Triggers in Systems

[palestis]

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.

[MrPerfect.]

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... 

[Reyth]

But look at the disaster it saved you from.

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!!!

[Mike]

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"?

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. 

[Mike]

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.

[MickyP]

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.

[Mike]

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.

[MickyP]

All is well Mike.

[thomasleor]

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.

[dobbelsteen]

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.

[MrPerfect.]

 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. 

[Mike]

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.

[Reyth]

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.

[MrPerfect.]

 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....

[palestis]

@ 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.