Buffster,


No, that's a losing streak longer than THREE, not TWO. Your example spins are a case of what I referred to in my previous post; remember this is flat betting (apart from the recovery stage which only kicks in when you have a losing streak > 3) so with your example obviously you would lose over that sequence if betting red, because you are flat betting and there are twice as many blacks as reds. But in the long term the winning streaks will more than make up for the losses PROVIDED THAT you can cancel out the losing streaks > 3. The edge is only 1.2%, but it's enough. Or you could start your recovery if you hit a 3rd loss in which case your edge would jump to over 5% (as shown in the table in my first post).


The proof is in the computer simulation. In the long run you will get the same number of runs of wins and losses, plus the extra losses from the zero.  So for example if you could limit your losing run to say 10, meaning 10 consecutive losses, then after the 3rd loss you could start a 7 step progression like this:


1,1,2,4,8,16,32


Notice that it isn't a standard marty of 1,2,4... because you don't need to make a profit, only break even. IF you can win at any point in this progression then in the long run you will have a 1.2% advantage.


W  +1
W  +2
L   take the loss +1
L   take the loss    0
W                      +1
L   take the loss    0
W                      +1 
W                      +2
L   take the loss +1
L   take the loss    0
L   take the loss   -1
W                         0
L   take the loss   -1
W                         0
W                       +1
L   take the loss    0
L   take the loss   -1
L   take the loss   -2 3rd consec. loss - start progression (next bet 1u)
L   4th consec. loss,  (step 2 of prog: 1u)
L   5th consec. loss,  (step 3 of prog: 2u)
W  You have now cancelled all losses > 3. Balance is back to -2
L   take the loss   -3
W                        -2
W                        -1
W                        0
W                       +1

Quote from: Sputnik on November 09, 2013, 01:47:40 PM
All you have to know is that the wins have to overcome the attempts, simple as that.

Yes, but how? waiting for losses, which is what I think you're doing here, doesn't work.


Using the above method, you don't wait for losses, you take them. The analysis shows that you will have a positive long-term expectation by eliminating all streaks of losses higher than 3. Anything up to and including 3 is ok. This means that you don't necessarily win in a session because you might have more losses than wins but still no losing runs greater than 3. It doesn't matter because in the long run you will win IF (and granted, it's a big IF) you can neutralize all losses beyond 3.


At the very least this shows that you don't need to start using a martingale until you have 3 losses in a row. Just take all losses <= 3 and start your marty on the 4th consecutive loss (starting with 1 unit).


You could do a similar analysis for longer odds bets, and it could be that there is a less dangerous progression.

This analysis is based on a single-zero wheel flat betting on the even chances.


Suppose you were able to reduce the length of your losing runs -  how would your edge vary depending on the longest losing run? To put it another way, what should the length of the longest losing run be to ensure that you would make profit flat-betting?


The analysis assumes that there is no limit to the length of the winning runs. I wrote a program which generated even-chance outcomes and varied the length of the longest losing run from 10 to 1, and for each value I calculated the player's edge.


Here's the code:




program advantage;
var
   i: integer;


procedure get_advantage(maxL: integer);
const
  n = 100000000;
var
  i, Lrun, w, l: longint;
  Pw: real;
begin
  w:= 0; l:= 0;
  Lrun:= 0;
  randomize;
  for i:= 1 to n do begin
    if random(36) > 18 then begin
       Lrun:= 0;
       inc(w)
    end
    else begin
       inc(Lrun);
       if Lrun <= maxL then
          inc(l);
    end
  end;
  Pw:=  w/(w + l);
  write('Max losing run = ', maxL);
  writeln(', HA = ', (Pw*100 - 50):4:3)
end;


// main
begin
  for i:= 1 to 10 do
    get_advantage(i);
  readln
end.           


and here are the results:

Max losing run = 1, PA = 15.451
Max losing run = 2, PA = 5.357
Max losing run = 3, PA = 1.194
Max losing run = 4, PA = -0.764
Max losing run = 5, PA = -1.723
Max losing run = 6, PA = -2.229
Max losing run = 7, PA = -2.493
Max losing run = 8, PA = -2.627
Max losing run = 9, PA = -2.704
Max losing run = 10, PA = -2.736




For losing runs of length 10 (or more), the expected PA (player advantage) of approximately -2.7% applies. As you shorten the longest losing run, the PA increases, but it's not until you get to a max losing run of 3 that it becomes positive!


So, if you can find a way to get your maximum losing run down to 3, you will have an advantage of about 1.2%. Alternatively, you could try to recover all losing runs above 3 by some sort of progression (good luck with that).


It's quite surprising how many losses you need to eliminate in order to get an advantage.

Hilarious! [smiley]aes/lol.png[/smiley]

Marshall Bing Bell,


I notice it says 'bearer of the Holy Grail' under your avatar. Do you get many private messages from members asking you for it?

Drazen,


What you have to realize is that no matter how you select your bets, it doesn't change the variance. You can wait for 12 standard deviations from the mean if you like, it won't make any difference to the standard deviation of your actual BETS, over time. Your apparent success to date is due solely to your progression.


I did some work on this myself. What I found was that no matter how you selected your bets, the pattern of wins and losses on the Even chances was exactly the same as Red vs Black or any similar bet. That is to say, half the time you get single wins, one quarter of the time you get two wins in a row, an eighth of the time you get 3 wins in a row etc, and exactly the same for losses and consecutive losses. Do you realize the implications of this discovery? it means it isn't possible to reduce the losing runs. If you could reduce your longest losing run to say, 7 in a row, you could clean up. But that, in turn, would mean that your expectation had changed (i.e.: the house edge would be reduced), which is not possible. So my simulations showed exactly what the theory predicted.


But no doubt you'll discover this for yourself, eventually. I really hope you don't lose too much in the meantime (sincerely)...

Quote from: Drazen on October 21, 2013, 03:08:00 PM

I understand that some lazy non sayers are just waiting for someone who says that is winning consistently, but without some set in stone rules, to argue with him...

Another snide remark directed at me? When I actually hear a real argument instead of evasions and personal attacks, I'll leave it alone.


And FYI, I'm doing quite well sports betting, thanks.


Sam, you're the one creating the stink. Calm down, it's bad for your blood pressure.

Quote from: Drazen on October 20, 2013, 08:27:54 PM

I haven't lost as yet and I started as I shown on forum.

Drazen, I looked at your recent posts and couldn't see anything about how long you've been winning. Do you keep records of your play and can you give me a ROI and the number of actual bets you've made?


Or something like total staked x 100% / total returned

Turner,


It doesn't make sense. If in the long term you win more than you lose (taking account of the days when you lose), then you surely must be winning consistently. This means you must have an advantage, in which case playing more often won't expose you to the HE.


On the other hand, if you find you lose if you play more often, it means you don't have an advantage, and you can't be winning consistently - it's a temporary run of good luck.

Quote from: Turner on October 20, 2013, 08:18:01 PM


I do believe you can win more than you lose. I do.


Importantly, you have to forget making a living out of it.

Turner, you can't have it both ways. If you win more than you lose - CONSISTENTLY (ay, there's the rub), then why can't you build up your bankroll over time so that eventually, you ARE making a living at it?

@Drazen,


Although I don't have details of the way you play, it seems that it hinges on being able to reduce the variance sufficiently so that you can use some kind of progression and not get into deep water with it, am I correct?


You may not have noticed my previous post where I said that variance is tied to expectation. In other words, you cannot reduce the variance without also reducing the expectation (in other words, the house edge). If you want a demonstration of this, let me know. But I'd be interested to know your results to date, nevertheless.

@Malcop,


Exactly the point I made in my previous post. There is no way to confirm that you have found the CWB (even if such a thing were possible), and I can't see how razor knows that he has it.


@Drazen,


I know about variance and regression to the mean. Could you post exactly what you're doing please? and how long have you been playing this way? and with what results?


@Turner,


I assume your last post was directed at me. You're making a few assumptions there, and Sam made the same; he assumed that I must be 'bitter and twisted' because I was never able to find a 'way through' roulette, as you put it. But I have to repeat that this is merely a personal attack and is totally beside the point. If you're going to attack anything, attack the math - the argument that roulette cannot be beaten.


Are you aware that there is a watertight argument that no winning system is possible?


Many members are vaguely aware of something called the 'house edge', but it seems to be something that never applies to them!


Let me try another tack; don't you find it a little odd that in the 300 years or so since roulette was invented, a consistently winning roulette system has never been demonstrated? Furthermore, don't you find it a bit curious that highly educated professional mathematicians are, in your view and many others, completely wrong?


Please could you direct me to where I can find the solution clearly explained with examples?

Chrisbis,


I don't have an account at roulettforum.com, only at vlsroulette.com.


You talk about well worn vinyl and being stuck, but I don't see any other critique of systems by any other member of this forum.
People need to be reminded every now and then that what they're attempting is impossible, and more importantly, WHY it's impossible.
If this warrants some kind of censorship or a ban, then so be it. I don't see any point in pussyfooting around with the facts.

Sam,

Why so sensitive? you're taking it all so personally.
In fact, you're the one making snide remarks and unwarranted assumptions about me.

Hiring Nick to do your programming for you doesn't make it 'easy'.
Nick had to learn those skill so that you could hire him.
Besides, programming isn't the only way of proving that a system won't work.
The best way is to learn that you don't actually need to test ANY system ever again.

Chrisbis,


I used to post in vlsroulette.com. You can see a recent post of mine there in the 'Gambler's Paradox' thread. I don't play roulette any more, though I used to dabble in advantage play (not much percentage in it these days) but now sports betting only!
[mod] Are you a regular poster in rouletteforum.com ? seem familiar [/mod]

I'm used to being dismissed as a naysayer, but I don't mind. Diehards like Sam will never change, but what I say needs to be heard by the newbies.
[mod] Sam is one of the hardest working testers there is, on new and existing systems/methods, and I believe in conjunction with 6th sense & Nickmsi/Steph, is now winning a little more consistently[/mod]

I do actually have some positive contributions to make here, in time. I was looking around for a new forum and this one seemed to fit the bill since it's not, unlike the others, concerned exclusively with casino games.
[mod] We look forward to your posts then.......and not this very worn vinyl you seem to have stuck on your record deck![/mod]

By the way Sam, it's not as easy as you might think to prove that a system doesn't work.
[mod] That's what the forum exists for...primarily....to test, test and test some more. And we don't mind how you test, nor if you want to post links to other testing sites, as a few members have done before.[/mod]

Quote from: TwoCatSam on October 19, 2013, 07:52:13 PM

What--other than that--can you do, Mike?  You sling mud at those of us who try, yet you offer nothing but negativism.

Pointing out the facts is neither negativism nor slinging mud.

QuoteThe basketball goal was an analogy as to how people want to do something difficult, not easy.  What NFL team wants to play high school freshmen?  Folks with a brain want a challenge.

LOL, and you think that trying to beat POTENTIALLY beatable games isn't enough of a challenge?  "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference"

QuoteYou're a breath of stale air on this forum, Mike.  We've heard it all before and the flip side, too.  You are the "Anti-Jl" if I may name you yet again!! 

Gee, that's a laugh. You talk about stale air, but the only thing I see here is re-hash after re-hash of fallacious systems and methods that can't possibly win, they're just variations on a theme which is doomed to failure from the get-go. Seems to me that I'm a breath of fresh air to point that out.

QuoteMike, if you can't go over the mountain you may be able to go around it.

More empty rhetoric. There's no getting around it, you have to take a different path.