The Texas Sharpshooter.
I have several versions of play for this system, here is the first.
List the number array from 1 to 0, or 0 to 36 (your preference).
Track spins.
When any number repeats, put a mark on that number and 1 number either side of it. So if 17 repeats you mark 16.17.18. If 0 repeats you mark 1.0.36. If 4 repeats you mark 3.4.5, etc.
After a number repeats rule off the tracked numbers and start a fresh track from that point forward. Continue to track and rule off every time a number repeats (this is the Texas Sharpshooter element).
Continue to track and rule off until at least one number in the first array has been marked at least 3 times. Betting can now commence.
While continuing to track the spins, flat bet any number that has 3 or more marks against it, as well as one number either side, for a possible 12 spins, stopping on a win (a win being when any 1 of the 3 numbers bet in any group hits). If all bet combinations win within 12 spins stop betting and continue to track until the next repeat before updating the arrays and betting again. After the next repeat start betting again on any number with 3 or more marks along with 1 number either side. If any bet combinations lose after 12 spins immediately commence betting again on any qualifying combinations.
Any combination that loses is crossed off from the betting for the remainder of the session while that array is used. It can be reinstated as a bet if it regains 3 marks or more in the next array.
A maximum of 2 arrays are used at any one time. An array becomes useable once any number has 3 or more marks against it. A new array is set up each time the previous array reaches the desired 3 marks on any number. You continue to mark numbers in the first array until the third array reaches the 3 marks on any number then it is abandoned.
In any qualified array a number with 4 marks against it eliminates the betting on any numbers with 3 marks against it. A number with 5 marks against it eliminates the betting on any numbers with 4 or 3 marks against it, etc.
A maximum of 18 units can bet outlayed at any 1 time (6x3 number combinations). Any more than that and you don’t bet. Continue tracking until the next betting opportunity with 18 or less units outlay.
Betting combinations from the most recent array are included into the betting before considering the previous array.
Some numbers can have more than 1 unit bet on them. Example, numbers 4 and 5 both have 3 marks. The bet will be 1 unit on 3.4.5, and 1 unit on 4.5.6. A total of 6 units bet, 1 unit on 3 & 6, and 2 units on 4 & 5. Another example, number 4.5.6 each have 3 marks. The bet will be 1 unit on 3.4.5 and 1 unit on 4.5.6 and 1 unit on 5.6.7. A total of 9 units bet, 1 unit on 3 & 7, and 2 units on 4 & 6, and 3 units on 5.
This variant is set up to play continuously for ever and ever if you want. I have other variants that play a more enclosed style with a hit and run approach, but for the purposes of a mega-long rx or bot test this variant is a good start.
There you go boatran8, if you can rx code this I will pay you an agreed amount.
Give it a go, ask any questions, and when you get it right let me know and I will send you some spins for testing. If using those spins both our results match I will pay you and then you can post the .dgt file for everyone to explore in creative ways.
No need for confidentiality ‘cause I just posted the system anyway. Oh, and if you can code this then you’re a bloody genius.
Offer is for superman to make a bot too.
I’m good for the cash if you guys can do it.
Hello,
Can you give us an example with spins and WL...
Thanks
Sure, but it will take a while so I'll do it tomorrow when time allows.
Ok. Will wait then.
Interesting concept. One thing I would ask is that why would you use the layout to determine the numbers and their connectors and not the actual wheel?
In other words, why not use the number that hits and the numbers on either side on the actual wheel? Maybe makes no difference, but I would think that if there is any table bias present that using the actual wheel layout instead of the felt would be more effective? And if there is not a table bias or dealer bias than using the wheel as opposed to the layout should not hurt you at all?
Am I off base?
Hi GameBreaker,
You're on the ball, very good questions!
Yes you can use the wheel order in exactly the same way! in fact that is another variant that I use. But believe it or not, it makes very little difference to the results.
Ideally you could have a bot playing both at the same time each with an 18 unit bet limit, though this could be troublesome when using bigger chips as you could tip over the table limit with converging bets > maybe later.
The reason I use a numerical oreder and not the wheel order is because there is little difference in the results, and the numerical order is infinitely easier to visually navigate when playing manually. It is also much easier and quicker for the player to place bets when the time comes.
For me, the practical advantages outweigh any possible bias advantages that might exist in the wheel/wheel order.
:thumbsup:
Also the numerical order can be used for RNG where there is no actual wheel anyway. :)
And what when you have a situation like this;
16,19,22,13,24,18.....what and how now,
or similar situations,26,29,32,23,34,28,
Quote from: vile on Mar 29, 04:48 PM 2012
And what when you have a situation like this;
16,19,22,13,24,18.....what and how now,
or similar situations,26,29,32,23,34,28,
Hello vile.
Sorry, I'm not understanding your question?
Are these numbers that have hit or are they numbers that have repeated?
16,19,22,13,24,18 > if these numbers have repeated then you would mark the array like this,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 I
13 I
14 I
15 I
16 I
17 II
18 II
19 II
20 I
21 I
22 I
23 II
24 I
25 I
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
0
No bets yet, but 17.18.19.23 are getting close with 2 marks. Notice 17 & 23 have been marked twice each yet neither number has repeated.
If you added in your second group of repeats (26,29,32,23 > AFTER 23 BETTING COMMENSES ON 22,23,24 FOR UP TO 12 SPINS STOP ON A WIN. CONTINUE TRACKING WITH TWO ARRAYS NOW > 34,28,) the 1st array would be marked like this, and the 2nd array would have a mark on numbers 33.34.35.27.28.29.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 I
13 I
14 I
15 I
16 I
17 II
18 II
19 II
20 I
21 I
22 II
23 III
24 II
25 II
26 I
27 II 27 I
28 II 28 I
29 II 29 I
30 I
31 I
32 I
33 II 33 I
34 I 34 I
35 I 35 I
36
0
:)
Let's say you bet on 22.23.24 for the next 12 spins and lost, and there were also no repeats.
The 1st array would now look like this,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 I
13 I
14 I
15 I
16 I
17 II
18 II
19 II
20 I
21 I
22 II
23 IIIX
24 II
25 II
26 I
27 II
28 II
29 II
30 I
31 I
32 I
33 II
34 I
35 I
36
0
23 is now blocked and no further marks can be added to it in this array. If say 22 repeated then you would put a mark against 21.22 only. That would give 22 three marks so you would then bet on 21.22.23 for 12 spins max.
O! Ska-kus you see, by the dawn's early light...
What's the working logic to any of the "quickies"? Because it's one thing to say that the most rather play $50 here and there at a casino, but another that they should to a programmer, who ought to know better by the way, to have those "computerized" and played ad nauseam. I mean, the most pretty-much already realize that there is no Santa Clause in any respect. Even universally-degreed experts, from Einstein to Thorpe, have simply proposed the negative. Do any of you guys really suspect, or want to pretend, that Einstein for one, who was fully immersed in a lifetime of all the real sciences on which roulette can possibly be based, didn't completely take into consideration something like VB? Google Brownian motions, for one ex.
Generally, it "sucks" to be someone who perpetuates addictions only to "solve" those for a fee. Worst of the worst, they who would have your money, or other support, before you even get to the casinos, debtors, et al. Best to get to the bottom of those; and thusly educate the silly to properly eradicate their "leeches".
Hello GARNabby,
I do think that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light. This does not mean that roulette can be won over the longterm but it does give it a chance....
Quote from: GARNabby on Mar 30, 11:44 AM 2012
O! Ska-kus you see, by the dawn's early light...
What's the working logic to any of the "quickies"? Because it's one thing to say that the most rather play $50 here and there at a casino, but another that they should to a programmer, who ought to know better by the way, to have those "computerized" and played ad nauseam. I mean, the most pretty-much already realize that there is no Santa Clause in any respect. Even universally-degreed experts, from Einstein to Thorpe, have simply proposed the negative. Do any of you guys really suspect, or want to pretend, that Einstein for one, who was fully immersed in a lifetime of all the real sciences on which roulette can possibly be based, didn't completely take into consideration something like VB? Google Brownian motions, for one ex.
Generally, it "sucks" to be someone who perpetuates addictions only to "solve" those for a fee. Worst of the worst, they who would have your money, or other support, before you even get to the casinos, debtors, et al. Best to get to the bottom of those; and thusly educate the silly to properly eradicate their "leeches".
Money makes the world go round.
New discoveries abound daily within the scientific community, and who do you think gets paid to consolidate these discoveries? Researchers and lab technicians. Hoards of footsoldier researchers and lab technicians.
Would you begrudge them the ability to provide for their families with an income earned through their services?
Quote from: amk on Mar 30, 03:28 PM 2012
I do think that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light.
Absolutely, everything must be filled in, and accounted for, in some way. That's like saying that where the math can go, so also the physics; and versa. (Another thing Einstein couldn't accept, because also that went against some of his theories.)
Quote from: Skakus on Mar 30, 05:30 PM 2012
Would you begrudge them the ability to provide for their families with an income earned through their services?
No, but i would like to see them do better. In this case, you're really going to have put some casinos out of business... like they try, and usually do, to the players. That's the sort of end-game involved, realistically.
Otherwise, you're going to do 100 X's the work for each cent on the dollar's pay, to find what the (other) experts have overlooked.
I don't want to be a pain in the ass - but one thing i notice and witch i find being confusing is that how the numbers are presented.
123456789 10 11 12 and so on ...
Then if they chop or clustering as you describe about it should be a hot area or a tendency towards being frequent hit - but does numbers are spreed all over the wheel and are not connected as you present them - so each hot or frequent hit spreed of numbers are all over the wheel and not in any kind of group being next to each other - witch i recon is the main point with your method.
This is the wheels order.
26
0
32
15
19
4
21
2
25
17
34
6
27
13
36
11
30
8
23
10
5
24
16
33
1
20
14
31
9
22
18
29
7
28
12
35
3
Quote from: ego on Mar 31, 02:00 PM 2012
I don't want to be a pain in the ar*e - but one thing i notice and witch i find being confusing is that how the numbers are presented.
123456789 10 11 12 and so on ...
Then if they chop or clustering as you describe about it should be a hot area or a tendency towards being frequent hit - but does numbers are spread all over the wheel and are not connected as you present them - so each hot or frequent hit spread of numbers are all over the wheel and not in any kind of group being next to each other - witch i recon is the main point with your method.
This is the wheels order.
26
0
32
15
19
4
21
2
25
17
34
6
27
13
36
11
30
8
23
10
5
24
16
33
1
20
14
31
9
22
18
29
7
28
12
35
3
Hi ego,
Don’t worry, we’re all accustomed to you being a pain in the ar*e (only joking).
Yes this method is about numbers clustering, and the wheel order is the most obvious way to go. But this exercise is about coding the system. Once the code is complete it is an easy exchange from numerical sequence to wheel order sequence. The surprising thing is that the results will be almost identical! Yes, believe it or not the results will be the same.
I think this is an important realization, and the proof will be in the results if it ever gets coded.
You would expect number clusters to be physically related to hot wheel sections, and they can be, but this Texas Sharpshooter method proves that numbers will cluster where they will, without the need for any direct physical relationship to the apparatus.
If we take it as gospel that numerical sequence clusters are just as likely as wheel order clusters, then why not play the numerical sequence, as it is far more practical for manual play? A bot could just as easily handle either, or both, but playing manually in a B&M casino is much easier using the numbers and not the wheel.
Come on coders, prove me wrong.
I'll have some examples up soon.
Well as i see it is based upon two old classical methods witch i post many years ago - they exist with many different tweaks and variations.
Good Luck with you method and enjoy ...
Cheers
Quote from: Skakus on Apr 01, 02:18 AM 2012
Yes this method is about numbers clustering, and the wheel order is the most obvious way to go. But this exercise is about coding the system. Once the code is complete it is an easy exchange from numerical sequence to wheel order sequence. The surprising thing is that the results will be almost identical! Yes, believe it or not the results will be the same.
I think this is an important realization, and the proof will be in the results if it ever gets coded.
You would expect number clusters to be physically related to hot wheel sections, and they can be, but this Texas Sharpshooter method proves that numbers will cluster where they will, without the need for any direct physical relationship to the apparatus.
If we take it as gospel that numerical sequence clusters are just as likely as wheel order clusters, then why not play the numerical sequence, as it is far more practical for manual play? A bot could just as easily handle either, or both, but playing manually in a B&M casino is much easier using the numbers and not the wheel.
Come on coders, prove me wrong.
I'll have some examples up soon.
Skakus, you're dead right. :thumbsup:
I've never understood why some think that the only valid way to take advantage of clustering is to use the wheel (rather than the layout, or any other configuration).
We all know that locations unconnected with sectors can and do cluster (e.g, the ECs, dozens etc). If we assume that the wheel is unbiased (and that should be the default assumption), then it follows that all SECTORS are equally likely, and any clustering of those sectors is due to "natural" randomness, which means that if you make up your own wheel (or layout), you'll observe the same clustering with the same frequency as on the real wheel. Repeats and clusters are simply what random outcomes do - it's the natural behaviour of any random variable.
The ONLY reason for choosing the disc to base your betting (with the expectation of gaining a mathematical advantage) on is when you have determined a bias - and a TRUE bias, not just sectors which seem to be trending at the moment. Kimo Li and others have perpetuated this myth that you must bet on the wheel, not the layout, to get an advantage.
It's nonsense.
Again, in the absence of any bias, you're no better off betting on sectors than you are the layout.
So I don't need to prove you wrong, Skakus, but I'm quite interested in your system, and looking forward to some examples. :)
-
I would just state that i don't fully agree witch has been mention above.
But i would put a different angel to it.
Sure outcomes clustering, repeats no matter if you use the number rings order or not.
-
This might put some light on the subject from Snowman and Laurance ...
-
Quote from Snowman.
-
Some roulette facts..Here's the real deal on past spins influencing future spins. The following information is based on a REAL ROULETTE WHEEL WITH A LIVE DEALER. On these wheels the rotor did NOT alternate spin direction- (every other spin like they do in EU). The following information does NOT pertain to an RNG based wheel or the random game of roulette. In other words, no electronic machines.I can tell you the facts, based on my experience, as they pertain to a real wheel. Here they are, like them or not.1. If a number has hit within the last five spins, it really is slightly more likely to hit on the next spin.2. Simply playing the last five numbers to have hit will slightly reduce the house edge, especially when the wheel speed is close to the speed of the previous spin. In rare cases, you can get a small edge on some wheels playing this way.3. The dealer's pick up and release of the ball is not random, like someone on this board had stated. As a matter of fact, it will quickly spike out beyond five standard deviations in a short period of time for most dealers, if you take the time to measure it.
-
Here's a small example below.30000 trials. (This is just one wheel. Each wheel and sample varies some. Overall, the effect is real.)(Wheel make is a Huxley Mark Series with moveable fret ring).
(Date 2007 to 2009)(Right handed)Betting the last seven numbers to have hit.
Edge reduces to -1.29
Max loss run 37Max
DD 4871 --------------------------
Betting the last five numbers to have hit. Edge reduces to -1.79Max loss run 52Max DD 4209------------
Betting the last three numbers to have hit.Edge .02Max loss run 85Max DD 1555-------------Betting the last number only.Edge 5.17Max loss run 85Max DD 1555
-
In most cases, you can't get an edge. All you can do is reduce the house edge. When some other effects come together, you can get a small edge.
-
Quote Laurance
-
Suddenly, everyone's an expert on Roulette.I agree with everything Keyser has said, except one thing:Even in the situation he describes, past spins don't "influence" future spins. It's just that the same physical system that produced those past spins will tend to produce future spins in the same manner. Because of the short term nature of biases, this tends to manifest best within the first few spins. I have about 150,000 real roulette spins and in all but a handfull of cases, the house edge is reduced just by betting the past 5 spins. In a few cases, a true edge is realized.However, there are two things Keyser isn't telling you:
1) It only works (or, has the potential to work) on wheels with a Chi-Square above 55, and
2) Trying to exploit the bias (i.e. playing) will negate the effect should you start to win. In fact, should you start to win and draw attention just betting the past 5 numbers, you will - in all probability - now be playing into a significant negative edge.
Should also state that pepole have try this as long roulette exist and different person come up with different or similar methods.
As Laurance once state when i corresponding with him is that it would be like finding the holy grail if you could ride out the imbalance that exist when not each 37 numbers not show once each.
I recon that some one could succeed to reduce the house edge to certain degree witch would be awesome.
But towards that there has to be clear how many attempts some one use to gain a profit flat betting to get a hint about the average negative expectation and after that add some kind of staking plan and at some point accept loses.
That is my opinion.
Two classical methods based upon similar way.
1. Here we wait for one number to repeat 3 times and it has to do so with in 36 spins.
When it appears you play that number at most 18 times straight up.
The numbers that shows up twice with in this 18 times you also play straight up until 18 times have been played.
2. Here we track the numbers to find one number that has repeat 3 times with in 36 spins.
We play this number straight up and we continue to do so for 36 spins.
If it hit then we play this number again for 36 spins.
Now we also add new numbers.
We play the numbers that has show twice up to a total of 6 numbers with the number that has hit 3 times.
At most we will play 6 numbers straight up.
Old numbers falls out for new numbers that has hit twice so we play the 6 numbers that qualify last at all times.
The exception is the first number that we always follow until it not hit once more in 36 spins, see above.
3. Then there exist endless of variations like Bob Gordons "Detector" at Mr Ops site ...
link:://:.xerxx.se/oops/fresys/biashot/detect.html (link:://:.xerxx.se/oops/fresys/biashot/detect.html)
I know many more like Arte method witch he claims pass milions trails with succes among others.
But i really never find that any one did produce better result then any other method.
"As a matter of fact, it will quickly spike out beyond five standard deviations in a short period of time for most dealers, if you take the time to measure it."
So what? You could likely machine-release the ball at much-more precise intervals and speeds, and still end up with nothing more than the statistically-expected "clusters" of outcomes.
Second, were "clusters" of other than the usual significance, then there would be also "clusters of clusters", leaving some of the "frames of reference" for that sort of thing not "clustering" after all, hence a contradiction; and those which do "cluster" to even out, hence still a symmetry. In the former case, it's easier to notice when your wins/losses, e.g., are "clustering" than when those are not... nobody even talks about that, the "anti-clusters" if you will.
Quote from: GARNabby on Apr 01, 08:09 PM 2012
>>"clusters of clusters",>>
Exactly the frame of reference this Sharpshooter method is trying to pick up on.
By recalibrating after each cluster (the first repeater for any given length of spins) the system inherently skims over other repeaters or clusters that fall outside the calibration periods. Thereby focusing only on certain clusters within the broader spectrum of all existing clusters.
Does it work? Not sure over the long term, but my testing so far of this
basic system variant I have put forward (12300 spins, with 12511 bets on 3 numbers) is in profit. Not much, only 1.4% but to date it has turned the tables on the house edge, plus a little bit. The bet selection is hitting at 5% above expectation, again not much, but this is only the basic version. The %'s do go up a bit with other variants. (NOT REVERSE ENGINEERED).
I sent a PM to Boatran to get it coded. I am more than willing to pony up a few bucks. Lets see what he comes back with.
Quote from: Skakus on Apr 01, 08:55 PM 2012
Does it work?
Only if logic is no good. That's why we "test" our logic through simulations, etc; not the other way around.
Quote from: ego on Apr 01, 12:44 PM 2012
Some roulette facts..Here's the real deal on past spins influencing future spins. The following information is based on a REAL ROULETTE WHEEL WITH A LIVE DEALER. On these wheels the rotor did NOT alternate spin direction- (every other spin like they do in EU). The following information does NOT pertain to an RNG based wheel or the random game of roulette. In other words, no electronic machines.I can tell you the facts, based on my experience, as they pertain to a real wheel. Here they are, like them or not.1. If a number has hit within the last five spins, it really is slightly more likely to hit on the next spin.2. Simply playing the last five numbers to have hit will slightly reduce the house edge, especially when the wheel speed is close to the speed of the previous spin. In rare cases, you can get a small edge on some wheels playing this way.3. The dealer's pick up and release of the ball is not random, like someone on this board had stated. As a matter of fact, it will quickly spike out beyond five standard deviations in a short period of time for most dealers, if you take the time to measure it.
The fact that the dealer's pick up and release isn't random means nothing. In many countries, dealers are trained to release the ball from the pocket of the last win - completely deterministic. Just because
that initial condition is fixed says nothing about where the ball will end up because the chaos occurs later in the process. Even if the dealer were able to exactly replicate the initial position and velocity, there wouldn't be any significant bias introduced by it alone. I've done tests betting the last X numbers to hit and there's no significant edge gained in the long term.
QuoteSuddenly, everyone's an expert on Roulette.I agree with everything Keyser has said, except one thing:Even in the situation he describes, past spins don't "influence" future spins. It's just that the same physical system that produced those past spins will tend to produce future spins in the same manner. Because of the short term nature of biases, this tends to manifest best within the first few spins. I have about 150,000 real roulette spins and in all but a handfull of cases, the house edge is reduced just by betting the past 5 spins. In a few cases, a true edge is realized.However, there are two things Keyser isn't telling you:
1) It only works (or, has the potential to work) on wheels with a Chi-Square above 55, and
2) Trying to exploit the bias (i.e. playing) will negate the effect should you start to win. In fact, should you start to win and draw attention just betting the past 5 numbers, you will - in all probability - now be playing into a significant negative edge.
The "short term nature of biases"? Why can't Laurance be honest and admit it's random? At least, unlike snowman, he qualifies it by saying that the wheel has to be biased in the first place as determined by the chi-square value.
Well i find it at least interesting and don't find it being a big supprice that they don't spell out the hole truth in details.
That is common when you read boards from does who know what is facts and fiction.
33% is regular chat, then another 33% is common sense and at last some 33% of hard core hints about the subject.
It allways like that when you read does topics.
I know storeys are based upon the truth and have the simulation softwares based upon does statement among others.
It is just that no one go into deep details about the physics conditions witch is necessary to does things to manifest in real life.
My opinion.
Quote from: Skakus on Apr 01, 08:55 PM 2012
Exactly the frame of reference this Sharpshooter method is trying to pick up on.
By recalibrating after each cluster (the first repeater for any given length of spins) the system inherently skims over other repeaters or clusters that fall outside the calibration periods. Thereby focusing only on certain clusters within the broader spectrum of all existing clusters.
Does it work? Not sure over the long term, but my testing so far of this basic system variant I have put forward (12300 spins, with 12511 bets on 3 numbers) is in profit. Not much, only 1.4% but to date it has turned the tables on the house edge, plus a little bit. The bet selection is hitting at 5% above expectation, again not much, but this is only the basic version. The %'s do go up a bit with other variants. (NOT REVERSE ENGINEERED).
That sound pretty good.
Cheers
Quote from: GameBreaker on Mar 29, 01:09 PM 2012
Interesting concept. One thing I would ask is that why would you use the layout to determine the numbers and their connectors and not the actual wheel?
In other words, why not use the number that hits and the numbers on either side on the actual wheel? Maybe makes no difference, but I would think that if there is any table bias present that using the actual wheel layout instead of the felt would be more effective? And if there is not a table bias or dealer bias than using the wheel as opposed to the layout should not hurt you at all?
Am I off base?
Well i think its better to use the number rings layout if you pick up a slight bias wheel you would probably also pick up does numbers using the method described witch would be awesome.
Sure i would state there is a difference using the number ring then the table layout.
As bias wheels or at least slight bias wheels is to find every where and that even with casinos being aware of having them on the floor.
My opinion
Quote from: ego on Apr 02, 02:39 AM 2012
Well i think its better to use the number rings layout if you pick up a slight bias wheel you would probably also pick up does numbers using the method described witch would be awesome.
Sure i would state there is a difference using the number ring then the table layout.
As bias wheels or at least slight bias wheels is to find every where and that even with casinos being aware of having them on the floor.
My opinion
I guess when you put it like that there is a good argument for using the number ring to play this type of system. If all things are equal with truly random numbers then results can only improve if you did happen to stumble upon a bias wheel. I think this method would ride a bias for sure. Like I said, I only posted it this way for practicality.
Hi Bayes,
Thanks for your interest.
The samples are coming but it's taking me longer than I thought because even though the system is fairly straight forward and easy to play, it is very difficult to explain succinctly enough for all to grasp.
Hey Gamebreaker,
Thanks for you kind offer to “pony up†and pm to Boatran8, but I think he is probably waiting for some examples before he commits to anything.
Cheers.
Well i would first state i don't use methods like this one - but i might use it as camouflage bet - so i look like average player when i collect data - just to blend in among others players.
Now to my question.
What kind of window or frame does this method use regarding frequency of attack?
Lets say you find one bet to qualify and you first attack once and win - then the number might hit more times - so do you continue to bet to certain degree or do you just stop after each win and track for new opportunity.
Cheers
Hi Skakus, just a bit confused as to yuor description of 1,2,3 arrays, from reading your first post, I thought it was seperate lists of 1 - 0 but after this
QuoteCONTINUE TRACKING WITH TWO ARRAYS NOW > 34,28,) the 1st array would be marked like this, and the 2nd array would have a mark on numbers 33.34.35.27.28.29.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 I
13 I
14 I
15 I
16 I
17 II
18 II
19 II
20 I
21 I
22 II
23 III
24 II
25 II
26 I
27 II 27 I
28 II 28 I
29 II 29 I
30 I
31 I
32 I
33 II 33 I
34 I 34 I
35 I 35 I
36
0
It looks like you just have 1 list 1 - 0 and are splitting it, am I correct? like this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 I
13 I
14 I
15 I
16 I
17 II
18 II
19 II
20 I
21 I
22 II
23 III
24 II
25 II
26 I
-----------------------array 2 below
27 II 27 I
28 II 28 I
29 II 29 I
30 I
31 I
32 I
33 II 33 I
34 I 34 I
35 I 35 I
36
0
Am I on the right track?
Quote from: ego on Apr 02, 03:50 AM 2012
Well i would first state i don't use methods like this one - but i might use it as camouflage bet - so i look like average player when i collect data - just to blend in among others players.
Now to my question.
What kind of window or frame does this method use regarding frequency of attack?
Lets say you find one bet to qualify and you first attack once and win - then the number might hit more times - so do you continue to bet to certain degree or do you just stop after each win and track for new opportunity.
Initially it can take some time to commence betting, as a guide from 30 to 120 spins, these are extremes, but generally to get started you must wait for probably too long to use this as camouflage.
After that, each attack is 3 numbers for 12 spins, stop on a win. There can be up to 6 attacks at the same time.
When there is only 1 attack and it wins inside 12 attempts then betting stops until the next repeater. After the next repeater the arrays are marked, adjustments are noted and betting recommences. When there is only 1 attack and it loses then betting stops until the next opportunity, which could be immediately if other numbers have accumulated marks while betting.
When there is more than 1 attack betting continues until all win, or 12 spins pass. If all win then betting stops until the next repeater. If any lose then betting recommences immediately on any that won. If all lose then betting stops until the next opportunity, which could be immediately if other numbers have accumulated marks while betting.
To put it simply, after the initial priming the bets come thick and fast with very little waiting in between.
Hi superman.
You were right, there is only 1 array 1-0. The array is repeated vertically.
So you right down the 1st array and mark it until at least 1 number is marked 3 times. At this point you right down the 2nd array. Now you mark both arrays each time a number repeats until at least 1 number in the second array is marked 3 times. At this point you right down the 3rd array. Now you mark all 3 arrays each time a number repeats until at least 1 number in the 3rd array is marked 3 times.
Now there are 3 arrays with at least 1 number marked 3 times. This is the limit and from here you need a new array so the 1st array is dumped. Now there are 2 arrays with at least 1 number marked 3 times and a fresh 3rd array ready for marking, and so it goes on and on. Each time the 3d array presents a betting opportunity the 1st array is dumped.
Hi Skakus . . .
Clustering of numbers is something I looked at a year ago and developed a Bot called " Cluster Bomb" to test out certain variables.
They are quite similar to yours. You can instruct the bot when to form clusters, ie. after how many repeats of a number does it wait before betting on a cluster. You can instruct the bot as to the size of the cluster, ie.you can make any size cluster, 3 numbers, 5 numbers, 7 numbers etc.
It has an RNG mode so you can test out all the variables. If you think this would be of help to you and your testing, just PM with your email address and I will send you a copy.
Best wishes . . . Nick
QuoteThe ONLY reason for choosing the disc to base your betting (with the expectation of gaining a mathematical advantage) on is when you have determined a bias - and a TRUE bias, not just sectors which seem to be trending at the moment. Kimo Li and others have perpetuated this myth that you must bet on the wheel, not the layout, to get an advantage.
It's nonsense.
Nonsense? Myth?
Sectors, biases, clusters, wheel base tracking, layout tracking, matrix, etc. yada, yada, yada.
The only disadvantage a roulette player may have is the inability to have an open mind. As Bruce Lee once said, "be like water."
What does that mean in terms of roulette? The ability to recognize current trends and executing situational strategy, whether it layout based or wheel based, mathematical, etc.
To limit oneself to one way of thinking, will ultimately be someone's demise. Just because I introduced my strategies, does not mean I do not use other strategies introduced by others. It depends on the situation.
For the record.
Kimo Li
There exist no advantage or edge using any kind of system no matter if you use the wheel layout or the tabel layout.
One good lesson for all pepole is to use the words strike ratio and not advantage with or edge when they speak of roulette systems as it does not exist.
Quote from: Nickmsi on Apr 02, 11:20 AM 2012
Hi Skakus . . .
Clustering of numbers is something I looked at a year ago and developed a Bot called " Cluster Bomb" to test out certain variables.
They are quite similar to yours. You can instruct the bot when to form clusters, ie. after how many repeats of a number does it wait before betting on a cluster. You can instruct the bot as to the size of the cluster, ie.you can make any size cluster, 3 numbers, 5 numbers, 7 numbers etc.
It has an RNG mode so you can test out all the variables. If you think this would be of help to you and your testing, just PM with your email address and I will send you a copy.
Best wishes . . . Nick
Hi Nickmsi.
Thanks for that I will PM you my email.
Cheers.
Here is a sample. It does not show every condition, but its a good start.
You will need to track it spin by spin to make any sense of it.
Let me know if it's clear or not.
I will try and find a sample that includes every condition possible then post it, but there's not much point if everyone has already dropped off after thus first sample.
If there is still some interest in getting it coded then I might even do a video of live play because a visual reference is probably the best way to explain this method to coders.
Cheers.
Quotebut there's not much point if everyone has already dropped off after thus first sample
Yeah true, if I can't visualy see it in my mind I can't code it, maybe I haven't concentrated hard enough as I am still working on one that's staying well ahead, so far anyway, real money placing real bets @ BV NZ, if it does die I will revisit this method of yours mate.
Quote from: superman on Apr 04, 05:47 AM 2012
> I am still working on one that's staying well ahead, so far anyway, real money placing real bets @ BV NZ, if it does die I will revisit this method of yours mate.
No problem superman.
Stick to your guns mate. I'm only about 20% done with this anyway, which leaves plenty of time so you focus on your own trials.
Good luck and stay ahead!
Skakus, You've missed to mark #5 as it had repeted itself.
Repeaters: 34, 21 (both noticed), 5 (missed), 31 (noticed) etc.
Regards
I just finished reading whole topic and found some interesting points. Pattern you just described does sound good. We just need to put it to longer test.
PM me when you got some time. I originally spoke to friend of mine who is a programmer for my roulette bot too but related to something totally else (involving dozens and columns), he's well experienced in pretty much all we need, Java, PHP, Python, C++ so this should be piece of cake for him.
Regards
Quote from: cofi on Apr 04, 09:19 AM 2012
Skakus, You've missed to mark #5 as it had repeted itself.
Repeaters: 34, 21 (both noticed), 5 (missed), 31 (noticed) etc.
Regards
Hi.
Sorry if I missed a number here or here. The example was done in retrospect so there might be the odd mistake. Hopefully you get the idea though.
Quote from: Extreme on Apr 05, 08:24 AM 2012
I just finished reading whole topic and found some interesting points. Pattern you just described does sound good. We just need to put it to longer test.
PM me when you got some time. I originally spoke to friend of mine who is a programmer for my roulette bot too but related to something totally else (involving dozens and columns), he's well experienced in pretty much all we need, Java, PHP, Python, C++ so this should be piece of cake for him.
Regards
Hello Extreme.
I am putting this to a very long test of which I am about 25% through.
So far I have tested 15300 spins with 15226 bets placed on 3 numbers for 1300 winners!
That is hitting about 5% above expectation and the current z-score = 2.
Profit is + 2.45%
The results are actually a bit better than that because the test is in blocks of 300 spins and often there have been bets that were incomplete.
As you know any bet is for 12 spins - stop on a win, but many times near the end of a 300 spin session bets were placed that only ran from 1 or 2 spins up to 11 spins. A few have won, but I would estimate at least 45 incomplete bet sequences of various lengths that slightly reduce the overall hit rate and profit.
I probably should have stopped the sessions wherever they were less than 12 spins from 300, but that's not how I started so I didn't want to change course mid-stream.
Well actually I was going to correct it all later, but lost the bulk of the test data in another computer crash! Lucky I saved hard copies of all the basic results.
Anyway, this sharpshooter method continues to hit above the expected rate, so does seem to increase accuracy of predictions somewhat. Whether it’s enough to make a practical profit or not is yet to be determined, but this is only the basic version of about 8 variations.
By the time anyone can code this I will probably have done a statistically significant test by manual means… pity, because that’s a lot of lost time I could have been improving my chess game or guitar playing or something.
Maybe if it ever gets coded it would help with testing some of the variations.
Cheers.
I’ve been trying this variant of the Texas Sharpshooter with some impressive results.
Exact same selection process & betting method, but..
When betting on 3 numbers place 7 units on each number for 12 spins, stop on a win.
When betting on 6 numbers place 4 units on each number for 12 spins, stop on a win.
When betting on 9 numbers place 2 units on each number for 12 spins, stop on a win.
When betting on 12 numbers place 1 unit on each number for 12 spins, stop on a win.
When betting on 15 numbers place 1 unit on each number for 12 spins, stop on a win.
When betting on 18 numbers place 1 unit on each number for 12 spins, stop on a win.
Bets are upgraded as you go, so if you start off with a 9 number bet with 2 units on each number you will put 4 units on each number as soon as you are only betting on 6 numbers, and you will put 7 units on each number as soon as you are only betting on 3 numbers, etc.
Attached is a not too shabby 300 spin session bankroll balance. :thumbsup:
Texas Sharpshooter update.
18,300 spins played.
17,912 bets placed on 3 numbers.
Actual wins = 1523
Expected wins = 1453
z-score = 1.975
(link:://rouletteforum.cc/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
Well it would be nice with some practical rules and not just testing non stop.
We all know all system tank or fail if we run them non stop or for 1M.
I think if you track 300 trails sessions it would be good.
The idea is to win 2 out of 3 sessions or even more - that would be practical.
If you reach 2.5 or 3.0 STD you sure know how to capture random fluctuation.
Quote from: ego on May 16, 01:49 AM 2012
Well it would be nice with some practical rules and not just testing non stop.
We all know all system tank or fail if we run them non stop or for 1M.
I think if you track 300 trails sessions it would be good.
The idea is to win 2 out of 3 sessions or even more - that would be practical.
If you reach 2.5 or 3.0 STD you sure know how to capture random fluctuation.
Hi ego.
That's exactly what I'm doing.
So far played through 61 different 300 spin trials. Total = 18300 spins.
Won 36 games.
Lost 25 games.
I sure hope to reach the 2.5 STD mark at least!
I still dont no how to play this.
Sounds like a good breakeven system to have fun with. Please let us know more the rules and details.
Thank you.
Skakus
I have read through this many times and cannot figure it out. I suspect others are in the same boat. Let's take this for example:
"After a number repeats rule off the tracked numbers and start a fresh track from that point forward. Continue to track and rule off every time a number repeats"......from your first post in the thread.
What exactly does "rule off" mean? Could you show an example with something "ruled off"?
I'd like to learn this and try it.
Sam
Quote from: TwoCatSam on Dec 23, 09:23 AM 2012
Skakus
I have read through this many times and cannot figure it out. I suspect others are in the same boat. Let's take this for example:
"After a number repeats rule off the tracked numbers and start a fresh track from that point forward. Continue to track and rule off every time a number repeats"......from your first post in the thread.
What exactly does "rule off" mean? Could you show an example with something "ruled off"?
I'd like to learn this and try it.
Sam
Hi Sam.
The sharpshooter is an investigation into the possible existence of some kind of gravitational force within the flow of random numbers. Gravitational force or forces of attraction are probably the wrong terms to use but I can’t think of anything else to call this type of phenomenon.
As Turner pointed out in his touching numbers thread, it seems that numbers can be dragged along by other numbers in close proximity.
I took this idea and added a hot number layer to the equation. So the sharpshooter looks for the first repeater then notes it and one number either side.
E.g. 22 repeats, note 21.22.23.
The next step is to wait for the NEXT first number to repeat. For this the sharpshooter does not take into account any of the numbers that have hit before the 22 repeated. They are done with. The tracking is “ruled off†behind the 22 and a new tracking commences for the next repeater.
E.g.
22 repeats, note 21.22.23.
“rule offâ€
20 repeats, note 19.20.21.
“rule offâ€
9 repeats, note 8.9.10.
“rule offâ€
22 repeats, note 21.22.23.
This method of tracking continues throughout the session. A bet occurs when any number has been noted at least 3 times. In the example above number 21 has been noted 3 times even though it has not repeated. The attack would now start on numbers 20.21.22 and last for 12 spins stopping on a win. The rest of the rules are posted at thread start.
It does seem to work very well, but the tracking and the betting is a bit cumbersome. I am more comfortable playing systems that require minimum paperwork, as these types of systems lend themselves better to B&M casinos, which is where I play.
So the Sharpshooter is more of a study of the behavior of random, specifically number drag or gravity, than it is a playable system.
If you could bot it for online play then good luck to you, but for me I initially posted it because I wanted someone to code it so the study could move forward at a respectable pace.
I offered to pay for this privilege but no one stepped up so I just continue the research manually.
Actually I’ve put it on the backburner as I’ve been too busy playing other promising methods.
If the Texas Sharpshooter is a holy grail, then I don’t know about it yet.
Cheers.
Skakus
Let me give you a silly example and you tell me if I'm right. "22 repeats, note 21.22.23."
Say you had this:
17 l
18 l
19 l
20 l
21 l
22 ll
23 l
24 l
Are you saying to erase all the marks on everything except the 21 22 23 as if they never happened and start tracking anew?
Sam
Hi Sam.
After Christmas I'll dig out one of my played charts and post it with some explanation.
A picture is worth a thousand words, they say.
@skakus....why is important that number has to have 3 or more notes...thank you
Skakus
I'll study it!!
Samster
Quote from: Skakus on Mar 29, 06:30 AM 2012
The Texas Sharpshooter.
I have several versions of play for this system, here is the first.
List the number array from 1 to 0, or 0 to 36 (your preference).
Track spins.
When any number repeats, put a mark on that number and 1 number either side of it. So if 17 repeats you mark 16.17.18. If 0 repeats you mark 1.0.36. If 4 repeats you mark 3.4.5, etc.
After a number repeats rule off the tracked numbers and start a fresh track from that point forward. Continue to track and rule off every time a number repeats (this is the Texas Sharpshooter element).
Continue to track and rule off until at least one number in the first array has been marked at least 3 times. Betting can now commence.
While continuing to track the spins, flat bet any number that has 3 or more marks against it, as well as one number either side, for a possible 12 spins, stopping on a win (a win being when any 1 of the 3 numbers bet in any group hits). If all bet combinations win within 12 spins stop betting and continue to track until the next repeat before updating the arrays and betting again. After the next repeat start betting again on any number with 3 or more marks along with 1 number either side. If any bet combinations lose after 12 spins immediately commence betting again on any qualifying combinations.
Any combination that loses is crossed off from the betting for the remainder of the session while that array is used. It can be reinstated as a bet if it regains 3 marks or more in the next array.
A maximum of 2 arrays are used at any one time. An array becomes useable once any number has 3 or more marks against it. A new array is set up each time the previous array reaches the desired 3 marks on any number. You continue to mark numbers in the first array until the third array reaches the 3 marks on any number then it is abandoned.
In any qualified array a number with 4 marks against it eliminates the betting on any numbers with 3 marks against it. A number with 5 marks against it eliminates the betting on any numbers with 4 or 3 marks against it, etc.
A maximum of 18 units can bet outlayed at any 1 time (6x3 number combinations). Any more than that and you don’t bet. Continue tracking until the next betting opportunity with 18 or less units outlay.
Betting combinations from the most recent array are included into the betting before considering the previous array.
Some numbers can have more than 1 unit bet on them. Example, numbers 4 and 5 both have 3 marks. The bet will be 1 unit on 3.4.5, and 1 unit on 4.5.6. A total of 6 units bet, 1 unit on 3 & 6, and 2 units on 4 & 5. Another example, number 4.5.6 each have 3 marks. The bet will be 1 unit on 3.4.5 and 1 unit on 4.5.6 and 1 unit on 5.6.7. A total of 9 units bet, 1 unit on 3 & 7, and 2 units on 4 & 6, and 3 units on 5.
This variant is set up to play continuously for ever and ever if you want. I have other variants that play a more enclosed style with a hit and run approach, but for the purposes of a mega-long rx or bot test this variant is a good start.
There you go boatran8, if you can rx code this I will pay you an agreed amount.
Give it a go, ask any questions, and when you get it right let me know and I will send you some spins for testing. If using those spins both our results match I will pay you and then you can post the .dgt file for everyone to explore in creative ways.
No need for confidentiality ‘cause I just posted the system anyway. Oh, and if you can code this then you’re a bloody genius.
Offer is for superman to make a bot too.
I’m good for the cash if you guys can do it.
Some stupid comments have i read about that there is no difference betting the layout on table or the wheel layout.
With this method you play random against random if you use the table layout as the numbers are not connected.The main idea is that number are clustering in the same area having a slight bias, then you have to use the wheel layout.
I like this type of game, because it aim for what has happen, aim for what had a show.
Then does numbers will be part of does future numbers.
Some of the hitting numbers will fall into sleep and some will repeat and hit again more frequent.
Then we don't chasing for does numbers that sleep from the very beginning.
Some numbers sleep from the very beginning during 2,5 cycle's.
We talk about 10 987654321 numbers.
That is why i like concept that take advantage out of present numbers that alredy had a show.
I would like to attempt coding this. However I would appreciate if someone can provide examples with spins.
If providing examples is not possible, can 1 of you be a contact and test this to see if I am on the right track.
If I am successful, it will have both the wheel and table layout stats.
I will be starting this on Friday.
Hopefully, someone will provide examples.
All methods using repeaters, takes in account the numbers we bet are at least not sleeping now. In a lot of trials I have found it in fact differ, if not a lot, it differ. A number shown 2 times in the last 21 spins hit a fraction more than a number not showing. So I do not use sleeper methods. Using 10000 units as bankroll aiming for 1000 plus, I have succeeded 43 times in a row.
I have seen a sleeper of 1008 spins, which I think very few have done, and I am sure it will not happen to me once again. Even 600 spins sleep, is very uncommon, we see it mostly in simulations.
Using repeating numbers is a fallacy, which can be proving with math, but it is a fallacy which has been working for me.
By the way, the name of the fallacy is "Texas Sharpshooter", and it is not rare in scientist papers.
The pic shows the probability of sleeping.
Quote from: Ralph on May 01, 01:29 AM 2013
All methods using repeaters, takes in account the numbers we bet are at least not sleeping now. In a lot of trials I have found it in fact differ, if not a lot, it differ. A number shown 2 times in the last 21 spins hit a fraction more than a number not showing. So I do not use sleeper methods. Using 10000 units as bankroll aiming for 1000 plus, I have succeeded 43 times in a row.
I have seen a sleeper of 1008 spins, which I think very few have done, and I am sure it will not happen to me once again. Even 600 spins sleep, is very uncommon, we see it mostly in simulations.
Using repeating numbers is a fallacy, which can be proving with math, but it is a fallacy which has been working for me.
By the way, the name of the fallacy is "Texas Sharpshooter", and it is not rare in scientist papers.
The pic shows the probability of sleeping.
Nice to see that you also find this kind of methods better then chasing for sleepers ...
What kind of this kind of methods did you find out being best?
Was it The Texas Sharpshooter or any other method.
Cheers.
Quote from: ego on May 01, 03:33 AM 2013
Nice to see that you also find this kind of methods better then chasing for sleepers ...
What kind of this kind of methods did you find out being best?
Was it The Texas Sharpshooter or any other method.
Cheers.
Most of the methods which is inside bets I use relay on repeaters. I have demonstrated a few here or at other fora.
The most used scripts in the bot I did is repeating methods.
Today and yesterday I used a new tweak, which has so far won every session. It is not any magic at all, we play the repeating numbers and they use to be blessed of Lady Luck. The progressions should be soft, if our numbers delay, we count with a cluster soon, and one hit will not allways put us back. Even low stakes as 0.1 add up to Euros, if we hit a straight up.(0.3 x 36= 10.8 ) .
The unfair odds will make problems after a certain numbers of spins, so a NOZ is easier. If the table has 5.25 or 2.7 HE I would never play EC. The payout is too small, we have to turn over the bankroll many times and it will be very hard to come out a head.
If we play a few numbers only (or just one) we can overcome the zerofactor more often.
Does anyone have the rules for this system?
I would like to try and attempt to make a tracker for it.
Any info will be greatly appreciated.
The kind of idea that appeals to me.
Working on a programme.
Results very good so far.
Will post it when tested.
Trying to beat roulette with such approaches/systems is like you walk on eggs and you don’t want that they get smashed !