Dear Bayes,
          You are among a very few members, who talk of sense only and never deviate from logic. You can see that a big discussion is going on regarding test of Pattern Breaker over 1 million spins in Private Discussion Board section meant for subscribed and charter members. Whatever tests I did so far, specially on large data, the method failed badly. Not only it failed but it never won anything considerable ever.
                  Now, I want to know your opinion over playing Martingale (as PB looks to me, no offence meant) with Hit and Run. Do you feel that it is capable of yielding considerable profit, if we keep on playing it, with random sessions (they assert that it is very different from testing a million spins together)?

Hi Al,

I told myself I'm not going to participate in these debates regarding hit & run, I've spent a good deal of time and effort in the past, not only arguing against the merit of it (showing that there is no logical basis for its claimed effectiveness), but also demonstrating through simulations that it doesn't work. So there's your answer. 

It's one of those topics, like actuals vs RNG,  that will probably never go away.

One point I'd like to make regarding PB specifically though: The system has been shown to not yield positive long-term results using Ophis' MST (and other simulations have been done). Those who claim that it does win long-term must therefore be attributing its success entirely to hit & run. ie; it loses on its own merits, but wins when you "add" hit & run. That's giving an awful lot of power to such a simple methodology which has no logical basis (simply keep your sessions short) and it raises the question why you couldn't use any system + hit & run and get the same (claimed) results. It's claimed that the merit of PB lies in the fact that you're asking random to hit some preselected pattern, and that this is "hard" for random to do, but in fact it's no harder than any preselected outcome which is bet against at a random time. The uniqueness of the PB outcome is an illusion.

What confuses users of a system is simply that when you keep playing it for long the expected happens: you lose the limited bank of the session. Then when you make it a habit to stop playing in profit you have money sitting in your pocket with your bank there and perhaps with some important benefit.

It is misleading. So right. But even so the player gets used to leave the table with something and while the game in the future is expected to take it all that future might not come for the player. An example is he can die or stop playing on religious claims or family.

Our goal should be to find gaming systems that could give thousands of possible sets in advantage, although in the simulation then they lose everything. Say the player is not going to play more than 100,000 sets in his life and say there is a system that overcomes 900.000 sets won and lost everything in a single set of 100,000.

This gives at least 9 out of 10 players the chance to live his entire life in a positive game and does not violate the long term expectancy for the math of the game to happen as proven in the simulation.

Thank you.

Thanks Bayes,
            I have got my answer from a source(yourself), that I can trust. Now, I am 100% sure that hit and run is nothing. If you are lucky you can win with everything but this gives no advantage over regular use.
               Locking debate.

In the blue corner we have JohnLegend.

In the red corner we have Bayes.

Both offering opposite opinions.

This debate is far from over...

Therefore, I've unlocked the thread so others may contribute if they wish.

Esoito,
            My this question was meant for Bayes only, who can be taken as an expert of mathematics and statistics ( and I think Victor and you must be thinking him as same if he is moderator of Math & Statistics section) and not for mass debate. This leads to frustration of an expert opinion, as Bayes himself said: I told myself I'm not going to participate in these debates regarding hit & run, I've spent a good deal of time and effort in the past, not only [/size]arguing[/size] against the merit of it (showing that there is no logical basis for its claimed effectiveness), but also [/size]demonstrating[/size] through simulations that it doesn't work.


                                      If you want to get this topic running as public debate, I am afraid it will again become a misleading debate with no conclusion ever.

Al,

Please don't set me up as an expert because I'm not. I probably know more than most on this forum about statistics, but I don't have any formal qualifications in the subject (yet). Even if I had a Phd in Stats, that in itself wouldn't be enough to write off PB;  conclusions should be based on evidence, not eminence.

And evidence is not opinion. So often these days you hear that "everyone has a right to their opinion". Of course, but that doesn't mean that their opinion is right - all opinions are not equal. Opinions backed up by facts and evidence have more value than subjective feelings and mere assertions, surely that's just common sense?

JL himself has recognized this, otherwise why would he have offered to demonstrate that he can win long-term, rather than just posting pages of rhetoric and unsubstantiated stats? (and he admits himself he doesn't know why hit & run works, while claiming that it does).

The problem is that there is no foolproof way of facilitating that demonstration. There's a challenge underway at the moment which superman is administering, but it's not ideal. I'm still keen on the idea of building an online roulette game which I talked about a while ago on the other forum, but I haven't got very far with the project yet, partly due to other commitments.

Quote from: Bayes on November 20, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
I'm still keen on the idea of building an online roulette game which I talked about a while ago on the other forum, but I haven't got very far with the project yet, partly due to other commitments.

Hello Bayes

I always liked that idea of yours.

It would be great for the forum as well. We could have a monthly competition or something like it which would be fun.

I would be be prepared to stump up some cash for something like that. I don't know about anybody else. How time consuming would something like that be to build?

cheers

Hi Bayes.

I agree with Bally,would be very useful to have a TRUSTED platform to experiment with systems and concepts.

What time frame do you think your work on this would be completed ?

I'd be up for any type of competition.

All the very best to your Brilliant idea.


Cheers.


Dino.

What a brilliant idea..! 

I'll have a word with Victor and see if it can't be hosted on the forum. As to how long it will take, er.. dunno. I don't have a lot of spare time but maybe 2-3 months?

ish... 

It would certainly be an asset to the forum and would attract more members.

2-3 months or 6 months even! You are right Bayes. It would be a great addition to this forum as something unique to differentiate us from the rest.

cheers

So....with the online roulette idea,that would mean any member could Play/trial/test/experiment Live with other members watching at the same time ?

If that could be achieved it would be Fantastic !!

I have always thought that so many good concepts just seem to fade away with no one knowing if any member is still active playing it or not.

THIS idea would bring them all to life again.

I know i have a Portfolio of about six concepts to compete with.

Can,t wait.....

Dino.

dino,

I don't think it would work like that - not live with other members able to watch at the same time (that would be cool though). But the good news is that Victor says it would be easy to incorporate the "casino" into the forum and show each members bankroll etc.

This thread is going waaaay off topic. 

QuoteThis thread is going waaaay off topic. 

No harm if useful discussions are coming through any source.