Quote from: Bayes on November 20, 2012, 05:20:32 PM
This thread is going waaaay off topic. 

That would be my fault. 

Back on topic......

I was thinking about card counters back in the day.

You could argue they had a hit and run strategy. The term 'wonging' it was used when players just stood in the background monitoring the count waiting for it to turn positive.
They would then jump in and place some bets. They stopped playing once the count went negative again. This could also be applied to shuffle tracking techniques.

Now you may say what's that got to do with roulette and what does a negative expectation game have to do with a game which can be positive at times for the player.

Well it's my experience that 'wonging' it in roulette works just as good (if not better) for me than it ever did in blackjack. The triggers in blackjack are a positive count. The trigger in roulette is something working well along the lines of gizmo's theory of the three states.
(It's working, fair to middling, it's not working at all) And I always bail out at the first loss and look for the next opportunity.

I just don't think everything is as black and white as maybe some would like it to be.
Sure, some mathematical proof would back things up but you also have experienced players saying a 'kind' of hit and run works for them.

cheers.

Bally,

I agree. I've tried to make this point several times but it seems people just don't get it. I play this form of HAR myself - look for "favourable" opportunities, get in then get out. There's a big difference between doing that and the kind of HAR JL recommends in PB and his other systems. Take PB: the "trigger" to bet is determined by random itself, not by any favourable conditions. The number of spins you have to wait when playing PB is a random variable, ie; anywhere between 21 spins and 60 or more.

Now someone might say that waiting for favourable conditions is a fallacy because roulette is a game of independent trials (unlike blackjack) so there is no such thing as a "favourable" condition, but that's irrelevant to the validity of the argument which only says that IF conditions are favourable, then bet and IF conditions become unfavourable, then stop betting. The logic of PB ignores any concept of favourable conditions because you enter the game at a random point in the stream and the random stream itself determines when you actually make the bet, so both "triggers" are randomly determined.

Playing short sessions (HAR) does nothing to change this, it just means you're entering at different points along the stream of data, but in both cases (either playing HAR or continuously) the trigger is selected randomly. Placing 100 bets in one mode or the other (HAR or continuously) thus amounts to the same thing in terms of favourable conditions, ie: they're not taken account of in either case because it's not part of PB's remit to find any favourable conditions; PB is supposed to be an absolute winning bet - the final pattern will materialize at a constant rate which is higher than 7-1 and this will guarantee you a profit. But this simply isn't the case.

I think random has times when it is as random in its spins as it can be, i.e. a fairly "normal" irregular trip around the wheel for 6 spins....then there are slots in the day when for whatever reason, random will land the ball 6 times within three numbers. I had this happen to me this morning...6 spins in a row that were in the 26, 0, 32 three square area.

Two or three times it can land there and little will be noticed but when there were 6 spins in a row where it landed in the same area of the board and managed to avoid 92% of the rest of the board.....six times in a row, then I see that as an example of ebb and flow.

IMO it's being fortunate to start a game while not in one of those "not random at all" times in the day when the board plays funny beggars with the ball, that is when you win units.

Nobody knows when those "not random at all" times will hit but random, by its very name and nature, is just that....random more often in its spins during the day as opposed to regulary "not random" in its spins....if that makes sense...it kind of does in my head but maybe I'm not writing it up properly lol

Quote from: Bayes on November 21, 2012, 09:44:06 AM
Bally,

I play this form of HAR myself - look for "favourable" opportunities, get in then get out. There's a big difference between doing that and the kind of HAR JL recommends in PB and his other systems.

Bayes,


I totally agree with you on your style of play, this is exactly the way I have been playing for a long time now, I't works and I don't think of it as HAR just common sense game-play.


I call it my "satisfaction point", when I get to my satisfaction point in a session I exit.

That was a great post Bayes. 

Quote from: subby on November 21, 2012, 10:46:53 AM
Nobody knows when those "not random at all" times will hit but random, by its very name and nature, is just that....random more often in its spins during the day as opposed to regulary "not random" in its spins....if that makes sense...it kind of does in my head but maybe I'm not writing it up properly lol

I don't wish to be the same old "stick in the mud" around here (but) there is no such thing as not random. Wild occurrences of strange sequences are actually common aspects of what you will see and expect to see on any Roulette wheel. I tried to tell everyone to be prepared to attack the "Elegant Pattern."

To call six numbers, found in the same area of the wheel, next to each other, all hitting in just six spins, to call this sequence of events "not random," well that's just magical thinking. The truth is that this wild action is normal. Superstitious reaction might cause a player to react to situations that are actually positive in nature. But for some reason those reactions tend to be negative for them.

When ever possible I always attack the wild and extreme possibility with as large a bet as looks practical. If I had noticed the same area of the wheel hitting three times in a row I would have bet that area strongly until it ended. And I have in the past. I see patterns like this at least one in ten sessions to the casino. They are not bad things. They are gifts of normal randomness.

True randomness means wild scattering of numbers. It may go in your favour or entirely against you.

Quote from: albalaha on November 21, 2012, 04:51:29 PM
True randomness means wild scattering of numbers. It may go in your favour or entirely against you.

Absolutely true. There is no way to predict a future spin unless you attempt to use physics, as has been proven to work. Unfortunately  it is not legal to use computers.

Everyone knows well I sing the praises of H.A.R. Why? Because I am trying to be a clever clogs and laugh in the face of reason, logic. Hundreds of years of maths teachings? NO! I sing its praises for no other reason than it has worked for me.

I would also argue that Supermans BV challenge isn't of good merit. IT WASN'T. While I was piddling around with pennies. And lacking drive and focus to do what I know I am capable of.

Now, Superman can log in see CLEANLY  where I have tracked, and where I have bet. There will only ever be a maximum of 3 methods used. PATTERN BREAKER, FIVE and 8 ON 1. Each has its progression.

So it will be very easy to now see that I am winning OR losing. With those three methods. There are no smokescreens now. My minumum bet for PB will always be 0.50 EUROS. For FIVE and 8 ON 1 O.25 EUROS.

I've been saying for years I play and win using H.A.R as my key play strategy. And so it will be shown. Anyone who adheres to it faithfully will show favourable results longterm, so long as it's coupled with a decent bet selection.  And smart money management.

A method like 8 ON 1 will never need anything but a one level progression. Its already been shown that 8 ON 1 would struggle to win even 200 straight games.

Against a large sample of static numbers  played H.A.R I am now 580/0 and Twister even more. There is the argument for H.A.R right there.

The bigger the odds, the more effective it will be. 

Quote from: JohnLegend on November 23, 2012, 08:02:19 PM

Against a large sample of static numbers  played H.A.R I am now 580/0 and Twister even more. There is the argument for H.A.R right there.

John, are you saying you've played 580 games without a single loss? 

Good luck with the challenge anyway.

Quote from: Bayes on November 24, 2012, 09:29:43 AM
John, are you saying you've played 580 games without a single loss? 

Good luck with the challenge anyway.

Yes Bayes, that's where I am right now. Twister is even better than that on BVNZ. Its never been challenged once either Bayes. Was taken to step 4 of the progression only 3 times over that 580.


But never to the 5th step, this could never have happened if I played continuosly. Thanks I will enjoy the challenge now at a decent level.

Just ran eight 540 session simulations. That's including h&r. These were high/low only.
Results:
Wins - 489
Losses - 51
Double Losses - 1
Triple Losses - 0
Strike Rate - 9.58 / 1

Wins - 440
Losses - 100
Double Losses - 20
Triple Losses - 6
Strike Rate - 4.4 / 1

Quote from: JohnLegend on November 24, 2012, 12:53:15 PM
Yes Bayes, that's where I am right now. Twister is even better than that on BVNZ. Its never been challenged once either Bayes. Was taken to step 4 of the progression only 3 times over that 580.


But never to the 5th step, this could never have happened if I played continuosly. Thanks I will enjoy the challenge now at a decent level.

So, what is your conclusion, Gizmo?

Quote from: KingsRoulette on November 27, 2012, 06:40:30 PM
So, what is your conclusion, Gizmo?

I've already stated it. Hit and Run is nothing more than another layer of randomness in the device used to generate random outcomes. It is not an odds changer.

Playing the changes in changing conditions is not the same thing. If you are good at it then actually do change the odds. You can prove it too. Probability is about the future. But the past shows what actually happened.

It is not an odds changer.

Perfect. It neither changes randomness nor can it change the house edge. Hence, opt it or not, is merely a choice, nothing special about it.