QuoteI've made a major breakthrough in that regard. It's now easy for me to apply a pseudo AI layer that mimics my three triggers  mechanically. Sharing that openly at discovery at this time is another story all together.-Gizmotron

Oh, I'm sure you have.  I'm sure you have.    "Far better not to actually post the details because then nobody can show that it doesn't work. Just stick to no. (5) and make grand claims. Someone's bound to pm you and make an offer." -written by Mike

QuoteI notice Xander and his ilk have recently re-emerged on the Forum. X is certainly not welcome here as his personal ill informed abusive tirade against the late and eminent Dr Martin Blakey from Melbourne was a disgusting performance of vitriol for which he never apologised to friends or family of the  brilliant roulette professional who was foremost a true gentleman who remained totally secure in his self belief and focus after 40 years of professional play that was his primary income to support his family. How many of us could take on that responsibility?

So to Xander and similarly closed minds, do not bother coming here as your posts will be deleted.

XXVV,

Please take the time to read the list above. Oh, and by the way, pay special attention to numbers 5 and 8 on the list.   

Cheers,

-Xander

Gizmo,

Beating a million spins means that you actually have to bet on a million spins.  If you're just using triggers and watching the spins go by without betting, then it really doesn't mean anything.

QuoteTwo can play that chicken before the egg game. I've shared more than I should have already. You just don't get it yet. I did it because I knew people here have to go through eliminating things they are more interested in first. That gives me plenty of time to hold back.-Gizmotron

Gizmo,

We simply don't care.  Your claim is weird, and nobody wants to send you any money for the system's secrets. 

QuoteSo if I create an algorithm that stands at least a million spins, in profit that is, I must disclose my secrets in order for my trade secret to be true. Is that what you are demanding?  Creating an AI algorithm, even one focused so tightly on such a small stream of data is no easy accomplishment. I don't feel like giving away that much work and that much research, more than twenty years and a lot of pay checks. With all due respect.-Gizmotron

Gizmo,

I'm guessing you're playing the "I've beaten a millions spins game" even though you're not really betting on a million spins.  Reverse engineering to a million spins is meaningless.

Bragging that you have a winning system, and then playing the secret squirrel game is also weird. 

Furthermore, I promise you that nobody is interested in it.

Yes, yes it is indeed.

Great avatar zelx77.

QuoteGood advice. Not addressed to anyone in particular, of course...   

Correct.  I will try as hard as possible to stick to my own advice.  I'm probably a terrible offender. 

Note to strategy testers:

When you test your methods, you must carefully define the testing parameters.  You can't hop back and forth and change the rules as you move along with your demos.  You can't say, "If I would have done this then I would have won that, or if I would have had a stop loss here, then I would have won that."  Such testing formats are annoying, pointless, and it's nothing more than curve fitting.  Below is some advice that will make the process more enjoyable, valuable, and less annoying to forum members.

1. List the rules in advance.
 
2. If you're going to have a stop loss, then define exactly what it is.

3. Carefully explain how you're selecting the numbers on which to bet.  Provide a link to a specific page that describes the rules of the system, not several pages of rambling posts.

4. Test statistically relevant sample sizes.  Testing just 50,100 or even 200 spins at a time is silly.  You can't look back and say that such a small test is proof that you should have made any changes whatsoever!

5. Get to the point.  Less is more.  Don't ramble on and on and on.  People are annoyed by long rambling posts, and they will often ignore them.  Also, don't make up bullshist terms in a vein attempt to make your system sound more scientific than it really is.  If you must use jargon, then define the jargon terms at the bottom of each post. 

6. Run out of sample tests.  One positive result isn't enough. 

7. If you change the rules, then you must restart the testing, and restate the new parameters.

8. If you're going to put your system out on a public forum, then you should be willing to accept some criticism.  Don't block comments once you've presented the method...it's weird.

Best of luck.

-Xander

Regression to the mean, law of large numbers, law of averages... nonsense in the system player's world. (Random walk)
 
 
Let's say the wheel has only two possible outcomes, red or black. No zeros.
 
Our expectation moving forward is that black will hit about half of the time, and that red will hit about half of the time.
 
After ten spins our results with a little variance thrown in is as follows:
RBRRRRRBRB
 
30% Black (3 hits)
70% Red hit.  (7 hits)
 
Now that there's an imbalance, what do you suppose our expectation is moving forward for the next set of 20 spins?   Is black due to hit more frequently than red?  Does black have to hit more than red for "system player's regression to the mean" or "system player's law of averages" to occur?   
 

 
Moving forward, we have 20 more spins below. Our expectation once again is that each color will hit equally.  But with a little variance thrown in the results are as follows.
RBRBBRBRBBRRRBBRRRBR
 
45% Black (9 hits)
55% Red (11hits)
 
Now take a close look at the grand totals for all 30 spins below.
 
40% Black (12 hits)
60% Red (18 hits)
 
Because black went from hitting only 30% of the times to hitting 40% of the time in the larger sample,  here's where some of you will say that "regression to the mean" is taking place.   (Some of you are probably also saying that it's the "law of averages".)

It's true that black hit more frequently, but it's still a net loser! In order for it to appear to "regress to the mean" or for the "law of large numbers" to work, it didn't have to hit more than red in order to appear to catch up, all that needed to really take place was the spin sample had to grow larger!

In small spin samples, the difference between how often the red and black hit can be quite large...percentage wise. moving forward, our expectation should always be just expectation, not that one color will hit more than the other to even out the imbalance!   Again, as the spin samples grow exponentially larger, regression to the mean appears to happen, even if the losing color never catches back up!

The law of large numbers, and regression to the mean doesn't, can't, won't, will not make anyone's system work!  Not in small samples, big samples, wide samples, short samples, short term, near term, long term.  Ever! 




-Xander

If someone says that they've won 511 units in 384 spins you need to know on how many numbers they are betting at each spin.  Here's an example with various bets...

Take units won, divide by the number of spins, and then divide by the number of numbers on which you bet.

For example:  If you're on:

9 numbers... 511/384/9 = .148  or about a 15% edge
5 numbers... 511/384/5 = .266 or about a 27% edge

but...if you're only on one number.... then 511/384/1 =133% edge

Knowing the true edge and how many units you can expect to win IS important in order to calculate the ideal progression.


-Xander

I just realized Resorts World and Aqueduct are the same place.  Duh. lol


Answering the question from earlier.  "How many APs does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

About 500.  One to hold the bulb, and 499 to rotate the house.

Does anyone here frequent the Aqueduct Casino?

Anyone in AC right now or this week?

I'm sure what you meant to say is that you simply didn't want a truthful answer.

The answer, to the thread, is to simply flat bet.

The edge comes from exploiting inefficiencies in the gaming device and or the dealing proceedure.

The edge provides a positive expectation with each spin of the wheel.  The game is then about playing for as long as possible while conditions are best.  While enjoying the compounding interest that the edge provides, we focus on the advantage first and the accounting last.  The moneymanagement is mindless and is quite simple.  It's just a percentage of the bankroll related to the house edge.

We play when we are tired. We play when we are sometimes hungry or cranky.  The wheel doesn't care, and neither does the compounding interest.  Remove the human factor as much as you can.  In the end it's about the edge, playing conditions, and playing for as many spins as possible.

What you consider thinking outside the box, I call ignorance.

Just the facts,

Xander