make anything simple. Ralph, When I created a sim for testing all the hot numbers, the telemetry showed me something worth researching. So I'm real glad you are doing this research. I learned about randomness by studying hot numbers and guessing ways to select the hottest numbers as they change. So, thanks to you I've had an original / worthy idea. I've not seen any good ones in years. People are so many years behind that it's easy to get tired of looking. Worst of all, if you tell them that this stage of development will only lead them to a dead end experience that they badly need. Well then the happy police come out of the woodwork. I can only imagine that going through this stage, live on the internet, well it must be embarrassing at points. This thread is about the absurdity that hit & run changes the odds. If you think it does then you are only going through a phase. I'm so glad I don't have to defend these kinds of stages. I was kind of hoping that at least all the moderators were past the beginner level.
AMK -" I think you would agree that even by your standards your own play cannot be validated to be effective longterm."
The only reason for that conclusion is that I have not proved it yet. The only way to do that is to finish the computer program algorithm that will be indisputable proof. Sorry, but it will take others to tell you it actually works. Mathematicians will go completely insane. Nope, all I have to do is just about kill myself writing it. It will likely contain three hundred thousand lines of code. That's perfect code without a single syntax error. So I don't have to do anything but all the heavy lifting. Right now I'm intrigued by the single number concept of adding one unit to your bets on each win, while you are behind. BTW, here is a little secret that you can count on. All configurations of bet combinations and/or groupings all equate to the single number bet. In other words Ralph is already done. He just doesn't know it yet.
Gizmotron: "I was kind of hoping that at least all the moderators were past the beginner level."
One might ask if you practise being offensive, or if it just comes naturally.
Take heed: Keep up this sort of behaviour and you will outstay your welcome.
Quote from: esoito on December 31, 2012, 01:39:49 AM
Gizmotron: "I was kind of hoping that at least all the moderators were past the beginner level."
One might ask if you practise being offensive, or if it just comes naturally.
Take heed: Keep up this sort of behaviour and you will outstay your welcome.
I have some really important work to do. You can try this without me mother. You have been a terrible moderator. Power tripper. You are tripping dude.
At all times I try keep the forum rules in mind when reading posts.
If moderators ignore the rules and moderate without referring to them, then what's the point of having any rules at all?
And how long would the forum last without rules, and without people prepared to donate their time (goodwill and energy) to help run the forum as moderators?
The sensible thing to do is to inform Victor of your opinion.
Then he can decide what to do if he shares it.
Meanwhile, for a cooling-off period, the thread is locked until Bayes returns.
Welcome to the family P.A.
Hope you have a fine stay. Stick around and you'll learn the consensus in the vicinity is there's no better way to play that Marty ;)
Cheers!
While playing Hit and Run never forget that your chances of being hit is greater than hitting a casino. Only hit and run could be to place one bet of whatever you have on any EC bet you prefer, like Ashley Revell did. One single attempt to either double or nothing.
Quote from: PatternAnalys on May 19, 2013, 05:28:05 PM
Go into a casino, divided you BR into 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,516.
Arrived at a table and play bet on RED immediately till u win...DO YOU think the BLACK will show up in the next 10 spins??? 10 BLACK in a row , probability is 1/1024 and less..[pesky 0 factor]. And then u move to another table and repeat the same bet on RED. Will u think 10 BLACK will show up, and then go to 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th,7th,8th,10th.table.& then get out...DO U THINK THE 10 BLACK IN A ROW WILL SHOW UP THAT DAY, WHEN U PLACE THE ONLY GAME BET ON A PARTICULAR TABLE???....Hope u understand what HAR mean by now :nod: ...BTW I think this is the best way to bet 10 steps MARTY....HAR.!!! 10 BLACK in a row will be only encountered when u stay long enough ,or really UNLUCKY!!!
--No many casinos around with 10 tables playing at the same time....as a matter of fact such
casinos don't exist/and believe me I have seen em a lot/not even in Macao.......516 un x 10=
5160 euros.......once it gets you will never recover after that.And that would mean you was
unlucky.
PA, are you Jl?
PA
I am relieved to know you are not Jl. Jl is a good man but he tends to bloviate!!
Personally, I wouldn't "blast" you.
Bayes makes some very good points against HAR. Others do, too. Still, I find the concept intriguing. It "seems" like it should work.
Even if fourteen geniuses line up and tell you something won't work, you can still try it. Just be careful.
I play a system with the ExcelBot which is a double HAR. 6th-sense posted it. It's called "Tetris". You have 19 rows and to lose, one of those 19 must lose 10 in a row. (I think it's 10). So not only must random hit 10 blacks in a row, it must hit them on the same column. One miss and Sam wins!!
I have actually made money with this. Ran it on two computers for days and incurred three losses of 52 Euro. Made far more than I lost. NOW...I could have hit a run of losers and went bankrupt. But I didn't. And that's roulette!!
Good luck, PA
TC
The real problem with Hit & Run (HAR) is when and where U enter the run of things.
For example......
Say something or someone was watching the whole set of results for a given Casino.
Doesn't matter at this stage whether Live/Air/RNG......
But as the results came out, whoever it was (and unbeknownst to you), they charted them in a graph, which looked something like
this one I copied from Turners posts (thanx fellow Northern Brit)......
[attachimg=1]
And, lets just say for arguments sake, U entered your playing phase just when the first lime green circle shows on the graph. (say around spin 30, which is almost 1 complete 37 spin cycle)
U would instantly slid down into a drawdown, and lose money......
Nowthen, lets say U left it for a few spins, say another 30, and decided to 'dip' in again, for another shot, cause U saw the trending results were going your way............
as U can see from the graph, around spin 67, 30 spins on from your first session, is another exact same drawdown.
That is Hit & Run at its worst outcome, as U fell into a foul pit!
Quote from: Chrisbis on May 21, 2013, 03:38:28 PM
(thanx fellow Northern Brit)......
Chris
Your logic in infallible! That is the problem. Sooner or later you will enter the fray at the beginning of the RFH.
Sam
Chris...you are a Northerner.....excellent....where from?
Ill test thee'.....
What does this conversation between two northern blokes mean?...."put wood in'th 'ole.... Am brass monkeys", "aww shut yer trap yer nesh bugger"
- Shut the door
- I am freezing Cold
- Stop moaning about being cold................(usually directed at women! lol)
Do I pass?
I was in Stoke-on-Trent, but now I have relocated to Tamworth near Lichfield. ^-^
Where does "outen the light" come from?
This one maybe?
Sounds South African
parochiauthor=Chrisbis link=topic=556.msg14853#msg14853 date=1369165067]
- Shut the door
- I am freezing Cold
- Stop moaning about being cold................(usually directed at women! lol)
Do I pass?
I was in Stoke-on-Trent, but now I have relocated to Tamworth near Lichfield. ^-^
With flying colours......you are midlands then....(see how parochial us
English are....lol)
Parlay when?
And go deeper into the hole?
The reason is because U don't have any idea how deep the hole will be, nor, know where U started on the decline. :'(
Parlay at the begining of Turners graph would be good, I agree.......but that is called Hindsight!!!! :o
PA
No blasting here! But you are one of the people I have written about for years. You said:
"1]HAR means go in win and get lost"
If that were possible, all would be good and tornadoes would not come. But they do......
Do not, for one minute, think you can sit down and win with consistency. It cannot be done. If it could, casinos would not exist. You may sit down and win fifty times, but the fifty-first will take you straight down and you will loose all your winnings and more.
Hear me now and believe me later............casinos build hotels for people who believe as you do. But, go for it! I can promise you, you will learn the sad truth.
Samster
Quote from: TwoCatSam on May 22, 2013, 01:32:17 PM
Hear me now and believe me later............casinos build hotels for people who believe as you do. But, go for it! I can promise you, you will learn the sad truth.
Samster
PA that's a very old man talking. Trust his wisdom.
Tetris is only a sheet that goes into the bot. No system is posted.
when can you say that a tactic is a hit and run?
after 1win or 2 or 3?
sorry if this is already answered in previous page
XXVV plays professionally.
Study his section carefully -- very revealing, especially regarding hit'n'run.
Hit and run sells John Patrick books, but in reality it doesn't really work. (It's what you sell if you suck at math). If hitting and running enabled you to avoid the "long run" when gambling, then consider the ramifications...
Such players would be like vampires! They could apply their "hit and run" skills to avoid living in the long term as well. Life expectancy rates wouldn't apply to them, as they could continually just sidestep death and watch on the sidelines, or from their secret "hit and run place- where the magic occurs that enables them to win when they return to gamble"- while other people died instead!
(http://lisathatcher.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/nosferatu-the-vampyre.jpg)
hahaha, "Hit & Run Vampire"
Now that's a catchy phrase :D
Less exposure to the wheel the better : Frank Scoblete, John Patrick, and V. Bethell.
Nuff said.
ND
Quote from: NathanDetroit on December 25, 2013, 09:51:59 PM
Less exposure to the wheel the better : Frank Scoblete, John Patrick, and V. Bethell.
ND
There are different ways to look at exposure to the wheel. One is to see that as meaning not sitting through more than a certain set of consecutive numbers, another is not to expose too much BR during a session or cycle.
if I bet for 8 spins and win, then leave....this is the classic H&R model....but if I sit for 37 spins, and by method, only ever have 1 chip on the table due to some trigger, sometimes none, sometimes 2 (no more than 2)..... do I have less exposure to the wheel?
And for the purposes of the above, I use 20u on both methods....and win the same.
QuoteIf I bet for 8 spins and win, then leave....this is the classic H&R model....but if I sit for 37 spins, and by method, only ever have 1 chip on the table due to some trigger, sometimes none, sometimes 2 (no more than 2)..... do I have less exposure to the wheel?
Yes, unless you plan on returning to gamble at a later date. Then, it's as if you'd never left in the first place.
Xander.....because its random...right?
Straw poll....
I ran 1 tables permz from weisbaden, stopping here and there to pick 6 numbers, and finally 7
I had 37 numbers made from groups of 6 with varying gaps in between
24 numbers hit, 9 are repeats, 13 un-hit.
same numbers 37 in a row....from spin 100
23 hit, 9 are repeats, 14 un-hit
QuoteXander.....because its random...right?
Straw poll....
I ran 1 tables permz from weisbaden, stopping here and there to pick 6 numbers, and finally 7
I had 37 numbers made from groups of 6 with varying gaps in between
24 numbers hit, 9 are repeats, 13 un-hit.
same numbers 37 in a row....from spin 100
23 hit, 9 are repeats, 14 un-hit -Turner
Turner,
I'm sure as to what you're trying to say. Can you maybe explain it in a different way?
Xander.....I got Random with 6 disjointed, out of sequence sets of numbers. It complied to Law of the Third.
I had no advantage by missing out chunks between my bets (HAR), HE = 2.6% same as a consecutive 37 numbers. 24 hit, 13 don't.
it's a quick one off. I should do this 100s of times.
My HAR permenance was same as a straight run of 37 (sitting at the table without HAR)
Just a thought experiment. I may be wrong......but this test kinda showed it
The "law of the third" isn't of any value. It won't help anyone win.
hmmm...Im not explaining this very well am I.
With HAR....you bet and leave. You come back and bet, and leave. The numbers you bet on are as random as continuous betting. No difference.
I tried to show that by joining sets of numbers that arnt consecutive, and seeing if they looked like straight consecutive numbers.
they did.
i can't explain any better than this.
Turner,
Out of interest, why did you think it wouldn't be that way? The numbers are random, it doesn't matter where you get them from.
For that reason, there is no such thing as hit and run, it's a nonsense tactic helpless gamblers use because they are afraid of losing. The game doesn't cease at any point to be random.
Hit and run is another fallacy that is related to the fact that there is no expected value on a non-wager. Helpless gamblers think they can avoid variance (or the way they see it: there is a smaller chance of losing) by lowering the amount of time they play. It does not work like that at all. A person can only do hit and run once in their life, when they play for a second time, and then again and again, they are just carrying on from before. Playing 10 spins a day for 100 days is no different from playing 1000 spins at once.
No.6.....I am saying there is no HAR. It makes no difference
Your total permanence is same.
And.....inadvertently, I may just of agreed that SD doesn't grow if you don't bet on it :o
I disagree if you sit to long at any table you will lose .this is why casinos use comps and give you free stuff if your winning a lot of their money ,they know that the longer you play the more you will lose.
A real Pro has always one foot pointed towards the door.
Quote from: Number Six on December 26, 2013, 09:40:53 PM
A person can only do hit and run once in their life, when they play for a second time, and then again and again, they are just carrying on from before.
Agreed, but even then you have to win that one time you play in order to say that hit & run has succeeded.
QuoteHit and run is another fallacy that is related to the fact that there is no expected value on a non-wager.
It's actually more basic than that. Warrior said:
Quoteif you sit too long at any table you will lose .
Many think that this implies that "if you don't sit too long at any table then you won't lose" (and reasoning thus, they are led to the idea of hit & run). But this is a textbook logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)".
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
It doesn't matter what the propositions P and Q actually are, because ANY argument which has this form is invalid. The only conclusion you can draw from "if you sit too long at any table you will lose" is that
"if you don't lose, you haven't been sitting at any table too long"
Hit and run is any different then any other method.
All gamblers have there own personal permanence.
No matter how they play.
If everything is based upon fallacies, then how do we deal with does who win.
They make money out of Gamblers fallacy, how can that be true.
Should we regard all this person as lier at this forum board.
Or just regard them as lucky for a short period of time.
Quote from: Bayes
Agreed, but even then you have to win that one time you play in order to say that hit & run has succeeded.
For sure, that's what I meant, but also by that logic, a person has only one chance to succeed anway, so win or lose, it can still only be attempted once, especially with real money. Then they can never play the game again in any form, even a roulette shots drinking game, without entering a longer personal perm and being at the mercy of luck, which, when you're playing not to drink jagermeister, can have a more "projectile" impact.
Quote from: Bayes
It's actually more basic than that. Warrior said:
Many think that this implies that "if you don't sit too long at any table then you won't lose" (and reasoning thus, they are led to the idea of hit & run). But this is a textbook logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)".
Well, again at the risk of splitting hairs, the statement of sitting at the wheel is not actually accurate is it? Are the subtle differences between definitions really important? They probably are, sometimes they may lead to a eureka moment. The more money you wager, the more likely you are to lose. If I sit at the wheel for four hours and don't place a bet, I have no probability of losing anything.
Quote from: Sputnik
If everything is based upon fallacies, then how do we deal with does who win.
I would tend to agree that a gambler might not know the difference between luck and something else. I mean, it is possible to be lucky for what might seem like a long time. But at what stage does a fallacy stop being a fallacy? Does it stop at all. I would say if you can prove the premise of what you do makes an actual difference, and once it's proved to be effective, there is nothing fallacious about it. For example if there is a conditional situation that offers a better than normal EV, it can't be a fallacy can it? Even if it is based on passed spins.
If you sit to long at any table and don't have enough BR you will lose and if you have enough you will lose.casinos know if you play long enough you will lose .
We can sit here until next year on this and resolve nothing ,unless you have have bet selection that has powers .video poker you might have a chance.
The question is if members lie at this forum board.
1. We have members who claim they can stay ahead.
2. We have members who claim making a living on gambling.
And all that based upon fallacies.
Why did not randomness bite a big hole into there bankroll ?
Or why did not the house edge grind out there bankroll ?
The ? Is are they making a living at it . I have my doubts a very hard way to make easy money.
Well take one member like "flat in one" something ...
He say he did all that in the past, make a living on gambling.
Different methods and progressions.
If he can do it, then others can do it, if its true ...
My 2 cents ...
How long does it take before zero grind out your bankroll.
Seems like forever.
Feels like variance is a bigger animal.
Quote from: Sputnik on December 27, 2013, 02:50:01 PM
How long does it take before zero grind out your bankroll.
Seems like forever.
Feels like variance is a bigger animal.
The HE is but a pimple on the backside of variance......in my opinion.
In the random game of roulette:
Variance is a double edge sword. It's why you can sometimes win during a session. (And why you may lose)
The house edge is why you will always lose in the long run. And it exists on each and every bet made.
Xander,
I disagree. If the house edge doesn't exist you will still lose, assuming that the casino has a much larger bank than you do. That's because it will outlast the losing runs (variance), whereas the player's comparatively puny bank will be lost. Conversely, if the house edge is present, but the variance is reduced enough, then the player can win (although maybe not flat betting). If consecutive losing bets are limited to a few (say between 6 and 8) a standard martingale will do the trick.
I play for a set number of of spins each session and my wins are more then my loses . I'm not there all day like gamblers
and lose everything back that's a waste of time. I do this flat betting and there is a time when to raise a bet to win more money or else big wins are not possible.
Quote from: warrior on December 27, 2013, 02:12:41 PM
If you sit to long at any table and don't have enough BR you will lose and if you have enough you will lose.casinos know if you play long enough you will lose .
Yes but the solution to this problem is not to go home or switch tables after making a limited number of bets (hit & run) but to find a bet selection which reduces the variance. Hit & run, as a strategy, is not a bet selection at all, but just a different way of breaking up your betting in time.
What is "too long" anyway? at precisely what point in your betting does the house edge or variance begin to bite? The house edge is present on every spin, and if you don't have a decent bet selection the variance could get you at any time, maybe from the very first bet.
QuoteI disagree. If the house edge doesn't exist you will still lose, assuming that the casino has a much larger bank than you do. That's because it will outlast the losing runs (variance), whereas the player's comparatively puny bank will be lost. Conversely, if the house edge is present, but the variance is reduced enough, then the player can win (although maybe not flat betting). If consecutive losing bets are limited to a few (say between 6 and 8) a standard martingale will do the trick.-Bayes
I didn't bring up a game with no house edge. . You are for the most part, correct, but not entirely. Because the casino has the most money, they could withstand the most variance in a very long game, so they would
likely be the winner. However, the player could still experience a large enough variance to bankrupt the casino! (In a game that would reach outward towards infinity).
-Xander
Quote from: Bayes on December 27, 2013, 09:50:44 PM
Yes but the solution to this problem is not to go home or switch tables after making a limited number of bets (hit & run) but to find a bet selection which reduces the variance. Hit & run, as a strategy, is not a bet selection at all, but just a different way of breaking up your betting in time.
What is "too long" anyway? at precisely what point in your betting does the house edge or variance begin to bite? The house edge is present on every spin, and if you don't have a decent bet selection the variance could get you at any time, maybe from the very first bet.
I agree but if you look at mit blackjack Players once the decks are cold they move on and I'm not saying roulette is the same but you need to know when to leave .Bet selection is every thing and I keep saying this you need to play close to 50 /50 that's the best your going to do in this game .Runs and changes happen all day long ,my bet selection wins out of 40 ,39 times.I think that's pretty good on a so called random game.
Quote from: Bayes
What is "too long" anyway? at precisely what point in your betting does the house edge or variance begin to bite?
Most people tend to resort to the "experience or instinct" card that supposedly tells them when to stop. Why not just quantify it into a number that actually means something, and to yourself can actually tell you that, yes, now is the best time to stop? Surely we can all agree that players stop because they feel they are losing, or they feel it is not possible to hit their target.
If you play online, it is easy to track the risk of ruin bet by bet as long as you are also tracking the standard deviation - and I mean the SD of your placed wagers ;) At some point the risk of ruin is bound to tell you it is pointless carrying on. Or similarly if it seems that that session is becoming difficult, the risk of ruin might tell you there is still an acceptable chance of getting where you want to be.
Any game can be defined in one of two ways: the player is trying to survive until he gets lucky, or the player is actually trying to hit a goal based on degrees of confidence. Whether either of those things can be achieved can be calculated in the risk, according to bankroll, base bet and/or progression, and win goal. Where the aim is to survive, the win goal can be removed and replaced with a timeframe, i.e. you'll play for two hours. The risk of ruin can still tell you the probability of hitting that beloved lucky streak in that exact time.
Quote from: Xander
However, the player could still experience a large enough variance to bankrupt the casino!
It's not beyond the realms of possibility to believe this has actually happened with rogue online casinos, which then simply refuse the payout because they can't actually afford it. Most of their maths is probably based on long term models, which factor in the house edge on the games and leads them to believe they can't lose. What they probably don't account for is extreme good luck in the short term, which leads to colossal volatility on the player's bank.
I do think it's a good test, to test personal permanence
I picked 3 tables at a casino, picked 4 simultaneous numbers from table 1, then table 2, then table 3
This makes 12....then repeated (one being 5) moving down the list each time.
It kinda simulates moving from table to table and coming back to other tables.
The resulting 37 spins has 21 hit, 7 repeats and 16 un hit.
perfectly normal result from 37 random numbers.
Its not like there are less repeats, or more, or more distributed numbers, or less distributed.
I can't see any advantage in these mish mash numbers, compared to 37 straight on 1 table.
Just a thought
Quote from: Turner on December 28, 2013, 12:18:11 PM
perfectly normal result from 37 random numbers.
Its not like there are less repeats, or more, or more distributed numbers, or less distributed.
I can't see any advantage in these mish mash numbers, compared to 37 straight on 1 table.
Just a thought
Bang on Turner. Everything is random and random has its own rules. So whether you pick up 1 number from 37 tables, 37 spins from one table continuously or randomly, any kind of mix and match you do, I have tested and seem to adher to this rules. Once Winkel mentioned that you pick up one number random from multiple tables, or playing only certain amount of spins and continuing from where you left, GUT will work. This is a clear consideration of personal permanence. So essentially there is no mathematical advantage whether you play continously or virtual plays which is a superset form of hit and run.
However, the advantage is more psychological. Superman has exhibited nicely how to do this. He mentions that the longer he plays, he gets tired and loses his mind in his intuitive play. So he tries to keep his sessions, progressions shorter so that he approaches every session with a fresh mind. I surely think this is an advantage of any form of hit&run. There are merits.
HAR is a viable strategy, not because it's going to make a difference in randomness, law of averages, or intuitive betting. I would love to sit a one casino for hours on end. The problem lies in the attention that I would draw by making a large sum of money.
HAR, therefore, is an effective way to make a decent amount per session per casino, rather than a large amount at one casino.
HAR by definition is absurd.
Kimo Li
Do you guys ever think how much concentration goes into gambling. Dealers take a break every 30 mins. It's taxing on the brain so players go through the same so hit and run is realistic way to play not because it changes random or there is an advantage it makes sense.to take a break.
Quote from: warrior on December 30, 2013, 05:42:20 PM
Do you guys ever think how much concentration goes into gambling. Dealers take a break every 30 mins. It's taxing on the brain so players go through the same so hit and run is realistic way to play not because it changes random or there is an advantage it makes sense.to take a break.
Well said that is one of the main reasons I like to play Baccarat, each session takes about 45 minutes so you have a natural break between shoes.
But when playing Roulette I have sometimes been at the table for well over 4 hours which is very taxing and makes you prone to making mistakes.
Quote from: Kimo Li on December 30, 2013, 05:01:02 PM
HAR is a viable strategy, not because it's going to make a difference in randomness, law of averages, or intuitive betting. I would love to sit a one casino for hours on end. The problem lies in the attention that I would draw by making a large sum of money.
HAR, therefore, is an effective way to make a decent amount per session per casino, rather than a large amount at one casino.
HAR by definition is absurd.
Kimo Li
Nice input ...
QuoteThe problem lies in the attention that I would draw by making a large sum of money.-Kimo Li
Don't worry, I don't believe that will be a problem if you're playing the Global Pie.
heres the rub though.....with personal permanence.
I sit at table 1. I look at the marque and see 4 repeats. lets say they are 2,10,17,33
I play them for a several spins, and 2 hits, since then 13 has repeated. Everyone will agree this way of betting has some merit.
I stand up and walk over to table 2 with my personal permanence......and bet 2,10,17,33 and 13.
Does this make sense?......
well if they are all cold, on table 2....it doesn't...and if it does make sense, what's the point of playing a system of any kind.
QuoteEveryone will agree this way of betting has some merit.-Turner
Please explain what you mean and why.
Quote from: Turner on December 30, 2013, 10:33:19 PM
I stand up and walk over to table 2 with my personal permanence......and bet 2,10,17,33 and 13.
Does this make sense?......
well if they are all cold, on table 2....it doesn't...and if it does make sense, what's the point of playing a system of any kind.
Turner, again bang on. You are indeed trying to checkmate with every post. To understand this, I will have to go back a couple of posts.
If you remember the post name was "There is no truth, only perception". You have quoted a valid example of it.
ran·dom/ˈræn(http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png)dəm/ [ran-duh(http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png)(http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png)m] adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason), or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) each item of a set (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/set) has an equal probability of being chosen.
Imagine a scenario where there are no biased tables, no cheating dealers and machines. Everything is random. In this scenario, every spin you get from a single table is random. Everything you get if you combine spins from multiple tables is random. Are these two randoms different? No, they are just
RANDOM.
With that in mind, the truth is you are just combining a random sequence of numbers. Perception is there are hot and cold numbers on a table. Truth is no, there doesn't exist hot and cold for a table, it is only for the random sequence that you observe/play. There goes the answer to your first question.
Coming to your second question "Does any of the betselection then makes sense".
All the statistical concepts including regression to the mean, law of third etc comply with two things:
1. They apply to a random set of outcomes. These concepts do not know how your outcomes have been put together. As long as there is no external factor influencing these outcomes (like a biased wheel), they don't distinguish on how you got those outcomes.
2. They are not certain. You know 1+1 will always be 2. But these concepts are not certain. Take an example of RTM. The theory just suggests that in a set of two samples the likelihood of second set of sample showing extreme results is less if the first sample set showed extreme results. No one is saying it is certain.
So yes, playing the system of any kind complying to these statistical concepts definitely makes sense. Its just that your personal permanence is the actual probability of outcomes and that is what the bet selections should be based on and not on "let it pass" kind of plays.
See this example video. Two parts to the session. One playing continuous spins. One playing a new session with newly generated keys and numbers in BV everytime you get a repeat in your personal permanence. Bet selection is repeats of 2 moving to repeats of 3.
Its all the same. So on a lighter note, don't worry if your better half wants you to leave the table as its boring, don't worry if BV cuts you off. Continue from where you left, on a fresh day, fresh table. Your personal permanence is omnipresent.
:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K0ZSYZ27kA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K0ZSYZ27kA)
Quote from: Xander on December 30, 2013, 11:38:39 PM
Please explain what you mean and why.
I did carefully say...some merit.
I used the method of betting on repeats so most quickly get what i am doing and why and you can quickly take numbers to the next table. It was so hopefully....no one would get fixated with what I was actually doing..and talk about the point I was discussing
Ok..I sit at table 1 until I see 3SD for red...then I go to table 2 and play for red to regress to the mean. Its my personal permanence.
Thanks pockets.
Me and the wife went to the casino last night. I took £30.
I played an idea on table 1 . I won once which put me £5 up.....then changed to table 2.
I started fresh tracking but carried on monitoring my old numbers...which duely hit.
I like something new hitting me in the face
Best thread in a long while :)
Quote from: Turner on December 25, 2013, 10:22:41 PM
There are different ways to look at exposure to the wheel. Another is not to expose too much BR during a session or cycle.
Turner I really like this what you have said.
By waiting for a strong deviation from my point of view we just want to reduce length of a losing streaks, nothing more nothing less. As deviation is becoming higher and higher, losing streaks will be shorter.
But we must study the game enough to understand the "limits" and how bad something can get.
For example we start after we see 10 reds in a row. Ok we know that we can get much worse then that. So we start slowly but carefully with our staking, being prepared to handle the worst if it strikes. We are not intersted in some big profits, only 1 or 2 units per trigger is enough, but it is important that we still don't need to bet big sums even if we face tornado, and that we don't need to bet big to recover those losses.
So as RTM says as deviation over some sequence is stronger, RTM will be stronger in next sequence.
Lets say we started after 10 in a row and we lost next 9. That would be first stage of staking. If W/L in those 9 spins are around 50:50 we will made at least 1 unit and as we HIT we RUN!
But suppose we got 9 losses in a row after initial 10 and now we have 19 losses in a row. That can cost as 20 units. If betting 0.1 we would be 2 € in down. But now we are at -4.24 std and know that losing sequence will become shorter from now on by RTM definiton. So we want to use that.
Ok can we now "buy" those losses for 1 unit? So only 1 unit plus from now on will break even for our all previous losses? Sounds fair. And we know that from now on we won't have so long losing streaks and we start to bet 2€. If we hit on first we break even and immedietaly can lower our stakes to the first stage. If next after that is won we earned +1 and as we HIT we RUN.
But let say we face very nasty deviation and even after that we got 6 losses in a row which would brings us to incredible 25 losses in a row. That would bring us to DD of -20 units in 2nd stage and total DD of 220 units with -4.87 std (it isn't too much concerning that we know that from now on losing streaks will be even shorter and that we are on far end of the worst what can hit us, so some wins will come and we are certian that nasty losing sequences like those before can't happen in next sample) So again we can buy that DD for only one 1 unit. And if that 1 unit is earned in next few spins we break even in total and lower our stakes to the first or second level again....
Of course we don't have to take 1 unit to recover all previous level losses. We can take like 2-3 and bet even less but of course need to earn 2-3 units to break even for that level...
Now it is everyone to his own how much he feels comfortable to bet at which stage in exchange to recoup how many losses before that...
RTM works, if you know how to deal with it :love:
Happy new year!!
Drazen
Please can someone show me in easy terms, how to work out STD?
Quote from: Drazen on December 31, 2013, 11:56:11 AM
now we have 19 losses in a row. That can cost as 20 units.
Thanks Drazen. Are you able to explain this bit? Yes, am asking for the progression you use :), which you may chose not to reveal.
Quote from: Blood Angel on December 31, 2013, 12:36:24 PM
Please can someone show me in easy terms, how to work out STD?
Is that what you are looking for Bloodangel?
http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=1093.0 (http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=1093.0)
BA....
Bayes did a whole post in CC roulette
But, if you have RX......show statistics, say even money, show summary, and press help.
Help actually explains what all the calculations are...mean, SD ETC.
I learned from Bayes and RX help.
I learned some SD's by heart. So, 14 reds and 2 black is SD3 etc.
(I prefer to remember positions.....yes Chess again!)
Quote from: Turner on December 31, 2013, 10:39:12 AM
I like something new hitting me in the face
Whether it is your passion wiht streaks and toggles when you started out or with the pivot ideas that followed or your addiction to math and straight bets that followed it. Then a complete change of perspective to catch the fish with a net or innovative ideas on quads and lines as ECs that followed, just a jist of those new things that have hit you always in the face and your passion to take that all in had made reading your posts very interesting for me. I might have read close to 500-600 of your old posts Turner. Good reading and great ideas for me.
So, keep goin in 2014, may this year bring you lots of more innovative pursuits in the fascinating game of roulette.
Pockets....I blush before you :-[
(I wasn't aware that I had posted anything of interest)
Quote from: Pockets on December 31, 2013, 12:50:29 PM
Thanks Drazen. Are you able to explain this bit?
Ok just a bit :)
It originates from martingale. In highest concentration it is a pure venom, but in smaller it is a medicine ;)
Cheers
Thanks for your answers guys. I knew there was a large piece by Bayes somewhere but I did a search on this forum. Doh!
QuoteI see 3SD for red...then I go to table 2 and play for red to regress to the mean. Its my personal permanence.- Turner
QuoteFor example we start after we see 10 reds in a row. Ok we know that we can get much worse then that. So we start slowly but carefully with our staking, being prepared to handle the worst if it strikes. We are not intersted in some big profits, only 1 or 2 units per trigger is enough, but it is important that we still don't need to bet big sums even if we face tornado, and that we don't need to bet big to recover those losses.
-Drazen
Calculating the standard deviation so you know when it's due? Triggers? Seriously?
Guys, this is straight up gambler's fallacy. It doesn't work.
There is no expectation that a current offset from expectation will ever even out. If you currently have 10 more reds than black, then your future expectation is that you will be 10 reds over EV forever. Your expectation from this point forward is always just the mean no matter what already happened. The future random walk is about the point where you are now, not about zero.
Read more below, and study the link. It's important that you understand this stuff before you waste anymore time and lose your entire bankroll. There are several more articles, just like the one below on gambler's fallacy.
Exposing the Gambler's FallacyYou're playing roulette, and red has just come up eight times in a row! Is black more likely on the next spin? No, it is not. Both red and black are equally likely. If you thought otherwise then the casinos love you, and you need to read this article right now.http://vegasclick.com/gambling/fallacy.html
Xander I don't want to argue with you as obviously you don't understand what I am talking about at the first place.
No one here talks that if 9 reds come out win is due on the next spin. You can't compare sequence of 9 bets and only one after that. That doesn't makes any sense.
There is no expectation that a current offset from expectation will ever even out.
True. It doesn't have to even out for many many spins after some point but, decisions must start going out more evened as deviation is more severe. That is not the same what you are talking about.
Drazen
NO! That's where you're quite wrong.
A common gamblers' fallacy called "the doctrine of the maturity of the chances" (or "Monte Carlo fallacy") falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities. A number of "systems" have been invented by gamblers based largely on this fallacy; casino operators are happy to encourage the use of such systems and to exploit any gambler's neglect of the strict rules of probability and independent plays. — Encyclopedia Britannica (look under "gambling") -Source Wizard of Odds
-----------------
The topic doctrine of the maturity of the chances is discussed in the following articles:
...be used in interpreting the phrase on average, which applies most accurately to a large number of cases and is not useful in individual instances. A common gamblers' fallacy, called the doctrine of the maturity of the chances (or the Monte-Carlo fallacy), falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is dependent on the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be... -Source below
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/369846/doctrine-of-the-maturity-of-the-chances
-----------------
The Gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy (because its most famous example happened in a Monte Carlo casino in 1913)[1] or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[2] Such an expectation could be mistakenly referred to as being due. This is an informal fallacy. It is also known colloquially as the law of averages. -Source below
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Gambler_s_fallacy.html
Watching for "triggers", and "calculating the deviation from the norm" on the outside ECs is a complete and utter waste of time. Don't get sucked into the fallacy. It's a dead end.
Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 03:04:17 PM
A common gamblers' fallacy called "the doctrine of the maturity of the chances" (or "Monte Carlo fallacy") falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities.
I am not talking about balanicng, but starting to go more balanced... Can you understand the difference?
I understand that you think that there's a difference, but you're still falling prey to the "the doctrine of the maturity of the chances" (or "Monte Carlo fallacy") There are tons of articles going into great detail on it. If you read some of the articles, you'll likely feel like they're talking specifically about you. Don't feel bad though, people have been falling into that trap since the beginning of the game. People have been wasting time calculating the std of red/black imbalances since the game was invented. There's nothing new or novel about it.
Gambler fallacy description
Imagine a person who tries to predict the outcome of the game in the long-run online casino betting. The player is sure that this departure may be easily corrected in a short term games. This is the gambler's fallacy of the plays. Let's analyze the formula:
•Something has occurred.
•Something diverges from what is waited to happen on average (or on the long term). An imbalance.
•Thus, something will be finished soon.
-Xander
No you don't.
In statistics, regression toward (or to) the mean is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement... And as more extreme measurement is, stronger RTM effect is.
Pay attention to the bolded word. It means measures have to be the same, right? So it is not that ONE (next) spin of yours which you are talking about. That is fallacy, I agree, but we are not talking about probability only for the very next spin here.
Offset, right?
Khm...
After 10 reds in a row RTM says that next ten spins have better chance to be closer to the average (then without it), which means 5 hits for each EC as we are dealing with 50:50 situation (mind HE for a moment)...
Let say that happened. And after initial 10 reds in a row, our offset is negative, -10. We have 10 more reds then black. In the next 10 spins we got 5 reds and 5 blacks. So in total now we have 15 reds and 5 blacks.
Is offset the same? :cheer:
RATIOS will tend to balance, but not absolute numbers, which will "stretch" as you get more results.
Drazen
QuoteSo it is not that ONE (next) spin of yours which you are talking about.-Drazen
Quite wrong. You need to read on the
Monte Carlo Fallacy.
" is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future."
Notice how it's not just talking about the next trial, or the next spin of the wheel. It says, "in the future".
There is no expectation that a current offset from expectation will ever even out. If you currently have 10 more reds than black, then your future expectation is that you will be 10 reds over EV forever. Your expectation from this point forward is always just the mean no matter what already happened. The future random walk is about the point where you are now, not about zero.
having your head in the sand isn't the best way to welcome new year...
I wish you all the best, and even more to understand what I am talking about.
Best of all
Drazen
"In the 17th century mathematician Jacob Bernoulli created the Law of Large Numbers, and asserted that even the stupidest man understands that the larger the sample, the more likely it is to represent the true probability of the observed event. For betting, this is known as the Gambler's Fallacy, and can be a very costly misconception.
The Law of Large Numbers
Using a fair coin toss as an example (where the chance of hitting heads and tails has an equal 50% chance), Bernoulli calculated that as the number of coin tosses gets larger, the percentage of heads or tails results gets closer to 50%, while the difference between the actual number of heads or tails thrown also gets larger.
As the number of tosses get larger the distribution of heads or tails evens out to 50%It's the second part of Bernoulli's theorem that people have a problem understanding – which has led to it being coined the "Gambler's Fallacy". If you tell someone that a coin has been flipped nine times, landing on heads each time, their prediction for the next flip tends to be tails.
This is incorrect, however, as a coin has no memory, so each time it is tossed the probability of heads or tails is the same: 0.5 (a 50% chance).
Bernoulli's discovery showed that as a sample of fair coin-tosses gets really big – e.g. a million – the distribution of heads or tails would even out to around 50%. Because the sample is so large, however, the expected deviation from an equal 50/50 split can be as large as 500.
This equation for calculating the statistical standard deviation gives us an idea what we should expect:
0.5 × √ (1,000,000) = 500
While the expected deviation is observable for this many tosses, the nine-toss example mentioned earlier isn't a large enough sample for this to apply.
Therefore the nine tosses are like an extract from the million-toss sequence – the sample is too small to even-out like Bernoulli suggests will happen over a sample of a million tosses, and instead can form a sequence by pure chance.
Applying Distribution
There are some clear applications for expected deviation in relation to betting. The most obvious application is for casino games like Roulette, where a misplaced belief that sequences of red or black or odd or even will even out during a single session of play can leave you out of pocket. That's why the Gambler's Fallacy is also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy.
In 1913, a roulette table in a Monte Carlo casino saw black come up 26 times in a row. After the 15th black, bettors were piling onto red, assuming the chances of yet another black number were becoming astronomical, thereby illustrating an irrational belief that one spin somehow influences the next.
Another example could be a slot machine, which is in effect a random number generator with a set RTP (Return to Player). You can often witness players who have pumped considerable sums into a machine without success embargoing other players from their machine, convinced that a big win must logically follow their losing run.
Of course, for this tactic to be viable, the bettor would have to have played an impractically large number of times to reach the RTP.
With an understanding of the Law of Large Numbers, and the law (or flaw) of averages consigned to the rubbish bin, you won't be one of Bernouilli's 'stupid men'." -Source http://www.pinnaclesports.com/online-betting-articles/10-2012/law-of-large-numbers-gamblers-fallacy.aspx
Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 03:42:51 PM
Quite wrong. You need to read on the Monte Carlo Fallacy. " is the belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future."
Notice how it's not just talking about the next trial, or the next spin of the wheel. It says, "in the future".
Xander, no-one is saying that there will opposite deviations in the future. You've totally missed the point.
The point is to eliminate long strings of losses, not to overturn the house edge. For this to be a fallacy, you need to summon up your mathematical dogma that there is no limit to losses. i.e., that waiting for 10 losses is pointless because this will be offset by the chance that another 10 losses will somehow be added to the future outcomes, so that no matter how many losses you wait for, there is an infinite "horizon" of further losses waiting for you. Simple common sense will tell you that this is absurd, and indeed, it makes a nonsense of all hypothesis testing, which is a major part of statistics.
If I wanted to statistically test a wheel for bias, I would have to rely on standard deviations, but by your "infinite horizon of losses" theory, these would be meaningless and couldn't tell you one way or the other whether the wheel was biased.
Happy New Year!
QuoteXander, no-one is saying that there will opposite deviations in the future. You've totally missed the point.-Bayes
No, I don't believe that I have. ;)
Quoteso that no matter how many losses you wait for, there is an infinite "horizon" of further losses waiting for you. Simple common sense will tell you that this is absurd, and indeed, it makes a nonsense of all hypothesis testing, which is a major part of statistics.-Bayes
Well, at least we agree on that part. ;)
Quote from: Drazen on December 31, 2013, 03:41:42 PM
After 10 reds in a row RTM says that next ten spins have better chance to be closer to the average (then without it), which means 5 hits for each EC as we are dealing with 50:50 situation (mind HE for a moment)...
Drazen, that's not quite right. It's not that the next 10 spins have a better chance to be closer to the average (than without it). That actually IS the gambler's fallacy.
The average in 10 spins is ALWAYS the same, no matter what has gone before (independent trials, remember?)
The point is that if you go into a game "cold" (i.e., without the 3 SD+ trigger) the chance of you encountering a severe run of losses is higher. With the 3 SD trigger, you have already "used up" as it were, 3 SD's "worth" of losses. The only way you can deny this is if you insist that losses can be infinite, which is a purely mathematical assertion.
QuoteThe point is to eliminate long strings of losses, not to overturn the house edge.-Bayes
I hope I haven't misinterpreted what you've just written above. Try as you might, you can't eliminate long strings of losses. And if you can't overturn the house edge, then why play?
QuoteWith the 3 SD trigger, you have already "used up" as it were, 3 SD's "worth" of losses.-Bayes
After having observed a 3 sd loss, you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 4 sd loss. This is, again, a form of the Monte Carlo Fallacy.
Again, I hope I haven't misinterpreted what you've just written above.
Happy New Year! :upsidedown: :) :upsidedown: :)
-Xander
Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 05:22:32 PM
After having observed a 3 sd loss, you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 4 sd loss. This is, again, a form of the Monte Carlo Fallacy.
-Xander
And having observed a 4 sd loss you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 5 sd loss.
And having observed a 5 sd loss you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 6 sd loss.And having observed a 6 sd loss you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 7 sd loss.And having observed a 7 sd loss you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 8 sd loss.And having observed a 8 sd loss you have no way of knowing if you're on your way to a 9 sd loss.etc, etc. and so it goes....But, I've never observed much over a 5 sd loss. So effectively, the most severe loss I can expect is around 2 sd.The theory isn't borne out by my experience; what's a guy to do? ???
Randomness sucks, doesn't it? :thumbsup:
Bayes, let's talk on Skype sometime.
Happy New Year! :upsidedown: :) :upsidedown: :)
Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 06:21:51 PMRandomness sucks, doesn't it? :thumbsup: Bayes, let's talk on Skype sometime. Happy New Year! :upsidedown: :) :upsidedown: :)
Xander....probably best you talk on skype
You wouldn't want to be seen fraternizing with Bernouilli's stupid men, would you :thumbsup:
Turner,
I have question. Why would you track at one table, and then expect those results to carry over to another table?
(I believe that I read that you did something like that in an earlier part of the thread. Or were you just using it as an example?)
Quote from: Xander on December 31, 2013, 10:56:10 PM
Turner,
I have question. Why would you track at one table, and then expect those results to carry over to another table?
Xander....
I have no beliefs in that theory. I have to see it for myself, or its just a good read.
Either I explain things badly, or you arnt so interested in what I say and read between the lines.
I hear "personal permanence" bandied about...so i investigate.
I would never say never. I would never say....no it isn't.
I am trying, by experiment, to find out what people mean by PP.
To answer your question, If PP exists, then I should be able to have an idea at one table, and walk to another and continue my PP.
Like i said, I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I just try to get to the bottom of things myself, and not just jump on a bandwagon purely by reading it.
I read a lot of books on Quantum Theory and Astrophysics. You have to forget what seems real or unreal in the real world to understand. You have to relax and accept the proposal as a proposal.
that's what I am doing here. Seeing it for my self.
if you like, "Man didn't land on the Moon" is classic. One argument for "Man didn't land on the moon" is the Van Allen belt would of killed the Astronauts.
Did these conspiracy theorists actually discover the Van Allen belt by experimental proof? No.
They just read it, like people who believe we did land on the Moon read that.
In many ways, man did land on the Moon, and didn't. Its just about opinion.
Quoteif you like, "Man didn't land on the Moon" is classic. One argument for "Man didn't land on the moon" is the Van Allen belt would of killed the Astronauts.-Turner
In short, the astronauts weren't in the belt long enough to suffer harm. The scientists knew that they could make it through.
"The van Allen belt is a region of energetic charged particles trapped by Earth's magnetic field. Partcile radiation is best shielded by light metals, plastic, and water, all abundant in the Apollo spacecraft. Additionally, they were sent out on a trajectory that avoided the most dangerous areas of the belts and carried them through the unavoidable regions in less than two hours, not long enough to receive anything close to a dangerous radiation does in that environment. Dr James van Allen himself specifically denies that they pose any barrier to manned space flight." -Jason T.
I don't really understand why you talked about our trips to the moon. But we most certainly did go.
QuoteLike i said, I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I just try to get to the bottom of things myself, and not just jump on a bandwagon purely by reading it. -Turner
Turner,
When it comes to most of these roulette systems, you should already be able to look at them and instantly determine whether they're mathematically sound. If you read on the history of the game a bit more, you'll find that several people have already been down the same road and have already made all of the same mistakes that many of the people on this board have made. It's best to learn from the mistakes of others, since you won't live long enough to make them all yourself. ;)
-Xander
If PP exists, then I should be able to have an idea at one table, and walk to another and continue my PP.
........very interesting!
Xander....
This is my point about your approach. You assume I haven't read the history of roulette. I may of done. How would you know.
You think you know because it appears to you that I don't share your view that you fomulated from it.
The moon was an anallogy for opinion.
The point was this.
I believe man landed on the moon. that's BELIEVE. Only 12 men actually know if we did.
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 01, 2014, 06:22:36 AM
If PP exists, then I should be able to have an idea at one table, and walk to another and continue my PP.
........very interesting!
Hello Sam,
consider this.....
[attachimg=1]
Let's take the first 37 consecutive numbers.
19
15
5
5
26
29
26
27
30
31
11
20
16
27
35
2
17
25
20
14
35
4
31
23
14
3
0
12
28
35
29
36
34
36
12
23
34
There are 25/37 original numbers in that lot.
Now let's start at the top and skip a spin every time.....
19
5
26
26
30
11
16
35
17
20
35
31
14
0
28
29
34
12
34
3
36
8
36
19
26
10
3
8
6
24
28
5
21
35
15
34
14
There are 24/37 original numbers in that lot.
Now suppose you were sitting at the bar in a casino enjoying a rum and coke and I came up and showed you the two cards from above.
Would you be able to tell me which card was showing consecutive spins and which card was showing every second spin?
Of course not!!
You can take every second spin, every fifth spin....it makes no difference.
How can it help?
It allows you to play several strategies at the same time and not to be under pressure by the dealer spinning so fast that you end up making costly mistakes.
cheers
Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 01, 2014, 06:22:36 AM
If PP exists, then I should be able to have an idea at one table, and walk to another and continue my PP.
........very interesting!
You are right there Sam. This is based on my observations for over a month. The funny thing is my observations started from one of your beliefs that past spins influence future ones like voodoo. And also on your question on two eyes on the marquee. After seeing those comments I wanted to see that happening myself. And yes it is voodoo. It happens. But at the Same time realized it is not the spins on the table, but it is the spins that you observe or take into consideration.
I found it working even if I randomly pick up some 20 spins from random.org and go to a casino and start playing my betselection based on the 20 numbers right from the first spin when I reach the casino. One of those things that has completely changed my perspective and I should thank you for igniting this thought process. Random is really very confusing.
Quote from: Pockets on January 01, 2014, 02:14:32 PM
You are right there Sam. This is based on my observations for over a month. The funny thing is my observations started from one of your beliefs that past spins influence future ones like voodoo. And also on your question on two eyes on the marquee. After seeing those comments I wanted to see that happening myself. And yes it is voodoo. It happens. But at the Same time realized it is not the spins on the table, but it is the spins that you observe or take into consideration.
I found it working even if I randomly pick up some 20 spins from random.org and go to a casino and start playing my betselection based on the 20 numbers right from the first spin when I reach the casino. One of those things that has completely changed my perspective and I should thank you for igniting this thought process. Random is really very confusing.
See....this is where Im not sure about no.6 view that PP doest exist until you bet on it. I played with this....and I can discuss my findings in detail....but conclude that you can't make a bet based on anything...because there isn't anything yet as you haven't placed a bet. You would have to min.bet a random number while you built up a PP.
No.6 may be right....but it's a death knell for any initial idea as you sit at the table
Regarding Turner's "personal permanence" and a little different view:
Playing the game changes the game.
Contrary to what many people believe, the numbers that hit are not predetermined and laid out to infinity. This means that if you're away from the table when your number hits, that the same number may not have hit had you stayed and played.
Here's why:
Had to you stayed and played, the dealer would have had to wait for you to place your bet. This means that the rotor may have slowed down a little bit more than it would have - had you remained away from the wheel. It could be that the dealer sped the wheel up in order to accommodate the extra time that he felt was needed for all of the players to place bets. Regardless, there are several different things that can affect the outcome of the game. Your very presence at the table just happens to be one of them.
The same thing applies to when you forget to bet one of your numbers. Had you remembered to place a bet on the missed number, then the outcome could have been different, based on the reasons described above, and many other factors. Even if you're watching the game, you're still having a possible effect on the outcome of the game.
In short, observing, and playing the game, changes the outcome of the game. So get up and hit the restroom when you've got to go. Take a dinner break if you're hungry. And lastly, don't fret if you forgot to bet one of your numbers.
-Xander
Quote from: Xander on January 01, 2014, 06:35:25 PM
Regarding Turner's "personal permanence" and a little different view.............................
...............Contrary to what many people believe, the numbers that hit are not predetermined and laid out to infinity. This means that if you're away from the table when your number hits, that the same number may not have hit had you stayed and played. -Xander
perfectly acceptable thought
"Even if you're watching the game, you're still having a possible effect on the outcome of the game.", said -Xander. (Sam's red)
-Xander
How do you calculate this? What if you were watching on the internet as I do at Dublin? Do I effect the spun number? What if I'm in the casino and am fifty feet from the dealer and she does not know I'm watching? Do I effect the game.
What if I'm trying to run my hand up her skirt? What would the effect of that be?
Sam
-Xander
QuoteHow do you calculate this?-Twocat
We measure and calculate the "wavefunction collapse" using a new theoretical framework, called quantum decoherence. Decoherence correctly predicts the form and probability distribution of the final eigenstates, and explains the apparent randomness of the choice of final state in terms of einselection.j Duh! ;)
QuoteWhat if you were watching on the internet as I do at Dublin? Do I effect the spun number? -Twocat
No.
QuoteWhat if I'm in the casino and am fifty feet from the dealer and she does not know I'm watching? Do I effect the game.-Twocat
No, doubt it. But if people at the table see you, then they could be distracted by your presence. If you distract them, then they may take longer to bet. If they take longer to bet, then the wheel will slow down more than it would have. This means that a different number may be below the ball when it drops. Or, the dealer may have to speed the wheel up to account for the slow bettors, again causing a different number to possibly be below the ball when it drops.
QuoteWhat if I'm trying to run my hand up her skirt? What would the effect of that be?-Twocat
Disillusionment, bewilderment, and despair. As you would likely be beaten, banned, then arrested, prosecuted, and jailed. However, I think the answer that you're looking for is that the number 6 would hit.
-Xander
Quote from: Xander on January 01, 2014, 09:14:22 PM
-Xander
We measure and calculate the "wavefunction collapse" using a new theoretical framework, called quantum decoherence. Decoherence correctly predicts the form and probability distribution of the final eigenstates, and explains the apparent randomness of the choice of final state in terms of einselection.j Duh! ;)
he means just puts little clocks all over the place.....he's possibly just showing off ;)
OK, I got it!! Thanks....
Turner,
I'm not sure where you're falling down with the concepts. It appears you have proved to yourself the possible existence of a personal perm by collecting numbers from different sources and noting that they are, in fact, totally random and do not produce unusual results. Which means yes, you could "track" a system on one wheel and then begin placing bets on an other wheel with the exact same probability of winning whatever events you are betting on. Because, such a method is gambler's fallacy. In that case, you are simply betting from square one, where the probability of winning an even chance is .486. Any system that involves accounting for past "virtual" results is fallacious.
But even if you had already begun betting on the first wheel, you can simply switch to another wheel for no reason at all. It makes no difference where the outcomes are random, you take your PP with you, including any and all probabilities and deviation.
It seems there is a misunderstanding or confusion of how it all applies to an individual. It has nothing to do with spins you just observe i.e. virtual play: it is about your bets. Your wagers make up your personal random stream, and any subsequent deviation is also calculated from your real bets (or it should be; accounting for deviation of virtual results is erroneous and hugely increases the risk of ruin) . If there is no bet, even if you are "tracking" it, it is not part of anything to do with you personally.
If the personal perm does not apply only to your wagers, it cannot be defined in any terms, it would be too expansive and therefore could be dismissed as nonsense. What if you walk past a wheel and accidently note that the outcome was black. Is that included in your PP? No, it would become impossible to keep track of everything you see.
And the PP doesn't refresh each session. You are in it as soon as you place your first ever wager. The PP just carries on from before, roulette is a game of life.
Quote from: Xander on January 01, 2014, 06:35:25 PM
Regarding Turner's "personal permanence" and a little different view:
Playing the game changes the game.
Contrary to what many people believe, the numbers that hit are not predetermined and laid out to infinity. This means that if you're away from the table when your number hits, that the same number may not have hit had you stayed and played.
Here's why:
Had to you stayed and played, the dealer would have had to wait for you to place your bet. This means that the rotor may have slowed down a little bit more than it would have - had you remained away from the wheel. It could be that the dealer sped the wheel up in order to accommodate the extra time that he felt was needed for all of the players to place bets. Regardless, there are several different things that can affect the outcome of the game. Your very presence at the table just happens to be one of them.
The same thing applies to when you forget to bet one of your numbers. Had you remembered to place a bet on the missed number, then the outcome could have been different, based on the reasons described above, and many other factors. Even if you're watching the game, you're still having a possible effect on the outcome of the game.
In short, observing, and playing the game, changes the outcome of the game. So get up and hit the restroom when you've got to go. Take a dinner break if you're hungry. And lastly, don't fret if you forgot to bet one of your numbers.
-Xander
Xander, playing the game may change the outcomes, but what possible practical significance can that have, if all outcomes are random?
"personal permanence" just shows that skipping spins or whatever makes no difference to the distribution of outcomes or events, so if you forget one of your numbers, or if the dealer speeds up the wheel because of your presence, makes no difference in terms of you winning or losing (assuming an unbiased wheel, of course).
Quote from: Bayes on December 31, 2013, 05:21:09 PM
The average in 10 spins is ALWAYS the same, no matter what has gone before (independent trials, remember?)
The point is that if you go into a game "cold" (i.e., without the 3 SD+ trigger) the chance of you encountering a severe run of losses is higher. With the 3 SD trigger, you have already "used up" as it were, 3 SD's "worth" of losses. The only way you can deny this is if you insist that losses can be infinite, which is a purely mathematical assertion.
Yes, but even with this fallacy being interfered, this way of playing and that MM serves me very well
:)
Cheers
QuoteXander, playing the game may change the outcomes, but what possible practical significance can that have, if all outcomes are random?-Bayes
None.
Even if you're playing on live wheels, tracking the outside ECs is rather futile. Tracking the inside numbers on a live wheel is of course all together something different.
@Number Six,
I like your post.
Quote from: Number Six on January 02, 2014, 01:41:01 AM
accounting for deviation of virtual results is erroneous and hugely increases the risk of ruin.
Six,
How can it "hugely increase" your risk of ruin? At best it makes no difference. Same as gambler's fallacy; if you wait for 10 reds in a row and then bet black, the odds for red haven't changed, so you're as likely to get red as black on the next spin, so it can't be any more dangerous than if you hadn't waited for the 10 reds at all.
If it makes no difference it can't at the same time increase the risk of anything. The danger only comes if you erroneously believe that black is more likely and use a suicidal progression, but in terms of bet selection it changes nothing.
In fact, making no assumptions about the distribution of past spins, but
based purely on the data, the rational thing to do if you see 10 reds in a row is to bet red next.
Quote from: Xander on January 02, 2014, 11:33:38 PM
None.
Even if you're playing on live wheels, tracking the outside ECs is rather futile. Tracking the inside numbers on a live wheel is of course all together something different.
But only if the wheel is biased, which is not the norm, but the exception.
Bayes,
There could be either one of two approaches to your personal style of play. Play to survive, or play to win. Both are quite different. But in either way, the true risk of ruin must be calculated by accounting for the deviation of the results of your actual wagers. So, if you factor in virtual results into your risk of ruin, the risk can only increase because the deviation measurement would be incorrect, the longer it goes on like that the more woefully inaccurate it becomes. It's a simple corruption of data, the more corrupt the more dangerous. At first the true risk might actually be less than what you think it is, but at some point there'll be a role reversal; a test may well show that at the point of reversal the true risk will accelerate beyond control. Of course, the player wouldn't know this, and when he's placed his last chip he'll leave the table wondering where it all went so wrong.
Xander,
:upsidedown:
Quote from: Number Six on January 03, 2014, 01:26:51 PM
Bayes,
There could be either one of two approaches to your personal style of play. Play to survive, or play to win. Both are quite different. But in either way, the true risk of ruin must be calculated by accounting for the deviation of the results of your actual wagers. So, if you factor in virtual results into your risk of ruin, the risk can only increase because the deviation measurement would be incorrect, the longer it goes on like that the more woefully inaccurate it becomes. It's a simple corruption of data, the more corrupt the more dangerous. At first the true risk might actually be less than what you think it is, but at some point there'll be a role reversal; a test may well show that at the point of reversal the true risk will accelerate beyond control. Of course, the player wouldn't know this, and when he's placed his last chip he'll leave the table wondering where it all went so wrong.
Xander,
:upsidedown:
One slight flaw in your reply no.6
Turner, glad I'm not the only one who noticed.
You go first. ;)
Oh, just put me out of my misery :scared:
Quote from: Xander on January 02, 2014, 11:33:38 PM
@Number Six,
I like your post.
I was already at DEFCON 3.....until this.....and after this latest faux pas.....my pistol is cocked
By the way Number 6......nice ars*! :thumbsup:
Turner,
I am fairly confident Xander has won more at roulette than I have.
We happen to agree on a point or two, it's all just part of a friendly discussion....
:P
Quote from: Number Six on January 03, 2014, 04:34:17 PM
Turner,
We happen to agree on a point or two,
Number 6....Im sure you do lol
Now you are scaring me.... Im not sure you even know what me and Bayes are talking about......lol
Read right to the very...very end.
Bayes,There could be either one of two approaches to your personal style of play. Play to survive, or play to win. Both are quite different. But in either way, the true risk of ruin must be calculated by accounting for the deviation of the results of your actual wagers. So, if you factor in virtual results into your risk of ruin, the risk can only increase because the deviation measurement would be incorrect, the longer it goes on like that the more woefully inaccurate it becomes. It's a simple corruption of data, the more corrupt the more dangerous. At first the true risk might actually be less than what you think it is, but at some point there'll be a role reversal; a test may well show that at the point of reversal the true risk will accelerate beyond control. Of course, the player wouldn't know this, and when he's placed his last chip he'll leave the table wondering where it all went so wrong.Xander, <<<<<<<<<< you-hooooo.....this bit !!!!
QuoteBut only if the wheel is biased, which is not the norm, but the exception.-Bayes
Actually, every wheel is biased to some extent. Rarely is it enough to overcome the house edge.
Drop zone biases are more common and do allow for some dealer influence. This is why I said that, "Tracking the inside numbers on a live wheel is of course all together something different."
-Xander
Quote from: Turner on January 03, 2014, 05:10:13 PM
Xander, <<<<<<<<<< you-hooooo.....this bit !!!!
Did you miss the upside down bit after Xander. It is not signing off as xander, it was like Dear Xander, am upside down :) My two cents when i read the post first.
Does Turner think that I'm Number Six?
Just wanted it explaining.....anyhow.....enjoying Xander and No.6 posts....even if they are the same (joke) >:D
Got me thinking about PP. Got me thinking about lots of things.
Needed a new thing to get excited about....so thanks
I understand now.
It didn't mean anything, Turner, what's the point of an upside down smiley if no one ever uses it? Plus it was addressed to Xander, I wasn't signing off as him. I guess you thought I had slipped up....?
Anyone here who has been around the forums for a long time, including the moderators, knows us both and could vouch that we are not the same.
OK.....back on yer 'eds :thumbsup:
Quote from: Number Six on January 03, 2014, 01:26:51 PM
Bayes,
the true risk of ruin must be calculated by accounting for the deviation of the results of your actual wagers.
Agreed. There can be no risk of anything if no chips go on the table.
Quote
So, if you factor in virtual results into your risk of ruin, the risk can only increase because the deviation measurement would be incorrect, the longer it goes on like that the more woefully inaccurate it becomes.
There are several formulas for calculating the chance of ruin, but none of them use a prior deviation (which would be meaningless for games of independent trials anyway), so there is no possibility of corrupting the data. You could use a standard formula, but in that case you would need to determine your parameters empirically from past results.
'determine your parameters empirically from past results'.
this is the essence of determining what I term bet characteristics and the knowledge and familiarity of the behavioral parameters of the bet are constructed from a statistically suitable size of empirical evidence.
Some might argue infinite data is required but I find 1000 bet samples is sufficient. This may require say 10,000 spins or more to be witnessed (has to be live genuine data) and is time consuming but the benefits are durable.
Thanks Bayes always for your observations. XXVV
Quote from: Bayes on January 10, 2014, 10:06:50 AM
There are several formulas for calculating the chance of ruin, but none of them use a prior deviation (which would be meaningless for games of independent trials anyway), so there is no possibility of corrupting the data. You could use a standard formula, but in that case you would need to determine your parameters empirically from past results.
There are many formulas that can be used for calculating the risk based on the type of game. These apply to short term performance only and whether the aim is to earn or survive until you hit a lucky streak. In either criteria, the risk of ruin can factor in deviation, variance and utlimately volatility of the bankroll. The analysis provides an exact bet by bet chance of ruin. I'll point you to some references when I am once again compos mentis.
And out of interest, if deviation is meaningless in a random game, what does that say about RTM?
It may, in fact, be more effective to place bets according to the "virtual" chance of ruin as compared to the "virtual" regression. Would there be a difference? Who knows... it would certainly make the bet selection much simpler.
Quote from: Number Six on January 10, 2014, 10:55:03 PM
And out of interest, if deviation is meaningless in a random game, what does that say about RTM?
I didn't say that deviation was meaningless per se, only that it would be meaningless to incorporate 'virtual' deviation into any analysis of gambler's ruin. From a purely mathematical point of view, it would be nonsense.
The problem with discussions about independent trials, gambler's fallacy etc is that the so-called "math boyz" never seem to give any credence to anything that can't be mathematical formulated. According to them, if something can't be predicted mathematically, it must be a fallacy.
Therefore, because "the wheel has no memory", every outcome has the exact same chance of any other, regardless of history. While this is true mathematically, we can also observe that under normal conditions (no bias), the outcomes are distributed in repeatable and somewhat predictable ways, but that doesn't mean that the wheel has a memory in the mathematical sense.
RTM is more pronounced the more random the outcomes are. A typical example is that of student's scores on a multiple choice test. The top 5% of students would be more likely to score worse and the bottom 5% would be more likely to score better if retested, because the 'extreme' scores are likely to be accounted for in SOME measure by luck and random variation. Now when the outcomes are entirely due to randomness (analogous to a student having no clue as to any of the answers, but simply guessing), the regression effect is stronger. If you think of your score as being a combination of LUCK + SKILL, the variation (regression) is accounted for by luck, not skill (which remains largely constant), so if skill is removed from the equation, you are left with only luck, and therefore a large measure of regression.
QuoteThe problem with discussions about independent trials, gambler's fallacy etc is that the so-called "math boyz" never seem to give any credence to anything that can't be mathematical formulated. According to them, if something can't be predicted mathematically, it must be a fallacy
Spencer-Brown argued that a fundamental flaw exists in our view of randomness. To quote from an interesting article (URL below) -QuoteClassical probability focuses on the 'atomic' level. For example, if we throw a six-sided die 100 times, we treat this as 100 independent events. To work out the likelihood of two successive results of '6', we combine these 'atomic' events. But this is begging the question, according to Spencer-Brown. It assumes independence instead of proving it empirically. There is no reason in principle why a series cannot gradually become less and less biased at the 'atomic' level, but remain biased on the various higher 'molecular' levels for arbitrarily long spans
The paper I am quoting from, which I find immensely interesting, is "Probability in Decline" by Dean M. Brooks and can be found here - http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2010BrooksASA.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,792 (http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2010BrooksASA.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,792)
Now, don't think that this is "the Answer" - sadly, the decline is not large enough to overcome the house edge in any game of chance. But it is an interesting view and one that supports Bayes' view of the attitude of the math boyz.
Personally I suspect that "an Answer" lies in the combination of what Spencer-Brown refers to as "molecular events" and RTM of these events. Probably combined with a suitably constructed progression since the effect from a practical perspective is small - but real. It might even be worth considering a discussion topic of "molecular events" so that we could all gain a better understanding of these phenomena.
Quote from: Bayes on January 13, 2014, 09:03:18 AM
I didn't say that deviation was meaningless per se, only that it would be meaningless to incorporate 'virtual' deviation into any analysis of gambler's ruin. From a purely mathematical point of view, it would be nonsense.
I agree Bayes, that was kind of the point, even regarding virtual anything.
Virtual deviation in gambler's ruin is as pointless as virtual deviation in regression towards the mean, since the deviation is not actually measured against anything. It is only tracked from a certain point in time. That, to me, affords no benefit. The likelihood is, tests of the two methods would show similar results, though virtual ruin would make for a more simple bet selection i.e. you could just bet red according to the risk, rather than having to make difficult subjective decisions based on regression.