Author Topic: Why our systems fail?!  (Read 15985 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

weird

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2015, 06:23:41 AM »

I think this should be posted here.

=========================
"identify and understand what is the worst spin sequence that can ruin your system."
[Quote by Kav.]
=============================

That's exactly what we have been talking about here.
Finding what the possible worst sequence of a specific system is, takes time. It requires a long term empirical research. And in doing so, not only you determine the worst possible sequence that can ruin the system, automatically you also determine the most frequent range of spins where the action happens. It is a byproduct of that research, however of extreme importance. Once determined, this information is of tremendous value.
Because after a trigger you know with a very high degree of certainty,  how far a sequence can go to kill the system. And on top of that how frequently it can do that. Therefore you bet within the most frequent winning range, and avoid betting  when the sequence goes beyond that range. It may go to its max or it may break a new record.
But as long as the betting stops after the winning range has passed, there is no great harm. You only lose whatever you spent on the winning range. And nothing more.
It would take many consecutive violations of the winning range to lose heavy.
But the good news is, that the roulette cannot produce "horror sequences" repeatedly in the same session and after every trigger. Do your homework and you will see what I mean.
If it does, then it will be a day that you will always remember.
It's like having 4 flat tires in sequence on  the same driving trip on the same day.
What is the chance of that happening to you?
{Short lecture by Palastis}
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1614 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2015, 12:40:39 PM »
Yes.  That is a question I need to learn how to answer using analysis: "What is the minimum occurrence (number of spins) for a loss sequence greater than [X] after [Y] times in a row?"

I mean being able to answer this question is like the gold key to system design.  It allows me to design the perfect winning range based on statistics.  So far I haven't learned how to answer this question yet.
 

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Thanked: 797 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2015, 12:51:07 PM »

you only emerge to strike when the opportunity is by far in your favor. Then you retreat. You can't beat this strategy. There is nothing the HE can do to hurt you and neither the variance. Because you don't have to bet long enough to become a victim of either or both.

Hit and run is the way to go as long as you know when to hit.


Dear Palestis,
With Respect.
That a quote worth million dollar!

I truly understand what U mean .
U avoid the variance and avoid become it's victim.

Btw,
If U willing,
May U please show how u doing some HIT an Run,
 that always hit win within the math expectation.

Thanks In Advance,
Hi Weird.
There many systems that can be played in the "hit and run" fashion.
One of them that I play is the single dozen/column system.
I walk around the tables until I see a dozen missing for at least 6 spins. If I happen to see it for more than 6, its fine. I won't complain.
Then I bet that dozen for up to 4 spins. Maybe 5 or 6 if the minimum is low enough and have plenty of bank roll in my pocket. If I win before the 4 spins I stop and move on, looking for the same situation (trigger), somewhere else.
In other words, I bet on the premise that a single dozen cannot go missing for more than 10 spins. At least not too easily and not too often.
If it does go missing for more than 10 spins, it doesn't concern me, because I will stop. Then it can go for 30 spins if it wants to, but there is no harm to me other than the 4 lost spins.
Some will say that betting a dozen for 4 spins, is the same whether you start betting it at any time, (without looking at what has happened in the past), or betting it after it's already been missing for at least 6 spins. Because it is mathematically proper.
I have to argue about that because empirically, I don't see a dozen going missing 10 spins in a row too often.
But what is even much more important, if it goes missing for more than 10 spins, it cannot repeat this pattern for 3 times in a row, in the same session. That I find almost impossible. I can accept the fact that sometimes it will carry me over 10 missing spins and lose, but as I look for the same trigger in another roulette, I don't expect the same pattern to repeat.  And all I have to do is start with a higher chip value the next time.
Betting a single dozen at any time for 4 spins its not the same. Because it forces you to bet a lot more frequently to counter the possibilities that a single dozen will not show up for 4 spins. So the winnings within 4 spins have to surpass in amount,  the losses that you will incur when it disappears for more than 4 spins. (which happens frequently).
That translates in non stop betting. And that's where the HE comes in in full force. And the variance too.
In conclusion you select to bet only when the facts fall within your empirical experience. The range of bets is limited to the most frequently observed winning range, and if it fails, you count on the fact that repeated exceptions cannot happen in roulette.
You cannot keep getting more and more flat tires as you travel down the road. One can happen. But two or three?
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 12:28:07 AM by palestis »
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1614 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2015, 01:35:40 PM »
You cannot keep getting more and more flat tires as you travel down the road. One can happen. But two or three?

This is what intrigues me and peaks my curiosity; how many times and how frequently.
 

weird

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2015, 02:33:53 PM »
I manage to save this from the late Mr Opps! website before they gone.==

the numbering may mismatch, since copy and paste into different page. thus u need to read closely.
======================================

STATISTICS SECTION
 Mr Oops Roulette site ~ Statistics: Wait for a Repeat, Winner Repeats, Law of Distribution, Sequences of the Even Chances, Sequences of the Thirds
SEQUENCES of the DOZENS and COLUMNS
LOSING DOZENS
Get a zipped copy: seq3rd1.zip
LEGEND:
Lth : Length of sequence
NoF : Number of found sequences of this lenght
F% : Number of found in % of total number of sequences
NoMs: Number of misses
Ms% : Number of misses in % of total number of misses
LOSING SEQUENCES of DOZENS
Dozen 1
Lth    NoF       F%     NoMs      Ms%
-------------------------------------
  1  26111   32.620    26111   10.673
  2  17549   21.923    35098   14.347
  3  11949   14.927    35847   14.653
  4   8081   10.095    32324   13.213
  5   5315    6.640    26575   10.863
  6   3678    4.595    22068    9.021
  7   2397    2.994    16779    6.859
  8   1621    2.025    12968    5.301
  9   1096    1.369     9864    4.032
 10    746    0.932     7460    3.049
 11    505    0.631     5555    2.271
 12    337    0.421     4044    1.653
 13    224    0.280     2912    1.190
 14    148    0.185     2072    0.847
 15    103    0.129     1545    0.632
 16     63    0.079     1008    0.412
 17     39    0.049      663    0.271
 18     23    0.029      414    0.169
 19     19    0.024      361    0.148
 20     16    0.020      320    0.131
 21      6    0.007      126    0.052
 22      5    0.006      110    0.045
 23      3    0.004       69    0.028
 24      3    0.004       72    0.029
 25      4    0.005      100    0.041
 27      3    0.004       81    0.033
 28      1    0.001       28    0.011
 30      1    0.001       30    0.012
 31      1    0.001       31    0.013
     80047  100.000   244635  100.000
Top of Page
Dozen 2
Lth    NoF       F%     NoMs      Ms%
-------------------------------------
  1  26121   32.684    26121   10.692
  2  17519   21.921    35038   14.342
  3  11909   14.901    35727   14.625
  4   7915    9.904    31660   12.960
  5   5409    6.768    27045   11.071
  6   3641    4.556    21846    8.942
  7   2385    2.984    16695    6.834
  8   1682    2.105    13456    5.508
  9   1107    1.385     9963    4.078
 10    740    0.926     7400    3.029
 11    492    0.616     5412    2.215
 12    332    0.415     3984    1.631
 13    243    0.304     3159    1.293
 14    139    0.174     1946    0.797
 15    102    0.128     1530    0.626
 16     60    0.075      960    0.393
 17     28    0.035      476    0.195
 18     36    0.045      648    0.265
 19     23    0.029      437    0.179
 20     11    0.014      220    0.090
 21      8    0.010      168    0.069
 22      9    0.011      198    0.081
 23      3    0.004       69    0.028
 24      1    0.001       24    0.010
 25      2    0.003       50    0.020
 30      1    0.001       30    0.012
 33      1    0.001       33    0.014
     79919  100.000   244295  100.000
Top of Page
Dozen 3
Lth    NoF       F%     NoMs      Ms%
-------------------------------------
  1  26105   32.728    26105   10.662
  2  17584   22.045    35168   14.363
  3  11604   14.548    34812   14.218
  4   7897    9.901    31588   12.901
  5   5406    6.778    27030   11.040
  6   3571    4.477    21426    8.751
  7   2546    3.192    17822    7.279
  8   1615    2.025    12920    5.277
  9   1126    1.412    10134    4.139
 10    730    0.915     7300    2.982
 11    525    0.658     5775    2.359
 12    342    0.429     4104    1.676
 13    236    0.296     3068    1.253
 14    159    0.199     2226    0.909
 15    114    0.143     1710    0.698
 16     67    0.084     1072    0.438
 17     49    0.061      833    0.340
 18     19    0.024      342    0.140
 19     26    0.033      494    0.202
 20     14    0.018      280    0.114
 21      8    0.010      168    0.069
 22      8    0.010      176    0.072
 23      4    0.005       92    0.038
 24      6    0.008      144    0.059
 25      1    0.001       25    0.010
 29      1    0.001       29    0.012
     79763  100.000   244843  100.000
Top of Page
Dozens 1 and 2
Lth    NoF       F%     NoMs      Ms%
-------------------------------------
  1  53582   64.944    53582   42.221
  2  18888   22.893    37776   29.766
  3   6557    7.947    19671   15.500
  4   2181    2.643     8724    6.874
  5    857    1.039     4285    3.376
  6    290    0.351     1740    1.371
  7     92    0.112      644    0.507
  8     43    0.052      344    0.271
  9      9    0.011       81    0.064
 10      4    0.005       40    0.032
 11      2    0.002       22    0.017
     82505  100.000   126909  100.000
Top of Page
Dozens 1 and 3
Lth    NoF       F%     NoMs      Ms%
-------------------------------------
  1  53720   65.001    53720   42.148
  2  18633   22.546    37266   29.238
  3   6681    8.084    20043   15.725
  4   2362    2.858     9448    7.413
  5    784    0.949     3920    3.076
  6    298    0.361     1788    1.403
  7    107    0.129      749    0.588
  8     32    0.039      256    0.201
  9     16    0.019      144    0.113
 10      9    0.011       90    0.071
 11      3    0.004       33    0.026
     82645  100.000   127457  100.000
Top of Page
Dozens 2 and 3
Lth    NoF       F%     NoMs      Ms%
-------------------------------------
  1  53965   65.158    53965   42.453
  2  18739   22.626    37478   29.483
  3   6586    7.952    19758   15.543
  4   2338    2.823     9352    7.357
  5    796    0.961     3980    3.131
  6    270    0.326     1620    1.274
  7     84    0.101      588    0.463
  8     26    0.031      208    0.164
  9     12    0.014      108    0.085
 10      6    0.007       60    0.047
     82822  100.000   127117  100.000
Main  Statistics  Test Dept.  Reviews  Free Systems  Download  Top of Page

Pages in the
STATISTICS -
SEQENCES of the 3RDS area:
Winning Dozns
Winning Cols
Losing Dozens
Losing Columns
Skip-Sequences

 
 

weird

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2015, 03:12:20 PM »
LOSING SEQUENCES of DOZENS
Dozen 1
Lth    NoF       F%     
-------------------------------------
  1  26111   32.620    no bet[sleep 1time]
  2  17549   21.923    no bet[sleep 2 time]
  3  11949   14.927    no bet[sleep 3 time]
  4   8081   10.095%, hit 8081win. [1st attempt, and win]
  5   5315    6.640%   hit 5315win at after 1 loss/miss.[2nd]
  6   3678    4.595%   hit 3678win after 2 loss or miss.[3rd]
  7   2397    2.994%   hit 2397win after 3loss or miss.[4th]
  8   1621    2.025%  bet 1621 time=lose=cut loss
  9   1096    1.369%     =lose=cut loss
 10    746    0.932%     =lose=cut loss,
all below=cut loss.     
 11    505    0.631     5555    2.271
 12    337    0.421     4044    1.653
 13    224    0.280     2912    1.190
 14    148    0.185     2072    0.847
 15    103    0.129     1545    0.632
 16     63    0.079     1008    0.412
 17     39    0.049      663    0.271
 18     23    0.029      414    0.169
 19     19    0.024      361    0.148
 20     16    0.020      320    0.131
 21      6    0.007      126    0.052
 22      5    0.006      110    0.045
 23      3    0.004       69    0.028
 24      3    0.004       72    0.029
 25      4    0.005      100    0.041
 27      3    0.004       81    0.033
 28      1    0.001       28    0.011
 30      1    0.001       30    0.012
 31      1    0.001       31    0.013
 

weird

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2015, 04:00:12 PM »
LOSING SEQUENCES of DOZENS
Dozen 1
Lth    NoF       F%     
-------------------------------------
  1  26111   32.620    no bet[sleep 1time]
  2  17549   21.923    no bet[sleep 2 time]
  3  11949   14.927    no bet[sleep 3 time]

================================================
  4   8081   10.095%, hit 8081win. [1st attempt, and win]
===============================================
dozen sleep for FOUR time, start bet, hoping it will only sleep for FOUR time,

thus the above 8081=sleep for ONLY four time,
thus the dozen hit at the FIRST ATTEMPT=8081 ATTEMPT.
...after sleepping for FOUR time...

So 10.96% WIN AT 1st attempt.
bet taken after dozen sleep for four time=successful bet=hit...[wake up after four sleep=8081 time]

--------------------------------------------------------
===================================
 5   5315    6.640%   hit 5315win at after 1 loss/miss.[2nd]
==============================================
above=sleep for FIVE time before wake up.
thus for 5315, the dozen sleep through Four , and then sleep again for FIFTH time before wake up,
thus U start bet when it sleep at four [fourth] time and lose the bet, as it sleep for FIVE time, and hit when u bet for second time.

Thus for 5315 or 6.640%, u will bet and lose the first bet,
but win the SECOND  ATTEMPT bet.

-----------------------------
=========================================
  6   3678    4.595%   hit 3678win after 2 loss or miss.[3rd]
===============================================
sleep for sixth time.
thus for 3678 time, 4.595% win at 3rd ATTEMPT.
u bet when the doen sleep at fourth time, and u bet,but lose, at first, LOSE at second and  WIN at third time.

1st sleep=no bet.
2nd=nb
3rd=nb
4th sleep=
first bet=lose, 5th sleep
second bet=lose, 6th sleep
third bet=win,   7th=wake up

------------------------------
=================================
  7   2397    2.994%   hit 2397win after 3loss or miss.[4th]
======================================

1st sleep=no bet.
2nd=nb
3rd=nb
4th sleep=
first bet=lose, 5th sleep
second bet=lose, 6th sleep
third bet=lose,   7th=sleep
FOURTH BET=WIN=2397,OR 2.994%,  8th=wake up

----------------
===================================
  8   1621    2.025%  bet 1621 time=lose=cut loss
==================================

1st sleep=no bet.
2nd=nb
3rd=nb
4th sleep=
first bet=lose, 5th sleep
second bet=lose, 6th sleep
third bet=lose,   7th=sleep
FOURTH BET=lose, 8th sleep.

CUT LOSS!!! =1621, OR 2.025%

--------------------

ALL BELOW =CUT LOSS AFTER FOUT ATTEMPT THAT LOSE.
  9   1096    1.369%     =lose=cut loss
 10    746    0.932%     =lose=cut loss,
all below=cut loss.     
 11    505    0.631     5555    2.271
 12    337    0.421     4044    1.653
 13    224    0.280     2912    1.190
 14    148    0.185     2072    0.847
 15    103    0.129     1545    0.632
 16     63    0.079     1008    0.412
 17     39    0.049      663    0.271
 18     23    0.029      414    0.169
 19     19    0.024      361    0.148
 20     16    0.020      320    0.131
 21      6    0.007      126    0.052
 22      5    0.006      110    0.045
 23      3    0.004       69    0.028
 24      3    0.004       72    0.029
 25      4    0.005      100    0.041
 27      3    0.004       81    0.033
 28      1    0.001       28    0.011
 30      1    0.001       30    0.012
 31      1    0.001       31    0.013
 

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Thanked: 797 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2015, 01:40:41 AM »
Yes.  That is a question I need to learn how to answer using analysis: "What is the minimum occurrence (number of spins) for a loss sequence greater than [X] after [Y] times in a row?"

I mean being able to answer this question is like the gold key to system design.  It allows me to design the perfect winning range based on statistics.  So far I haven't learned how to answer this question yet.
Unfortunately the answer to those questions requires extensive research.
I don't believe in computer simulation to get fast results, that would otherwise take a long time to conclude from live tables.
Knowing how many times a black can spin in a row, is of no particular usefulness.
Those who have been around roulettes for a number of years know that seeing 4 or 5 back in a row happens all day long. However 10+ times in a row is getting very hard to find. And much harder 15+.
You won't be seeing that any time soon.
So if I know that 10 black in a row is very hard to happen, if I already saw 7 in a row, most likely it will turn to red in the next few spins. That is information I can use.
The math side claims that after 7 black in a row, what can happen next  has nothing to do with those previous 7.
In other words I can see another 7 just as easily as the first 7.
Then y I almost never see 14 in a row in my entire stay for the day?
DON'T GIVE ME THE PROBABILITY OF 14 IN A ROW. Which is extremely small.
Use the probability of 7 in a row. Don't we ignore what happened before?  Y use the probability of 14 in a row if we already had 7? That probability is now 100% and we should only compute the probability of the next 7
The point is,  if we hide the score board that had brought the first set of 7 in a row, and spin another 7 spins, chances are that you won't see a total of 14 after revealing the numbers on the score board.
Yet 7 of this or 7 of that you will often see in many boards standing by themselves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now here comes the real reason behind those phenomena.
Probability may be an integral  part of the game of roulette, but in our daily lives,  as we watch events happening around us (and that includes observing roulettes), we inadvertently acquire
a VISUAL PROBABILITY of the frequency of those happenings. A visual perception of what to expect based on empirical observation as we live thru the same situations every day.
That's how we know that having 2 flat tires in the same trip cannot happen. Or that we can't run into 10 red lights or green lights in a row as we drive, or that 100 planes cannot crash in one year etc. etc. We know it because we see it every day and live thru it every day.

Same in roulette. Math dictates that after 10 heads the probability of heads is 50%. Fine. But trying to get 11 heads in a row will be a very long process. Just to see it once. Never mind seeing it again immediately following the first sight. our visual perception or visual probability tells us that we can't see that happening. Or at least, it is extremely rare to happen.
Therefore there is nothing wrong with betting on the fact that we will not see it, And if we saw 6 heads already it doesn't matter if the probability is still the same for the next tosses.
The visual probability is not the same. . ( the fact that I don't see that happening, is important information that I can use).
12 scattered numbers may be missing for 37 spins all day long in many roulette tables.
However 12 numbers that belong in the same dozen you won't see missing for 37 spins.
Y? Because our visual perception (based on experience), does not see 12 numbers missing while a large real estate portion of the table layout is blank at the same time for 37 spins.
We just don't see period. It doesn't happen. Then y does it have to happen if a dozen has gone missing for 20 spins already? Because math says so?
Reality contradicts it each and every time. With extremely rare exceptions.
Are we guided by math alone, or do we also take into account out visual perception based on empirical experience?
And that's exactly what some of us do with their prospective systems.
We don't base out bet decisions on probability alone.
We rather place more emphasis on our visual experience, that a certain event won't happen based on what happened up to that point. Because we simply don't see it happening. at least the overwhelming majority of the time.
And if we don't see it happening for the most part of our roulette life, I don't see y it should happen right there and then when I'm ready to bet.

 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1614 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2015, 02:02:24 AM »

Quote
Yes.  That is a question I need to learn how to answer using analysis: "What is the minimum occurrence (number of spins) for a loss sequence greater than [X] after [Y] times in a row?"

I mean being able to answer this question is like the gold key to system design.  It allows me to design the perfect winning range based on statistics.  So far I haven't learned how to answer this question yet.

Knowing how many times a black can spin in a row, is of no particular usefulness.

Actually it is the basis of the probability of it spinning twice in a row or any number out to the expected 25, where 26 is expected to be 0%; this is known as a loss distribution table and it shows a downward curve of probability as the consecutive loss streaks occur.  This information is useful because it allows me to make an informed decision based on actual probability for a trigger or raise amount.

Quote
The math side claims that after 7 black in a row, what can happen next  has nothing to do with those previous 7.

Not the full picture of math properly applied.  These "math gurus" claim to have the answer and shove it down our throats but they refuse to look at the full mathematical picture which includes the force of equal distribution; i.e. a downward probability curve as consecutive losses occur.

I believe in your experiential approach AND the statistical approach; I use both of them together.  What I am trying to do is expand my statistical approach from one dimensional (1 set of consecutive losses) to multi-dimensional (multiple sets of interrelated consecutive losses analyzed by frequency).  I guess I am just whining about how lazy I am really or maybe I am just trying to remind my subconscious that I need to take the next step with this.

Now if Weird would just complete his posting from  Mr Oops, maybe I can learn something... X D
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 02:11:06 AM by Reyth »
 

weird

  • New
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2015, 02:52:07 AM »

Quote
Now if Weird would just complete his posting from  Mr Oops, maybe I can learn something... X D
Hi Reyth,
What to complete from Mr Oops???
=====================

I think the probability, of HORRIBLE sequence to happen side by side is very slim.

say, dozen sleep for 8time, break, then sleep again for 8time is slim.
Thus using Palestis strategy of wait for 4 sleep to bet,

I think,
wait for 4 sleep,
wait for break,
wait for 4 sleep,
start bet.
================

1st sleep,
2 sleep,
3 sleep,
4 sleep, so on..
break, [wake up]
1 sleep,
2 sleep,
3 sleep,
4 sleep,
5.=start  bet now for 4spins.

 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1614 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2015, 04:10:00 PM »
Ok!  I think there is good technique & data here I can learn from.  Its not so easy when you have work and such too...Thanks!
 

Mike

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 901
  • Thanked: 186 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2015, 04:28:50 PM »

I don't believe in computer simulation to get fast results, that would otherwise take a long time to conclude from live tables.


Why not?

If you use spins recorded from a live table, what's the difference in terms of validity?

You can do your research in a fraction of the time it takes to do it manually, once you've invested some time and effort in learning to code, of course.
 

Reyth

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4393
  • Thanked: 1614 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2015, 04:45:21 PM »

I don't believe in computer simulation to get fast results, that would otherwise take a long time to conclude from live tables.


Why not?

If you use spins recorded from a live table, what's the difference in terms of validity?

You can do your research in a fraction of the time it takes to do it manually, once you've invested some time and effort in learning to code, of course.

I must agree here.  I can INSTANTLY output hundreds of worst loss sequences, all validly randomly generated along with percentage chances of them actually occurring in a session.  I can set the parameters to whatever I desire as the output criteria. 

I think this is INCREDIBLY POWERFUL for system analysis and design purposes.  I haven't even begun to plumb the depths of the advantages & inspiration to be gained from this ability.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 04:48:55 PM by Reyth »
 

palestis

  • Great Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Thanked: 797 times
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2015, 04:00:48 AM »

I don't believe in computer simulation to get fast results, that would otherwise take a long time to conclude from live tables.


Why not?

If you use spins recorded from a live table, what's the difference in terms of validity?

You can do your research in a fraction of the time it takes to do it manually, once you've invested some time and effort in learning to code, of course.

I must agree here.  I can INSTANTLY output hundreds of worst loss sequences, all validly randomly generated along with percentage chances of them actually occurring in a session.  I can set the parameters to whatever I desire as the output criteria. 

I think this is INCREDIBLY POWERFUL for system analysis and design purposes.  I haven't even begun to plumb the depths of the advantages & inspiration to be gained from this ability.
Maybe you are right. I can't argue with something I haven't done.
The reason being, over many years I have meticulously recorded tons of score cards like these in the pic. Keeping track of many scenarios at the same time.

Each pen color represent a full cycle of 37 spins. As I run out of vibrant  colors I use the same color pen further down. And I record not only what happens on the layout, but on the wheel itself too.
There is nothing the roulette can do  that I haven't seen.

I have seen records being broken, but what's more important to me is how often a roulette can reach rare results  instead of some extremely rare sequences that take very long time to see them again, if ever. I have seen the extremes, I have seen the rare, I have seen the somewhat rare.
Though I'm well a aware how far a specific sequence can go, I can't use that information because my betting will stop long before it reaches that extreme.
Rather I look for average limits of sequences.
Once I know those average limits, then I can set the range of bets that win more frequently.
I don't bet before that range and neither after that range.
In other words, rather than being concerned if I am going to run into 20 black in a row, I am more concerned with what happens after 5 or 6 black in a row. Because 5-6 EC's in a row you will see often. Seeing 11 black in a row you will not see very often. Therefore my attention is focused on what can happen in the next 4 spins after 6 black.
How often do they become 11?
If they do sometimes become 11, will the same scenario repeat the next time I see 6 black?
That I find extremely useful, because thru research I have found, that the roulette cannot do the unusual repeatedly after every consecutive trigger.
My virtual loss bets, are not only for bets within the trigger.
 I can use virtual bet loss for the entire trigger, because I count on the fact that after I lost one sequence of bets virtually, the next one will be  mine.
I have the patience of a rock sitting on the bottom of the sea.
That's the only way I can get the results I aim for.
I guess I was never meant to be a gambler, and I feel much more at ease, if someone else touches the chips and does the betting for me. For a fee of course.
 
The following users thanked this post: Reyth

december

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why our systems fail?!
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2015, 05:48:43 AM »
@palestis
I have the patience of a rock sitting on the bottom of the sea.

Maybe the most important virtue life (roulette?) teach you, I think!