Quote from: KingsRoulette on November 27, 2012, 03:10:21 AM
Gizmo,
        You said: 8. Win streak conditions are opportunities.

My question is how can I predict that a streak will come at this stage? Aren't we at same level of indecisiveness always, wherever we make bets?

You can't predict when a winning streak will occur. Obviously you must react quickly when you are in one. You know you are in one. You can't predict how long it will last. So you need to play an agile way. Don't give back your winnings when the house has their win streaks.

JL -" The one thing that's holding up is the expected solid hold of the follow up bet. And LIVE its always got me through periods where the strikerate dropped below break even point."

I've already proved that many double and triple loss sessions will occur in a sequence that just kills. That's including the use of hit and run. At some point you are going to have to wise up. This is nothing more than a three step Marti. Having a clever moment on when to use it actually changes nothing.   Have a much better way to select when to use it. I'll explain that in another thread.

Hmmm, we have a smart one. It's very true, what you just said. And inside that wisdom is the true reason that Pattern Breaker fails. All progression based systems have their killer sequence that occur just often enough to take back all your winnings. That's assuming that you start out in a win streak.

Quote from: KingsRoulette on November 27, 2012, 06:40:30 PM
So, what is your conclusion, Gizmo?

I've already stated it. Hit and Run is nothing more than another layer of randomness in the device used to generate random outcomes. It is not an odds changer.

Playing the changes in changing conditions is not the same thing. If you are good at it then actually do change the odds. You can prove it too. Probability is about the future. But the past shows what actually happened.

Quote from: KingsRoulette on November 27, 2012, 06:37:03 PM
         Why don't you suggest one, Gizmo?

It's my turn to be lazy. I was planning on perfecting one for the past two months. But someone may have a good one. Here is a hint. Even the hottest number has intervals as long as 50-60 spins without hitting, while still being the hottest number occurring.

So these are interesting bet selection choices. What about a very long progression to pick up an eventual winner?

Quote from: JohnLegend on November 27, 2012, 01:37:16 PM
Okay B.C that explains a bit. I will see how things go over the first 200 games at my higher level. I've lost the last two first games of the day on ODD EVEN. I would not expect to lose a third time like that.


We will see later. 

How do you tell a person that their attributing meaning from randomness is so off course that reality appears far fetched? We are actually watching people discuss the quality of hit and run as if there were clues as to when that actually is beneficial. Imagine that on Tuesdays hit and run is more intuitive if you have a favorite silver dollar in the bottom of your right shoe. If you wait long enough the casino will give up its rewards, but if you wait the wrong length it won't. 

Quote from: Bayes on November 27, 2012, 09:24:36 AM
I agree about no. 4. In his book "Full Time Gambler", Louis G. Holloway said that the main cause of failure was "miscalculation". Most don't do the necessary research and aren't aware of the risks.

It's impossible for me to calculate incorrectly. #13. By not playing the current conditions. There's no calculating or guessing while evaluating the conditions. They are what they are.

So this is how it worked. You track 38 spins with no bets, you then select the hottest 6 numbers. You bet these same numbers until you win. After each win you select the best hottest numbers. After each win you start over on the progression.

1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, for each of the six selected hot numbers.

No point in following this thread. I discovered a flaw. This one loses, as it should.

Quote from: Bayes on November 26, 2012, 10:25:49 AM
I can't even figure out what we're supposed to be figuring out. 

A 9 step marty?

Nope, it's not a Marti. In fact everything is there if you use a little arithmetic. What's not there is the bet selection method. But that is hinted at in the name.

Unlike others around here, I'm still sceptical. A mechanical system should not work. Therefore there must be a flaw somewhere. This method includes telemetry. I will break down the individual spins and have the software break out a result for every step. Already did that. I mean that I tested every move. I don't think there are any flaws. My first post has very deep telemetry.

Bayes, yes there is a single zero included.

Here is an example of an exact moment. You wait for exactly 71 spins and then you
bet black, black, red with a three step Marti. Then you go have lunch, come back to
the table and wait exactly 32 spins and then bet on one of eight combinations of red
& black with a three step Marti to win.

I decided to build the test simulation first.

Here are the results of ten back-to-back (10 x 150 sessions)

3318
2640
2544
1866
2400
1836
2856
2250
-390
1782

If you can figure this out then you are king of the mountain .
There's nine steps in the progression.
There's Ten sessions at 150 spins per session.
There's no need for H.A.R.

41 - -138
19 - -276
10 - -414
3 - -396
2 - -372
6 - -324
10 - -462
6 - -414
4 - -372
8 - -336
3 - -318
-------------
1 - 30
2 - 54
4 - 96
5 - 126
5 - 156
8 - 192
2 - 216
1 - 246
11 - 108
4 - 150
6 - 198
4 - 240
3 - 258
7 - 318
5 - 348
1 - 378
1 - 408
6 - 456
2 - 480
3 - 498
3 - 516
1 - 546
20 - 408
1 - 438
1 - 468
-------------
28 - -138
3 - -120
4 - -78
4 - -36
1 - -6
3 - 12
8 - 48
15 - -90
3 - -72
8 - -36
4 - 6
3 - 24
8 - 60
1 - 90
7 - 150
-------------
2 - 24
23 - -114
12 - -252
1 - -222
13 - -360
5 - -330
8 - -294
17 - -432
2 - -408
6 - -360
-------------
6 - 48
6 - 96
2 - 120
8 - 156
1 - 186
4 - 228
2 - 252
1 - 282
9 - 324
1 - 354
4 - 396
5 - 426
5 - 456
2 - 480
18 - 342
10 - 204
1 - 234
3 - 252
1 - 282
2 - 306
4 - 348
8 - 384
2 - 408
1 - 438
1 - 468
3 - 486
-------------
10 - -138
1 - -108
7 - -48
1 - -18
8 - 18
3 - 36
8 - 72
4 - 114
3 - 132
10 - -6
1 - 24
5 - 54
1 - 84
6 - 132
4 - 174
1 - 204
1 - 234
2 - 258
6 - 306
2 - 330
6 - 378
15 - 240
5 - 270
2 - 294
-------------
19 - -138
8 - -102
2 - -78
3 - -60
1 - -30
1 - 0
7 - 60
1 - 90
7 - 150
5 - 180
4 - 222
6 - 270
1 - 300
2 - 324
9 - 366
5 - 396
3 - 414
1 - 444
8 - 480
2 - 504
6 - 552
10 - 414
-------------
16 - -138
2 - -114
2 - -90
7 - -30
5 - 0
5 - 30
4 - 72
8 - 108
3 - 126
5 - 156
10 - 18
7 - 78
3 - 96
2 - 120
5 - 150
2 - 174
9 - 216
-------------
2 - 24
7 - 84
4 - 126
1 - 156
7 - 216
13 - 78
11 - -60
1 - -30
13 - -168
1 - -138
12 - -276
14 - -414
4 - -372
5 - -342
4 - -300
3 - -282
3 - -264
-------------
12 - -138
10 - -276
3 - -258
1 - -228
13 - -366
5 - -336
6 - -288
3 - -270
2 - -246
5 - -216
1 - -186
7 - -126
12 - -264
4 - -222
3 - -204
4 - -162
1 - -132
1 - -102
1 - -72
2 - -48
8 - -12
-------------
1074
-- ( -12 + -264 + 216 + 414 + 294 + 486 + -360 + 150 + 468 + -318 ) = 1074

Just ran eight 540 session simulations. That's including h&r. These were high/low only.
Results:
Wins - 489
Losses - 51
Double Losses - 1
Triple Losses - 0
Strike Rate - 9.58 / 1

Wins - 440
Losses - 100
Double Losses - 20
Triple Losses - 6
Strike Rate - 4.4 / 1

Quote from: JohnLegend on November 24, 2012, 12:53:15 PM
Yes Bayes, that's where I am right now. Twister is even better than that on BVNZ. Its never been challenged once either Bayes. Was taken to step 4 of the progression only 3 times over that 580.


But never to the 5th step, this could never have happened if I played continuosly. Thanks I will enjoy the challenge now at a decent level.