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.

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.

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.

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).

I agree, but not about virtual play 

Doesn't make a damn bit of difference to anything. It can easily be proven. Yes, there is a trick in timing, but the answer is not to not bet, it's to base and then up and down at the correct moments.

XXVV,

It doesn't mean to be offensive, it's a mere observation that in manual testing, results can easily be corrupted. Read around anywhere, time and again you'll see people complain of rigged RNGs. They hand test for a few hundred spins and think they've got the grail. They lose first time with real money, and think they must have been cheated. You'll see people like John Legend who also hand tested his systems. He thought he would change the world with a martingale. When he engaged in some meaningful test with Superman, he lost his BR almost instantly and has never been heard from since.

Obviously I believe your tests to be more comprehensive and sensible, but regardless corruption is still possible. The Macao spins show a clear reversal compared to outcomes sourced from other places. The question I pose is pretty simple: can those results be trusted? Not, as in, have they been fabricated? Or has the bet been reverse engineered to beat those spins?

It just means, in the grand scheme of things, can we rely on them when gauging WF3 or analysing it? Because the nature of the trend is very different. It could be a real edge in play, or could be a fluke. Those results are at odds with others. So, can Macao be discounted for some reason?

For now I would run Turner's Wiesbaden download through the simulation. If the results are positive it would warrant another round of testing.

Either way, you're correct I think the testing is become too divided and slapdash. I do think "official" tests should be done with spins from a verified source.

XXVV,

There are many threads opened about this now, are we referring to the Weisbaden simulation Bayes posted here:

http://betselection.cc/xxvv-studio/wf3-testing-and-variations-discussed/msg27821/#msg27821

Yes it shows a nice upswing at least from negative territory from about -100 at spin 2000 to +600 at spin 3800. (I am looking at WF4 here, but the trend with WF3 is similiar anyway). And yes the end results are fairly positive. But lets interpret the behaviour a bit instead of just looking at the lines.

I am not sure what the projected edge is supposed to be (I am figuring 5% from a previous comment of yours). But the graph is not indicative of that. The bet is still negative after 2000 spins, which is clearly a concern considering there is supposed to be a mathematical advantage.

Once the upswing takes place and the BR rises to around 600, there is no more positive gain made after that in the remaining 6200 spins. Bear in mind I am estimating the interval of spins here! Nor am I trying to shoot this down. It seems reasonable to voice opinion for anyone who is thinking of investing real money in this.

The simulation does end positive, but no gain in more than 6000 spins suggests the bet was simply treading water and therefore was probably enjoying a period of positive random fluctuation.

As for the Macao spins file, the results look suspect to me. I understand you have tested those spins manually, or some of them. In my opinion manual testing is pointless because it can lead to false conclusions. The reason is, with manual testing, you always know the outcomes in advance. It then becomes too easy to make mistakes, make ad-hoc adjustments to the bet and ultimately begin curve fitting the results. This can all happen subconsciously. It appears that WF3 was practically tailor made for that spins file. And now against outcomes from other sources, it's struggling. I don't accuse anyone of doctoring results or moving the goal posts. It just happens. I have fallen for it myself in the past.

Undoubtedly TwoCatSam has the best method of testing systems and progressions by having them "sheeted" and run through ExcelBot. But credit to Bayes for the simulation.

Can we verify these Macao spins?

Because clearly those results appear to be abnormal. Not just the constant upswing, but the actual size of it. None of the other graphs show a return anything like that. There is a similar trend in the rouletteresearch results, but it climbs back over something like 18k spins. Not ideal is it? Just appears random. I am struggling to see the 5% proposed advantage here!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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: XXVV on February 11, 2014, 05:13:18 PM
be at least say 50 games, preferably 100 games where a game will average most probably over 20 spins, being thus some 2000 spins.

I doubt whether it would be enough to draw any satisfatory conclusions about any differences bwteen the origins. Besides, if you considered each game individually you would still have a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly between RNG and live anyway, regardless of how the results of the system test panned out.

I remember a member of an old forum called Mr Chips who tried something similar but honestly just gave up. In purely random and distribution terms, there really is probably no discernable difference. People only tend to talk about RNGs being different when they think they've been conned (which in some cases is probably true). But we also have to consider that an RNG delivers the outcomes much faster than a live dealer, which may account for some perceived unusual behaviour (faster and harder variance, for example).

Makes you wonder if such a test is worth it really, even merely from a research perspective.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on February 12, 2014, 02:56:53 PM
6

RWD decided a hot number was a hot number by his own research.  Whether it works or not, that is the question. 

Thanks, I wondered if there was anything more concrete to it than "experience", such as some mathematical support.

Randomness is a pretty good bamboozler. I doubt I'll give his hot number definition much credence. The problem is, it might have been hot then, doesn't mean it's hot when you start to bet on it. I'm not sure really why people aren't trying to predict new hot numbers instead of betting on old ones.

Sputnik,

Where does RWD's definition of a hot number come from? I mean originally was there anything to back it up or was it just observation? I suppose this theory could be tested quite easily to see if it has any merit at all.

Franky,

I played some airball a bit a while ago at one particular casino, but since then it got replaced with something else. I'm not sure if it's RNG or some live feed game, or in fact a different airball set up. I never bothered looking. Plus they moved all the terminals to another part of the floor. They were in a corner before near the TV, so I could play and watch tennis or football at the same time. Never had a problem with airball, didn't do that well against it to be honest. But usually I'd just put in whatever shrapnel I had in my pockets.

Never really had a problem with online RNGs, one or two suspicions maybe. But I would certainly avoid the RNG machines in casinos and bookies.