Quote from: subby on November 19, 2012, 08:24:33 PM
Right we all know you don't like JL, or his methods, but less of the discreet sniping please Giz....
My mother said if you haven't got anything good to say about someone then don't say anything at all.

Stop whining. We, those it us that have seen this time and time again, know that you guys are going to get others believing your fantasy. I don't care if you blow your own money. I don't want to hear about some desperate individual following off the cliff. It's not personal. You are rife with finding meaning where there isn't any. If I'm an expert at anything around here then it's dealing with baloney festivals.


Moderator's warning

You're treading a fine line Gizmotron.  I suggest you heed Subby's excellent advice.

There is room here for ALL viewpoints and nobody should have to put up with this sort of response from you.

There are polite and respectful  ways of expressing disagreement. Sadly, your post above  is not one of them..

In that way we can all continue to rub along in the peace and harmony that have characterised this forum thus far.

Here's a common story. Somebody comes on the forum and claims that a three step Martingale is the defacto Holy Grail. This person clutters up the forum for a full year or two, until finally giving up on it.

My experience with randomness studies began with hot numbers.

Based on 360 spins, you look at the first 60 spins. You then select the three hottest numbers.

That leaves you 300 spins to go. You need nine winning hits for each number to break even.

The average hot number hits from 12 - 18 times in 300 spins.

For 10 hits in 300 spins you average 30 spins between hits, for each number.

I hope you find these basic stats useful.

Very interesting. I tried a grand martingale method, it failed. What you are doing with your MM is referred to as "regression technique." It's a tried and true method.   

I'm in the H&R trick makes no difference camp. I'll run some tests.

I know by the large numbers that I used that the true strike rate is near 5.5 to 1.  I'm still not ruling out the possibility that regression might overcome a (7-1) vs (5.5-1) .

There's an 1 in 8 chance that you will lose  a three step, even chance, progression. Those dang zeros again. That's where this kills you. It's very easy to watch for sleeping zeros.

If they are very active then don't make that session's bet.

Quote from: subby on November 17, 2012, 09:37:08 PM
How are you measuring a triple loss? What "makes" a triple loss? Just curious myself

First off, I don't know what H.A.R and smart MM are. I read at least 20 pages of the 85 pages at the .cc forum. I got tired or waiting for the smart MM.

In the two threads that I've read, a lot of significance was given to this method not losing back to back very often. That would be losing the very next session. A triple would be losing three sessions in a row. My simulation uses the original rule to run each session.

What page is a description of H.A.R & smart MM on of this 12 page thread? Please

I power tested Pattern Breaker. There is no way to make it work other than analyzing the conditions and placing bets that look safe to bet. For example you might be needing to bet against an HHH losing. So you would place a LLL bet during a L streak.

100 thousand sessions, 63 spins per session, American Wheel - 0/00

Results:
Wins = 84,515
Losses = 15,485
Double Losses = 2,319
Triple Losses = 342

100 thousand sessions, 63 spins per session, European Wheel - 0

Results: Wins = 85,639 Losses = 14,361 Double Losses = 2,048 Triple Losses = 306

Sam, I came to the very same conclusion years ago. I decided to stop opening my sessions by digging a hole. I also moved on to a two level flat betting method, no progressions. I look at the current conditions. If that works as a bet selection method then I bet big while it's working. Otherwise I flat bet small. This keeps me from digging big holes.

Power tested this mathematical form of Pattern Breaker.

100 thousand sessions, 63 spins per session, American Wheel - 0/00

Results:
Wins = 84,515
Losses = 15,485
Double Losses = 2,319
Triple Losses = 342

Conclusions are that it mathematically loses once every 5.45 sessions.
It pays 1/7 in 1, 2, or 3 spins when it wins.

I'm a firm believer in the concept of understanding a concept by the simplest of basics and in the simplest of terms.

The most basic of the understanding regarding an advantage caused by a contrary reaction is to first acknowledge the conditions that currently exist.

I've been saying, for more than six years, "test as you go."

Now I never explained why I suggested it. BUT it was always about the use of observation of the current conditions.

You must have a valid reason for using a contrary  bet selection.

A discussion of why might reveal those that understand these things and those who don't.

It was an historical moment. I posted it for the benefit of those that know this tiresome saga as cheese and crackers. Spike openly admitted to being troll. I have no plans on discussing anything with him.  If he comes here I will need to be able to delete his post. It's the only way to keep topics clean of his disruptions. When he's not harassing me there is no trouble.

Here's an interesting question that I have. Does picking the exact moment, by whatever means, change the odds?

I'm thinking of writing a simulation to see how many three-step-progressions lose on the first three spins of 30 spin randomized spin segments. If I test thousands of them then I'll get a basic figure that should be close to a statistical value.

This is what Spike recently posted at the old GG :

Quote"You are my project, Gizmo. I never talk about roulette anymore. I only post when I see you post, because you're so full of sh*t, such a fraud and con man, and I detest you so completely,I've made it my goal to harass and expose you wherever you try and sell you're stinking nonsense. You have nothing that beats roulette, you never will have anything."

Bally, it's just me, but it might not be a good idea to deliberately pass up wins.

Interesting questions Bayes.  My vast number of years looking at changes to randomness tells me that trends almost never hold up over sixty spins. In fact the trends will be completely different by then.

Someone suggested not making stupid bets if a dominance favoring a loss were present at the decision point, where the bet sequence starts.