QuoteI respect XXVV point of view and this strategy is not new.-Sputnik

It's been around since the invention of the game.

QuoteThere's something missing here which is what I forgot to include in the first version of the program. If the stop loss kicks in (meaning a 4th number has repeated but no number has hit 3 times) then you play virtually until a number hits the 3rd time, then quit the session and start re-tracking.
-Bayes

Bayes, on the RNG wheels it's simply not going to matter.  All that will change is the number of spins on which a bet is made.  A live wheel, is something different all together.

QuoteI notice that others think they can run simulations non-stop and show results.
It will fail like all other methods, my opinion.

There will always be Good days, Average days and Bad days.
To handle the variation and keep away from the deep hole, we need MM and rules.
I am talking about Entering points and Exit points, when to attack and when to quit.

One Average day that would result in loses overall end up with positive expectation.
One Bad day that would result in catastrophic scenario end up with a small tiny loss.

That is my point.
You can not get away with fuzzy and sloppy attitude.
You see a winning strike jump on board and try you luck or you losing then stop, but when is that.
I don't give much for guess work.

-Sputnik

Guys, 

Regarding RNG: MM and rules don't matter a bit if you're attempting to play this on RNG data.  Afterall, why should it?
Some logic and commonsense needs to prevail.


Regarding a live wheel: On a live wheel,  what also determines when you should quit are the playing conditions.  Your entry and exit points should be based on things like the wheel direction, wheel speed, the dealer, the ball, and the dominant ball drop zones.   This is something that you guys can't see or measure when looking at just your raw data.  I've already been down this road many years ago.  If you're just chasing the raw data alone, then you're simply spinning your wheels.


-Good luck,

-Xander

Gordonline,

It's close enough for reasons which I've already described in the post above.

Attached is a simulation of the 3 in 30 and a 4 in 30 qualifying bet.   There are two separate simulations attached. I used numbers from random.org. It's a very good RNG.  10k trials were used.  Millions of simulations can easily be run, but there's no point to it.  As we run more trials, the results will approach the long term expectation of -2.7% on the single zero wheel.  It's true that there would be the occasional lucky winning 10k spin sample, but the sum of all the samples will still be a net loser.   After all why should we expect anything different when using an RNG?

The horizon is set at a rolling horizon of 30 spins.  There is no stop loss limit, because there's no reason whatsoever to have one if you're going to be using RNG numbers. Using a stop loss limit would produce the same results as not using one. The difference would be that you would not be betting on as many spins.  As your test trial sizes increase, you will discover that this is the case.

On the live wheel, the stop loss should be based on whether or not it's the same dealer.  Since you don't know whether it's the same dealer in your current simulations, and since you don't know if the playing conditions are the same from one spin to the next, the stop loss will not change your long term expectation in the simulations.

QuoteEssence of the WF game is trap as many winners at that peak of the bell curve and minimise  your losses in that endeavour so to work ever more efficiently. As the curve moves, sways in a range of behaviour you need to note its limits but where it is most fertile and attack there, especially when its moving into optimum phase. That is really exciting work and very rewarding. Enjoy the chase and the quest for that perfection. Go for it! -XXVV

XXVV,

The money management part of your method (stop loss) isn't doing anything to help the edge.  Especially on RNG wheels for reasons that are described above.  RNGs do not produce "fertile" moments or a "range of behavior" that you can capitalize on.  So the "chase and the quest for perfection" is nothing more than an exercise in futility.
I suggest you stick to the live wheels, and use some real stop loss indicators, such as the one partially described above.


The result of the 3 in 30 test over 10k trials (8924 bets) was

Edge -3.17%
Loss of 537 units


It's very close to expectation. 




-Xander

QuotePaul, my Attorney, has no sense of humour at all, and gets very irritated my lack of precision in speech and action.-XXVV

I can see why.   You need to add the word "by" in the blank space.   "gets very irritated _________  my lack of precision in speech and action."



Not to worry, I make erroRrr time often too. 

I wish they showed their live wheels.

If the samples were small, it would be virtually impossible to tell the difference.  The larger the sample, the easier it is to tell the difference. 

In the example above, you'd have to run a large number of RNG simulations in order to find one that was similar to the live wheel on the left. 

One was at the table where you told people that you bet $40 to the number.  The funny thing was that when I looked at it the max bet at the table, it was only $25.  Kind of funny  hmmmm. 

Turner,

It will slightly reduce the house edge on some live wheels for reasons that most people will not understand.  The physics involved are outside of what the ordinary gambler can grasp.

QuoteTell me Xander, where is the slight bias that can exist with the dealer/wheel combination on RNG -Offline Stepkevh

QuoteJust learn to think out of the box    -  Stepkevh

Stepkevh,

There isn't one.  That's why betting the hottest number(s) on an RNG is futile.
I know you think that I can't think outside of the box, but what you don't realize is that I've been at this game far longer than most people.  I don't just gamble for the hell of it.  It's what I do professionally.  I have some extremely advanced simulators written by some of the best and brightest people out there.  I know what works, and I know what's a fool's folly. 

If you want to attempt to beat an RNG, record several million trials, and then start  using some of the online RNG fitness testing programs that are available from people like random.org. 

This 3 in 30 stuff has been simulated a zillion times over the decades.  There's nothing new or novel about betting the hottest number.  It's been simulated to death.   It's by far better than betting on the coldest numbers because there's an outside chance that the dealer/wheel combination may yield and edge do to some kind of bias.

AP stands for advantage play.  Basically, it's what everyone on this board is chasing -  A way to actually get the edge over the casino, so that they can win in the long run.  Anyone that tells you otherwise is probably lying.
The simple fact is, if you can't find a way to get the edge, then you simply can't win in the long run.  Anyone that says otherwise is likely illiterate, or a drunken imbecile with a gambling problem.

-Xander

Quote

Believe it or not ...

RNG does work with WF3  -Stepkehv

NOT.    There's no logical reason for it. 

Besides, I've already tested RNG in the past.  It's a waste of time.
The only reason betting the hottest number cuts the edge slightly is because of a slight bias that can exist with the dealer/wheel combination. 

If you're going to mess around testing it, then at least use a computer.  Hand testing is a waste of time, since you couldn't hope to test enough spins.  Furthermore you're going to make mistakes with the hand testing.

If you're gong to test, then use live spins.  RNG spins will not work. 

QuoteI developed my own method for hot numbers called 3 in 30, and prepared variations finally settling on 3 in 35 and used an IBM mainframe computer to test millions of RNG spins with major partnership from a trusted and dear colleague. I did this 20 years ago. -XXVV

XXVV,

Sorry, but my testing results don't show anything of the kind.  I don't want to say that you're exaggerating, but my extensive experience on more spins tested shows that your results are... unique to your testing.  Perhaps there was an error in your program?  If anyone wants to actually see the simulations run, then they can contact me.

There's nothing novel about 3 in 30.  It's simply betting any number that's hit 2 to 3 times above expectation in a horizon of 30 spins.  It's like a very crude biased method that won't quite work well enough to win in the long run.

Also, the Frank Barstow progressions have no strength.  They're only value is for entertainment. 

By the way, if you don't like constructive criticism, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting on a public forum.  Maybe try sticking to a blog.


Best of luck,


-Xander

XXVV,

Back in 1984, Frank Barstow published, "Beat the Casino".  Within the book, there was a nearly exact description of this system.  It's nothing new.  Back then, I believe he referred to it as the Pyramid System.  People have been betting "hot numbers" since the invention of the game.  In all fairness, it's one of the best ways to win, since it's a very crude form of biased wheel play, but in the end it's not going to show a profit.
(In short:  Bet on up to 3 numbers which have repeated. A game terminates (start re-tracking) when either a number hits a third time (a win) or a 4th number repeats without any number having hit 3 times (a loss).)

Countless people, including myself have simulated this stuff over a million spins.  And yes, I did say a million.  Some of us have been at for far longer than only ten years.  The overall end result is that it does sometimes work, but in the long run, on the more random wheels it simply won't work.  Your experience is your experience.  My belief is that you've been very lucky, or perhaps you haven't played as many spins as you believe that you have.  Anytime that you're betting just one to a few numbers you will have extended periods of success.


Anytime that you want to see the simulations run live, on my computer using my live spin archives, I'll be happy to show you the results.  I can run the simulations on a screen share so you can see the results first hand.  I'm sure I can find individual wheels where it runs a small profit for 100k spins or so at a time, but not many of them.  Over several different wheels, however, the result is negative.

There's no disputing that playing the hottest numbers is a step in the right direction, and that it's far better than betting on the sleeper nonsense.  But as it is, it's not the holy grail that you believe it is.


-Regards,

-Xander

I'm not seeing anything like that.  I'm seeing an occasional profitable run for 30k spins with an edge of up to 7% before it tanks into negative territory on another set of 30k.  The long tem edge is still in negative territory.

The wheel used, and the dealer combinations is going to matter. 

Look deeper for bugs in your simulation.

Bayes,

In what program is the simulator written?

I can't seem to open the file.

QuoteMy job is to win, you (we) can call it whatever you desire.-Mr. J

Let me know if that happens. 

QuoteYou are in the wrong decade sir-Mr. J

I am indeed.