Quote from: Bayes on November 29, 2012, 05:42:08 PM
Hi KR,
Maybe, but that's down to variance. On average, because you need to win once in every 8 games just to break even, it means you don't make enough in the winning runs to offset the losses. But I don't want to stress this too much because it applies to every system.
Winning runs
Rather than posting tedious calculations, I'm just going to present the results in a table. The left-hand side shows the length of the winning run going up in steps of 5 after the first 4 and the right-hand side tells you what the chance is of seeing it. The first 4 results are given in % form and the remainder are in "1 in X" form.
Winning Chance
Run
2 75%
3 64%
4 59%
5 48%
10 1 in 4.3
15 1 in 8.9
20 1 in 18.4
25 1 in 38.0
30 1 in 78.6
35 1 in 162
40 1 in 337
45 1 in 697
50 1 in 1,443
55 1 in 2,986
60 1 in 6,181
65 1 in 12,794
70 1 in 26,481
75 1 in 54,809
80 1 in 113,443
85 1 in 234,803
90 1 in 485,991
95 1 in 1,005,895
100 1 in 2,081,980
The Pilot had 180 winning run and John had few 100+ ;) Bayes can you calculate the odds of winning 70 times in a row on any step of progression betting on 2 dozens? John in his run with FIVE when he went 1000/0 (about the same odds like 100/0 for PB) won 70+ consecutive step 4 double dozen bets each time after losing 3 first steps. In my calculations its like 1M multiplied by 1M.
Hi RH,
Not sure what you mean. I never really understood how FIVE worked. So basically, is this the odds of not losing a 4 step progression on the double dozens?
BTW, a winning run of 100 in PB is equivalent to an EC streak of 21, so it IS possible, but of course not very common.
As for a winning run of 1000, forget it. :no:
Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 08:27:04 AM
Hi RH,
Not sure what you mean. I never really understood how FIVE worked. So basically, is this the odds of not losing a 4 step progression on the double dozens?
Its like having no single loss in 70 tries betting on 2 dozens. It happened on 4th step of 1,3,9,27 progression in FIVE. Btw winning streak of 1000+ in FIVE carries about the same odds like 100+ in PB. For FIVE try to go LLLW 70 times in a row ;D
L represents loss in each step of 1,,3,9,27 progression. And the other guy reported winning 180 in a row with PB. Few thousands
millions in 1.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on November 30, 2012, 08:56:17 AM
try to go LLLW 70 times in a row ;D
Ok, so a loss is 13/37 and a win is 24/37. LLLW = [(13/37)
3 × 24/37]
70 = 1 in 3.58 × 10
108 :o
Edit: sorry, made a mistake - now corrected. :-[
Just in case anyone's wondering, this is a very big number. It would be like winning the UK lotto (odds 14 million to 1 against) about 14 times in a row.
Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 09:07:12 AM
Ok, so a loss is 13/37 and a win is 24/37. LLLW = [(13/37)3 × 24/37]70 = 1 in 3.58 × 10108
:o
RESULTS UPDATE FOR *****FIVE***** FOR THE 14/10/2012
TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 1,120
TOTAL GAMES WON 1,119
TOTAL GAMES LOST 1
STRIKERATE 1,119/1
BALANCE 1,040 POINTS PLUS
STEP 1 WINS=442
STEP 2 WINS=412
STEP 3 WINS=191
STEP 4 WINS=74----LOSSES=1
These are the stats for 1,3,9,27 double dozen progression for FIVE. There were 70 wins in row on a last step.... ;D
Nobody sees anything unusual?
Wow, I would love to get numbers like that. I never tested a four step Marti for doubled dozens. I wonder how often a 1 loss in a thousand occurs?
Actually RH, how do you know it's 70 in a row? I don't see where JL is claiming that, not in these stats anyway. Of course, 1 loss in 1,120 games looks pretty amazing, but you'd have to know where the loss came in order to know how long the winning run was.
Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 09:49:24 AM
Actually RH, how do you know it's 70 in a row? I don't see where JL is claiming that, not in these stats anyway. Of course, 1 loss in 1,120 games looks pretty amazing, but you'd have to know where the loss came in order to know how long the winning run was.
He posted it before that he went 70/0 on a last step. But even 74/1 does not happen. Odds of 1000+ winning run with FIVE overall are peanuts compared with what happened on a last step. Try to go 4th step in 1,3,9,27 and win 70 in a row. ;D
Peanuts hugh? I have a very new interest. I did extensive experimentation with a three step.
This is moving away from PB into FIVE...new thread perhaps gents?
Moderator's note: This topic has been split. Please confine comments on FIVE to this thread.
It does seem odd that almost every win on the 4th bet was uninterrupted by any wins on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd bets.
However, the calculations all assume, of course, that the system has no advantage, and since I never got my head around FIVE, I can't do any tests on it, not to mention that apparently it's impossible to simulate hit & run. ::)
But it's right to be sceptical about these stats until JL shows us that they're plausible. One thing about them is that you WOULD expect to get more wins on the first bet and proportionately fewer on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th bets. The theoretical breakdown over 1120 bets is this:
1st bet - 727
2nd bet - 255
3rd bet - 90
4th bet - 31
JL's stats are pretty out of whack compared to these, but at least they follow the same pattern in that there are increasingly fewer wins on successive bets.
Quote from: Robeenhuut on November 30, 2012, 09:55:25 AM
He posted it before that he went 70/0 on a last step. But even 74/1 does not happen. Odds of 1000+ winning run with FIVE overall are peanuts compared with what happened on a last step. Try to go 4th step in 1,3,9,27 and win 70 in a row. ;D
I don't think that's what he means by 70/0 on the last step either. It's not 'in a row'.
In amongst those 70 wins on Step 4, there will be wins on other steps.
I think JL is saying that
when he has been forced to go to Step 4, he's won 70 in a row of them.
Quote from: monaco on November 30, 2012, 11:19:28 AM
I think JL is saying that when he has been forced to go to Step 4, he's won 70 in a row of them.
I think that's what he meant. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 10:46:15 AM
It does seem odd that almost every win on the 4th bet was uninterrupted by any wins on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd bets.
However, the calculations all assume, of course, that the system has no advantage, and since I never got my head around FIVE, I can't do any tests on it, not to mention that apparently it's impossible to simulate hit & run. ::)
But it's right to be sceptical about these stats until JL shows us that they're plausible. One thing about them is that you WOULD expect to get more wins on the first bet and proportionately fewer on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th bets. The theoretical breakdown over 1120 bets is this:
1st bet - 727
2nd bet - 255
3rd bet - 90
4th bet - 31
JL's stats are pretty out of whack compared to these, but at least they follow the same pattern in that there are increasingly fewer wins on successive bets.
Bayes will Matt ever let this go? Yes I survived 70 bets on the 4th step, many on your RNG. But they werent consecutive. They were interrupted by wins on the other three steps. Sometimes days apart.
Noticed Robin hood after u again JL... :)) :)) :)) ...
JL has nothing to prove to me, he has shown me an idea on how to play. And i have CHOSEN to play it, and it works for me.
You carry on JL doing what u do best, some people appretiate what u are doin mate. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: ...
And for the record, i have made a profit from PB, and i am grateful !
Quote from: JohnLegend on November 30, 2012, 01:33:52 PM
Bayes will Matt ever let this go? Yes I survived 70 bets on the 4th step, many on your RNG. But they werent consecutive. They were interrupted by wins on the other three steps. Sometimes days apart.
that's where the confusion is
All the Math is based on 70 consecutive wins
On a side Note PB is goin well on Bacc 8)
Quote from: Tarantino on November 30, 2012, 02:12:01 PM
Noticed Robin hood after u again JL... :)) :)) :)) ...
JL has nothing to prove to me, he has shown me an idea on how to play. And i have CHOSEN to play it, and it works for me.
You carry on JL doing what u do best, some people appretiate what u are doin mate. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: ...
And for the record, i have made a profit from PB, and i am grateful !
Thanks Tarantino, yes I had noticed he jumped overhere because he realized im not coming back to the other forum YET!
Look all I do is report how I play and what it gives me. I am as amazed as anyone else when I get some incredible results. If I hadnt won 70 times on the 4th step non consecutively I would never have said so.
What have I got to gain from making that up? Its simply what H.A.R has given me. Now when you think about it, if a method like PATTERN BREAKER with only 7/1 odds can win 100 times in a row played H.A.R.
What could a method like FIVE with 80/1 odds or 8 ON 1 with 242/1 odds do? That's all you have to consider.
When you play H.A.R to LOSE YOU MUST LAND DEAD ON TOP OF A LOSS. Now if H,A.R can dodge that fatal pattern with only 8 possible combinations 20,30,40 or even 100 plus times.
You don't have to be a genius to realize it could take thousands of attempts to land dead on top of that fatal pattern with odds of 242/1. Why people find that so hard to believe is beyond me. And its the reason I've set out to prove these things are possible.
Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 08:29:49 AM
BTW, a winning run of 100 in PB is equivalent to an EC streak of 21, so it IS possible, but of course not very common.
As for a winning run of 1000, forget it. :no:
I agree absolutely no one will EVER win even 300 times in a row with PATTERN BREAKER let alone 1,000. It simply will NEVER HAPPEN.
Im not even sure about Pilots 180. Lets just say he had the greatest freak run ever likely to happen with this method if its true.
I've had a few 100 plus wins. BUT, they were when I only played HIGH and LOW. And only played 5 games maximum a day. Since I started playing ODD EVEN and 10--15 games a day.
The best streak I have had live is 34 for high and Low. I will always tell it as it is. If it works I will say so. If it doesn't I will drop it. Not all my methods were world beaters you know. I've had a few white elephants. VERTICAL 8 didn't hold up. The MATRIX SLIDE slid into negativity.
TRILOGY ended up being pretty average. But when a method works, I will say so. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Bayes on November 30, 2012, 10:46:15 AM
It does seem odd that almost every win on the 4th bet was uninterrupted by any wins on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd bets.
However, the calculations all assume, of course, that the system has no advantage, and since I never got my head around FIVE, I can't do any tests on it, not to mention that apparently it's impossible to simulate hit & run. ::)
But it's right to be sceptical about these stats until JL shows us that they're plausible. One thing about them is that you WOULD expect to get more wins on the first bet and proportionately fewer on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th bets. The theoretical breakdown over 1120 bets is this:
1st bet - 727
2nd bet - 255
3rd bet - 90
4th bet - 31
JL's stats are pretty out of whack compared to these, but at least they follow the same pattern in that there are increasingly fewer wins on successive bets.
Bayes
Since you are the one that has any grasp of statistics let me put it this way. We have here 1120 winning bets on double dozens and some losing ones. Forget about steps. Can you calculate the odds of having this sequence: LLLW not consecutively 70 times in a row for double dozens bet? So each time after you lose 3 bets you win the 4th one.
How about the odds of seeing B 70 times each time after you see RRR? These events don't have to be consecutive. ;)
Quote from: Tarantino on November 30, 2012, 02:12:01 PM
Noticed Robin hood after u again JL... :)) :)) :)) ...
JL has nothing to prove to me, he has shown me an idea on how to play. And i have CHOSEN to play it, and it works for me.
You carry on JL doing what u do best, some people appretiate what u are doin mate. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: ...
And for the record, i have made a profit from PB, and i am grateful !
Im after his stats if you have not noticed that. I just see something unusual in having few runs with odds over 1M in a few thousand games with PB and FIVE. ;)
???
Quote from: Robeenhuut on December 01, 2012, 04:35:16 AM
Bayes
Since you are the one that has any grasp of statistics let me put it this way. We have here 1120 winning bets on double dozens and some losing ones. Forget about steps. Can you calculate the odds of having this sequence: LLLW not consecutively 70 times in a row for double dozens bet? So each time after you lose 3 bets you win the 4th one.
How about the odds of seeing B 70 times each time after you see RRR? These events don't have to be consecutive. ;)
Matt I don't think FIVE is comparable to your example. RRRB is a consecutive formation. With FIVE the main thing that threw most people was THE BET TRIGGER. It could be all over the place. Before around the same time.
And after the game trigger. That's what most people couldnt grasp. And what makes what you deem impossible. Possible. Its not a rigid 1,2,3,4. Like a MATRIX method.
In essence, by the time I got to that fourth step it was actually a fifth step some of the time (with the 2nd step GAME TRIGGER UNPLAYED ) and a fourth step other times. That may be why it survived so long. I've been thinking on this sometime now.
Because don't get me wrong, I was as amazed as you are. But I think that the complexity of the BET TRIGGER. Is what makes it so powerful.
And indeed hard to grasp. So to summarize many of what you thought were consecutive 4 step wins. Were in reality FIVE STEP WINS. Can you understand what im saying here Matt?
I will use the diagram below to try and bring Bayes in on this understanding. Also wading through my results. for what you think is a miracle 70 4 step wins in a row. of the 70. 29 were in reality 5 step wins. And the longest string of PURE 4 steps wins I have during the 70 is 6.
EXAMPLE 1
44--GAME TRIGGER (UNPLAYED)
44--STEP 1--BET TRIGGER
44--STEP 2
44--STEP 3
44--STEP 4------All 4 steps started and qualified after the G/T
EXAMPLE 2
44--BET TRIGGER---And step one bet as it started before the game trigger but qualified after the G/T
44--GAME TRIGGER (UNPLAYED)
44--STEP 2 BET
44--STEP 3 BET
44--STEP 4 BET
So what im saying Bayes is 29 of the 70 games that Matt asumes were consecutive 4 STEP winners. Were in reality 5 STEP winners with the second step (GAME TRIGGER) unplayed. Because what FIVE has in common with PATTERN BREAKER. Is we are leaving the BET SELECTION.
Entirely up to RANDOM. This is where I believe both draw their power from. We arent fighting the grain we are flowing with it. And of course random can't be rushed. It does things in its own time.