Yes, Adulay .. .

The Stop Losses were based on each cycle or set of 9 spins.

They were for my VDW Roulette but I suspect similar results can be attained for baccarat.

Cheers

Nick

Hi Whopper,

Yes, there are so many ways to test the VDW and I am sure I have not tested them all yet.

Let me just tell you some of my initial thoughts about the dilemma of a mutual bet.  Perhaps it will give you a little more insight.

At first I thought this VDW was a useless method because  if we win 50% of the time on non mutual bet and the mutual bet was 50/50 then it is a push, it had no merit.

But then I thought what if we bet ONE side when it is a mutual bet, like we bet Banker.  If it is 50/50 then we should win 50% of the mutuals which would be 25% of the total.   25% for mutuals plus 50%  on non mutual bets, does that not total 75% wins.

This type of thinking was based on assumptions and may not be mathematically correct, but it made me recognize that I needed some STATISTICS to support my thinking or to show another path to follow.

What we needed was some Statistics on the mutual bets, for instance, how often does a mutual bet occur? 

I know most of you don't have access to tools like a bot or simulator to give you these kinds of statistics, so let me tell you what my results were:

The Mutual Bet occurs only about 20% of the time.

The question is does this statistic help us and if so how?

Now you have 2 Statistics, 1 the Stop Loss Statistics in reply # 123 and the Mutual Bet occurrence statistic.  I hope you are beginning to see the importance of Statistics.

Cheers
Nick

Yes, Whopper you are correct in your assumptions as Sqzbox points out you will have outcomes where either the P or B could complete the AP.

This is exactly the way I thought 2 years ago when I first studied VDW and I came to the same conclusion as you did so I did not pursue it as I thought it pointless.

When the VDW was revived by Priyanka on another site, I revisited it and with the fresh eyes of more experience here is what I saw:

A BET BASED ON MATH

The Van de Waerden theorem proves that you have to have a completed Arithmetic Progression(AP) within 9 spins/hands.

A NON RANDOM BET

It could care less if the last 200 spins only had 35 Reds, it could care less if you have a streak of 10 Bankers, it could care less if you has chops for the last 20 spins/hands, it could care less if you did not RTM, it could care less what the Standard Deviation is, etc.

A SIMPLE BET

Complete a 3 spin/hand AP.  That's it.

A LIMITED Bet

Within 9 spins/hands you will have a conclusion.  No waiting or no hoping.

A CONSISTENT BET

A bet that wins with regularity. Some might even call it a CWB, Consistent Winning Bet.

I thought finally, a bet that makes sense.  Now how can I make it win more than it loses.

STATISTICS was the answer.  This is a limited bet in that you can only lose -1 or -2 or -3 or -4 units during any 9 spin/hand cycle.  That is the limitation.  So, I tested to see if any of these 4 Stop Losses made a difference in the Profit and Losses.

See my reply # 123 and you will realize that Statistics do matter. Statistics is the key.

Cheers

Nick

Good timing with your question, Whopper.

The VDW as explained in this thread is the basic (original) method.

I have a tweaked VDW that will be used in my bot for Roulette No Zero tables.  Future plans call for the bot to play on line baccarat.

I just finished today testing my VDW to see the results if we used a Stop Loss of either -1, -2, -3, -4.

I only have the preliminary results based on 20 Sessions of 3,000 spins each for the 4 different Stop Losses.

Stop Loss = -1      Stop Loss = -2      Stop Loss = -3      Stop Loss = -4
Won 15/20 Sessions   Won 17/20 Sessions   Won 14/20 Sessions   Won 15/20 Sessions
Profit = 427 Units   Profit = 428 Units   Profit = 280 Units   Profit = 328 Units

So you can see using a Stop Loss does make a difference for my VDW for Roulette, I don't know if you will get similar results with the basic VDW method.

Next thing I have to do is test Stop Losses (-1 & -2) for 100 Sessions of 3,000 spins each to see if the results hold up.

Cheers

Nick   

Thanks Sqzbox. . .

I agree you can speed up playing by using the last hand that completed a cycle to start a new cycle.

Could you also speed it up more  by using the last 2 hands after a cycle is completed to start a new cycle so you could be betting even earlier?

Cheers

Nick

Yes, whopper . .

After you complete an AP you start another cycle.

Thanks

Nick

Yes Whopper and Adulay, that is the way I would play it as well.

A completed AP is a completed AP no matter if 1-3-5 or 3-4-5.

Cheers

Nick

Yes, AsymBacGuy, good discussions and replies, even though mostly about baccarat on this site.  I do have much more of VDW for roulette as it has many more betting options than just P or B.

Adulay, your results still going strong.

I plan do some live roulette VDW at the Mohegan Sun, CT.  I will be there from June 12th to June 24th.

If anyone in the area at that time, I would love to meet and discuss Bots, VDW etc.

Cheers

Nick

Thanks Bayes . . .

That is exactly what I was looking for.  A definitive way to tell if you have an "Edge" or not.  Yes you are right in that I am considering only Bet Selection, Flat Betting, no MM at all.

On next update to my bot I will have Vic add the number of Wins, Losses and Placed Bets so it can calculate the z-score.

"If this is steadily increasing then there's a good chance you may have something"

I assume this means if you have a steadily increasing graph that would indicate we might be on to something.

Take a look at the attached 4 graphs.  They are for about 90,000 spins each.  Assuming these were for 90,000 placed bets, would this be the type of steadily increasing profits that you would associate with an "Edge"?

Thanks Patrick for your testing, results look promising so far.
Cheers
Nick

Great discussion Mark(thanks for the statistics) and Sqzbox.

Sqzbox said:
"Nice analysis. But I don't think anybody here is expecting that this approach will yield an actual edge against the probabilities in the game so no surprises with your results really."

Mark said:
"What is required is a positive statistical option"

What if someone had a statistical option to yield an actual edge.

What criteria could we use to verify the claim?

If in profit after 100,000 spins? Probably not as any good 50/50 system could be ahead.

The Van Keelen test?

What would an edge look like?

What would a test look like?

What would the results look like?

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Nick

Yes Plop . . .You are correct, spins are random.

Bet Selection is not.

Cheers

Nick

Hi Mark  . . .

Yes those 6 pattern out of 512 do show the losses of -3 or -4.

What do the other 506 show overall.  Do they compensate for these 6 patterns?

Let's review the statistical data and determine where to go if they are positive or if they are negative.

As I have said from the beginning, this is a FRAMEWORK that we can use in playing.  This is NOT the final version.  There is much more we can do to make it better.

In the history of the game, there has never been a NON RANDOM method that I know of.  Do you know of any?  Kindly let me know, because I sure would like to pursue testing them.

What I am trying to do is get you all excited about a new way to play.  I want you to try something new and revolutionary.  I want you to expand your knowledge of roulette/baccarat.

Sure there are those of you who don't believe anything I say,  those who think they know it all and will continue to play the way they want to.  God bless them.

But for those students of the game and those who want a better, safer and hopefully more profitable way, then jump on board and let's see where this takes us.

We are just talking about baccarat currently in this thread,  we have not yet begun to explore the possibilities with roulette which has much more options.

Cheers
Nick

I also have this link which may be helpful

http://roulette.forumfree.it/?t=42656658


Nick

Hi Mark . .

I did find the error.

Attached sheet corrects it.

Kindly continue testing with this new sheet.

Cheers

Nick

You are right Mark,

there must be something wrong in the code.

I will check it out and advise, I know often when going from roulette to baccarat my fat little fingers mess up the "copy and Paste" function.

Cheers for checking

Nick