Quote from: Number Six on February 17, 2014, 06:22:42 PM
XXVV,

Yes I did not read it. I read the criteria Bayes used for his program, so regardless I am pretty sure I understand what it's all about. Not sure I need to do my homework really, your opinion of this method of play does not tally with mine. I don't see the problem. There's nothing wrong with advising caution before someone plays it for real. If they do or not has no bearing on me at all.

My view is hardly biased, I'm not bashing any one here, I just don't see the logic. There is actually nothing to support that fact that your bet selections somehow offer an increased probability of winning. I feel like I've seen it all before.

Fair enough the last sentence really sums your view and thank you for the directness.


What interests me about science and research or design, is trying to see something anew, from a slightly different angle. A fresh 'insight'.


Simply stated I believe WF does that in that in many cases, sometimes a majority of cases, a win van be achieved through a higher than expected grouping of winning bet outcomes when there are 3 or 4 targets in a game as we have defined. This fluctuates of course but in my experience and in substantial samples of live spin testing we have found there is a sufficient dominance of these characteristsics, especially WF1,2, and 3, in order to provide short term gain which can be captured and amassed.


Of course this varies and we flat stake and stop loss to try to maximise bet efficiency.


It works for me with addition especially of further detail to which I have referred.


The warm numbers often come and go and in my view most often do not become hot as in the RWD definition.


My original idea was that the 'warming' process' gives this view a freshness and slightly different quality, what is termed 'a point of difference' in commercial jargon. However if after all that, you still feel you have 'seen it all' then I need discuss this no further.


Thank you

Quote from: Number Six on February 17, 2014, 05:33:00 PM
Can either of you guys tell me what the game duration is?

Sorry I have not read the method; there is so much fluff surrounding it now that I am not sure I could even find the answers I am looking for. I see XXVV mentioned earlier 60-90 spins for 3-5 games.

This bet selection has no logic at all. Xander was right when he said stuff like this has been tested to death. But lets not take any of it personally. It's just an observation. I would rather see some maths that backs up the premise of the bet, but I suspect it does not exist. I have done simulations of this, or similar, myself, and I can say from experience that WF3 will not hold up in the long run, nothing will help including money management and progressions.

I have created a book of simulated statistics that attempts to find out categorically whether hot numbers can be defined mathematically in some optimum criteria, and, thus, predicted i.e. is there any point in time where a number has a higher probability of hitting that the expectancy.

I can say that WF3 is pretty wide of the mark really, for the most simple reason that it's betting on old "hot" numbers, and so the definition is incorrect. This is just like taking a wild, random punt.

Thanks for your  'opinion ' #6


Why you have to post here on Sputnik's site, and not directly to me or to a thread of mine  is 'wide of the mark' also.


You can't be bothered to 'read the method ' and the tone of your entire passage is shall we say 'skewed', and not very supportive of the WF approach, but then if you have not read the detail, why comment so negatively.


I really regret having to write on Sputnik's thread but I had said to Bayes I would not because of the prior nonsense with Xander. It seems this particular thread is attracting some negative comment and as you have asked a specific question you deserve a specific answer, despite your clearly biased view.


The average duration of a WF game, whether WF3,WF4 or WF5 or more, is 21 spins, including qualification of targets. This total game duration will vary from as little as 3 spins for an optimal outcome, so some that go 30 spins or more.


If #6 you take the trouble to travel across to my blog section you will see on a thread a beautiful distribution graph that illustrates the outcomes on Macao and the consistent appearance at the peak of the bell curve for outcomes between 3 and 4 targets. These are the WF3 and WF4 modes.


Bayes was shown this graph (appropriately numbered thread #6) at the outset and noted the clear pattern signal which encouraged him to put the effort into his programming.


Perhaps you would like to discuss  the mathematical implications with him and enlighten us all in due course as to worth, through your eyes and considered experience. I would be most interested but respectfully ask, you do your homework first before expressing opinion. Nothing personal of course.


As for Sputnik, well I did say patience was needed and you have not demonstrated that to me as from the ouset I cautioned on RNG and particularly some sources therof. I am beginning to sound like Xander, and that is a worry(hmm) but I do suggest you first focus on small samples of reliable live spin data like Biagle has faithfully done on my blog using Wiesbaden#3.


In that we have struggled with passages of poor results and I have shown him there was a major accruing error as we measure results completed game to completed game, and #6 you might be interested in this, the seamless connecting of one night's last spins to the first spins the next day in order to complete the game. In Macao the 'gap' was 15 minutes we 'bridged, and in Wiesbaden, 9 hours or so. Also we seamlessly co-related the 31 days first game only sessions for a month as a random assemblage for Wiesbaden and that worked beautifully. Valid #6 ?


Further #6 you talk of old 'hotnumbers' being targeted. Quite the reverse and I can tell you have not read my reasoning on the generation of warm and warming numbers and the freshness and speed of those cycles, very different from hot number cycles.


I would appreciate your re-locating any discussion or queries of WF onto the appropriate and clearly marked sections on my blog.


If Sputnik you wish to assimilate my work into a larger library of data, all well and good, but again please write to me in the appropriate context or again we have the problem of opinionated intrusion ( such as Xander M/O ) which has been shown to be counter productive on all levels.


Thank you.


Thanks to you both for your time
Best
XXVV
18Feb2015/0710

Quote from: Bayes on February 16, 2014, 08:46:52 AM

XXVV,


Don't you think you're being a bit childish? and what's with the snide remarks directed at me? Xander's comments aren't personal, that's what you don't seem to realize. They are about the methodology, not "personal" in the sense of being about you or your character, whereas your comments about him are.

The remarks are childish and I unreservedly apologise. I have removed the offending post and you can edit this also along with associated debris if you wish. This is Sputnik's thread and I will not be making any further initial or subsequent posts in this context. The intention of the publication of the WF work has been achieved and I thank you for the help in so doing. I have now much to get on with elsewhere.
XXVV
17Feb 2014/0525

Quote from: Sputnik on February 15, 2014, 11:03:19 PM

I can look tomorrow ,,, but i think it was that you see three repeats and follow that one and the last most present two repeats up to certain amount of spins or window.
And one other is that you follow the number that has three repeats and add numbers that has two repeats up to six numbers ...

Nothing strange just similar.

Adding.
I find the methods i was refering to and i wrote about them 2009 ...
Classical systems - Plein Part 1 & 2 ...
 
Part 2 ...
You can verify this with Swedish member if you want.
The books are very expensiv, above 100 Euro each.
Is a book from a Swedish author (Sten Nordland) and the main titel of the book is International Roulette.
There is two books with the same name, part 1 & 2 ...
[/quote


I was unaware of this particular writer but of course was aware of these general ideas while studying hot number theory and had been through trial and error testing of all sorts of variations of such, and as many glibly note such theories have been around a long time.


We  (  Bryan and myself)decided to move attention to warm numbers, ie you will notice less demands on numbers of appearances to qualify and also remove time/ duration limits as the cycle is self enforcing, as long as the window of efficient opportunity to live bet is skillfully proportioned so the bet is efficient and has a reliable strike rate.


You are enthusiastic and energetic and will not be dismayed and distracted by the perennial chronic cynics that inhabit such forums as this. Such individuals are losers in the real sense of the term and try to assuage their own self condemnation by forever posting on threads that are suitable outlets for their negativity. it is pattern behaviour and is well understood by the moderators here. Anything with fresh ideas, energy and positive spark is  a target, so you should be flattered. I note it was you though, in another life that posted these notes in 2009. Did they not meet your performance requirements? Did you apply these interesting ideas in practice and what were the results please?


There is a really really important principle here and please listen to what I am saying.


Warm numbers are bubbling along 'just below the surface' all the time as potential repeats not necessarily consecutive repeats. The activity does still get 'excited' from time to time and gets hot, but usually just simmers along on a steady temperature. Only rarely does it cool. It took 20,000 spins at Macao to see only one example where the energy cooled to enable there to be 17 targets, ie no repeater action for a while. And the phase lasted some while. It did not correct or re-heat in a hurry as a gamblers fallacy would like to naively believe.


Because of the simmering heat energy ( if you visualise this metaphor - like physics) the warm numbers are a consistent and more reliable bet opportunity, unlike hot numbers. Just ask the confused followers of showman theorist RWD Roy Ward Dickson.


This is a vital shift and this is where the intellectual property value is with this idea. WF  has a unique character. Do not underestimate its value. It is not hot number theory. It has built into it through the live and virtual passages many safeguards as well as efficiencies. Ignore the cynics but focus on practical winning and as AJ on my thread says boldly, train yourself to win.

WF has built in flexibility also if you want to have less losing games, and risk exposure in that regard. switch to WF4. Please carefully reflect on this. Apply smart MM and psychology as well. Get synergy to work ( effective energy total is greater than the sum of the parts - that is physics and buckminster fuller). Good Hunting.\
XXVV 16Feb2014/1633

Quote from: iggiv on February 16, 2014, 01:39:11 AM
In reality there is one more side to this. You can't play for too long. You can't do it physically. Inevitably when you are tired you will make mistakes. Oh! I would win here if there was no mistake. But more you play -- more you get tired and more chances to make mistake. if you pay attention, when you start playing sometimes you can get away with your mistakes. But when you continue for too long it is an almost inevitable situation when you lose for this reason or that.

My 2 cents.

Iggiv you are so right. I have mentioned reality in some recent posts, and it is well known that the ideal and peak time for perfect work ( let alone being prepared for it earlier, ie not tired, angry, drunk or upset over private affairs - money relationships, insecurities et al,  ie life in general) is no more than 70-90 minutes, ie about 60 -90 spins or  3-5 games of WF.

That is real play, real time, and how you make or lose real money.

Parcels of experience. What I am excited about in recent proof has been the ability to seamlessly link sessions of WF play and transfer any debt to negate it next time. This is professional play.

Testing is another universe from real play.

Mind you I have played all nighters too, and I know Mr J over there, when on a roll will hit them hard and press his bets.
XXVV

@ Sputnik


Its like from the sublime to the ridiculous.....


Thanks for your very prompt access to that data and the references; most helpful. I was not aware of these posts or the book title which sounds impressive to me. But then according to Bayes as he suggested not so long ago, I am mesmerised by credentials (lol). Make of that what you will.
Will study, thanks and good luck with your endeavours.
R.

Quote from: Sputnik on February 15, 2014, 10:29:04 PM

I am not missing that part, i even mention it at another topic about the same subject.
I am just not sure if virtual play make any difference.

But i post 900 trails with my own rules to win with good days and average days and keep loses short at bad days.
I respect XXVV point of view and this strategy is not new.
Actually its based upon a old classical method that i have in one of my roulette books.
Not exactly the same, but very similar.

I still argue that there is good days at the tables and average days at the table and bad days at the tables.
Then simplicity does not cut it, we need to manage the waves of strikes.
We can not do that playing non-stop.

Maybe you argue here that virtual play is some kind of trigger that change things.
Well you can see my LW-Registry above and i will test same files with VP.
But i am pretty sure that if i play non-stop with VP i still will get into negative territories.
Mehtod like this needs skips or entering and exit points, some way to manage windows of strikes.

I base this on my own testing, where i get into negative territories if i play non-stop.
I lose if i don't apply entering points and exit points.
And i trust random org being as good as any existing live spins.

I apoliges for this XXVV but this is my humble opinion.

My friend you are entitled to a humble opinion (lol).
What I would be interested in though is a copy or reference to the classical text you mention.
R

Quote from: Sputnik on February 15, 2014, 05:26:15 PM

I notice that others think they can run simulations non-stop and show results.
It will fail like all other methods, my opinion.


No it will not fail like other methods given that your sources are valid, ie live spin samples or some RNG and about that further research must be done but my colleagues use BV with success.

The examples from Flatino demonstrate 26,000 live spins and our own work on Macao, 20,000 spins, and my private compilation of over 150,000 live spins from a dozen casinos shows a positive edge that continues to climb and not re-trace beyond a small level.

Throw away this nonsense about the hopeless and inevitable loss mind set.

There will always be Good days, Average days and Bad days.
To handle the variation and keep away from the deep hole, we need MM and rules.
I am talking about Entering points and Exit points, when to attack and when to quit.


Results will be enhanced by smart timing and MM application. My results however are for brain dead play, ie no discretion. and this conservative stance enables confidence that you have a platform here to build upon.

One Average day that would result in loses overall end up with positive expectation.
One Bad day that would result in catastrophic scenario end up with a small tiny loss.

That is my point.
You can not get away with fuzzyand sloppy attitude.
You see a winning strike jump on board and try you luck or you losing then stop, but when is that.
I don't give much for guess work.


Fuzzy is an unfortunate choice of word here by you because WF is warm meaning warm ( as contrast to hot or cold) numbers and fuzzy which is fuzzy logic as applied to design and mathematics. In design fuzzy enables not just on/ off decisions but degrees of fit and shades of grey as in lighting variation and even the fine detail of fitting precast modules in sophisticated car production plants like PORSCHE.
We want a fuzzy attitude. But not a sloppy attitude.

This is not guess work but shrewd judgement based on vast collective experience and mental and physical fitness.

I will post my results and ideas at this topic.
If you want to follow you are more then welcome.

Cheers

Thanks for your work Sputnik but don't start planning your marathon before you can learn to go beyond walking. Do not overlook the principle of simplicity that provides clear and elegant engineering solutions. You must know the KISS principle.


Best
XXVV
16 FEb 2014/ 0825

@Xander

In citing quantum mechanics and the uncertainty therein, you seem remarkably sure of certain points that you want to make, it is very amusing and inconsistent, in fact quite entertaining. Well done.

All my efforts are an ongoing experiment and I close no doors as, being the dark, that might be foolish.


On not such a lighter note....
In response to my mention of meditation ( do you know anything about this principle) you posted an image of one of the most offensive and dangerous individuals of his time who lived in Britain ( born 1875-1947). The image was so offensive it was taken down by the Moderator. The fellow you posted used meditation but he used it to harm others. Are you aware of this?


You would do well to conduct more research before making such fixed statements and illustrating your views with inappropriate material.

@Xander


Thanks for your reply. My view now is that every little bit helps in the sum of knowledge and who am I to say one view is better than another. There seems to be a physical, material approach here and some observation of dealer behaviour/ attitude as well, both suggested by you with some analysis as well. I am also advocating working on all levels including some thinking and feeling. Yes emotions are important too you know as in anticipating success or failure with some intent. Some people behave like losers and some like winners, and of course it shows on the outer level in body language and in speech. Have a look at a recent film by Derren Brown in the UK on the Experiments, and how expectation can really dramatically impact results. It is quite a beautiful experiment the one set in the little town in Wales.

@Six


Thanks for the comments. I am proposing to observe a sample of outcomes independently monitored comparing WF3 results against live dealer spin data and RNG sourced data. That will be interesting and I have suggested, if possible the sample size be at least say 50 games, preferably 100 games where a game will average most probably over 20 spins, being thus some 2000 spins.


I accept totally that in small samples such as this I may not notice any difference between sample A or B, but let us see anyway.


I do not doubt your personal success with the black box stuff and that is heartening, but I do not want to relinquish the opportunity to further experience live the really extreme events which can provide table maximum payouts for the opportunist, and those events to me are the consecutive spin repeats 4 or more.


Maybe it's a bit romantic and who knows after the early cluster experiences I will now have to wait and wait, but somehow I think not. The last four outcome was late last year so now due to experience more (lol).


I apologise to the original initiator of this thread for being rather off the main topic of the most interesting RWD and single target play which is a subject I would like to explore further as it potentially ( given careful pre-selection criteria) really is a most efficient bet. That in itself will be a source of debate.


I thought it opportune to discuss the random issues and am also reviewing a lot of the very interesting work from Gizmo, and a colleague Sqzbox.

Quote from: Bayes on February 11, 2014, 08:44:06 AM

XXVV, I would argue that taking into account external factors IS a holistic approach, given that the dealer, the wheel, ball, humidity etc are all potentially factors which influence where the ball ends up. The 'nature' of the purely abstract or 'perfect' game (as far as the casino is concerned) is one in which the influence of those external factors is minimized.


I am not so sure that is the only Casino intention. The shallow scalloped dish  and the light ball skips much more along the surfaces than  a heavier ball and bucket / slot type wheel in an effort to deter ballistic measurements and dealer efforts to target a section ( avoiding fraud). They endeavour as much pure randomness as possible given the relative crudity of their apparatus. But I like the crudity because I don't want the randomness so pure ( in that this might spread numbers more - seems a crude understanding of randomness - just how clumpy can it get when pure?)


However what I like is the 'clunky human intervention' that seems to enable ( anecdotal evidence only) lots of consecutive spin repeaters which appeals to other overlay bets I apply and as we discussed not so important for WF3 play. It is my belief ( but I may be proven wrong that such clumping of consecutive spin numbers cannot occur so readily on RNG because of the relative 'purity' of the quality of randomness generated - a smoother spread perhaps - but then this may be (my) total misunderstanding of true random behaviour - comments please.

So actually I really have considered  all the casino efforts  whether variable motives ( confusing the players perhaps or avoiding cheating) irrelevant. However I don't want to be cheated and I think my only concern would be to ensure there was no statistically significant non alignment of the wheel, ie it is level and spins correctly and there are no magnets under the table (lol).


I don't care about the dealer, the ball, the 'signature', the speed, the action, the clothes, the make up, the wrist flick, the language, the number of revolutions, the lighting, the relative humidity, the mood of the dealer, and their tastes. I do care that the wheel be correctly balanced and aligned which all wheels are daily in my usual casino and this is witnessed publicly and done by Government Inspector.


Also, given your objection to RNG, it seems to me that you implicitly recognize that such factors are a help rather than a hindrance, given that it's a reasonable assumption that an RNG implements the purely random game more perfectly than a the wheel + ball + dealer + environment system.

Yes I think you are right, but I also think my idea needs further developing.


My 'objection to RNG', as I have stated in a private correspondence with you, may be completely incorrect and delusional. I am open to correction. My own experience is anecdotal on this subject. However it is my understanding that RNG can deliver a 'purer' random generation - whatever that may mean. I may be wrong in thinking that it cannot present the situations that I have personally witnessed which are supposed  ( probability theory calculations) billion to one experiences ( 5 consecutive spin repeat  x twice and a third within earshot in the same casino) outcomes. I have believed such would not be possible in RNG format.

How many spins had I observed live before those sightings. I estimate a mere 150,000 or so at that stage. Remarkable then to experience what I did. Something is not right then between theory and practice it seems.

So I have gone on to consider RNG is not for me because the consecutive spin repeaters I am advised by colleagues are less likely. But as for definitive proof I cannot say.

Sure, the casino 'clunky features' I don't mind, and thus may 'help' in a notional sense for the 'impure' randomness I seek, but the real point and principle I am attempting to make is that all that 'fluff and nonsense' ( we could list 10,000 variables) is a smokescreen really for what I consider to be the generator here, and that is nature itself working through the clunky mechanism of the casino operators.
Now is that nature any less or more pure or effective than the nature that drives RNG.

Thinking on this it is the same nature of course but the medium for expression is different and thus the filters and blocks and variables may make a difference to bring about the characteristics of outcomes that appear to be more common in such environments as a live casino.

Maybe the mathematics of RNG are a different model than live play observed spin data mathematics.

So maybe I have answered my own question here and yes the holistic approach is right but it is merely in the characteristics of the outcomes in a live casino environment that I would prefer to harness and utilise as I believe there is a difference, even if only definitively proven on large scale  (100,000 spins) results, but most probably not in small samples.

I don't consider 150,000 spins ( as earlier stated) a monstrous sample size and it took me 12 years to attain that from small beginnings. These days I estimate I witness live at a casino about 25,000 spins *per year. Thus any day now I anticipate another fiver or sixer!

I would correct my earlier question and now suggest ( but I may still be wrong) that RNG and live casino wheel 'inspiration and origin' are one and the same ( or are they in mathematics), but through goodness knows how many 'deflections' the results vary from one pinball machine model to another - one is just bulkier and shinier - the other is a black box.  Yes 'obstructions and influences' - these are my friends!

* live observation while playing.
however in reviewing noted and certified spin data probably 100,000 per year now - thus would have to include the 7 repeater at Bristol in that data.

XXVV
11Feb2014pm

Xander raises some interesting points here.


Why does everything have to have an 'outward reason' such as wheel bias, dealer signature or humidity levels or type of wheel, bucket or scalloped, or size of ball or weight of ball. These may be a part of the story or they may be symptoms or characteristics of something that goes deeper. The analogy of medicine is intended and increasingly 'holistic' medicine is seen as a truer and more helpful approach to understanding.

Why cannot variations be from 'within', 'intrinsic' ,and actually from the essence of nature, ie 'natural rhythms' as part of the expression of randomness. The number just 'is'.

Also I believe the observer needs to be aware of short and medium cycle 'context'.  It has always been my view that the 'independence' of roulette spins is a fallacy.

These variations can be observed and can be read and acted upon, ie inter-reacted with, from short cycles to longer cycles. Empirical observation is necessary. I am not suggesting you necessarily 'talk to the wheel', and some actually do I observe, in both glowing and resentful terms depending on their success or failure, with the common mistake of directing praise or hate to the dealer, who is actually a mere intermediary in the process. Instead some reflection, or even meditation ( which is highly focused thought and responsive) might be considered.

Through that tuning into the moment  a successful response to the focus on target  and editing or extension of the hunt can be decided upon. This will sound fuzzy to some but actually fuzzy logic is part of reality and the bigger picture of 'reality'. Concrete linear just cannot cope.

No 'equipment' is needed for such observation other than the human mind.


XXVV
11Feb2014am

@Bally


You are so right.


Roulette being amongst cycle within cycle within cycle is also a short cycle game especially and the terms for a single number bet need to be responsive also to the context of the current game flow. If the context is clustering with lots of numbers and the outcomes are the same old suspects then play is 'tight' as in a spring analogy - wound up . In such case short time to appear.


At other times, loose play then waiting time and spin outcome durations to target can be much longer.


Contrast might be from 12 in one case to 37 in the other.


It seems more often than not, occurrences of the same number are usually close rather than further apart; a sort of magnetic link.
XXVV

Quote from: Sputnik on January 10, 2014, 11:40:09 AM
This is how i see things and getting the edge over negative expectation.

Most experience players would use a  low win target, lets say 20% ...
Lets say the buy in is 200 and loss limit 50% or 100.
Then we get what i call the 20/100 flaw.

You have to win 5 times in a row to reach 100 and then you are just even.
Lets say you get busted after that, then you have to start all over again.
Then comes recovery progression to recoup and assume you get busted again, then you have gamblers ruin.

This means that low win targets and loss limits does not give you an edge, by it self.
But if we aim to win more when we are ahead, try to capitalize when we are in strike mood, then we might get an edge over the game.

Lets say i play one week or 5 days.
+20 +20 +20 +20 +20 up +100 if i lose once i give it all back and might use a recovery progression and maybe end up with gamblers ruin.

But if my winnings look like this.
+40 +30 +50 +20 +30 up +170 if i lose a week playing i am still up +70 overall.

This is why i like Brett Morton's Money Management and John Patrick's Money Management.
They capitalize above fixating win targets with built in accumulations strategy's, pushing for more.
In the end that give you some kind of edge over the 20/100 flaw.

This is very important and why the professional must always incorporate up and pull; enhance the winnings, mitigate the losses; try to eliminate loss where possible ( fix the leaks).


Remember the quote from the Macao classic -' the winners play like cowards and the losers like dragons' - this has to be reversed where possible.

Sometimes I have sessions where I play a complex game and it is tiring after an hour or more of battling and encountering the need for several drawdowns, and you fight to dog out of hole. By the time you are in profit exhaustion can set in and a scuttle to the cashier to take a small profit is a triumph. However of course it may be that the wheel has literally turned and opportunities would have clustered.


I guess in that situation you have to pace yourself as a distance athlete.

Sometimes though you are handed a quick profit. So soon you want to play on but there can be cruel swings and evaporation sets in. That can be an awful experience. I endeavour to adopt the mantra there to take quick profit, and then perhaps pause for a short break over coffee say and consider a return unless your daily goal is already achieved,

Then there are perfect sessions where the balance is better and bets can be pressed.

Thanks for your great comments on MM.
Best
XXVV