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.

Thanks for your  'opinion ' #6


Why you have to post here on Sputnik's site, and not directly to me or to a thread of mine  is 'wide of the mark' also.


You can't be bothered to 'read the method ' and the tone of your entire passage is shall we say 'skewed', and not very supportive of the WF approach, but then if you have not read the detail, why comment so negatively.


I really regret having to write on Sputnik's thread but I had said to Bayes I would not because of the prior nonsense with Xander. It seems this particular thread is attracting some negative comment and as you have asked a specific question you deserve a specific answer, despite your clearly biased view.


The average duration of a WF game, whether WF3,WF4 or WF5 or more, is 21 spins, including qualification of targets. This total game duration will vary from as little as 3 spins for an optimal outcome, so some that go 30 spins or more.


If #6 you take the trouble to travel across to my blog section you will see on a thread a beautiful distribution graph that illustrates the outcomes on Macao and the consistent appearance at the peak of the bell curve for outcomes between 3 and 4 targets. These are the WF3 and WF4 modes.


Bayes was shown this graph (appropriately numbered thread #6) at the outset and noted the clear pattern signal which encouraged him to put the effort into his programming.


Perhaps you would like to discuss  the mathematical implications with him and enlighten us all in due course as to worth, through your eyes and considered experience. I would be most interested but respectfully ask, you do your homework first before expressing opinion. Nothing personal of course.


As for Sputnik, well I did say patience was needed and you have not demonstrated that to me as from the ouset I cautioned on RNG and particularly some sources therof. I am beginning to sound like Xander, and that is a worry(hmm) but I do suggest you first focus on small samples of reliable live spin data like Biagle has faithfully done on my blog using Wiesbaden#3.


In that we have struggled with passages of poor results and I have shown him there was a major accruing error as we measure results completed game to completed game, and #6 you might be interested in this, the seamless connecting of one night's last spins to the first spins the next day in order to complete the game. In Macao the 'gap' was 15 minutes we 'bridged, and in Wiesbaden, 9 hours or so. Also we seamlessly co-related the 31 days first game only sessions for a month as a random assemblage for Wiesbaden and that worked beautifully. Valid #6 ?


Further #6 you talk of old 'hotnumbers' being targeted. Quite the reverse and I can tell you have not read my reasoning on the generation of warm and warming numbers and the freshness and speed of those cycles, very different from hot number cycles.


I would appreciate your re-locating any discussion or queries of WF onto the appropriate and clearly marked sections on my blog.


If Sputnik you wish to assimilate my work into a larger library of data, all well and good, but again please write to me in the appropriate context or again we have the problem of opinionated intrusion ( such as Xander M/O ) which has been shown to be counter productive on all levels.


Thank you.


Thanks to you both for your time
Best
XXVV
18Feb2015/0710

QuoteI 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.

QuoteSputnik,

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.

True it is about AP.
But you have to make one important distinction when you read what i wrote.
The method is based upon math and probability and not defect spotting.
Defect spotting involve physical detections of the wheel.
The method Laurance Scott create after some discussion with Edward Thorp is pure math and probability.

I can mention he make a difference between pseudo STD and actually STD.
Then you have the COR charts - Chance of randomness.
Monte Carlo simulation softare to see how ofthen 123456789 numbers hit 3 STD randomly and so on ...
Then you use a matemathical hypotes of the likelihood that a number is due towards random fluctuation or not.
Based upon very clever parameters that i can not mention - the playing model.

XXVV,

Yes I did not read it. I read the criteria Bayes used for his program, so regardless I am pretty sure I understand what it's all about. Not sure I need to do my homework really, your opinion of this method of play does not tally with mine. I don't see the problem. There's nothing wrong with advising caution before someone plays it for real. If they do or not has no bearing on me at all.

My view is hardly biased, I'm not bashing any one here, I just don't see the logic. There is actually nothing to support that fact that your bet selections somehow offer an increased probability of winning. I feel like I've seen it all before.

Quote from: Sputnik on February 17, 2014, 06:13:58 PM

I can mention he make a difference between pseudo STD and actually STD.

Interesting. And what were the conclusions drawn about pseudo SD?

Are we talking about the difference between virtual bets and real bets? Do they think it's valid?

Quote from: Number Six on February 17, 2014, 06:22:42 PM
XXVV,

Yes I did not read it. I read the criteria Bayes used for his program, so regardless I am pretty sure I understand what it's all about. Not sure I need to do my homework really, your opinion of this method of play does not tally with mine. I don't see the problem. There's nothing wrong with advising caution before someone plays it for real. If they do or not has no bearing on me at all.

My view is hardly biased, I'm not bashing any one here, I just don't see the logic. There is actually nothing to support that fact that your bet selections somehow offer an increased probability of winning. I feel like I've seen it all before.

Fair enough the last sentence really sums your view and thank you for the directness.


What interests me about science and research or design, is trying to see something anew, from a slightly different angle. A fresh 'insight'.


Simply stated I believe WF does that in that in many cases, sometimes a majority of cases, a win van be achieved through a higher than expected grouping of winning bet outcomes when there are 3 or 4 targets in a game as we have defined. This fluctuates of course but in my experience and in substantial samples of live spin testing we have found there is a sufficient dominance of these characteristsics, especially WF1,2, and 3, in order to provide short term gain which can be captured and amassed.


Of course this varies and we flat stake and stop loss to try to maximise bet efficiency.


It works for me with addition especially of further detail to which I have referred.


The warm numbers often come and go and in my view most often do not become hot as in the RWD definition.


My original idea was that the 'warming' process' gives this view a freshness and slightly different quality, what is termed 'a point of difference' in commercial jargon. However if after all that, you still feel you have 'seen it all' then I need discuss this no further.


Thank you

Quote from: XXVV on February 17, 2014, 06:34:52 PM
The warm numbers often come and go and in my view most often do not become hot as in the RWD definition.

I don't think the RWD definition has much credence at all. Call me cynical or narrow-minded but I understand he was selling a book and so had financial interest to sugarcoat his ideas.

The problem simply remains that most "hot number" systems simply select whichever number is hitting above expectation in some past amount of spins. We can embellish that and talk about windows of opportunity and an attack ranges and whatever. But there is no clear prediction. It's all a bit up in the air. The numbers may remain hot or they may not. I don't believe you can ever get around that without drilling down into the probabilities and applying bets in a way Sputnik says with a "playing model". That is really the secret, isn't it?

I'll continue to keep up to date with any testing. And believe me if satisfactory conclusions are drawn about WF3, I'll be first to congratulate you.

All very interesting....and debated perfectly in my view
@ bayes
Thanks for the explaination

Quote from: Number Six on February 17, 2014, 06:52:41 PM
I don't think the RWD definition has much credence at all. Call me cynical or narrow-minded but I understand he was selling a book and so had financial interest to sugarcoat his ideas.

The problem simply remains that most "hot number" systems simply select whichever number is hitting above expectation in some past amount of spins. We can embellish that and talk about windows of opportunity and an attack ranges and whatever. But there is no clear prediction. It's all a bit up in the air. The numbers may remain hot or they may not. I don't believe you can ever get around that without drilling down into the probabilities and applying bets in a way Sputnik says with a "playing model". That is really the secret, isn't it?

I'll continue to keep up to date with any testing. And believe me if satisfactory conclusions are drawn about WF3, I'll be first to congratulate you.

Thank you for your observations and recommendations #6.
XXVV

Quote from: Sputnik on February 17, 2014, 06:13:58 PM
 
True it is about AP.
But you have to make one important distinction when you read what i wrote.
The method is based upon math and probability and not defect spotting.
Defect spotting involve physical detections of the wheel.
The method Laurance Scott create after some discussion with Edward Thorp is pure math and probability.

I can mention he make a difference between pseudo STD and actually STD.
Then you have the COR charts - Chance of randomness.
Monte Carlo simulation softare to see how ofthen 123456789 numbers hit 3 STD randomly and so on ...
Then you use a matemathical hypotes of the likelihood that a number is due towards random fluctuation or not.
Based upon very clever parameters that i can not mention - the playing model.

I will reply to this but only in my blog section under a new thread #10  Playing Model

Thank you.
R