Quote from: XXVV on February 25, 2014, 08:12:50 PM

The Player is the one in control, and go with the flow.

You have control of your money, you have no control over the random process. By trying to fool it (virtual play) you are actually going against the flow rather than with it.

Virtual betting makes no difference to any sort of expectancy, either a single bet or long term profitability. This is an irrefutable truth, no matter how complex the environment in which it is applied. It can be proven to be a fallacy and has been time and again.

I have explained in another thread how virtual play can be avoided and how triggers can be used with the real SD as oppose to a pseudo SD. Yes it is all dependent on timing, and yes you can use mechanical triggers, it simply involves some kind of specific staking plan and betting larger amounts at opportune times, and then lowering bets when any condition is diminishing or has passed. Achieving a mathematical edge is almost impossible, I have never seen anything on any forum that would even come close. In the event, however, we'd be lucky to get 3-5% long term. Even with that, flat betting would not suffice, the risk of ruin is simply still too high.

Every condition of the winning bet has to be proved, however, to offer odds where the expectancy is higher that what the conventional maths suggests. Otherwise we will no doubt end up at -2.7%. The reason WF3 offers no advantage is because the premise is too floppy. There is no evidence to suggest the WF3 bet has a sound mathematical foundation, even though I do like the concept.

I have also posted stats from a long simulation in the maths section which, if you can decipher it, shows the true distrubution model of a 37-spin cycle. It proves that the true odds of each number hitting in the cycle is not representative of expected distribution (we knew this already, to be honest, but not really with any accuracy).

Quote from: Number Six on February 26, 2014, 12:52:48 AM

Achieving a mathematical edge is almost impossible, I have never seen anything on any forum that would even come close. In the event, however, we'd be lucky to get 3-5% long term. Even with that, flat betting would not suffice, the risk of ruin is simply still too high.

A bit of creativity may help things.

I like to group things together instead of betting for just single decisions.

So for even chances... BBB, BBR, BRR, BRB, RRR, RRB, RBB, RBR.  A 7/1 payout.


but even better in my opinion are the dozens/columns.

1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3. An 8/1 payout, but with a lot more leverage for all kinds of MM techniques.

So it all becomes less of a grind compared to the up 1, down 1 (going nowhere fast) routine.

Bally,

Not sure if you're merely making a comment about the grind, or if you think that's what I was suggesting. I wasn't. In the scenario of upping and downing wagers at optimum times, that sort of staking plan has to be designed especially for that bet, when the bet is in play during a certain time frame. It is all about timing. There wouldn't seem to be any generic sort of wagering that would work for it. The staking plan is pretty simple, there is no one rule, it's just calculated precisely to always achieve some kind of profit, whether it is one chip, or where the bank is greater, one hundred chips.

Sceptical myself about grouping outside bets like that. I wouldn't know though, I only bet straight up, where there are more possibilities to drill down into the random.

Hello Number Six,

I was just making the comment that you have more leverage on the dozens/columns as opposed to the E/C's.

Suppose you were playing a 3 step parlay on the E/C's for 7/1. You are risking the profit and original stake on step 2.

With the dozens/columns, a 2 step parlay and you can take back your original stake if you win the first step and at least guarantee a break even situation. But of course the possibility to still come out with a 6 unit total profit. So less of a grind than some E/C bets.

cheers.

Thanks.

It's sound logic, and all this depends on preference I suppose. I aim to compound a small buy in over a few games, I actually find it less stressful than betting outside. The rewards are much greater too, when you hit that lucky streak.

No. 6...what about semi-virtual bet...as I have used many times
Lets say I have an idea to play 6 numbers inside...for what ever reason and have ridden a tough patch on the table min.
I will often reduce my bet even further to 3 of my 6....a bit like people ride out a bad patch virtually...knowing I would really prefer to be playing all 6.
So I bet every spin...even if that means 1 of my 6.
I bet normally, in plus....and go into stavation mode in negative.
Somedays...no matter how you strangle it....you lose. But the loss is very slow and no rush of blood comes to cause rash decisions
Betting 6 inside was just a made up example

Bayes ? 

Thanks Biagle - an optimist if ever I saw one! 

[attachurl=2]
[attachimg=1]

Turner,

You aren't betting every spin though, in that context, not on all 6 numbers, which you should be doing anyway in order to achieve a read SD across the whole bet. I have never tried this so I don't know what sort of difference it would make, if any.

My suggestion to up and down at the right times and bet the minimum at all other times is based on the assumption that the bet selection is of a non-floppy premise.

I mean, it has been proved to work in an acceptable way (isn't just random), therefore you know you can have bad days or a series of bad sessions but still come out ahead if you have enough reserves. It helps to have a real edge, but you don't really need one to be adequately successful; you just need to know the long term volatility. With that in mind the staking plan can be formed exactly around the bet and applied at very specific times without worrying that you're going to go bust. Yes, you could end up in a pretty large draw down, but such is life. You just need the stones and patience to bet through it (bearing in mind that you know it will end).

It's my opinion that if a player is virtual betting, they are on the road to ruin and it can't be avoided. I've said it before: probability needs to apply to an action i.e. a bet. With no bet, there is no probability of the expectancy affecting the outcomes of your bets and, in turn, your bankroll.

I don't know about your semi-virtual concept. It would seem that when you drop half of your numbers, you are simply dividing your bet in two and would end up having to run two staking plans side by side.

Me and the wife added a trip to Grosvenor in the mix today as part of a day off work.
I went armed with Wf3 and my R C R.
I can talk through the session if people are interested

@Turner


Yes I would be interested for one please, for both approaches live.
R

Regarding the XXVV W3 and W4.

Of course it has failed, and will continue to fail.  As a professional AP player, I will simply tell you like it really is.  Intuition, feelings, biorhythms, and meditation doesn't help you win.  Physics does.  Cause and effect.
After reading the XXVV thread, I decided that it was time to post some real things that you should look for if you're going to attempt to play on the hot numbers.  And for the record, what you're attempting to do is not really play just hot numbers, you're hoping that there's some kind of bias/dealer effect that will enable you to win in the near term.

1.  Wheel spin direction.  Using a very simple program, you can sort by spin direction.  You can also use the sort function in Excel.  Even though you don't know the spin direction of the online sample, you can still combine every other spin, so that you have one column of numbers for each direction.  When betting, you should have individual numbers (or possibly mini sections) on which to bet for each unique spin direction.

2. Dealer breaks.  Different dealers spin at different wheels speeds, and have different roulette ball preferences.  Since you don't know where they start and stop within the Wiesbaden samples, you're going to be at a disadvantage right from the start.   When you can, note your dealers.  It's best to have two dealers with similar rotor speeds and ball preferences.

3. Track more spins.  Tracking only 21 spins and then playing isn't going to cut it.   Especially if the wheel is alternating spin direction.  That's only 12 spins for each direction!  The simple fact is, the more spins you can write, the more you will learn about the true payoff tendencies of each number on the wheel.  At least track one half of a shift.  It's far too few spins, but it's still much better than tracking for only 21 spins.   By cutting the shift in half, you'll be playing against the same dealers on the second half of the shift.  Shifts are broken down into day, swing, and grave.  You need to know when each shift begins at your casino.  (You should actually track several thousand spins, but most people can't imagine completing such a task).

4. Play only statistically relevant numbers.   Most people on this board have no idea as to how to calculate standard devition and it's not practical at the table, so I'll keep it simple.  Don't play hot numbers unless they have at least two or three more hits than the next hottest numbers.  The larger the spin sample, the bigger that lead gap should be.  Ideally, you'll take into account the location of the weakest numbers or section in relation to the location of the hottest numbers.  You want the weak numbers to be very weak, and the best numbers to be very strong.  Subtract the number of hits for the weakest number(s) or section from the hottest number(s) or section.  Here's the quick "at the table" formula:

(Hot Numbers) - (Weak Numbers) = (Crude Wheel Fitness Test Value)
The higher this value is, the better.  If the value is too low, don't play. 

5. End the play when the playing conditions change.  Playing conditions refer to the wheel speed, ball used, etc.   In the real world of gambling you will have draw downs.  Random losing periods with an edge of only 3 to 5% can exceed 1000 units.  Quitting when the playing conditions change can help dampen the draw downs.  But still expect some big ones, since variance is a double edged sword.   If this is too much for you, then you'll need to find a way to get a bigger edge, or you'll need to start with a bigger bankroll.  If you're the short term tracker, then assume that your edge is very small or likely nonexistent.

6. Money management.  It's really quite simple.  Just bet anywhere from .5 to 1.5% of your bankroll at each spin.  This way your bets increase as you win, and it gives you a real shot at winning some real money, since your initial bets can be much higher than when using an "up as you lose" progression.     Set a win goal.  Nobody is ever happy with just a one unit win.  Grow a pair!  Go for it, until you reach your win goal or until the playing conditions change too much.   When the playing conditions change, quit.  When the playing conditions are stable, bet more.  When the playing conditions are less stable, bet less or quit.  When you bet using this kind of money management, "gaming discipline" and "feelings" are no longer an issue.  They're simply something that other gambler's use as an excuse for not winning.   A loss is a loss.  A win is a win.  When either happen, it's the result of randomness, variance, and procedure, not discipline.

Now a fun test question.  The player has a 6% edge, and plans on playing off and on over a period of several days for a total of 10k spins.   The player's starting bankroll is $1,000.  Which player will likely win the most money, and receive the most attention in the form of sex and love from his/her spouse or friend.  Player 1,2, or 3?

1. The player flat bets $50 every spin on the top numbers.

2. The player bets 1% of his bankroll distributed over his best numbers.  His initial bet is only $10 in total.

3. The player runs an up as you lose progression using a Fibonacci sequence.



If a player would have properly tracked the Macau wheel that has often been referenced within this thread, then the player could have won substantially more money and could have had a much higher edge than the paltry 3 to 5% shown.

Learn to rely on observations, physics, and common sense, not just feelings and intuition.

I realize that this post may upset some forum members.  So in order to help prevent this post from upsetting too many people, and to help soften the blow, I've added a unicorn below. 



                                                                                                                                         /.\
-Xander

An interesting post Xander. The concept of two number generators (clockwise and anticlockwise) is one I have considered for many years. The fact I can't tell from weisbaden spins, which is anticlockwise and which is clockwise has stopped me thinking about it. But you clicked something there. It doesn't matter as long as you separate them.


Having said that, when I go and swim, I really enjoy it.  I do breast stroke. I see men get in the pool and they go hell for leather in a crawl like its some macho thing. It looks a tad silly in a Gymnasium pool.


Im not a professional swimmer but I can swim. Swimming isn't my life, but I enjoy it very much when i get in a pool.


Im not a professional gambler either, but I get by. I have a few techniques that do me well. I did well today.


When I don't do well, I lose very little. I make sure of that. Losing is never an issue. Winning is great fun.


I am very glad you posted this and I will take great notice of your words.


But when I am swimming in the gym, I wouldn't want Michael Phelps shouting at me how I was doing it wrong, and more so, if I approached the pool next time and saw Phelps stood there, it may put me off getting in the pool !!!


If you get my drift
 

And at the risk of great embarrassment...


I came to the table tonight and noticed the only repeat was 35, and last number was 35 so I placed 1 chip on 35.
35 came out.
I played the  numbers in between the 2 occurrences of 35 which was 4 numbers. As I had just won, I included 35 (I would normally leave out the repeat)
No win.
No win
27 hit, which was one of the numbers between the 2 occurrences of 35


This left 2 numbers sandwiched between the two 27's which was 16 and 35.


I included 27 as it was only 3 numbers. 2 hit and this was a repeat, so I added it, now 4 numbers.


36 hit twice so I played just 36. After 5 spins, 36 hit again, and there were 4 numbers between the 2 occurrences of 36. I played these 4 and 36


Then the dealer changed and I stopped.


When the numbers between repeats was 5 or below, I played them.


When the numbers between repeats was high, like 8 or 9, I played WF3.


Some time, I was playing both.


Perhaps I'm just lucky.


its hard to play simpler...and most difficult to play at all, what with several confetti players leaning all over you trying to die as quickly as possible.


Great fun!

I'm sorry Turner, but that's unacceptable.  Please go back and return the money that you have unfairly won, as you will likely not be able to sleep at night.