What could be worse? Let's say, 328 hits in 15000 spins?

The fluctuation to which you are referring is the worst you have encountered in one sample. And you have only quantified it, or it can only be quantified, as -3.35 SDs after all 15000 spins have been recorded. You can't brute force your way through that fluctation for many reasons, mainly because the sample is too large. But you also can't expect one progression to work for all variance of the same degree. It happens over a few spins or many spins, and the variance is exclusive to your system. To someone else it may be entirely normal. When you are losing, others are winning. Everything you observe is within the parameters of the game, therefore nothing can be defined as being unusual or even normal, until after it has been observed (at least), and even then perception is always due to personal bias where the outcomes are random.

Where there is no real edge, the more you play the closer you get to ruin. It is blatantly the exact reverse of having a positive egde. So, we could beat your 15,000 spins where the SD has a limit of -3.35, but we could play another 15,000 spin sample where the SD has the same limit, but lose. Plus, there is always something worse around the corner, always, and you are always getting closer to it.

But to answer your original question, again, where the risk is 0%, any expenditure is acceptable, factoring in time and required bankroll of course.

When the win is "assured" within the table limits, the risk is 0%, regardless of how much you splurge on the progression. That is absolute perfection. In the real world how do you know a level of variance is the worst? In your Zuma example the SD is little over 3.0 for a 00 wheel. That is rare but by no means the worst you'll encounter. And it can take a different form every time. In your theory the longer you play the more you win. In reality the longer you play the closer you get to ruin.

I have previously simulated nearly 200,000 cycles of 37spins, using Bayes's one million actuals, a million or so from random.org and the rest from Excel. Excel's RNG is far from perfect and is susceptible to producing results with a pretty large range of fluctuation. Though, we can probably assume that's because more than two thirds of the simulation was done with Excel numbers. I can't vouch for a casino RNG but repeat numbers are just the nature of the game. If it's truly random, there will be a zero or small margin of error when compared to a real wheel; or better a TRNG like random.org. In my opinion, that will be the case in nearly all tests.

Against a casino RNG the margin of error would only be significant after the fact, i.e. after you have played against it and most likely lost, then you can begin to think about manipulation. But you can't ever really be certain of any degree of manipluation unless a bet selection has a real egde. Real meaning it can be proved with a simulation. If it relys on "guessing" or "experience", there is no edge, and any so-called maniplation of the RNG could simply be down to the perplexity of the player.

Yes it's a well known observation. But look, you aren't going to get anywhere following mindless triggers as proposed on the thread in the other forum. I call them mindless because the trigger is an illusion, a simple convenience that is easy to remember. They don't take advantage of your "phenomenon"; in fact, they dillute it until it doesn't even exist any more. The bet selection needs to be much more refined.

The purpose of such observations is to enhance your knowledge. Roulette can be as simple or as complex as you want, but that all depends on the state of your understanding.

It's important not to miss the point that what you observe is just an average set over the long term, as you state "millions of spins". The average seldom actually holds true from cycle to cycle. Mathematically the distribution of red and black should be R B R B R B R B etc with the occasional 0 thrown in there. But how often do you see that kind of prolonged distribution? It falls that way according to its probability of doing so. All you can really go on is that, for sure, there will be some repeaters in a cycle of spins, how many and when can't really be determined accurately. And there is always a nagging thought that you have to bet the same over and over in case you miss the repeater. That is too rigid. It lacks creativity, lateral thinking, whatever. I simply call these methods being too square.

You need to drill down beyond what you see in front of you to what you observe within a cycle of spins, and you're already on the right track by applying your findings to how they affect other payouts. By drilling down into probabilities you can begin to create your own situations and your own rules where a dozen might just have a higher than expected chance of hitting. Of course, the ball could land in any pocket at any time, but will it?

Quote from: NathanDetroit on November 09, 2013, 04:36:06 PM
That's a positive reply to razor, the SCAMMER.

Well, I agree there is something sinister about all this.
Why on earth would anyone bring up this nonsense after all these years??

Razor, you need a hobby. Even better, a job.

Quote from: ADulay on September 10, 2013, 04:04:31 AM
Your attack is some sort of "brute force trauma" to the table

Never a truer word. On reading the first post in the thread I thought the very same thing.

Quote from: Albalaha on September 10, 2013, 02:56:20 AM
                I as a researcher and system developer (call me seller or scammer or whatever) start my testings on the worst session first and if the idea looks doing better than flat betting then I test semi-harsh, normal and favorable sessions as well.

The approach of brute forcing your way through a random stream with some massive negative progression is just far too square. The whole philosophy is wrong and archaic. And no way can progressions and money management make you a better player, you already need to be able to win consistently to manage any kind of money, otherwise it's invariably just disappearing down a small crack in the table. Knowledge enhances a person's intelligence and insight and thus helps to build understanding and skills. The understanding, in this case, is working out why the bet selection is so terrible. If it lacks a proven premise, it's just a random selection.

Beating a worse case scenario doesn't teach much because, in the end, there is always something worse around the corner. Plus the permutation is moot, any of a given length has the same probability. One stream with 10 Ws and 50 Ls may prove to be a winner, another with 10 Ws and 50 Ls may be a loser.

Also you're ignoring negative value on all bets. This just increases variance, you can't play through it with a hard progression, it's too high. Even if you had an edge, you'd still need a progression to make it economical. With a 1% edge you may still be in a drawdown for weeks flat betting. And even with a soft progression the risk of ruin is still high given a limited bankroll.

Quote from: Bayes on September 01, 2013, 10:43:11 AM

So the relationship between series and singles is the the same as that for Reds vs Blacks, ie: 50:50. Therefore any bet selection applied to R/B can be applied to Singles/Series, because the probabilities are the same.

Spot on. The whole thing can be debunked by accepting that a single may become a series or may remain a single. The probabilities of both events is 50/50 in every situation and therefore every situation is predictable only at the mean. Regression does not help, since it can happen over hundreds or thousands of spins. You may well still go bust before getting ahead by even one unit, despite things overall regressing in your favour. Singles and series is only valuable only for academic reasons, ie personal research. In the main it's another blind alley that simply leads back to FTL or OTL.

Just Paint

Sweet.

You guys shouldn't get wrapped up in whether or not you can play a system against a live wheel. You can. There is much more to the game than just black and white.

Firstly, though, if you have to wait 200 spins for a win, well there seems to be something suspect with that. Why base the system around winning on an event that you have to stand around all day waiting for? Base it on events that are happening all the time. Logical, no?

And the straight-up bet really offers no advantage over any other bet. All it does is offer the best payout. Take the premise of the bet selection and modify it so you can apply it to a lesser payout.

Use the very same premise to bet the splits or streets so you can play it against a live wheel. Mathematically there's no difference.

Glad to see your copying and pasting compulsion is gathering speed.

You could have just said "It's risky". Of course it is, no one anywhere would deny that. But what isn't?
Even with an edge the risk of ruin early on is still high; maybe there is more volatility, maybe you make mistakes.
And what's your point, are you recommending against it, are you proposing an alternative, where is your actual opinion, can you do us a simulation?

I also believe I already mentioned the two most pertinent points of Kelly: it can recommend large bets / consider half or quarter.

Remember it is a formula for growing your BR at the optimum rate, most people aren't willing to take that risk and can't stomach such enormous bets anyway, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who will argue in favour of a full Kelly (in short, the maths aside, it's unnecessary).

It's just an elaborate form of proportional betting, which in itself can be successful.

And yes, the agruments of detractors are based mainly on the valid point that you don't really know your edge and it isn't fixed. Gee, what if we were to account for a margin of error?

Do you think it's possible to account for that, or even calculate it accurately, therefore presumably losing some bets but still profiting overall?

It's pretty easy to prove to yourself that something or a combination of some things work or don't work.

Quote from: Bally6354 on August 22, 2013, 03:34:26 PM
But hey, I would love to be proved wrong.

Ha, I am not about to prove you wrong, I wondered because you had mentioned playing in cycles of 37 spins. Though I may have some ideas that could help you. Not entirely related to law of the third, but certainly for identifying possible repeaters and "hot" numbers.

Quote from: Bally6354 on August 22, 2013, 03:34:26 PM
As regards to if it makes any difference or not! 

It really doesn't, in this case there is some maths to back that up!

Betting one number offers the best payout available in the game but as Bayes points out the variance is high compared to the low probability of winning. The examples are OK but the author assumes you're winning your very first bet and achieving maximum return every time, which clearly isn't possible and kind of undermines the whole argument. What if you hit on the tenth spin? You have previously already lost 9 units. What if the number doesn't hit at all? You're down 37 units.

To lower variance play more numbers, but you lose more and potentially more quickly. In the end, though, there is no actual difference.  The EV for a single zero game is the same for all bets. But that's not really the problem, the EV just really says you can't win flat betting by gaining a real edge. Unofficially then, you don't need a real edge to win. What if you could consistently guess at least 1 in every 4 even chances? You could win all day by doubling up on only a 25% hit rate. There's no maths that says you can't play a bet selection in a regular state of low variance. And that applies to all payouts.

Quote from: Mr J on August 22, 2013, 02:26:02 PM
Many of you guys play too many numbers.

Really makes no difference, Mr J.

Nicely done. Though strictly speaking all bets offer the same EV, but straight-up does offer the chance of bagging the best payout in the game.

The problem again is fluctuation, the fewer numbers you bet the larger it is liable to be. How are you selecting your bets, are you using law of the third? There are some interesting and fairly powerful conditional probabilities for that.

Evidence would show (considering the "law" that some numbers will hit and some won't) that if a number hits in the 37 spin cycle, it has a very high probability of repeating now that it's potentially "hot" and in the game (consider that numbers can hit twice, 3 times, 4 times and so on in the cycle, and that in thousands of trials we would probably never see all 37 unique numbers).

This would seem to offer a great advantage, but it doesn't really help to determine which number to back, or tell us when it will hit again.

And of course, the probability of it hitting just once still remains higher than it repeating.

Therefore progressions will be lost, potentially many consecutively, to the extent that you'll probably go bust. Bear in mind this is all based on observation!