+ Register

[JohnLegend]

               So this is going to move earth upside down by July 2013?  Bravo JL, you are truly a legend. That is why I had to write that "isn't every forum is merely bunch of frustrated gamblers?"

Albalaha On july 20th 2013. Nothing much will have changed in the roulette world. You will still have the casual jaded observers. The know alls but tell nothings.

And the open minded. The only thing that will then be realized is I was telling the truth. July is simply the beginning of that realization aswell as being my 49th birthday. Now so long as the online casino doesn't stop me. The following July will be another story. Five methods will get me to my targets.

Two members on here will be very, very happy. And one forum owner will not worry about financing this forum or anything ever again. Once people start to realize im for real. I will give a financial projection of what I aim to achieve by my 50th birthday. 

[Gizmotron]

Great, and professor Jone 's magic elixir will fix your gout.

[Bayes]

Bayes something I don't get here. In the first tests you did without the zero you had 14--16 thousand games per million over the 5 million tests. Here you don't even have 8,000?

John, I didn't record the number of GAMES, only the number of wins, that's the difference.

[Bayes]

Now I'm really confused!  I thought any time you were betting you were using a progression.  So why are there two losses to zero?
Sam

Sam, the 3 losses due to zero were when the zero hit on the FINAL step of the progression, the others were when the zero hit at any step in the progression.

Tell you what I'll do, I'll remove all zeros from the spin file and re-run the test, that way we'll get a better idea of the difference zero makes.

[JohnLegend]

John, I didn't record the number of GAMES, only the number of wins, that's the difference.

Okay Bayes, not to worry its business as usual for me. If you have the time. And id throw some coin in your direction for your trouble. Just out of curiousity. Could you put Atlantis's CODE 4 HORIZONTAL through the grinder?. Its doing very well.
I just want to see how it would do continuously. H.A.R it's a winner. 

[Bayes]

Ok John, will do. I'd like to get to the bottom of this 7-on-1 test first though. My stats weren't very clear, I admit. Did you manage to open the file and read it? next time I'll just upload it as a plain text file, unzipped.

[JohnLegend]

Ok John, will do. I'd like to get to the bottom of this 7-on-1 test first though. My stats weren't very clear, I admit. Did you manage to open the file and read it? next time I'll just upload it as a plain text file, unzipped.

No Bayes, I may have this game beaten but im useless on computers. Send me the foolproof version next time please.
And thanks for that. While getting to the bottom of 7 ON 1. A few stats that would interest me.

1, Longest losing game?

2, Number of losses beyond 8?

3, Number of losses beyond 5?-------This one in particular Bayes as my strikerate here is fantastic. 950 of my 960 played games have won by the third step of the progression.

[Bayes]

1, Longest losing game?

2, Number of losses beyond 8?

3, Number of losses beyond 5?

(1) - do you mean the longest number of spins from a trigger to a bust?
By (2), I assume you mean how long did the run of losses continue beyond what busted the progression?
(3) is how often did the progression go beyond 5 steps, correct?

[JohnLegend]

(1) - do you mean the longest number of spins from a trigger to a bust?
By (2), I assume you mean how long did the run of losses continue beyond what busted the progression?
(3) is how often did the progression go beyond 5 steps, correct?

Lol! No Bayes.
1, Longest losing game means how many steps before the longest game came to rest. So my progression plus the two virtual steps (Trigger) equals a total of 7 steps. Was the longest game 9 steps or 10 steps? Whatever.

2, Originally I was playing 8 ON 1 which went after a TRIPPLE TRIGGER then play the 5 step prog. So im interested to know how many of those 51 total losses were 8 steps or more.

3, In my H,A,R style of play, I have only been pushed beyond step 3 of my 5 step progression 10 times out of 960. I would like to know how this panned out on your sim Bayes. Thanks.

[Bayes]

Ok, it will involve writing more code because ATM it's set up to reset when trigger goes to 7. But that's ok because then we'll get the whole picture of how the bet selection works and how many times it goes to 5,6,7, etc. If I code it so the that max is say 20, that should be enough. Of course a progression at that level will be unrealistic but it will be interesting to see how far it goes and we can still work out the loss to win ratio for any progression length including what you're currently using.

[JohnLegend]

Ok, it will involve writing more code because ATM it's set up to reset when trigger goes to 7. But that's ok because then we'll get the whole picture of how the bet selection works and how many times it goes to 5,6,7, etc. If I code it so the that max is say 20, that should be enough. Of course a progression at that level will be unrealistic but it will be interesting to see how far it goes and we can still work out the loss to win ratio for any progression length including what you're currently using.

Yes thanks Bayes. Obviously freak losses can occur. But my main interest is STRIKERATE. Always has been. Although I have been doing it. I realize the 5th step of the progression is what really does the damage.

If it can be honed down into a 4 step progression. Or even a 3 step one. I would be more than happy with that. Im currently proofing a new method born out of Atlantis's excellent CODE 4 HORIZONTAL method.

it's a 4 step double dozen method. Called CODE V5. Its consistency over the first 3 steps of the progression. Is on par with 7 ON 1. And its turnover is much faster. So if it maintains its excellent performance. It will be on the forum next month.

[Bayes]

Ok, I was having problems uploading the unzipped file here so you can download it from this link (click where it says "click here to start download from sendspace").

Note that this file is for the actuals with the ZERO REMOVED, I'll add the with-zero file shortly. The file only shows wins (marked +1) and losses (marked L) together with the step at which the win or loss occurred. An asterisk marks the trigger (= 2). The busts are NOT shown but there are some stats at the end of the file which give a breakdown of how many wins/losses occurred at each step. The maximum losing run was 11:

Total wins = 7160

Wins on step  3 =  4731
Wins on step  4 =  1611
Wins on step  5 =   545
Wins on step  6 =   173
Wins on step  7 =    56
Wins on step  8 =    32
Wins on step  9 =     8
Wins on step 10 =     2
Wins on step 11 =     1
Wins on step 12 =     1

Losses on step  3 =  2429
Losses on step  4 =   818
Losses on step  5 =   273
Losses on step  6 =   100
Losses on step  7 =    44 ****
Losses on step  8 =    12
Losses on step  9 =     4
Losses on step 10 =     2
Losses on step 11 =     1

You can work out how different length progressions would have fared. The default system progression is 5 steps, corresponding to the "losses on step 7 = 44".

So from this, we can calculate that the profit is:

Profit = total wins − Number of progression busts × loss per progression bust

= 7160 − 44 × 242 = −3,488 units

I haven't worked out the profit for other progressions. There might be one which gives a profit.

This means that there must have been a bug in the previous simulation I did with the RNG spins. Sorry about that. 
But I'm confident that the code here is ok - check a few random bets to make sure the bet selection is correct.

[JohnLegend]

Ok, I was having problems uploading the unzipped file here so you can download it from this link (click where it says "click here to start download from sendspace").

Note that this file is for the actuals with the ZERO REMOVED, I'll add the with-zero file shortly. The file only shows wins (marked +1) and losses (marked L) together with the step at which the win or loss occurred. An asterisk marks the trigger (= 2). The busts are NOT shown but there are some stats at the end of the file which give a breakdown of how many wins/losses occurred at each step. The maximum losing run was 11:

Total wins = 7160

Wins on step  3 =  4731
Wins on step  4 =  1611
Wins on step  5 =   545
Wins on step  6 =   173
Wins on step  7 =    56
Wins on step  8 =    32
Wins on step  9 =     8
Wins on step 10 =     2
Wins on step 11 =     1
Wins on step 12 =     1

Losses on step  3 =  2429
Losses on step  4 =   818
Losses on step  5 =   273
Losses on step  6 =   100
Losses on step  7 =    44 ****
Losses on step  8 =    12
Losses on step  9 =     4
Losses on step 10 =     2
Losses on step 11 =     1

You can work out how different length progressions would have fared. The default system progression is 5 steps, corresponding to the "losses on step 7 = 44".

So from this, we can calculate that the profit is:

Profit = total wins − Number of progression busts × loss per progression bust

= 7160 − 44 × 242 = −3,488 units

I haven't worked out the profit for other progressions. There might be one which gives a profit.

This means that there must have been a bug in the previous simulation I did with the RNG spins. Sorry about that. 
But I'm confident that the code here is ok - check a few random bets to make sure the bet selection is correct.

Okay thanks Bayes, one thing to clarify. When you say step three in these breakdowns. Is that with or without the two step trigger?

[Bayes]

Here are the stats for the file with zero included:

Total wins = 7285

Wins on step  3 =  4720
Wins on step  4 =  1642
Wins on step  5 =   589
Wins on step  6 =   206
Wins on step  7 =    77
Wins on step  8 =    37
Wins on step  9 =    11
Wins on step 10 =     0
Wins on step 11 =     1
Wins on step 12 =     0

Losses on step  3 =  2362
Losses on step  4 =   848
Losses on step  5 =   303
Losses on step  6 =   118
Losses on step  7 =    48****
Losses on step  8 =    13
Losses on step  9 =     3
Losses on step 10 =     3
Losses on step 11 =     2

So in this case, profit = 7285 − 48 × 242 = −4,331

It might seem odd that there are actually MORE wins here than in the no-zero case, but that's only because there are more spins. The crucial thing is that there are more busts too.

The file can be downloaded here.

[Bayes]

Okay thanks Bayes, one thing to clarify. When you say step three in these breakdowns. Is that with or without the two step trigger?

The breakdowns start from the trigger (step 2), so a win on step 3 means the first bet you make.