Roulette Forum

Roulette Forum => Questions and Answers => Topic started by: MickyP on November 29, 2017, 08:43:23 PM

Title: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on November 29, 2017, 08:43:23 PM
As a system player I'm shooting myself in the foot with this one but here goes anyway...

System players mostly rely on spin history to kick off their game/session. We look for triggers/sequences/hot numbers/cold numbers/streaks and so on to determine where our bet will be played. All fair and well because this approach seems to work, if only to convince ourselves that our bet selection based on the recent history of spins is a winning placement. BUT, just in case it isn't, we have a backup plan of repeating the wager flat betting or with a progression. All roulette players know the drill so I won't beat you down with the details.

Now here is the shotgun aimed at my foot: one of the first things we learn about roulette is that it is a "random" game and that spin history has no influence on future spins. Hell! It's hard to believe that the waiting and tracking and waiting again to place an informed bet is actually in vain and that we are setting ourselves up for another expensive lesson.

Spin history has no influence on future spins. With this I understand the luck associated with the game. I also understand why MrPerfect only needs one spin on a B/M live table to start betting using visual ballistics . Is this the direction to the holy grail?

Palestis has an amazing trigger (xxy) for single dozen play and it works very well, I know, I've tested it with hard cash in a live casino. He doesn't know why it works and neither do I, but it works. Yes, the trigger is based on the recent spin history.

This can be likened to a dog running in circles trying to catch it's tail, the elusive holy grail. Lol

What triggers do you use and what is your guesstimate of its success?

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on November 29, 2017, 10:03:00 PM
There is a difference between one number not having an influence on the next number to show up and cumulative probabilty which deals with entire sequences of spins. 

We have been "spun" by our critics who only wish to focus (and have us focus) on a single spin and/or ignore cumulative probability, for their own reasons.

I and many others have proven the probabilities through simulations of millions of spins or exponential maths.

The Physics of Statistics uses cumulative probability to help us choose our bets.  These probabilities can be proven through simulations.

Here is a post I like about this subject:

http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=1905.msg27135#msg27135

Here is another from two folks much wiser:

http://forum.roulette30.com/index.php?topic=134.msg829#msg829
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on November 30, 2017, 12:04:50 AM
MickyP,  there is a data and there is THE DATA.
   I'll try to speak as simple as l can... but subject is quite complex.
   "Spin" is when something is spinning.  There are ball and wheel , they both have some speed besides other parameters.  Spin has time it takes... times , places where ball may arrive, how it jump, it's all fluid and changes constantly ( not every spin, but sometimes even every spin). These are "data" and it's perishable as an ice cream.  However, in all this caos of "data" there are specific points that show fundamental relationship between them( stability ).  Distances may change even in short periods of time,but these data points and relationship between them does not change ( unless another wheel/ ball..).
    These data points are "THE DATA" and do represent primary interest for a player.
    So, you are right when you say that l use one spin only for vb... but at the same time l use data points ( THE DATA) from all previous spins that l observed and written down.
   As you can see , what l call "spins " is a bit different thing.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on November 30, 2017, 02:37:43 AM
Reyth and MrPerfect , thank you both for shedding light on the subject.

The virtual loss trigger makes sense. It can be viewed as game management if you like.

The idea of each spin being totally independent is in fact an untruth as I understand it or better still a generalisation punted as fact.

I've read many articles that start off by stating that roulette is a game of luck and nothing more, yet by understanding "luck" (another word for random in this case) the player is able to manipulate events in his favour through selective betting governed by triggers.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on November 30, 2017, 11:08:30 AM
Micky, be careful with triggers.  Trigger is just an event,  events are open for interpretation and many people do interpret them incorrectly. 
    For example... loss trigger. Be it "virtual" or real loss, it's just a loss. It mean one thing only : something didn't hit. It's not very wise to expect something to happen while it doesn't happens.
Most probably this something is not going to happen for a while... really, do not bet on something that does not hit at the moment, especially if it does so for a while already.
      "Virtual hit" is much better option for a trigger , but somehow majority do not think that way.
    Make sure that your triggers do in fact produce events that you expect to the degree of high statistical significance. These triggers that are physics based are more likely to pass common sense verification. ... to tell the truth, l never seen a working trigger based on something else then physics. 
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: dobbelsteen on November 30, 2017, 01:47:27 PM
in the short run mode the outcome of the RNG has the behavior of a pendulum. This is valid for all kind of wagers and also for the profit and the loss. The experience player knows the feature or the behavior of the pendulum and use it in his benefit. You have to start  with study  the results of simulations or   real data.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on November 30, 2017, 03:45:05 PM
Its true that the full effect of using statistical triggers is by no means "easily understood" but we are definitely able to "control and manipulate our game" using them.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on November 30, 2017, 08:47:46 PM
Triggers do benefit the player if used correctly. The triggers that many players use are simply recognising a specific event with the presumption that a certain event will follow within X amounts of spins. This is based on statistics taken from spin history that includes a nominal amount of spins. However one reaches the conclusion to identify a trigger the fact remains that the trigger is a sign used to predict a future event. There is general concensus that using a trigger correctly increases wins over a session of play.

I'll look into the virtual hit trigger MrPerfect. Thanks.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on November 30, 2017, 09:58:56 PM
Micky,  you can try to figure virtual hits out by yourself as well.... but it belongs to uplied  math play area. ... with non random bet selections....  example of such a methodology can be found in system only part of forum...  it's only topic that l started.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on November 30, 2017, 11:10:04 PM
I think identifying the selection that has hit the most is a form of virtual hits?
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on November 30, 2017, 11:47:59 PM
Reyth, lm not sure what exactly you mean... "trigger" is event that show when to bet.
    In case of virtual hit , you wait till it starts to hit to start to place bets.
   It's normally used ( at least by me) , when some hiden condition may put active the target.
If target sometimes hits like there is no tomorrow and other times keep quite... especially if it happens from session to session... then some hidden condition is in place ( we do not know what it is, but we clearly see it  affects).
    We may try to identify this condition or just ignore it and use hit rate of our target as a qualifier to place bets.
    BTW,  not always something that has hit the most is the best target... it can be or not, depends on other things as well.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: LiveRouletteOnlinePlayer on December 02, 2017, 01:12:25 PM
Pattern may be a Trigger  ;)
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 02, 2017, 01:14:57 PM
Anything can be a trigger, as long as it triggers; )
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Jesper on December 02, 2017, 04:09:13 PM
Using triggers use to mean do not play every spins, and naturally the bank may last longer in time. Even the door can work walk home if the bankroll is empty (try to win 1000 with 100, "hit and run", next day is not the new, it is allways a continue. That's make all "stop while ahead", and "play a few spins change table" to become nonsense.
"I am unlucky because two times in   row the system fail??? If your system fail two times in a row, is not a problem, if it not fails in longer run, it is a short bank we talk about(never chip up)!
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Sputnik on December 02, 2017, 04:26:04 PM


There has to be a reason why there is a trigger or entering point.
For example if i want to aim for strikes using even money bets, then i stop after reaching two singles, because i know after measuring the probability scale that two singles versus one serie of three has a 50/50 chance.
Then i know i have 50% chance to catch series of three or higher, great if some one use positiv progression or want to win two in a row.

And is also triggers for when to hold on and safe guard your profits and not give it all back to the casino using any kind of system play. And they also have a reason towards why, when to exit.

Now you read so much on this forum, so this will not get your attention.
But this is one among others of my winning ways.

Cheers
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 02, 2017, 09:25:52 PM
Some interesting replies coming through.

I've  been thinking about this topic for the last few days and something I mentioned in my opening remarks begs to be challenged.  "If roulette is a random game of luck and past spins have no influence on future spins then why bother with triggers and or systems?" Everything about man and everything known to man about life and the universe  no matter how small or large, thrives on the repetition of patterns, sequences and so on. Roulette is no different. Using the 37 numbers on the European roulette wheel, a multitude of patterns, sequences and repeats will or will not occur over a period of time. Past spin information helps to identify the natural trends of the game but random still exists because the length of a trend can't be predicted.

The stock market operates in much the same way. It is not an exact science but if you are good at reading the signs, you can realise your goals. Roulette has so many more variables  than just 37 numbers: wheel and ball type, spin direction and speed, deflectors (diamonds) and degree of bounce, and so on. In the end the ball will come to rest on one of the numbers; it's a closed circuit.

As I stated earlier,  triggers work and can easily be identified in the natural flow of the game but like MrPerfect says, "be careful."  On this note of being careful, one should alway test information about roulette even if it was paid for. There is a lot of misinformation that is used to sow seeds of doubt into the minds of players. This is evident in forums like this where an idea is shot down instead of contributing meaningful information that will grow that idea. An example of this can be seen in the many systems posted by Ignatus using different triggers; he even posts graphs to illustrate his systems yet the response is weak. It's a time consuming exercise to think out and developed a system and the reason for posting the systems is to develop it further through brainstorming responses.

I'm grateful for the interest shown in this topic.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 02, 2017, 09:51:34 PM
Yes, I notice he seems to always come out profitable at the end of his posts.  I think he and Jesper are somewhat similar.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 02, 2017, 10:02:00 PM
 Micky... there is a fact, everyone knows it but not many accept.  It's HE. Systems are whatever they are, it's just how and when to bet. But need a target... it's a bet selection. And that one better being positive expectation on the long run... if not, you know what gonna happen, right?
    Designing systems is easy... l do it every day on the go. Difficult is to determine a proper target. That's why systems without a target do receive little response. 
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 02, 2017, 10:35:35 PM
Now that I think of it, you are right Reyth; good observation. By the way, I wasn't knocking Ignatus . I used him as an example of someone who contributes a great deal to the forum with little return from other members. I like his system development and if I were to use one I would test it virtually for a minimum of 8 full hours at a B/M table.

Every time I play roulette. I spend at least an hour observing the tables and running my play through my head, identifying triggers, trends and always for hot numbers and hot areas.of the  wheel. When I feel comfortable I play but rarely do I stay at a table for over 50 spins. At times I will carry my game over to a new table and adjust my approach to take advantage of the trends on that table. It's like reading a newspaper, flip through and spend time on the hot topics. I've burnt many a bankroll on long games at one table. I find it better to observe a table from a distance, I'm then more focused on my approach. When at the table playing, ones focus is different, less clinical with all the distractions around. I think a great way to start your play is to play virtual for a while first.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 02, 2017, 10:46:36 PM
MrPerfect, you say a system should have a target. How do you define target in relation to a system?

If for example the system is playing the double streets like Hermes 4x4 DS system, what would be the target to you?
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 02, 2017, 11:20:04 PM
And what is his reason to belive that these double streets do have positive expectation?
   Target is numbers that will come more then expected. And they should do so when/ while you are betting. If you can achieve it, system doesn't matter, choose one that will produce maximum profit on the sequence of hits  that you expect to be there.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 02, 2017, 11:44:26 PM
I see your point MrPerfect and if I understand correctly, you are referring to "target" from your game play perspective as a visual ballistic player. I can't fault you on that.

Target for non vb players could have a different meaning altogether. From your definition of target you refer to a specific number or numbers on the wheel while other player types may see single streets, double streets, dozens, EC bets or other felt clusters of numbers as a target.

Hermes system is based on repeating double streets or against a string of non repeaters like DS 1 2 3 4 5 6 . This is not a very common occurrence and thus the relative winning sessions this system produces. The progression is a deal breaker though.

Target to some who play the felt as opposed to the wheel could simply be a win goal of X amount of units.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 02, 2017, 11:57:28 PM
If I was to define portions of a system by name, the portion that I think Mr. P is referring to is:  Bet Selection

The pattern of 1-6 that you mentioned sounds like it is bet selection.  Generally, for system players, this is where we use probability & statistics to decide where & when to bet.

If I was a S/U bettor, I could do it based on either the wheel or felt (or even both).
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 03, 2017, 12:47:48 AM
When l was testing systems for a sake of systems .... l sou same thing happening with bankroll.... if numbers choice is positive it goes up, if numbers choice is whatever , it goes down.
   I can not show off with advanced math on this one, but extensive experience of contemplating same thing over and over is very convincing. 
    Systems are just a chortcut for money management and player's decision. They do require positive numbers as a target to perform properly..  and not only. Maximise the take of money per hour should be a priority of player , if he see this thing as an income.
    MickyP, target is a target, be it distances or numbers or a mix of both. As long as it's make profit. ... if l find someday something felt based, l will play that, but for now l just focus on what brings money .
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 03, 2017, 10:51:08 AM
Once again I'm inclined to agree with you MrPerfect . Playing roulette is all about making a profit. Those who say they do not play for profit should rather play video games at home.

I don't think that systems are a shortcut to playing roulette effectively. There are a number of systems that produce consistent winnings, not 20 X your bankroll, maybe 50% of bankroll but winning is winning. There are systems based on the law of thirds that are played off the wheel and off the felt when a cluster of numbers is identified as hot.

Everyone has their own opinion as to the best and only way to play roulette and because they are successful with their approach it doesn't mean that no other approach is right. I try not to knock the different approaches players have, instead I try and learn from them.

Triggers identify potential targets and if the target is hit as expected then it confirms the trigger works. You can't presume this with a few success but with hundreds of concentrated successes, yes, and this can be a felt or wheel based approach.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 03, 2017, 11:04:54 AM
There is a rull... first make hipotesys, then verify them. Target comes first, then you look a triggers for it and verify trigger on consequtive data taking..  then play. No any other math correct way. Even stats has rules. .. target comes FIRST. Everything else is secondary fine tuning..  if target doesn't win by itself, you need other target.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 03, 2017, 11:16:09 AM
Triggers identify potential targets and if the target is hit as expected then it confirms the trigger works. You can't presume this with a few success but with hundreds of concentrated successes, yes, and this can be a felt or wheel based approach.

A trigger "works" if the target hits at a rate higher than that expected using no trigger or just a random bet. This is what most system players forget. They dream up some trigger which appears to work. Usually, though, it works no better than random, but the player doesn't check whether that is so.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 03, 2017, 11:51:30 AM
That's a strong statement Mike, almost like sticking a cattle prod into the side of system players. I haven't associated with many roulette players so I wouldn't know how they "dream up triggers". Plebs who dream up triggers without testing them properly deserve to loose as do those who play systems blindly because a "pro player" recommended or sold it to them.

My approach is well thought through and planned from game entry to exit. My being on the forum is not to convince "the plebs" of anything. In fact I have not encounters any dumb members on the forum and if there are lesser skilled players than I on the forum then big up to them for taking steps to learn.

Would you be so kind and give us a positive approach to triggers from your perspective?
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 03, 2017, 12:22:19 PM
Micky,

It's not my intention to label any players as "dumb" because they use triggers based (only) on past spins. Independence is a tricky concept and we have an intuition that, because, say, 10 blacks have occurred, then red must come up pretty soon (because reds and blacks have equal probabililty of hitting). You can substitute red and black for any other bet on the table and any other number of hits or nonhits.

This intuition is incorrect.

What I'm saying is that if you believe that such triggers "work", you should test your particular hypothesis correctly. What's missing is the concept of a "control" group. Researchers working on a new drug might conduct trials in which there are 2 groups : one taking the drug and the other taking a placebo. If the placebo seems to work just as well as the drug this shows that there is no merit in the drug, yes?

In the same way, and using the above example of 10 blacks in a row, suppose you believe that this is a good trigger. What would "good" actually mean? It means after having seen 10 blacks and betting red, a red will appear, on average, within FEWER subsequent spins than when you did NOT wait for the 10 blacks. See what I mean? So in order to test a system, you need the "placebo" group in order to verify that the system/trigger actually does what you believe it will; namely, perform BETTER than the non-trigger, or a random bet.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 03, 2017, 02:41:46 PM
Now that was a meaningful reply. Thank you Mike.

Roulette is a bit like people's chosen occupations. Not everyone wants to be a white collar worker. Some prefer to be blue collar while other, the artistic type prefer no collar. The measurement of their success in life is their personal happiness and family wellbeing. Although they all strive to make money, some more than other want to enjoy the process.

On placebos, a good example to explain your point but in reality placebos outrun actually medicine in returning the health of a patient. Long story not relevant to this forum. It's just psychological conditioning, manipulating the power of the brain.pharmaceutical companies are like roulette scammers.

On the red black example, it would be silly for anyone to take the occurrence of ten black appearing as a trigger to bet red. That on its own is not a trigger but it is expectation. Although they are linked I think triggers control expectation to some degree.

The way I see it you don't believe that past spin history has an influence on future spins and thus don't believe in the trigger concept.

Judging what and how to bet is not an exact science no matter how deep the maths may go. You can not accurately predict what number the ball will land on. There is simply no time to calculate all the variables. As MrPerfect put it, "it's all about profit". No triggers works 100% of the time just like vb can not produce wins indefinitely.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 03, 2017, 02:47:19 PM
Yes there is a control group for such test. And it's not guessing or assuming.
It is the undertaking of testing millions of spins.
You compare what happens after 10 blacks or 10 odds or 10 highs or as many of whatever the system involves vs. betting from the beginning.
Definitely  you will hit more reds by betting on them from the beginning, but what happens when you run into 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 blacks in a row? (which by the way it happens frequently).
You will lose $10-20-40-80-160-320 ........etc.
Financially and psychologically most players will not be able to continue betting, even if a tsunami of reds was up ahead for them.
Then you compare that to  what happens after 10 blacks had already spun.
You see,  betting on red from the beginning you win 10,10,10,10, 10 (or whatever your min. bet is), very frequently, But when 5 black will show up, (which will happen many times),  you lose $310 (10+20+40+80+160).
It will take at least 30 straight hits on red to recover $310.
And I guarantee you that you will run into another 5 blacks long before you are able to recover your initial $310.
So playing that way, it's a  certain death sentence for the player.
Betting after 10 black, I doubt that you will always run into 15 + blacks in a row every time you bet.
Otherwise the score boards would be filled with one color in many tables as you observe.
Instead such situation is viewed as a total solar eclipse by most players. Meaning, it is very very rare.
What is even more rare, is to see 15+ black 2 or more times in a row.
A lengthy multi million spins test will reveal all the answers.
A trigger should be the result of hard work in testing.
Not a convenient starting point.

 
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 03, 2017, 04:22:02 PM
(https://taxfreegold.co.uk/images/Au79logo.jpg)

A trigger should be the result of hard work in testing.
Not a convenient starting point.


This is GOLD! :D

That being said, it is only ONE essential element in a successful system.

Even though we are very likely to miss many large and successive losses, eventually we will lose and we must successfully recover without fail; "lose" can mean different things but basically our losses will accrue to a point where our normal betting method is too likley to fail (successive drawdowns) versus succeed.

We can use probability and statistics to dig ourselves out; if we've done our homework with our trigger, it will serve us well in this process.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 03, 2017, 05:40:55 PM
So through extensive testing a trigger can be discovered and used to win bets going forward. In other words, through extensive testing it can be proved that past history has an influence on future spins. For some reason people avoid answering this with a simple yes or no (agree  or disagree).

What other way is there to identify a trigger than by studying spin history?

"Convenient starting point" is exactly that, nothing more. The game has to start somewhere and at some time. It's pointless following spins for half a day to get your bearing before you place your first bet. Reyth , as you say, triggers are a small yet important part of the game. In this thread the emphasis is on "important".

Please understand that I am aware that many of you who have responded to this thread are hardcore roulette analysts and your opinions carry weight but I have to challenge some opinions to better understand that contribution.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 03, 2017, 05:43:58 PM
You can't sidestep probability & statistics with theoretical independence -- probability & statistics don't care what anybody thinks.TM
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 03, 2017, 08:39:11 PM
As does random. It just remains what it is.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 04, 2017, 03:11:32 AM
The purpose of the trigger is to enable you to hit the target ONCE in a series of predetermined bets.
Once that happens the trigger expires, and you have to wait for a brand new set of conditions that form the trigger.
A trigger is not a license to a continuous stream of hits. Players who expect that, are in for a surprise.
And yes past spins have a lot to do what what happens now.
If that was not the case y do we always see a situation like the one depicted in the picture?
252 spins for the day and all the 50%  chances are pretty close to each other. The same goes for dozens and columns.
The are not exactly equally distributed, but they are close enough. And that's only 252 spins.
But definitely a far cry from what the anti-system proponents warn us about
In 252 spins you don't see 200 RED's and 52 blacks. Or 200 ODD and 53 even. You will never see that even if you take notes for the next 1000 years.  Y IS THAT?
And neither you will ever see  200-30-22 in the dozen/column distribution. Y IS THAT?
It's simple. In a random environment, all its elements have no choice but to follow their probability values. Due to variances that may not happens in a short term. But it will happen.
A trigger is designed to correct that. That is to ensure that in the short run you get a hit at least ONCE. It is the accumulation of single hits after a trigger that adds to a bigger profit at the end of the session.
Those who adhere to these principles and have the patience that goes with it, will always have a profitable roulette career ahead of them. Any short cuts or greedy behavior and they will be losers.

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 04, 2017, 03:24:46 AM
Though it may not be immediately apparent, DS 10-15 is clearly ahead of the rest. ;)
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 04, 2017, 04:58:40 AM
A well rounded explanation Palestis.

Triggers like you stated are like a single shot rifle. Once the shot is fired (trigger is used), you have to reload (identify a new trigger) before you fire again. There are no guarantees you'll hit the target with every shot but at least you're aiming in the right direction.

Patience as you've stated is vital to realise profits.

Palestis, how would you go about identifying a double street to bet on using a trigger?
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 04, 2017, 05:06:45 AM
I know the Pales method is hit and run but according to my research, there ARE times that a bet selection will hit and remain in a triggered state, still having a significantly greater probability to hit than expectation.  This phenomenon can persist for multiple hits before it changes.  A good part of the time, a single hit will end it, though.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 04, 2017, 05:16:43 AM
The trick is knowing when a trigger will produce multiple hits. One hit is fine per trigger.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 04, 2017, 08:16:08 AM
Though it may not be immediately apparent, DS 10-15 is clearly ahead of the rest. ;)
If DS 10-15 is ahead, ( in my picture example), which  are the other 5 DS's to compare it to?
You can't have 6 unique DS's if one of them is 10-15.
DS 7-12 includes street 10-11-12.  And DS 13-18 includes 13-14-15.
 You can only have 6 unique DS's if you take 1-6 thru 31-36.
The example was to show that large groups ( like EC's and doz./columns), tend to come close to equilibrium even in 250 spins. Anti-systems proponents claim otherwise due to the random nature of roulette spins. If that's true where is it?
They have to show that sometimes in 250 spins (or close to that many spins), there was 200 black vs.50 red.
But a situation like this is nowhere to be found. Not even 150-100
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 04, 2017, 08:34:27 AM
Palestis, how would you go about identifying a double street to bet on using a trigger?
I really haven't worked on any system, that targets a single DS (6 numbers).
I have posted a single dozen system,  and it has been discussed in the recent past.
A trigger that centers on betting a single DS would be hard to find. It would require a long term observation before a trigger is formed.
I assume that if you observe a hot DS in recent spins, it is  very likely to repeat once more.
I think 10 bets (or stop if you hit), with a mild DS progression should be appropriate for a hot DS.
A good testing would be to take the most frequently appearing DS in the last 20-30 spins and see if it repeats once more in the next 10 spins. ( the 10 spins that you would bet on).
If in lengthy tests that DS repeats at least one  more time in the next playable spins, then you got a system in your hands.
I would avoid systems based on a single missing DS, because groups of 6 numbers like the DS is, are far more volatile than systems based on missing dozens or missing EC's
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 04, 2017, 09:50:53 AM
True that a double street is more volatile than dozens due to the reduction in target numbers.

If one were to split the double streets into two parts, 3 and 3 random selection or use high/low for the split then work around playing two games simultaneously could this maybe present a less volatile game? I think it might work because the distribution into both halves is fairly balanced as noted in your reply. A trigger to what DS to wage on will have to be found.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 04, 2017, 10:20:28 AM
The way I see it you don't believe that past spin history has an influence on future spins and thus don't believe in the trigger concept.

Correct, I don't.

Micky, think about it : roulette isn't like a card game in which cards are removed from the deck thus affecting the probability of the next draw. In roulette each pocket is "available", as it were, on every spin, therefore the chance of red or a dozen or whatever doesn't change between spins. How, then, can you justify the opinion that past spin history DOES influence future spins? I'm not trying to antagonise you here, I'm really interested in your answer.

It's one thing to have an intuition that "red has to catch up soon", but another to persist in believing that it will when it's pointed out time and time again why this is an error, and when actual results NEVER tally with that intuition.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 04, 2017, 10:56:47 AM
Yes there is a control group for such test. And it's not guessing or assuming.
It is the undertaking of testing millions of spins.
You compare what happens after 10 blacks or 10 odds or 10 highs or as many of whatever the system involves vs. betting from the beginning.

Palestis,

I gather from this post that you're saying we are better off waiting for the 10 blacks, rather than "betting from the beginning".  I'm afraid this isn't the case. On average, you will make the same number of bets before losing 5 in row whether you wait for 10 or not. If you don't believe me ask Reyth to do a simulation. The only difference is that it costs you more in terms of time at the table when waiting for the 10 blacks.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 04, 2017, 11:41:32 AM
Mike, it's about the laws of nature. Think about weather forcasts; with all the technology used to predict the weather it's not always accurate.
Roulette too is bound by natural laws but that does not mean we can not get a generalised idea of what may happen over the next few spins by referencing past spins.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: dobbelsteen on December 04, 2017, 12:25:30 PM
In small samples the roulette has the behavior of a pendulum. From that point of view past history influence the future. On the long run the pendulum come in rest. This is the case when R/B is 1. It is value for all the chances
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 04, 2017, 03:54:04 PM
@ Mike
Whether you play R or B or any EC, one thing is for sure. That you will lose very soon as 4 and  5 same EC's occur very frequently.( If these EC's are the opposite of what you bet on). Now if you don't use doubling progression and only play with the same value chip, you will not lose too much, but eventually you will lose 2.7% if you play all the time. In that case it's not even worth attempting to play that way. It is the type play that falls under the definition of the HE.
It takes time to locate 10 in a row before you start betting.
But when there are several roulettes available in front of you, you have more choices. One will usually have the requirements that you are looking for, or be pretty close to them (like 9 reds).
The question is will it always the 10 black turn into 15+? and the answer is extremely rarely.
A simulation might find that it doesn't make a difference, but for that to happen it has to include millions and millions of spins, which translated into time it will be many years before you run into this situation. Maybe beyond the player's lifetime.  I don't know. At least you can win in this lifetime.
And it doesn't have to always be 10 in a row before you bet,  as this situation is rare.
It can be 5-6 in a row and 3 bets after that on the opposite.
As you look at score results like in Wiesbaden, you rarely see 8 and 9 in a row for the entire day.
That means that the entire day would've been a winning day if you waited for 5-6 in a row and bet 3 times the opposite.
And to speed up the time you can always observe 5 roulettes. It won't be long before one has the 5-6 in a row.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 04, 2017, 05:41:19 PM
There is one problem with that. .. any EC has same probability of occurring independently of what was before. EC is very broad category.  It has too much degrees of freedom to be limited.   Player may wait even for 20 of these, it doesn't change a thing. It's not a way to overcome HE and anyone with basic understanding of excel can verify it for himself.
    People who are unable to throw away school "education" out of their head and reevaluate all what they " know" , they will never be able to beat this game.
    You are conditioned externally to think " inside the box"..  as long as you not break " the box" , box will be all you know and all you can do. It's worst chains of slavery ever invented!!! These you can not see or smell. .. it's a prison to the mind and many continue prisioner forever till they die.
    Find the truth and truth will liberate you. Or keep rotten as a slave, it's your choice.
   PS.. these who dare are blessed, these who do not are cursed.  Stop to be your own jeilor and you will see the world how it really is. There is only one enemy to kill - your own limitations. Love yourself and you will kill yourself, hate yourself and you will kill yourself, become yourself and there will be no limitations to you anymore. You can achieve everything, you can screw up everything..... it's your choice always. Choose your choices wisely.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 04, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
MrPerfect you've outdone you self in the psychology department... very well stated

Being able to beat the game has just as much freedom to be limited. Beating the game has different meanings to different people. Two examples:
Beating the game could mean winning continously regardless of the HE.
Beating the game could mean evaluating your game play after a period of time and after wins and losses are calculated you record a profit.

I think all of us as players must be humble enough to learn from each other but as long as there are more looser than winners the current rules of roulette will remain intact. If winning is increased through a breakthrough then I'm sure the rules will change. You see, we are playing against two opponents, uneven payout on a win and the casino rules that limit the player like table limits. I wouldn't be surprised if casinos monitor roulette forums to evaluate their rules.

Today's spin results will be viewed as spin history tomorrow and through spin history there are few anomalies that stretch so wide that a cluster bet with a trigger, limitations included, will wipe out a player completely. In fact it can't happen unless a long streak of back to back losses are encountered. But, that's where a stop loss point if executed will save the player from total loss. It's how you condition your mind to play your game.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: dobbelsteen on December 04, 2017, 08:41:38 PM
Every spin on his own is indipendetly, but together and on the long run the result is predictable. Anomalies are corrections on past anomalies
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 04, 2017, 10:42:02 PM
Mr. Perfect
It's not about thinking inside the box. it's about what you see is  real life day after day,  week after week, year after year. Sure math and gambling experts say that every time you bet the probability of EC is 50%.
But how do they explain the fact that after 100, 200, spins etc.  most EC's do not have wide gaps with each other? Y you don't see 80 black and 20 red in 100 spins?
Or 150 odd and 50 even in 200 spins?
 Somehow they all seem to get closer and closer with their counterparts as the spins increase.  Not necessarily exactly the same, but definitely not too far apart as the rules of independent events dictate.
The only explanation is that individual random events, must comply with their probability values if taken as a whole. That means every event that seems independent and random individually, it has to answer to a higher authority if collected as a whole.
And its proven every day every time in every roulette table all around the world.
If you showed me a situation of 150 black and 50 red in 200 spins, then I would gladly accept your theory. But I just don't see it,  no matter how hard I search.
You can't prove things with theories. At some point you have to show a real life  example.
It's not that math experts are wrong and we are right.
Math experts have better things to do than dealing with roulette issues.
Do you know of any modern math experts or math PhD students that made their dissertation on roulette? Nobody. They simply don't care about roulette. Someone said long time ago that past spins have nothing to do with new spins and it was passed from generation to generation ever since. General statement but no mention to details. And its details that matter.
MIT students decided to play Black Jack and they defied the odds and the myth that you can't beat the house, and they walked away with $5 million in one year.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 04, 2017, 11:28:02 PM
If DS 10-15 is ahead, ( in my picture example), which  are the other 5 DS's to compare it to?

Sorry I always play with 11 DS as it reveals the functioning of each street within the selection and produces varied and unique (through geographically related) results. 

Ya, sorry, I felt a bit personally invested when you mentioned "even distribution" within 250 spins. ;)

Palestis,

I gather from this post that you're saying we are better off waiting for the 10 blacks, rather than "betting from the beginning".  I'm afraid this isn't the case. On average, you will make the same number of bets before losing 5 in row whether you wait for 10 or not. If you don't believe me ask Reyth to do a simulation. The only difference is that it costs you more in terms of time at the table when waiting for the 10 blacks.

I already know that over millions of spins the trigger will even out but that is not my experience on the felt.  If we play your suggested way, it is sure and quick suicide. 

At least with triggers we are able to control the betting environment based on the immediate probabilities, avoiding losses that are more likely and limiting our immediate risk exposure.

I don't care about the simulation.  I care about keeping my bankroll intact and taking advantage of the rare sequences that normally would have caused me to lose, using your suggested method.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/6f5m38.jpg)

^^^^^ This stuff needs to be bottled and sold!!! :D
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 05, 2017, 08:21:17 AM
Roulette too is bound by natural laws but that does not mean we can not get a generalised idea of what may happen over the next few spins by referencing past spins.

Micky,

You haven't really addressed the issue here. Roulette is subject to the laws of physics of course, but just how do previous spins influence future spins when the probability doesn't change between one spin  (or series of spins) and the next spin (or series of spins)?

At least in this game you can test your theories and don't have to rely on others' opinions. You can run simulations to test them or perform a statistical test such as the Chi-square test for independence (google it). There is no need for endless arguments.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 05, 2017, 08:37:49 AM
@ Mike
Whether you play R or B or any EC, one thing is for sure. That you will lose very soon as 4 and  5 same EC's occur very frequently.

And you will lose 4 or 5 bets just as frequently after waiting for 10 "virtual" losses. The waiting time is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you can find these virtual losses relatively quickly by moving to different tables or observing all the ECs. Do the simulations and find out the truth for yourself.  ;)

Quote
Someone said long time ago that past spins have nothing to do with new spins and it was passed from generation to generation ever since. General statement but no mention to details. And its details that matter.

This is not the definition of statistical independence but an absurd caricature of it. Palestis, if you're going to question the math, at least use the true definitions before criticizing them.

Quote
If you showed me a situation of 150 black and 50 red in 200 spins, then I would gladly accept your theory. But I just don't see it,  no matter how hard I search.

This is completely irrelevant to independence. What you're looking for doesn't lead to the conclusion you think it does. The way to go about determining independence empirically is not to search for long runs of missing outcomes, but to first locate the "virtual" loss, and then see how many more losses occur after it. For example if you want to find out whether waiting for 10 blacks results in fewer losses than when "betting immediately", locate the 10 blacks, then count on from there until you see the first red. You will find that on average the first red comes at the same number of spins later as when you're betting without waiting for the virtual losses, and this proves that the waiting was worthless.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 05, 2017, 09:10:57 AM
In small samples the roulette has the behavior of a pendulum. From that point of view past history influence the future. On the long run the pendulum come in rest. This is the case when R/B is 1. It is value for all the chances

dobblesteen,

That may be true, but this is worthless knowledge if you don't know WHEN the pendulum will swing back. Can you give us an example of how you know this by using past history?
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 05, 2017, 09:17:43 AM
 Mike, it happens that l know about this game a bit more then Google.  Why wouldn't you send MickeyP to ask me instead, when he has qwestions? ;)
    It happens that even basic probability does change from one spin to other. Other spin can simply belong to another category of spins that produce different ball jump, different bias pattern, or are more likely to throw ball from roulette completely to the floor.
   Simple example : dealer change or ball change. Do you see, "simple" probability,  as you call it, does not govern this game and is very weak math model used as refference, not as an ultimate solution to explain the game.
    Could you demonstrate, please,  how would you use chi- square to see independence of one spin from other? It's something l can not even remotely imagine, so l would love to learn.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: dobbelsteen on December 05, 2017, 09:53:20 AM
Before I start my betting ,I read the  stats of the last 50 spins. On average the pendulum swing back in 5 spins after a difference of 12 . If the stats show 32 R  and 17 B and 1 zero after 4 consecutive R I predict a profit.
In this case the risk of a Martingale is very low 
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 05, 2017, 09:56:46 AM
Mike you are asking for an example from Dobble.
Can you provide an example ( as it has been asked many times), that proves your claim? Or the math experts claim? You see we don't care about what the static probability is. Because it's irrelevant.
What matters is the probability of a series of bets, because that's the environment a player operates in.
The fact that all the roulette numbers remain the same, the probability of an EC will always be 50%. I assume that if that's the case, somewhere there must be a situation where in 100 spins there will be 80-90 Black and 20-10 red. That's not too much to ask. But such thing is nowhere to be found. Y?
The answer is simple. A 50% chance cannot go in one direction only. At least not for too long.
It has to favor both sides equally.  Individual events will always seek their rightful balance. The more random the better.
In a way a system player tries to predict a future "whole" now. Because  the whole will always balance all anomalies
Not in its entirety, but at least partially enough to produce a profit. The goal is profit, not to defy probability. 

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 05, 2017, 10:02:16 AM
MrPerfect,  Google is your first name.

I'm no maths guru so I'll sit back and learn like a good student.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 05, 2017, 10:14:55 AM
 Mickey,  the thing is... l need determined people to push my own understanding further. I arrived to the point where my conceptual knowlidge can replace need for taking data, so l can win with that very minimum l get in few spins.
     It's profitable, but unfortunately it shuts the door for detailed studies for me. I used to be recearcher, now lm just a player.
   That's why all this woodoo with vb lessons and rc sells. I crave detailed studies and challenges for a mind, if not, l get bored. 
    Education about the game that you could get with me will economise you decades of frustration and losses. It all comes for very modest price just to maintain you motivated...
 I need players as much as players need me and lm jenuinely interested to make them succeed. 
    I could give you contacts of people who really know me from this aspect so you could ask their opinion. ... up till now there were not many to desist due to their own limitations ( no patience...) , and none due to mine.
   Yes, it's agressive propaganda ;)
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 05, 2017, 11:33:14 AM
   It happens that even basic probability does change from one spin to other. Other spin can simply belong to another category of spins that produce different ball jump, different bias pattern, or are more likely to throw ball from roulette completely to the floor.
   Simple example : dealer change or ball change. Do you see, "simple" probability,  as you call it, does not govern this game and is very weak math model used as refference, not as an ultimate solution to explain the game.
    Could you demonstrate, please,  how would you use chi- square to see independence of one spin from other? It's something l can not even remotely imagine, so l would love to learn.

No probability "governs" anything because the probability changes according to the information we have. There is no "true" probability, there are just probability models which may or may not accurately model the setup you're interested in. The random variable you have in mind for VB is naturally going to be different than the one which is appropriate for modeling the distribution of numbers generated by the roulette wheel. In the latter case, the binomial distribution is a good model, even for a relatively small number of spins.

As well as requiring that  spins be independent, it also requires that the probability does NOT change between outcomes. If this were not the case then this distribution would not be an appropriate model for roulette outcomes and would not "predict" the distribution as well as it does (I made a similar argument in Thomas' thread regarding independence).

Regarding the chi-square test, I don't have the time to post a complete example but  there is one here (http://stattrek.com/chi-square-test/independence.aspx).
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 05, 2017, 11:37:48 AM
Mike you are asking for an example from Dobble.
Can you provide an example ( as it has been asked many times), that proves your claim? Or the math experts claim? 

Sure. Choose any bet you like which you think will be improved by using virtual losses and I'll show you it makes no difference. Don't make it too complicated though because I do have a life outside this forum and don't want to code anything which takes too long.

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 05, 2017, 12:07:18 PM
Mike, sample you provide for a chi- sqware test is a joke. Very sad one, lm not even laughing,  lm just disapointed. 
   I do not "imagine" anything like " random variable" for vb. You read too much books that you do not understand.  I retake my expressed opinion that you are good in physics. Judging by your posts you have no clue what it is about. You probably red in books or forums, but you are not an actual player ( the guy who apply), correct me if lm wrong, but l think you wouldn't. Truth is a qween, right, at least l hope it is so..
    So why wouldn't you start from now on your posts with something like " on my personal opinion based on Internet research..."
     It's too much ball for you Bro,  unless you wanna show the game!!!
    Don't take it personal, lm just being "impartially objective".   Things do not add up for a real player tolk. ...
   I like you , bro,  despite the opinions you express. Piece/love & rock'n'roll. ...
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 05, 2017, 01:15:41 PM
Mr P,

What is your problem with the site I linked to? Be specific.

My confidence in your knowledge of stats is falling fast. Apparently you don't even understand what a random variable is.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 05, 2017, 01:44:52 PM
There is no "random variable" in roulette. Most of variables has very particular property to f*** your bankroll, if you do not account to them.
    Mike, you are not player. That's why you do not understand my frustration with folks that post what they think is " right". Book knowlidge is what casinos have themselves... that's why l beat them in their own game. I'm not theory guy, lm the one who go to casino to take money for current expenses.  It's my atm. Right now lm posting from casino and l already got my money for today in 15 min of play... betting 3 sec in the spin... just think what it mean.
   I do not speak about "knowlidge" taken out of books or uni...  l tolk what l do. Do you understand the difference?
    Take rotor speed as " random variable" and think wich results you will get. It's just one of variables that kill non players.
    I got low tolerance for ignorance,  please think and use common logic before posting. It becomes frustrating and annoying. 
    I have nothing egainst website you posted, just not interested. I thank you anyway and hold possibility to change my mind in the future... but for now lm too busy to reconsider it.
   Big hug , Bro,  kill them on sports!!! Every time you win ,lm genuinely happy for you. FINGERS CROSSED... ;)

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 05, 2017, 02:15:51 PM
Mr P,

Apparently you were banned from the myrulet forum. No offense, but I think I'm beginning to understand why. Even if had the inclination to join your team I don't think I'd last very long; you'd drive me nuts.  ;)

Anyway, good luck with your betting.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 05, 2017, 02:27:15 PM
Mike, l drive many people nuts... it's because lm true Russian.  I speak truth..it's my only weapon. it's a product not particularly wellcome in current society...  no one likes people saying truth.
   However, as a team coordinator, you will never find better, for reasons mentioned above. You do not drive me nuts, l like you. Remember,  best friend ever is the one who is open with you, even if it's hearts sometimes....
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 05, 2017, 05:29:21 PM
Simulations will show triggers having no effect on the outcome over millions of spins but I repeat, in my games I lose rapidly and largely (relatively speaking) when I don't use triggers.  This is because, as Pales stated, the chances of achieving a loss are more probable prior to a trigger and vice-versa.

Regardless of the simulation/long-term theory, our games on the felt deal first with the practical results that apply to our small sessions.  Its just a factual and practical reality that we face as actual players.

If in war as generals, we see companies going head on into battle getting slaughtered but other companies that use flanking to attack and they wipe out the enemy, which should we choose? 

Playing "theoretically correct" is like the British marching into battle with a stiff upper lip, do or die versus the Americans who fought more like the Indians, hiding behind trees and rocks. :)

Its just about dealing in practical reality & facts in the immediate battlefield, which is our sessions.

We must also realize that our critics do not have our best interests at heart, they do not actually CARE about system play; their agenda is to push/sell AP as the only way to win.  This assertion is of course objectively impossible to prove and therefore is their opinion, which they tout as fact.

Attempting to crush the innovative spirit to create successful systems is an intellectual crime imo.  All I would ask is that AP's tone it down a notch from their false "AP is the only way as objective fact" and actually contribute to this forum in a helpful way.

At least Mr. P has an interest in relevant statistical facts concerning system play, even though he doesn't personally believe in it or play using it.  He should be the example for all AP's.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 05, 2017, 06:32:43 PM
Mickey,  the thing is... l need determined people to push my own understanding further. I arrived to the point where my conceptual knowlidge can replace need for taking data, so l can win with that very minimum l get in few spins.
     It's profitable, but unfortunately it shuts the door for detailed studies for me. I used to be recearcher, now lm just a player.
   That's why all this woodoo with vb lessons and rc sells. I crave detailed studies and challenges for a mind, if not, l get bored. 
    Education about the game that you could get with me will economise you decades of frustration and losses. It all comes for very modest price just to maintain you motivated...
 I need players as much as players need me and lm jenuinely interested to make them succeed. 
    I could give you contacts of people who really know me from this aspect so you could ask their opinion. ... up till now there were not many to desist due to their own limitations ( no patience...) , and none due to mine.
   Yes, it's agressive propaganda ;)

MePerfect, I give all people the benefit of doubt. I treat everyone with respect but trust none; the result of hard lessons I've learnt in life. I consider myself an intelligent person and reading between the lines is second nature to me. I appreciate your straightforwardness as I anticipated that sooner or later I would be confronted by one of the tutors on the forum with a request to consider their course.

I think any course adds to ones knowledge base, however, an invitation to become part of a team should be presented outlining the details of such a collaboration.

I have been a professional photographer for most of my working life and am comfortable in my own skin. I'm a creative person and prefer working alone. My roulette quest is a solo endeavour. I don't  take kindly to authority and pretty much create my own adventure through life. I see roulette the way I see a good photograph; the more simple the more powerful a photograph is.

I have a genuine interest in learning more about vb but for now I'm comfortable with my simple yet effective approach to the game. Anyone who reads my posts will be able to get a general idea of my approach.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 05, 2017, 07:49:24 PM
Simulations will show triggers having no effect on the outcome over millions of spins but I repeat, in my games I lose rapidly and largely (relatively speaking) when I don't use triggers.  This is because, as Pales stated, the chances of achieving a loss are more probable prior to a trigger and vice-versa.

How do you explain the discrepancy? There shouldn't be one. Are you measuring this (lack of) effect in exactly the same way in both situations? If there truly is a difference then it's worth investigating why.

Quote
Attempting to crush the innovative spirit to create successful systems is an intellectual crime imo.  All I would ask is that AP's tone it down a notch from their false "AP is the only way as objective fact" and actually contribute to this forum in a helpful way.

I think that's a bit harsh. Neither I, Mr P, or Real are deliberately setting out to crush anyone's spirit, although you may perceive it that way. In fact, the only one who has an agenda here is Mr P, and he freely admits it.

The only real problem I have with systems is the trigger thing, I have to admit it's a pet peeve of mine. It just does my head in when I read about yet another system which uses past spins to trigger a bet. I'm more relaxed about other aspects of systems like progressions. And triggers are not the only way of selecting your bets (apart from AP I mean). Just look at Jesper; he's doing pretty well and doesn't use triggers at all.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 05, 2017, 07:56:44 PM
Mickey,  l sell knolidge and tools that player really need. Money in the middle is really to filter these who has no patience to really learn something. ...
   I'm a data analitic. ..  game data analytic.  I charge 10% of win for my help to devise proper strategy of attack and betting plan.
   That's all about it.
  I look for future sindicate owners. I'm after creating franchise of roulette player sindicates...
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Sputnik on December 05, 2017, 08:09:13 PM


Mike one thought that strike my head about past results.

You know traders setting odds for different games and use value betting to do so.
They look at past meetings and the present shape of the team, they look at damage, diseases among other things.
So they get a true picture how to estimate each teams future performance.

Now for example team A maybe get the odds 2.10 and the other team B the odds 1.65
The sportbetting site or bookie take a fee when you place a bet.

In the long run the majority odds at 1.65 versus 2.10 should win.
So the trader use different tools setting odds then just value betting, sometimes they are lazy and just follow the sportbetting market who already done the value betting analysis.

One cool thing is that you can get into the head of a trader and measuring there skills setting accurate odds.
You can see how many times they are right and wrong just like a coin flip.
I use STDS and past results to see how accurate they estimate each game and know the common STDS values for failure and succés.

And now i use the two words you hate - past results and triggers ...
I see it like a stockmarket with rising prices and falling prices.

Cheers
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 05, 2017, 08:25:16 PM
Interesting MrPerfect. As I stated in a different post, I'll follow your posts closely and that is what I'll do for now. We will continue this discussion at a later date.

Is it still an agenda if intention is clearly stated?

Mike, your contribution to this discussion appears to be laced with an agenda. Your agenda is to contaminate a meaningful discussion that will deprive  others of their free will to decide for themselves whether to use triggers in systems or not. You want to introduce  your opinion as the only approach to winning roulette. It is not the only gospel to winning. However, you did contribute to answering the original question even if it was to shut down the discussion. Did you do this to spare us the pain of defeat? I wonder!
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 05, 2017, 10:10:47 PM
I agree with you that the discrepancy IS worth investigating.  I explain it with simple probability & statistics, where .9916 < .999 and therefore occurs more commonly.  Over time the difference in the statistics is mitigated but that doesn't mean that there is not an objective difference between the two approaches.

I don't have a choice, like I stated above, if I march into battle with my troops (bankroll) according to the British model, I am more likely to get my men killed.  I prefer to watch the other companies get killed and my men flank to achieve the victory.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 05, 2017, 10:31:58 PM
Mike you are asking for an example from Dobble.
Can you provide an example ( as it has been asked many times), that proves your claim? Or the math experts claim? 

Sure. Choose any bet you like which you think will be improved by using virtual losses and I'll show you it makes no difference. Don't make it too complicated though because I do have a life outside this forum and don't want to code anything which takes too long.
Here is a clear example from yesterday's results at Wiesbaden casino. Lets say you chose to play RED throughout:
As soon as the session started you get hit with 7 black. That's an immediate loss of 1+2+4+8+16+32+64 or  127 UNITS. How to you get back 127 units at 1 unit per win?
You have to have 127 consecutive wins.
Then not too long after that you get hit with 4 black. Then with another 4. Then with another 10 black (with the 0). And several others with 5 and 6 black in a row.
A session like this would bankrupt any player unless he was Bill Gates.
Just the initial 7 black in a row, would've  forced every player to go home defeated. And it happened within minutes from starting.
Starting from the beginning without trigger guidance is a financial suicide.
There was a 10 non red streak which was followed by a red right after.
You may claim  that that I only played ONCE.
Well, at least it was a winning bet even if it took all day to play it.
But look at the disaster it saved you from.
How can you persist claiming that it makes no difference whether you start from the beginning or after a streak of the opposite?
Lets say 10 in a row is time consuming to find.
Lets place 5 bets after a streak of 5 black.
THE ENTIRE SESSION WAS GOING TO BE A WINNING SEESION Vs. a catastrophe by starting from the beginning.
And here is a bonus.
There were several streaks of 5 reds or 5 odds or 5 evens that turned out to be winners if you played the opposite UP TO 5 times.
You see when starting from the beginning you chose 1 EC.
Betting after a streak allows you to take advantage of EVERY EC if it is a trigger.
If you or any body else is not convinced that starting from the beginning is absurd, then I must be from another planet.
What would've  your simulation come up with if you did a testing?
The answers are loud and clear in front of everybody to see.

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 05, 2017, 10:50:59 PM
No one really wanna crush a system players... they are nice generator of ideas... many of them do posses programming skills... and very nice folks in general.
  I , for example, only step in the discussions of systems  if something interesting is going on or something really whatever. I myself already spent a lot of tyme testing and implementing systems, if l see that " road to nowhere " is being discussed, then l try to prevent players to research in that direction best l can.
   What l do not like is when systems that has no chance to win ever are being promoted as a "sure fire"...
    There are "systems" that do have a chance to win , l give such systems to my students. They are physics based and in its core they are shortcuts to full fledged AP methods...
    As long as they remember ( students) that such systems are based on physics and there is a need to control variables, they can use it. Shortcut is shortcut, but need to know all roadmap to implement such a " system".
    Even between AP there are these that like it difficult ( l was and in many ways still is the one of them), but many use very simple methods, wich are result of deeper understanding of the game. Spectators look to such people and perceive them as " system players".... these do absolutely the same , not betting red of cause, but... for a casino eyes lm not different that any player out there... l do same. Everyone click on terminals... l do the same... very early into the spin, rediculosly early. I play on count, do not bother to use rc any more...
    Infact l just moved my training sessions wich l used to do with count only from home wheel to casino... it's a great exercise, preparing to Vegas. .. already becoming reasonable in covering bets manually ( number by number on the felt) to these places where racetrack is not available. ... Life goes on and l wanna my 1M hit as much as always wanted or more. Every day lm one step more near... 
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 05, 2017, 11:14:04 PM
But look at the disaster it saved you from.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/URcUvFIUIhQ/maxresdefault.jpg)




There is one thing that our critics have not factored in and that is AVOIDING LOSSES.

Here is the example that I have encountered and that inspired me to make this quote:

If I receive a gap of 13 spins on my selection, I will begin betting because the static odds of not gapping for my entire progression are .999 . 

Many times now, I have watched my selection gap from the beginning of the sequence and then yield a hit and profit to my trigger.  EACH one of those losses would have cost me 443 BU and so even if our waiting nullifies the .999 and the odds are the same for me to get a hit (.9916), I will have saved thousands of BU over betting continuously!!!

Granted this is mitigated by the wins I missed while not betting but there is another benefit that they also do not factor in, which is the RISK OF RECOVERY. 

Every time I have a loss, I face the risk of multiple successive drawdowns and so not only do I save money against losses but I also dramatically decrease my risk!

So our critics give us advice that will cause me to lose more often and increase my risk!!!
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 06, 2017, 08:08:55 AM
Is it still an agenda if intention is clearly stated?

Mike, your contribution to this discussion appears to be laced with an agenda. Your agenda is to contaminate a meaningful discussion that will deprive  others of their free will to decide for themselves whether to use triggers in systems or not. You want to introduce  your opinion as the only approach to winning roulette. It is not the only gospel to winning. However, you did contribute to answering the original question even if it was to shut down the discussion. Did you do this to spare us the pain of defeat? I wonder!

Micky,

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Where have I stated WHAT my approach is to winning roulette? Mr P has stated his agenda clearly and he's not shy about admitting it - he wants to convert system players to AP. My "agenda" is to argue that using virtual wins and losses is ineffective. If pushed, I will argue that AP is the most effective way to secure long-term profits, but it's not in general my agenda, and certainly not in this thread.

And how can anyone "deprive others of their free will" by arguing for or against some position? It's not as though I'm attacking anyone personally or insulting their intelligence like thomasleor in the other thread who said "you are a half wit. Case closed". That kind of response contributes nothing to the discussion and demeans both parties. In my view, one of the best ways to shut down a discussion is to say "it's only your opinion". You can't really argue with that, can you? "It's only your opinion" is an attempt to reduce what is essentially an objective matter into a purely subjective one, as though it's a matter of personal preference and there isn't any truth one way or the other.

I appreciate Palestis' responses even though I disagree with him, because at least he gives me something I can work with. I have offered to code any system which uses virtual wins and losses and will do it on HIS terms. Just how is this "shutting down the discussion"?

Quote
Did you do this to spare us the pain of defeat? I wonder!

lol, this is one of those "have you stopped beating your wife yet" type questions. Whether I answer yes or no I'm still defeated. If you assume I've been defeated, or will be defeated, what are YOUR reasons for assuming it? Please give a meaningful reply if you want to continue the discussion, otherwise I will take it that you have decided to shut it down.  ;)
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 06, 2017, 08:22:31 AM
Mike one thought that strike my head about past results.

You know traders setting odds for different games and use value betting to do so.
They look at past meetings and the present shape of the team, they look at damage, diseases among other things.
So they get a true picture how to estimate each teams future performance.

Sputnik,

Just to clarify, I'm not against using past spins per se, that would be ridiculous. As you rightly point out, the only way to get a reasonable model for betting purposes is to use empirical results. That applies to roulette as well as sports betting. Independence means that past outcomes do not INFLUENCE future outcomes, but that doesn't mean that previous INDEPENDENT observations can't help you to predict what will happen in future outcomes. Suppose I record several thousand roulette spins and find that the wheel is biased. That being the case, I have used previous results to obtain knowledge regarding possible future results, but it would still be a case of the gambler's fallacy if you try to argue that because some number hasn't hit lately on this wheel, it will turn up soon.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 06, 2017, 09:24:26 AM
Mike, You clearly misunderstood  the question/statement: "Did you do this to spare us the pain of defeat? I wonder!"
This is referring to your knowledge of roulette and I can see that you are a knowledgeable player. Your stance on the matter indicates that discussing the use of triggers is a dead end street and those of us who use triggers will loose. Sparing us the pain of defeat is telling us to drop the discussion on triggers otherwise we will fail. Triggers will defeat us. I can not put it any simpler for you.

The original question of the post: What triggers do you use and what is your guesstimate of its success?
Although you posted on the subject you didn't and can't answer the question because you don't use triggers.
Your words: "The only real problem I have with systems is the trigger thing. I have to admit it's a pet peeve of mine."
I see your statement as motive enough to want to close the discussion down and that I note was your agenda for joining the discussion. Start a different subject on why triggers don't work but don't use your pet peeves to derail this discussion on the use of triggers.

MrPerfect if anything is diplomatic about his agenda to convert system players to AP. He is not forcing his will on others but rather engaging Iin discussions offering his guidance and knowledge  to allow players to make informed decisions as they progress in their own game play.

I will not insult you or your intelligence  but I do find you arrogant and I will not want to learn anything about roulette from you.

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 06, 2017, 09:51:00 AM
Mike, You clearly misunderstood  the question/statement: "Did you do this to spare us the pain of defeat? I wonder!"
This is referring to your knowledge of roulette and I can see that you are a knowledgeable player. Your stance on the matter indicates that discussing the use of triggers is a dead end street and those of us who use triggers will loose. Sparing us the pain of defeat is telling us to drop the discussion on triggers otherwise we will fail. Triggers will defeat us. I can not put it any simpler for you.

Micky,

Ok, I misread your last sentence - I didn't see the "us" in it. My apologies for my last paragraph which was obviously unwarranted. However, I stand by my other statements. The fact that it is indeed a pet peeve doesn't detract from any of the arguments I give or empirical evidence that I provide. That would be to take the motivation for posting for the actual content. The merit of a post should be judged on its content, not on whatever the poster's motivation was for posting it.

Sorry if you think I'm not diplomatic, maybe it's because I'm a Yorkshireman; we call a spade a spade.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 06, 2017, 10:37:29 AM
All is well Mike.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: thomasleor on December 06, 2017, 10:38:27 AM

Sorry if you think I'm not diplomatic, maybe it's because I'm a Yorkshireman; we call a spade a spade.

Nice self-definition there Yorkie boy, and pretty accurate because one thing about Yorkies that is true is that they have a refusal to acknowledge any other point of view; an innate belief in their own infallibility, and, possibly the worst characteristic because it incorporates all the others, the way they wear their Yorkshireness like a uniform, or a suit of armour. They usually live by the credo; "you can always tell a Yorkshireman, but you can´t tell him much."

I ´ve always found the type laughable to say the least. Never waste your energy on a Yorkie, like stones in nature, you can affirm their presence but you can always climb over them and continue your journey to much more interesting places to be.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: dobbelsteen on December 06, 2017, 10:48:11 AM
My system use a trigger of 10 consecutive EC occurrences. Waiting for 10 Red in a row is loss time. A random row of 10 ECs has the same feature as the 10Red in a row. For this trigger is no waiting time. You can start the betting immediately.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 06, 2017, 11:34:10 AM
 No AP ever should tell that triggers do not work. AP is all about triggers and decisions based on them. Ball starts to jump differently - trigger to look and think, rotor speed is different- trigger to adjust, dealer becomes evil creature from hell - trigger to run away!!!
   But these are " physical triggers" based on cause&effect relationship, they are statistically significant,  tested and retested... ets. In one word, these are reliable.
   Now lets look to "red " as a trigger.... Red is numbers all ower the place, they are not consentrated to any zone on the wheel in particular.. somehow evenly distrebuted. Red means that some number hitted and it happen to belong to random choice category" red". Many reds on the row just mean that ball stop many times on some randomly numbers all over the place. How to use such a thing as a trigger, what it triggers? Is this " trigger" tested and reliable, statistically significant?  I need to see to belive, it's egainst common logic.
   Even if such a trigger could possibly be isolated and tested on one wheel, it will definitely not work on other, so no need to create systems based on that.
   Most precious currency in the world is personal life time. You can by anything for these , but can't by personal time back anyhow... invest wisely. 
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 06, 2017, 12:18:09 PM
There was a 10 non red streak which was followed by a red right after.
You may claim  that that I only played ONCE.
Well, at least it was a winning bet even if it took all day to play it.
But look at the disaster it saved you from.
How can you persist claiming that it makes no difference whether you start from the beginning or after a streak of the opposite?

Palestis,

It's an example which does show that, in this case, it paid off to bet after the virtual loss. But the way you're going about trying to prove the long term merit of the strategy isn't a reliable one. For one thing (and I'm not suggesting that you're deliberately doing this), it's very easy to select the outcomes which favor the system when you're picking them from Weisbaden.

The main thrust of your argument seems to consist of the undeniable fact that you will get to 5 losses before getting to 10, and that you see a lot of 5-in-a-row but virtually no 11-or-more-in-a-row (assuming your virtual loss trigger is 5 in a row). I know I won't convince you otherwise by more "theory" about independent outcomes, so I'll code this system and compare results, using a 5 step martingale. You can provide the spins if you like, but I'll need a few hundred thousand. I think some are available on this site somewhere.

I'll generate a report which shows the number of busts and the average number of spins before a bust. Feel free to suggest anything else you'd like to see.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 06, 2017, 10:21:26 PM
The problem is that you don't play roulette.  When you have skin the game it makes a difference in the way you approach it. 

I have saved countless thousands of BU's by letting losses go by and profited again and again because I delayed my bet.  Snap running a simulation just simply doesn't provide that perspective.

Which is more important, a long-term theory that takes place over millions of spins or what is more likely to happen RIGHT NOW while I am spinning with money on the felt?

I dislike theoretical discussions that have the effect of discouraging people from developing  themselves because it IS only your opinion and there is room either way for people to form their own opinion.  If you would simply approach it that way, I would have no problem.

I apologize for sounding harsh about this but this IS a roulette system player forum that gives equal space to all forms of play.  If someone comes in and says that the general purpose of this forum is impossible for anyone to achieve (and especially without being able to objectively prove their point and the burden of proof IS on the accuser!), it only makes sense and it is only right, that opposition is formed.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 06, 2017, 11:42:08 PM
 In case of black/ red it doesn't really make sense to wait anything and martingale after. Tested - do not work.
   Now..  in case of proper bet selection, such or similar trigger could potentially be found. Anyhow, triggers based on hits work better. If ball doesn't like to go somwere ( red excluded) there is a reason for it.
   It's not a good idea to go egainst the trend, even with black/ red thing....
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 07, 2017, 12:27:48 AM
@ Mike
You can do a report but I don't know if it relates to the issue, when the betting takes place right now vs. what can happen several millions of spins from now.
The last picture was not convenient to the system. It was from DEC.4th.
Here is the same table from DEC. 5th
Same as yesterday. DISASTROUS results if betting from the beginning vs. WINNING results all around if waited for a virtual streak, even if the streak was only 5 spins of the same EC.

Y is it so easy to find examples confirming the advantages of the virtual  route and it's so hard to find examples that confirm your view and have to resort to long term multi million spins simulation to find answers?
If both situations are the same we should be able to find example situations that occur 50% of the time for both schools of thought
 Yet I only find situations that confirm the virtual route.
Well, you may claim that it's not the same number of bets. 
Betting from the beginning you only have one EC choice. You can't bet all EC's at the same time.
However,  with the virtual mode you can bet all 4 EC's after one of them satisfied the trigger.
And doing that in several tables, there is plenty of opportunity for frequent betting.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 07, 2017, 12:44:27 AM
In case of black/ red it doesn't really make sense to wait anything and martingale after. Tested - do not work.

Hey Mr. P, I was just thinking about this yesterday and since the LotT must provide a felted cluster that will hit greater than any other such cluster, wouldn't Low/High be a better bet selection than Red/Black & Odd/Even?  I mean RBOE doesn't take into account geographical locations on the felt, right?

Regardless, I must agree that 18 numbers is most likely too many to gain the proper statistical focus for hot numbers. 

What do you think about Dozens?   
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Fyodor on December 07, 2017, 01:00:53 AM
Please pardon my "Jump-in"
If you are looking for felt based "clusters" that involve dozens, please consider the "trans-dozen on the EU wheel, that is covered by the 19-30 sequence.
Could be covered with two chips, (@2 to 1) so very economical, and nine of that dozen are (close to) perfectly distributed around the wheel.
The pattern emerges as also being useful to partition the wheel sequence into manageable neighbourhood groups.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 07, 2017, 01:59:58 AM
Reyth, generally l do not think in such a terms... l used to when play bias exclusively. .. but since then my game adanced a bit..
   1st 12 numbers got nice splits/ coners/ 3numbr to cover numbers around 10 ( tiers...).
 Example is 5/8.. 10/11, 5/6 if you decide to center a bit aside... if you want insurance bet on other side, can include 4&12.. 3/0...
   But generally, less numbers not targeted you bet -better. Covering entire 12 numbers delute too much posible edge.  You should be thinking like..  take edge for best number add extra ( not included in the bet) number edge and devide by 2. If you follow this logic, you will see that it's not good idea.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 07, 2017, 10:58:15 AM
BTW. .  Would be nice to have " modify button" back. I often type on the go...on the phone as well... where spellchecker do not work. It's only practical..   
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 07, 2017, 12:34:48 PM
The problem is that you don't play roulette.  When you have skin the game it makes a difference in the way you approach it. 

Why is the fact that I don't currently play much roulette (I still play online occasionally, and have played a lot in the past) a problem? I would guess that most stats professors have NEVER played it; does that mean that their analyses are invalid? Of course not. And you yourself play RNG exclusively; some people would say that's not even roulette.

If you're talking about experience, and whether that affects the way you play and how successful you are, then I would say yes - experience can make you a better player (some people, like compulsive gamblers, never learn from their "experience").

Quote
I have saved countless thousands of BU's by letting losses go by and profited again and again because I delayed my bet.  Snap running a simulation just simply doesn't provide that perspective.

So why doesn't it show up in the simulations? You're a competent programmer, surely you could write a program which simulates the way you play on a session by session basis.

I think you're applying double standards here Reyth. You make use of simulations to test the limits of systems and generate stats which you then make use of in designing systems. You take the results (quite rightly) as representing objective truth and not mere opinion, and yet a simulation which shows that virtual bets have no merit are somehow discounted or not taken seriously.

Quote
Which is more important, a long-term theory that takes place over millions of spins or what is more likely to happen RIGHT NOW while I am spinning with money on the felt?

Please, not this again. How can you possibly defend a thesis which asserts that a short-term test is more informative and representative than a long-term one?
It's totally contradictory to any principle of statistical inference and intuitively everyone knows this. All serious system creators will test their fledgling systems manually for as many spins as they feel are necessary (which often isn't enough) before committing to real money play. They don't think "I'd better not test TOO much, because the system might fail, I'll just test while I get positive results".

Quote
I dislike theoretical discussions that have the effect of discouraging people from developing  themselves because it IS only your opinion and there is room either way for people to form their own opinion.  If you would simply approach it that way, I would have no problem.

Sure, people can form their own opinions and can also choose to ignore any evidence which contradicts their pet theories. If someone likes using virtual bets because it gives them some psychological security blanket or the added structure it gives to a system, then I guess that's a good enough reason for using them, even if it's been shown that the virtual bets don't give any actual advantage or safety. And virtual bets don't make your results any WORSE - you're not more likely to lose if you use them. The only concern I have is that they give players who believe in them a false sense of security, so they make riskier bets than they would have if they didn't use the trigger.

Casinos are well aware of this. Why do they provide leader boards and other stats like hot and cold numbers? If they gave the player any true advantage they surely wouldn't provide them. I would venture to suggest that their presence is a substantial boost to the casino's coffers.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 07, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
We are repeating ourselves here.  This is where we clearly disagree:

Just because a simulation over millions of spins shows that a trigger has no effect doesn't mean that there is no effect at all from triggers.

Roulette doesn't do things in "straight lines", it tends to "zig zag" to accomplish its statistical "work".  With a sequence length of millions of spins, there is a long-term zig-zag that occurs slowly to produce the end result.

You leap from the results of this long-term result to "all triggers are useless no matter the sequence length" which is clearly not true.

This is why we say that the fact you do not actually play roulette is a factor in the way you think.  Surely you do not play roulette systems because if you did, you could not avoid agreeing with us.

Once again, my hands are tied.  I don't have a choice, I MUST employ the method that gets me the best results on the felt, RIGHT NOW, while I am playing, PERIOD.  Its a player's perspective.

Sorry, I would comment more but I am pressed for time this morning at work. :)
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 07, 2017, 01:49:54 PM

Just because a simulation over millions of spins shows that a trigger has no effect doesn't mean that there is no effect at all from triggers.

Roulette doesn't do things in "straight lines", it tends to "zig zag" to accomplish its statistical "work".  With a sequence length of millions of spins, there is a long-term zig-zag that occurs slowly to produce the end result.

You leap from the results of this long-term result to "all triggers are useless no matter the sequence length" which is clearly not true.

Sorry Reyth, you've lost me here. If a simulation shows that triggers have no effect why does that allow you to conclude nothing? If there is such a big difference between simulation and practice, why do you run simulations in the first place? The fact that roulette doesn't do things "in straight lines" is correct, but that just highlights the need for a bigger sample, since a small sample can easily "trap" only a positive result which would be misleading. You need a larger sample to get the big picture.

I don't think you can say that it's CLEARLY not true that triggers have no effect when the only evidence we have that they DO work is anecdotal. There is no reputable source which says that they can work in theory, and no systematic empirical evidence published anywhere, so at best the issue is controversial.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Sputnik on December 07, 2017, 03:20:50 PM


 @ Mike i tell you why i collect data and make simulations of different betting strategy.

For example the horse market where the odds change based upon how the public bet.
That way you get favorit horse and others with higher odds.

When i collect data and make my observations i can see that the favorit does not has the strike ratio that it should have if the public was right. So then i want to make a benchmark to see how correct the public market is when they put money on a horse and how the odds reflect the true chance for a horse to win.

So around 68.3% the market should pick the right horse within 1 SD
So around 95% the market should pick the right horse within 2 SD
So around 99.7% the market should pick the right horse within 3 SD
So around 3% the market should not pick the right horse within 3 SD or lower.

This is not a true playing model using the horse market with the odds that has 50/50 situation to win.
So i want to know the values look like and what kind of benchmark i can expect playing a favorit horse.
How many times has the market right and how many times has the market wrong.

So i get a swings measuring the overrepresented hits and the underrepresented hits.
For example a horse with 2.0 odds will most likely not get a strike ratio or sequence around 14 wins and  2 loses

When i collect this strike ratio or sequences of hits and no hits i get waves to explore and trigger when to bet and when not to bet.

This also work with higher odds as i can use binomial probability calculation.
For example 3.0 odds has a 50/50 winning situation within two attempts.

This is the reason i collect and simulate data.

Cheers
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 07, 2017, 10:47:52 PM
I'd like to float back down to earth for a moment.
I do understand the need to test a trigger, a system, a strategy or an approach but I can't see the logic in having to over extend the length of a test. These million plus spin tests are like tapping softly on a piece of glass, it will eventually break. The result will be a warning to everyone not to tap on glass as it will break.

How many spins can occur in a 24 hour period at a B/M table in an average casino. Multiply this number by 10 or 20 and that should be a sufficient number of spins for a test.
What is the actual aim of a million plus spin test? Is it to prove that roulette can be beaten or is it for you to determine how much bankroll you need to survive these millions of spins?
There are many bankroll defences that players include in their game.
I agree that triggers do not always work and I agree that we at times read the game wrong and yes at times we loose. These are the facts of the game. Everything that can be tested is tested to the extreme yet one all important ingredient in the game is overlooked. The state of the players mind at the time of play. This can alter the outcomes of the game drastically.
The human factor will always be more unpredictable than the game itself because we are not all designed identically. Our thoughts do not function in harmony to the greater good of defeating the game.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 07, 2017, 11:01:02 PM
Millions of spins tests allow me to see what is the worst that I am likely to experience.

Usually the rarest downward swings will not even show up in a simulation before 1M spins have occurred.  However, this doesn't mean that as long as we play less than 1M spins we will be fine; one of these events can occur right from the first coup attempt in our first session.

I say that it is "clearly" not true because of the empirical results that Pales, Kav, myself and I am sure very many others achieve.

I would definitely agree that the topic is controversial however and that is because over millions of spins, the trigger advantage is nullified; I don't go as far as to say that we ignore this, I just defer this because I don't have a choice.

So, what does it mean that I defer it?  I don't know.  All I know is that I have reaped alot of profit and that it is going to take much more correction than I have yet seen to reverse that.

Even Bayes uses triggers (even though he too despises them); he called his a "fuzzy trigger".  Most of my triggers are not simple and represent convergence of multiple statistics (a favorite tactic of Bayes as well).

Once again, I agree that the discrepancy should be investigated.  If we look at the statistical output, with some hard work, we should be able to identify what causes the neutralization and maybe understand what we should "expect next".

Because I have discovered that roulette changes its focus with every new session, I also think testing can be done with properly resetting the random seed to simulate a session reset.  My session resets are not simple either and occur for several different reasons.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 07, 2017, 11:02:47 PM
I understand that in these million plus spin tests you are looking for a bad series of spins long enough to prove failure. If you have to use this many spins to prove failure then how many spins do you require to prove success?

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 07, 2017, 11:14:36 PM
Reyth , Mike posed the question to you regarding triggers being neutralised after millions of spins of testing yet they work in shorter test batches. Is the trigger neutralised due to the ratio of trigger hits to misses over these extended tests?
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 07, 2017, 11:57:03 PM
The way I discovered that triggers have no effect on the long-term results is by running a system over 16 million spins and noting the win rate.  Then I add in the trigger and the win rate doesn't change. 

Maybe one of the reasons this happens is because eventually the rarest statistical results begin to cluster enough nullify the advantage gained over the entire sequence length.  I think it takes a very rare set of results for this to happen which usually wouldn't be seen in smaller samples.

I guess eventually at some point, we can get hit with a very rare downswing of successive losses before we will be able to recover.

Does this prove that triggers don't work?  Not in my mind.  For one, I don't believe that a single string of 16M spins is an adequate test of a system; unless I force the sequence to reset when I say it should, I am not satisfied with the results.  Secondly, I don't believe that just because some testing of certain types of triggers show no change in the results, means that we are helpless and just throw up our hands and give up.

What our critics continuously fail to admit is that it is ALWAYS POSSIBLE to bet correctly and not lose.  ITS POSSIBLE.  That is enough to remove the false air of "objective fact without question" from their arguments even though they refuse to allow that fact to get in their way.

They appeal to authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) and  appeal to ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) but none of that changes the FACT that it is always possible to win in roulette using a system. 
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 08, 2017, 06:40:36 AM
Thanks Reyth . Did you discover the neutralisation of the trigger in only one test or did you run several tests that produced the same results?
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 08, 2017, 09:43:43 AM
Reyth,

I don't deny that is POSSIBLE to win using a system, only that virtual betting is ineffective. It's not really fair to say that "we" make the fallacy of appealing to authority. Everyone appeals to authority; when I visit my doctor I trust that she knows what's she's talking about. We all have to rely on experts. Appealing to authority can be fallacious when 1) The authority is not an expert on the matter, 2) the authority is an expert, but is biased, 3) the authority is an expert, but his opinion is unrepresentative of expert opinon on the subject (it's always possible to find an expert who supports your view). But these cases don't apply in any of the experts we cite. Mathematicians and statisticians are overwhelmingly of the opinion that roulette is a game of independent trials. To claim otherwise seems perverse. Besides, it's not as though we ONLY appeal to authority.

As for appeal to ignorance, strictly speaking, you're correct. I can't really say "there is no evidence that triggers work, therefore triggers don't work". It's also true to say that there ARE situations where it's a least conceivable that there is some real (rather than imagined) dependency going on. However, the arguments that are made in favor of a universal kind of dependency are based on a misunderstaning of what statistical independence means (like saying that "no one ever sees 100 reds in row, therefore there is no such thing as independence"). And the gambler's fallacy involves a straightforward contradiction, so it's not a matter of finding some empirical evidence that it's not false.

Quote
The way I discovered that triggers have no effect on the long-term results is by running a system over 16 million spins and noting the win rate.  Then I add in the trigger and the win rate doesn't change. 

I think it would be more informative to record not only the number of busts, but where they occur in the sequence. If you and others are right in believing that triggers do make a difference, there might be some pattern in where they're successful and where they're not, but you wouldn't notice this just by looking at the long term win rate.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 08, 2017, 11:48:39 AM
Mathematicians know math. No argument about that.
But they don't know play styles.
Roulette playing does not  necessarily involve  single independent events. Where the EC probability is 18/37, dozen is 12/37. a DS is 6/37 etc.
Most playing under a well designed system involves playing a SERIES of events. Predetermined by the player according to his system and  after conditions (triggers), that have a proven success rate thru extensive testing.
Moreover, those betting series have an additional benefit that most experts don't talk about.
The option to stop as soon as a favorable result happens, without being FORCED  to execute the entire betting series. (Which can claim back a win during the series).
The house does not have that benefit. They are locked into continuous spinning.
Following a continuous spinning spree, is what makes money for the casino and gives rise to the advantage of the HE.
A player can pick and chose and can stop any time. Either locking in a win or avoiding further losses.
A collection of mini betting series ( after conditions or triggers), makes up an entire session.
Where a player can stop and leave at any time.
As far are testing millions of spins, is not really necessary.
What counts is the results of many thousands of betting endeavors after certain conditions are present (triggers). Finding conditions that trigger the start of a betting series, of course takes many more thousands of spins. So when we say millions of spins, we usually mean thousands of betting opportunities. And a rate of success can be accurately computed.

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 08, 2017, 02:32:40 PM
Palestis,

I agree with you that one of the player's great advantages is that he can choose what and when to play. But it's a common misconception that statistical independence only applies between one spin and the next. An "event" could be a series of spins of any length. Say black has hit 70 times in the last 100 spins, that doesn't tell you anything about how many times it will hit in the next 100 spins. Most of the time it will hit less than 70 times in the next 100 spin sequence, but that would happen anyway because it's a relatively rare occurrence. A "trigger" of 70 blacks in the first 100 spins doesn't affect the probability of the number of blacks in the second 100 spins; that's what independence means.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 08, 2017, 04:23:14 PM
Red or black is not a trigger.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 08, 2017, 07:36:31 PM
Agree, a red or black on its own is not a trigger but a series or pattern of red/black have been used as triggers in systems I've read.
Playing red/black is volatile with or without triggers because of their layout on the wheel.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 08, 2017, 07:48:28 PM
Mickey, my point was a bit other... 
   You see, some folks here got agenda of spreading as much desinfo as they can. It's not only here... but here their... ( put any bad word here) is stronger.
  Folks speak aboud independence of spins and call "red" as a spin result... lm just with out words sometimes,  it makes me reevaluate importance of my answer in the middle of it, so l give up ...
   It may look like a banality, but if you evaluatever it in light of previous post... even banality becomes light of wisdom comparing to noncence written above.
   
   
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 08, 2017, 08:10:45 PM
Point taken MrPerfect. It can be annoying but it should be like water off a ducks back.
I appreciate your contributions  in sharing your knowledge and wisdom of the game with us.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 08, 2017, 09:36:28 PM
Palestis,

I agree with you that one of the player's great advantages is that he can choose what and when to play. But it's a common misconception that statistical independence only applies between one spin and the next. An "event" could be a series of spins of any length. Say black has hit 70 times in the last 100 spins, that doesn't tell you anything about how many times it will hit in the next 100 spins. Most of the time it will hit less than 70 times in the next 100 spin sequence, but that would happen anyway because it's a relatively rare occurrence. A "trigger" of 70 blacks in the first 100 spins doesn't affect the probability of the number of blacks in the second 100 spins; that's what independence means.
Statistical independence in a series of single events ( like betting Black or Red), doesn't mean that each single event restarts its probability, if you, as a player,  intend to execute that single event for a number of predetermined trials . Single event probability applies if you play black here, then odd there, then red elsewhere. Or the same table.
But once you decided that you will play black 5 times, until you hit it once,  the probability of series kicks in automatically.
That's the definition of probability of series.
Because a silent clause is to stop  the trials.  if the desired result occurs. And the series ends earlier than planned  if the desired result happens.
That's what "at least once" means.
And in that case the probability of the desired result happening at least one, is 1- (.5x.5x.5x.5x.5).
Or 96.875%.  Not 50% considered individually each time.
Your example that if in 100 spins black has hit 70 times is not applicable in this argument.
For once it has already happened, and secondly these are not spins that the player has decided to play in a continuous series of bets. That's a series of events the roulette itself produced. NOT THE PLAYER.
What you wrongly assume to support your argument is that after 70 blacks in 100 spins, there are many more reds due to happen.
This logic is not the foundation of a system. A good system at least.
The logic is that after an overwhelming majority of blacks, ONE RED in a series of future spins, should appear at least once fairly soon. That's where the system ends. There is no need to go any further to see that an equal number of blacks is matched against an equal number of reds.
Most likely  this is not what is going to happen.
But I surely expect one red to appear, and that's good enough for me.
This logic also applies after a long streak of one EC, ( like 4,5 or 6), and we see it all the time.
Pick any daily results from a casino and you will see that an opposite EC will  appear within a few spins after a long streak of the opposite EC most of the time.
Where to witness 5 more blacks after 5 or more  already happened, you have to search thru hundreds or even thousands of pages of daily results. Y is that?
Let's not forget that the objective to playing roulette is profit. One step at a time. And stop.
The intention is not to defeat probability.

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 08, 2017, 09:58:25 PM
Bravo!!! Finally someone says something that make sense. .  At least for me. I even put " like".
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 08, 2017, 10:28:25 PM
You can't sidestep probability & statistics with theoretical independence -- probability & statistics don't care what anybody thinks.TM

I have absolutely no need to be "theoretically correct" -- my bankroll & statistical models say that probability & statistics rule the day and I don't care about the ever so precise definition of "independence" because if I pretend that independence works as well as probability and statistics, I lose large and in short order (relatively speaking)!
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Reyth on December 08, 2017, 10:34:02 PM
The logic is that after an overwhelming majority of blacks, ONE RED in a series of future spins, should appear at least once fairly soon. That's where the system ends. There is no need to go any further to see that an equal number of blacks is matched against an equal number of reds.
Most likely  this is not what is going to happen.
But I surely expect one red to appear, and that's good enough for me.

Let's not forget that the objective to playing roulette is profit. One step at a time. And stop.
The intention is not to defeat probability.

It is also possible to treat a SEQUENCE of events in the same manner; i.e. I am betting that I will gain 1 hit in the next X spins UNTIL a certain number of hits vs. spins are gained.

From this perspective, it is possible to bet the same selection multiple times; its not greed, its using existing statistics & probability to bet during times when a hit is more likely than expectation.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 09, 2017, 09:34:07 AM
What you wrongly assume to support your argument is that after 70 blacks in 100 spins, there are many more reds due to happen.

I don't assume that at all. That's what system players who think that "regression to the mean" will give them an advantage assume, and they're wrong.

Quote
Pick any daily results from a casino and you will see that an opposite EC will  appear within a few spins after a long streak of the opposite EC most of the time.

Yes, "most of the time". And most of the time the EC will appear regardless of what the previous spins were. That's the point.

Quote
Where to witness 5 more blacks after 5 or more  already happened, you have to search thru hundreds or even thousands of pages of daily results.

That's not what I'm finding. It's pure gambler's fallacy.

Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 09, 2017, 09:36:04 AM
Bravo!!! Finally someone says something that make sense. .  At least for me. I even put " like".

Mr Perfect,

I'm beginning to realize that you don't have a clue what  you're talking about. Now you're endorsing gamblers fallacy? It's the blind leading the blind!
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 09, 2017, 01:07:10 PM
Wikipedia will set you straight....
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 09, 2017, 01:21:07 PM
Yes, read Wiki, not Mr P.  ;)
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: palestis on December 09, 2017, 01:56:06 PM

Quote
Pick any daily results from a casino and you will see that an opposite EC will  appear within a few spins after a long streak of the opposite EC most of the time.

Yes, "most of the time". And most of the time the EC will appear regardless of what the previous spins were. That's the point.

Yes, "most of the time". And most of the time the EC will appear regardless of what the previous spins were. That's the point.
Yea that's the point. But that streak that you based your next bets on, would've already caused a major disaster if you happened to have bet the opposite with Martingale.
And streaks of 4,5, and 6 consecutive EC's do happen very often.
Just think about what can happen if you play black and run into 6 red in a row. You will lose 63 units.
Where 6 red in a row (if you play red), will earn you 6 units.
The point is that starting the bets from the beginning earns one unit/per hit. But when an opposite streak happens the loss is disproportional to the wins.
If you don't use Martingale and play  with the same unit all the time you will lose 2.7% if you play like that often.
What's the point of playing like that ?
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MrPerfect. on December 09, 2017, 07:20:03 PM
Yes, read Wiki, not Mr P.  ;)
Mike, l support forum members argument their ideas, even if l do not accept such ideas, it doesn't mean l do not enjoy reading well argumented post.
   Put in his post instead black / red something like hit/ miss to your target section and hopefully you will learn something new.
   Good luck with your Wiki reading.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 10, 2017, 08:13:54 AM
Put in his post instead black / red something like hit/ miss to your target section and hopefully you will learn something new.

I've no idea what this means.

Quote
Good luck with your Wiki reading.

I don't recall linking to wiki in this thread at all. Reyth, however, has linked to two articles (see reply #102). Funny that Micky didn't pick up on that and criticize him for it .  ::)
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: MickyP on December 10, 2017, 08:34:56 AM
Reyth openly used that as a reference to clarify what he was writing where as your question on non-independence was taken straight from wikipedia. If you wish to continue this discussion with me then let's do it in private or have a moderator decide the way forward.
Title: Re: Triggers in Systems
Post by: Mike on December 10, 2017, 09:02:12 AM
Micky,

I also used wiki to clarify what I was writing, and I didn't try to hide it - it was obvious from the links in the definition I used that I was using wiki; it's not as though I was trying to cover it up and pass off wiki's content as my own.

What I'm suggesting is that we have to be careful about double standards. We all want our side of the argument to be the "winning" one, but that doesn't mean that we should unfairly apply some principle to the "opposing" side. If a rule is valid at all, it should be applied equally to both sides.