Definition of Hit and Run: The belief that MERELY by keeping sessions short, and splitting up what would otherwise have been a "long" session (say 100 bets) into (say) 10 sessions each consisting of 10 bets, a player will have gained some advantage and that he will be less likely to encounter a losing sequence. So the idea is that if you "reset" the game after short sessions, either by perhaps moving to another table, or leaving the casino and coming back the next day, you will have significantly increased your chances of winning.

THIS BELIEF IS FLAWED

An analogy might help to see why. Suppose you have a bunch of faulty light bulbs which are destroyed when the filament gets too hot, so if you leave a bulb switched on for more than about 5 minutes, the filament breaks due to the heat.

Is there a way of using these light bulbs without breaking them? Yes, by leaving them on for only 2 or 3 minutes and then switching them off for a while so that the filaments cool down. You can carry on like this indefinitely and the bulb will be fine. If you leave the bulb on for 3 minutes at a time, then switch it off for 10 minutes and then switch it on again for 3 minutes, you can do this 20 times and you will have had 1 hour of light. But you can't leave the bulb on for 1 hour continuously because after about 5 minutes the heat will break the filament.

This is like the H.A.R. model of playing roulette. Why is it inappropriate? Simply because unlike the light bulb, there is no law of physics or property of the "material" which says that results will get worse if you play beyond a certain point. You will not necessarily get "burned out" after 10, 20, 50 or some other number of bets because the outcomes are RANDOM.

Suppose your system cannot tolerate any more than 10 losses in a row. Are those losses more likely to appear in the 3rd set of ten spins than in the 1st? or more likely in the 7th rather than the 4th? The answer is that if you're entering the infinite stream of outcomes at a random point (which you are, according to the definition of HAR above), then no particular set of 10 spins is more likely to contain the losing sequence than any other. You are just as likely to get destroyed in the first 10 spins as in some 10 spin set which is 50 or 100 spins away. This would be like the light bulb filament not being broken due to the increase in heat over time, but by some random quantum fluctuations which don't depend on changes of state (in this case the change of state being the increased motion of the atoms in the filament).

Although you could say in a sense there are "changes of state" in roulette outcomes, they aren't "caused" in the same way that the increased motion of the atoms in the lightbulb filament are caused by switching on the current to the bulb. Unlike roulette outcomes, in the case of the lightbulb, the outcome is deterministic, meaning that all other things being equal, the lightbulb being turned on will inevitably lead to heat and destruction of the filament within a predictable timeframe.

According to proponents of H.A.R., what does "cause" the outcomes to go against you? 

Since there is no law that says the run from hell will appear after X or Y spins, it must be the mere fact that you started playing! 

Think about how absurd this is - the HAR guy says that the game will start to "blow up" BECAUSE he started playing it, and not only that but what anyone else does is irrelevant! ie; it's not only the fact that you started playing which sets in motion the eventual losses, but the fact that YOU started playing (and not someone else). So in effect, he is saying that HAR is independent of the actual outcomes.

This is absurdity piled upon absurdity. You can see this by imagining the following scenario:

Suppose player A starts playing his system, and after 20 bets decides to end his session (as dictated by the law of HAR). Just as he leaves the table, player B turns up. As it happens, he is also a proponent of HAR, and coincidentally, is playing the very same system as player A. So the situation is this -

* Player A has just left the table, because he "knows" that it was the right thing to do (if he had kept on playing, this would have been contrary to HAR, and he would have lost).

* Player B has just arrived. He might look at past spins in order to get a trigger for his system, but apart from that, the the point at which he starts looking for the trigger is random (in other words, he doesn't know or care that player A has just left having completed his HAR session).

By HAR, player B is expected to do better merely by keeping his session short, regardless of what is expected (in terms of outcomes) at the actual table. But recall the faulty light bulb example, it's like thinking that the lightbulbs failing has nothing to do with how long it's been on, but only on whether someone is AWARE of how long it's been on, which is obviously nonsense - either there is a real physical law at work or there isn't. To believe that your mere perception of an event is sufficient to influence it is to believe in magic.

If you have a hypothesis and assume it's true, then work out the consequences, if you end up with an absurd result or conclusion, then it must mean that the hypothesis is false.

I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make, and why HAR as defined above cannot work. 

A lot of gamblers believe in HAR and they probably always will, but it doesn't have a leg to stand on. Here's another analogy -

Bill & Bob

Bill & Bob are two hedgehogs who both live in an area divided by a road. At night both of them cross the road at random times, but only once per night. The road isn't a busy one, with an average of maybe 1 car per hour.  Bill is a purposeful kind of chap who doesn't dither when crossing the road; it takes him ten seconds. Bob, on the other hand, is more laid back, he likes to soak up some of the heat absorbed by the road during the day, so it takes him a full minute to cross - six times longer than Bill.

Question: Who is more likely get squashed first?

If you said Bob, you'd be right! 

So does this validate HAR?

NO!!!

Bob may be the FIRST to get squashed, but don't forget, his time spent on the road is 6 times as much as Bill's. The number of road crossings isn't the same as the time actually on the road, and this is the only factor which determines how likely it is that one or other of them will be squashed.

Similarly, if you play 6 games per session then you're going to lose a game, in terms of the number of sessions, BEFORE someone who only plays one game per session. It does NOT mean that HAR is a superior strategy, it just means that the one-game-per-session guy will have to play more GAMES, on average, before he loses.

Thinking the HAR way can be dangerous. How often do you hear that someone thinks that they can "get away with" using a martingale because they're just "in and out" quickly (and therefore, it's implied, they will be less likely to be caught out)? Too many players think that HAR gives them some kind of immunity from randomness.

Good analogies Bayes, let's put the last bit into context, had player B got his 2 or 3 wins in a row, player A (had he stayed at the table just to watch) would have had an extra 2 or 3 virtual wins, maybe that would have told him HAR was flawed. It all boils down to luck.

Having a goal to reach is different in my opinion, let's say each session you want to reach 10 units, playing with 1£$Euro chips could it be classed as hit n run? maybe, I know JL says he makes a target 2 or 3 times a day, why call it hit n run? because he knows that eventually there will come a loss, so it isn't really hit n run its playing dodge, eventually you get caught.

My target is 10 chips per session twice a day, not playing dodge, but because I get bored playing manually which can lead to higher risks/mistakes, I have done a few long sessions with no big issues/risks but find it too stressful in the concentration department, even with the tracker running so I decide to just have a target to reack and close. As I play similar to you, Bayes, we both know the run from hell type loss a method/system has will not appear, are we playing HAR or GR (Goal Reaching)

Quote from: Superman on December 22, 2012, 10:52:12 AM
Good analogies Bayes, let's put the last bit into context, had player B got his 2 or 3 wins in a row, player A (had he stayed at the table just to watch) would have had an extra 2 or 3 virtual wins, maybe that would have told him HAR was flawed. It all boils down to luck.

Having a goal to reach is different in my opinion, let's say each session you want to reach 10 units, playing with 1£$Euro chips could it be classed as hit n run? maybe, I know JL says he makes a target 2 or 3 times a day, why call it hit n run? because he knows that eventually there will come a loss, so it isn't really hit n run its playing dodge, eventually you get caught.

That's right. Nothing wrong with quitting a session if you feel tired, or if you've made your predetermined profits. The crucial thing in HAR is that the entry and exit points are random, so how are you to know whether the conditions are right to start or quit?
Take blackjack card-counting; a card-counter will enter the game at a random time but not actually place any bets until the composition of the deck is in his favour. At that point he'll start making bets, then when the deck is heavy in low cards and low in tens he'll stop betting.

Suppose player B knew that player A had just lost his game. If the system was such that 2 losses in a row were very rare, that would be a better reason for starting play at that point in the random stream than a purely random entry, although of course the math says it makes no difference. The point is more to do with consistency than anything else. If you're using a trigger based on past spins then knowing nothing about the past spins with respect to when you enter and exit cannot possibly IMPROVE your chances of winning (assuming that observing past spins does make a difference).

Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2012, 11:45:26 AM
That's right. Nothing wrong with quitting a session if you feel tired, or if you've made your predetermined profits. The crucial thing in HAR is that the entry and exit points are random, so how are you to know whether the conditions are right to start or quit?
Take blackjack card-counting; a card-counter will enter the game at a random time but not actually place any bets until the composition of the deck is in his favour. At that point he'll start making bets, then when the deck is heavy in low cards and low in tens he'll stop betting.

Suppose player B knew that player A had just lost his game. If the system was such that 2 losses in a row were very rare, that would be a better reason for starting play at that point in the random stream than a purely random entry, although of course the math says it makes no difference. The point is more to do with consistency than anything else. If you're using a trigger based on past spins then knowing nothing about the past spins with respect to when you enter and exit cannot possibly IMPROVE your chances of winning (assuming that observing past spins does make a difference).

I guess im supposed to respond to this with my usual defiance. ALL I can say to both of you is July next year will give you your answer.

What will be seen will be enough to show the virtues of what I do. And of course it would have been highly unlikely those numbers would have been reached with continuous play. Especially with methods that are according to one forum owner are pure garbage.

If for exampLe you can sit there and win more than 40 games of PATTERN BREAKER in a row. Do let me know.

I posted this on another thread already but is more fitting here.

A longtime ago a friend tested PB over 100K continuous spins.


These results are over 1781 games. From this we can calculate what the expected results would have been over 6000 games


TOTAL GAMES PLAYED    1781

TOTAL GAMES WON        1530

TOTAL GAMES LOST          212 ........  in 6000 games JL had 531 losses  (in 6000 games +-714 losses would be expected)

DOUBLE LOSSES                36 .........  in 6000 games JL had 7 double losses (in 6000 games +-121 double losses are expected)


BALANCE                           negative



JLs current 6000 game stats clearly show that his live HAR playing style is significantly different from continually computer testing.



RESULTS UPDATE FOR *PATTERN BREAKER* FOR 07/11/2012

TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 6,000

TOTAL GAMES WON 5,469

TOTAL GAMES LOST 531

STRIKERATE APPROX 10/1

BALANCE 5,640 POINTS PLUS

DOUBLE LOSSES 7

TREBLE LOSSES **ZERO**

QuoteI guess im supposed to respond to this with my usual defiance

It's your choice to respond, nobody has to respond to anything.

You've seen a few members lately posting losing runs for PB, Trebor was one of them, he also played your style, HAR, it failed for him, how do you sum that up? was he player B in Bayes example? I think what is trying to be highlighted here is the fact that HAR is not something that works for everyone, and if it does not work for the majority then it can't really be classified as a method of play, you must be keeping some sort of mental note of how many people are actually winning with HAR style play as opposed to those that it has failed for, the ones who have posted they are winning following HAR are just a drop in the ocean and strangley they are new or newer members, which as you know always looks iffy to say the least.

Wether you are winning or not is not the contention here, the fact is, it's timing which equates to luck, you've been lucky that you played at the times you played.

As with everything in roulette, what works for ONE person may not work for the majority, maybe the difinition of HAR is wrong, is hitting your session target really HAR?

Quote from: AMK on December 22, 2012, 12:35:29 PM
I posted this on another thread already but is more fitting here.

A longtime ago a friend tested PB over 100K continuous spins.



TOTAL GAMES PLAYED    1781

TOTAL GAMES WON        1530

TOTAL GAMES LOST          212 ........  in 6000 games JL had 531 losses

DOUBLE LOSSES                36 .........  in 6000 games JL had 7 double losses


BALANCE                           negative



JLs current 6000 game stats clearly show that his live HAR playing style is significantly different from continually computer testing.



RESULTS UPDATE FOR *PATTERN BREAKER* FOR 07/11/2012

TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 6,000

TOTAL GAMES WON 5,469

TOTAL GAMES LOST 531

STRIKERATE APPROX 10/1

BALANCE 5,640 POINTS PLUS

DOUBLE LOSSES 7

TREBLE LOSSES **ZERO**

AMK its no good posting those stats. Everyone thinks I just make them up. That's why July next year is a month few will forget. The realization that I am no liar will finally come to rest in most reasonable minded people.

Persistent negatives will  continue to doubt. And I will continue to play and win until I am shut down. And that will be the ultimate verification that what I do, if done faithfully and persistently. Is indeed a threat to the powers that be.

QuoteThe realization that I am no liar

Nobody here is calling you a liar, you should stop saying that.

QuoteAnd I will continue to play and win until I am shut down

You say you have been playing this way for years (I think the last time I read that you said 4 years, not sure), but you also keep saying you stand the chance of getting shutdown within the next 6 months, why is that?

Quote from: Superman on December 22, 2012, 12:45:03 PM

It's your choice to respond, nobody has to respond to anything.

You've seen a few members lately posting losing runs for PB, Trebor was one of them, he also played your style, HAR, it failed for him, how do you sum that up? was he player B in Bayes example? I think what is trying to be highlighted here is the fact that HAR is not something that works for everyone, and if it does not work for the majority then it can't really be classified as a method of play, you must be keeping some sort of mental note of how many people are actually winning with HAR style play as opposed to those that it has failed for, the ones who have posted they are winning following HAR are just a drop in the ocean and strangley they are new or newer members, which as you know always looks iffy to say the least.

Wether you are winning or not is not the contention here, the fact is, it's timing which equates to luck, you've been lucky that you played at the times you played.

As with everything in roulette, what works for ONE person may not work for the majority, maybe the difinition of HAR is wrong, is hitting your session target really HAR?

Superman, I never guarantee what I do will work for everyone. Most people are already negative towards this game. Totally jaded. All I do is present what I do when its worked for me. Its then up to the individual to make of it what they want.
For some it will work. For others its may not. I never said PB was bullet proof. You don't get bullet proof for 7 units. Everyone must surely know that. You don't even get bullet proof for 242 units.

But you do get CLOSER to it. Everyone wants something for next to nothing. Human nature at its best. The reason im doing the challenge is to prove I CAN WIN. Not anyone else. Because I've been called every low down term associated with bad people in this game.

You have to have iron self belief. Some people arent made to beat this game period. Trebor and Shogun both simmered around 7/1 after two or three hundred games. For them failure. But NOT FOR ME that's the difference. I know how to make this method pay EVEN when it drops below its break even point 7/1.

When its flying as it is at the moment for me. You don't need any smart MM you just let it GO. So NO, not everyone will get stellar results with PB. Most will fold before they ever see what is really possible.

They want INSTANT GRATIFICATION. And when it doesn't come they will bend and drop out. STAYING POWER. its lacking in most people Superman. 7/1 doesn't buy you a miracle. You have to work at it.
242/1 that's another story. Bayes has a surprise coming his way next year with that one.

Quote from: Superman on December 22, 2012, 12:56:59 PM

Nobody here is calling you a liar, you should stop saying that.
 
You say you have been playing this way for years (I think the last time I read that you said 4 years, not sure), but you also keep saying you stand the chance of getting shutdown within the next 6 months, why is that?

Superman you know who has called me a liar, and worse. No not 6 months Superman. But you will of course be to the first to realize I am going to take PP to pieces. Now if you were them. And you know that unless you stop me. You are going to lose millions over the next 3-5 years. What would you do?

On the "other" forum, ego will prove/disprove the thing with his eight-sided dice.

As I read this a thought comes to mind:  Luck can hold math at bay--for a while.

Sam

JL,

I stayed away from the main PB thread so I wouldn't see you say about me what I have now seen you say.

For the record. I remain unconvinced about the virtues of HAR as it makes no sense to me either but decided to have a go testing according to your methods. I accept that if I had carried on my results might have become better, of course they might also have become worse.

This has nothing whatsoever with a lack of staying power or impatience on my part. There was always advice on how my results might improve if I made some subtle change to my playing, BV suddenly became suspect, for some unknown reason one EC was "better" than the other two, I was playing too many sessions, the list goes on.

I would love for you to be right so I hope your supervised test lives up to your claims and it remains verifiable.

I think I'm right that you claim to have been winning with your methods for at least 13 years.

Trebor

Quote from: TwoCatSam on December 22, 2012, 02:38:55 PM
On the "other" forum, ego will prove/disprove the thing with his eight-sided dice.

As I read this a thought comes to mind:  Luck can hold math at bay--for a while.

Sam

Yes but can it hold math at bay for 4 years Sam? You can't prove or disprove H.A.R, because its random entry into the cycle. Of course there are elements of luck, timing whatever involved. I've proved to myself that H,A.R is a superior play strategy for me. It might not work for everyone.

But as long as I play this game. Its how im going to play. I've played roulette for 20 years this coming february. In the first 11 years I played the game I could NOT WIN. And the reason was I played like most people play. Since I adopted the H.A.R style of play. I have never had a year I didn't make good profit.

You stay with what works for you personally no?

Quote from: Trebor on December 22, 2012, 03:04:38 PM
JL,

I stayed away from the main PB thread so I wouldn't see you say about me what I have now seen you say.

For the record. I remain unconvinced about the virtues of HAR as it makes no sense to me either but decided to have a go testing according to your methods. I accept that if I had carried on my results might have become better, of course they might also have become worse.

This has nothing whatsoever with a lack of staying power or impatience on my part. There was always advice on how my results might improve if I made some subtle change to my playing, BV suddenly became suspect, for some unknown reason one EC was "better" than the other two, I was playing too many sessions, the list goes on.

I would love for you to be right so I hope your supervised test lives up to your claims and it remains verifiable.

I think I'm right that you claim to have been winning with your methods for at least 13 years.

Trebor

Trebor what have I said about you? I am talking in general terms. Rest assured come July next year the numbers will tell my story. The following year if Im still alowed to do this. Its going to be something. Superman may still not believe in H,A,R but he will sure be glad he is involved with me playing it. Lets put it like that.

Quote from: Bayes on December 22, 2012, 03:26:12 PM
John, this thread isn't about attacking you or your systems. A lot of gamblers believe in HAR and they probably always will, but it doesn't have a leg to stand on. Here's another analogy -

Bill & Bob

Bill & Bob are two hedgehogs who both live in an area divided by a road. At night both of them cross the road at random times, but only once per night. The road isn't a busy one, with an average of maybe 1 car per hour.  Bill is a purposeful kind of chap who doesn't dither when crossing the road; it takes him ten seconds. Bob, on the other hand, is more laid back, he likes to soak up some of the heat absorbed by the road during the day, so it takes him a full minute to cross - six times longer than Bill.

Question: Who is more likely get squashed first?

If you said Bob, you'd be right! 

So does this validate HAR?

NO!!!

Bob may be the FIRST to get squashed, but don't forget, his time spent on the road is 6 times as much as Bill's. The number of road crossings isn't the same as the time actually on the road, and this is the only factor which determines how likely it is that one or another of them will be squashed.

Similarly, if you play 6 games per session then you're going to lose a game, in terms of the number of sessions, BEFORE someone who only plays one game per session. It does NOT mean that HAR is a superior strategy, it just means that the one-game-per-session guy will have to play more GAMES, on average, before he loses.

Thinking the HAR way can be dangerous. How often do you hear that someone thinks that they can "get away with" using a martingale because they're just "in and out" quickly (and therefore, it's implied, they will be less likely to be caught out)? Too many players think that HAR gives them some kind of immunity from randomness.

Bayes I know this isn't a personal attack on me. But im giving my side of the story. All I say is this. If I sat there and played 40 games of Pattern Breaker in a row. You can be certain I would lose at least once. So now tell me why I can win 40 or more playing H.A.R if it has NO ADVANTAGE?