Quote from: Wheelwatcher on February 25, 2014, 11:30:53 AM
Laurance say that playing the game change the game.

It depends which way you look at it.

How many times have you seen on Dublinbet that the dealer is about to spin the ball and someone throws over some money at the very last second. The dealer now takes the money and gives the player some chips and the spin is delayed.

Do you curse the guy for coming late into the game if your bet loses? 

My opinion is the guy was always coming into the game at that precise moment and so the spin result did not change at all. It was always going to be that way.

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: 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

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. 

So taking the above into account. Let's look at a better way than betting a fixed 2 dozens on every spin.

Take a look at the picture....

[attachimg=1]

The first column shows you cycle of absence.

3,2,2,2,3,3,2 and the 1st dozen is missing.

B,B,A,B,A,A,A,B,B,A,B,B,B and the C column is missing.

So obviously you would keep playing dozens 2 + 3 or columns A + B in the above scenarios.

Now let's look at three factor alternation.

1,3,2,3,2,3,1,2,1 and you can see the dozens keep alternating.

C,B,C,A,B,C,B,A,C,B,C,A,C,B and here the columns are alternating.

So you would keep betting the opposite 2 dozens or columns of whatever last appeared.

Looking out for whatever one of these options is performing the best  would fare better in my opinion than just using a fixed 2 dozens or columns approach.

cheers

Here is where you will get murdered however following a fixed bet selection like I have been doing using the 1st and 2nd dozen.

[attachimg=1]

The 1st dozen has underperformed by 3 standard deviations and who is to say it will end there.

It wiped out 25 units of the 35 units profit that I had gained.

You can use this variance to your advantage when playing dozens and columns if you keep on the right side of what's appearing.

I am doing ad-hoc testing on this one in between other things.....but it seems to have a knack of holding it's own and then some!

[attachimg=1]

just continually playing 1st + 2nd dozen in these tests.

The above results total around 35 units in roughly 220 spins. So it's not a unit-a-spin boom and bust progression. More of a grind.

One of the best casinos is still Smartlive if you play their live wheel. They give 60 seconds in between spins.

I don't trust Supercasino! They claim to have a live wheel and you see the dealer standing over the wheel....however if you watch the process they go through, you can easily see how the numbers could be generated by an RNG.

cheers

Quote from: iggiv on February 14, 2014, 02:56:56 PM
the faster they go -- more profit they gain. I guess their goal is to cut off those players who want to bet according to the wheel conditions, and those players have to place sometimes many bets. they prefer those who play outside bets. Those easily lose a lot.

There is a way around it iggiv which is obvious when you think about it! (unfortunately it took me a while  )

All decisions are just a random stream.

18
21
5
36
25
36

Take these 6 numbers for example:

You could just take every second number. Then it becomes....

21
36
36

Even chances...(every second decision)

R
R
R

Dozens...(every second decision)

2
3
3

Spreading things out gives you time to analyse all sorts of things. It's great for online casinos (especially some of these slingshot airball types) who like to spin every 20 seconds. Just space things out to whatever your requirements are. It works a charm.

Is that what they mean by the long run! 

I think I have found a biased wheel!! 

http://youtu.be/SdiI-pu8Gk4





All yours for £275 on ebay!!
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Full-Sized-32-Roulette-Wheel-/251448391025?pt=UK_Toys_Casino_RL&hash=item3a8b7df571


What more could you ask for....

no scatter and a lot of chatter.

You always seem to get a lot of debates on forums with people saying you can't win against negative expectation games in the long run unless you have some kind of edge.

Normally someone will come along and show you a graph and point out to the - 2.70% after a million spins or so and say there you go.  However you tend to find that these methods used a fixed bet selection all the way through.

Remember the 'Turbogenius' methods....they had big peaks and troughs looking at the graphs. This I believe was the symptom of Turbo using a fixed bet selection (sleepers in his case)

It strikes me that a more fluid bet selection could try to take advantage of all the different scenarios that you are going to encounter over a fixed set of spins and give you a lot more opportunity to come out in front.

You know, I actually question why intelligent people would continually test simulations using fixed parameters when it's obvious that the results are always going to end up negative. All they are proving to themselves is what they already know. (fixed bet selections don't work)

The time could be spent much more wisely looking at the flow of results and trying to work out how you can capture these movements and turn the negative results into something positive.

You can use AP play as an example....

A card counter does not have the advantage every round. He/she bets more when the true count is positive.

A VB player needs to find good conditions to gain an edge.

I am suggesting someone playing roulette can gain a similar type of advantage by adjusting on a spin by spin basis with the characteristics the wheel is displaying at that moment in time. This in itself is a type of AP play in my opinion.

There are no guarantees just as there no guarantees that the blackjack dealer is not going to hit that 21 or that the ball is going to scatter a few numbers more than what the VB player was hoping for.

Nothing is going to work 100% of the time. You only need to be slightly more right than you are wrong to profit.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on February 12, 2014, 02:56:53 PM
What interests me about Roy is--we're on a "first name" basis now--that I posted such an idea to his long before I ever heard of him.  Naturally, I'm looking for someone who thinks like I do.

Roy used to be a game show host! You can tell that reading his book.

[attachimg=1]

Not as smarmy as this guy however!

Cool tie 


I think we have to take his results in the book with a pinch of salt Sam.

This quote in his book is an example:

'With hot number play alone, you can expect, on the average - although not necessarily on any given day - to clear about $50 for every $3 the casino normally expects to take from you.'



I just couldn't get anywhere near the results he described.


cheers

Hello,

I went through the first few games and everything adds up the way it should......

nice job 

It works like a charm when a dozen is particularly cold.

In this example....The 3rd dozen only appeared 9 times out of the 37 spins!

1) L  -2.0

2) WW/W/LW  +3.25

3) WW/LW/W  +3.25

4) L  -2.0

5) L  -2.0

6) WW/W/LW  +3.25

7) WW/W/LW  +3.25

8} L  -2.0

9) WW/W/W  +4.0

10) WW/W/W  +4.0

11) WW/W/LW  +3.25

[attachimg=1]