XXVV,

I doubt you or anyone else could tell the difference between live dealer data and an RNG sample, whether it's generated by software or hardware. Is it possible you just don't trust an outcome you can't see presented before your very eyes? I have no problem with it. I have taken five figures from an RNG in one sitting. Some people I know have taken more. And no, I'm not talking about pence.

Moreover, you should test your system against true random, as an academic exercise to see if the results are the same against numbers you do not know in advance. If you don't apply physics in your game, then your approach must be mathematical and if it's successful should logically be able to defeat any origin of randomness. It would be unusual to suggest, after all these years of playing, that somehow your success is down to you unwittingly using some kind of bias or dealer's signature. Not sure if that's what you're suggesting, can't really work it out to be honest.

I have a suggestion. You should test with true random numbers, like from random.org, to ensure that your results aren't unique to a single set of live spins. A hot number might be hot for a reason you're not considering.

Also, you could further define your hot number criteria with additional testing and investigation. A number that has hit more than any other in an endless sample from the first spin is a meaningless statistic, since it's probably just a product of the random process. There is nothing unusual here, there's no advantage. In short, what you're doing will fail quite miserably.

My experience is to define a number between two points in time, the origin being its initial hit. Then try to ascertain if that number has a higher probability than the expectation of hitting again before the second point. The purpose being to predict future hot numbers instead of merely observing past ones.

Sam,

It has also been ridiculed in some circles of the British media, especially the "facilities", even for the athletes. Simply reinforces the urgent need for an international helipotty service.

Here's what I think.

The long run can easily be defined as a point where, let's say in a simulation, any manifested edge of a bet selection stabilises. Whether the edge is negative or positive, doesn't really matter. Once you're into a large sample the edge deviates by smaller and smaller amounts, but the effect of that deviation on any supposed bankroll could get worse and worse up to the point of ruin.

Similarly the short run is any undefined set of outcomes (actually bets) in which the odds are not entirely representative of the long term expectation. You can define and prove its length yourself, and maybe even introduce a degree of predictability using maths or observation alone.

What's the response time if I need a ten dollar?

I think we all know what Xander is saying: up until this point in time, exploiting the physics of the game is the only method that has ever been proven to work. No one has ever demonstrated beyond doubt that the game is mathematically beatable. Posting graphs and results of phantom bets is utterly meaningless.

Defining a hot number according to observation or "experience" or playing some inane instinct trigger won't work. But that doesn't mean it's not possible to predict what range of numbers will hit before any other range, using maths and empirical stuff alone. You can even narrow it down to a single number. All you need to do is define the parameters of the experiment and run them over and over within a certain time frame. In reality, probability seldom holds true in very short cycles, considering that 37 numbers allows for a large margin of error from the expectancy. But the more data there is, or the longer the time frame, the more diluted the premise becomes; the "long term" maths starts to take over.

This isn't like running a long sim of a bet selection, it's drilling down for conditions that allow some level of predictability within the time frame. Then you can look at, according to what has hit and when, what is more likely to hit again within your limits. I have already posted results of a long simulation to back this up.

Quote from: Bayes on January 28, 2014, 09:00:04 AM
The fallacy is about being inconsistent. So red being more likely after 10 blacks could only be true if outcomes weren't independent, and, they may not be!

Well we have talked about this before. But are we talking about outcomes, or are we talking about the results of BETS? Isn't simply observing outcomes the root of the fallacy? But when you bet, you are making connections between the outcomes. So, in that case, red being more likely after 10 blacks is a reasonable supposition. Certainly should start a new thread about this sometime. It would be interesting to see what the holy grail windbags make of it.

I also agree. This is the type of unknowing I referred to in a past post. I don't mean there is a blissful ignorance but rather, yes the number will hit, but the questions remain, even though it is 100 spins closer to hitting, we still don't know when it will hit. Or, really, why it will hit when it does and why it hasn't hit before.

We just put it down to an anomaly in the distribution and say that, anyway, it is within the realms of probability. But that doesn't help at all. Is there something else happening beyond what is seen on the surface, for example.

Albalaha,

What do you hope to achieve by trying to discredit people like Bayes and Victor in such trivial ways?

Unfortunately many posted systems are fallacious in some way, many critically so.

But the question can be posed: when does a fallacy STOP being a fallacy, even though according to traditional belief, the said fallacy can't be anything other than a fallacy. Can it ever be disproved in a certain way? Isn't it just too square to stick categorically to the assumption that nothing makes a difference? Such a reactionary view does nothing to enhance collective knowledge, even if that knowledge leads to something we already knew before.

Obviously there has to be proven logic for why something should work. And that's what it all boils down to. There is still a large degree of ignorance of randomness, and other things like virtual tracking and the personal permanence, and even probability.

Quote from: Pockets on January 20, 2014, 01:08:46 AM
How would you treat a dummy bet in BVNZ? We are placing a wager, but it will end up in no loss/no gain.

Hard to say specifically with straight-up bets. This doesn't just apply to engineering a no win/no loss situation while you wait for some kind of trigger. It's all about increasing and lowering wagers at the right time. Some people might consider that a progression, others might consider it flat betting. So, really a dummy bet is not required. Instead, we are trying to pull a feint while waiting for the right opportunity.

But anyway, covering every number is not required on the face of it.  It would also be pretty absurd. You could not do that on a live wheel or in a real casino. If you're betting only 6 or 8 numbers, covering every one is overkill because only a small percentage of those numbers represent your actual bet, plus losses would mount up unecessarily in this scenario (because eventually you'll have to bet more on some numbers while still betting one on others).

Now we need to look at an incremental staking plan where the bet size for a winner is a bit bigger than your base bet, that way you can profit while also covering the losses on the feint.

The efficiency of the staking plan would hinge entirely on timing. And of course if you didn't get a winner in said cycle or attack the losses would be slightly larger than usual. It also hinges on whether you can introduce some degree of predictability within the cycle i.e. whether you can say for sure that between points A and B, the odds for a hit on 6 numbers is better than the longer term maths. If you can do that, it doesn't matter how many attacks fail, you will always come out ahead (with a big enough bank).

It's easier said that done, of course, there does have to be a real correlation between the numbers you bet and when they are most likely to hit.

Quote from: TwoCatSam on January 20, 2014, 03:57:47 AM
Thank you, Pockets.

Man, if you get the slightest nod from 6, which you did, you must be onto something. 

I'll give this days of study. 

Sam

Have fun!

Quote from: Bayes on January 13, 2014, 09:03:18 AM

I didn't say that deviation was meaningless per se, only that it would be meaningless to incorporate 'virtual' deviation into any analysis of gambler's ruin. From a purely mathematical point of view, it would be nonsense.

I agree Bayes, that was kind of the point, even regarding virtual anything.

Virtual deviation in gambler's ruin is as pointless as virtual deviation in regression towards the mean, since the deviation is not actually measured against anything. It is only tracked from a certain point in time. That, to me, affords no benefit. The likelihood is, tests of the two methods would show similar results, though virtual ruin would make for a more simple bet selection i.e. you could just bet red according to the risk, rather than having to make difficult subjective decisions based on regression.

Pockets,

You probably need to make the distinction between simply observing an event with no wager, and the probability of winning a wager on that event. They are two different things and they will affect you differently.

With that in mind you can use a single spin, a series of 2 or 3 or as many or as few as you like, but the probability always remains relative to your wager. Therefore, it actually makes no difference how you treat the outcomes. You can only gain an upperhand if you can prove that somehow the short term odds do not represent the true odds of the game between two optimum points in time; and then proceed to exploit that difference with a bet selection. This can be done in its most effective form by analysing the numbers, which also offers the best payout in the game and therefore the best rate of return.

I think you are doing pretty good work, best of luck.

Quote from: Bayes on January 10, 2014, 10:06:50 AM
There are several formulas for calculating the chance of ruin, but none of them use a prior deviation (which would be meaningless for games of independent trials anyway), so there is no possibility of corrupting the data. You could use a standard formula, but in that case you would need to determine your parameters empirically from past results.

There are many formulas that can be used for calculating the risk based on the type of game. These apply to short term performance only and whether the aim is to earn or survive until you hit a lucky streak. In either criteria, the risk of ruin can factor in deviation, variance and utlimately volatility of the bankroll. The analysis provides an exact bet by bet chance of ruin. I'll point you to some references when I am once again compos mentis.

And out of interest, if deviation is meaningless in a random game, what does that say about RTM?

It may, in fact, be more effective to place bets according to the "virtual" chance of ruin as compared to the "virtual" regression. Would there be a difference? Who knows... it would certainly make the bet selection much simpler.

Weddings,

At this time you have no reason to rent, sell or ask for any investment in your system. It is illogical; you don't owe anyone here anything.

You can compound your winnings until the sun comes up. And when you are finally banned from every online casino in the world, you can use proxies to play for you in individual sessions.

What you are proposing now will end in tears, it always does. Even if you are successful, it will turn sour.