QuoteI stuck to my word.

How about you try doing this again.........and put it "all on the line"..........just a thought.

Turns out.......you actually have to pay for that stuff "on the line".....

.......who saw this coming?

Although........$200 for the secret method to beat a game unbeaten in over 200 years...........sounds almost too good to be true.

Probably legit...............right?

25% wins - 75% losses..........yes distribution is key.

I think that GLC was trying to find an easy way to test a method with these numbers.

Unfortunately, the only way to truly test this would probably be on 1 million spins.

At least then you could see any practical variance rear its ugly head. Anything less, and everyone will probably just right it off as lucky.

Agreed.........although a large drop is usually a bad sign right out of the gate.

Wish I had time to do more testing.....but it's just not in the cards for me right now.

I think a progression is the best option. Now you just need the sequence from hell to really test it out! (I think that GLC suggested to use 25%win rate)

I sincerely appreciate your work BA!!!

Pretty nasty drop from +425.........to...........+80

Telemetry is an automated communications process by which measurements and other data are collected at remote or inaccessible points and transmitted to receiving equipment for monitoring. The word is derived from Greek roots: tele = remote, and metron = measure.

I think of an HG as a method that can be executed practically and consistently for long-term profit.

This would take most AP off the table as certain variables would destroy its practicality.......and would also rule-out bots for online play.

Personally, I think that the most-likely winning method is a super-grinder that would require a great deal of time at the table with an expectation of around +1 unit per hour of play. Grinder methods tend to scare off most players as "impractical" if they don't win many units per hour.

More of an investment strategy than a "winning the lottery" philosophy.

Cheers!

Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 30, 2016, 10:50:22 PM
Condemning other persons' methods is much easier than being productive by creating your own and providing solutions to yourself and to the forum.

"This method is stuff, that system is failure...etc"

But who benefits from this kind of information??

Instead of blasting methods, aka efforts of other individuals, why don't we try to focus on what's working.

Personally I don't tolerate any criticism by persons who provide next to nothing but criticism!

I agree......but at what point are these "ideas" just more noise without actual testing.

I criticize those who throw out methods as if their success is a foregone conclusion without public testing...........and this is very common on these boards.

It would save everyone a great deal of time if they would follow-through (like Nickmsi is doing) with transparent public testing.........instead of all of these "hypothetical" systems.

Keep in mind.......I am the one who posted one of your publicly tested methods on other boards to get the word out.........so this is nothing personal.

This doesn't make any sense BA.

Try again........English this time.

Simply amazing how much people can debate.........with no evidence.

Publicly Test your method......as Nickmsi did......or your theories are worthless........literally worthless in this game.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people love to debate roulette.........until someone calls their bluff.

"Oh Yeah! I've got a method that works........easy........just do X, Y, and Z"

Sounds good......let's run some tests.

"_____"(crickets)

Hello?

"_____"(crickets)............................................................Yawn.

This is one of the most stable bet selections that I've seen to date.

Only 100 unit range for 50,000 spins or 1 unit range per 1000 spins should give an opportunity for a progression to work well.

Personally, I don't quite understand the bot idea, as online casinos can easily just cancel your account whenever they like. Risky for an individual.....even worse if multiple people play.

With live-in-person play, you can make serious money with a solid method........and keep going back for more......without a trail of bread-crumbs.

Just my $.02.

Great work Nickmsi!!!

Quote from: Albalaha on July 28, 2016, 03:00:18 PM
Nick,
      Winning so many placed bets(82,000), that too flat is kind of unseen for any mechanical way to play. I hope there is no serious error in coding giving false hopes. Too good to be true. Coupled with a better MM, it can earn much more.

Keep in mind........not flat betting only.......but with -2 stop loss.

So some MM already in place.

Also, a super grinder @ around +1 unit per 175 spins.

Not to mention the possible 50,000 spins just to get back to even in the first graph.

50,000 spins = 1000 table-hours = 25 40hr weeks  = 1/2 a year.........just to get even.

Perhaps the right progression could fix this.

Hey Nickmsi,

There are several graphs floating around on this thread.

Would you mind giving an overview of those results?

I think that this would help move things forward more quickly to know what variables help this method to win flat-betting.

Thanks!

Just a thought after reading some of GLC's posts:

How about using the Divisor method as a safety break if things go south?

So still flat bet, but if losses start to pile up, then apply Divisor to recoup.

Cheers!

Quote from: ADulay on July 22, 2016, 10:15:00 PM
OK, now I see what you're asking.   I was working with the 1-2 loop but have since gone back to flat betting VDW.   Comparing several previous shoes and running them both ways, the outcomes were nearly identical.

AD

.......but I thought that only flat-betting VDW loses over the long-run.

Didn't Nickmisi's charts show this as a losing method without MM or progression?

Thanks AD!