Author Topic: If you're system/method is yielding only a few units a day, then it doesn't work  (Read 1230 times)

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1211
  • Thanked: 128 times
  • Gender: Female
1. When you have a working method/system, again, the more you play, the more you should win.

2. If your method/system works, then you should stop playing accountant. Stop thinking in terms of "one session" and consider all sessions within a month combined as one ongoing session. (Yes, you still need to keep records.) Your goal though is to play for as long as possible as long as the playing conditions are good. Focus on the game, not the accounting. A losing session is irrelevant. It's no different than a losing spin in the big picture.

3. HOWEVER.. If you're relying on variance to win, then you need to quickly realize that you're just gambling! You are relying on luck to win and you should quit whenever you can get ahead (Follow John Patrick's advice.)

[


 
The following users thanked this post: Trilobite, Reyth

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1757
  • Thanked: 366 times
1. When you have a working method/system, again, the more you play, the more you should win.

2. If your method/system works, then you should stop playing accountant. Stop thinking in terms of "one session" and consider all sessions within a month combined as one ongoing session. (Yes, you still need to keep records.) Your goal though is to play for as long as possible as long as the playing conditions are good. Focus on the game, not the accounting. A losing session is irrelevant. It's no different than a losing spin in the big picture.

3. HOWEVER.. If you're relying on variance to win, then you need to quickly realize that you're just gambling! You are relying on luck to win and you should quit whenever you can get ahead (Follow John Patrick's advice.)

[

Yours is a viewpoint, Real, nothing more so stop telling me that I MUST do as you say. I have proved you wrong before.

1] I actually agree with you here ,Real. When I first started betting my current method I sat at a table for 100/111 spins. I won more units than I did when I compared it to Hit and Run
but  the losses when they came were greater than with Hit and Run and also needed a higher bankroll. So I changed to Hit and Run.

2 ) The REALITY is that
a) I am not aiming to be a Roulette Professional or to win thousands but  NOT TO LOSE .Doing that proves you and others wrong when you categorically state that we MUST lose.

b) I concentrate “ in playing the game” and am not interested in whether or not I may win or lose in some unspecified future.

c )As I have said before, I use a derivative of the Nine Block so am not relying SOLELY on variance  but, unlike you, I am aware that it can play havoc with any method- even your beloved AP.I think mathematicians would agree with me  here.
I think that what we call luck is variance at play.If you don’t agree what do you think luck is ?
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1757
  • Thanked: 366 times
Decided to  test a method I use with Frank Scoblette's  " Spin Roulette Gold ". He has recorded ten sessions each of 380 spins taken from a 38 number table.
Using  what Real has called a  " worthless " Nine Block and a " trigger "it  made a profit of  324 chips on 840 bets.I  think  it  would have  been more profitable on a 37 number table.
Would maths geeks consider this a reasonable profit ? And a reasonable method ?
 

MrPerfect.

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
  • Thanked: 398 times
Decided to  test a method I use with Frank Scoblette's  " Spin Roulette Gold ". He has recorded ten sessions each of 380 spins taken from a 38 number table.
Using  what Real has called a  " worthless " Nine Block and a " trigger "it  made a profit of  324 chips on 840 bets.I  think  it  would have  been more profitable on a 37 number table.
Would maths geeks consider this a reasonable profit ? And a reasonable method ?
Math geeks wouldn't consider it unfortunately. It's less then 1/2 chip per spin.. for blackjack would be reasonable. How many numbers you bet?
    I can give you 1m spin sample to test it properly, if you wish.
 

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1757
  • Thanked: 366 times
Decided to  test a method I use with Frank Scoblette's  " Spin Roulette Gold ". He has recorded ten sessions each of 380 spins taken from a 38 number table.
Using  what Real has called a  " worthless " Nine Block and a " trigger "it  made a profit of  324 chips on 840 bets.I  think  it  would have  been more profitable on a 37 number table.
Would maths geeks consider this a reasonable profit ? And a reasonable method ?
Math geeks wouldn't consider it unfortunately. It's less then 1/2 chip per spin.. for blackjack would be reasonable. How many numbers you bet?
    I can give you 1m spin sample to test it properly, if you wish.
[/quote

Thanks Mr. Perfect.
The point I was making was that a Method did not lose over 38000 spins - and over 800 bets -  and on a 38 numbered wheel while you AP guys tell us that we will lose.  This was the method I would have used if you had accepted  my offer to show you - with the proviso that you  demonstrate your claimed AP skills on a 37 numbered wheel .
I profit without the need for testing so don’t accept that this result  proves anything - nor would a trial over 1m spins. This is because any other trial would give a different set of figures making any trial useless for any practical purpose.
You would still  need to make assumptions which may or may not be valid. I am surprised that maths geeks don’t understand  this.  Professionals  Mathematicians don’t bet roulette .   
Incidentally, why do you suggest that I trial 1m spins when you use only 400 ? And 400 is less than 800 isn’t it ?
 

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
  • Thanked: 549 times
  • Gender: Male
It is all about what we want.!  Small and repetitive winnings with a remote risk of a major loss. Best is to know the edge, and it is almost not the true for the player, even if the player think so (AP or methods). Some luck and small house advantages can make a lot of win but YES all of us can lose.
 

MrPerfect.

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
  • Thanked: 398 times
It is all about what we want.!  Small and repetitive winnings with a remote risk of a major loss. Best is to know the edge, and it is almost not the true for the player, even if the player think so (AP or methods). Some luck and small house advantages can make a lot of win but YES all of us can lose.
Jesper,  please explain why in this world you wanna win small day- by- day to loose big in some""" distant""" future?.
   How on your opinion, wouldn't be better to win big always and loose little sometimes?
 

Jesper

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
  • Thanked: 549 times
  • Gender: Male
It is all about what we want.!  Small and repetitive winnings with a remote risk of a major loss. Best is to know the edge, and it is almost not the true for the player, even if the player think so (AP or methods). Some luck and small house advantages can make a lot of win but YES all of us can lose.
Jesper,  please explain why in this world you wanna win small day- by- day to loose big in some""" distant""" future?.
   How on your opinion, wouldn't be better to win big always and loose little sometimes?

Yes it would be better to win more, but I do not think any way to sure  do it exist.  I have had a few heavy losses, and the often and smaller winnings TOGETHER with some rare big winnings. It is the total which counts, a big loss can happen. Scary money never wins!!   I allways try to find game with low advantages for the house.
I play using small units, even if the bets can be hundreds of them. Sometimes adjust the betsize with fractions less than 1%.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
I think if we can find a way to quit while we are ahead and also play as long as possible we will have the best of both worlds! :D
 
The following users thanked this post: Trilobite

Trilobite

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
  • Thanked: 98 times
I think if we can find a way to quit while we are ahead and also play as long as possible we will have the best of both worlds! :D

That's what I do.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

MrPerfect.

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
  • Thanked: 398 times
Decided to  test a method I use with Frank Scoblette's  " Spin Roulette Gold ". He has recorded ten sessions each of 380 spins taken from a 38 number table.
Using  what Real has called a  " worthless " Nine Block and a " trigger "it  made a profit of  324 chips on 840 bets.I  think  it  would have  been more profitable on a 37 number table.
Would maths geeks consider this a reasonable profit ? And a reasonable method ?
Math geeks wouldn't consider it unfortunately. It's less then 1/2 chip per spin.. for blackjack would be reasonable. How many numbers you bet?
    I can give you 1m spin sample to test it properly, if you wish.
[/quote

Thanks Mr. Perfect.
The point I was making was that a Method did not lose over 38000 spins - and over 800 bets -  and on a 38 numbered wheel while you AP guys tell us that we will lose.  This was the method I would have used if you had accepted  my offer to show you - with the proviso that you  demonstrate your claimed AP skills on a 37 numbered wheel .
I profit without the need for testing so don’t accept that this result  proves anything - nor would a trial over 1m spins. This is because any other trial would give a different set of figures making any trial useless for any practical purpose.
You would still  need to make assumptions which may or may not be valid. I am surprised that maths geeks don’t understand  this.  Professionals  Mathematicians don’t bet roulette .   
Incidentally, why do you suggest that I trial 1m spins when you use only 400 ? And 400 is less than 800 isn’t it ?


It gonna be 1m- 400 independent " short runs". You can test your method starting any place in this 1m sample . I sudjest to perform this test from every consequtive number starting with the first. Imagine that this sample is roulette you gonna play in your local, you do not know when you entered casino during this 1m sample, right? So every starting place is equally likely.  This way you could see your method performing in many sessions and see average , best , worst performances of it and their respective frequency.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2016, 03:29:27 PM by Reyth »
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1226
  • Thanked: 297 times
A profit of 1 a 2% of the total bets is realistic. My hits give a win of 20%. Through the loss hits the profit will decrease . Be satisfied with small , but many, profits.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

scepticus

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1757
  • Thanked: 366 times
Oh ! Guys . Come on . Get real (small r )!
Look at Real's third paragraph in the  first post in this thread . " depending on variance is gambling".
ALL roulette betting is "gambling" . Only the ignorant think otherwise. An Advantage is just that -  an advantage .
No matter the length of your sample any conclusions drawn refer only to that sample. Don't take  my word for it - ask a professional mathematician . It can be regarded as a base on which to build a method nothing more  ! And AP is a Method.
I agree with Dobbelsteen . Any profit should be acceptable . Recorded winners using AP lived in the last century - and the century before. Dream on  guys !
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3318
  • Thanked: 979 times
I think if we can find a way to quit while we are ahead and also play as long as possible we will have the best of both worlds! :D

That's what I do.

ikr?  I was just thinking that.  Its what I am trying to do too! :D
 

Real

  • Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1211
  • Thanked: 128 times
  • Gender: Female
Quote
A profit of 1 a 2% of the total bets is realistic. My hits give a win of 20%. Through the loss hits the profit will decrease . Be satisfied with small , but many, profits.-Dobbelsteen

Dobbelsteen,

FYI...small session + small session + small session = long session. 
Some sessions you may make a small profit, others you may lose.
Overtime all of those small sessions add up, and the losses will be greater than the small profits.  In the end you will lose your entire bankroll, never to break even again. 

Pretending that the short run isn't part of the long run is part of a fool's folly.  I know you're not a fool, but the strategy is part of it.


-Really
« Last Edit: November 26, 2016, 07:07:50 PM by Real »