Hey Xander (I see I have to go on point again), with your AP (cough) skills, do you have PROOF that you do well with it? (just like old times, hey buddy?)

Ken

Quote from: Xander on February 16, 2014, 12:23:01 AM

Bayes, on the RNG wheels it's simply not going to matter.  All that will change is the number of spins on which a bet is made.  A live wheel, is something different all together.

Maybe so, but I want to make sure that the rules given by XXVV are the ones which are actually used, that's the only reason I mentioned it. If I missed out that rule, I would be laying myself open to the charge that it isn't WF3 which was being simulated, but some variation of it.

Quote from: XXVV on February 16, 2014, 02:53:30 AM

Inviting Xander to dinner would have the unfortunate result of all the guests losing their appetites and leaving because he would have deflated the evening like a Led Zeppelin and insulted Chef Ramsey over his poor record at Glasgow Rangers.


Don't take it personally Xander remember the Bayes Mantra.
XXVV

XXVV,


Don't you think you're being a bit childish? and what's with the snide remarks directed at me? Xander's comments aren't personal, that's what you don't seem to realize. They are about the methodology, not "personal" in the sense of being about you or your character, whereas your comments about him are.

Reading some of these threads reminds me of one of my favourite Edward de Bono books (I am right, you are wrong)

We need to go from using 'rock logic' to 'water logic'.

Rock logic would argue that WF3 was a failure if it could not pass a continuous 1 million spin test.

Water logic (as the name suggests) would look to go with the flow and roll with the punches throughout those 1 million spins.

It's important not to think clever concepts such as WF3 are a grail within themselves. But they can be used skilfully by a player to win more sessions than they lose.

Thank you guys for all the hard work you are doing on this subject. It is much appreciated. 

Bally...Im shocked at the interest this idea has gathered considering that I've been playing like this and posting like this for years.
Having said that...the subtlty lies in the application.

Quote from: Turner on February 16, 2014, 01:31:05 PM
Bally...Im shocked at the interest this idea has gathered considering that I've been playing like this and posting like this for years.
Having said that...the subtlty lies in the application.

It's amazing what a few subtle changes to the framework of an idea can produce.

Take RWD as an example. It's a failure (IMO) in it's rigid format.

Then along comes a player and adds a bit of creativity and things can look decidedly different.

That's the great thing in the age of the internet. Information like this can be freely shared and our knowledge of the game can grow rapidly.

'It's all good' as the saying goes.

cheers

Quote from: Bayes on February 16, 2014, 08:46:52 AM

XXVV,


Don't you think you're being a bit childish? and what's with the snide remarks directed at me? Xander's comments aren't personal, that's what you don't seem to realize. They are about the methodology, not "personal" in the sense of being about you or your character, whereas your comments about him are.

The remarks are childish and I unreservedly apologise. I have removed the offending post and you can edit this also along with associated debris if you wish. This is Sputnik's thread and I will not be making any further initial or subsequent posts in this context. The intention of the publication of the WF work has been achieved and I thank you for the help in so doing. I have now much to get on with elsewhere.
XXVV
17Feb 2014/0525

XXVV, thanks for the apology. I appreciate it.

This is my problem. I get a bit confused. I always hate those films that split screen and have several camera shots at once.


There seem to be a lot of versions of this idea. Is egos version different than Bayes version different than XXVVs version?


There are several postes all on WF3


I seem to remember a max of spins that ends a game, as well as a 4th repeat or a win.


Which is which??

Here is the rules as i undertand them.
WF3

Bet on up to 3 numbers which have repeated.
A game terminates (start re-tracking) when either a number hits a third time (a win) or a 4th number repeats without any number having hit 3 times (a loss).

Incorporated VP (meaning virtual play), which means that if you've had no win after the 3rd repeat (a la WF3), play continues "virtually" until a number hits a 3rd time.

Now i will get back and test different version of WF3
All numbers will be from random org with data and size - so you can back track everything

Quote from: Turner on February 16, 2014, 09:10:41 PM

There seem to be a lot of versions of this idea. Is egos version different than Bayes version different than XXVVs version?

No, there is only one version. Short example:



    1   36        +0 
    2   32        +0 
    3   18        +0 
    4   11        +0 
    5   14        +0 
    6   15        +0 
    7   28        +0 
    8   34        +0 
    9   16        +0 
   10   32        +0         #32 has now hit twice, so start betting on it.
   11   31        -1 32
   12   19        -2 32
   13   19        -3 32
   14   12        -5 32 19  #19 has now also hit twice, so bet on it as well as #32
   15   20        -7 32 19
   16   12        -9 32 19       #12 has hit twice, add it to the list to bet on from here on.
   17   17       -12 32 19 12
   18   24       -15 32 19 12
   19   14       -18 32 19 12 


At this point, #14 has also hit twice. As there are now FOUR numbers which have hit twice (but nothing has hit 3 times yet), go into "virtual" mode. i.e. keep tracking (but not actually betting) until any number has hit a third time. Note that this could be a number which hasn't actually appeared yet, or not.



         VP                                           means "Virtual Play"
   20   30       -18 32 19 12 14
   21   16       -18 32 19 12 14
   22   24       -18 32 19 12 14 16
   23   33       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24
   24   34       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24
   25    6       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34
   26   17       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34
   27   29       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
   28   23       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
   29   13       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
   30    8       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
   31   25       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
   32   22       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
   33   18       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17
   34   33       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17 18
   35   28       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17 18 33
   36   13       -18 32 19 12 14 16 24 34 17 18 33 28
   37   24       -18       


At this point, #24 has hit 3 times and is the first number to do so, therefore the game ends here and you start tracking again looking for repeats.

Thanks Bayes for making that clear.

I will not continue with this as i getting bad results.
I don't understand how some one can get good results using WF3.

I apoliges for this, but WF3 does not work with random org ...

Can either of you guys tell me what the game duration is?

Sorry I have not read the method; there is so much fluff surrounding it now that I am not sure I could even find the answers I am looking for. I see XXVV mentioned earlier 60-90 spins for 3-5 games.

This bet selection has no logic at all. Xander was right when he said stuff like this has been tested to death. But lets not take any of it personally. It's just an observation. I would rather see some maths that backs up the premise of the bet, but I suspect it does not exist. I have done simulations of this, or similar, myself, and I can say from experience that WF3 will not hold up in the long run, nothing will help including money management and progressions.

I have created a book of simulated statistics that attempts to find out categorically whether hot numbers can be defined mathematically in some optimum criteria, and, thus, predicted i.e. is there any point in time where a number has a higher probability of hitting that the expectancy.

I can say that WF3 is pretty wide of the mark really, for the most simple reason that it's betting on old "hot" numbers, and so the definition is incorrect. This is just like taking a wild, random punt.

Quote from: Number Six on February 17, 2014, 05:33:00 PM
Can either of you guys tell me what the game duration is?

Sorry I have not read the method; there is so much fluff surrounding it now that I am not sure I could even find the answers I am looking for. I see XXVV mentioned earlier 60-90 spins for 3-5 games.

This bet selection has no logic at all. Xander was right when he said stuff like this has been tested to death. But lets not take any of it personally. It's just an observation. I would rather see some maths that backs up the premise of the bet, but I suspect it does not exist. I have done simulations of this, or similar, myself, and I can say from experience that WF3 will not hold up in the long run, nothing will help including money management and progressions.

I have created a book of simulated statistics that attempts to find out categorically whether hot numbers can be defined mathematically in some optimum criteria, and, thus, predicted i.e. is there any point in time where a number has a higher probability of hitting that the expectancy.

I can say that WF3 is pretty wide of the mark really, for the most simple reason that it's betting on old "hot" numbers, and so the definition is incorrect. This is just like taking a wild, random punt.

I have the solution.
I can tell what number is bias or hot and not due towards random fluctuation.
The method comes from discussion between Laurance Scott and Edward Thorp.
The down side is that i don't share or make that kind of information public.
But i have to say it feels good having a complete playing model in my library.
I have all simulations software with cor charts and explanation how to determine what is what.

Sputnik,

I presume you're talking about AP here, considering the names you mentioned?

My experiment was geared up towards a mathematical solution really. For that reason I tend to use random.org as the source, so any results can't be due to physical bias or something else. The results were pretty enlightening, but like you say some things are not for public consumption for one reason or another.