[attachimg=1]

Quote from: XXVV on February 21, 2014, 07:16:19 PM

However the Macao data has been in the public domain since 1972. refer 'Roulette for the Millions' - Patrick O'neil-Dunne. Henry Regnery Company. Chicago. 1972... with a full schedule of spins for one month of live play.

Hmm... 1972?

I'm guessing Xander may have a comment or two about that. Wheels have changed a bit since then, although that may not be the main issue. I'm not suggesting that this is what happened, but if you were using that particular set of spins for your testing of various systems there is a chance you may have done a little unintentional curve-fitting. Note that I wouldn't have mentioned it if all other results had been as good, but they're clearly not. The question is: why not?

Guys, as things were getting off-topic again I've put the posts after the last one into a separate thread (Personal Permanence).


As far as I'm concerned this thread has served its purpose. Thanks to those (especially Biagle) who have uploaded spins and of course to XXVV for the system and other contributions. There doesn't seem to be much interest now in further testing - and why should there be? It's pretty clear that WF3 offers no advantage. Anyone who wants to test further or use different parameters is welcome to use my code on compileonline.com (see post #60 for details on how to do this).

Quote from: XXVV on February 23, 2014, 12:55:40 PM

It is pretty clear that WF3 offers no advantage to you.

Or anyone else. What would be the point of doing this testing if the results only applied to me? just so people can say "thanks for sharing"? 

Table 3 04/2013


[attachimg=1]

XXVV,

Sure. I was just making the point that this particular incarnation of WF3 - the one you gave explicit rules for - has no advantage. Obviously there can't be any results or conclusions for promissory notes or as yet undeveloped versions.

Your post just came across as taking relativism a little too far. 

@XXVV >> A bit of advice (its really for anyone). I know most here will jump on me for this, it may even get deleted. I have been posting for MANY years and have come to this conclusion a couple years ago...... don't post methods/systems/ideas etc., there, I said it.

This has NOTHING to do with Bayes, Xander etc.

A) You may get attacked for simply posting an idea you have. (afterall, we are not suppose to do well with roulette).

B) Results of testing might suck and people reading it then question your "skill" as a player.

C) Someone may post fake test results to make you look bad.

D) If the method is "decent" and playable, you may get no THANK YOU or worse, people not even registered go play your method.

E) Instead of posting the method and answering 329 questions, you could be spending your time doing other non-forum related things.

The list goes on.

F**k it, if you have something of value, keep it to yourself, just my opinion sir.

Ken

Right on the nail.


--And ppl.usually don't test as suggested,but in trillions unnecessary spins.....


  You right,keep it to your self.

Quote from: Mr J on February 24, 2014, 04:03:11 PM

A) You may get attacked for simply posting an idea you have. (afterall, we are not suppose to do well with roulette).


who attacked him? Hi got many great ideas as he said from comments about his method.

B) Results of testing might suck and people reading it then question your "skill" as a player.


nobody questions it. XXVV is XXVV, igantus is ignatus.

C) Someone may post fake test results to make you look bad.


Who posted it? I worked hard to provide 40k spins from casino witch you can verify every number anytime online.

D) If the method is "decent" and playable, you may get no THANK YOU or worse, people not even registered go play your method.


Who commented here and gived advice/opinion/idea said thank you. Not directly as XXVV asked, but with ideas and work on his base bet.

E) Instead of posting the method and answering 329 questions, you could be spending your time doing other non-forum related things.


Yes you can. Unregister and good luck.

Quote from: FLAT_IN_O on February 24, 2014, 04:33:04 PM
Right on the nail.


--And ppl.usually don't test as suggested,but in trillions unnecessary spins.....


  You right,keep it to your self.

He self offered to test on FULL months, you are testing on xxxx spins file, so? And this method has stop loss/games. So you can run test with bayes program for 5 or 55555 games.

Quote from: Biagle on February 24, 2014, 07:53:12 PM

He self offered to test on FULL months, you are testing on xxxx spins file, so? And this method has stop loss/games. So you can run test with bayes program for 5 or 55555 games.

--Was talking generally,not about xxvv...

@Biagle >> (lol, what?) As already stated, my post has NOTHING to do with Bayes, XXVV, Xander etc.

I'm speaking in general terms and I back up my gripe to the fullest. Nothing to GAIN by posting a method and only headaches if you do. Now don't get me wrong....... if a person does post a method, I respect that choice.

Ken

Quote from: Mr J on February 24, 2014, 08:50:55 PM
@Biagle >> (lol, what?) As already stated, my post has NOTHING to do with Bayes, XXVV, Xander etc.

I'm speaking in general terms and I back up my gripe to the fullest. Nothing to GAIN by posting a method and only headaches if you do. Now don't get me wrong....... if a person does post a method, I respect that choice.

Ken

your points was not on the right theard.

The last chart is interesting.

[attachimg=1]

You see these up and downs in all charts.

There is always something that is working and something that isn't working.

I will start a topic in my blog and go into more detail.

cheers

Quote from: Bally6354 on February 24, 2014, 09:01:46 PM
The last chart is interesting.

[attachimg=1]

You see these up and downs in all charts.

There is always something that is working and something that isn't working.

I will start a topic in my blog and go into more detail.

cheers

Above graph proves my words in another thread....It is all up to the player.