Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 01, 02:07 AM 2018
I've been through that already... the break even cannot be tilted just by playing your own game. I've tested for years. It must need another extreme concept like what I mentioned last post. And I think every session needs to be won - a bit like what you said earlier - but then there's no victory possible through flat-betting. So I think it does comes down to the individual biased bets, but then we need to somehow trap random in the corner.

Ok, you keep going down the expert path thinking you’ve done it all already so I won’t waste your time or mine.   

I'm no expert. I've just carried out hundreds of tests over thousands of spins during the past few years - helps eliminate ideas that are ineffective in a world where people are intent on trying to fool one another.

I did notice something new with positions today. It seems the variance in one stream has to recover or even "cross" with the variance of the counterpart stream.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 01, 06:57 AM 2018
I'm no expert. I've just carried out hundreds of tests over thousands of spins during the past few years - helps eliminate ideas that are ineffective in a world where people are intent on trying to fool one another.

I did notice something new with positions today. It seems the variance in one stream has to recover or even "cross" with the variance of the counterpart stream.

Testing thousands of spins is irrelevant if you don’t understand what it is you’re trying to achieve.

We're simply trying to escape break even within the realms of the house limits where each spin is independent. Most tests have been based on other people's ideas that have failed when put to test.

Quote from: Blueprint on Jul 01, 06:59 AM 2018Testing thousands of spins is irrelevant if you don’t understand what it is you’re trying to achieve.

Could you explain what you mean by this? If the system or method has merit then it shouldn't matter how many spins you test over, the system will continue to make a profit. If it doesn't then the system has no merit. Simple.

Quote from: CoderJoe on Jul 01, 07:55 AM 2018
Could you explain what you mean by this? If the system or method has merit then it shouldn't matter how many spins you test over, the system will continue to make a profit. If it doesn't then the system has no merit. Simple.

Hey Joe, I already stated this.  I see it different. 

Can you win a game that consists of 3 spins?  A game of 6? 

If not, then 3000 is useless.  So is 6000.

See what I mean? 

There's only one way around the law of large numbers catching up.

Even betting for both dozen cycles and position cycles to follow MLE using a single dozen still breaks even:

What if we didn't even need "numbers"?

Quote from: Blueprint on Jul 02, 03:13 PM 2018
What if we didn't even need "numbers"?

So you take just "Ordinality - position" and not the numbers any more ?
Tell us more ...

Badger i removed your email. Spam bots can find it, then you get more spam. Use pm to send your email.

Quote from: Herby on Jul 05, 04:34 AM 2018
So you take just "Ordinality - position" and not the numbers any more ?
Tell us more ...

It's all nonsense. Positions is just another stream like any other stream on the table that is ultimately derived from the straights stream. It doesn't matter if I play numbers, streets, lines (or their position counterparts). Everything breaks even and cannot be combined to escape break even despite what reddwarf told you guys:


I still think RD came out with the most original ideas compared to anyone else, but we have to accept that it doesn't work.