Sam, the original Tool had more bugs than a can of worms.

I ended up with a crapola of sub-versions and fixing bugs in one introduced more bugs in the next 

Coding artificial intelligence is a b**ch.

Some versions would have to be reset after each hit, and have the numbers put manually in reverse until halt. Others would stop providing bets and people would feed numbers for quite a while before realizing it went "doo doo".

A whole mess of triggers adding numbers, filters taking them, multiple evaluators according to current conditions, future modelling, a layer of entropy in order to make it fuzzy enough for casinos not to perceive it as a deterministic "a to b" system across players, and the largest challenge of all would be to gain an edge, flat betting, while keeping all participants' state different, even on the same numerical stream, to avoid player collision and hence appear as a group of disconnected people, while keeping all with actual chances.

A b1tch to marshall a multi-player game where it must show like each user is on its own, powered by the same program. When too many players used it at once, it went kaput. Fortunately, halted instead of giving bad numbers.

Even coding an undo button with so many things going at once proved hell. Still is.

---

I always kept it as a semi-dormant side project. Now it's time to bring it back.

More than a re-write, this is a "re-ordering", so to speak.

The goals are high. Starting with the premise of going 1 to 1 against the casino, doubling a 100-unit bank on every seat flat betting. For each connected player. I don't know of a similar project deployed. Anyway, I'm crazy enough to take and face coding some projects which certainly shouldn't be taken by a solo coder 

Furthermore, it's an officially unbeatable game, you wouldn't think it was matter of stiff rules only and betting black after 5 reds...

A "snapped" quotation:

QuoteSimple games as Poker, roulette or Black Jack can actually keep the air travelers entertained from a flight to France to Las Vegas. In addition, they will have their adrenaline pumping and excitement gushing out of their bones[...]

[attachimg=1]

http://betluck-online-casino.com/blog/casinos-are-the-next-big-thing-in-air-travel/

You can even have it in a Java-enabled wrist-watch cell:

[attachimg=1]

http://www.amazon.com/Inch-Watch-Phone-Bluetooth-Black/dp/B009UQ5CA8

Quote from: Razor on March 12, 2013, 11:32:51 PM
How can I trust a programer not to expose or sell the method?

You don't. A shared secret is not a secret anymore.

Your best bet is to learn how to code it yourself using the easiest programming language you can find.

If you still want to have it coded by 3rd parties, you could split the work amongst several coders across several freelance pages. You must instruct them to do it in such a way they resulting parts interact to assemble a whole (your holy grail). As long as all the parts are separate/incomplete on their own, you didn't disclose your grail to any of the programmers. The more disconnected parts the merrier.

You can also maximize your chances for anonymity and decoupling of your coders by contracting from different continents (not kidding, that's the beauty of our current online-enabled world).

Quote from: Razor on March 12, 2013, 11:32:51 PMHow can I take the bot in the real Casino?

You can demand it to be programmed in a portable language such as java, then use a java-enabled cell phone (dime a dozen these days).

Regards.

Another option would be to generate spins from a TRNG (i.e. random.org)


If we agree True RNG's aren't influenced/rigged, then it should be valid

This is interesting.


It can be made in a contest-like way: each player places a buy-in, then the winning player gets the pot.


First thing in mind  to declare a winner being the one with the most units won takes the pot.


Other options to factor-in the different payout could be to play a certain set of consecutive spins with the player with the highest Z-score taking the pot.


This way players doing high-volatility locations equate to the others.


Just musing ideas. Very interesting proposal.

Let's not forget Dublinbet!


http://betselection.cc/online-casinos/lower-limits-at-dublinbet/


$0.10 now 

Quote from: TwoCatSam on March 10, 2013, 05:07:16 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36

Dane

Would you please quote this chart and color the "oners" one color and the "repeaters" another color?

Sam

I'm coding a [6x6] tag to automate this.

When dealing with a topic a rough way to make an estimate about people's opinion is through antagonism.


How many think it sucks versus how many think it rocks.

---

The answer is -as usual- most likely lying in between. But it sure can serve as a raw indicator of market trends.


"Windows 8 Sucks"


https://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+8+sucks%22


About 357,000 results


"Windows 8 Rocks"


https://www.google.co.ve/search?q=%22windows+8+rocks%22


About 36,500 results


...That's an 119 to 12 ratio!!!


Holy potatoes! When comparing both groups alone, only 10.22% of support says heaps    --In my opinion 

 

Thanks for propagating good posts ll l lll ll l lll.

Appreciated.

Quote from: Gizmotron on March 09, 2013, 01:55:21 AM
A true write once, run anywhere, software development language goes Open Source.

Excellent news for the open-source community.

http://hypercard.org/ should be tipped about this. They list LiveCode under commercial clones.

---

For the fellows who don't know, LiveCode is a HyperCard clone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard

You can see the similarities in syntax under HyperTalk's examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTalk#Some_sample_scripts

Once can certainly argue it's successful. Still kicking strong after 25 years 

What an amazing product to gladly impress its users! You can read a first-hand experience here:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/05/25-years-of-hypercard-the-missing-link-to-the-web/

"Before the World Wide Web did anything, HyperCard did everything." 

HyperCard served as an inspiration for the web-browser!

Interesting application of future modelling at NATO:

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-073///MP-073-$$ALL.pdf

I like this "multi-path" approach with the concept of "Proximity" (as in how close the predicted result matches).

Of course, first impression is it can be used to model the physical device. Yet since we have a short-circuited scenario in the numerical game itself, proximity could possibly be related to the raw numerical value too. Or to pocket distance should we order the numbers on a disc and model that.

It's an open field at this stage.

Very interesting thread. Equating "roulette thinking" with linear thinking is certainly how the bulk of players tend to approach it.

X number spins Z

10 reds, it must spin Black now.

---

Quote
Linear Thinking
Definition: a process of thought following known cycles or step-by-step progression where a response to a step must be elicited before another step is taken.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/linear+thinking

This is exactly how trigger-based games approach the numerical stream.

- This triggers that.
- That triggers such.
- Such triggers this again.

It is spot-on to think we must get out of stiff linear thinking as it has been proven not to work. In this case we could lean to be more like an "analytic engine".

I like the concept of "future modelling" since it equates what's happening to one of many possible models. Keeping it malleable. Switching models as reality approaches one with bigger accuracy.

This might be one way of leaving trigger-based methods, but -sadly- the Future Modelling field hasn't touched paths with gambling seriously enough in the academia. One might say because the odds are fixed and it is accepted everything which could have been said about a fixed-odds game is thought to have already been discovered/debated.

It's been used mostly in such scopes as the engineering and climate fields:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans#Future_modelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modeling_and_simulation#Academic_Modeling_and_Simulation_Programs

Of course, if we were to model possible futures for a random stream of roulette numbers, we would need to leave a number of possibilities out. More like matching a fraction of possible paths rather than the whole; if not due to the sheer amount of processing power required to account for all futures/paths, due to accounting for the nature of the game, where you can't eliminate with a 100% level of confidence the possibility of losing, you can only aim at increasing your chances to win.

I find the phenomenon interesting too.


Indeed: playing martingale continuously the whole month on the same roulette every single day gives you 100% guarantee to be there betting when Martingale's run from hell appears.


Playing martingale among many methods, using it -perhaps- one or two times in the month, puts you in a position of at least having a shot at skipipng them. Guarantees? none; but it brings into "the realm of the possible" to out-sit Martingale's shitty runs, while betting it continuously guarantees with 100% certainty you will hit the run from hell, keeping it in the realm of the impossible.


In this game, everything that's possible to happen will happen. This means some players will in fact out-sit spins with the run from hell with this technique, and they'll think they got the grail . You can't tell a winner what he just cashed-in from the casino this year isn't real.


Reminds me of the "first spins from the wheel" thinking.


Which states if you play only the first spins when they open a wheel, randomly, you will have a better chance of success. Because all long runs from hell happen in the middle or well-entered in the game 


You can check this at wiesbaden's online archive. Like any other player belief, mathematically, we know how's it labelled like  .

Quote from: TwoCatSam on March 08, 2013, 12:38:28 AM
what--exactly--did you give us?

He brought "system randomization" to the fore.

A valid technique as any other.

Math-wise the odds are set in stone, and every unit won is scheduled to be lost "somewhere in the future". Even if system randomization allows to give some players more time in between total wipe-out, it still can have merit. Who knows? maybe the player is smart and doesn't give it all back

The casino can't get back what you don't put into game. Now, what's the best method or combination of methods to maximize one's chances to make system randomization effective, at least at the beginning? That's undetermined. Each player has a different liking for their favorite methods, and it makes all the difference (...or perhaps the opposite, depending if you ask a mathematician or not).

I reckon this randomization way a "principle", not a fixed technique per se.