+ Register

[Pockets]

Before I answer Sam and Xander, let me explain one variation of hte method using the concepts i explained above. Note, this is just one variation using these concepts. Sorry, took sometime to go through the 15000 spins manually using this and hence did not reply on the post for a day.

Start attacking numbers using the progression below.

1st attack - 10th (note it says attack and not spin) - 6u
11th - 19th - 5u
20th - 29th - 3u
30th - 100th - 1u

Why? Purely based on our observation, 2/3rd of numbers should appear within one cycle. So our spend in the start  is huge and as spins increases we decrease our bets.  Using this, what we are trying to do is trying to gain the maximum in case where cold turns hot, trying to gain maximum when hot remains hot, trying to lose less when a number goes cold.

Now the attack above need to be done in 36 spin attack cycles. Using the example i posted above.
1-3 - both attack and 1st cycle ends - +198u
4-20 - both attack and 2nd cycle ends - +85u
21-56 - attack ends, 3rd cycle ends only at 60th spin - continue from attack37 in the progression when next attack cycle starts
61-96 - attack ends, 4th cycle ends only at 125th spin - continue from attack73 when next cycle starts
126-128 - attack and 5th cycle ends. -145u

At the end of 128 spins, we end +138u.

Now, there is a possibility that the whole progression runs out. In this case we start the next attack cycle with 2 times the progression. On a win, stay at the same level until recovery. on a loss, next attack cycle with 4times the progression. We can go up to 16times the progression with a table limit of 1-100. Note this is done only when progression runs out before a hit.  It is not done when a you get negative during the progression. In that case we just restart the progression and do not double up.

Albalaha's posted numbers end with profit of over 4000u in 15000spins with this variation of playing. At any point in time the draw down from peak did not exceed 3600u. So a bank roll of 5000 should be absolutely fine.

[Pockets]

Every spin is an individual outcome.  It's not possible to overcome the game's negative expectation so why combine the outcomes of a random game?

Let me be clear. I never said I have a holy grail. It is not mathematically possible to overcome the negative expectation. See below. That is where I agree with you 100% because I share your view about fools and money.

If someone beats the challenge, without reverse engg, does it mean they have the holy grail? I need to think about it. Any views?

But imagine this, assume that there are 37 random outcomes. How large a sample do you need to have exactly all 37 outcomes in 37 chances. My server crashed multiple times trying to find this out. The funny thing it might happen tomorrow when i start spinning bv. Why? Probability is indeed common sense. It is a funny subject and it cannot say anything for certain.

Coming to you question of combining multiple spins. Forget roulette. Say you are tossing a coin. Every toss of a coin is independent just like roulette spins. What is the probability that the next spin is head? Always 50%. Here your trial covers 1 chance.

Now lets combine two tosses. Both are independent. What is the probability that head appears at least once in these two tosses. 75%. Here your trial covers 2 chances. This is why am saying combine spins so that the probability of your outcome appearing atleast once increases.

If you treat a trial as 1 chance you will never get here. After increasing the probability, now the question boils down to the money management that will help you reap this. I have put things simply as money management, where as it goes far deeper than that covering right from micro level covering the optimal number of chances for your trial based on the returns to a macro level. That's the toughest part.

[Number Six]

Pockets,

You probably need to make the distinction between simply observing an event with no wager, and the probability of winning a wager on that event. They are two different things and they will affect you differently.

With that in mind you can use a single spin, a series of 2 or 3 or as many or as few as you like, but the probability always remains relative to your wager. Therefore, it actually makes no difference how you treat the outcomes. You can only gain an upperhand if you can prove that somehow the short term odds do not represent the true odds of the game between two optimum points in time; and then proceed to exploit that difference with a bet selection. This can be done in its most effective form by analysing the numbers, which also offers the best payout in the game and therefore the best rate of return.

I think you are doing pretty good work, best of luck.

[Pockets]

You probably need to make the distinction between simply observing an event with no wager, and the probability of winning a wager on that event.

How would you treat a dummy bet in BVNZ? We are placing a wager, but it will end up in no loss/no gain.

You can only gain an upperhand if you can prove that somehow the short term odds do not represent the true odds of the game between two optimum points in time;

My take-away from your post.

[Pockets]

I'll ask.  I don't get any of it.

Sam

Sam, Let me try to explain this with an example. Following are the wiesbaden spins from yesterday. I am just going to play 0. I have explained spin by spin.

Now as you can see here, 0 doesn't hit for quite sometime. So we attack for 36 spins, stop attack wait until it hits, then start attack for another 36 spins and so on. If we get a hit, the attack count starts again from 1. Hope going through this example, the spin cycle gets more clear. Let me know if sitll in doubt.


[csv=,]
Spin,Attack number,Units on bet,Result,Bankroll,Remarks
28,1,6,-6,-6,
24,2,6,-6,-12,
34,3,6,-6,-18,
32,4,6,-6,-24,
32,5,6,-6,-30,
8,6,6,-6,-36,
16,7,6,-6,-42,
6,8,6,-6,-48,
34,9,6,-6,-54,
32,10,6,-6,-60,
36,11,5,-5,-65,
29,12,5,-5,-70,
23,13,5,-5,-75,
21,14,5,-5,-80,
15,15,5,-5,-85,
35,16,5,-5,-90,
10,17,5,-5,-95,
36,18,5,-5,-100,
3,19,5,-5,-105,
3,20,3,-3,-108,
26,21,3,-3,-111,
25,22,3,-3,-114,
11,23,3,-3,-117,
18,24,3,-3,-120,
27,25,3,-3,-123,
5,26,3,-3,-126,
23,27,3,-3,-129,
13,28,3,-3,-132,
11,29,3,-3,-135,
9,30,1,-1,-136,
23,31,1,-1,-137,
33,32,1,-1,-138,
18,33,1,-1,-139,
9,34,1,-1,-140,
8,35,1,-1,-141,
13,36,1,-1,-142,"End attack. Wait for a hit, before attack starts again."
10,,,,-142,
20,,,,-142,
2,,,,-142,
6,,,,-142,
17,,,,-142,
16,,,,-142,
1,,,,-142,
8,,,,-142,
33,,,,-142,
33,,,,-142,
29,,,,-142,
17,,,,-142,
25,,,,-142,
15,,,,-142,
18,,,,-142,
7,,,,-142,
1,,,,-142,
20,,,,-142,
34,,,,-142,
2,,,,-142,
4,,,,-142,
10,,,,-142,
26,,,,-142,
1,,,,-142,
25,,,,-142,
27,,,,-142,
11,,,,-142,
24,,,,-142,
34,,,,-142,
3,,,,-142,
29,,,,-142,
10,,,,-142,
3,,,,-142,
1,,,,-142,
36,,,,-142,
36,,,,-142,
19,,,,-142,
14,,,,-142,
5,,,,-142,
23,,,,-142,
10,,,,-142,
16,,,,-142,
28,,,,-142,
12,,,,-142,
24,,,,-142,
22,,,,-142,
21,,,,-142,
6,,,,-142,
35,,,,-142,
34,,,,-142,
2,,,,-142,
14,,,,-142,
29,,,,-142,
18,,,,-142,
7,,,,-142,
12,,,,-142,
6,,,,-142,
14,,,,-142,
25,,,,-142,
15,,,,-142,
24,,,,-142,
34,,,,-142,
13,,,,-142,
7,,,,-142,
7,,,,-142,
10,,,,-142,
35,,,,-142,
36,,,,-142,
27,,,,-142,
23,,,,-142,
14,,,,-142,
7,,,,-142,
23,,,,-142,
30,,,,-142,
6,,,,-142,
23,,,,-142,
12,,,,-142,
28,,,,-142,
13,,,,-142,
0,,,,-142,Hit. Resume attack again from where we left. We left at progression 36. So start at progression 37.
18,37,1,-1,-143,
30,38,1,-1,-144,
18,39,1,-1,-145,
29,40,1,-1,-146,
36,41,1,-1,-147,
8,42,1,-1,-148,
0,43,1,35,-113,Hit. Reset progression to 1
35,1,6,-6,-119,
5,2,6,-6,-125,
25,3,6,-6,-131,
5,4,6,-6,-137,
3,5,6,-6,-143,
26,6,6,-6,-149,
9,7,6,-6,-155,
0,8,6,210,55,Hit. Reset progression to 1
24,1,6,-6,49,
29,2,6,-6,43,
11,3,6,-6,37,
16,4,6,-6,31,
30,5,6,-6,25,
5,6,6,-6,19,
15,7,6,-6,13,
28,8,6,-6,7,
1,9,6,-6,1,
6,10,6,-6,-5,
27,11,5,-5,-10,
13,12,5,-5,-15,
7,13,5,-5,-20,
20,14,5,-5,-25,
24,15,5,-5,-30,
25,16,5,-5,-35,
6,17,5,-5,-40,
35,18,5,-5,-45,
12,19,5,-5,-50,
36,20,3,-3,-53,
1,21,3,-3,-56,
31,22,3,-3,-59,
0,23,3,105,46,Hit. Reset progression to 1
25,1,6,-6,40,
2,2,6,-6,34,
36,3,6,-6,28,
10,4,6,-6,22,
32,5,6,-6,16,
26,6,6,-6,10,
8,7,6,-6,4,
20,8,6,-6,-2,
3,9,6,-6,-8,
12,10,6,-6,-14,
10,11,5,-5,-19,
30,12,5,-5,-24,
32,13,5,-5,-29,
0,14,5,175,146,Hit. Reset progression to 1
14,1,6,-6,140,
35,2,6,-6,134,
3,3,6,-6,128,
18,4,6,-6,122,
20,5,6,-6,116,
28,6,6,-6,110,
13,7,6,-6,104,
32,8,6,-6,98,
18,9,6,-6,92,
4,10,6,-6,86,
33,11,5,-5,81,
1,12,5,-5,76,
22,13,5,-5,71,
33,14,5,-5,66,
8,15,5,-5,61,
1,16,5,-5,56,
34,17,5,-5,51,
18,18,5,-5,46,
15,19,5,-5,41,
0,20,3,105,146,Hit. Reset progression to 1
24,1,6,-6,140,
22,2,6,-6,134,
26,3,6,-6,128,
25,4,6,-6,122,
1,5,6,-6,116,
11,6,6,-6,110,
[/csv]

[TwoCatSam]

Thank you, Pockets.

Man, if you get the slightest nod from 6, which you did, you must be onto something. 

I'll give this days of study. 

Sam

[Number Six]

How would you treat a dummy bet in BVNZ? We are placing a wager, but it will end up in no loss/no gain.

Hard to say specifically with straight-up bets. This doesn't just apply to engineering a no win/no loss situation while you wait for some kind of trigger. It's all about increasing and lowering wagers at the right time. Some people might consider that a progression, others might consider it flat betting. So, really a dummy bet is not required. Instead, we are trying to pull a feint while waiting for the right opportunity.

But anyway, covering every number is not required on the face of it.  It would also be pretty absurd. You could not do that on a live wheel or in a real casino. If you're betting only 6 or 8 numbers, covering every one is overkill because only a small percentage of those numbers represent your actual bet, plus losses would mount up unecessarily in this scenario (because eventually you'll have to bet more on some numbers while still betting one on others).

Now we need to look at an incremental staking plan where the bet size for a winner is a bit bigger than your base bet, that way you can profit while also covering the losses on the feint.

The efficiency of the staking plan would hinge entirely on timing. And of course if you didn't get a winner in said cycle or attack the losses would be slightly larger than usual. It also hinges on whether you can introduce some degree of predictability within the cycle i.e. whether you can say for sure that between points A and B, the odds for a hit on 6 numbers is better than the longer term maths. If you can do that, it doesn't matter how many attacks fail, you will always come out ahead (with a big enough bank).

It's easier said that done, of course, there does have to be a real correlation between the numbers you bet and when they are most likely to hit.

Thank you, Pockets.

Man, if you get the slightest nod from 6, which you did, you must be onto something. 

I'll give this days of study. 

Sam

Have fun!

[TwoCatSam]

Aw, geez!!  I got up "upside down guy".  One more thing to worry about....

[TwoCatSam]

OK

I have studied this and it is beastly simple.  I suspect Nick could easily create a sheet for the ExcelBot and we could just plug in a number and see what shakes out.

Nick and I are currently working on an idea I stole and when we're finished with that, I'll approach him about this. 

I would do this:  I would wait for a number to sleep X number of times and then use it for the sought-after number.  While some may disagree with this, I feel it is indisputable fact:  When something does not happen, it moves one spin closer to happening.  Example:  We know the zero will eventually hit.  If it did not hit this spin, it is one spin closer to hitting.  So why not move a tad closer??

Samster

[Xander]

I would do this:  I would wait for a number to sleep X number of times and then use it for the sought-after number.  While some may disagree with this, I feel it is indisputable fact:  When something does not happen, it move one spin closer to happening.  Example:  We know the zero will eventually hit.  If it did not hit this spin, it is one spin closer to hitting.  So why not move a tad closer??-Twocat

FACT: You've fallen prey to the Monte Carlo Fallacy.   Furthermore, playing the coldest numbers/sleepers on a live wheel is one way that you could actually manage to LOSE at a rate that exceeds the house edge in the long run.  The reason is that you could actually be playing on the "negatively biased numbers".  (Meaning numbers that don't hit as often as they should because mechanical problems with the gaming device.)
If you add a bot, then you can lose more efficiently, even when you don't have the time to play. -BAD IDEA


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy


http://www.skepdic.com/gamblers.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8SkCh-n4rw







-Xander

[TwoCatSam]

Sir, your post is worth no longer a response than this!

[Xander]

Oh, I see! You're one of those that feel that all of the experts are wrong or part of a vast conspiracy to spread lies.  Ok. 


De Nile is the longest river in the world. 

[Number Six]

Unfortunately many posted systems are fallacious in some way, many critically so.

But the question can be posed: when does a fallacy STOP being a fallacy, even though according to traditional belief, the said fallacy can't be anything other than a fallacy. Can it ever be disproved in a certain way? Isn't it just too square to stick categorically to the assumption that nothing makes a difference? Such a reactionary view does nothing to enhance collective knowledge, even if that knowledge leads to something we already knew before.

Obviously there has to be proven logic for why something should work. And that's what it all boils down to. There is still a large degree of ignorance of randomness, and other things like virtual tracking and the personal permanence, and even probability.

[Albalaha]

For records,
           I have given zumma w/l for all numbers to Pockets. Whether he simulates that or not and put it here or not, is his prerogative.

[Bayes]

But the question can be posed: when does a fallacy STOP being a fallacy, even though according to traditional belief, the said fallacy can't be anything other than a fallacy. Can it ever be disproved in a certain way? Isn't it just too square to stick categorically to the assumption that nothing makes a difference? Such a reactionary view does nothing to enhance collective knowledge, even if that knowledge leads to something we already knew before.

Good question. In the case of GF, and most other fallacies, it stops being a fallacy when the conclusion doesn't contradict one of the premises. The fallacious gambler reasons like this:


1. I think this is a fair roulette wheel.
2. I've just seen 10 blacks in a row.
3. Since the wheel is fair, black and red come up equally often.


THEREFORE:


red has to come up pretty soon.
I'd better start betting red.
maybe red won't come up on the next spin, but a lot of reds have to come up soon.


Premise (1) says that the wheel is fair, and there are two ways of being fair: unbiased and independent. If outcomes are independent it means that previous outcomes don't affect future outcomes - there is no regularity in the sequence of outcomes.


The fallacy is about being inconsistent. So red being more likely after 10 blacks could only be true if outcomes weren't independent, and, they may not be! But if the gambler's premise is that the wheel is fair (premise 1), then he should think that the outcomes are independent.


The question as to whether outcomes actually ARE independent is a different matter, and you can't get the answer by just logical reasoning, but GF is a logical error.


BTW, pockets, sorry if this is a bit off-topic. Thanks for posting your method.