+ Register

[Nickmsi]

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

[Garnabby]

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."

[TheLaw]

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!!!

[whopper1967]

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.

[audiokinesis]

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 bets
Wheel 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.
>

[Trbfla]

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!!!

[Albalaha]

@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.

[audiokinesis]

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".
>

[Albalaha]

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?

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

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.

[Blue_Angel]

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!

[gr8player]

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.

[james]

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?

[Blue_Angel]

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... !

[gr8player]

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.