+ Register

[TheLaw]

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.

[Blue_Angel]

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.

It's not only about the total spins to test but also about bankroll at risk in comparison with potential profit.
For example it's one thing to risk 1000 in order to gain 10 and another to risk 500 in order to win 500.
Also if we assume that every bet selection is different, then 25% could not be for all bet selections, that's why "Gizmotron" & "XXVI" spoke about bet characteristics...
Besides the 25% it's also important to see on average how it could be distributed within the total.
The particular bet has not so easy way to calculate its average probability because it's not a fixed amount of numbers, let alone to see its win/loss ratio distribution.
If it wasn't worth, I wouldn't brought it to your attention.
Right now I'm analyzing a few variations of the specific bet.

[Kav]

It's not only about the total spins to test but also about bankroll at risk in comparison with potential profit.
For example it's one thing to risk 1000 in order to gain 10 and another to risk 500 in order to win 500.
Also if we assume that every bet selection is different, then 25% could not be for all bet selections, that's why "Gizmotron" & "XXVI" spoke about bet characteristics...
Besides the 25% it's also important to see on average how it could be distributed within the total.
The particular bet has not so easy way to calculate its average probability because it's not a fixed amount of numbers, let alone to see its win/loss ratio distribution.
If it wasn't worth, I wouldn't brought it to your attention.
Right now I'm analyzing a few variations of the specific bet.

Roulette is so perfectly balanced that if you risk $1000 to win $10 and you risk $500 to win $500 then the chance of wining the first case is much higher than the latter. It is VERY difficult to find "good" and "bad" ways or systems to bet on roulette. Each and every system I know will offer different advantages and disadvantages than the others, but generally speaking all the pros and cons even out. There are not good or bad systems. just systems that fit better or worse the specific requirements set by you (your playing style, strategy etc.)

[Blue_Angel]

There are not good or bad systems. just systems that fit better or worse the specific requirements set by you

This is where you are mistaken, like people, systems are bad and good but this is very vague in my opinion.
By over-generalization it's easy to miss small but very important details which make the whole difference.
There are many, various levels of effectiveness, some work most of the time while others few times, therefore I disagree that all have the same bottom line.
You can find out a result but finding how this result being developed is another thing.

[Gizmotron]

Here is a healthy way to look at effectiveness if you want to survive. If you are in a perfect phase of effectiveness, a loss is a signal to get out. If you are in an 80% perfect pattern a loss is only a sign that the pattern is either changing or just being 80%. You must learn how to live with your losses. It's at the heart of everything I'm attempting to teach people. If your life depended on this you would certainly listen. You must become experienced in dealing with changes. It's the only topic worth discussing. I've tried to suggest the ability to remain agile. It's this topic of change that is where being agile is valuable.

[Blue_Angel]

Here is a healthy way to look at effectiveness if you want to survive. If you are in a perfect phase of effectiveness, a loss is a signal to get out. If you are in an 80% perfect pattern a loss is only a sign that the pattern is either changing or just being 80%. You must learn how to live with your losses. It's at the heart of everything I'm attempting to teach people. If your life depended on this you would certainly listen. You must become experienced in dealing with changes. It's the only topic worth discussing. I've tried to suggest the ability to remain agile. It's this topic of change that is where being agile is valuable.

Are you claiming that you have coined the term "level of effectiveness"?
Sorry for borrowing your term.

[wiesiom]

~Whenever you reach a new high before you bet 18 uniques, restart by betting the last spun number.
When you have bet 18 uniques without new high, this means there were 19 unique numbers including your last loss, continue by betting the remaining 18 sleepers~
It was so many uniques so why you want to bet sleepers? You shoud expect repeaters to come.