### Author Topic: Bullseye  (Read 17473 times)

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3318
• Thanked: 979 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #15 on: January 01, 2016, 10:33:05 AM »
Human mind needs to see a pattern where there is not.

I suspect you may be joking because I know you are a system player BUT conversely, there are human minds that need to see no pattern where there clearly is one.  I have statistically proven over 16M spins that the deviation triggers are an actual pattern that improve the odds of subsequent hits to 99.5%.  This is not a whimsical hope or untested theory but simple objective fact.

See the chart in the first post and watch the first video.

#### Mike

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 557
• Thanked: 23 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #16 on: January 01, 2016, 01:45:01 PM »
Ok I have experimented with and analyzed the deviation triggers and I have discovered that the best way to safely use them is to gain an edge on the overall debt caused by the recent session bust.

After a session bust and the first win, there is a 99.5% chance of striking a win directly subsequent to that.

And at all other times there is a 99.5% chance of striking a win. In other words Whether you wait for a session bust and the first win OR NOT, the chance of a win is 99.5% -- so waiting is pointless.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3318
• Thanked: 979 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2016, 03:36:58 PM »
Ok I have experimented with and analyzed the deviation triggers and I have discovered that the best way to safely use them is to gain an edge on the overall debt caused by the recent session bust.

After a session bust and the first win, there is a 99.5% chance of striking a win directly subsequent to that.

And at all other times there is a 99.5% chance of striking a win. In other words Whether you wait for a session bust and the first win OR NOT, the chance of a win is 99.5% -- so waiting is pointless.

You actually believe I have a base system with a 99.5% chance of winning?

If your answer is no then you are certainly trying to patronize me.  If your answer is yes then you are just responding robotically without examining the system.  There is an 89.99% chance of achieving the same normally.  So your "pet answer" does not apply here.

Also I do not wait for the bust to occur I reap profit until it does.  All I do is just reap about 25-50% more profit at those times following a session bust.  This affects the statistics positively because recovery occurs more rapidly.

I take the conservative approach because no matter now remote it may be, 2 and 3 busts in a row do and will occur at some point.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 03:43:23 PM by Reyth »

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1210
• Thanked: 128 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2016, 04:12:19 PM »
Quote
I have statistically proven over 16M spins that the deviation triggers are an actual pattern that improve the odds of subsequent hits to 99.5%.  This is not a whimsical hope or untested theory but simple objective fact.  -Ryeth

Ryeth,

No you didn't.

LOL, just like you proved the gambler's fallacy was a fallacy, right?

How many standard deviations outside the normal are you testing results?  If you don't know that then how do you know if the results are statistically relevant?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 04:14:02 PM by Real »

#### DrTalos

• New
• Posts: 117
• Thanked: 137 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2016, 04:43:44 PM »
Previous outcomes has not business in future outcomes. You know that. You have only one road to follow in order to win: betting amount. The "perfect system" is the martingale, but unfortunately is impossible to play. Once you create a suitable martingale, you have your Holy Grail.

Has never occurred more than 22 times the same single chance hit in a row. If you wait for it, you could consider the 23rd a sure winning. Is not. The possibility to be red or black, manque or pass is exactly as before. The only thing different is that after the outcome, they will correct the record.

#### Mike

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 557
• Thanked: 23 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2016, 04:48:58 PM »
There is an 89.99% chance of achieving the same normally.  So your "pet answer" does not apply here.

Reyth,

Let me get this straight; you're saying WITHOUT waiting for your trigger there is a 89.99% chance of achieving your goal but WITH the trigger there is a 99.5% chance?

If so, you have made a mistake or are not interpreting the results correctly.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3318
• Thanked: 979 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2016, 08:58:05 PM »
I posted the results of the output file, 16 wins & 100 win rate.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3318
• Thanked: 979 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2016, 12:27:35 AM »
Interesting note regarding the deviation percentage.  Regardless of its + or - status, "micro counter trends" will still regularly occur in the opposite direction, therefore I have come to see it as a long term trend indicator.  I still feel much more comfortable playing when the deviation is below expectation though.  I guess generally we can expect larger trends in the deviation's direction and smaller counter trends in its opposite direction.

I would love to find the smaller trend indicator that creates these "micro trends".  I wouldn't be surprised if everything comes down to a 37 spin snapshot.  Also the 85 spin trend indicator is quite interesting.  There is definitely short term trends occurring and I just wonder how I can capture a better understanding of them.

#### BlueAngel

• I always express my opinion
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1437
• Thanked: 196 times
• Gender:
• Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2016, 12:47:50 AM »
Interesting note regarding the deviation percentage.  Regardless of its + or - status, "micro counter trends" will still regularly occur in the opposite direction, therefore I have come to see it as a long term trend indicator.  I still feel much more comfortable playing when the deviation is below expectation though.  I guess generally we can expect larger trends in the deviation's direction and smaller counter trends in its opposite direction.

I would love to find the smaller trend indicator that creates these "micro trends".  I wouldn't be surprised if everything comes down to a 37 spin snapshot.  Also the 85 spin trend indicator is quite interesting.  There is definitely short term trends occurring and I just wonder how I can capture a better understanding of them.

Where the 85 spins came from? Is it a term which you have coined?
What happened to ''tending the flowers''?

As you might have understood so far,roulette is a constant work in progress...never limit your thinking in 85 spins.
Let the flow guide you to the ever-changing roulette currents.

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3318
• Thanked: 979 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2016, 02:04:44 AM »
85 spins is the progression that I use for the Bullseye method.  It is based on a 500 unit stop loss which was then optimized from 31 spins to 85.  The originator of this class of systems recommended a 53 step progression 1,1,1,2,2,2, etc. but I got significantly better results with the 8 interval 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2, etc.

I am keeping my eye on Tending The Flowers but I suspect it is too aggressive and needs some kind of modification that I haven't figured out yet.    I think there is also the problem that it is fully based on reverse engineering the bet selections which has its own inherent problems?  The upside potential is so incredibly high but the downside is too significant a possibility?

I definitely flow around quite a bit in roulette and I find it is an excellent way to learn on a subconscious level. : D
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 02:09:02 AM by Reyth »

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3318
• Thanked: 979 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2016, 11:16:17 PM »
Ok!  I have just thought of a way to measure "micro-trends"!

I create a 2 dimensional array with 86 elements in each dimension (i.e. 86x86) to cover the 85 elements of my progression (the 86th array element is for "86 and beyond").  Every time I get a hit I update the array, with the previous hit being the first element and the current hit being the second element, to become plus one.

I plan on TRILLIONS and QUADRILLIONS of spins until one of the elements has 16M entries and then I count and output the results to a file which can be analyzed.

Every spin of the progression will have statistical data associated with it which will show its micro trend tendencies if any such thing exists.

Ok, its cooking but like at a speed of 1000 per minute... >.<
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 11:48:01 PM by Reyth »

#### Jake007

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 349
• Thanked: 241 times
• "Topcats often start out as underdogs."
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2016, 12:00:18 AM »
I'd like a hit of whatever youre hitting please.

#### Jake007

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 349
• Thanked: 241 times
• "Topcats often start out as underdogs."
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2016, 12:05:25 AM »

Real, you have said countless times over the past two years about gamblers fallacy. Every system I try or invent myself seems to be based on a fact there is no such thing as the fallacy. But, after years of playing and going up and down and up and down... Maybe Im starting to believe you!

So, can you make a thread in detail how you bet? Ive seem to have tried everything possible... always breaking even eventually.

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e., independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false. This fallacy can arise in many practical situations although it is most strongly associated with gambling where such mistakes are common among players.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3318
• Thanked: 979 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2016, 12:26:44 PM »
Ok I've compromised and decided to count spins of the wheel instead because its too slow to have to cycle through all 85 elements of the array to count the largest element.  So I successfully output 2 billion spins of the wheel and it took a minute.  So I have decided to output 20 billion spins of the wheel instead.

What I saw with the 2 billion output was definite trends that were most visible in the 85+ category; they clearly and steadily decreased as the previous spins got higher and higher in the progression.

I should have results in about 10 minutes...

Ouch took about 21 minutes, now attached.

I cannot show any major statistical difference in the hit rate based on this data.  Re-checking some earlier figures...

Ok, even though I have been quite safe with this method, I am still trying to improve it.  I have discovered the deviation rating doesn't matter statistically, therefore I have modified what I do know changes the statistics which is the length of the progression for an increase in win rate of 3% and a maximum session bust out streak of 3 in a row (instead of 4).  This will give a little bit more short term security.

Apart from the inherent security in the system, the only additional security I have been able to gain, by any method, is based on the session bust out streaks which have a declining percentage of appearance which allows for raising to increase the recovery speed.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 12:00:35 AM by Reyth »

#### dobbelsteen

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1226
• Thanked: 297 times
##### Re: Bullseye
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2016, 04:31:29 PM »
DrTalos did you read the Dobbelsteen challence?