Author Topic: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN  (Read 34433 times)

valvo and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 557 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #405 on: April 15, 2017, 11:14:02 AM »
Mr P, in the first place, it's not wishful thinking but an attempt to capitalize on trends/clusters, which do occur. Secondly, it's not a "random" dozen. It's chosen by a particular selection process. You can argue that the process is flawed (but not according to the empirical data gathered so far), but the dozen itself isn't randomly chosen.

I think your post is just another example of "It's not AP so it won't work!".   ::)
 
The following users thanked this post: december

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Thanked: 487 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #406 on: April 15, 2017, 01:12:11 PM »
Because you can't have either WW or LL in this system in 2 consecutive numbers.

I agree you can't have LL in 2 consecutive numbers, but why can't you have WW in 2 consecutive numbers? This makes me think the way I'm choosing triggers is completely different from the way you're doing it. According to my understanding, this is valid:

M
M
H  Trigger = H
H  win. Now look back 3, the trigger is M
M  win.

So 2 wins in 2 spins??

I think we need to go back to basics and clear up any misunderstandings and ambiguity.
Now I see how you get WW.
Translating your example into numbers it will look like this:
M M H H M:   20-21-30- 31-22.
The first trigger (20-21-30) wins with 31.
That forms another trigger which is 21-30-31 which also wins consecutively with 22.
I don't know if I  made it clear from the beginning, but I always meant to use fresh new numbers when proceeding in the next trigger after one trigger was processed. ( whether it was W or L).
In this example I'd wait for new numbers to spin after 31. Without taking into account any previous numbers prior to 22. (31 was the end result of the last trigger)
Maybe that wasn't clear from the beginning. But in my manually processed examples I always circled the next trigger using fresh numbers. If I had to circle previous numbers, obviously the circles will intersect each other and the picture will look like a mess, making it impossible to understand.
HARRYJ does use previous numbers if they form a trigger. ( with conditions of course).
To expedite the session, since he only plays in one roulette seated. Plus to take advantage of "the flow", whenever there  is one.
The system doesn't behave badly if you use prior numbers.
But I found that using fresh numbers only, it gets better results.
Plus it simulates  actual playing conditions.
That means after a trigger and its results, you have to wait standing by in the same roulette to see the next 3 numbers.
Which might take some time, waiting to see an XYX or YXX or XXY. Plus complying with the rules of selection.
However the next table, or tables (in a real casino), might already have a ready made trigger with the last 3 numbers displayed. Then obviously you will move over to that table.

Anyway I hope that this clears any misunderstanding about trigger selection.
Maybe that explains y I don't find 3 back to back losses, except in extremely  rare occasions, and certainly haven't found 4 yet.
I don't know if Terminator is using fresh numbers only, or uses some of the already spun numbers if they form a trigger.
Needless to say that after a trigger,  the 1 or 2 or up to 3 bets that you will place, are also considered
used up numbers. 
At the same time is this new information going to affect the tracker? 

« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 01:49:08 PM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: december, ShadowBlue

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #407 on: April 15, 2017, 02:36:26 PM »
This makes me think the way I'm choosing triggers is completely different from the way you're doing it. According to my understanding, this is valid:

M
M
H  Trigger = H
H  win. Now look back 3, the trigger is M
M  win.

So 2 wins in 2 spins??

A reminder of your first post in this thread:

Bayes, this is the way HarryJ picks triggers. Palestis has said in several earlier posts that he never uses triggers from previous bets.

Quote
Palestis, in your screenshot you've marked the spins starting at line 13 (H M M) as a trigger, but since the 3 spins prior to the trigger are LLL this breaks rules 1 and 2, so this trigger should be skipped?

Yes, it should be skipped. But, in my experience, the rules usually change when Palestis replays our lost games. No offense Palestis.

@ Palestis:

Quote
But I found that using fresh numbers only, it gets better results.
Plus it simulates  actual playing conditions.
That means after a trigger and its results, you have to wait standing by in the same roulette to see the next 3 numbers.

Yes, I second this. I experimented with lots of games using both Harry's and Palestis's methods, and the win/loss ratio was definitely much better with Palestis's. Even though Harrys' does get that lucky 5 or 6 wins in a row spin after spin sometimes, and it is more fun to play Harrys' because we're betting more frequently, Palestis's did have better results.

Quote
I don't know if Terminator is using fresh numbers only, or uses some of the already spun numbers if they form a trigger.

I only use fresh numbers, as far as all the games and tests I have posted in this thread. And I use all of your rules and Red Flags, Palestis, the way you explained them. I have also tested Harry's and Eddy's methods, as well as tons of different progressions, on the side, but all games I posted in this thread were according to your method's.

Bayes, can you please post a link here if you start a new thread with your progression? I'm looking forward to experimenting with it! Thanks.

« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 03:15:08 PM by TERMINATOR »
 
The following users thanked this post: Harryj, december, Reyth

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1309
  • Thanked: 763 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #408 on: April 15, 2017, 02:48:45 PM »
Mr P, in the first place, it's not wishful thinking but an attempt to capitalize on trends/clusters, which do occur. Secondly, it's not a "random" dozen. It's chosen by a particular selection process. You can argue that the process is flawed (but not according to the empirical data gathered so far), but the dozen itself isn't randomly chosen.

I think your post is just another example of "It's not AP so it won't work!".   ::)
So how much data you get  so far? It shows credible confidence interval, isn't it? It's definitely statistically relevant , stable in results and credible choice of a target, right?
    Obviosly nothing will work if you bank negative expectation.
    You can make your choices impirically, nothing wrong about it. Just need to do do it based on something other then results themselves.  You need hypotesys formed first and empirical confirmation later. It's all should be conducted in environment where parameters do have limits ( at least registered and accounted). If not, how you wanna have multivariable analysis sample size allowance without going multivariable in the first place?
  I'm not arguing, just informing.
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 557 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #409 on: April 15, 2017, 03:16:22 PM »
But I found that using fresh numbers only, it gets better results.
Plus it simulates  actual playing conditions.
That means after a trigger and its results, you have to wait standing by in the same roulette to see the next 3 numbers.

I knew that Harryj bet a different way, but I don't recall you saying your way gave better results. Not sure what you mean about actual playing conditions because if Harryj plays the other way the conditions are also "actual", but different.

Anyway, I will have to change the coding in the tracker but I would have had to do it anyway, so no harm done.  ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: Harryj, Reyth

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #410 on: April 15, 2017, 03:39:42 PM »
Quote
Anyway, I will have to change the coding in the tracker

I do believe this will be an improvement, Bayes.

Also, since you're changing the coding, if I may make a suggestion, I think it may also be an improvement if you start looking for a trigger immediately after a win (instead of waiting the full 3 spins every time). This will allow less waiting time between triggers. Especially since casino's will not allow us to sit and wait too long in between bets. And it will also increase our overall profits, since we'll be betting more frequently. At least these are what my tests show.

« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 03:46:08 PM by TERMINATOR »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 557 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #411 on: April 15, 2017, 03:47:54 PM »
TERM, waiting for "fresh" spins means waiting for at least 3 spins after the previous W/L before looking for a new trigger, so the waiting time will actually be longer on average, but that's ok because the 3 options on the tracker will make up for it.
 

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 557 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #412 on: April 15, 2017, 04:32:45 PM »
Bayes, can you please post a link here if you start a new thread with your progression? I'm looking forward to experimenting with it! Thanks.

Sure. I won't have time today to post it but will do in the next couple of days.
 

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #413 on: April 15, 2017, 04:42:39 PM »
Thanks Bayes. By the 3 options, are you referring to the "Dozens, Columns, and DStreet" columns? Yes, I guess you're right, if one was betting on 2 or 3 of these options in the same game. But I was looking at it from only betting on 1 of the 3 in an actual game. But it's okay, whatever you feel is best. It's your program, and you have done an incredible job with it so far!
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
  • Thanked: 920 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #414 on: April 15, 2017, 05:54:29 PM »
Bayes,
It is a simple question: What are the rules that tells you to bet 0?

Btw, betting 0 is like saying don't bet yet, wait for something. In a sense it is a new trigger condition incorporated into the progression.
 

palestis

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Thanked: 487 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #415 on: April 15, 2017, 11:54:01 PM »

Quote
Palestis, in your screenshot you've marked the spins starting at line 13 (H M M) as a trigger, but since the 3 spins prior to the trigger are LLL this breaks rules 1 and 2, so this trigger should be skipped?

Yes, it should be skipped. But, in my experience, the rules usually change when Palestis replays our lost games. No offense Palestis.

Yes Terminator.
After the LLL (8-12-11), the next trigger that should be skipped due to the presence of LLL prior to it, is 34-13-22 (HMM as you pointed out). And I skipped it.
 The green check mark on 34 doesn't mean that this is the trigger.
It simply means that 34 was the winning number from the trigger prior to it.  Which was 4-35-8.
Therefore the next available trigger is the one I used. 13-22-28. and I circled it indicating that this is the trigger. That is MMH. That's the trigger next to the skipped one.
I hope you don't take the green checkmark as a trigger.
No. It is the winning number from the trigger before it.
Here is how I do it manually:
All 3 numbers that form a trigger are circled.
Green check mark indicates the winning number. (Placed next to the spin that won).
3 Red dashes indicate that all 3  spins after the trigger lost.
If a trigger wins in the 3rd spin, I don't put red dashes in spin-1 and spin-2.
Or if it wins in the 2nd spin I don't put red dash in spin-1. 
I hope that clears any misunderstandings. 
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 12:06:36 AM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: december, Reyth

TERMINATOR

  • Search YouTube for MANDELA EFFECT
  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 321 times
  • Gender: Male
  • MANDELA EFFECT
This is just Too Bizarre! XYY Test.
« Reply #416 on: April 16, 2017, 05:10:41 AM »
Okay everyone. I am in the MIDDLE of doing another 4000 spin test (I have finished 10 of my 20 games), for the XYY trigger Test (with no "X" 3 spins prior).

Before I reveal the result, I want to mention something from my LAST 20 games.

As far as INDIVIDUAL WINS AND LOSSES, I had 413 wins and 751 losses. Out of 413 wins, the expectation is a loss of 837 times (11 times lost to zeros, 826 times lost to the other dozens). I only lost 751 times. A difference of 86! 

Which means I ran pretty damn good for those 20 games.

And those 20 games, for the XYY trigger, it also ran pretty damn good. As you know, the true probability is 2.3 wins per loss. But I managed 3.5 wins per loss!

ANYWAY, maybe I had a 3.5 to 1 ratio because I ran so good?!?!? Well, get a load of THIS! Out of the 10 (out of 20 games) tests I ran so far:

As far as INDIVIDUAL WINS AND LOSSES, I had 192 wins and 448 losses. Out of 192 wins, the expectation is a loss of 389 times (5 times lost to zeros, 384 times lost to the other dozens). But I lost a depressing 448 times! That's 59 losses OVER expectation!

Which means I ran pretty damn BAD for those 10 games. I ran TERRIBLE!!! Many, many losses in a row. My longest losing streak was 20 individual losses in a row!!!! WOW. The worst ever. (However, I made a profit in every game, because I never went above my 500 unit stop/loss limit)

But NOW for the whopper! How did the XYY test do??? You would THINK it would have done equally bad. Right?

However, the result is IDENTICAL to the last 20 games. It is EXACTLY 3.5 wins to every loss!!! Where the expectation is 2.3 wins for every loss. It is STILL doing awesome, even though I had many, many more losses than expected over all.

Anyway, I thought these results were impressive and inspiring and I just wanted to share it. There is definitely something to this XYY trigger with no previous X's in the 3 prior spins.

For these XYY triggers to do EQUALLY WELL whether I run GOOD or BAD, is really amazing.

« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 05:30:24 AM by TERMINATOR »
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis, december, Bayes, Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3933
  • Thanked: 1261 times
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #417 on: April 16, 2017, 07:04:43 AM »
Great work Term!  Your work is truly inspiring! :D

Bayes work is inspiring too but Bayes by default equals inspring!
 
The following users thanked this post: Bayes, TERMINATOR

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 557 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: This is just Too Bizarre! XYY Test.
« Reply #418 on: April 16, 2017, 08:38:04 AM »
My longest losing streak was 20 individual losses in a row!!!!

TERM, so that equates to 6 losses in row, counting 3 individual losses as one "attack" loss.

Since the bet selection seems to be in a state of flux (I believe palestis is also testing some other variation), I'm going to hold off recoding  the tracker until we get some firm results one way or the other. In the meantime I will focus on the progression, and add it to the tracker.
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis, Reyth

Bayes

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 688
  • Thanked: 557 times
  • roulettician.com
Re: NEW SYSTEM: SINGLE DOZEN
« Reply #419 on: April 16, 2017, 08:42:06 AM »
Bayes,
It is a simple question: What are the rules that tells you to bet 0?

Kav, less than 1 win in a cycle is the condition for betting 0. A cycle for the dozen bet being 3 spins, for DS it's 6 spins, etc.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth