A simple test that would gain you a Nobel prize

[Drazen]

I cant run it.

I can open it, but it freezes.

I think .dll is missing in the attach?

Cheers

Drazen

[Bayes]

Hi Drazen,

No dll needed, it freezes because it takes time to do the analysis. Be patient. 

The numbers are adjusted by the sliders. The trigger value is what the program looks for (number of wins) in the first sample. So in the screenshot the number of wins is 12 in the last 50 spins (1st sample). The program then starts from the first spin in the sequence of 250,000 spins and advances by 1 spin at a time checking each 50 spin sequence for 12 wins OR LESS. When it finds such a sequence, it jumps to the next sequence of spins the length of which is given by the number you input for the 2nd sample (again, 50 in the screenshot).

When you've entered these 3 numbers, hit GO! and WAIT. 

After a few minutes, the list will fill with numbers. The numbers on the left are the trigger values (so they will be the trigger value or LESS), and the numbers in the right column are how many WINS you got betting the entire 2nd sample sequence. So if for example this number is 28 (and the 2nd sample value was 50), it means you would have made 3 units profits when betting the spins which followed the sample which contained the underrepresented side.

Clear?

[Drazen]

Yes, thanks. It worked after few minutes of waiting

But all this hm.. very familiar to me from somwhere.. Why I am not surprised with the results?

But I will psstt... every man for himslef..

Cheers

Drazen

[Kav]

First of all thanks for this little program.

I knocked up this little tool for experimenting -
But don't get too excited, for one thing, I coded a win to count as "not a loss" (ie; win or break even).

Are you kidding me? I do get excited!
Do you understand that this program along with real life observations from myself, ego, F_LAT_INO and many others is contrary to current mainstream probability theory!? According to it in the next 50 spins both colors should have equal probability. But it seems they do not! Believe me if we publish a paper about this, it will create a lot of controversy.

Another thing to be aware of are those cases where you get a rush of wins early on and then losses later;  just betting the next X spins mechanically through to the end may not be the best way

Very good point, especially in making a profit.
I guess this could work great flat betting.

I tend to agree with Ego in that the best way is to wait for the correction to manifest before you start your attack.

Remember we look for deviation in 50 spins, not continuous losses. It's impossible to decide when the correction starts.

thank you

[Drazen]

Dear mr. Kav

I don't know what numbers you entered and can I ask are you sure you understand those numbers?

First of all you said this could work great flat bet. Well actualy it can't at all. Hillarioulsy can't work flat bet if you will notice. For that you would need to reach extremly high deviations for which you should wait and wait and wait...   

But is there still a way you can don't give a s*it for not winning flat bet  Just maybe.

Also I am pretty sure this program doesn't count zero so that is one reason more why it can't work flat bet... hehe

Whatever you do, be careful if playing with deviations. It can be pretty devastating nasty if you don't do it right way and enter when isnt "best suitable" moment for entering. I felt that few times on my skin.

And that should be confirmed only statistcaly, no way with just a feeling or after some very long sequence you think well it has to now. That sequence usualy continues in that way becasue it is part of some bigger picture which you cant see.

This game is very powerfull, and its strongest weapon is excatly enormous strenght of deviations if they are not treated from some "safer point"...

Regards

Drazen

[TwoCatSam]

Kav

I am looking forward to your findings. 

Sam

[Kav]

Dear mr. Kav


Drazen

Dear Drazen,

To make it easy for you: this program confirms real life observations by many players that PAST SPINS OFFER INFORMATION ABOUT FOLLOWING SPINS (and we are talking about 50-100 spins, not millions of spins). If you understood the boldness of this claim, you should be shocked and unable to speak or write for the next day or so.
Thanks for your kind comments - totally disagree.

[Kav]

Kav

I am looking forward to your findings. 

Sam

Sam,

My findings in short (using the program): when in 50 spins a color hits 12 times (or less), in the next 50 spins, it has over 65% probability of being the dominant color with over 25 hits.

[Drazen]

Dear Drazen,

To make it easy for you: this program confirms real life observations by many players that PAST SPINS OFFER INFORMATION ABOUT FOLLOWING SPINS (and we are talking about 50-100 spins, not millions of spins). If you understood the boldness of this claim, you should be shocked and unable to speak for the next day or so.
Thanks for your kind comments.

Mr. Kav

For all my shocks casino stuff is in charge to handle. So it becomes their shock If you will understand.

With all due respect i don't know who will need few days to be unable to speak? 

But I can tell you one thing, after that state of bening unable to speak, you will like it, and you might wanna get a zipper for mouth hehe

So you open it only when you sit at the table, and then talk bla bla bla to make up all you missed 

That is all

Good luck

[F_LAT_INO]

The most important point here is;


How to find EC bet with smallest deviation possible
of hundreds of these that could be applied in roulette.


The fact is that some show above tendencies and from
my test-observing 2 such bets/tested hundred/S of sessions
over 300 spins/are showing incredible evenly balanced flow.
Too early to come out with that.

[Bayes]

Also I am pretty sure this program doesn't count zero so that is one reason more why it can't work flat bet... hehe

It does take into account the zero. It tracks hi-lo and any number < 19 counts as a loss, so there are 19 losing numbers and 18 winning numbers.

If you look at "moderate" deviations, it seems to be the case that you're actually better off picking the winning side in the sample (betting for the deviations to continue, not correct), at least for my results so far. ECs have the highest standard deviation of any bet on the table, maybe that explains why.

[Drazen]

It does take into account the zero. It tracks hi-lo and any number < 19 counts as a loss, so there are 19 losing numbers and 18 winning numbers.

Wow! Even better 

Cheers

Drazen

[ego]

That is a great contribution by Bayes - in the past when he code Marigny software for me - then i specific ask for the software to pin point out the window with imbalance or 3.00 STD.
I explain the rules and then we add a spin button.
Why is that way or line of thinking superior - i tell you.
Then you can observe how the distribution unfold and you can develop your own march based upon your statistical observations - i did.

So next time if Bayes has time and want to make a effort - then i would ask for a simulation software that pin point out the window of imbalance and from that moment you can spin the future and see how the distribution unfold - that way you can develop a march.

Note and i repeat my self - you would not play or attack until the correction has manifest.
That way you catch the tendency towards the right direction with out chasing things to happen.

[Gizmotron]

Sam,

My findings in short (using the program): when in 50 spins a color hits 12 times (or less), in the next 50 spins, it has over 65% probability of being the dominant color with over 25 hits.

Go ahead then, publish your findings. I have before.
link:://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/

I know about enthusiasm of the excitement. It pulls you strongly towards
wishful thinking.

[Kav]

Go ahead then, publish your findings. I have before.
link:://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2009/01/27/what-is-probability/

I know about enthusiasm of the excitement. It pulls you strongly towards
wishful thinking.

The thing is that all interpretations of probability agree on the results, on the bottom line! Otherwise there would be different probabilities (percentages) according to different interpretations. Which is not the case.
The issue you raise is very important but theoretical/philosophical.