Superior

Author Topic: why would someone test a method using simulation software?  (Read 797 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

boyd30

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2018, 08:23:29 PM »
The purpose with running millions spins ön RX is to see the variance. You don't get that doing manual test. You might as well come somewhere in a bad streak playing for real and didn't notice that by manual testing. I can't say that RX numbers are exactly like real live spins but it's possible to test against live spins too.
 

allen

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 6
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2018, 03:22:37 AM »
I never test a million spin. The way I test :
1. collect 80-120 spin for analysis data statistic
2. Run according my strategy until 350 spin.
3. if reach 350 spin, i reset again to 80-120 spin.

In the looong run every number will get approx. similar hit, but in short run you can notice hot number.

 
The following users thanked this post: mr j, Sputnik

Sputnik

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 704
  • Thanked: 580 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2018, 08:25:04 AM »
The purpose with running millions spins ön RX is to see the variance. You don't get that doing manual test. You might as well come somewhere in a bad streak playing for real and didn't notice that by manual testing. I can't say that RX numbers are exactly like real live spins but it's possible to test against live spins too.


You are wrong, is pretty easy to spot variance with short sample.

Cheers
 

allen

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 6
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2018, 09:09:28 AM »
Million data is useful, but you must "chopped" it according your style of playing. If you play roulette 500 - 700 spin in 1 sitting, then you chopped your data 500-700 spin. In the testing, you must chopped your million data, everywhere, anywhere (from any starting point) then it represent real situation. You win 7-8 of 10 from your chopped data, consider successful strategy, given the condition your limit loss is equal with your target win.

 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

Trilobite

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
  • Thanked: 163 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2018, 10:35:50 AM »
Thanks for the wise gaming comments allen.

Love your username BTW.

It's like, people will ask, "who told you that?" and I'll say, "Allen told me."

 ;D 
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 10:38:17 AM by Trilobite »
 

Bebediktus

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 127 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2018, 11:16:39 AM »
Very nice answer to questtion "What happened to Sp1N-D1zZy?"  ;D
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 05:06:34 AM by kav »
 

kav

  • www.Roulette30.com
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2240
  • Thanked: 1178 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2018, 05:06:22 AM »
Bebe: topic subject changed :-)
 

Bebediktus

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 127 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2018, 07:00:49 AM »
I see when it changed  :)
 

allen

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 6
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2018, 12:18:25 PM »
Very nice answer to questtion "What happened to Sp1N-D1zZy?"  ;D
You must see chronologically before quote my answer, nothing in mind, "the boss" corrected everything already
 

Bebediktus

  • Mature Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 127 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2018, 05:40:00 PM »
Ok here is not big problem, more is funny...
 

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1604
  • Thanked: 579 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2018, 09:40:30 AM »
The number of spins for a test run depends on the chance. A million test run for the roulette numbers is necessary to look for variances, but that is useless. A test run of about 200 spins for an even chance is enough.

The random row of a roulette has no begin and no end. That means  variance does not exist. First you must define  the variance, without you are looking for something that does not exist.
 

MickyP

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1346
  • Thanked: 570 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2018, 10:21:56 AM »
A complete circle has no end and no beginning but it exists.
Each spin of the roulette wheel {a complete circle of fixed numbers that have equal space on the wheel} will produce one number per spin that the ball lands in. It exists.
Variance defines the independence of where the ball will land in relation to the forces and resistors that determine the movement of the ball, deflects and finally stops the ball. This is the cornerstone of AP, being able to read and predict the ball resting place by understanding the forces and resistance the ball is subjected to.
A spin cycle can start anywhere but stops at spin 37/38 depending on the wheel in use.
It's a closed circuit.

In other words: You say a million test run is useless because variance doesn't exist. You should rather test against expectation of the amount of numbers you are betting. Am I right?

« Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 10:26:46 AM by MickyP »
 

MrPerfect.

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1928
  • Thanked: 1029 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2018, 10:23:48 PM »
 You are right generally.  There are only so much that ball has to travel and jump. There are only 37-38 numbers there and one of them will be winning number, unless no spin is called.
   Most of wheels are beatable , qwestion only is wich prinzhyps to use while predicting/ exploring.  Some better by vb, some better by other means.  There are better times to play and worst times.. often what is worst for one method/ perspective,  is very good for other.
   Understanding of Baesian probability theories helps to visualise high probability zones/ number positions where ball is more likely to stop. These( numbers/ zones) are predictable , discoverable and inevitable in any or almost any wheel. For more that l was searching for "perfect wheel", l didn't found any. Perfect wheel exist only as useless math model that do not corresponding reality.
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

dobbelsteen

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1604
  • Thanked: 579 times
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2018, 07:55:30 PM »
@MickyP.Your definition of variance is not mine. 6 executed red numbers on a sample of 200 spins is not a variance, but on a sample of 20 spins ,it is. 4 executed numbers on a sample of 1 million is not a variance but on a sample of1000 spins ,it is. Spin cycles have no relation with ranrom number rows.

IMO AP has no variance.
 
The following users thanked this post: mr j

MickyP

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1346
  • Thanked: 570 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: why would someone test a method using simulation software?
« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2018, 09:18:43 PM »
The number of spins for a test run depends on the chance. A million test run for the roulette numbers is necessary to look for variances, but that is useless. A test run of about 200 spins for an even chance is enough.

The random row of a roulette has no begin and no end. That means  variance does not exist. First you must define  the variance, without you are looking for something that does not exist.

I read your quoted post again and I now understand what you were trying to say.
Thank you for clarifying it for me.