Yes, I know, you have heard this before but let's explore this further.
For years I have heard that roulette/baccarat are random games and the best you can do is ride streaks, have a good time and maybe you will end up lucky and be ahead at the end of the day. Each spin is independent, past spins have no bearing, can't beat house edge, will lose in long run etc.
But what if the game was NOT RANDOM. What the heck am I talking about?
Yes, you can play roulette/baccarat Non Randomly. There are 2 ways that I know of:
1. PHYSICS: If the actual wheel is biased or there is a manufacturer defect, you can exploit this and more accurately predict what sector of the wheel the ball will drop in. This is Non Random as it has absolutely no connection to the independent nature of each random spin. It could care less. I don't think there are any biased shoes or are there?
2. MATH: The independent nature of each spin/hand has absolutely no effect on the laws of mathematics. 1 + 1 is always =2 no matter the dependency of the spin/hand. This is Non Random.
Ok, let's get into the MATH part as this is what the thread is all about.
Years ago I studied a Math Theorem called Van de Waerden Theorem(VDW) and dismissed it as I could not see any benefit.
Recently, a member (all thanks goes to Priyanka) brought it up again and when I looked at with fresh eyes and more experience I thought, well maybe there is something to this after all.
I hate math so I will try and explain this as easy as I can.
VDW says that you will always and I mean ALWAYS have a winner in 9 spins/hands. We are discounting the Zero/Tie for now.
This has to happen, it is a proven mathematical theorem. It is Non Random.
Here is the actual formula for those interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_theorem
What it boils down to is this:
In Roulette, either Red or Black is guaranteed to win in 9 spins.
In Baccarat, either Player or Banker is guaranteed to win in 9 hands.
That is the overview of using Math as a Non Random way to beat roulette/baccarat.
More details and examples to follow in next thread.
Thanks
Nick
First off in gambling nothing is guaranteed except the house will take most people's money,second you never saw a run of 10 players or bankers ......9 guaranteed noway
Bac
Yup. It might. And it might not.
Hi Bacman, Garfield . . .
Welcome to the discussion.
Yes, Bacman I have seen 9 Reds or 9 Players in a row.
That is exactly what you expect from Random. It will produce those kinds of results.
We are exploring NON RANDOM methods, ie Math, ie VDW.
If we get 9 players in a row, using VDW you would have had your winner on Spin # 3.
Using MATH (VDW) you will have a winner within 9 spins/hands. No doubt about it. Always.
More to come.
Thanks
Nick
So then you will have a winner within 9 then you gotta be using a negative progression
Bac
"So then you will have a winner within 9 then you gotta be using a negative progression "
No progressions, just flat bet.
Nick
I am all ears, Nick...
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 30, 2016, 06:06:26 PM
Using MATH (VDW) you will have a winner within 9 spins/hands. No doubt about it. Always.
No
1 B
2 R
3 R
4 B Lost
5 R no bet
6 R no bet
7 R no bet no gain what are you doing now
Hi Plop . . .
5-6-7 would complete AP for Red or 1-4-7 would complete an AP for B.
More info to come.
Thanks
Nick
At 7, either R or B would complete the AP. So it is a No Bet situation. You will skip the bet.
Looking forward for your additional information.
Thanks.
Hi James,
Yes you are correct and a No Bet would be one choice.
Let me explain more to the other members to bring them up to speed with the AP as it is a new concept.
Cheers
Nick
MATH (VDW) is a NON RANDOM way to play roulette/baccarat.
The core of the VDW is an Arithmetic Progression (AP).
Don't fall asleep yet, it is really simple.
For our purposes an AP is 3 numbers separated by a constant.
1-3-5 is an AP separated by a constant of 2.
1-4-7 is an AP with a constant of 3
1-5-9 is an AP with a constant of 4.
1-2-3 is an AP with a constant of 1.
These are only 16 AP involved.
1-2-3
2-3-4
1-3-5
3-4-5
4-5-6
2-4-6
5-6-7
1-4-7
3-5-7
6-7-8
2-5-8
4-6-8
7-8-9
1-5-9
3-6-9
5-7-9
Here is an example of how you would bet using the AP's:
1 = R
2 = R ( you now have RR so you would bet the next spin would be an R to complete the first AP of 1-2-3)
3 = B you lost. There is No Bet as non of the AP's can be completed
4 = R No Bet as none of the AP's can be completed
5 = R you now have 2 possibilities to complete an AP. 2-4 are RR so you could complete a 2-4 6 AP and
4-5 are R so you could complete 4-5-6 AP so your bet would be R.
6 = R You win.
Start a new cycle.
More examples:
A completed 1-3-5 AP would be RBRBR
A completed 2-3-4 AP would be PBBB
A completed 1-4-7 AP would be RRBRBRR
A completed 2-5-8 AP would be PBPPBPBB
The Bet Selection is specific, you are specifically looking to complete an AP, ie 1-3-5 would be all Red, 2-4-6 would be all Banker, etc. a NON RANDOM event.
The Bet Selection uses past spins/hands. What? Past spins/hands have no influence on Bet Selections. Says who? Perhaps in Random systems they have no meaning but in Non Random systems they most assuredly do.
Getting confused?
Perhaps the attached spreadsheet will help. It shows you how each and every 9 cycles you will ALWAYS get a winner and it shows which of the 16 APs was completed to get the winner.
Press Function Key F9 in the spreadsheet and play around and see how the VDW and AP's work.
Enjoy and let me know what you think?
Nick
NIck,
As an example, if the "1-2-3" AP loses, can it be used again in the same block of nine?
For some reason I'm thinking not, but wanted to make sure one way or the other.
AD
Okay I get a little confused here. What is the different between 1-3-5 and 2-4-6?
How we determine the P/B output as 1 or 2 or 3?
After a hit, is the hit become 1?
How do you start the counting?
In a streak of 6 let's say...so you only bet at hand #1,3 and 5 only?
Thx
So you use it on one side only or could for both sides?
Adulay , If I understand you correctly, we can only use an AP one time. Once it is used, there will never be another opportunity for it to be completed again.
Garfield, there are only 9 spins in the cycle the first spins do not get a bet because we need a minimum of 2 spins/hands before we can complete a 3 step AP. All AP's are 3 steps.
The following is how each spin is bet in each cycle. We are always trying to complete the same AP for the same spin. Always Spin # 5 will try to complete 3-4-5 or 1-3-5 AP in every 9 spin cycle. Spin # 6 of every 9 spin cycle will always try to complete 4-5-6 or 2-4-6 AP.
Spin AP to be completed on next spin
1 No Bet as No AP's to be completed on next spin
2 No Bet as No AP's to be completed on next spin
3 Bet that Spin 3 will complete a 1-2-3 AP, if not No Bet
4 Bet that Spin 4 will complete a 2-3-4 AP , if not No Bet
5 Bet that Spin 5 will complete a 3-4-5 or a 1-3-5 AP, if not No Bet
6 Bet that Spin 6 will complete a 4-5-6 or a 2-4-6 AP, if not No Bet
7 Bet that Spin 7 will complete a 5-6-7 or 1-4-7 or 3-5-7 AP, if not No Bet
8 Bet that Spin 8 will complete a 6-7-8 or 2-5-8 or 4-6-8 AP, if not No Bet
9 Bet that Spin 9 will complete a 7-8-9 or 1-5-9 or 3-6-9 or 5-7-9 AP
Example:
If spin 1 is a P then no bet on spin 2 because you cannot complete a 3 step AP
If spin 2 is a P then you now have PP which is the 1-2 of a 1-2-3 AP so you would bet P for Spin 3 to complete the 1-2-3 AP of PPP.
Else
If spin 1 is a B then no bet on spin 2
If spin 2 is a B then you now have BB which is the 1-2 of a 1-2-3 AP so you would bet B for Spin 3 to complete the 1-2-3 AP of BBB.
You bet whichever side has the opportunity to complete the AP.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 31, 2016, 04:06:01 AM
Adulay , If I understand you correctly, we can only use an AP one time. Once it is used, there will never be another opportunity for it to be completed again.
Cheers
Nick
Nick,
Thanks for the confirmation.
I've been a bit taken with this mathematical plan and have already put it up against two of my "worst" testing sheets.
It did quite well and I was kind of surprised.
Now that I've worked with this a bit, it is becoming a bit easier and faster to play.
Right now the only real "problem" area is when the last wager of the series can safely go on either side to win. I've been declaring that a draw and just restart a new sequence.
Thanks for taking the time to write this up and explain it. I even read the theorem!
AD
So the cycle always spin 1-9,10-18 and so on?
So spin 2-10 can't consider as a cycle?
So we always works in 9 spins/hands?
Or after a hit we start fresh?
This is what Pryanka is doing?
Thank you Nick!
What for are the spin numbers on the right side?
We can not use sessions statistic in the end, are the numbers showing us something?
Thanks for the program Nick.
Why continue to 9?when you win 123
is what the theorem says that there may be 2 AP ? I do not think so
Okay. I have some questions :
1. In case of B pppp BBBB. We will win @#4,5 and lose @#6,7,8. In other hand if we count the start of B @#4 as 1, we may get 2 W for the last 2 B.
So how do you determine when re-start the count? After a W? Or after LL? Or how? Please do explain
Thank you
Oh btw result of p B p BB pp B p will get 3 L @5,6,8 and 1W @#9
Okay. First some live report.
p B p BB pp B p will give 3 L(5,6,8) and 1 W (9).
Also I have some contradiction when playing live. Result B pppp BBBB. Win @ 4,5. After a L on 6 there is a L on 7 following 3-5-7. If I continue try to follow 2-5-8 I will get L on 8, but if I follow 6-7-8 of B I will W on 8 & 9.
So how you determine which one to follow ?
And also how to restart the count? After 1 W? Or after LL ? Please do explain. Thx
So far with live play, my result is average. From 10+ shoes I have 64W and 82L. IMO it's hard to play with flat bet, cause more chances you will encounter 2-3 LIAR before a W. Also if you follow both sides simultaneously you will face contradiction situations.
But the good news is I suffer max of 4 LIAR. Maybe with more info about the method I could review my play again.
Thx for sharing the method. I hope the best for it.
Some more thoughts of mine.
There are 3 AP that end with 7, 3 AP end with 8, and 4 AP end with 9.
Should be careful, this is where you may confuse which one to follow.
Many times I face confusion whether following 2-5-8 patter on Player or 4-6-8 pattern on Banker.
Hi All . .
Glad to see some of you trying out playing a Non Random game.
But remember, we are just exploring this concept right now. This is not a finalized method but a solid one that needs to be improved so don't go betting Real Money just yet.
To make it easier to test this concept I have attached 2 more trackers, VDW Tracker #1 Manual and VDW Tracker # 1 RNG.
The VDW Tracker # 1 Manual allows you to enter the numbers spun, one at a time, into Column A row 5. As you enter each number the tracker will show you what to bet.
The VDW Tracker # 1 RNG allows you to simply press Function Key F9 for another set of spins so you can quickly test the results.
This tracker is just ONE way of playing/testing the VDW theorem. This tracker:
1. Bets either Red or Black, whichever one will complete the AP for that spin.
2. When it encounters a Mutual Bet (when both Red and Black can complete an AP on same spin) it does NOT Bet.
You do not have to play all 9 spins every time. You only play until you have a winner or finished the 9 spins. When you have an winner, then clear the numbers in Row A and start again.
I will run some simulations on this Tracker #1 and report the results.
Hope this answers all your questions.
Cheers
Nick
Thanks Nick!
I tried VdW manual and it does not place bet on 9th spin at all...
And RNG also not placing bets in some obvious situations eg. RRBRBBBR, it should bet on B in 9th spin for 3-6-9 and BRBR i should bet for 1-3-5?
I think there is a problem with the tracker RNG
it does not mark some gains
20 B
5 NB R
28 NB B
16 NB R
6 NB B here , no profit ???
Thanks for the feedback from100 and plop
I will check the tracker as I use "copy and paste" a lot and often my senile fingers misfire.
Cheers
Nick
Yep, you were right, I messed up the code.
Try these 2 trackers and see if they work better.
Thanks again.
Nick
I ran a simulation of this corrected Tracker #1 for 30,000 spins consisting of 3 sessions of 10,000 each.
The result is attached.
Not much to get excited about.
However I do notice that this Flat Bet system seems to have some recovery abilities.
OK, how do we improve this tracker which
1. Bets either Red and Black to complete an AP
2. No Bets on Mutual bets.
All suggestions welcomed and I will try and do simulations on each if possible.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: from100 on May 31, 2016, 01:13:08 PM
Thanks Nick!
I tried VdW manual and it does not place bet on 9th spin at all...
And RNG also not placing bets in some obvious situations eg. RRBRBBBR, it should bet on B in 9th spin for 3-6-9 and BRBR i should bet for 1-3-5?
There is no ninth spin.
You won the set at 5-6-7
At least the way I see it.
AD
Might be better playing baccarat instead of roulette.
Roulette with the 00 and 0 has a 5.26 % house edge. With just the 0 house edge is 2.6 %
Baccarat house edge is about 1.3 % which is better than roulette.
Quote from: tdx on May 31, 2016, 09:32:26 PM
Might be better playing baccarat instead of roulette.
I agree and that is also what I've been testing with.
AD
Quote from: Garfield on May 31, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Okay. First some live report.
p B p BB pp B p will give 3 L(5,6,8) and 1 W (9).
Actually I believe that gives you a win at 2-5-8 and then you reset.
AD
if this is so certain why not use martingale?
on baccarat
not on roulette because of the 0/00 which screws up anyones day
Hi RG
"if this is so certain why not use martingale?"
This is not so certain yet.
It is simply a new and highly enjoyable way to play roulette/baccarat based on MATH.
Right now all we have is the BASIC VDW tracker/system. We are like the starship Enterprise, exploring strange new worlds.
The reason we are not using progressions is that Flat Betting is the best way to determine if this Bet Selection can get an "Edge" and consistently win in the long run.
Our first simulations of this Basic VDW Tracker #1 C were not a consistent winner.
What I am looking for are other ideas how what we can test to improve. One of the first things I thought of was to play only 1 Side. Instead of having R or B complete the AP, just bet Red only. I thought this would eliminate the Mutual Bet problem.
I created VDW Tracker #2 that only bets Red. I have attached the results below and the results were worse that the Tracker # 1.
I am testing Tracker # 3 as I type this and will report the results in the next thread.
Cheers
Nick
I noticed when testing that this system seems to win a lot in the earlier spins of the 9 spin cycle, like from 3-6 spins.
To test this theory I created VDW Tracker #3 which Bets R or B to complete the AP in spins 3 through 6. No bets in spins 7-8-9 so this is now a 6 spin cycle.
The results are attached and they are much better.
They show 2 out of the 3 sessions winning.
All this tells us at this point is we need a longer test to verify.
I am currently running a 250,000 spin test and will report the results tomorrow.
Cheers
Nick
Thanks Nick!
I also noticed not much later wins.
Maybe you can sort out statistic of how many wins on 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th spins ....
VDW applied to my 15 most recent baccarat shoes
w
w
w
x
w
w
----- +4
w
w
x
x
w
------ +1
w
x
w
w
x
w
------ +2
w
w
w
w
w
x
w
------ +5
w
x
w
w
w
------ +3
w
x
x
x
w
x
w
------ -1
w
w
x
w
w
------ +3
w
w
x
x
w
------ +1
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
------ +7
w
w
w
w
w
w
------ +6
w
x
w
w
w
------ +3
w
w
w
w
w
------ +5
x
x
w
x
x
w
------ -2
x
w
w
w
w
w
------ +4
w
x
w
x
x
w
------ +0
More testing to come.....
Impressive results Big EZ . . .
Attached is results for 250,000 spins on Tracker # 3 which only bets the first 6 spins.
While it does not gives us the "Edge" it surely played positive for a long time.
As suggested by Big EZ I will test out all other spin counts to see if any better than this one.
Cheers
Nick
Finished the first test of 3 spin Cycle.
This means if you had PP bet P or BB bet B. We know that this type method does not work and the results attached confirm you would lose all 3 sessions.
However, if you completed the 9 spin cycle the results attach show you would have won 2 out of the 3 sessions. In other words, If you had PP and lost you would virtual bet the remaining 6 spins and then start a new cycle of 9.
Very interesting.
Will now work on a test of 4 spin cycle and see if this trend continues.
Finished the 4 spin cycles and not finding any love here.
The 4 spin cycle a little better but neither worth writing home about.
Cheers
Nick
Have just finished the first 1000 hands dealt for this VDW play.
166 wins. 121 losses.
Playing out to the full nine hands rarely happens and generally will finish with a "No Bet" due to either side being able to complete the set correctly.
Playing out to 7 or 8 also produces a "Net No Bet" for the mathematical win, but a set loss.
Once I arrive at a "No Bet" situation where either side can complete the set but neither side is selected, that ends the set for a restart at 1 and you take the 3 losses.
Also, winning on a 123 or 234 allows you to merely reset the string at "1-2" or "3-4" to be able to win ALL hands in any string larger than two and not just every third hand.
Longest losing streak so far has been 5 and that was due to TWO "No Bet" sets ( at 7-8 or 9) in a row, which has happened only once.
Testing continues in "real time" online now.
AD
Quote from: Big EZ on June 01, 2016, 11:37:29 AM
VDW applied to my 15 most recent baccarat shoes
Thanks Big!
You must do something very different from us, as how can you get so many wins in 9 spins?!
Or there is something that I don't get?
Can you post some examples of your play?
There is a shoe posted today by Alrelax in a thread titled "Sections".
As he was kind enough to post it so I just had to run the VDW on it.
It finished at +16 for that shoe.
Copy and play it yourself to see how it comes out for you.
I did run into three sets where the "No Bet" came up, but none back to back so it wasn't a problem.
This shoe also demonstrated how the long runs help out when doing a back up after the 1-2-3 and 1-3-5 win.
AD
Here are final results of testing which cycle length Tracker generates the most profits. All of these were tested for 30,000 spins/hands.
Cycle Length Profit/Loss(-)
3 +11
4 -86
5 -42
6 +75
7 +111
8 +91
9 +30 (Basic 9 Cycle Tracker)
On all of these test we started a new cycle on a Win but continue to virtual bet to end of cycle on a Loss.
By stop betting at spins 6 or 7 or 8 we avoid getting the Mutual Bet. This I think is the big reason for the Profits shown.
I now going to run longer sessions for the top 3 results to see how they perform.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: from100 on June 01, 2016, 03:58:30 PM
Thanks Big!
You must do something very different from us, as how can you get so many wins in 9 spins?!
Or there is something that I don't get?
Can you post some examples of your play?
I didn't explain well enough. I posted 15 different shoes, and the W/L for each shoe with the number of units won after each of the shoes
Hi Nick,
Interesting thread. Here's a suggestion: since the VDW works on any binary (two-valued) sequence, perhaps you could try it on multiple representations. For example the stream of P/B or R/B could be converted to Chop/Streak and Singles/Series. You could then apply VDW to each of these and only bet when they all "agree". Just a thought.
Works on others as well. For example the magic number is 27 for trinary such as dozens and columns. But after that the number really gets too big.
How about dealing with the ambiguous ones by betting both? That is, run a bank on both B and R, say, and use a simple D'Alembert net betting the two. That will halve the cost of zero as well.
Here is another set of shoes I tested, 25 more for a total of 40 shoes.
w
w
w
w
w
------ +5
w
w
x
w
------ +2
w
w
w
w
------ +4
w
x
x
w
w
------ +1
w
w
x
w
x
x
w
------ +1
w
w
w
w
x
w
------ +4
w
w
x
w
w
x
------ +2
w
w
w
------ +3
w
x
w
x
w
w
------ +2
w
w
w
w
w
w
------ +6
w
w
w
w
x
w
x
w
------ +4
w
w
x
x
w
------ +1
w
w
x
x
w
------ +1
w
x
w
w
w
x
w
------ +3
w
w
x
w
w
x
w
------ +3
w
x
x
w
w
w
------ +2
x
w
w
w
w
x
w
------ +3
w
w
w
x
w
------ +3
x
w
w
w
w
x
w
------ +3
w
w
w
w
w
------ +5
w
x
x
x
w
w
------ +0
x
w
w
x
w
------ +1
x
w
w
w
w
------ +3
x
w
w
w
w
------ +3
w
w
w
x
w
------ +3
Thanks Bayes and Sqzbox for your ideas and suggestions and yes there is a lot more that can be done with the VDW Theorem.
To finish up the current testing, if you recall the following results were for 30,000 spins.
Cycle Length Profit/Loss(-)
3 +11
4 -86
5 -42
6 +75
7 +111
8 +91
9 +30 (Basic 9 Cycle Tracker)
I have tested for 250,000 spins the 7 Cycle (+111) vs 8 Cycle (+91) and have attached the results.
The picture on the Left is the 7 Cycle result and the one on the right is the 8 Cycle result. I think we can forget the 7 Cycle method.
The 8 Cycle result is impressive. We don't see often a Flat Bet method ending up in profit after 250,000 spins.
The final test to conclude the Cycle testing will be 250,000 spins for the 6 Cycle (+75) vs the 9 Cycle (+30).
Stay tuned . . .
Cheers
Nick
WAIT FOR ROULETTE
BACCARAT?
Hi Ice789 . .
Sorry I don't understand your question, kindly elaborate?
For those baccarat players who find it hard to play this by completing an Arithmetic Progression (AP) I have attached a VDW Baccarat Tracker.
This tracker will automatically tell you what your next bet is based on the AP to be completed.
You don't have to do anything but enter "P" or "B" in Column A and if there is a bet it will show up in Column L.
Enjoy
Nick
@ Big Ez
Can you show how you doing with that?
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1 random .org
Thanks
Hi Plop . .
I ran your numbers through my bot for roulette (1=B, 0=R) and got a -4 result.
Hope this is what you wanted.
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on June 02, 2016, 07:12:13 PM
Hi Plop . .
I ran your numbers through my bot for roulette (1=B, 0=R) and got a -4 result.
Hope this is what you wanted.
Nick
this is the procedure that interests me . Not the résult.
Thanks
For those of you who are working with this method I would REALLY recommend that you take the time to run these test manually so that you can see just how the numbers flow to make the sets complete.
Waiting on Nickmsi to run his bots is great for the overall picture but it doesn't help YOU, the player, to see what is happening in front of you.
For those who have taken the time to work this out hand by hand, you will no doubt see where the problem comes in eventually and it's an 'oldie but goodie" to boot!
It is not insurmountable but it does rear its ugly head from time to time.
If you flat bet this, you should be OK and you'll be even better if you can increase the session/set wager once you run into the "-4" set.
AD
Quote from: plolp on June 02, 2016, 06:54:21 PM
@ Big Ez
Can you show how you doing with that?
0
1
0
0 . . . . .
. . . .1 random .org
Thanks
How did it comes out when you ran it?
I'll run your session tonight when I get back from tonight's short casino run after my match.
AD
Quote from: plolp on June 02, 2016, 06:54:21 PM
@ Big Ez
Can you show how you doing with that?
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1 random .org
Thanks
There are 49 outcomes here. I have been testing in blocks of 60, because I can count on 60 playable hands in a bacc shoe. But for your results I get the following W/L string.
w
w
w
w
w
------ +5
a little serious .
there is no description of spins played .
Ironically, people are still into a delusion that there will be a magical way of picking bets that will give any kind of advantage by itself. Never going to happen. Wake up guys.
Quote from: Nickmsi on June 02, 2016, 07:12:13 PM
Hi Plop . .
I ran your numbers through my bot for roulette (1=B, 0=R) and got a -4 result.
Hope this is what you wanted.
Nick
I ran it tonight manually and and finished at -1 flat betting.
Evidently we're not all on the same page with real time play on this yet.
AD (live from the boat while offshore tonight)
Nick i could see that you have a Lanky PDF on your desktop, do you still have Contact with him? if not can you send the PDF :-)
Cheers Patrik from Sweden
Hi Patrik . .
Sure, will be glad to email what I have on Lanky and have not heard from him.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: ADulay on June 03, 2016, 04:08:08 AM
I ran it tonight manually and and finished at -1 flat betting.
Evidently we're not all on the same page with real time play on this yet.
AD (live from the boat while offshore tonight)
I try to run it today and ended up with +1 flat betting. How should this be played ?
Baelog
Adulay and Baelog . . .
As I mentioned from the beginning, this is a work in progress.
I would appreciate it very much if both of you can give me the spin by spin detail of how both of you played it. You can email the details to me at nickmsi@aol.com or you can post it in the forum, but I know it is hard to post in these threads.
I will then compare to what I have coded and test all methods to see which way is best for now.
Thank you so much for your help.
Cheers
Nick
Sure Nickmsi,
I played it in cycles of 9. If I had a winner before I waited for the next cycle. It gave me this result.
W +1
LW 0
L -1
LW 0
W +1
Total +1
Baelog
Thanks Baelog . . .
That explains it. You played the full 9 spins every time, no matter if you won or loss.
The bot was starting a new session on a win or a mutual bet.
I suspect Adulay doing something similar to the bot.
I will do some additional tests to see if the Full Cycle betting is better or not.
Cheers
Nick
OK, in order to show just how this was played, I transcribed my play here with explanations.
The first wager is at hand 4 completing the 2-3-4 AP and restarting the next 9 hands.
Next wager is hand 7 completing the 1-2-3-AP and restarting the next 9 hands.
The 1-2-3 AP loses its wager at hand 10 and the 2-4-6 AP at hand 13.
Hand 14 does complete the set with the 5-6-7 AP and of course the reset of the next 9 hands.
Hand 17 loses the 1-2-3.
Hand 20 wins with the 2-4-6 AP. Reset the nine.
Hand 24 wins the 2-3-4 AP and a reset.
Hand 28 loses the 2-3-4 wager.
Hand 31 can end the set with either the 1-4-7 on Banker or the 3-5-7 on Player so it is a No Bet Draw AND a reset of the next nine.
Hand 35 wins the 2-3-4 AP and of course the next nine reset.
Hand 38 loses the 1-2-3 AP.
Hand 40 loses the 4-5-6 AP.
Hand 42 wins the 5-6-7 AP and of course a reset.
Hand 45 loses the 1-2-3 AP.
Hand 47 loses the 3-4-5 AP.
Hand 50 is a No Bet Draw due to the 2-5-8 and 4-6-8 both available to win.
No bets on the final two hands while waiting for the next AP to develop.
Hope this explains the play.
AD
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qsdLr9j/0/XL/i-qsdLr9j-XL.jpg)
Thanks for the description A dulay
line 14 you don't bet because 1 4 7 give B
so : -2
Quote from: plolp on June 03, 2016, 10:19:15 PM
Thanks for the description A dulay
line 14 you don't bet because 1 4 7 give B
so : -2
Good catch. Thanks.
AD
lanky quit the boards
maybe he lurks
or maybe he is here under another name
someone i knew spoke to him....said he quit over a VLS fued
he had a great method i made a forum for
a lot of waiting though
AD -thanks for the detailed playing. One question though, why a no bet at hand 50 when it would complete a 4-6-8?
Thanks
AD I just got it....lightbulb....the 2-5-8 right.....
Quote from: Trbfla on June 03, 2016, 11:54:07 PM
AD I just got it....lightbulb....the 2-5-8 right.....
You beat me to it!
AD
How much can you win using the Van Keelen Test?
You should Place 1000 bets and gain 100 units or more.
Cheers
0
0
0 1
1
1
1 1
0
1
0
0
0 1
0
0
0 1
1
1
1 1 5
1
1
1 1
1
1
0 -1
0
0 1
0
1
1
0 -1
0
1 -1
0 1 5
0
1
0
0
0 1
0
1
0
0
0 1
0
1
0
1
0 1
1
1
1 1 9
0
0
1 -1
0
1
1 -1
0 nb
1
0
0
0 1
1
0
0
0 1 9
0
1
1
1 1
1
1
0 -1
1
1
0 -1
1 1 9
1
0
1
0
1 1
0
0
0 1
1
0
1
1
0 -1 10
1
0 -1
0
0 nb
0
0
0 1 10
0
0
1 -1
0
1
1 -1
0 nb
1
1
0 -1
0
0 1 8
1
0
1
1
0 -1
1
0
1 nb
0
0
1 -1
0
0
1 -1
0 1 6
1
0
0
0 1 7
0
1
1
0 -1
1
1
1 nb
0
0
0 1 7
0
1
1
0 -1
1
1
0 nb
1
0
0
0 1 7 41spins
0
0
150 spins , 41 attack overall score : +7
Why don't you test The Van Keelen Test - Place 1000 bets and gain 100 units or above - then you know if you have a edge or not ...
I reach 70/80 units using this test ...
Flat betting.
Cheers
for now 204 bet =+18
Quote from: plolp on June 04, 2016, 01:39:49 PM
for now 204 bet =+18
Do you use Roulette Extreme or by hand?
I hope that is 204 placed bets and not spins :-)
Nice results.
Cheers
I have finished testing whether it is better to bet the complete full 9 spins each time or to start a new session after any win or mutual bet.
I did 3 sessions each of 50,000 spins.
Results attached show that both methods won 2 out of the 3 sessions. The left portion of the picture are Full Cycle betting and the right is starting a new session after a win or mutual bet.
My thinking is that you can use either way. It does not matter.
All you need is to complete an AP within any consecutive 9 spins.
In live play, though the starting a new session after a win or mutual bet seems the most logical and fastest way to play.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on June 04, 2016, 02:03:29 PM
In live play, though the starting a new session after a win or mutual bet seems the most logical and fastest way to play.
Cheers
Nick
I would tend to agree with this, especially when playing live, online.
AD
Quote from: Sputnik on June 04, 2016, 01:54:19 PM
Do you use Roulette Extreme or by hand?
I hope that is 204 placed bets and not spins :-)
Nice results.
Cheers
By hand
204 placed bets of course :nod:
Quote from: plolp on June 04, 2016, 03:03:22 PM
By hand
204 placed bets of course :nod:
Nice :-)
Quote from: Nickmsi on June 02, 2016, 02:39:18 PM
I have attached a VDW Baccarat Tracker.
This tracker will automatically tell you what your next bet is based on the AP to be completed.
You don't have to do anything but enter "P" or "B" in Column A and if there is a bet it will show up in Column L.
Enjoy
Nick
Hi Nick
Is the coding for this correct?
Because PBBBBBBBB returns +1 unit, whereas BPPPPPPPP returns zero bets?
[attachimg=1]
Also this doesn't look promising;
[attachimg=2]
I started testing against a set a 9 column binary tables (512 possibilities), half that to 256 same result.
Have to admit the results were rather poor, unless I am missing something. I was feeding a row at a time into your attached Baccarat checker, first thing I noticed was it is geared to return a single win per column of 9 hands, which won't compensate for runs like this;
B B B B
B B B B
P P P P
B B B B
B B B B
P P P P
P P P P
B B P P
B P B P
-3 -3 -3 -3
It can get worst;
B B
B B
P P
P P
B B
B B
P P
P P
B P
-4 -4
I was left with the impression it relies heavily on a 3 streak somewhere in a 9 hand sequence, sure other patterns provide a single win, bulk of my testing was looking for a streak of 3.
Sure I could restart after any win, but the flip side is, as it appears not to like repeating two's, is long doubles will consume your bankroll making it impossible to recoup if you were flat betting. I don't profess to fully understand it, so apologies if I have skipped something, as I say all I did was feed binary possibilities into your excel sheet and did not complete the exercise as initial showings very poor.
Having said that and as I am use to working with columns, this is my rookie observation, personally I am not a fan of having columns of different lengths because you snared a win after 3 hands, I personally prefer to stick with columns of 9. The tester sheet places no further bets after any initial win, so in a best case scenario you can only win 1u per round robin of 9 hands, the worst case is that you can lose 4u (this is on par with Eirescots "BP pair" method and frankly doesn't work), yet it appears the number of winning columns v's losing columns does not compensate for this from my testing.
It lacks the option for more wins per 9 hand sequence than the tester Baccarat sheet is currently delivering. The flip-side, obviously would be, win a unit then lose a few units in any 9 hand sequence, maybe only gun for additional wins after say a 9 hand column has produced a -3 or -4 outcome.
Interesting though, cheers for posting......
You are right Mark,
there must be something wrong in the code.
I will check it out and advise, I know often when going from roulette to baccarat my fat little fingers mess up the "copy and Paste" function.
Cheers for checking
Nick
Hi Mark . .
I did find the error.
Attached sheet corrects it.
Kindly continue testing with this new sheet.
Cheers
Nick
Do not waste your time , Nick
it can not function . :nope:
Hi Mark . . .
Yes those 6 pattern out of 512 do show the losses of -3 or -4.
What do the other 506 show overall. Do they compensate for these 6 patterns?
Let's review the statistical data and determine where to go if they are positive or if they are negative.
As I have said from the beginning, this is a FRAMEWORK that we can use in playing. This is NOT the final version. There is much more we can do to make it better.
In the history of the game, there has never been a NON RANDOM method that I know of. Do you know of any? Kindly let me know, because I sure would like to pursue testing them.
What I am trying to do is get you all excited about a new way to play. I want you to try something new and revolutionary. I want you to expand your knowledge of roulette/baccarat.
Sure there are those of you who don't believe anything I say, those who think they know it all and will continue to play the way they want to. God bless them.
But for those students of the game and those who want a better, safer and hopefully more profitable way, then jump on board and let's see where this takes us.
We are just talking about baccarat currently in this thread, we have not yet begun to explore the possibilities with roulette which has much more options.
Cheers
Nick
24 more shoes to add to the testing ....
x
w
w
w
w
w
------ +4
x
w
w
w
w
------ +3
x
x
w
x
w
------ -1
w
w
x
w
x
x
w
------ +1
w
w
w
w
w
x
w
------ +5
w
w
w
x
w
------ +3
w
w
w
x
w
------ +3
w
w
w
x
x
x
w
------ +1
w
w
w
w
w
x
w
------ +5
w
w
w
x
w
------ +3
w
x
w
w
------ +2
w
w
x
w
w
x
w
------ +3
w
w
w
x
w
w
w
------ +5
x
x
w
w
w
w
------ +2
x
w
w
w
w
w
------ +4
x
w
w
w
x
w
w
------ +3
x
x
w
x
w
------ -1
x
w
x
x
w
w
------ +0
x
w
w
x
w
------ +1
w
w
w
w
x
w
------ +4
w
x
w
w
------ +2
w
w
x
w
w
------ +3
x
w
w
w
x
w
------ +2
w
w
x
w
w
------ +3
Hi Nick
Thanks for the updated spreadsheet.
I'll test further maybe later in the week. I kinda of have an inkling with this as I've tested and played Eirescots Birthday Paradox Matching pairs at length also betting for UnBalanced V's Equilibrium over a given hand sample (6, 8 & 12). The former can be so frustrating when it doesn't work, even though it has (suppose too) maths on its side, losing 4 bets on the bounce in a given 8 hand sequence, then losing 3 winning 1 and losing another 4, there is no way back unless you're incorporating something else.
Those methods which including this one are all non-random approaches, but present the same issue. "Single win v's many losses" risk, I suppose the ultimate would be a betting method that is statistically expected to win more often than it loses but only involves a single bet :-)
Repeating two's which it appears this option doesn't fair so well with, can be frequent within the game of Baccarat. I'll report back.
Do appreciate it's a work in progress and worth nutting out to see where it leads...
For now....
I still think that betting flat ain't gonna feed the buildog, but I'll eyeball this style and see if it is better than mine at pickin off the backs to backs win, hey hey.
Quote from: Nickmsi on June 04, 2016, 06:13:22 PM
Yes those 6 pattern out of 512 do show the losses of -3 or -4.
What do the other 506 show overall. Do they compensate for these 6 patterns?
Let's review the statistical data and determine where to go if they are positive or if they are negative.
As I have said from the beginning, this is a FRAMEWORK that we can use in playing. This is NOT the final version. There is much more we can do to make it better.
In the history of the game, there has never been a NON RANDOM method that I know of. Do you know of any?
"Do they compensate for these 6 patterns?"
Yes this is absolute equality.
You say it is non random ?? It's wrong .
the theorem of van de waerden proves that all spins are random .
Yes Plop . . .You are correct, spins are random.
Bet Selection is not.
Cheers
Nick
Okay, I did some possible scenario testing;
First off, with all the losing columns and single unit winning columns the balance result was ZERO, as expected.
IMO is a waste of time testing data sources, for the simple reason the data is historic and is of no relevance to what you may encounter in live play, suffice to say guaranteed you won't encounter the same data you tested against at any gaming table, if offers nothing other than peace of mind to the beholder. You are better off testing against "all possible scenarios" you can achieve that by using truth tables.
For a given 9 hand sequence, 512 possibilities;
8 columns produced 4 losing bets, a 1.56% chance of that happening
12 columns produced 3 losing bets, 2.34% of that happening
56 columns produced 2 losing bets, 10.94% of that happening
And there were 256 columns producing a 1 unit profit, 50% (less B tax)
In comparison, a 8 hand sequence betting that there will not be 4 of one-side and 4 of the other (equilibrium), carries a 72.7% statistical expectation to succeed (trust me when I say it simply doesn't pan out like this at the tables, it never does).
For 256 possible options the chance of losing 4 bets worst case (as in BBBBPPPP or PPPPBBBB) for a 8 hand sequence is 2, so the % ratio is exactly the same as the VDW option. I think there is a marginal advantage as I'm only seeing 252 columns where no winning bet is achieved out of a possible 256 options (my figures could be wrong, too time consuming to double check), suffice to say not a recommended bet option regardless.
I think The Birthday Paradox Pair method again was marginally superior given there are fewer losing columns, unable to confirm as I no longer have the data, plus you have various ambiguous modes, again risk making 4 bets to win 1 bet, too bad when you walk into back to back no-matching pair grids.
Not wishing to rain on anybody's parade, would like to post more promising news but "it is what it is", some days you'll win, other days you'll lose.
You could restart after any winning bet, this changes everything both good and bad I expect..
Nice analysis. But I don't think anybody here is expecting that this approach will yield an actual edge against the probabilities in the game so no surprises with your results really.
What I think is being studied here are the LIMITS presented by this type of bet selection. "There will always be ..." and "within such and such x will happen" and so on. This is the nature of the so-called non-random events. And, of course, how these limits can be utilised to advantage. Can a safe progression be worked out to match a certain property such that failure is unlikely - or even impossible? That is the real question here because, in my view anyway, a progression will be mandatory for long term profitability. So how can we make it safe?
Or perhaps can a combination of several bet selections from a palette of non-random methodologies be combined into a cohesive strategy together with a "safe"progression be profitable long term?
In my opinion the answer is probably not. If it's impossible to handle Birthday Paradox Pairs, or Equilibrium v's UnBalanced by themselves, then it is extremely doubtful this will be any different. Introducing more bet options can work both for the player and against the player.
One method loses, only to be followed by a second option losing straight afterward, more losses pilled on top of another, don't wish too be negative, but this is the stuff that will happen in live play. IMO what needs to be achieved here and for similar betting methods is a reduction of the 4 to 1 ratio. Risking four bets to win once, all these options present the exact same "worst case scenario, ditto any 4 column template with it's 99% mathematical expectation. Either reduce the potential losses when things go bad or improve the win count when things are in sync.
What is required is a positive statistical option and when things don't work, it doesn't cost you 4 losing bets each time it fails That being the case I could only suggest placing virtual losses in front whatever option you decided to go with. Also you have to consider "what exactly is the pattern that this loses against". in this case, repeating two's is one of it's nemesis, which IMO should remove it from consideration regarding Baccarat.
Anyway sqzbox trust you are well, it's been while since we communicated.
Great discussion Mark(thanks for the statistics) and Sqzbox.
Sqzbox said:
"Nice analysis. But I don't think anybody here is expecting that this approach will yield an actual edge against the probabilities in the game so no surprises with your results really."
Mark said:
"What is required is a positive statistical option"
What if someone had a statistical option to yield an actual edge.
What criteria could we use to verify the claim?
If in profit after 100,000 spins? Probably not as any good 50/50 system could be ahead.
The Van Keelen test?
What would an edge look like?
What would a test look like?
What would the results look like?
Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers
Nick
@Nick
One question:
In testing VdW on 8 th spin (or 6th or 7th)... have you waited 7 spins and then place a bet if there was opportunity? All other spins were just watching?
Thanks
Quote from: Nickmsi on June 05, 2016, 02:12:32 AM
Mark said:
"What is required is a positive statistical option"
What if someone had a statistical option to yield an actual edge.
What criteria could we use to verify the claim?
What I had in mind when I made that comment, are the 4 column template options, they "generally" present 12 ways to win and 4 ways to lose. So statistically you have a 3 to 1 ratio in your favor, with the risk of losing 4 bets when things don't work. Leaving aside the case of wins v's losses as everything balances out, as there is no possible mathematical escape from a 50-50 resolve. Hence why VDW had a balance of zero when all potential possibilities were considered.
So the perceived edge / criteria would be the 3/1 even 2/1 statistical expectation of a win over a series of bets, as well as avoiding 4 losses in a row when things don't work, as it puts too much strain on the players money management. You'll find this a mathematically impossibility.
The glaring issue with VDW is it only offers a statistical 50% expectation of success over 512 columns (forget the zero balance, as this applies to every bet option). However if VDW offered
for argument sakes, 510 ways to win and only 2 ways to lose, therefore you had a statistical expectation of 256/1, I would say hey, go for it, it's gonna be a cold day in hell before you got hit, leaving aside the obvious problem in terms of progression.
QuoteIn testing VdW on 8 th spin (or 6th or 7th)... have you waited 7 spins and then place a bet if there was opportunity? All other spins were just watching?
"Virtual losses" not applicable in this case, because the statistical expectation is only 50% over a series of 9 bets. Therefore the player only has no perceived advantage after any prior losses or column failure.
Compared to betting UnBalanced over Equilibrium with a 8 hand sequence, '186 winning columns v's 70 losing columns', the expectation which is proven mathematically is 72.7%, ditto Birthday Paradox Pairs.
Trust that makes sense...
Quote from: Nickmsi on June 05, 2016, 02:12:32 AM
What criteria could we use to verify the claim?
If in profit after 100,000 spins? Probably not as any good 50/50 system could be ahead.
The Van Keelen test?
What would an edge look like?
What would a test look like?
Hi Nick,
I assume you're talking about raw bet selection here and not any kind of MM/Progression. According to the "long run" a series of EC bets will only make a profit in roughly 1 in 20 sessions of 5000 placed bets, so that would be a good starting point. If it's in profit after this you could get the z-score which is :
z = (w - n*p) / sqrt(n*p*(1-p))
If this is steadily increasing then there's a good chance you may have something. A score of +3 would only occur about 0.3% of the time, and anything higher even less, so for example if you have placed 5000 actual bets (not just spins) and have 2600 wins and 2400 losses, the score would be
z = (2600 - 5000 * 0.4865) / sqrt (5000 * 0.4865 * 0.5135) = 4.74 standard deviations above the mean, which would be pretty impressive.
Hello,
i test the baccarat tracker with the zumma shoe I just started it and will post the result here
I finished the first shoe and used 4 diferent types of MM.Here are the resuklt of the first shoe
martingale: +14
flat betting= +10
MM: +13
zumma shoe 2 a very ugly shoe
martingale:+10 1time it went to -16
flat: +2
MM: +1
shoe 3
martingale: +8 higest bet was -4
flat: 0
mm:+4
shoe 4
martingale: +13 biggest bet -4
flat: +7
mm:+12
so after 4 shoes the profit is:
martingale: +45 units
flat:+19
MM (up and down management): +30
martingale most profitable but very risky drawdown within shoe
flat bet survives for now an ugly shoe
mm up and down also survives
I keep testing
Thanks Bayes . . .
That is exactly what I was looking for. A definitive way to tell if you have an "Edge" or not. Yes you are right in that I am considering only Bet Selection, Flat Betting, no MM at all.
On next update to my bot I will have Vic add the number of Wins, Losses and Placed Bets so it can calculate the z-score.
"If this is steadily increasing then there's a good chance you may have something"
I assume this means if you have a steadily increasing graph that would indicate we might be on to something.
Take a look at the attached 4 graphs. They are for about 90,000 spins each. Assuming these were for 90,000 placed bets, would this be the type of steadily increasing profits that you would associate with an "Edge"?
Thanks Patrick for your testing, results look promising so far.
Cheers
Nick
Hello
I have been following with interest the topic
you will help me a lot if you share the following information
Quote from: MarkTeruya on June 04, 2016, 10:33:45 PM
For a given 9 hand sequence, 512 possibilities;
8 columns produced 4 losing bets, a 1.56% chance of that happening
12 columns produced 3 losing bets, 2.34% of that happening
56 columns produced 2 losing bets, 10.94% of that happening
And there were 256 columns producing a 1 unit profit, 50% (less B tax)
You really will help me a lot
if you have all 512 combinations win / loss results
thanks in advance
with respect BETJACK
Hi BetJack
all systematic methods give 50%
Quote from: Garfield on May 31, 2016, 08:43:02 AM
Okay. I have some questions :
1. In case of B pppp BBBB. We will win @#4,5 and lose @#6,7,8. In other hand if we count the start of B @#4 as 1, we may get 2 W for the last 2 B.
So how do you determine when re-start the count? After a W? Or after LL? Or how? Please do explain
Thank you
Oh btw result of p B p BB pp B p will get 3 L @5,6,8 and 1W @#9
Garfield,
I think you need to look at how the AP's are selected.
In your first example, "B pppp BBBB" you win on the 4th hand with a 2-3-4 AP which is your first wager.
Work it that way and continue on.
AD
A good post with good replies.
Imo it's quite easy to assess if we have found a kind of edge putting at work a given system.
First we need a decent sample and we can even manipulate it, for example reversing the EC apparitions. This ploy is very important at baccarat where chances are not equally probable.
Secondly W must come out more streaky than singled and the opposite about the L part. (Obviously the same concept applies on any streak or single class depending on which W or L side we are considering)
Third, if we use a progression, winning spots taken on a given X level must be unproportionally more prevalent than superior X+1 winning spots.
In reality any gambling game seen from the house side point of view itlr will follow those guidelines, so we should be in good shape knowing to have gotten the perfect or almost perfect opposite statistical situation.
as.
For those of you who are still working and testing this play, here's my shoe from today.
Comments were added during the transcription as the original gets really messy at the desk.
AD
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-pSfxXct/0/XL/i-pSfxXct-XL.jpg)
Yes, AsymBacGuy, good discussions and replies, even though mostly about baccarat on this site. I do have much more of VDW for roulette as it has many more betting options than just P or B.
Adulay, your results still going strong.
I plan do some live roulette VDW at the Mohegan Sun, CT. I will be there from June 12th to June 24th.
If anyone in the area at that time, I would love to meet and discuss Bots, VDW etc.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on June 05, 2016, 04:26:25 PM
"If this is steadily increasing then there's a good chance you may have something"
I assume this means if you have a steadily increasing graph that would indicate we might be on to something.
Take a look at the attached 4 graphs. They are for about 90,000 spins each. Assuming these were for 90,000 placed bets, would this be the type of steadily increasing profits that you would associate with an "Edge"?
Actually I was thinking of the z-score increasing, but since they correlate with each other it amounts to the same thing. :thumbsup:
Quote from: BetJack on June 05, 2016, 10:26:06 PM
Hello
I have been following with interest the topic
you will help me a lot if you share the following information
You really will help me a lot
if you have all 512 combinations win / loss results
thanks in advance
with respect BETJACK
to respond to the question a bit more detailed
all figures 9 starting with : BBB =+64
all figures 9 starting with : RRR = +64
all figures 9 starting with : BRB = 0
RBR = 0
: BBR = -64
: RRB = -64
: BRR = 0
: RBB = 0
Total = 0
In other words if you play the reverse of vdw you get the same result
Hi Nick
what sort of money management will you advise for such stable EC bets?
the W can come in between L or LL
i am thinking using 1-1-1-2-2-4-4-8-8
2 W in a row will result in +1 unit
what do you think?
Quote from: bbbbbb128 on June 16, 2016, 03:05:47 PM
Hi Nick
what sort of money management will you advise for such stable EC bets?
the W can come in between L or LL
i am thinking using 1-1-1-2-2-4-4-8-8
2 W in a row will result in +1 unit
what do you think?
Chasing for a "double" would be akin to running a Martingale on this particular play.
I've reviewed my last 15 shoes played under VDW/AD and one shoe actually went 15 or so before a "double" hit. Lots of singles in there, but no double win. There we also many runs where you would be making that eight level wager albeit winning it, but it's still on the steep side of the wagering curve.
Also for those who may be machine testing this, you may want to run it manually for a few days to "see" what combinations look good. The "one sided" 147AP is a particularly good wager.
This VDW, in any variation NEEDS some runs of 3 or more although the runs of singles (ZZ runs) also work well.
If you get to the 9th level, there is no sense in making a wager as either side clears the solution for a win so that would be pointless. The same goes for a losing 258AP. Just start over at that point.
This has been working out in live play quite nicely. I believe part of the success is that it does not wager on every hand but tends to seek out selective patterns to play. Obviously any 123 type bet jumps out at you but when those lose, then you get to pick at the remaining AP's for one that will fit the expected outcome. Surprisingly I've found that the single sided 147AP is the MOST productive to date.
Anyway, these are just some things to look for if you've decided to put any time in serious work with this play.
AD
Hi all, I have been playing around with VDW on baccarat for a few days and a question arose. I know that there are times when there is the possibility of both a player and banker based AP being completed on the same step which makes for a no bet situation due to ambiguity....My question is about the times when a single side bet will actually complete two AP's at the same time, for example when a bet on banker may complete a 1-3-5 and a 3-4-5 for at the same time. Would this still be considered a bet since it actually completes two different progressions with the same bet? I have been playing to where it does but wanted to see what others thought about it....thanks all.
Quote from: whopper1967 on July 03, 2016, 04:19:16 AM
Hi all, I have been playing around with VDW on baccarat for a few days and a question arose. I know that there are times when there is the possibility of both a player and banker based AP being completed on the same step which makes for a no bet situation due to ambiguity....My question is about the times when a single side bet will actually complete two AP's at the same time, for example when a bet on banker may complete a 1-3-5 and a 3-4-5 for at the same time. Would this still be considered a bet since it actually completes two different progressions with the same bet? I have been playing to where it does but wanted to see what others thought about it....thanks all.
Whopper,
That's the way I've been playing it. Either AP that completes the requirement will do.
Also, when I run into a wagering situation where both sides result in a tie wager (towards the end) I just revert back to the closest "BB" or "PP" and restart from there.
AD
Yes Whopper and Adulay, that is the way I would play it as well.
A completed AP is a completed AP no matter if 1-3-5 or 3-4-5.
Cheers
Nick
Thanks folks...It is also my understanding that if you hit a 1-2-3 in the first three hands of a series that you may go ahead and count the very next hand as hand one again and start over correct?....thanks again.
Yes, whopper . .
After you complete an AP you start another cycle.
Thanks
Nick
If you are using a VdW strategy then it is perfectly valid to use the hand that just completed a cycle as the first hand in a new cycle. This is because the theorem applies to any consecutive 9 outcomes. It is perfectly valid maths-wise and reduces your wait time a little.
Thanks Sqzbox. . .
I agree you can speed up playing by using the last hand that completed a cycle to start a new cycle.
Could you also speed it up more by using the last 2 hands after a cycle is completed to start a new cycle so you could be betting even earlier?
Cheers
Nick
Good point. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to back up further. Theoretically anyway. If you have completed an AP that is, for example, PPP, then why can't you start a new series with PP? What about PBPBP? Could you go right back to BPBP? According to theory it would seem that you can. But I wonder if that is pushing the limits and the result will simply be a fallback to standard expectation? Actually I'm not at all sure that there is any advantage in playing this way. Because of the situation where either of P or B would complete an AP I suspect that the result over time is going to come back to the basic probabilities of the game. Maybe the advantage is in the selectivity, or perhaps it somehow reduces the extremes.
Hi again folks, I understand to reset to hand number one after a win or an ambiguous no bet situation... But after a loss do you just continue on until hand number eight trying to complete? Or is it possibly a one shot and done deal per eight or nine hands and restart at loss? Thanks
Good timing with your question, Whopper.
The VDW as explained in this thread is the basic (original) method.
I have a tweaked VDW that will be used in my bot for Roulette No Zero tables. Future plans call for the bot to play on line baccarat.
I just finished today testing my VDW to see the results if we used a Stop Loss of either -1, -2, -3, -4.
I only have the preliminary results based on 20 Sessions of 3,000 spins each for the 4 different Stop Losses.
Stop Loss = -1 Stop Loss = -2 Stop Loss = -3 Stop Loss = -4
Won 15/20 Sessions Won 17/20 Sessions Won 14/20 Sessions Won 15/20 Sessions
Profit = 427 Units Profit = 428 Units Profit = 280 Units Profit = 328 Units
So you can see using a Stop Loss does make a difference for my VDW for Roulette, I don't know if you will get similar results with the basic VDW method.
Next thing I have to do is test Stop Losses (-1 & -2) for 100 Sessions of 3,000 spins each to see if the results hold up.
Cheers
Nick
your moving along nick--very nice
I am definitely no mathematician but I was just reading the Wikipedia page on this theorem and a few more questions came up. As I read it in laymens terms, it seems to me that the theorem would only be a guarantee when it comes down to the 9th hand and the previous hands fell exactly as in the example on the Wikipedia page. In that case, I can see that there is no way that an AP will not be completed on the 9th hand but even though we know for sure that in that case that it is a 100% guarantee to complete, unfortunately we still do not know for sure which AP will complete. So does this still not put us back at a 50/50 chance? It seems as though the ambiguous no bet situations that we cannot bet are the only times that an AP are actually guaranteed to complete such as the occurrence of 3-6-9 banker with 1-5-9 player. Also when a tie gets thrown into the mix, I assume we would just have to restart the hand count at one because the third element of a tie. Hope this makes sense...thanks all
Firstly, ignore ties. I assume you are talking about the baccarat tie? Ties are a push - it is as if they don't exist when you are only playing B or P.
The guarantee is only that an AP will definitely occur somewhere. If it hasn't arrived by the 9th then yes, it will happen then but as you say can be either outcome as both will complete an AP.
Yes, Whopper you are correct in your assumptions as Sqzbox points out you will have outcomes where either the P or B could complete the AP.
This is exactly the way I thought 2 years ago when I first studied VDW and I came to the same conclusion as you did so I did not pursue it as I thought it pointless.
When the VDW was revived by Priyanka on another site, I revisited it and with the fresh eyes of more experience here is what I saw:
A BET BASED ON MATH
The Van de Waerden theorem proves that you have to have a completed Arithmetic Progression(AP) within 9 spins/hands.
A NON RANDOM BET
It could care less if the last 200 spins only had 35 Reds, it could care less if you have a streak of 10 Bankers, it could care less if you has chops for the last 20 spins/hands, it could care less if you did not RTM, it could care less what the Standard Deviation is, etc.
A SIMPLE BET
Complete a 3 spin/hand AP. That's it.
A LIMITED Bet
Within 9 spins/hands you will have a conclusion. No waiting or no hoping.
A CONSISTENT BET
A bet that wins with regularity. Some might even call it a CWB, Consistent Winning Bet.
I thought finally, a bet that makes sense. Now how can I make it win more than it loses.
STATISTICS was the answer. This is a limited bet in that you can only lose -1 or -2 or -3 or -4 units during any 9 spin/hand cycle. That is the limitation. So, I tested to see if any of these 4 Stop Losses made a difference in the Profit and Losses.
See my reply # 123 and you will realize that Statistics do matter. Statistics is the key.
Cheers
Nick
It looks as though on your test that a stop loss of one unit per series is giving you the most profit from the testing. I have been using it some on live dealer baccarat online. I reset the series count to one on any win or tie and only go to hand number eight. Other than the stop loss is there any other recommendation for baccarat? Thanks again for your help.
I do not have the means to test the play in simulation and I just play low stakes live dealer online baccarat. I know you have and are testing several different scenarios/options within the framework and I suspect there may be many more options that could be tested such as if you reset after a tie or continue, do you reset after a tie early in series versus late in series. I know some have said that most of the wins seem to come early. In that case maybe if there is a tie hand on the 7th hand, the simulations would show that it would be better to rest there and maybe if a tie occurred on hand 5 it would show that we should continue on. Would it possibly show that a certain AP seems to complete many more times for us where as maybe one such as the 1-5-9 would be a bad proposition. I assume it takes many, many simulated hands to safely arrive at these conclusions and maybe you have already done most of this but I thought I would just throw it out there. I mean if in a 250,000 sim a 1-3-5 completes 75% of the time and a 1-5-9 busts us 65% of the time....can we just dismiss that as random variance or does it take on a meaning....thanks for your time.
Hi Whopper,
Yes, there are so many ways to test the VDW and I am sure I have not tested them all yet.
Let me just tell you some of my initial thoughts about the dilemma of a mutual bet. Perhaps it will give you a little more insight.
At first I thought this VDW was a useless method because if we win 50% of the time on non mutual bet and the mutual bet was 50/50 then it is a push, it had no merit.
But then I thought what if we bet ONE side when it is a mutual bet, like we bet Banker. If it is 50/50 then we should win 50% of the mutuals which would be 25% of the total. 25% for mutuals plus 50% on non mutual bets, does that not total 75% wins.
This type of thinking was based on assumptions and may not be mathematically correct, but it made me recognize that I needed some STATISTICS to support my thinking or to show another path to follow.
What we needed was some Statistics on the mutual bets, for instance, how often does a mutual bet occur?
I know most of you don't have access to tools like a bot or simulator to give you these kinds of statistics, so let me tell you what my results were:
The Mutual Bet occurs only about 20% of the time.
The question is does this statistic help us and if so how?
Now you have 2 Statistics, 1 the Stop Loss Statistics in reply # 123 and the Mutual Bet occurrence statistic. I hope you are beginning to see the importance of Statistics.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 06, 2016, 01:33:47 AM
Stop Loss = -1 Stop Loss = -2 Stop Loss = -3 Stop Loss = -4
Won 15/20 Sessions Won 17/20 Sessions Won 14/20 Sessions Won 15/20 Sessions
Profit = 427 Units Profit = 428 Units Profit = 280 Units Profit = 328 Units
Nickmsi,
This "stop loss" you're testing is for each set of 9, correct? Lose two wagers and reset for a new set?
AD
Yes, Adulay .. .
The Stop Losses were based on each cycle or set of 9 spins.
They were for my VDW Roulette but I suspect similar results can be attained for baccarat.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 07, 2016, 02:04:27 AM
Yes, Adulay .. .
The Stop Losses were based on each cycle or set of 9 spins.
They were for my VDW Roulette but I suspect similar results can be attained for baccarat.
Cheers
Nick
Nickmsi,
Interesting angle. I'll go back and look at the previous sheets and see how they change.
AD
For the 5 or so of us who are working with the "VDW" method of play, I'd like to condense down just what we're working with.
If the shoe starts out PP, then the wager is obvious under the 123AP. Wager on P.
If it wins, you will have solved the process and can move on.
The next wagering opportunity presents itself with another 123 starting at hand #2. How convenient!
Now, assuming you did not win that first wager at PPx, you would have PPB going into hand 4. There is no AP that will fulfill the requirement to wager, so hand #4 is not wagered on.
After hand 4 you find your self with either PPBP or PPBB you have two choices.
PPBP results in another "no bet" situation (neither 135 or 345 are available) leaving us only the PPBB situation to wager on with the 345AP.
See anything developing here?
With the PPBP set up you should already see that although there is no wager on hand #5, hand #6 WILL be bet and it WILL be a Player wager. Both the 246 and 456 AP's come into play.
So, after hand #5 we have a PPBPB or a PPBPP the wager will be on P. Pretty straight forward.
Now, let's change the result to PPBPPB (loss on hand #6). What's the next wager? 147 is correct. The other two iterations of "7" don't fit the box. (567 and 357).
This is also as far as you can run with the VDW on this set. If you lose the 147AP, the 8th and 9th levels both are simultaneous bets which is no good for our purposes. Back up and restart.
Now obviously, should you win ANY of the wagers, the set is complete and you can restart another group of 9. Where to restart? Simply back up and find an appropriate start based on being able to make a wager. The example would be winning the 123AP means back up to hand #2 and start another 123AP. Basically just stay on the side that just won if playing the 123, 234, 345, set.
The same goes for any wins on the 135, 246 and 357 sets.
The bottom line? (For those of you who have read this far) reads like this:
2's go to 3+. Z-runs of 3 continue on.
That's it!!
Yes, all of the writing and mathematics of the VDW Theorem show that in a wagering situation.
If you lose on a 12(3), you wait two hands to wager on the 246 or the 345 if it went the other way. In any case, it's still a "2 goes to 3" situation. If it loses, you're right back to the 1-2-x restart!
If the 2-4-6 wins, it drops right into a 3-5-7 and so on.
You do not wager when both sides can win, you back up and restart.
So, one more time:
#1 All 2's go to 3. (and beyond)
#2 All ZZ runs of 3 (or 4 using the Ellis count) continue on.
#3 On any loss, move to the next AP if available otherwise back up to a suitable restarting point.
Put pencil to paper and you'll see this for yourself.
I didn't invent this or even recommend it. I'm just showing what the VDW system play works out to in real life. Please continue to test and report any results that you determine would help.
AD
Thanks for putting it all together, AD!
There is also a 1-5-9 possibility. PPBBPPBPP
Quote from: sqzbox on July 10, 2016, 10:47:19 PM
There is also a 1-5-9 possibility. PPBBPPBPP
Although the 2-5-8 would have already pulled a "win" on that set.
AD
True. So I missed a combo. Try this. PPBBPPBBP. The point is, because the theorem states within 9 then there will be a 1-5-9 possibility.
Quote from: sqzbox on July 11, 2016, 05:55:30 AM
True. So I missed a combo. Try this. PPBBPPBBP. The point is, because the theorem states within 9 then there will be a 1-5-9 possibility.
.
But B give 7-8-9
Yep - that is also true. I was just trying to point out that the 1-5-9 possibility does exist. But I guess that it will always be a dual possibility - I get that. It can be quite mend-bending this stuff can't it?
I am curious as to the best mm strategy to use. I've been using a 123 type of progression and reset when a both sides bet is required. Just curious to see how others view it.....also I've noticed that when one side has 2 chances to win like a 135 and 345 or bpbb... Then it almost always wins....anyone see that?
Quote from: Trbfla on July 12, 2016, 03:29:31 PM
.....also I've noticed that when one side has 2 chances to win like a 135 and 345 or bpbb... Then it almost always wins....anyone see that?
Yes, that's a good position to be in. Sometimes I think it would almost worth it just waiting for that combo to show up to wager on exclusively!
AD
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 06, 2016, 01:33:47 AM
Good timing with your question, Whopper.
The VDW as explained in this thread is the basic (original) method.
I have a tweaked VDW that will be used in my bot for Roulette No Zero tables. Future plans call for the bot to play on line baccarat.
I just finished today testing my VDW to see the results if we used a Stop Loss of either -1, -2, -3, -4.
I only have the preliminary results based on 20 Sessions of 3,000 spins each for the 4 different Stop Losses.
Stop Loss = -1 Stop Loss = -2 Stop Loss = -3 Stop Loss = -4
Won 15/20 Sessions Won 17/20 Sessions Won 14/20 Sessions Won 15/20 Sessions
Profit = 427 Units Profit = 428 Units Profit = 280 Units Profit = 328 Units
So you can see using a Stop Loss does make a difference for my VDW for Roulette, I don't know if you will get similar results with the basic VDW method.
Next thing I have to do is test Stop Losses (-1 & -2) for 100 Sessions of 3,000 spins each to see if the results hold up.
Cheers
Nick
Excellent job! Love your work Nick!!!
All questions below are based on the (stop loss of -1 profit +427).
Questions are that just losing the 12(3) three or lose at (5) and do you reset the AP set from that loss or do you virtual bet the remaining set to 9 and restart there?
Basically this would mean all 2 in a row goes to 3 or lose at (5) and reset? If so, reset from where?
Have you tested the 100 Sessions of 3000 each and if so, what are the results?
Thanks,
Justin
Good question Trbfla . . .
Is there any advantage to betting ONLY when we have 2 of the same AP forming at same time, such as 1-3-5 and 3-4-5 or 2-4-6 and 4-5-6, etc.
I tested it 2 ways:
1. If there was a completed AP before the "synced" pair occurred, then start a new cycle.
2. Just play for the "synced" pair every time no matter if a completed AP would have occurred.
The results were about the same. The graph is attached.
Besides poor results there were very few opportunities to bet.
Be glad to test any other ideas or tweaks you can think of.
Cheers
Nick
Hello Justme . . .
When I tested for the Stop Losses, I started a new cycle every time it hit the Stop Loss setting. So if Stop Loss set a (-1) then at the first loss we would start a new cycle.
A Stop Loss of (-2) would mean we had a loss of -1 followed by another loss of (-1) OR we first had a loss of (-1) then a Win of (+1) and then and then we had 2 losses in a row.
The same is true for the Profit Target. Almost all the time the Profit Target is set for (+1) so at first profit we start a new cycle.
Yes I did test 100 sessions of 3,000 spins and the results below. A Stop Loss of (-2) was better than (-1).
Cheers
Nick
Nick
Did you ever test it using a negative progression per each cycle?
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 12, 2016, 08:28:51 PM
Hello Justme . . .
When I tested for the Stop Losses, I started a new cycle every time it hit the Stop Loss setting. So if Stop Loss set a (-1) then at the first loss we would start a new cycle.
A Stop Loss of (-2) would mean we had a loss of -1 followed by another loss of (-1) OR we first had a loss of (-1) then a Win of (+1) and then and then we had 2 losses in a row.
The same is true for the Profit Target. Almost all the time the Profit Target is set for (+1) so at first profit we start a new cycle.
Yes I did test 100 sessions of 3,000 spins and the results below. A Stop Loss of (-2) was better than (-1).
Cheers
Nick
Awesome Nick!
Is it possible for you to post the results of the Stop loss of (-1) for comparison?
Also, have you been able to construct a solid betting system with a best progression, session length and bankroll needed for an EC ?
The info shows the low (-37) and high (+67) but what is the maximum drawdown inner session?
What are the computed statistics on how many consecutive losses before a win?
Thanks again,
Justin
Hi Trbfla
Have not had much luck with progression but have only started to take a close look at them.
Attached is a 10,000 spin results which looks promising so tomorrow will have some 3,000 spin sessions run and see how it holds up.
Cheers
Nick
Hi Justin . . .
Attached is the raw data for the 3,000 spin sessions.
There are 3 tests shown.
The first on the left is with Stop Loss (-1). We stopped at 40 sessions as it was much weaker than Stop Loss (-2).
The one in the middle is for Stop Loss (-2). We carried on to 100 Sessions just to be sure it held up.
The one on the right is for Stop Loss (-1) but with a Profit Target of 2. This shows some promise.
As this is Flat Betting only, there is very little drawdowns. The -37 is the lowest the bankroll reached before recovering.
I don't keep statistics on how many cycles lost in a row, the bot does not count that.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 12, 2016, 08:17:55 PM
Good question Trbfla . . .
Is there any advantage to betting ONLY when we have 2 of the same AP forming at same time, such as 1-3-5 and 3-4-5 or 2-4-6 and 4-5-6, etc.
I tested it 2 ways:
1. If there was a completed AP before the "synced" pair occurred, then start a new cycle.
2. Just play for the "synced" pair every time no matter if a completed AP would have occurred.
The results were about the same. The graph is attached.
Besides poor results there were very few opportunities to bet.
Be glad to test any other ideas or tweaks you can think of.
Cheers
Nick
Excellent. Thanks for picking that one up and running it.
Saves ME a bunch of wasted time!!
AD
Progressions are always tempting, but ultimately, flat-betting is king.
Flat betting allows much higher bets at a table without drawing unnecessary attention.
Also, a cover bet is always an option if betting options are sparse..........again, keeps the eye-in-the-sky away. 8)
Thanks Nick. Say can you run a test using a 1-2-4-8 progression and if a mutual bet comes along just stop the progression and start the next cycle with a 1 bet? Curious to see how that holds up.
Maybe a second test too please but this time after a mutual bet continue progression on the next cycle?
Thanks
Hi Trbfla . . .
I continued the first progression and it ultimately tanked.
Picture attached.
Flat Betting (as TheLaw suggests) has been the best so far, however, I will give your suggestion a try just to see how it does.
Cheers
NIck
Hi Nick
How do you handle the The Mutual Bet in your tests?
do you skip it or ?
Thanks Nick for running that
BBPPBBPPB- You lose 7 bets in a row betting DBL and only 4 bets betting VDW.
BBBBBBBBB- You win 7 bets in a row betting DBL and also 7 betting VDW.
BPBPBPBPB- You win 7 bets in a row betting DBL and only 5 betting VDW.
In the final analysis all bet selections are 50/50. However, since less bets are placed in VDW the theoretical loss will be less. Thanks to all those who are trying to tweak VDW to get positive expectation.
Hi Trbfla . . .
I finished running 2 progression tests. The results shown in the attachment.
The graph on left was tested with a full martingale progression but it reset to 1 unit on any mutual bet.
The graph on left was tested with a 1-2-4-8 martingale that reset to 1 unit on any mutual bet or when bet hit 8 units.
Cheers
Nick
Hi Mark, bbbbbb128
Mark is pointing out that this method is not the Holy Grail and he is correct. However, it is one of the safest, most consistent and stable bet selections I have ever found.
A few weeks ago at the Mohegan Sun, Ct, my brother and I played baccarat for the first time. We flat betted and In 1 1/2 hours we doubled our meager $100 buy in. It was fun and easy. No Stress.
With this thread I hope to expose more people to a new way of playing roulette/baccarat.
The question is can we improve this basic VDW system?
Some of your suggestions might lead us to a better method. Like, bbbbbb128 asked "how do we handle the Mutual Bets".
Right now we skip (no bet) when there is a Mutual bet and start a new cycle.
But what if we bet instead of skip?
What would you bet? Would it help to bet just one side, like banker or Red for the entire cycle?
Could we bet both Banker & Player for first 4 hands and then bet just one of them for the last 5 hands of the cycle? Or vice versa?
Could we bet all 3 EC instead of just one in roulette?
Would be bet all 3 EC Independent of each other or dependent on each other?
Could we bet something other than an EC?
Just food for thought.
Cheers
NIck
Nick thanks again for running those. Did you run it just on a 9 cycle until a winner or mutual bet?
On the one on the left, it looks to continue to climb
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 13, 2016, 01:43:45 PM
The question is can we improve this basic VDW system?
Some of your suggestions might lead us to a better method. Like, bbbbbb128 asked "how do we handle the Mutual Bets".
Right now we skip (no bet) when there is a Mutual bet and start a new cycle.
But what if we bet instead of skip?
What would you bet? Would it help to bet just one side, like banker or Red for the entire cycle?
Could we bet both Banker & Player for first 4 hands and then bet just one of them for the last 5 hands of the cycle? Or vice versa?
Could we bet all 3 EC instead of just one in roulette?
Would be bet all 3 EC Independent of each other or dependent on each other?
Could we bet something other than an EC?
Just food for thought.
Cheers
NIck
Nick, you are asking the right questions on getting to the best way for bet selection. :)
In order to safely develop a method and "Play" any selections there are only two additional "Must Have" information:
1. What is the maximum inner drawdown per session?
2. Statistics on how many consecutive losses before a win?
With these additional pieces of the puzzle, one can create many profitable systems of play while knowing how much bankroll is needed to "Rarely or Never" Bust.
Ultimately I believe this is what some of us want to do with VDW.
I'm wondering if you can use your rare programming talents and include the above two into the results?
Thank you again for working so hard on this.
Justin
Hi Trbfla. . the bot played the entire 9 spin cycle every time except for when it hit the Profit Target of 1 unit then it would start a new cycle.
Hi Justme, yes those are important statistics to have. Since this is Flat Betting, the maximum drawdown is the difference between the HIGH and the LOW as shown on the bot. The HIGH is the highest value achieved and the LOW is the lowest amount. So if High = 40 and Low = (-30) then you can assume your bankroll should be about 70 units.
I cannot get you the statistics as to how many losses in a row you will achieve. The main excel sheet I use is only 9 rows and we keep starting a new sheet every time we get a profit or loss.
I am sure Vic can add it to the bot somewhere but right now he is busy packaging the NicBot for release and I am not going to stop him as it has already been 2 years in the making.
Cheers
Nick
I am testing that out and it seems to be working but I am using a progression. When I have a mutual bet, the side that losses becomes my new AP until it completes a cycle. I don't see mutual bets that often. I wanna see how it holds up against my other method of just accepting the loss on my progression and restart the progression on a new cycle
"Congrats on your live trial BTW......"
Thanks Mark . . . The casino had a live roulette dealer and a live baccarat dealer, back to back in the same pit. They were surrounded by 24 video stations so we could choose either to play and with the roulette being Double Zero we chose baccarat. We went back the next day and it was closed due to some malfunctioning machines. Yuch.
Thanks for your idea of playing the mutual bets. I know most of you don't have the tools to test like I do, so I am posting the results of a quick 25,000 spin test.
What I tested was playing VDW on NZ roulette for all 3 EC and if a mutual bet occurred we would bet a Double Dozen. All flat bets.
Now you can see that betting something when a mutual bet occurs might be another way to go.
Trbfla, I am not sure what you are doing, can you explain further? Thanks
Cheers
NIck
Simply amazing, Congratulations
Nick
I just bet a 1-2-3 progression. When I get a mutual bet something wins and I just start the new nine betting 1. I accept a 1, 2 loss and move on. However if I see a mutual on the same side like
1-3-4 I will bet double for the 5. I'm having great success with the same side mutual
Trip report: first time playing did well for me, low stress, had several three bets and couple of surrenders to the mutual bet
@Nickmsi
A Consistent Winning Bet using VDW
What if we force a "win" by only betting the 9th spin when the option arrives?
So basically we would have a losing 8 spin sequence, and if we must win the 9th spin (excluding zeros of course)......then this should create a consistent winning bet (or at least win more than we lose).
Now......first reactions to this will be the "not enough betting options" crowd. Keep in mind that this would be a constant rolling trigger for 8 losses on all 3 EC (so 6 options in all).
Just run some quick numbers:
For the sake of argument: If we only net +1 unit every 1000 spins (super-grinder) and play for 40hrs per week (+2 units), then we will win +104 units per year. Even if your bankroll was 100 units, then that's a 100% return on your investment.
Finally......it can be treated like Card-Counting with a low-level cover bet.........and then a full-size bet when the 8-loss sequence trigger appears. 8)
Cheers! :)
Hi TheLaw . .
I have some results doing something like this. When I get back home
later today I will look them up and report.
I might only have them for 1 EC, if so, will test out your suggestion of using all 3 EC.
Cheers
NIck
Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 13, 2016, 09:27:55 PM
It is like, well this has already presented two losses so depending on the stats expectation (i.e frequency of expected losses in a row), stick with it.
A good plan.
Thanks for the reasoning.
AD
The forcing a win at hand nine is an awesome idea-just 2 drawbacks-1 if what if it's a mutual bet and 2-I do not see it going to hand 9 that often
@Trbfla
1 - No reason to play a mutual bet if it will be a draw anyway........or worse a loss due to zero(s)
2 - A rare consistent bet is enough.........remember my example above with only +1 unit per 1000 spins (roughly 20hrs at the table)
Also, wonder if it would work on RNG?
Hi TheLaw and Trbfla
I checked my results and while betting only on the 9th spin/hand sounds like a great idea, in reality, we cannot get to 8 spins/hands without having a win or mutual bet.
For example, RRBBRRBB, eight spins, with a 1-5-9 AP for Red and and 7-8-9 AP for Black.
Do you know of an 8 spin result that would force a single win on the 9th spin?
Cheers
Nick
So does this mean that we should see a guaranteed win by the 8th spin?......perhaps not mathematically, but practically?
If so, then why not apply the same principle to the 8th spin.......waiting for 7 virtual losses (not including zero).
This is really getting down to brass tacks here if we are limiting this to 8 spins......and expecting a win nearly every time.........this would be the tightest betting window that I've seen yet related to a superior bet..........it's usually dozens of spins or more. ???
One other idea to throw into the mix.......does the spin (#1-8) increase the likelihood of a win?.......not up to that spin, but just the spin itself (just thinking out loud here)?
Cheers! :)
The trouble is, there is no guaranteed win anywhere in the series.And if we get to the 9th bet that is always a mutual bet. I think - if I remember correctly.
You are right. 9th bet is always a mutual bet if there is no win before. All other bets are 50/50. There is no guaranteed bet.
9th result guarantees a mutual bet and 8 does not. See also the theorem discussed here in detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_theorem
Just record in groups according to convenience. As soon as you get a win reset using the last decision as a starter. The theory says ANY group of maximum 9 so you can restart your series from any suitable point - but obviously a place where there has not been an AP yet.
I realize that many are stuck on running millions of trial hands but it's hard to beat sitting down at the table once you are comfortable with your bet selection.
Hit the B&M casino tonight and flat bet my way to a very nice +8 net.
Can't complain about that.
This makes three trips to the casino where the VDW play has produced a profit.
Simple yet effective for general baccarat play.
An upload of the shoe should be available tomorrow after some sleep for those who care to take a look.
AD
Quote from: ADulay on July 22, 2016, 04:12:03 AM
I realize that many are stuck on running millions of trial hands but it's hard to beat sitting down at the table once your comfortable with your bet selection.
Hit the B&M casino tonight and flat bet my way to a very nice +8 net.
Can't complain about that.
This makes three trips to the casino where the VDW play has produced a profit.
Simple yet effective for general baccarat play.
An upload of the shoe should be available tomorrow after some sleep for those who care to take a look.
AD
Quick question if you don't mind. Were you playing as you originally indicated with a reset after a win or did you go with -2 stop loss before resetting?
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 13, 2016, 01:43:45 PM
Hi Mark, bbbbbb128
Mark is pointing out that this method is not the Holy Grail and he is correct. However, it is one of the safest, most consistent and stable bet selections I have ever found.
A few weeks ago at the Mohegan Sun, Ct, my brother and I played baccarat for the first time. We flat betted and In 1 1/2 hours we doubled our meager $100 buy in. It was fun and easy. No Stress.
With this thread I hope to expose more people to a new way of playing roulette/baccarat.
The question is can we improve this basic VDW system?
Some of your suggestions might lead us to a better method. Like, bbbbbb128 asked "how do we handle the Mutual Bets".
Right now we skip (no bet) when there is a Mutual bet and start a new cycle.
But what if we bet instead of skip?
What would you bet? Would it help to bet just one side, like banker or Red for the entire cycle?
Could we bet both Banker & Player for first 4 hands and then bet just one of them for the last 5 hands of the cycle? Or vice versa?
Could we bet all 3 EC instead of just one in roulette?
Would be bet all 3 EC Independent of each other or dependent on each other?
Could we bet something other than an EC?
Just food for thought.
Cheers
NIck
Just had a thought about this :
If this is a stable enough betting selection, then shouldn't the right MM + progression turn it into a winner.
I'm thinking something very conservative like flat bet until you're behind a certain number of units.......then raise by 1 unit........then implement an extended divisor method in case things get ugly.
Either a conservative approach should win with this bet selection..........or the bet selection is simply not that stable.
I would imagine Lanky's 6 point divisor would work well with this as it is.
Quote from: Ehtelgaeb on July 22, 2016, 01:24:13 PM
Quick question if you don't mind. Were you playing as you originally indicated with a reset after a win or did you go with -2 stop loss before resetting?
I'm not sure of what the question is but I was simply flat betting each wager. I was only attempting to see if the play is viable with the waiting from time to time for the appropriate AP to show up to wager on.
AD
Quote from: ADulay on July 22, 2016, 07:06:44 PM
I'm not sure of what the question is but I was simply flat betting each wager. I was only attempting to see if the play is viable with the waiting from time to time for the appropriate AP to show up to wager on.
AD
I think he's asking about the stop-loss that you added to play after the initial larger tests by Nickmsi failed to show a profit with flat betting only.
The charts with -1 and/or -2 stop loss (then restart a new game), were the only ones that showed a profit without a progression.
So still flat betting with an added -2 stop loss then restart new game. Is that correct?
Also, how was the waiting time between bets?
Thanks! :)
Quote from: TheLaw on July 22, 2016, 07:39:56 PM
I think he's asking about the stop-loss that you added to play after the initial larger tests by Nickmsi failed to show a profit with flat betting only.
The charts with -1 and/or -2 stop loss (then restart a new game), were the only ones that showed a profit without a progression.
So still flat betting with an added -2 stop loss then restart new game. Is that correct?
Yes, this is what I was asking. Evidently not.
Adulay please check your PM.
No benefit was found for now (with the VdW) So, what are you talking about?
I have now completed 14 live shoes had have yet to have a losing shoe
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 12, 2016, 08:28:51 PM
Hello Justme . . .
When I tested for the Stop Losses, I started a new cycle every time it hit the Stop Loss setting. So if Stop Loss set a (-1) then at the first loss we would start a new cycle.
A Stop Loss of (-2) would mean we had a loss of -1 followed by another loss of (-1) OR we first had a loss of (-1) then a Win of (+1) and then and then we had 2 losses in a row.
The same is true for the Profit Target. Almost all the time the Profit Target is set for (+1) so at first profit we start a new cycle.
Yes I did test 100 sessions of 3,000 spins and the results below. A Stop Loss of (-2) was better than (-1).
Cheers
Nick
From post #145.......attached chart appears to win flat betting with stop-loss in place........unless I'm missing something.(I think it's no zero simulation)
Quote from: Ehtelgaeb on July 22, 2016, 07:54:02 PM
Yes, this is what I was asking. Evidently not.
Adulay please check your PM.
OK, now I see what you're asking. I was working with the 1-2 loop but have since gone back to flat betting VDW. Comparing several previous shoes and running them both ways, the outcomes were nearly identical.
AD
Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 22, 2016, 09:31:07 PM
Can you post the shoe please.
Here ya go.
AD
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-m23X7xj/0/O/i-m23X7xj.jpg)
Quote from: ADulay on July 22, 2016, 10:15:00 PM
OK, now I see what you're asking. I was working with the 1-2 loop but have since gone back to flat betting VDW. Comparing several previous shoes and running them both ways, the outcomes were nearly identical.
AD
.......but I thought that only flat-betting VDW loses over the long-run.
Didn't Nickmisi's charts show this as a losing method without MM or progression?
Thanks AD! :)
So AD, you are always going back 2 steps after a win to restart? This would work great on streaky shoes but not sure how it does at choppy with 2s and 1s
Thanks for posting the shoe.
Decision 26 is shown as a win betting on P. Actually this is a mutual bet. You can bet on P based on decisions 24 and 25 or bet on B based on decisions 20 and 23.
Decision 27 is shown as a win betting on P. This is also a mutual bet. You can bet on P based on decisions 25 and 26 or bet on B based on decisions 19 and 23.
Quote from: james on July 23, 2016, 06:22:40 PM
Thanks for posting the shoe.
Decision 26 is shown as a win betting on P. Actually this is a mutual bet. You can bet on P based on decisions 24 and 25 or bet on B based on decisions 20 and 23.
Decision 27 is shown as a win betting on P. This is also a mutual bet. You can bet on P based on decisions 25 and 26 or bet on B based on decisions 19 and 23.
James,
On any mutual wager I always take the streak. 234, 345, etc.
Just my own decision in an attempt to standardize play.
AD
Quote from: Trbfla on July 23, 2016, 11:03:44 AM
So AD, you are always going back 2 steps after a win to restart? This would work great on streaky shoes but not sure how it does at choppy with 2s and 1s
After a win I will "look back" for the first available "1-2" and start there.
It saves searching for a valid restart and segues nicely into all streaks.
The same goes for something like a 2-4-6 win. If you'll look at it on paper, it's a very nice ZZ run with the next logical wager being 3-5-7 etc. Just continue on the ZZ until it loses and then restart right there with the resulting 1-2.
AD
Just a thought after reading some of GLC's posts:
How about using the Divisor method as a safety break if things go south?
So still flat bet, but if losses start to pile up, then apply Divisor to recoup.
Cheers! :)
Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 24, 2016, 12:22:05 AM
Progressions are personal to the player, many options would be viable if people decide to go down that path.
The thing that should spark peoples interest is the +8 flat betting (thanks for posting the shoe).
If the bet selection shows some superiority, even in terms of dispersion, it should be tested flat-betting.
Congratulations Nick for the great work
AD-good call. Ima replay my last 10 shoes using a back 2 method after a streak or z....I've been playing basically after a win, restart the 9 cycle.
Thanks for kind words Alberto.
Mark is right that progressions are an individual matter. I prefer Flat Betting but TheLaw sparked some interest in progressions and I have a few test in the hopper.
Congrats Adulay and Trbfla for your successes. Yes, Trbfla, going back 2 spins after a win is another way to get more action. Mathematically it makes no difference where we start the 9 spin cycle.
Plolp, do not give up on the VDW. Remember what Einstein said "It is not that I'm smart, it is just that I stay with problems longer."
Let me recap the VDW principals for those newcomers to this thread:
There are 2 ways to play roulette/bacarrat:
1. Random Systems
Random Systems are what 99% of people play. They wait and hope for a number to repeat, they wait and hope to hit a matrix, they wait and hope for an imbalance, they wait and hope to follow a streak, etc. I have tested 1,000's of random systems over the years and not one of them was a consistent winner.
Waiting and hoping is not a way to the winner's circle.
2. Non-Random Systems are:
1. Physics
A roulette wheel that is out of balance can produce a bias that will allow you to predict a sector where the ball will land.
2. Math and Statistics
VDW is a mathematical formula that will accurately predict a binary event in 9 spins. It says that if you have RR then bet R to complete a 1-2-3 Arithmetic Progression (AP). If that misses then on the 5th spin when you might get RRBRB then you bet R to complete a 2-4-6 AP, etc.
VDW is a Bet Selection that allows you to Bet when a known condition will produce a winner. Think about that. You only Bet on known outcomes.
No more waiting and hoping.
It is purely mechanical and it does not matter whether live or RNG spins, all numbers have to behave according to the VDW theorem.
Does it win every time? Of course not. But look at the results some members have shared. If you have a system generating the same or better results, then please share.
Once immersed in Non Random methods, you won't ever think about going back to random systems.
Cheers
Nick
Hey Nickmsi,
There are several graphs floating around on this thread.
Would you mind giving an overview of those results?
I think that this would help move things forward more quickly to know what variables help this method to win flat-betting.
Thanks! :)
Hi all, I do understand the VDW play....but I am kind of lost about the different methods that players such as Adulay and Trbfla have been using to make VDW more profitable for them. I have played it some live online as it was first posted and just skipping the mutual bets with mixed results. I appreciate any insight into the different methods...thanks folks.
Nick
For me I'm not so much concerned win getting more bets in as I am with being able to take advantage of what the shoe is putting out. In ADs shoes, using the 2 back restart he was able to pick up more wins due to the longer streaks. I am just testing to see if there is an advantage to using a 2 back restart on all streaks and chop wins vs my restart after a win . Like AD said playing this method consistently each and every shoe is important. Thanks for all your help with this!
Hi TheLaw, we have just updated the bot so will be redoing a lot of the graphs.
Welcome, Whopper1967. Perhaps Adulay would be kind enough post his current method.
Mark is right when you get repeating doubles like PPBBPPBB you will get a -3 loss. This method of play does not win every session.
However, using the 2 back restart, which is recommended, you will have an equal chance to get streaks of PPPPPPPP which will give you a +6.
Cheers
Nick
Gotta agree with "MarkTeruya"s assessment here, fellas.
This is, after all, very much a "DBL"/"TBL" play when it's working, and, IMHO, there exists better ways for the savvy player to take advantage of same.
I'd prefer to "chart" and/or "measure" exactly how the singles (read: 1's) and the "three-hole" (read: 3's) are performing in each particular shoe (or portion thereof), and then base my betting accordingly. I much prefer that methodology as opposed to the rather "betting blindly" approach that this "VDW" plan seems to offer.
Look, as MarkTeruya clearly pointed out, the "doubles (read: 2's) appear as its main nemesis. Now, that said, in and of itself, it is rather important to both know and recognize any method's weaknesses, so you're already better off simply with that knowledge at hand. However, to me, at least, having the 2's as a nemesis is a rather "iffy" proposition, as I've seen a plethora of shoes where the 2's and/or "doubles" were rather prevalent, and those shoes are going to cause much strain and grief here.
Tread lightly, my friends.
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 25, 2016, 03:33:42 PM
Welcome, Whopper1967. Perhaps Adulay would be kind enough post his current method.
Mark is right when you get repeating doubles like PPBBPPBB you will get a -3 loss. This method of play does not win every session.
However, using the 2 back restart, which is recommended, you will have an equal chance to get streaks of PPPPPPPP which will give you a +6.
Cheers
Nick
Yes, I'll get my current play typed up shortly.
Also, for the time being it might be good to think of this VDW play as a good way to stay on the table, floating around while waiting for the strong streak or ZZ run to appear. Especially if you're only looking for a small win per shoe.
AD
Thanks GR8 for your post. The efficiency of VDW will be greatly enhanced by keeping the count of DBL and ODBL in two separate columns in the spreadsheet. For example in the spreadsheet shown in post 193 the count is 23 for DBL and 17 for ODBL at the end of the shoe and VDW won in the shoe. If the ODBL count is high wait for the shoe to turn to DBL and refrain from betting.
VDW is selective in betting and hence your loss will be reduced. For example in the shoe in post 193, there are 42 decisions and if you bet DBL/ODBL you will be betting 40 decisions. But VDW in this sample bets only 28 decisions, so your loss is reduced by 30%.
In the final analysis VDW is calculated guessing!
Quote from: ADulay on July 25, 2016, 06:18:55 PM
Yes, I'll get my current play typed up shortly.
Also, for the time being it might be good to think of this VDW play as a good way to stay on the table, floating around while waiting for the strong streak or ZZ run to appear. Especially if you're only looking for a small win per shoe.
AD
Whenever you have time that would be greatly appreciated...Thanks so much.
Hey all,
What if VdW was simply a demonstration by Priyanka and not necessary to gain an edge? Where would you look if that were True?
Quote from: james on July 25, 2016, 06:55:11 PM
Thanks GR8 for your post. The efficiency of VDW will be greatly enhanced by keeping the count of DBL and ODBL in two separate columns in the spreadsheet. For example in the spreadsheet shown in post 193 the count is 23 for DBL and 17 for ODBL at the end of the shoe and VDW won in the shoe. If the ODBL count is high wait for the shoe to turn to DBL and refrain from betting.
VDW is selective in betting and hence your loss will be reduced. For example in the shoe in post 193, there are 42 decisions and if you bet DBL/ODBL you will be betting 40 decisions. But VDW in this sample bets only 28 decisions, so your loss is reduced by 30%.
In the final analysis VDW is calculated guessing!
And if you don't bet at all your loss would be reduced to 0%, certainly an improvement!
This is how fallacies are being borned, you can never have guaranteed wins by observing 3,6,9,27 or so results, there will be ALWAYS 2 possible outcomes; win or lose, your choice.
Scientific absurdities like this one is no way better than playing against 10 bankers in a row with doubling up progressions!
I'm doing quite well with this method. For me, I see its advantages and using a slight progression helps. This approach may not be for everyone
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.
Quote from: Albalaha on July 27, 2016, 07:01:43 AM
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.
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
Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 27, 2016, 07:23:37 AM
you should focus on the totals not the sequence.
Blue_Angel,
Please give an example to explain this.
Thank You
QuoteAttached 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?
@ 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.
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
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
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 28, 2016, 10:45:13 AM
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.
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.
@ Nickmsi
What percentage represents only the decisions for the "player"?
Quote from: Albalaha on July 28, 2016, 03:00:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 28, 2016, 10:24:16 AM
@ 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 %)
Quote from: stringbeanpc on July 28, 2016, 04:39:12 PM
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...
Blue_Angel,
Thanks for the feedback
thanks for the compliments.
BlueAngel, this was tested on roulette NZ wheel and my bot does not keep score of the R's or B's.
TheLaw, this is flat betting 1 unit at a time but with a Stop Loss of -2 per 9 spin cycle which would mean we do not play all 9 spins in the cycle but start a new cycle when we reach a -2 loss. Yes it is a grind but with a bot it is not problem. I have not addressed making this more profitable as yet, my main concern is to find something stable, solid and consistent.
I think there may be one of these tweaks that could be successful flat betting. Testing continues.
Sumit, yes we will be final testing in BV Demo mode to be sure these results hold up.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: gr8player on July 28, 2016, 01:29:59 PM
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.
Ah, the "strike rate" for just betting only on the banker in baccarat is supposed to be about 50.68% of the time. Nicely between that "50.6% at the 55K bet mark to 50.8% at the 82K bet mark." :-[
This is one of the most stable bet selections that I've seen to date.
Only 100 unit range for 50,000 spins or 1 unit range per 1000 spins should give an opportunity for a progression to work well.
Personally, I don't quite understand the bot idea, as online casinos can easily just cancel your account whenever they like. Risky for an individual.....even worse if multiple people play.
With live-in-person play, you can make serious money with a solid method........and keep going back for more......without a trail of bread-crumbs.
Just my $.02.
Great work Nickmsi!!!
Hi Nick, this is just the standard vdw with a two unit stop loss per nine decisions correct? If you hit your stop loss at hand five of nine, then you just start over at hand one on the very next hand and don't sit through the rest of the nine series right? It is my understanding that version has been the most profitable, or is there other tweaks you use that I missed? As always thanks for your help.
Quote from: Albalaha on July 28, 2016, 03:00:18 PM
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.
Sumit, there is no error or bug in the coding, but yes, too good to be true...Too small samples yet. In this form, you will earn almost nothing, with flat betting - in longer term.
The present tracker on my screenshoot from Nick portfolio is bets all APs that can be formed as (S)ame = HH or LL (19-36 High, 1-18 Low) and (D) different = HL or LH
Rules: No Bet on a Mutual Bet (where both a D and an S can form an AP)
Stop Loss: NO
Progression: NO
Sample size: 4,6Million spins
Placed bets: 1,37Million betsWheel type: NO zero
I have no significant long test yet with Stop Losses, but I've tried the (-1) and (-2) un. Stop Losses per cycles with some 5-10K spins tests already, and I have not got any significant improvement. With Flat betting. Like on the attached pic; at ~5000 spins, 805 placed bets, 390 wins, with -0,88 z-score; are relevant datas with (-2) un. STPL/cycles, etc.
Sure, I got some 100K datas like Nick' positive results, but, I got some 100k datas with negative results too. The sum of totals in longer term is on the attached pic. Tend to negative.
In this form of the VDW approach, what I know so far.
100K spins session examples from the attached graph (in units):
1st 100K#: -119
2nd: 428
3rd: 8
4th: 154
5th: 227
6th: -204
7th: -352
8th: -155
9th: 127
10th: -476
etc.
>
for me, I am playing this live-21 completed shoes using a negative progression and I'm quite pleased with the results.
Thanks Nick for sharing this approach!!!
@Auduiokinesis @Janos,
What is the net you achieved in over 1 million placed bet? is it a 1 unit 2 unit play or entirely 1 unit game?
Have u calculated 10% house fees from net winnings too for playing no zero roulette? It is crucial.
Hi, yes, it was pure 1 unit betting, and in the applied Stop Loss variant (-2 un.), NO betting/Pause after the reached (-2) units Netbalance anytime & anywhere in the actual cycle, regardless of the formed subsequent AP(s). And step into the next cycle, etc.
1Million placed bets netbalance was -621 units.
In my every NO zero tests, be as Betvoyager NO zero "wheel" or any other created 1-36 RNG numbers, be as pseudo or true random, meaningless to me, I do not take into account any negative sign tax, vat, comission, etc. becasue if I can not gain with a 50/50 game, how could I gain with a more disadvantageous (added negative) position? As Mark said..."the figures less appealing, once you either introduce a zero or Bank tax".
>
If at one million placed bet you were at -621, it is still attacking the house edge and better than anything else tested mechanically and flat bet but not a winner system. Do you think you can better it with our own progressions?
Gentlemen,
PA, in the "PA:preaching about HG", thread,
stressed the utmost importance of STABLE betselection
system or strategy.
We not going after a selection,
that always produce an EDGE,
but a selection, that STABLE.
That , if EC,
always hit, and LOSE,
[yes, LOSE!..not win]
WITHIN the probability of 50/50, minus HE!
When we bet THE stable selection,
with FLAT-bet,
after 100,1000,10000, or billion spins, of bet taken,
the result will always, around ZERO, minus the HE...
But people INSISTS that,
a stable selection, a nonsense.
or simply brush off as non existence...
and still look for selection, that produce EDGE!
The casino painstakingly, ensure that their wheels,
well-balanced, and no extreme biased allowed.
And every KNOWN theory, and debates
insist that, system that produce EDGE,
can't sustain run, or even exist.
Thus we go for the MOST stable selection,
that always produce result , when bet with FLATBET,
will produce losing result within the HE!
Nick, as he claimed, found a STABLE betselection,
thus after many spins, the result near zero.
Thus if he flatbet, and chart the profit-loss result,
with a single line CHART,
he will noticed that the line will move up and down, like a wave,
always crossing the ZERO value.
Up when the positive variance hit,
and then cross downward the zero value,
when negative variance hit.
The beauty of a stable selection,
when FLATBET, is the profit-loss line will
ALWAYS, never fail, to move UP over the ZERO value,
and then DOWN crossing the ZERO value,
again and again.
That line up and down,
"again, and again",
is WHAT we need most!
Then how are we going to bet, with... mild progression?
In an OVERSIMPLIFIED example,
say in next 100bet risked, there will be 50 hit, and 50lose decision.
The problem, as,
we all already know, the will no,
win,lose,win,lose,win,lose,win,lose...
there will be always cluster of winning and losing,
in first half, or second half.
[imagine the UP and DOWN profit/loss LINE chart]
Say, if first 50bet, we bet 1unit, we see losses,
then the next 50bet,
we risked, 2units,
thus the first 50losses,
will be offset by,
the next cluster of next 50winning.
This is oversimplified example,
Then,
if we still lose after first 100spins,
then the next 100spin risked,
we need to add up units,
so the losses recoup,
and produce a single profit.
and rewind.
The billion question dollar question, is,
do you have faith that your bet selection, really STABLE???
Hope you understand my bad English.
Quote from: BEAT-THE-WHEEL on July 30, 2016, 09:25:33 AM
Gentlemen,
PA, in the "PA:preaching about HG", thread,
stressed the utmost importance of STABLE betselection
system or strategy.
We not going after a selection,
that always produce an EDGE,
but a selection, that STABLE.
That , if EC,
always hit, and LOSE,
[yes, LOSE!..not win]
WITHIN the probability of 50/50, minus HE!
When we bet THE stable selection,
with FLAT-bet,
after 100,1000,10000, or billion spins, of bet taken,
the result will always, around ZERO, minus the HE...
But people INSISTS that,
a stable selection, a nonsense.
or simply brush off as non existence...
and still look for selection, that produce EDGE!
The casino painstakingly, ensure that their wheels,
well-balanced, and no extreme biased allowed.
And every KNOWN theory, and debates
insist that, system that produce EDGE,
can't sustain run, or even exist.
Thus we go for the MOST stable selection,
that always produce result , when bet with FLATBET,
will produce losing result within the HE!
Nick, as he claimed, found a STABLE betselection,
thus after many spins, the result near zero.
Thus if he flatbet, and chart the profit-loss result,
with a single line CHART,
he will noticed that the line will move up and down, like a wave,
always crossing the ZERO value.
Up when the positive variance hit,
and then cross downward the zero value,
when negative variance hit.
The beauty of a stable selection,
when FLATBET, is the profit-loss line will
ALWAYS, never fail, to move UP over the ZERO value,
and then DOWN crossing the ZERO value,
again and again.
That line up and down,
"again, and again",
is WHAT we need most!
Then how are we going to bet, with... mild progression?
In an OVERSIMPLIFIED example,
say in next 100bet risked, there will be 50 hit, and 50lose decision.
The problem, as,
we all already know, the will no,
win,lose,win,lose,win,lose,win,lose...
there will be always cluster of winning and losing,
in first half, or second half.
[imagine the UP and DOWN profit/loss LINE chart]
Say, if first 50bet, we bet 1unit, we see losses,
then the next 50bet,
we risked, 2units,
thus the first 50losses,
will be offset by,
the next cluster of next 50winning.
This is oversimplified example,
Then,
if we still lose after first 100spins,
then the next 100spin risked,
we need to add up units,
so the losses recoup,
and produce a single profit.
and rewind.
The billion question dollar question, is,
do you have faith that your bet selection, really STABLE???
Hope you understand my bad English.
By saying stable you mean less vulnerable to the swings of variance, you will NEVER find such characteristic on EC bets.
Besides didn't you admit that there are no better EC bets, so why are you still looking to find which EC bet has less ups and downs?
Aren't all the same regarding the mathematical approach?
Do not waste your time on dead ends, you are going around and around lime mice trapped inside a labyrinth!
Having the edge by betting EC's can be achieved ONLY by MM and NOT by selections, and even when you find the 1 in a million MM you would still make peanut money, like 5 units per 100 results while risking MORE than what you win.
Yes, it's possible to win consistently on EC bets, I mean long term, BUT consider what I just said!
Ahhh, Beat-The-Wheel, NOW you're talking about the only true winning formula: VARIANCE.
Yes, a stable bet selection process ALONG WITH these stats:
Average strike rate
Longest winning streak
Longest losing streak
Average winning streak
Average losing streak
And, last but certainly not least, the average "footprint" (read: w/l "patterns") of your bet selection process.
Armed with these stats, a bet selection process even as simple as this VDW could appear to you as GOLDEN.
Thank you for sharing the insight, Beat-The-Wheel. Take care and stay well.
Quote from: MarkTeruya on July 30, 2016, 09:40:28 AM
Firstly your English is pretty good.. :)
Not going after a bet selection that produces an edge, good to hear that, because there are none, it is not mathematically possible.
Stable? I would view a stable bet selection as one being were the "losses in a row" are manageable to an extent.
If no bet selection produces an edge, can progressions give an edge mathematically?
Quote from: james on July 30, 2016, 06:35:19 PM
If no bet selection produces an edge, can progressions give an edge mathematically?
I believe yes and I can prove it.
For example if we bet High, 1st dozen and 3rd line simultaneously we have covered everything but 0.
So if house edge was the only reason we are losing, the combination which I've just described wouldn't be able to win, but it can win by applying 3 positive progressions simultaneously and calculating 3 totals separately.
This proves that variance is greater threat than house edge, the 3 bet selections may lose only by 0, is not a matter if it comes but when it comes... !
Quote from: james on July 30, 2016, 06:35:19 PM
If no bet selection produces an edge, can progressions give an edge mathematically?
This is a most difficult question, James, with no real definitive answer. Pardon my indulgence as I offer you mine:
The "mathites" will respond in the negative, claiming that since we're facing the negative house edge at each and every wager there exists no betting methodology (read: progression) that will effectively overcome it.
I must say that if, in fact, I concurred with that theory I would simply cease playing the game.
I am of the belief that progressions do alter our odds at this game. But, that said, let me be very clear: Not all progressions are created equally.
You see, linear progressions, to me, are a "no-no". Linear progressions are how the majority are constructed; straight progressions followed strictly and based upon the very last betting outcome. These are proven as losing propositions, usually because one unlikely but inevitable run of consecutive and/or clustered losses will eradicate any prior profits and, eventually, entire bankrolls.
BUUUTTT, subjective bet maneuvering (yes, you can label it a progression of sorts), based upon certain parameters and proven statistics of your bet selection's process(es), with the absolute necessity of "virtual bet" (read: "no-bet") inclusion, is an entirely different matter altogether.
To that savvy/astute player, it is quite possible (actually likely, in fact) that they will succeed in collecting on those slightly raised bets as they are implemented into their procedural betting plan. And collecting on those slightly raised bets can effectively eradicate most prior losses; quite the opposite of those linear progressions that eventually only serve to eradicate prior wins.
But all of that takes alot of work to amass the necessary stats and a whole lotta patience and discipline to implement the end game. Unfortunately, most visitors and yes, even most members of these sites seek a much easier solution to this most difficult casino game; alas, none exists. You can only get out of this game what you're willing to put in; frankly, it works that way in life, as well.
I wish you all the very best of it. Take care and stay well.
QuoteI am of the belief that progressions do alter our odds at this game.
This is not true!
Odds cannot be altered, the objective of a progression or money management technique is to make an overall profit without changing odds, which means to lose more times but still be ahead.
But I agree about the linear progressions...also about the easy solutions, there are not really easy solutions, gambling is not exception of this rule.
There are very few guys who make "easy money" the hard way...it hasn't been proven but they don't want to.
From mathematics perspective, it's a
fact that we would be overall winners if our fewer wins would generate more profit than the cost of more losses.
This is possible and don't rush to blast it just because you haven't found a solution, what
you can (or cannot) do is not the limit of everybody...!
I respect the opinions of GR8 and B_A that some progressions can make money in a negative expectation game.
If you google, you will find equations by mathematicians why progressions will not work in a negative expectation game. If you can prove mathematically to the contrary, you will get accolades from mathematicians, but you will not see any money. There is more money using the progressions to make money than all the accolades.
Quote from: james on July 30, 2016, 08:04:30 PM
I respect the opinions of GR8 and B_A that some progressions can make money in a negative expectation game.
If you google, you will find equations by mathematicians why progressions will not work in a negative expectation game. If you can prove mathematically to the contrary, you will get accolades from mathematicians, but you will not see any money. There is more money using the progressions to make money than all the accolades.
You are true about what is important the most, however, there is nothing contradictory in an efficient progression and probability theory because, like I said, the order which wagering takes place as well the amounts don't change odds, we will still lose the times it's probable to lose but we will gain more when we win in order to cover any other losses.
In order house edge to be the main factor of losing, there shouldn't be any progressions but only flat betting, then we would lose sooner or later by the percentage of the house edge.
In order to realize how trivial is house edge in comparison with variance do the following, place 1 unit on red and another on black, see how long would it take to lose your bankroll by the 0!
But a martingaler could lose large sums of money within just a few spins because of the variance.
For an enterprise as the casino, 2.7% or more from the total action is a large sum, therefore important for them, but from the gambler's perspective, if you would lose 2.7% of 100 it's insignificant.
Another thing 2.7% from 150,000 and completely another 2.7% from 1,500!
Quote from: james on July 30, 2016, 06:35:19 PM
If no bet selection produces an edge, can progressions give an edge mathematically?
It's true that no bet selection, either guess or mechanical based rule can produce an edge. But both of these types of bet selections can produce favorable coincidences of opportunity that are exploitable by a prepared expert. These large number tests show that there are more favorable times to use short termed progressions.
If you are to favor a moment for a progression then you might as well favor positive progression's characteristics.
Just offering something to think about here.
Quote from: Gizmotron on July 30, 2016, 08:55:22 PM
It's true that no bet selection, either guess or mechanical based rule can produce an edge. But both of these types of bet selections can produce favorable coincidences of opportunity that are exploitable by a prepared expert. These large number tests show that there are more favorable times to use short termed progressions.
If you are to favor a moment for a progression then you might as well favor positive progression's characteristics.
Just offering something to think about here.
There are progressions which raise after a loss and progressions which raise after a win, but does win/loss ratio follow a specific order??
I think an efficient and effective money management should be focused on the totals, it's one thing to say 3 out of 10 and completely another to say when those 3 wins are going to happen within the 10 trials.
Simply amazing how much people can debate.........with no evidence.
Publicly Test your method......as Nickmsi did......or your theories are worthless........literally worthless in this game.
It never ceases to amaze me how much people love to debate roulette.........until someone calls their bluff.
"Oh Yeah! I've got a method that works........easy........just do X, Y, and Z"
Sounds good......let's run some tests.
"_____"(crickets)
Hello?
"_____"(crickets)............................................................Yawn.
Let me put it another way, I bet always same as last decision and I'm having the incredible "luck" to have 50 consecutive decisions going on alternating fashion (choppy) like this: B P B P B P...etc
Even if it seems extremely rare to impossible to occur such event, at the end is just 25 decisions for the player and 25 for the banker which reflects precisely the 50/50 probability of the events.
On the other hand, if I was betting always the same side would it be possible to have 50 consecutive for the other side??
I think you got my point, both of these situations seems almost unrealistic, but in the first case, after all what happened was a 50/50 distribution, what's odd with what probability theory dictates?!
Quote from: TheLaw on July 30, 2016, 10:19:55 PM
Simply amazing how much people can debate.........with no evidence.
Publicly Test your method......as Nickmsi did......or your theories are worthless........literally worthless in this game.
It never ceases to amaze me how much people love to debate roulette.........until someone calls their bluff.
"Oh Yeah! I've got a method that works........easy........just do X, Y, and Z"
Sounds good......let's run some tests.
"_____"(crickets)
Hello?
"_____"(crickets)............................................................Yawn.
Speaking about "crickets", you should have tried a lot through the years, right?
This doesn't make any sense BA.
Try again........English this time. ;)
Condemning other persons' methods is much easier than being productive by creating your own and providing solutions to yourself and to the forum.
"This method is stuff, that system is failure...etc"
But who benefits from this kind of information??
Instead of blasting methods, aka efforts of other individuals, why don't we try to focus on what's working.
Personally I don't tolerate any criticism by persons who provide next to nothing but criticism!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 30, 2016, 10:29:45 PM
Let me put it another way, I bet always same as last decision and I'm having the incredible "luck" to have 50 consecutive decisions going on alternating fashion (choppy) like this: B P B P B P...etc
Even if it seems extremely rare to impossible to occur such event, at the end is just 25 decisions for the player and 25 for the banker which reflects precisely the 50/50 probability of the events.
On the other hand, if I was betting always the same side would it be possible to have 50 consecutive for the other side??
I think you got my point, both of these situations seems almost unrealistic, but in the first case, after all what happened was a 50/50 distribution, what's odd with what probability theory dictates?!
both events have same probability and you're grown enough to accept that
Quote from: albertojonas on July 30, 2016, 10:50:55 PM
both events have same probability and you're grown enough to accept that
You want to tell me that 50-0 for the banker against the player is
EQUALLY POSSIBLE with 25 VS 25 ??!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! :o
Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 30, 2016, 10:50:22 PM
Condemning other persons' methods is much easier than being productive by creating your own and providing solutions to yourself and to the forum.
"This method is stuff, that system is failure...etc"
But who benefits from this kind of information??
Instead of blasting methods, aka efforts of other individuals, why don't we try to focus on what's working.
Personally I don't tolerate any criticism by persons who provide next to nothing but criticism!
I agree......but at what point are these "ideas" just more noise without actual testing.
I criticize those who throw out methods as if their success is a foregone conclusion without public testing...........and this is very common on these boards.
It would save everyone a great deal of time if they would follow-through (like Nickmsi is doing) with transparent public testing.........instead of all of these "hypothetical" systems.
Keep in mind.......I am the one who posted one of your publicly tested methods on other boards to get the word out.........so this is nothing personal.
Quote from: TheLaw on July 30, 2016, 11:02:37 PM
I agree......but at what point are these "ideas" just more noise without actual testing.
I criticize those who throw out methods as if their success is a foregone conclusion without public testing...........and this is very common on these boards.
It would save everyone a great deal of time if they would follow-through (like Nickmsi is doing) with transparent public testing.........instead of all of these "hypothetical" systems.
Keep in mind.......I am the one who posted one of your publicly tested methods on other boards to get the word out.........so this is nothing personal.
Yes, I know, but there are trolls and persons who "borned yesterday" being born every minute...
Doesn't surprise you even after so many years that some are recycling the same again and again?
If old known methods worked, would we still on the lookout?
If the HG was a simple task, would that being already achieved by now?
What I'm trying to say is that we should not look backwards if we want to go forward and we have to think beyond the mainstream frames, outside the box.
Have you ever thought if a casino's board and or staf were reading all these posts, what would they think??
"A bunch of lo..ers who think they can win our games!"
Am I wrong thinking this way??
What is the definition of the "Holy Grail" for you?
Is it something which never loses a bet? a session? within a week maybe?
A method which could lose some sessions could be overall more profitable than a method which never loses!
So what's exactly is the definition of HG??
Intuitive improvisation is the secret of genius...!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 30, 2016, 11:27:58 PM
Have you ever thought if a casino's board and or staf were reading all these posts, what would they think??
"A bunch of lo..ers who think they can win our games!"
Am I wrong thinking this way??
Pondering the ways of fantasy is as good as thinking about the nature of reality.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 30, 2016, 11:38:11 PM
What is the definition of the "Holy Grail" for you?
Immortality. We all want to fight our way out of the blasted universe; and then as hard to get back in.
I think of an HG as a method that can be executed practically and consistently for long-term profit.
This would take most AP off the table as certain variables would destroy its practicality.......and would also rule-out bots for online play.
Personally, I think that the most-likely winning method is a super-grinder that would require a great deal of time at the table with an expectation of around +1 unit per hour of play. Grinder methods tend to scare off most players as "impractical" if they don't win many units per hour.
More of an investment strategy than a "winning the lottery" philosophy.
Cheers! :)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
There is no need to be overexcited with this method. Audiokinesis was at -621 after one million placed bets in No Zero Roulette. It means, they have ignored the 10% house fees charged periodically by the casino for letting you play no zero roulette. Whenever one is in a net win 10% can be deducted in a given span and not after millions of spins pass. This makes things further horrible and lesser rewarding and the real net will be deeper in loss than they calculated so far. I assume there is a loss of atleast 5k if proper calculation is made. Same goes with Nick's tests. Ignoring House fees calculation is a blunder worth looking very seriously.
Why card counting on baccarat does not work?
All I know is I use a mild progression and have 28 live happy shoes with this approach. Maybe it's because in my lifetime I will never come close to entering "the long term". Did you know mathematically and scientifically the bumblebee can't fly but yet it does.....
Wish you continued success.
However, Bumble bee can not fly argument comes in the realm of pseudoscience. For further discussion see the article below:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument
Something everyone should be aware of. These tests using a computer to generate an RNG need the random seed reset after half a million spins, and for every half million thereafter. Modern computer operating systems now reset the random seed of the RNG algorithm every time you restart your computer. But if you run a simulation over 100s of millions of spins you get a duplication of the approximate first half million. This will give you a false reading. Years ago several of us programmers proved it is possible to avoid the double zeros by a minute fraction of a percentage. We proved that the statistical percentage for the house edge was not a constant. That a mechanical system could deliberately avoid some of the wilder swings of the zeros being hot numbers. It was however impractical. It never came close to becoming 50/50.
Gentlemen,
No need to test million, or billions spins...
===============
as MarkTeruya points out...
"The obvious flaw with VDW is that over the 512 possible binary combinations, only 256 of the 9 hand possible sequences can provide profit, meaning 50% of the time you will profit and 50% of the time you will either lose 1, 2, 3, 4 bets or break even. When you count losing v's winning bets, it is all 50-50, because this is common to everything, this should not be considered a negative. When you start your 9 hand sequence there is no positive expectation that "that a win will come"."
==============
"...only 256 of the 9 hand possible sequences can provide profit, meaning 50% ..."
It is not FLAW,
it just, albeit HE, the method is just stable 50/50 chance,
and HUGE losses occur, only when the "losing sequences" keep hitting..
but since "losing sequences" keep hitting..",
is something within the VARIANCE, and random, we have no choice, but adhere to the law of random, variance, and probability.
What we need, is a method that keep "bounce back",
without the dreaded huge DRAWDOWN.
The problem is,
does VDW, produce HUGE VARIANCE?
Maybe Nick, and Auto, kind enough, to produce ,
flatbet profit/loss result, in a SINGLE LINE chart,
[in 100,1000,10000,million, spin of BET-TAKEN],
and we can see how the profit/loss result in single LINE,
and HOW,
the line moves in WAVE, moving up and down,
and we can deduce when to start bet FLAT.
or not bet.
my half cent thought.
Those thoughts are worth a heck-of-alot more than "half a cent", Beat-The-Wheel.
Anyone referencing a bet selection's "variance", "drawdowns", and "line waves" is a heck-of-alot more than "half-way" to creating their own superior bet selection process combined with a correlated money management plan.
Quote from: MarkTeruya on August 01, 2016, 01:47:17 PM
When I venture to new venue, it doesn't take them long to realize I'm not your average ploopie and that I actually might know what I'm doing. Those venues I frequent regularly remain wary, despite having seen me lose.
Strange, I think I've heard this thing before...
Don't you guys ever tire of typing all the nonsense?
Some of you cats are killin me over here, hey hey!
BA . . .
In theory it is a great idea to play a 50/50 system with the hopes it will ride the waves of profit/loss so you can take advantage of it. In reality, Variance does not allow it.
If the results were all chops, RBRBRBRB OR RRBBRRBBRRBB then we could possibly do it. In reality we also have streaks of wins and streaks of losses. The attached graph is for betting Red only, a 50/50 system. It can take up to 25,000 spins/hands to get bet back to profit, not practical in this instance.
The VDW tweaks that I am testing, either win or lose, I can't find one that breaks even.
Gizmatron. . . I agree that RNG and the seeding problem might affect results so we have included in the bot, 9 RNG sources to choose from. See attached pic. Now we can verify results using different RNG sources.
Vic is squashing a few bugs in the bot today so we will be re-testing 28 tweaks of the VDW system this week and will report the results when known.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on August 01, 2016, 05:08:48 PM
BA . . .
In theory it is a great idea to play a 50/50 system with the hopes it will ride the waves of profit/loss so you can take advantage of it. In reality, Variance does not allow it.
If the results were all chops, RBRBRBRB OR RRBBRRBBRRBB then we could possibly do it. In reality we also have streaks of wins and streaks of losses. The attached graph is for betting Red only, a 50/50 system. It can take up to 25,000 spins/hands to get bet back to profit, not practical in this instance.
The VDW tweaks that I am testing, either win or lose, I can't find one that breaks even.
Gizmatron. . . I agree that RNG and the seeding problem might affect results so we have included in the bot, 9 RNG sources to choose from. See attached pic. Now we can verify results using different RNG sources.
Vic is squashing a few bugs in the bot today so we will be re-testing 28 tweaks of the VDW system this week and will report the results when known.
Cheers
Nick
But since you know better than that why to bother??
We have a bigger ''fish'' to grill...right Nick? ;)
Hey I can only applaud Nick and others for testing this concept!!!!
Quote from: Nickmsi on August 01, 2016, 05:08:48 PM
BA . . .
In theory it is a great idea to play a 50/50 system with the hopes it will ride the waves of profit/loss so you can take advantage of it. In reality, Variance does not allow it.
a 50/50 system. It can take up to 25,000 spins/hands to get bet back to profit, not practical in this instance.
So if we choose one EC and keep betting it non stop ....it will always get ahead at one point ? (25k probably is rare but sure is possible)
Quote from: Nickmsi on August 01, 2016, 05:08:48 PM
Gizmotron. . . I agree that RNG and the seeding problem might affect results so we have included in the bot, 9 RNG sources to choose from. See attached pic. Now we can verify results using different RNG sources.
That's good, It effected our 100 million spin tests.
Add the equivalent of this to your repeat loop
if numSpins mod (500000) = 0 then set the randomSeed to random(1000000)
end if
This will change the random seed every 500,000 spins
Hi Denzie . . .
Bayes could better explain this but in my opinion the laws of probability will most likely RTM (Return to Mean) at some point if you continually bet one EC.
However, it may take 100,000 spins or more.
On the other hand, this is random so conceivably the one EC you are betting on may never RTM, it will however RCTM (Return CLOSER to Mean).
That is the problem with random and random systems. Nothing is for sure, it is all probable.
This is why I prefer Non-Random systems, ie VDW.
Cheers
Nick
Beating any game of chance is utopia . Resign to a winning session once in a while is reality.
Quote from: NathanDetroit on August 02, 2016, 05:39:28 PM
Beating any game of chance is utopia . Resign to a winning session once in a while is reality.
There must be some sort of anti-matter world where everyone can't stop winning, all of which gets as sickening as always losing. People get healthier and richer until they explode, instead of the other way around.
Quote from: NathanDetroit on August 02, 2016, 05:39:28 PM
Beating any game of chance is utopia . Resign to a winning session once in a while is reality.
So hit and run is your solution?!
I thought after so many years of your experience you would come with something more clever than that.
Gentlemen,
The BILLION dollar QUESTION?
Will the profit/loss single line move toward the ZERO,
[or in Nick's word,
RCTM=return closer to mean???]
or move up after a foreseeable DRAWDOWN.
as the waves of profit /loss single line show up and down,
in a predictable fashion,
why?
as we argue this non random always RTM, or RCTM,
thus the wave must move up, and down, and up down up down,
to rtm, or rctm....
after a CERTAIN fixed amount of bet taken???
100bet taken
1000bet taken
10k
100?
================================
In an OVERSIMPLIFIED example,
of how to bet.
Let say after we research,millions of,
x spins increment [of nine spins]chart,
we see that the drawdown, and drawup,
never exceed,
say 50units,
and at the end of the CHART,
the line ALWAY RTM, or RATHER RCTM,
to never MORE/less, than -+10units,
thus,
we wait for the drawup nearing to +50,
or drawdown near -50u,
then we bet accordingly, having faith,
that the line will RTM, or RCTM,
and move out
after positive.
[just an OVERSIMPLIFIED example]
====================
IF, the END OF the chart show RANDOM result!
random RCTM, and RFFM,
[Return FAR from MEAN]
meaning , it has random end result,
or fail to RTM, or RCTM,
then we just forget this so called ,
non-random bet.
NON random , bet behavior,
always show,
RTM, or RCTM, with the HE thrown in.
in the end of the chart,
and easily taken advantage of.
by waiting for the PERCEIVED ,
after researched millions charts,
perceived limit of drawup and drawdown.
and perceived value of posibble RTM, or rather RCTM.
just my thought.
Hello All,
Can anyone please tell me what is the (AP) for these nine (9) hands? PPBPBBPBP. Thank you, in advance, very much.
Well you have it as 1-4-7 = P PB P BB P BP
Thank you very much for helping me out here. I must have missed it badly. :)
This is where I bet for 123 and 567.
Quote from: Bhumibol on August 07, 2016, 07:06:34 AM
This is where I bet for 123 and 567.
You are correct "from100" is wrong.
If you download the tracker sheet from this thread and enter that sequence, you'll see I'm right.
Thank you, Mark.
I am having a hard time avoiding the terrible two's using this VDW. As we all know, it is inevitable in every shoe, the terrible two is showing up. Is there any other suggestion to avoid this terrible two? Thank you.
Could some of you cats pony up the l/w cluster that this vdw style produce, hey hey.
I think VdW can win on R/B, but something else is needed to really understand it's potential.
(https://s3.postimg.org/9ku3e1vqb/kiss.jpg)
I thought very hard about this for many months, but in the end I wasn't able to guess the answer by chance.. it was only after several tests and coaching from one of Priyanka's best students that I finally stumbled across the secret. However, the answer is here in Priyanka's quotes from RouletteForum.cc. If you do get to discover it then you will be shocked. Nothing is really random!
QuoteIMO as the outcomes are always 50/50, that 1 spin you skip that leads to a loss might as well lead to a win. You don´t know if you´re losing pears or apples until they have just hit.
what is the significance of this statement?
You have made a beautiful point there psimoes. You will never know if you are losing pears or apples until they have just hit. If and if only there is a way. But here i would like to remind that Vdw is a versatile theory. It can be used in a number of ways. The simplified statement is if you are having two colours, then there is no way of colouring from 1 to 9 without creating an arithmetic progression of the same colour. As many have pointed out, it doesn't increase the probability of the next spin to be a certain colour. So there is no usability there.
However, can we use it beyond colours? Yes. Let us explore some possibilities to understand how versatile this is without considering the usability of this theorem.
Example 1Consider the spins 15, 21, 23, 26, 15, 25, 33, 16, 28, 23, 14. Translating this to colours it will read B, R, R, B, B, R, B, R, B, R, R. Now let's read the outcome as whether the colour was same as previous colour (S) or different from previous colour (D). The above sequence will read D, S, D, S, D, D, D, D, D, S. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.
Example 2Same set of spins. Consider the outcomes as whether current dozen is different(D) or equal (S) to the previous dozen. The sequence will read S, S, D, D, D, S, D, D, D, S. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.
Example 3Same set of spins. Consider the outcomes as where the dozens could be expressed in a clock with a clockwise movement taking us from dozen 1 -> dozen2 -> dozen 3-> dozen 1. The relation between two dozens could be expressed as either Clockwise(CW) or Counter clock wise(CCW), denoting the shortest distance to reach the next dozen. If both dozens are same then it is considered CW. The sequence for the same set of spins will now read – CW, CW, CW, CCW, CW, CW, CCW, CW, CCW, CW. We know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with CW or with CCW.
I know there will be lots of questions around so what? What is the applicability in roulette.
Sorry, I don't have an answer. It is yet to be seen, but I have an inkling that this versatility could be put to use somehow when we are having two variables that do not essentially have a 50-50 probability appearing, but could or might give an advantage when lining up in a VdW sequence.
http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17014.75 (read a bit more about it here)
QuoteWe know that within 9 of these events there will be at least one arithmetic formation with D or with S.
How
absurd!
Then why don't you bet a Marty of 9 doubling ups??
You would always get a winner!
The fact that so many people are looking in such ways says a lot for their level of knowledge,experience and intelligence!
You need to move on. VdW has nothing to do with gaining an edge. Priyanka basically told you that months ago, didn't she? Now, where will you look?
Yeah, it's not about gaining edge per se... I wish I could give a clue - not that I'm under oath or anything... what's an important thing in video editing? OH NO, I've given away too much... :-X :-X
;D
Ok, you're still not seeing it.
VdW is not needed - at all.
Just the defining element?
Quote from: 3Nine on August 18, 2016, 11:53:54 PM
Ok, you're still not seeing it.
VdW is not needed - at all.
I'm seeing it mate... is it a red, is it a black? No - its super VdW man!
(https://s3.postimg.org/fcd1834bn/cycles.png)
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia3.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FCzqaMnNuBhaNO%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=47028384cb115f876ff15c476708b6bbac8f7d45)
Looks like a few members haven't met Falkor yet...........
Quote from: Blue_Angel on August 18, 2016, 10:39:16 PM
Then why don't you bet a Marty of 9 doubling ups??
You would always get a winner!
That's right. So the vdw is no better than guessing. This priyanka character is leading you all on a merry dance, and probably splitting his sides laughing about it.
Quote from: Jake on August 19, 2016, 12:01:48 PM
That's right. So the vdw is no better than guessing. This priyanka character is leading you all on a merry dance, and probably splitting his sides laughing about it.
You're wrong.
Prove it. ::)
Here's a gift for the lovers .
Nothing is worth the vdw gold réciproc !!!
www.dentsply.fr/fr/nos-solutions/product/vdw-gold-reciproc
Quote from: Jake on August 19, 2016, 05:32:15 PM
Prove it. ::)
VdW came by way of PhD maths genius Priyanka (presumably via her Senseis from Argentina: Manrique who died in 2008 and his master Nono Santelli who died prior to 2004), and this Non-Random concept was introduced to us in September 2015 over at RouletteForum.cc. Priyanka is also under oath: probably a member of the Freemasons or Jesuits. Here was Priyanka's position on the multiplayer roulette leader board when she was active there:
(https://s32.postimg.org/r0dp81vdh/leader.png)
With VdW she designed this game lose 300 very quickly - but using small unit chips and placing double dozen bets where it's harder to throw away your money:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4KgiscwgRU
| Same/Diff. | Defined by | Cycle | Number | Dozen | Win/Lose | Comments |
| | | 15 | 2 | | |
| | | 32 | 3 | | |
| 2 | 232 | 21 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 7 | 1 | W | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| d | 1 | 211 | 10 | 1 | W | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 11 | 11 | 1 | L | |
| | | 16 | 2 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | 29 | 3 | L | |
| s | 1 | 1231 | 3 | 1 | | |
| | | 23 | 2 | | |
| d | 2 | 122 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 2 | 22 | 20 | 2 | L | |
| | | 4 | 1 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | 32 | 3 | L | |
| d | 3 | 2133 | 32 | 3 | | |
| | | 7 | 1 | | |
| | | 14 | 2 | | |
| d | 2 | 3122 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 36 | 3 | W | |
| | | 9 | 1 | | |
| s | 2 | 2312 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 4 | 1 | W | |
| d | 1 | 211 | 12 | 1 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| | | 19 | 2 | W | |
| d | 2 | 122 | 24 | 2 | | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 2 | 22 | 14 | 2 | L | |
| s | 2 | 22 | 23 | 2 | | |
| | | 7 | 1 | | |
| s | 2 | 212 | 22 | 2 | | |
| s | 2 | 22 | 21 | 2 | | |
| s | 2 | 22 | 16 | 2 | | |
| | | 28 | 3 | | |
| s | 2 | 232 | 21 | 2 | | |
| | | 6 | 1 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | 32 | 3 | L | |
| d | 1 | 2131 | 2 | 1 | | |
| | | 26 | 3 | | |
| | | 23 | 2 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 1321 | 3 | 1 | L | |
| | | 22 | 2 | | |
| | | 36 | 3 | | Bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 1231 | 1 | 1 | W | End of Cycle. Bet the last 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 11 | 6 | 1 | W | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 1 | 11 | 6 | 1 | L | |
| | | 28 | 3 | | |
| | | 15 | 2 | | |
| d | 3 | 1323 | 35 | 3 | | |
| s | 3 | 33 | 34 | 3 | | |
| | | 13 | 2 | | |
| s | 3 | 323 | 36 | 3 | | |
| | | 19 | 2 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| s | 3 | 323 | 29 | 3 | W | End of Cycle: bet the other 2 dozens |
| s | 3 | 33 | 35 | 3 | L | |
| | | 1 | 1 | | Bet the last 2 dozens |
| | | | 2 | L | FINISHED |
With VdW this game was designed to win:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNWygC4ApEY
(https://s4.postimg.org/9vz7dmmsd/journey.png)
QuoteVdW came by way of PhD maths genius Priyanka (presumably via her Senseis from Argentina: Manrique who died in 2008 and his master Nono Santelli who died prior to 2004), and this Non-Random concept was introduced to us in September 2015 over at RouletteForum.cc. Priyanka is also under oath: probably a member of the Freemasons or Jesuits. Here was Priyanka's position on the multiplayer roulette leader board when she was active there:
Yes. Priyanka has a high-score on a fantasy roulette site created by the owner of several Roulette boards (including this one) who admitted openly that the software is flawed.
Would be nice if Falkor actually read the fine print...........unfortunately, he just wants the labor pains......not the baby. 8)
Winrate ; 3,16
not so impressive it
I passed easily , 3,64
I'm a math genius for that?
Quote from: plolp on August 20, 2016, 08:21:50 AM
Winrate ; 3,16
not so impressive it
I passed easily , 3,64
I'm a math genius for that?
I see you are top on that list, what bet did you use?
Quote from: plolp on August 20, 2016, 08:21:50 AM
Winrate ; 3,16
not so impressive it
I passed easily , 3,64
I'm a math genius for that?
You understand what those numbers mean? She tripled her money, whereas everyone else generally lost to the house edge.
I bet the maximum on a single number with his 4 splits and
his street
Quote from: Falkor2k15 on August 20, 2016, 09:49:33 AM
You understand what those numbers mean?
Yes : absolutely nothing
Quote from: plolp on August 20, 2016, 10:15:27 AM
I bet the maximum on a single number with his 4 splits and
his street
in every spin?
No
Nick,
I noticed you haven't posted anythng on this thread since 2Aug2016.
I have a question:
Are you using the code from tracker that has been posted on reply #29.
If you are: 29, 22, 14, 28, 16 would that be a no bet?
4,5,6 is B,R,?
2,4,6 is B,B,?
Is there something I have missed to understand in the thread?
Hi Azim . . .
Sorry I have not posted recently but Vic and I are trying to get my new bot released September 1st and I have to visit my Grandsons in Colorado for a week but always glad to answer your question.
You have 5 numbers (29,22,14,28,16 or BBRBR).
On the 6th spin there are 2 Arithmetic Progressions (AP) than can be formed:
4-5-6
2-4-6
The 4 and 5 are BR so 4-5-6 would not form an AP of either RRR or BBB
The 2 and 4 are BB so if the 6th spin is a B they would form an AP of 2-4-6
B B R B R B
1 2 3 4 5 6
So we would bet B to complete the AP of 2-4-6.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Nick
Nick,
Thanks for the clarification. Thought you had given up on this.
One Last Question anyone:
I have these 3 numbers 1, 2, 22.
R B B
1 2 3
From the above AP of 2,3,4 is possible.
However BB is possible for a 3rd B so a bet is on B on spin 4 is that right?
Quote from: 3Nine on August 18, 2016, 11:53:54 PM
Ok, you're still not seeing it.
VdW is not needed - at all.
3Nine is right. VDW can't help you right out of the box and it's pretty pointless in reality if you already have the framework in place to win. I suppose what I am saying is that you would pretty much already need to know how to win before you could come up with some convoluted way to use VDW. So what's the point? It's good in a sense however to stretch the old brain a bit.
Azim, check out the attached for a few examples of multi-directional VdW.
(https://s13.postimg.org/y9h160zmv/ramsey.png)
Well if someone doesn't have a real edge, this would be a progress for him/her.
Quote from: Falkor2k15 on August 22, 2016, 08:28:17 AM
(https://s13.postimg.org/y9h160zmv/ramsey.png)
Exactly. Or, as I like to put it, chaos can be arranged.
Is arranging chaos the technique used for creating own dozens, etc.?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrondo%27s_paradox
NickMSI is currently writing about VDW over on the GamblersForum and the boys over there are being pretty harsh.
Most of them have apparently missed what he was attempting to explain so it would be pointless for me to jump in and attempt a mid-course correction of the discussion.
I still find the concept reasonably fascinating and having boiled it down into 4 simple wagers, it can be played "sans card" if you prefer.
123, 246, 147 and 258 from time to time. You'll avoid the mutual win wager by restarting at 12 when it shows up.
Flat betting "solves" the Terrible Twos and allows you to mark time until the inevitable streaks of P, B and singles show up.
Just my two cents on the subject.
AD
Adulay if you can even Calle GF a forum ;D
Just a bunch of bitter people who don't belong on gambling forums lol
In contrast with the title of this thread I fail to see where is the math.
On all EC bets there are always two possible outcomes, always.
Nothing prevents results to form a streak of 10, or a streak of chops or any other permutation you can imagine at any given time.
Why you cannot (don't want) understand common sense?!
However, it's an improvement in regards with martingales, the baby must learn how to walk on 4 before walks on 2 legs...
Anyway, Baccarat never was my cup of coffee, I've much better edge on Roulette with my methods.
RG, if you think bitter everyone at GF, then you should reconsider.
At GF I've found something I've never found on other forums, freedom of expression and speech!
Perhaps is not so popular yet but I'd rather speak with few good persons rather than many hypocrites!
Hi All,
Adulay, I don't mind the imbeciles over at GF or here or anywhere, I just ignore them as I know someone will understand what I am trying to do.
It is not an easy thing to explain but Blue Angel says that on all EC bets there are always two possible outcomes, always
I say so what. That makes no difference in preventing someone from winning.
For example, look at the people who play biased wheels. They still win, even though all EC bets still have two possible outcomes.
They still win because they are not playing random. They are playing with the Laws of Physics.
If you can understand this, then the same principal applys to using the Laws of Math as to using the Laws of Physics.
Using the VDW I don't care if each bet has a 50/50 chance of winning. It does not matter. It still wins.
Cheers
Nick
I'm glad if you can win with such bet selection but perhaps if you combine it with Albahala's money management you would have an EC grail.
You need money management in order to win long term, have you thought about PGM?
Here is a better explanation of what I am trying to do.
How do the people playing biased wheels keep winning? EC bets still have two outcomes. The odds have not changed. Why are they winning?
They are winning because the Laws of Physics have increased the accuracy of their predictions.
They still win because they are not playing random. They are playing with the Laws of Physics.
If you can understand this, then the same principal applys to using the Laws of Math as to using the Laws of Physics.
Using the Laws of Math, like VDW, we don't care if each bet has a 50/50 chance of winning. We are not playing the random game. We are not changing the odds. It does not matter. It still wins.
It still wins because the Laws of Math increase the accuracy of predictions.
Hi Blue Angel,
The way we play wins Flat Betting. Flat Betting has a lot of ups and downs and does not win that much per spin so we have some unique progressions that we use if we want to increase our profit/spin. However, Flat Betting works just great when using a bot.
Cheers
Probably a waste of time with flat bets, how about mixing it with Albahala's money management?
Quote from: Blue_Angel on April 26, 2017, 03:21:00 AM
Nothing prevents results to form a streak of 10, or a streak of chops or any other permutation you can imagine at any given time.
Why you cannot (don't want) understand common sense?!
BA,
Would you care to explain why a streak of 10 or a streak of chops is a bad thing?
It would be even better if you could explain why it is bad under the VDW play.
Thanks.
AD
Quote from: ADulay on April 26, 2017, 04:22:31 PM
BA,
Would you care to explain why a streak of 10 or a streak of chops is a bad thing?
It would be even better if you could explain why it is bad under the VDW play.
Thanks.
AD
Try to see the greater picture, by discarding possible outcomes just because you've observed the last few results won't make your predictions better because what you discard it's still there.
It's like you are claiming that by knowing binomial probability you know what's coming up next, this is absurd don't you think?
The only solution is a progression regarding EC bets.
Quote from: ADulay on April 26, 2017, 02:18:42 AM
NickMSI is currently writing about VDW over on the GamblersForum and the boys over there are being pretty harsh.
Most of them have apparently missed what he was attempting to explain so it would be pointless for me to jump in and attempt a mid-course correction of the discussion.
I still find the concept reasonably fascinating and having boiled it down into 4 simple wagers, it can be played "sans card" if you prefer.
AD
Andy, cannot find the conversation on gamblersforum.com.
anyone could help?
Quote from: andrebac on April 28, 2017, 04:13:35 AM
Andy, cannot find the conversation on gamblersforum.com.
anyone could help?
https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/van-de-waerden-theorem-of-mathematics-vdw.6906/
thank you.
looking in gamblersforum
instead of gambling forum
lol
Salut
Why not look for the second repetition
Rather than the third.
The spin 5 is dominant
Nick stay away from GF
It's just a negative stuff hole
That's where all the failed mutants go
It'll drag you down.
RG, you may be right but I got 3-4 people interested and that's what counts.
Those that see the merit will try, others just deny, deny, deny.
Cheers
Nick
Nick
I admit I don't fully understand vdw
But it looks very promising for baccarat
The 0 in roulette hurts
However for baccarat you may have something very special
ADulay
Could you teach me your style of play using VDW?
Baelog
Quote from: Baelog on May 01, 2017, 03:03:26 AM
ADulay
Could you teach me your style of play using VDW?
Baelog
I will grab one of the recently posted shoes on the site and transcribe it to a worksheet and post it up here with details of the line by line play.
Probably tomorrow as today is pretty well tied up with scheduled duties, 9 holes of golf and a shooting match tonight.
AD (Monday night Match Director)
Really interested to know how exactly vdw is played on baccarat
New local casino opened with baccarat machines. Real cards
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 02, 2017, 01:37:07 AM
Really interested to know how exactly vdw is played on baccarat
New local casino opened with baccarat machines. Real cards
Don't play those machines because they arrange the sequence of the cards, actually don't play neither pre-shuffled decks which bring them on the tables.
Play only with the good old fashioned way when shuffling was manually in front of you.
Unfortunately under the excuse of making the game faster, they've invented these shady tactics.
At least on Baccarat you could bet either way but on Blackjack is real slaughterhouse!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 02, 2017, 01:46:33 AM
Don't play those machines because they arrange the sequence of the cards,!
And just how are they "arranged"?
AD
Quote from: ADulay on May 02, 2017, 04:44:26 AM
And just how are they "arranged"?
AD
You should know better after all these years, I didn't expect to receive this respond from someone like you.
Just a friendly tip, the best way to decide what to bet is to wait to see where the most money have been bet and then bet the opposite.
If you are the only person at the table then good luck...!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 02, 2017, 01:46:33 AM
Don't play those machines because they arrange the sequence of the cards, actually don't play neither pre-shuffled decks which bring them on the tables.
Play only with the good old fashioned way when shuffling was manually in front of you.
Unfortunately under the excuse of making the game faster, they've invented these shady tactics.
At least on Baccarat you could bet either way but on Blackjack is real slaughterhouse!
Great Post.
It can also work to your advantage if you spot it.
These are the opening hands of six of fourteen EZ-Bac machine shuffled shoes I played over two sessions.
PBBBPPB
PBBBPPB
PBBBBPP
PBBPPPB
PBBPBBP
PBBPPBB
For Blackjack, the CSM only need be programmed to shuffle the shoe so the count remains neutral throughout the shoe, so there will never be any point in the shoe where the player has an edge.
I've seen things happen on airball roulette and electronic baccarat with real cards that makes me question that
I do agree that the electronic airball roulette may alter results
So I tend to play only on full tables. Can't avoid us all lol
But on the flip side of the token I've seen electronic baccarat (with real cards) have 12 B in a row where the crowd is erupting because everyone rode the streak and cashed in big time. So how rigged is it?
I've seen people win thousands on electronic roulette
QuoteSo how rigged is it?
It doesn't have to be, but it
could be.
I prefer dealers rather than airballs.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 02, 2017, 05:42:37 AM
You should know better after all these years, I didn't expect to receive this respond from someone like you.
Just a friendly tip, the best way to decide what to bet is to wait to see where the most money have been bet and then bet the opposite.
If you are the only person at the table then good luck...!
I can seriously understand at Blackjack and possibly at Poker with some 'possibles' that are not outright cheating, but along the lines of not allowing the player at BJ to be able to count and determine with approximating how many big and small valued cards are left and at poker keeping the players there waiting longer with 'no start' hands, etc., etc. And, of course, that is only with the continuous shuffler not the machine they use at baccarat tables. But not at baccarat whatsoever. For two factors, one the players can wager either side and second, when the shoe is cut there is always a change in any pre-set make up the deck could have had.
As well, I have witnessed just as many perfect shoes, streak/runs or huge sections of chop-chop with auto shufflers as manually shuffling. At times it sure is easy to say, that damn shuffler, etc., but not true at baccarat. Also, why would some multi billion dollar corporations risk immediate revocation of their license?
Quotethe players can wager either side
I agree but why not bet pass/don't pass instead of player/banker, on craps you could set and influence the dice in such way which makes a difference on the results.
For example there is a combination of bets which make you win with 34 out of 36 possible permutations of the dice, if you could avoid the 2 losing permutations by dice setting then
each and every roll provides profit.
Quoteand second, when the shoe is cut there is always a change in any pre-set make up the deck could have had.
Yes, but not so big change.
QuoteAs well, I have witnessed just as many perfect shoes, streak/runs or huge sections of chop-chop with auto shufflers as manually shuffling.
I don't doubt about it.
QuoteAlso, why would some multi billion dollar corporations risk immediate revocation of their license?
First, not all of them are in the multi billion sphere, second, if you have indications but not evidence you can do nothing legally, which is what it matters.
It's almost impossible to get evidence, hidden cameras and other similar gadgets don't even have the chance to get inside, so what you left with is just your word and as you might understand this means nothing legally.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on May 02, 2017, 12:18:53 PM
everyone rode the streak...
I've seen people win thousands on electronic roulette...
In general I consider good to do otherwise rather than following the majority...just mpov.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 02, 2017, 05:42:37 AM
You should know better after all these years, I didn't expect to receive this respond from someone like you.
Just a friendly tip, the best way to decide what to bet is to wait to see where the most money have been bet and then bet the opposite.
If you are the only person at the table then good luck...!
The question remains unanswered: "Just how are they (the cards) arranged"?
Not the particular method as that would be pretty simple to do.
I'd like to know the arrangement they make so that everyone, or most, lose at the baccarat table.
And if they're rigging the shoe so that the wagers on the most money are losing, I'd really like to know that one.
Thanks.
AD
Quote from: ADulay on May 02, 2017, 05:59:12 PM
And if they're rigging the shoe so that the wagers on the most money are losing, I'd really like to know that one.
AD
Yes! And at times it does seem that way and yet--at others (an equal amount or more??) that big money wins. IMO--it seems we all dwell on and remember quite vividly those times when say some goes table max and every one is table min or close to it and the guy wagering the $10 or $25 wins.
But, I have been at winning tables when the dealer had to pay in larger demonization chips and take back (say there was 4,900.00 out there in green and black) and the dealer would pay in purple and chocolate and take all the green and black, etc., until she got a fill that was being rushed. Just most of the time the players give it back and don't take all the dealers bank in a short period of time, but it does happen.
But, seriously in all reality there is nothing the shoe can produce that would guarantee the players lose, no matter how much they wager. Since there is no optional draws or player/dealer generated optional anything--and since the player can wager on either side, there is no way a shoe can be set up to 'cheat' a player, maybe some far fetched theory about a continuous shuffled shoe with the card reader and motherboard fallacy within the shufflers, etc., however it is not a continuous shuffled shoe.
I have sat down countless times and after numerous losing hands, I see someone winning. I go with them and they lose. I wait out and they win the next 4 hands, I go with them and they lose. I wait out and they win once again. I mean every single time I go with them-they lose. And this is for a period of 10-15 times, not once or twice or three or even four times. It happens. And when I was wagering I might be $100 on my thinking and they are opposite me with $500 or $1,000 or more.
I don't know about you, but I definitely remember my losses and those times when I won really good and then gave it all back rather than the times I win and it is not record setting, etc.
As much as I hate Caleb Johnson for being a forum thread destroyer, in sections he shouldn't be in (should stay in AP section) I know he claims to exploit airball wheels....so I don't know how rigged they are
@Dlay, Victor is a qualified programmer and could help you understand the technical details better than I could explained it to you.
Of course, if there isn't a continuous shuffler present at the Baccarat table, makes this scenario irrelevant, but RG spoke about machines.
I've noticed a disturbing trend, unfortunately there are only few individuals who create something new and unique but the majority imitates and copies, as a result a lot of useless information is being recycled for years, if not decades.
The progress in the right direction of knowledge and perception is being delayed significantly.
My methods perhaps not all so good but are mine and not a bad imitation, there is no competition for the Nobel prize but expressions of philosophies, perceptions.
Is this something which we can evaluate objectively or subjectively??
In my point of view there is objective reality, deceptive reality (intentionally) and misleading reality (unintentionally).
Therefore all come down to each person's judgement in order to separate the wheat from the chalk...in any way, the choice is yours.
There is no excuse such as someone told me to do so because the final decision is yours, you might choose right or wrong and whether you win or lose it's thanks to you.
Ok, so I have ran some simulations in Excel that I am posting here based on the information I have seen in the forum. I feel like I am very close to how Nickmsi is playing the game, but not all the way.
This is how I set up my excel program
- Only the 9 AP's
- Avoid mutual bet
- 500 random Descisions ( no live decks)
- Flatbet
- No stop loss
Here we go.
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
This is the last one for now.
Baelog
Quote from: Baelog on May 14, 2017, 03:34:38 PM
Ok, so I have ran some simulations in Excel that I am posting here based on the information I have seen in the forum. I feel like I am very close to how Nickmsi is playing the game, but not all the way.
This is how I set up my excel program
- Only the 9 AP's
- Avoid mutual bet
- 500 random Descisions ( no live decks)
- Flatbet
- No stop loss
Here we go.
Baelog,
Thanks for joining in on the discussion with your testing.
I took a look at the first one and I don't believe it's being played correctly, at least from the standpoint of VDW proper.
What is the wager at hand #2?
Also, with the win at hand #5 (BBB) you would restart the sequence as any "win" ends the VDW session and starts a new one.
Thanks for posting up.
AD
Baelog, with the standard version of AP, you can only have wins on the following spins with these spin combinations.
Spin 3) 123
Spin 4) 234
Spin 5) 345, 135
Spin 6) 456, 246
Spin 7) 567, 357, 147
Spin 8} 678, 468, 258
Spin 9) 789, 579, 369, 159
cheers
Quote from: ADulay on May 14, 2017, 04:54:50 PM
Baelog,
Thanks for joining in on the discussion with your testing.
I took a look at the first one and I don't believe it's being played correctly, at least from the standpoint of VDW proper.
What is the wager at hand #2?
Also, with the win at hand #5 (BBB) you would restart the sequence as any "win" ends the VDW session and starts a new one.
Thanks for posting up.
AD
Yes you are correct ADulay. I missed the top 2 rows when I took the screen capture. First bet can only be on the third descision. I will return with some live shoes. I am excited to learn more about VDW.
Hi All,
Aduly says that after a BBB wins start a new session.
This is correct if you are playing the conventional VDW method which is to play the next 9 spins.
VDW can be played in many different ways.
Think about playing the LAST 9 spins instead.
Mathematically it is the same but you get so many more bets.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 14, 2017, 07:49:24 PM
Hi All,
Aduly says that after a BBB wins start a new session.
This is correct if you are playing the conventional VDW method which is to play the next 9 spins.
VDW can be played in many different ways.
Think about playing the LAST 9 spins instead.
Mathematically it is the same but you get so many more bets.
Cheers
Nick
Nick,
Very true.
Another way is the "rolling 9" meaning after any win simply back up to a legitimate "starting point" and resume from there.
AD
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 14, 2017, 07:49:24 PM
VDW can be played in many different ways.
Think about playing the LAST 9 spins instead.
[attachimg=1]
That's the great thing about it. Be creative and AP/VDW can be virtually anything you want it to be.
cheers
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 14, 2017, 07:49:24 PM
Hi All,
VDW can be played in many different ways.
Think about playing the LAST 9 spins instead.
Mathematically it is the same but you get so many more bets.
Cheers
Nick
Nick,
The LAST 9 spins is how I programmed the excel sheet to get more bets. Still avoiding the mutual bets.
Had to change the alternator on my car today. Did not have time to do any more studies .
Baelog
Live Shoe.
- LAST 9 AP's (for more bets)
- Flat bet
- No mutual bet
- AP (1,2,3) only used until beginning streak ends
Baelog
This shoe is from alrelax forum "live cards". This is the shoe from 5/13 using VDW.
Baelog
Quote from: ADulay on May 14, 2017, 08:30:02 PM
Another way is the "rolling 9" meaning after any win simply back up to a legitimate "starting point" and resume from there.
ADulay, how do you define a legitimate starting point
Quote from: stringbeanpc on May 16, 2017, 12:00:12 AM
ADulay, how do you define a legitimate starting point
Any "1-2" start will suffice.
AD
I have no degree in math. I believe, however, that it is possible to come a long way with a cheap calculator. It it good to know what to expect at the roulette table.
2/3 X 1/3 = 0.22222222222. This could be the probability for three "oners" (no repeat) within three spins inside one street.
2/3 X 1/3 X 9 = 2. So if we wait for clarification in exactly NINE of the twelve streets in area 1-36, such a pattern should typically come in TWO of the nine streets.
Hi Dane, I too do not have a math background and do not understand your bet selection.
Could you give an example with further explanation.
Thanks
With pleasure, Nicksmi:
If #2 has come only once and #3 has come only once, I see "two oners" in street 1-3. No single number repeated there. Then I simply bet #1.
I hope to see a full street with no single number appearing more than once. The NEXT spin from within this street makes me leave it.
The situation there has been clarified. In the same way I LEAVE eight other streets in area 1-12. AFTER HAVING RULED OUT AND LEFT EXACTLY NINE OF THE TWELVE STREETS, I END THE SESSION.
Probably I won twice! My cheap calculator told me so. And many tests convinced me that it is true in most sessions.
Hello,
I propose this way of playing because the "spin5" is dominant.
We only play for "AP"; 456, 537, 258, 159.
We always start from the "spin5"
When there is a gain, the winning color is considered the "spin5"
I'll give an example, right now.
Here is an example.
If there is no gain then the "spin9" becomes the "spin5".
Great thinking Plolp.
You hit upon 2 interesting concepts about using the VDW theorem.
1. There is No Rule that says you have to use all 9 Spins
2. There is No Rule that says you have to use ALL 16 AP's.
I did a quick test of 5 bots betting 5,000 spins each (25,000 total) using your 4 AP you suggested and have attached the results in pic "25,000 9 Spin".
The problem with using the conventional 9 Spins is you don't get many bets making it difficult to play even with a bot.
Your idea of making the 9th spin the 5th spin is a better approach. It is similar to what I call betting "Every Spin" on a rolling basis. This gives you a lot more betting opportunities.
I have attached a second pic (25,000 ES Spins) to show you the difference in the number of bets and profits from an ES system verses the 9 Spins.
So far, I have found that ES is the best way to use the VDW theorem.
Cheers
Nick
Thanks nickmsi,
Do the "ES" tests play the method I have described?
The test results included your AP plus a few more.
Basically what the ES system does is looks at the last 8 spins to see if a 3-6-9, 5-7-9 or 1-5-9 can be formed on the next spin.
If not, it looks at the last 7 spins to see if a 2-5-8 or 4-6-8 can be formed.
If not it looks at the last 6 spins to see if a 1-4-7 or 3-5-7 can be formed, etc.
Nick
OK yes it makes sense
I understood
Thanks
I'll do a little test
Hi Nick
On another forum I recently gave a positive Mike's progression simulations.
In the near future I will try to play for BV no zero real money.
Vdw will bet selection, and use Mike's progression.
I want to see what happens.
My only worry will be disconnections.
Nickmsi ,
You never play 567, 678,789
Even if there is no "PA" opposite?
Hi Plolp,
We can't play 789 or 678 or 567 as they have already been played. Remember we are going backwards.
Hi Ozon, yes BV has been terrible the last 2 weeks with disconnections, especially in Demo Mode. I get less disconnections in Real Money Mode.
Let me know what progression you are talking about and I can try in Real Money Mode as I can't get my money out of BV since I am in USA.
Nick
http://betselection.cc/even-chance-8/how-to-get-an-edge-flat-betting-(in-theory)/msg22774/#msg22774
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 21, 2017, 02:20:44 PM
Hi Plolp,
We can't play 789 or 678 or 567 as they have already been played. Remember we are going backwards.
Nick
Apparently there is a misunderstanding ...
Why do you say you're playing backwards?
Can you give an example?
Here is an example :
B
B
B
R
R spin5
B -1
B no bet
We can play "678" ...so B
We do not play backwards !!
Quote from: ozon on May 21, 2017, 02:35:51 PM
http://betselection.cc/even-chance-8/how-to-get-an-edge-flat-betting-(in-theory)/msg22774/#msg22774
Hi Olaf, testing with only 20k spins is not enough, please do some more 100k tests with this progression, and you will see more and more 10+ consecutive losses generated a bigger and bigger hole - and yes, in daily basis, as I experienced, and regardless of Betvoyager, Excel or Random.org RNG... So be more carefull with your real money! :)
Quote from: Nickmsi on May 21, 2017, 01:06:59 PM
The test results included your AP plus a few more.
Basically what the ES system does is looks at the last 8 spins to see if a 3-6-9, 5-7-9 or 1-5-9 can be formed on the next spin.
If not, it looks at the last 7 spins to see if a 2-5-8 or 4-6-8 can be formed.
If not it looks at the last 6 spins to see if a 1-4-7 or 3-5-7 can be formed, etc.
Nick
You will find plenty of mutual bets on those spots.
Hi Plolp,
Yes, you are right, you can get the 6-7-8 to form in your example. It was only a matter of semantics that I said backwards.
My point was that you could already have a CAP (Consecutive Arithmetic Progression) ie, 1-2-3,2-3-4,3-4-5,4-5-6,5-6-7,6-7-8,7-8-9) formed in the last 8 spins, just like your example. It had BBBRRBB so you had a 1-2-3 to complete an AP at the start.
So do you ignore this BBB or do you start counting at the R so you would have RRBB so the next spin would be counted as the 5th spin.
I think you will find that if you can form an AP go ahead and bet it.
As Goez points out you will have mutual bets to contend with. There are ways to avoid the Mutual bets and when you can't just pick one then take a 50/50 chance.
Otherwise you can just bet one side and avoid mutual bets all together, or if you spot a mutual bet on spin 8, just check spin7 or spin 6 or spin 5 or spin 4 or spin 3 and see if another AP can be formed. If so play the one that is not a mutual bet.
VDW is quite versatile and in my opinion the best mechanical system that I have ever found.
Cheers
Nick
Hi Audiokinesis
I played for the last days for money only for black, using the progression of Mike's
After 3,5k spins im -200 units.
The reds series are much more likely than they were to appear.
I have worse and worse experiences with online RNG roulette.
Even if I have strategies that generate profit in simulations, the casino will destroy me in a moment. Bad variance is much more than it should be if you play for real money.
I treats roulette as a hobby, but more and more frustrates me.
Hi Ozon,
If my simulations generated the same results in Real Money Mode, I would be the happiest guy in the world.
But alas, they do not.
All the simulations do is point us in the right direction but only Real Money Mode can give you definitive results.
Another reason for playing VDW is lower and more stable variance.
Nick
Hi Nick, have you run any simulation using just the first 6 numbers and restart. This may not be a true VdW but it sure avoid most of the mutual bets.
Hi Goez,
Yes, indeed I have tested the first 6 numbers. I have tested each number individually and in combination with other spins and could not see any significant results.
Cheers
Nick
I played today for a while, fun mode.
Bet Selection is Vdw
Progression is MIke's theory, s, we play flat and we lose 3 times
Then we start recowery mode
1-2-3-5-8-13
Play to win in recovery mode, we totally ignore 3 lost bets that we played flat.
If we win on1 or 2 or 3 units we are back to the 1 unit flat
If we win on 5 units we stay one more spin same stake.
If we win on 8 or 13 we back one step down.
If we lose last step we start for begining.
I have not done simulations yet, but it is a bit complicated.
Thank you Nick, save me wasting time doing it manually.
Is there a software that allows to display the 256 figures of 9 ? :glasses:
thank you in advance ...
plolp
Yes, I have an excel sheet showing all 256 patterns, however I am driving to
Colorado to visit Grandsons so I can't send it till I get
back June 12.
If anyone else has the sheet, please upload and thanks
Nick
I just started to play that way.
3 sessions won at a fast pace.
Bet selection
Vdw combined with after 2 losing bets wait for virtual win, thus avoiding the series of loses
Target profit +7 units, stop loss -14 units.
I have no skill to program it, I play it manually
T2 wiesbaden 01/06/17
Same attack
Final score +12
Zero recognized as loss
The end
is there an updated excel sheets for vdw so i can use as bet selection playing online?
Hi Plolp
Back from vacation and have attached the spreadsheet showing 256 VDW patterns.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Thank you Nickmsi
I haven't read through this entire thread, but it's claimed that this method of bet selection results in a lower variance than a random selection. Is there any statistical evidence of this?
One way to test the hypothesis is to count the number of gaps between wins for (a) the VDW, and (b) a random selection. You will end up with two sets of series of numbers. Now compute the standard deviation of both sets. If the VDW really does perform as claimed, its standard devation should be lower than that of the random selection.
VdW is a 50/50 game.
It may be a 50:50 game but the dispersion is a different question. Two games may both be 50:50 but the variances can be different.
Quote from: Mike on July 06, 2017, 10:39:08 AM
It may be a 50:50 game but the dispersion is a different question. Two games may both be 50:50 but the variances can be different.
No need to calculate the variance for overrepresented and underrepresented outcomes - i made a chart back at 2008 when i introduce Marigny at public forum boards.
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2Fjg42mx.jpg&hash=60ff2b3124b40f06b01decedc6e5f64fd30a2ded)
The french word for STD is Ecart
First you have to get the Absolute Ecart when you calculate.
So lets assume you have an sequence with 14 series alternating with two singles present.
Then you take 14 - 2 = 12
Now we want to get the statistical ecart so we continue with...
14 + 2 = 16
Now we take the sqr of 16 = 4
And finally we divide the absolute ecart whit the sqr
12 sqr 4 = 3,00
The Statistical Ecart 3,00
"I had to read so much rubbish about the VdW.
In this and other forums are such a lot of members who claim to be intelligent and mathguys but not one of them did really think about and analyse this way to bet.
1) If we look at the distribution of two colours (R and B or H/L, or E/O) we will get 256 Variations. We can easily reduce this number:
We name the first colour to appear "1" , the other then obviously "2"
If it starts by: RRB we would note 1 1 2
If it starts by: BBR we would also note 1 1 2
So have just half of 256 variations.
2) If we check how many AP will end at which coup we get the following:
Coup 3: 1
Coup 4: 1
Coup 5: 2
Coup 6: 2
Coup 7: 3
Coup 8: 3
Coup 9: 4
Up to Coup #6 there is only 1 decision possible. From Coup #7 there might be two possible decisions to make.
3) the hitrates:
Coup #3: 24,89%
Coup #4: 12,57%
Coup #5: 18,75%
Coup #6: 12,50%
That makes a total of 68,71% hitrate with only 1 decision to make.
did anyone look at VdW like this? I don´t think so, nor read about."
Here is a post from Winkel on another forum.
This shows both MATH and STATISTICS being used.
Cheers
Nick
Hello,
this is interesting concept. Is there any conclusion? How to play, if there is any advantage?
Nickmsi, the results in reply 216 look pretty good, do you have any conclusion on this concept?
Thanks.
Quote from: MrG on September 21, 2017, 09:53:04 PM
Hello,
this is interesting concept. Is there any conclusion? How to play, if there is any advantage?
Nickmsi, the results in reply 216 look pretty good, do you have any conclusion on this concept?
Thanks.
Have you taken the time to read the entire thread? A lot of good information in there and explanations of pretty much anything you could ask.
AD
Hi MrG and Adulay,
There are many different ways to utilize the VDW theorem, each person develops what is best for his or her style of play.
Here is some food for thought as to why this has a better chance to succeed than other systems.
We are not changing the odds so how can we increase the accuracy of our predictions, ie, our bet selections.
We know that in a "coin toss", there is no reason for favoring "heads" or "tails". In Roulette, there is no reason for favoring Red or Black. In Baccarat, there is no reason for favoring Banker or Player.
These are called "unreasoned or wild guesses". If an unreasoned guess turns out to be correct then it is called a "happy guess" or "lucky guess"
By contrast, a guess made using prior knowledge is called an informed guess or an educated guess.
The prior knowledge in this case is the formation of an AP. If an AP can be formed on the next spin or card then we are making an "educated guess".
An "educated guess" is better than an "uneducated guess". You make enough "educated guesses" and you might have a foundation for a winning system.
Cheers
Nick
If you put 18 red balls, 18 black balls and one green ball in a bag, is an educated guess based on AP better than a wild guess to predict what the next ball drawn will be? Mathematically an educated guess and a wild guess will result in 48.6% hit rate in the long run.
You never play the mathematical probability of a given bet selection against the offered odds by the Casino in roulette without knowing the VARIANCE CURVE every wheel generates on any given bet selection. Learning how to plot and read a dynamic variance curve, is like learning a new language with words and grammar. Words are here the various bet selections on the table or the wheel, and grammar is the right moment or intervals of making such a bet selection.
Unless you do not find a way to plot said dynamic ongoing variance curve (there are several ways), you will be like a blind man in a large forest not knowing what direction to walk in order to get home.
A Variance Curve shows when the negative variance of a bet selection is occurring and hence a bet is not to recommend and when the positive variance is at hand and thus the Mathematical Odds of said bet selection is at its highest probability of generating a win. The HOuse edge here becomes irrelevant at such a moment, but most relevant if you try to bet during a negative phase.
If you can understand this you will find yourself starting to win more bets than losing, and if not, you will most probably follow the common trend that usually apply the most ludicrous bet selections with horrendous progressions, that all are based on the ignorance of the Variance Curve i.e the blind man in the forest syndrome.
Thanks Magician for your insight. Are you referring to the Standard Deviations as a type of Variance Curve or something else. Would love to hear more.
Yes, James you are correct, if you treat each spin independently.
Each SINGLE spin is independent but a GROUP of 9 sins are DEPENDENT. You cannot form an AP without using Past Spins.
So you can treat each spin independently and take a "lucky guess" or you can take an "educated guess" that an AP has to form in a Group of 9 spins.
Here's something else to ponder. Using your example of 18 Red and 18 Black and 1 Green ball in a bag. If you draw a ball from the bag you have 1/37 chance. Put the ball back in the back and draw again, still 1/37 chance.
But what if you did not put the ball back in the bag? If you drew a Black and did not put it back, you would then have 18 Reds, 17 Blacks and 1 Green. Now you have increased your chances of drawing a Red.
With VDW there are only 512 patterns that can be formed in 9 Spins. 256 patterns starting with R and 256 patterns starting with B.
RRRRRRRRR is an example of 1 pattern.
BRRBBBRRR is another example.
Now put all these 512 patterns in your bag. 1st draw is a Red. Now you have eliminated 256 patterns that start with B.
2nd Draw is a B. Now you have eliminated all patterns beginning with RR.
Can we apply some Statistical Analysis to this finite set of data (512 patterns & 16 AP's)?
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Nick
Thanks Nick! I agree that "each SINGLE spin is independent".
And typing errors might be rather entertaining: "A GROUP of 9 sins are DEPENDENT".
Independent GROUPS of sinners may be hard to find >:D
Hi, Dane.
Hows the weather in dear ol´ Denmark? Any luck at the tables of Casino Aalborg or Odense? Don´t tell me, you did a John Cusack (Oceans Eleven) took the money and ran for the exit ;)
Flat betting has been done with la partage rule and end up with positiv result after 60.000 placed bets - that should be the blue print for everyone who try to develop a flat betting system
I will just show some simple observations - one is how the variance go back to back 83% of times - we use the name reversal for such event and happens after a negativ result
One other experiment is to start when you have a negativ result and reverse the end result into the positiv - assume you have -2 units and your expectation is 83% to break even - now if you start playing from -2 units your expectation change to +2 units - i am using +1 unit with my example
The average peak for 60.000 placed bets is +6 units and the average drawdown is -8 units
The first test: if you gain +2 units or more you stop at positiv result - if a negativ result you aim for one reversal
The second test: if you get a negativ result you play for one reversal to end with at least +1 unit
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforumbilder.se%2FG9JMO%2Freversal.jpg&hash=74139b9dddc6a54a28522ae34b2df2e506cc12b4) (http://forumbilder.se/G9JMO/reversal)
Quote from: ADulay on September 21, 2017, 11:09:15 PM
Have you taken the time to read the entire thread? A lot of good information in there and explanations of pretty much anything you could ask.
AD
Hi Adulay, yes, I read through the whole thread and I saw it was work in progress. Sometimes the results seemed to be good, sometimes to be bad, that was why I asked whether or not any conclusion has been made.
Quote from: TheMagician on September 23, 2017, 10:05:40 AM
Hi, Dane.
Hows the weather in dear ol´ Denmark? Any luck at the tables of Casino Aalborg or Odense? Don´t tell me, you did a John Cusack (Oceans Eleven) took the money and ran for the exit ;)
Thanks for asking. As you might know, the weather in Denmark keeps changing, but compared to other parts of the World we are lucky. I stopped visiting the tables of Casino Aalborg. Casino Odense has become my favourite Casino in Denmark. I had some luck there - but NEXT TIME I got greedy. The same old story.
At home with my Permanenzen I am working hard on a street method. And I plan to test it in Odense in November.
Hi Nick,
I understand there are more ways of playing this, therefore I asked if there is any conclusion on which is the best one (for roulette).
It seems the best results are in reply 216, I will take a look at how this was done and try "playing" with it.
Best of luck and good measures of skill, my Viking neighbor.
If you belief you can beat baccarat shoe after shoe with a wagering system and/or sit down at a random time/shoe and employ a math system to prevail every time, you are misled,
However if you belief you have something I will pay you for it $50,000.00 USD, all you have to do to collect the cash is come to one of my local Midwest casinos I play at, I will deposit the money in a front money account. You will play here with your money 3 days and 7 a day, 21 shoes total, if 90% of your wagers win, wagering 25 hands per shoe, the $50 000 is yours, I will pay the hotel, alll food and beverage and transportation no matter prevail or not
If you use negative progression you are a complete and utter fool, counting on non streaks. I saw just thought fail three times in the past week with 5 streaks of 8 or more in 3 shoes. Every single player got wiped out playing negative progression even with 25,000.00 buy ins.
Quoteif 90% of your wagers win
I think it's too much for everyone, why 90% when even 55% correct grants you overall profit?
Dear Nick,
What if there were 8 players starting to bet each one of them with 1 result difference, so when the 1st player would bet the last 9th bet of the sequence simultaneously the last 8th player would wager his 1st bet of the 9 sequence...?
Do you understand where I'm going with this?
Those 8 players would bet differently even using the same AP (method), when there are losing decisions the only way to come out on top is to Martingale, but even so
there's no guarantee that you'd always get at least 1 win within a sequence of 9 roughly 50/50 outcomes.
You said
after observing the 1st outcome the remaining possible sequences become 256 from 512,
after observing the 2nd outcome the remaining possible sequences become 128 from 256,
after observing the 3rd outcome the remaining possible sequences become 64 from 128,
after observing the 4th outcome the remaining possible sequences become 32 from 64,
after observing the 5th outcome the remaining possible sequences become 16 from 32,
after observing the 6th outcome the remaining possible sequences become 8 from 16, ...till you reach the 9th in which there will remain only 2 possible outcomes!WOW! :o
Why this AP reminds me the infamous Martingale? ???
Do you think by knowing the binomial probability that can help you predict what's coming up next?
Let me give you a hint, all of the sequences of the same length have equal probability to occur,
but if we take a large sample such as 1000 outcomes and divide it to 100 sequences of 10 decisions each we would find more sequences with 5 a side decisions, regardless of their order.
At least that's what theory has to say, what could happen is another thing.
I'm sorry Nick but you can't sidestep probability, that's a fact!
Hi Dane, got a good chuckle with my Group of 9 sins. It's just a way of life, when you reach my age, fingers, brains and sins don't always work in harmony.
Hi MrG, yes the results in Reply # 216 shows one way of playing. If you look closely at the graph picture you will see the name of the Excel Sheet that I wrote which powers the bot, ie, "Nick's VW CAPS 4 Spins NZ". If shows one of the Statistical Ways to approach the VDW bet. More on the Statistics, which is a key element, in the following responses to Alrelax and Blue Angel.
Hi Al, thanks for your opinion and offer. I am not interested as what I do is for bots to be playing On Line Casinos not brick and mortar. Now if you make the offer $50,000,000 then I would be happy to divert my efforts.
The house edge in SZ roulette is about 2.7% and in baccarat around 1.06%. The Casino's know they will make this edge in the long run but they make the bulk of their money in the short run because most people are not professional and they are playing for fun or recreation, they are on vacation to gamble, watch shows, and eat good food.
The VDW does not have the vacationers to provide immediate income. It is a grind to flat bet 1 EC or 1 hand at a time. Later this week we will be completing 40 sessions of 1,000 spins each for a VDW system flat betting. I will publish the grind so you all can see how it fluctuates, how often it loses, wins etc.
Hi Blue Angel, always glad to hear from a critical thinker. Yes, you are correct, you will ultimately come to the 9th spin still with a 50/50 chance at that point.
What I was trying to explain is that there are STATISTICS that can be exploited. The 512 patterns are just one set of statistics that can be used. Using your example, what is the STATISTIC of getting to the 9th spin.? Less than 2% of the time will you get to the 9th spin. That means that 98% of the time an AP was formed before the 9th spin.
What is the win% for the first 6 spins? 68% of the time you will form an AP in the first 6 spins.
These are some examples of STATISTICS than can be utilized when dealing with a fixed set of data, ie 16 AP's and 512 patterns.
Cheers
Nick
I don't understand why you would test 1000 spins - for me it does not make sense
A test should be done in a realistic way and with conditions you have in real casino
Cheers
Hello Patrik,
I do not play in Brick and Mortar Casino's primarily because there are none near where I live. The ones that I have access to do not have baccarat and have only double zero roulette.
So with my background in programming, I decided to concentrate on testing and playing On Line Casino's for now and while 1,000 spin sessions seems a lot, it only takes my bot 2-4 hours to complete.
Cheers
Nick
As promised I have attached an Excel Sheet with our actual Demo Results covering 40,000 spins, (40 Sessions of 1,000 spins each).
The bet selection is one of my VDW for 1 EC.
It was played on the NZ table with BetVoyager.
All bets were 1 unit each.
We had over 30,000 placed bets which is generally acceptable validity.
We won 24 of the 40 sessions (60%).
We showed a small profit of 176 units or .0044/spin.
As you can see, it was indeed a grind.
If you played this in a Brick and Mortar Casino at an average 200 spins/hands per day, it would take 200 days to get these results.
Next step is to make this system better.
Cheers
Nick
Well done, Nick :thumbsup:
That should leave the flat-bet-naysayers more than a bit red-faced!
Thank you, Nick!
Are you testing the full 16 AP VDW combinations?
Cheers!
Quote from: Nickmsi on September 28, 2017, 02:47:55 AM
As promised I have attached an Excel Sheet with our actual Demo Results covering 40,000 spins, (40 Sessions of 1,000 spins each).
The bet selection is one of my VDW for 1 EC.
It was played on the NZ table with BetVoyager.
All bets were 1 unit each.
We had over 30,000 placed bets which is generally acceptable validity.
We won 24 of the 40 sessions (60%).
We showed a small profit of 176 units or .0044/spin.
As you can see, it was indeed a grind.
If you played this in a Brick and Mortar Casino at an average 200 spins/hands per day, it would take 200 days to get these results.
Next step is to make this system better.
Cheers
Nick
Thanks Max,
Hi Barron518,
I have tested all 16 AP's individually and in combination with each other. The VDW that I am testing now does not
use all the AP's.
Cheers
Nick
Thank you Nick for your reply. In your humble opinion, what is the best AP combination to be used? I know that the terrible two's is the nemesis of the VDW not to mention the mutual bets, but with your knowledge and experience, please let us know the best AP combinations if I may ask.
Cheers!!
Quote from: Nickmsi on September 28, 2017, 05:11:30 PM
Thanks Max,
Hi Barron518,
I have tested all 16 AP's individually and in combination with each other. The VDW that I am testing now does not
use all the AP's.
Cheers
Nick
Hi Barron,
Yes, the double chops (terrible twos)will lose as well as many other patterns but we have to accept the losses and keep on betting because eventually our edge will overcome the losses.
The Mutual Bets occur only on spin 7-8-9. I avoid playing the Mutual Bets.
A couple ways to avoid them is to bet only the AP's in spins 1-6. You will never get a Mutual Bet.
My preferred way to avoid the Mutual Bet is to bet only one side. Just Bet Black and you will never get a Mutual Bet.
Hope this helps.
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on September 28, 2017, 05:49:05 PM
My preferred way to avoid the Mutual Bet is to bet only one side. Just Bet Black and you will never get a Mutual Bet.
Hello Nickmsi ,
This is true, it is very practical.
It would be more accurate to say that you ignore it.
But it is there.
I will give an example ...
35
27
2
4
5
29
26
21
if you play the red side, you win on the 21 ( 2-5-8 ) we ignored 6-7-8
if you play the black side , you lost on the 5 (3-4-5) , you win on the 26 (1-4-7) and you lost on the 21 (6-7-8)
it is useful to see the details sometimes.
So if you don't Martingale till you win then you are expecting the wins to be more than the losses?
Even so, no one would become rich by betting like this because the units would fluctuate and at the best case you would be few units up!
The smaller the edge the less units you gain and if you are not a part timer then you must use high value units (black chips or more) in order to make a living.
I'm full time gambler and I know because I've seen all these before...
Thanks Plolp for the examples, I tend to get lost in the programming and testing and forget to explain things.
"So if you don't Martingale till you win then you are expecting the wins to be more than the losses?"
Yes, Blue Angel, we get more Wins than Losses and that is how we gain an edge. That is why I am testing everything Flat Betting to be sure there is an edge and when determined then we can add a progression.
As I mentioned before, I do not play in Brick & Mortar Casino's as none are nearby, so I am planning on playing On Line Only. You are right, this current system is a grind. If you Flat Bet with 1 Euro Chips you would only make 83 Euros per week which is a meager income. But our plans are to play more than 1 Casino per Day, then the income multiplies.
Cheers
Nick
I tried playing this system in following way:
If for a spin there is just one formation possible and it is starting to form, I bet it.
If for a spin there are more formations than one possible, I bet:
1) If all formations that are possible are starting to create and are for the same color, or
2) If not all possible formations are creating, but those that are creating are for the same color.
The results are nothing special, sometimes it goes up, sometimes down. Tested on some 100 thousands of no zero spins, flatbet. Winrate is nowhere near 60%. I also tested stoploss -2 but it didn't have any significant impact.
Therefore Nick, could you write how you play this system? How do you reach 60% winrate?
Hello MrG
Yes, you are correct, if you play it the way you outlined you get normal results.
The formation of AP's by themselves, no matter how you play them, will not give you the edge.
As I mentioned before, you need to apply STATISTICS to get an edge.
Statistics is analyzing a set of data for the purpose of drawing general conclusions, ie, facts.
VDW has a set of finite data, it has 16 AP's and 512 (9 Spin) patterns.
An example of VDW statistic is that 98% of the time an AP will be formed in the first 8 spins.
Another statistic, 35% of the time the AP 1-2-3 will be formed.
Another statistic, less than 1% of the time is the AP 7-8-9 formed.
Use of Math and Statistics will help you consistently beat a 50/50 game.
Cheers
Nick
Nick,
Neither roulette nor baccarat are 50:50 games. Your recent chart in this thread showed how you came out ahead over thousands of spins playing VDW, but it was playing no-zero roulette. Have you had similar results playing against the standard house edge or do you always test on a no-zero wheel? If the latter, your results will be misleading. Your apparent edge is so small that it wouldn't overcome the edge when playing the standard game.
Leaving aside the no-zero wheel, Pryanka stated the following.
[attachimg=1]
ok....so that's clear enough (or it should be)
Then in an earlier post, Pryanka stated the following when asked about GUT.
[attachimg=2]
So forget about GUT.....but read between the lines if you want to try and figure out what Pryanka was trying to get across.
cheers
Quote from: Bally6354 on October 03, 2017, 09:01:08 AM
Leaving aside the no-zero wheel, Pryanka stated the following.
[attachimg=1]
ok....so that's clear enough (or it should be)
Then in an earlier post, Pryanka stated the following when asked about GUT.
[attachimg=2]
So forget about GUT.....but read between the lines if you want to try and figure out what Pryanka was trying to get across.
cheers
Is this an effort to re-invent the wheel?
What kind of practical joke is this?
After so long you suddenly arrive to the conclusion that there's no edge there, congratulations for your big discovery!
Ask yourselves why such bet would win more than it loses, why?!If you cannot justify it in a sensible way then don't waste time on such things.
It must has a reason why it'll be overall winner!
Quote from: Blue_Angel on October 03, 2017, 09:14:15 AM
After so long you suddenly arrive to the conclusion that there's no edge there, congratulations for your big discovery!
Thanks! :thumbsup:
Anytime
Quote from: Blue_Angel on October 03, 2017, 09:14:15 AM
It must has a reason why it'll be overall winner!
I agree. But I don't see how using statistics will make VDW an overall winner.
Quote from: Mike on October 03, 2017, 09:36:28 AM
I agree. But I don't see how using statistics will make VDW an overall winner.
Hi Mike, it is the same for me, I don't see it either.
Take any statistic you desire and apply it to a real game of baccarat. Keep applying it and see how much you win from using statistics to wager on.
Betting for something to happen instead of betting for what the shoe is producing, is certainly a way to drain your bank roll faster than most anything else, IMO.
Here is the best way I can explain it and what I write is learned from experience.
http://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/randomness-equality-bias-in-real-life-casino-play/
"I agree. But I don't see how using statistics will make VDW an overall winner."
Let me give you an example of how Statistics are used.
Assume you have a biased wheel. Divide the wheel into 2 Sectors. Test for thousands of spins and the Statistics could show that 60% of the time the ball will land in one sector and 40% in the other.
This is a Statistical Imbalance that can be exploited.
There is a similar Statistical Imbalance using VDW that I am exploiting and my initial results seem to support it.
Right now this is not a system, I am just testing the principal of can you get an edge in a 50/50 game by a Statistical Imbalance in VDW.
When the results are known and independently verified, then we can address systems for SZ Roulette, baccarat, craps etc.
Cheers
Nick
Nick,
I see. Though I thought you already proved that it can be done by those 40 sessions of 1000 spins.
Maybe I could help you with trying to find if such an imbalance can be exploited by VDW. I can create scripts in Excel and I believe such a script could be done there.
Thanks for the offer Mr G.
I already have it coded in Excel as Excel is what powers my bot.
Yes, we have 40,000 spin results which look good but I have been around long enough to know that we need more results to validate. Currently we have 92,000 spins completed and the win% dropped slightly from 60% to 59%.
In about a week or so I need to get with Victor to fix a small bug in the XLBot and then I can send it out to other forum members for independent verification.
Cheers
Nick
A great and most innovative thread by Nickmsi.
Thanks Alrelax,
I am currently working on Part 2 of using Math to beat Roulette/Baccarat but have been recently sidelined by cataract surgery. Hopefully I will be able to post soon.
Cheers
Nick
Nickmsi,
You said, this a very stable bet,
May you please tell,
In 100placed bet, how it behaved...
Were the results,
always hit above 40win/100 placed bet?
How about 200placed bet,?
And 300placed bet.?
If it always hit around math expectation, then a mild progression plus virtual losses, could make this constant winnner.
Hello Beat The Wheel . . . .
In my opinion, you cannot get a "Stable Bet" by playing the Casino's Game of Independent Spins. Each spin has same chance of 1/37 of a number hitting, 50% for Red/Black (without Zero), etc.
By playing FTL, OTL, DBL etc you are playing the Casino's Game. You are only hoping that random will follow FTL or OTL etc. You have no control.
Take control. Don't chase random, let random chase you.
Don't think in terms of individual spins, think Group of Spins. The VDW is a Group of 9 Spins.
Here's an example of a Group of 2 Spins:
RB
That's it. RBRBRBRBRB etc. It is a fixed bet. You bet Red the first spin, Black the second spin, Red the third spin, Black the fourth spin, etc.
You will roughly win 50% of the Red Streaks, 50% of the Black Streaks, you will win RB streaks and lose BR streaks. No hoping, no guessing. No matter the variance, the results should be the same. Is this a more Stable Bet?
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 08, 2018, 01:17:03 PM
Is this a more Stable Bet?
When you say "stable" I assume you mean that the variance is lower than it would be if you were just betting red, or picked your next bet by flipping a coin. The answer is no, and not only for that bet selection. ANY and ALL bet selections will produce the the same variance. There is no such thing as a more stable bet.
Thanks Nickmsi for your explanation.
As I see it, if you bet a fixed color, example, RED only,
Then,
The 123 same as 234, 345, 456, 567, 678, 789,
Which are streaks of three in row.....rrr
The 135, same as 246, 357, 468, 579.
Which are chops, rbrbr...
The 147 same as 258 and 369...
Which are rbbrbbr....
And 159 the only rbbbrbbb
Thus lose if the pattern breaks. ...when we bet the "third"
Thus if 2persons bet opposite color, then a person must hit....in the 9spins.
When 2persons bet the opposite, red and black
Then, 123....
When rrrbbb hit, the red person win, the black also win,
When, 135...
rbrbrb
Both also win
When 147...
rbbrbbrbb
Both win,
When 159...
rbbbbrbbbr...
Both win...
xrrxrrxxxxrxxx
The red losses all 123, 135, 147, 159 or equivalent.
Quote from: Nickmsi on July 08, 2018, 01:17:03 PM
Hello Beat The Wheel . . . .
In my opinion,
Take control. Don�t chase random, let random chase you.
Don�t think in terms of individual spins, think Group of Spins. The VDW is a Group of 9 Spins.
Here�s an example of a Group of 2 Spins:
RB
That�s it. RBRBRBRBRB etc. It is a fixed bet. You bet Red the first spin, Black the second spin, Red the third spin, Black the fourth spin, etc.
You will roughly win 50% of the Red Streaks, 50% of the Black Streaks, you will win RB streaks and lose BR streaks. No hoping, no guessing. No matter the variance, the results should be the same. Is this a more Stable Bet?
Nickmsi,
Your thought very helpful,
Now I understand what you mean group2spin,
where the only sequence , in this rb, the loser is streaks of brbrbr...
Thus, in group of 3spins, say rbr, then the loser is streaks of brb...
Thanks.
Hi Mike,
You are right, the variance caused by random does not change no matter what, but I was referring to the fluctuation (variance) of your results.
Is there any difference between a bet selection based on a single independent spin or one based on a Group of Spins? If so, what are the differences? Can they be exploited to our advantage, maybe even gain the "EDGE" that Mike and Xander often referred to. I intend to explore this in more detail in a new thread "Use Math to Beat Roulette/Baccarat-Part 2".
But for now, let's see if we can give Beat The Wheel something to think about in his search to find something more stable.
Let's compare the single spin bet selection of FTL (Follow The Last) to the Group of 2 spins "RB". Remember, RB is a fixed bet, it does not change. It does not rely on random for its bet selection.
Playing Single Spin FTL you will have:
RRRRRRRRRR Long Win Streak on Red (you win 10 units)
BBBBBBBBBB Long Win Streak on Black (you win 10 units)
RBRBRBRBRB Long Loss Streak on Chops (you lose 10 units)
BRBRBRBRBR Long Loss Streak on Chops (you lose 10 units)
Playing Group of 2 Spins RB
RRRRRRRRRR Break Even Streak on Red (you win 0 units)
BBBBBBBBBB Break Even Streak on Black (you win 0 units)
RBRBRBRBRB Long Win Steak on chops (you win 10 units)
BRBRBRBRBR Long Loss Streak on chops (you lose 10 units)
Do you see the difference? FTL has 4 Long Streaks and Group of 2 Spins RB has only 2 Long Streaks and 2 break even streaks, hence the fluctuations (swings in your bankroll) will be less and you are more likely to get a more Stable Bet Result.
This is not a system, nor strategy and there may be other bet selections that do the same but this is a difference that might indicate there is something more to this Group of Spins theory or perhaps Nick is full of it again. Time will tell.
Hello guys,
The pairs in any format are always interesting to re-visit in case anything catches the eye.
I always go back to either a missing pair of the following.....
Red/Red or Black/Black
Odd/Odd or Even/Even
Low/Low or High/High
In the following example, Red/Red has missed three times and is what I would term as the furthest back because the Red/Black, Black/Black and Black/Red are all more recent.
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
The numbers and colour as they appear are as follows......
27 R (L)
8 B (W)
2 B (W)
34 R (L)
31 B (W)
31 B (W)
18 R (L)
13 B (W)
26 B (W)
26 B (W)
17 B (W)
34 R (L)
6 B (W)
36 R (L)
21 R (L)
22 B (W)
24 B (W)
21 R (L)
22 B (W)
30 R (L)
9 R (L)
23 R (L)
The W/L registry is not too severe!
I often think about VdW in it's simple guise and these pairs. You can play for the arithmetic progression in 9 spins and get a few losses and then no bet because of the mutual situation. Any missing or 'furthest back' pair has to give you a win if you back the opposite pair as long as the furthest back pair continues to miss (excluding the 0/00).
cheers
Just on the subject of the VdW for the E.C's.
It was probably mentioned before somewhere, but you can run two different streams using the same numbers.
So here, I am looking for the traditional arithmetic progression and also using a 'same/difference' stream as well.
[attachimg=1]
Now just thinking about it, I seem to remember you can't get a mutual bet situation up to spin 6. You can only get them from spin 7 onwards. So using the 2 streams like above up to spin 6 maybe isn't such a bad way instead of playing just the one stream through to spin 9.
cheers
Hi Bally, thanks for your input.
I too like the double streams as it gives you twice as many bets.
Nick
Cheers Nick!
I am looking forward to reading/studying your part 2 of using math to beat Roulette/Baccarat. I know there are quite a few of us still looking into the 'non-random' concept and it will be interesting to read about any new developments.