Let's get this correct

[Steve]

Taewondo is shit. It's almost all kicking.

Sparring (kumite) is for basics. Real fighting is quite different.

Most martial arts classes are non-contact, so you end up punching a lot of air. And you reach a point where you can't improve more, besides with speed. The taekwondo guy explains that too.

That video about mistakes.. should be MISTAKE #1, PLAY FIGHTING NEXT TO WINDOW OF TALL BUILDING. Otherwise very good tips.

[gizmotron2]

Taewondo[sp] is shit. It's almost all kicking.

It is. It was my first style.  And I love the kicking techniques of Kung Fu also. They serve a different purpose. Because of Taekwondo I know that that kick in combat to a grounded man in the throat would kill him. I'm not concerned at all that it's shit. It works. There are two ways to increase the effect of a strike. The Taekwondo way is the alignment of the bone structure of your body at and through impact. The other way is the way of Jeet Kune Do. You know that secret?

[cht]

cht, while I'm all in favour of the maths vids you're posting and urging members to understand the maths, your posts are still contradicting it because you're continuing to insist that there is a way out; a 'loophole' in the game which means that spins aren't independent after all. What use is it to understand the maths when you do this? It means that the maths doesn't have the final say after all. Other members will be thinking : 'well if cht has found a loophole then maybe I can find it too (or another one), therefore the maths doesn't really apply and I might as well ignore it.'

Do you agree?

Joe, I am caught in a difficult position.
I believe you understand what I mean.

I can't code in rx.

I can code on excel.
But my knowledge is limited therefore I am challenged to write the complete code to test a statistical significant population.

I have no intention to engage a coder.

Last few weeks I have worked hard to  extend the excel code in small parts.
Today I realise I have manage to complete enough of the code to know excel testing is possible.
I will still have to write the rest of the code which takes time. There is still a lot of coding to be done.
I am not an expert. The process of translating rules into excel code is challenging for me.

Joe, when I completed this excel code and testing I am in the position to respond properly to your post with the result.

This time with proper proof.

If I don't respond in the future, then the excel code testing has proven that I was wrong with my small sample test.

I only trust you, because you understand math.
You can guide me towards proper statistical testing as per the math. I hope you can contribute towards this process. Thank you.

***if anyone has this question why I want to write excel code to test, post on forums.

Answer - To address directly this statement posted on all forums with proof.

The math of random roulette spins that is independent and unbiased.

There is no possibility of prediction.

There is no possibility of positive edge.

Systems betting cannot win.

My signature below stays until I can produce the proof. Till then

[cht]

cht, while I'm all in favour of the maths vids you're posting and urging members to understand the maths, your posts are still contradicting it because you're continuing to insist that there is a way out; a 'loophole' in the game which means that spins aren't independent after all. What use is it to understand the maths when you do this? It means that the maths doesn't have the final say after all. Other members will be thinking : 'well if cht has found a loophole then maybe I can find it too (or another one), therefore the maths doesn't really apply and I might as well ignore it.'

Do you agree?

I have completed the excel code to test large sample.
It has 150 columns of complex math codes for each row of data so the file is enormous.

I use your 50,000 spin2.text file data posted on this thread.
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=26763.30

The result is shown on the attached chart.
The result speaks for itself.

I have nothing more to post on this forum.

[Joe]

cht, so that's 12,368 bets, but can you give me more details?

• Coverage (how many numbers bet per spin?
• How many wins in total?

Then I can give you a better assessment of how likely it is that your results are due to luck. 

[cht]

cht, so that's 12,368 bets, but can you give me more details?

• Coverage (how many numbers bet per spin?
• How many wins in total?

Then I can give you a better assessment of how likely it is that your results are due to luck. 

Coverage - 14numbers(average)

total wins - 5265

[zorro]

Hi CHT,
thank you very much for all those infos you gave us here.
Alle the best to you.
Good luck then
(outside roulette)
z

[cht]

cht, so that's 12,368 bets, but can you give me more details?

• Coverage (how many numbers bet per spin?
• How many wins in total?

Then I can give you a better assessment of how likely it is that your results are due to luck. 

Joe I tested using your other 2 RNG spin data.

1. 5328 wins
2. 5404 wins

All 3 tests combined,

Total win - 5265+5328+5404 = 15997 wins

Total bets - 12368+12783+12617 = 37768 bets

*** I wrote this post to explain my opinion about RNG
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27425.msg244785#msg244785

[Herby]

Random does not make your systems bet .... win itlr.

To support your opinion you show us 3 RNG longterm winning diagrams ?

Maybe it's not my day today 

[Joe]

Total win - 5265+5328+5404 = 15997 wins

Total bets - 12368+12783+12617 = 37768 bets

Ok, so theoretically if betting 14 numbers your win rate should be 14/37 = 0.3784. Your sample gives a win rate of 15997/37768 = 0.4236. This is quite a large sample so the margin for error is quite small (the error comes from using the AVERAGE of 14 numbers bet).

This is 18 standard deviations above the mean. 

Results of proportion test :

Code Select Expand

Null hypothesis: population proportion = 0.3784
Sample size: n = 37768
Sample proportion = 0.4236
Test statistic: z = (0.4236 - 0.3784)/0.00249557 = 18.1121
Two-tailed p-value = 2.557e-73
(one-tailed = 1.278e-73)



There's no way this could be the result of chance, so either the figures are wrong (you've made a mistake), you really do have a consistent winning system, or it's a hoax. I'll let the readers decide. 

[cht]

Ok, so theoretically if betting 14 numbers your win rate should be 14/37 = 0.3784. Your sample gives a win rate of 15997/37768 = 0.4236. This is quite a large sample so the margin for error is quite small (the error comes from using the AVERAGE of 14 numbers bet).

This is 18 standard deviations above the mean. 

Results of proportion test :

Code Select Expand

Null hypothesis: population proportion = 0.3784
Sample size: n = 37768
Sample proportion = 0.4236
Test statistic: z = (0.4236 - 0.3784)/0.00249557 = 18.1121
Two-tailed p-value = 2.557e-73
(one-tailed = 1.278e-73)



There's no way this could be the result of chance, so either the figures are wrong (you've made a mistake), you really do have a consistent winning system, or it's a hoax. I'll let the readers decide. 

Thanks Joe.

Readers must not discount the possibility that these graphs are complete fakes.

[Joe]

What would your edge be assuming these figures are correct?

The total outlay is 37768 * 14 = 528752 units

Profit per win is 35 - 13 = 22 units, giving a total profit of 15997 * 22 = 351934 units

losses are (37768 - 15997) * 14 = 304794 units

So net profit is 351934 - 304794 = 47140 units

So the yield on outlay (edge) is 47140/528752 = 0.0892, or about 9%.

Wouldn't that be lovely. 

[precogmiles]

What would your edge be assuming these figures are correct?

The total outlay is 37768 * 14 = 528752 units

Profit per win is 35 - 13 = 22 units, giving a total profit of 15997 * 22 = 351934 units

losses are (37768 - 15997) * 14 = 304794 units

So net profit is 351934 - 304794 = 47140 units

So the yield on outlay (edge) is 47140/528752 = 0.0892, or about 9%.

Wouldn't that be lovely. 

Yes it would be lovely. Shame we have nothing but cht's claim.

Joe I have seen you in this forum and others calculating stand deviations on systems. Have you found anything worth telling us about them?