Tested: Gizmotron Progression for 2/1 bets

[Mistarlupo]

=================================

TEST RESULTS | SiMULATiON #1

TOTAL Number of Sessions:
300 X 5,000,000,000
TOTAL Number of Spins:
1500,000,000,000
TOTAL Number of Bets:
999,981,630
TOTAL Number of Hits:
666,641,328
TOTAL Percent of Hits:
66. 6653574% [Math: 66. 6666666%]
TOTAL Number of Losses:
333,340,302
TOTAL NET Units:
-74,196u

TOTAL NET Percent:
-0. 0074197% [HE: 0. 0000000%]

=================================

TEST RESULTS | SiMULATiON #2

TOTAL Number of Sessions:
300 X 5,000,000,000
TOTAL Number of Spins:
1500,000,000,000
TOTAL Number of bets:
1,000,034,859
TOTAL Number of hits:
666,717,145
TOTAL Percent of Hits:
66. 6693904% [Math: 66. 6666666%]
TOTAL Number of losses:
333,317,714
TOTAL NET in units:
+107,045u

TOTAL NET Percent:
+0. 0107045% [HE: 0. 0000000%]

=================================

TEST RESULTS | SiMULATiON #3

TOTAL Number of Sessions:
300 X 5,000,000,000
TOTAL Number of Spins:
1500,000,000,000
TOTAL Number of bets:
999,995,467
TOTAL Number of hits:
666,662,049
TOTAL Percent of Hits:
66.  6665071% [Math: 66. 6666666%]
TOTAL Number of losses:
333,333,418
TOTAL NET in units:
+222,201u

TOTAL NET Percent:
+0. 0222201% [HE: 0. 0000000%]
=================================

[VLS]

wow, now that's a test

1500,000,000,000

Thanks for posting it for us here Mistar.

[Gizmotron]

I hate this forum's software sometimes. You accidentally hit a key and the page changes on you. There's too many short cut key tricks or something like that. So I lose well written paragraphs that go lost. It always happens on Victor's forum software.

So here is the short version. What are the conditions of these three simulations? There should not be 1/3 losses for a progression that takes at least 8 spins to complete. That's bets placed. There should not be 15 times as many not bet spins. The rules tested here must be incorrect. It's not my progression that was tested.

[Mistarlupo]

The conditions were always the same. I used the rules that were suggested in your thread. No zero. Bets were made approximately 2/3 of the time (or 1000M bets in 1500M spins). I'm happy to post some more detailed results -- you'll have it later. 

[Mistarlupo]

=================================

TEST RESULTS | SiMULATiON #4

TOTAL Number of Sessions:
300 X 5,000,000,000
TOTAL Number of Spins:
1500,000,000,000
TOTAL Number of bets:
999,966,223
TOTAL Number of hits:
666,604,505
TOTAL Percent of Hits:
66. 6627021% [Math: 66. 6666666%]
TOTAL Number of losses:
333,361,718
TOTAL NET in units:
-447,021

TOTAL NET Percent:
-0. 0447021% [HE: 0. 0000000%]

=================================


[attachimg=#]

[Gizmotron]

I don't get this, "no zero."

If you want to show that you have the rules correctly just have the simulation show the first 100 bets placed, the number that came up for each of those spin, and the results of pay or loss for each spin. In that way you can show if the simulation is working the rules correctly. I always run telemetry to prove to myself that the simulation executes correctly. It's the only way to show that it executed properly.

The numbers you are getting make me think that something is missing. This is a difficult set of rules to program. The only way to get the numbers you are showing is to have some rule that attempts to avoid the zeros. Many of us on the internet have already proven that it changes very little to attempt to avoid the zeros.

[Mistarlupo]

No zero means the 0's (and 00) are not included.  There are 36 numbers only, 1 to 36.  The house advantage is 0%.  There are few online casinos that offer RNG 'no zero' roulette.  I'm not aware of live no zero roulette wheels.  That's it, I cannot explain it better.

Difficult set of rules? "The point is to bet on the two dozens or columns that did not hit last.   It's almost that simple. " You said that.  I fully agree, the system is not complicated and you explained it very well.  I'm not a professional programmer though.  I'll post a telemetry for you to validate the algorithm.  Please check back later.

[Mistarlupo]

| 1 2 3 | betting  | w/l  | res | bank
| X     |                         240
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 241
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 242
| X     | enabled  | win  | +1  | 243
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 244
| X     | enabled  | win  | +1  | 245
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 246
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 247
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 248
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 249
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 250
|   X   | enabled  | lose | -2  | 248
|     X | disabled |
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +3  | 251
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 252
| X     | enabled  | win  | +1  | 253
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 254
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 255
|     X | enabled  | lose | -2  | 253
| X     | disabled |
| X     | enabled  | lose | -6  | 247
|     X | disabled |
|     X | enabled  | lose | -18 | 229
|     X | disabled |
| X     | disabled |
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +27 | 256
| X     | enabled  | win  | +1  | 257
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 258
|     X | enabled  | lose | -2  | 256
|   X   | disabled |
|   X   | enabled  | lose | -6  | 250
| X     | disabled |
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +9  | 259
| X     | enabled  | win  | +1  | 260
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 261
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 262
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 263
|   X   | enabled  | lose | -2  | 261
|     X | disabled |
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +3  | 264
|   X   | enabled  | lose | -2  | 262
|   X   | disabled |
| X     | disabled |
| X     | enabled  | lose | -6  | 256
| X     | disabled |
|     X | disabled |
|     X | enabled  | lose | -18 | 238
|   X   | disabled |
| X     | enabled  | win  | +27 | 265
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 266
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 267
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 268
|     X | enabled  | lose | -2  | 266
| X     | disabled |
|     X | enabled  | win  | +3  | 269
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 270
| X     | enabled  | win  | +1  | 271
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 272
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 273
| X     | enabled  | win  | +1  | 274
| X     | enabled  | lose | -2  | 272
|     X | disabled |
| X     | enabled  | win  | +3  | 275
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 276
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 277
| X     | enabled  | win  | +1  | 278
| X     | enabled  | lose | -2  | 276
|     X | disabled |
| X     | enabled  | win  | +3  | 279
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 280
|     X | enabled  | lose | -2  | 278
| X     | disabled |
| X     | enabled  | lose | -6  | 272
| X     | disabled |
|     X | disabled |
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +9  | 281
|   X   | enabled  | lose | -2  | 279
|   X   | disabled |
|   X   | disabled |
|   X   | disabled |
|   X   | disabled |
|   X   | disabled |
|   X   | disabled |
| X     | disabled |
|     X | enabled  | win  | +3  | 282
|     X | enabled  | lose | -2  | 280
|   X   | disabled |
|   X   | enabled  | lose | -6  | 274
| X     | disabled |
| X     | enabled  | lose | -18 | 256
|   X   | disabled |
|     X | enabled  | win  | +27 | 283
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 284
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 285
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 286
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 287
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 288
| X     | enabled  | win  | +1  | 289
|   X   | enabled  | win  | +1  | 290
|     X | enabled  | win  | +1  | 291


This sample should be clear enough. Have a look at it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Hope there are no mistakes or misunderstandings.

Huh, well... I actually hope you do find errors, to be honest...

[Gizmotron]

Mistarlupo, you did a fantastic job. That was a great idea making that betting state for enabled / disabled conditions. It comes down to simplifying the programing by adding that condition to the simulation. I think you have it working perfectly. I avoid jumping right in after a 27/27 loss. I wait for two singles in a row before jumping in again. But that idea that two 27/27  progression losses would happen back to back is almost incredible.

What computer programming language did you use? Just out of curiosity.

[Mistarlupo]

Thank you. I'll post a final standalone executable version of the program soon. Its main function will be to provide results and details in 1) real-time (user inputs spins one by one) or 2) against a set of spins (of any length). But before that, I'll get into more detail with the results... My idea is to plot the Lw data as a chart, and then try to identify some patterns & relationships. I'll share my observations with you then 'cause it's your system and you know best how it's generally supposed to behave -- your opinion is important.

Regards,
m

P.S.
I used C# for programming the simulations. The algorithm is quite simple, the key element was the betting state, as you already noted. If you need the code to try some modifications, I'll send it to you, no need to write it from scratch. It should be compatible with the other modern languages too.

[Gizmotron]

... My idea is to plot the Lw data as a chart, and then try to identify some patterns & relationships. I'll share my observations with you then 'cause it's your system and you know best how it's generally supposed to behave -- your opinion is important.

Just go ahead and share whatever you want to. My observations of patterns is that the repeats come in bunches and the singles come in bunches. It would be possible to not use this progression when repeats are bunching. In fact that might be the way to use it properly to win. I wonder if a trigger can be added to the simulation that suspends use of the progression until the swarms of repeats passes.  It could be done but the rule is not defined yet. I would watch for repeats to start happening in bunches. In that way only an out of the blue perfect pattern could occur during a streak of singles. It's just an idea to hash over.

[VLS]

I wonder if a trigger can be added to the simulation that suspends use of the progression until the swarms of repeats passes.  It could be done but the rule is not defined yet. I would watch for repeats to start happening in bunches. In that way only an out of the blue perfect pattern could occur during a streak of singles. It's just an idea to hash over.

Remember the VLSmarch v3 procedure:

link:://rouletteforum.cc/bet-selection/vlsmarch-3-break-even-point/

Regards.

[Gizmotron]

Remember the VLSmarch v3 procedure:

link:://rouletteforum.cc/bet-selection/vlsmarch-3-break-even-point/

Regards.

So what is your opinion that avoiding the swarms of repeats is a way to minimize the destructive condition of more than one loss per winning session? Can the swarms be avoided and have that increase the effectiveness of using a vary rare condition to defeat this by minimizing them even more? I take it you learned something from the VLSmarch v3?