Quote from: Bally6354 on December 16, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Thanks guys for all the great replies. 

I always used to think that there must be some kind of 'HG' bet out there waiting to be discovered. I know different now. Variance can kill any system on any given day.

It's interesting reading between the lines from some of the more experienced members on here. My opinion is we are mostly saying the same thing.

It seems the trick is to be able to go with the flow and try and get the entry and exit points right. (not to be confused with HAR)

That flow can be very dynamic but I do agree with Gizmo in that there is usually a global trend happening. Although not seeing the wood for the trees can be a real problem. Developing a kind of detatched outlook is probably a good idea and one way of doing that is just to try and make intelligent bets (ie. timing).

I am convinced we can cut variance right down to the bone. Doing this certainly gives us much more of a fighting chance.

Present change is a constant, Statistical propensity is another one.
As it is obvious, no bet selection climbs or descends the graphic abruptly without hovering. There are only three movements: imbalance, correction and hovering.

One can play only two steps for reduced risk. 15 units. When double loss hit, stop and attack next after Win.

Summary:
38 Games played.


[attachimg=1]

---

Balance for first ten days played:


[attachimg=2]

An empirical way of speculating on fluctuation.
Based on Point and figure charts (Bayes), Something that worked for Sam, Pattern Random Vs Breaker....
Observe an Even Chance bet. Wait till there is an imbalance and then bet for correction within the same limits.


10 Sessions
Random.org (300 spins) from 21.11.2012 until 30.11.2012


[attachimg=1]


[attachimg=2]


[attachimg=3]


[attachimg=4]


[attachimg=5]


[attachimg=6]


[attachimg=7]


[attachimg=8]


[attachimg=9]


[attachimg=10]

An empirical way of speculating on fluctuation.
Based on Point and figure charts (Bayes), Something that worked for Sam, Pattern Random Vs Breaker....
Observe an Even Chance bet. Wait till there is an imbalance and then bet for correction within the same limits.

---

Random.org (300 spins) 29/11/2012

[attachimg=1]


W W LLW LLW


With Sam's Money Management it seems to work. Of course, the better the bet selection, the better the performance.

Thanx Bally6543 for the very nice topic.  

In my opinion you can void house edge using a no zero roulette playing ec bets.
Bally suggests some ways to fight fluctuation:

Quote from: Bally6354 on December 14, 2012, 10:51:55 PM
We don't need to bet every spin.

We can have several methods of play which are interchangeable.

We can be properly funded for our sessions and set workable targets.

I think that the interested player might try and find bet selections with the lowest fluctuation possible. Computers are of great help performing thousands of tests in a few minutes. So we can have data to analyze, make observations and draw conclusions.
Anymore suggestions?
Maybe we can all contribute to a playing model based on this, if anyone is interested in sharing their findings.
Cheers

Quote from: JohnLegend on December 15, 2012, 03:30:32 PM
Variance is less effective when you play H.A.R because you are not staying there long enough to be hurt. That's why a progression such as the one I use with PB will be more effective.

Everybody talks about VARIANCE of the game. What they don't talk about is VARIANCE in our money managment, that's how you negate the effect of variance in the game. You learn the common win loss pattern of your given method. Then stake to take advantage of this. You don't mechanically stick to the same staking plan.

Especially if you are betting against small odds. With odds of 7/1 you don't bet on auto-pilot nada. That's not going to get you very far in the longterm. With odds of 242/1. You can  bet MORE rigidly. Because H.A.R will take care of business and give you a definitive edge.

Landing dead on top of a losss at odds of 242/1 playing H.A.R is very hard to do. Landing dead on top of a loss at odds of 7/1 isn't. You bring in smart MM and on the spot decision making to garner the edge that secures a longterm overall profit.

Everything comes down to your BR and your given risk for a method. Many players want something without risking anything. It doesn't work like that. I have to laugh out loud when I read of players willing to let their bankrolls drawdown by three or four hundred units playing level stakes. Before they can expect recovery and hopeful profit.

Yet these same people will sneer at and criticize anyone using a martingale that might risk 80 or even 242 units. But is alot mote certain of winning. This thinking Makes absolutely no sense at all. Risk is RISK. You only need to find out through plenty of testing how justified that risk is.

All of the above is, in my opinion,  absolutely ridiculous, even more coming from someone that plays for 20 years.


-Variance is less effective when you play H.A.R because you are not staying there long enough to be hurt. That's why a progression such as the one I use with PB will be more effective. Any verifiable data to backup this claim? Fluctuation can be beat with what? Please tell me and proof it, otherwise is more empty talk.

Everybody talks about VARIANCE of the game. What they don't talk about is VARIANCE in our money managment, that's how you negate the effect of variance in the game. You learn the common win loss pattern of your given method. Then stake to take advantage of this. You don't mechanically stick to the same staking plan. This is what you do with martingale? Can you be more explicit and specific on this? Learn the "common" win loss pattern? OMG


Seriously?
Sometimes i think you make this posts to make fun of us. We were trying to discuss something here, please make a valid contribution, or just read. At least backup your statements. Express your point of view but have some acceptable information that may help you stand p for your opinion. No more empty claims please, no more waste of time and attention for the members.
In case you did not notice yet, this low quality posts downgrade the overall forum. Any random member performing HAR on the forum posts can bump into some of this due to mere fluctuation or just because your rigging it.
If you want to be respected as a player or to see your opinions respected, humble up, learn from others, discuss and evolve in an healthy manner. And again, please, when you post make sure you did your homework and so you can present arguments to support your opinions.
Take Care.

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 15, 2012, 04:21:00 AM
Variance is the biggest killer, even more responsible for losses at last than house edge. If there is no variance in a session, nobody will lose. Variance strikes those with flat bet and those using progression alike and momentarily can defeat anything.

That is very true. There are Random Generators with no zero, thus no house edge on Ec bets.
Also true that Variance or fluctuation is unavoidable no matter what the bet selection is. Despite i believe some bet selections have lower variance than others.
What is not so often referred is that a symmetrical system as the roulette produces outcomes that have a statistical propensity, and this is unquestionable phenomenon in the real world. No confusion with the wheel has no memory, or the maths says that everything is possible, that is basic maths, not Maths.
It is a false inference, because it does not take into account the nature of the system that produces those outcomes. -Statistical propensity is the phenomenon that we Always observe.
Problem is to determine the spread of it. Time. For me, the focus is on working out bet selections that present me with lower fluctuations.
Would like to add up that expectation and probability are two distinct things.

Quote from: spike on December 14, 2012, 11:27:38 PM
The math says its possible for a poker player
to never have a winning session for his entire career!

The only way to escape it is to have a bet selection so
good that you have at least a 20%+ edge over the casino.
And how many people can claim that.

It depends on the length of the poker player career.

It is. Just to prove not the random vs random method itself but that what i believe being the boundaries of a binary random distribution.

Quote from: JohnLegend on December 11, 2012, 03:54:35 PM
Why shouldnt it? Find me a method that wins 1535/1 for an 80 unit buy in andI will be on it.

I totally dis-agree with your chain of thought. There are good bet selections and poor ones.

Feel free to disagree, but for the sake of a constructive discussion, may you please be more objective in your remarks?


"Find me a method that wins 1535/1 for an 80 unit buy in andI will be on it."

The above one million spins speak for themselves. I am not seeking for approval. The objective here is to share thoughts with the community and contribute into building something verifiable and based on concrete observations.
Feel welcome to contribute with something valid.
Cheers

Quote from: Ralph on December 11, 2012, 02:45:39 PM

I have described how the bot wants the script in my section here.


I think my first post there.

I am sorry i skipped it. 
Will take a look and try. Thank You.

[attach=1]


[attach=2]


[attach=3]


[attach=4]


[attach=5]

Tested the concept on 1 million spins flat-betting. The spins are posted here on the forum by Bayes.
The objective is to observe fluctuation and build a complete playing model from there. So we know what to expect.
Will post the graphics here in chunks of 100.000 spins.

[attach=1]


[attach=2]


[attach=3]


[attach=4]


[attach=5]

Quote from: KingsRoulette on December 11, 2012, 02:55:07 AM
Is it Random Pattern Breaker? Can you show the graph here?

[attach=1]
I will post it in more detail @ the thread you mentioned. It ends -183. But that is not the point. The objective was to get lowest fluctuation. More can be discussed after.

Thank you Ralph for your fast and detailed reply.
How and where can i learn to code for your bot?
Thank you.

First I would like to congratulate Ralph for his bravery and all the work shared. Thank you.    Have to praise the positive attitude.
Now for a couple questions:
-How many spins can a bot hold up to? And how long does it take on average for each 1000 spins?
-Can you leave it on forever based on a win/loss target?
-Have you ever tried for a method with less fluctuation, variance, maybe?
Cheers   


note: Recently posted a method here. I tested 1 million spins provided by bayes here. flat betting, the worst drawdown was 800 units.