+ Register

[Albalaha]

This recalls me to the famous/infamous Pattern Breaker.Betting anything doesn't change the probability. You can neither change odds nor can you avoid tricky/bad stretches. Therefore, picking any COMPLEX looking betselection doesn't help by itself. It is only as good as playing RED.

[Blue_Angel]

This recalls me to the famous/infamous Pattern Breaker.Betting anything doesn't change the probability. You can neither change odds nor can you avoid tricky/bad stretches. Therefore, picking any COMPLEX looking betselection doesn't help by itself. It is only as good as playing RED.

The only realistic approach regarding EC bets is according their grand total and not their sequence.
When a selection has roughly 50% probability, its total could deviate from the average but gradually will bounce back.
This happens all the time with different degrees of deviations, but nothing practical and realistic can be used by trying to predict in which order events will happen, you should focus on the totals not the sequence.

[Nickmsi]

Thanks for your comments gr8player, blueangel Sumit and a special thanks for Mark for his in depth analysis of the VDW. It is great to explain your ideas with facts and statistics.  It makes it more understandable so we all can learn and improve.

To recap, this is a Non-Random System, ie one that is based on both Math and Statistics.

Once again let me state that the VDW (the Math part), ie what Adulay and others are are basically playing does NOT give you an "Edge".  Mark, gr8player, blueangel, Sumit and others are right, it is 50-50.

It does however, give you a new way to play, one that plays both live and RNG equally, it is mechanical and has it's foundation in math. It is a solid system that may be better that what most are playing now. If you have old shoe data or spins, just test the VDW against what you are using now and see if any better.

But there is more as Mark pointed out:

"As we have 186 ways to successfully complete a series of bets positive and only 70 ways to end up negative, our ratio is 2.7, a vast improvement on BP when using a negative progression and it's 1.5 figure, in basic terms when you commence an 8 hand sequence you have a 27% chance of failure and a 77% chance of success, compared to 40.6% for BP.  I did not micro-analyze VDW I suspect the figures would be as weak as the "Birthday Paradox" option 1:1."

What if we had similar statistics that would give the VDW more positive combinations than negative ones?

Remember, Statistics is the second part of a Non-Random Method:  Math and STATISTICS. Statistics is the area of testing that I have been immersed in for the last few months.

Attached is what today's statistical testing has produced for me. Two different but similar VDW statistics used, both produced profits flat betting after 100,000 spins. However, the one on the right had about twice the profit and a Z-score of 2.5 with over 35,000 placed bets so I will use that one as the baseline to test future statistical anomalies.

Cheers
Nick

[stringbeanpc]

you should focus on the totals not the sequence.

Blue_Angel,

Please give an example to explain this.

Thank You

[Albalaha]

Attached is what today's statistical testing has produced for me. Two different but similar VDW statistics used, both produced profits flat betting after 100,000 spins. However, the one on the right had about twice the profit and a Z-score of 2.5 with over 35,000 placed bets so I will use that one as the baseline to test future statistical anomalies.

100k spins doesn't matter but only placed bets does.
How much did it win flat bet?
OK, I see 200+ and 400+

so, if in 100k spins we generate this much units, do u think is good enough?

Can you simulate a few more sessions the same way?

[Blue_Angel]

@  stringbeanpc

Have you ever heard the law of large numbers?
How you could use this knowledge?
Keep a mental count, or write down the events as they occur, when the deviation is larger your bet should reflect the size of the deviation from the mean, the average probability.

@ MarkTeruya

If I was playing  Baccarat, I would stick always with the "player" because it is commission free, that's sufficient structure for me.

[Nickmsi]

Hi Sumit . . .

"Can you simulate a few more sessions the same way?"

Yes, as a matter of fact, I left those two systems running and have attached the updated graphs.

We now did over 261,000 spins and 82,000 placed bets and as you can see the Z-score doubled to a a whopping 5.

Both of these were flat bets and both had Stop Loss of (-2).

Cheers
Nick

[Nickmsi]

Hi Mark . . .

Wow, that was a very tedious job entering all that data by hand.

Be glad to help, so as not to unnecessarily bore others with coding details, kindly email me at nickmsi@aol.com and show me exactly what you want on the spreadsheet as I am not sure what you want and how you want it coded.

Cheers

Nick

[gr8player]

We now did over 261,000 spins and 82,000 placed bets and as you can see the Z-score doubled to a a whopping 5.

Both of these were flat bets and both had Stop Loss of (-2).

Cheers
Nick

Remarkable!  Great job, Nicksmi.

Moreover, the best statistic I see from your posted graphs is the fact that the strike rate actually CLIMBED from 50.6% at the 55K bet mark to 50.8% at the 82K bet mark. Very impressive, my friend; I dare say the best I've seen from a "mechanical" method.

Keep up the great work, Nicksmi; you're proving to be quite an asset to this forum.  Take care, and stay well.

[Albalaha]

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.

[Blue_Angel]

@ Nickmsi

What  percentage represents only the decisions for the "player"?

[TheLaw]

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.

[stringbeanpc]

@  stringbeanpc
Have you ever heard the law of large numbers?
How you could use this knowledge?
Keep a mental count, or write down the events as they occur, when the deviation is larger your bet should reflect the size of the deviation from the mean, the average probability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Blue_Angel,

To Ensure that I comprehend your meaning, I will use this example.

In the last 12 spins, there were a total of 5 Red and 7 Black,

hence the next bet could be on Red, and increase the bet amount by 40 % (because 7 / 5 = 140 %)

[Blue_Angel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Blue_Angel,

To Ensure that I comprehend your meaning, I will use this example.

In the last 12 spins, there were a total of 5 Red and 7 Black,

hence the next bet could be on Red, and increase the bet amount by 40 % (because 7 / 5 = 140 %)

12 results is very small sample, to use this knowledge properly you should play longer sessions in which events tend to incline towards their average probability.
You cannot gain an edge from short sessions, it's just luck whatever happens during short sessions.
That's why I consider those who depend on hit 'n' run tactics that are depending on luck, you might easily win 1 unit but also you might easily lose 1 unit, the "coin" has 2 sides...

[stringbeanpc]

Blue_Angel,

Thanks for the feedback