DNA OF ROULETTE SYSTEM: Your opinions, please

[Twisteruk]

I've just read the latest edition

WoW that's a tough read (for me anyway LoL)

I'm not sure I fully understand it all, and don't want to go off half c***ed and sink without trace  

George and Baines and everyone else who is or has read it, please share your opinions once you have consumed the latest edition  


link:://:.neworiginalthinking.com/HP_Link_1.html


Cheers guys

[esoito]

My opinion is this:

I'm afraid of investing a lot of time, energy and patience in decoding the methodology only to eventually find a lack of profitability. (Been there, done that so many times before...sound familiar?)

Therefore, the sooner it can be coded -- either by the author or some kind forum member -- the better, so that we can then test it more easily.

[Twisteruk]

Been there, done that so many times before...sound familiar?


Very !

[dangle]

Guys, same old story.   

I have coded the bet selection, without the EV since in manual testing it didn't appear to make a blind bit of difference to the end result.   

While I can't remember the ins and outs of the system, it lost at the expected rate.     A member from another forum passed me the system some time last year.     We managed to contact the author about it, who seemed convinced that he had devsied something fantastic.     He's quite an intelligent man but obviously he knows nothing about randomness - what his system is based on, the actual reason he gives for it winning, is speculative and theoretical at best - moreover, there is simple no way his bet selection procedure takes advantage of short-term patterns (probably because they don't exist).    As I recall the bet is actually very easy to understand once you get the hang of it, but is no more effective than closing your eyes and scattering your chips all over the table.     

[esoito]

Interesting post.

And welcome to our forum 

The author emailed me yesterday and I quote:

Dear Max,

We just recommenced the software developent (sic) a few hours ago. It shoud (sic) be up within about 3 weeks.

Best Regards

Don

Not sure if it will be freeware or payware but, if it eventuates, then testing will be made much easier.

And testing will have to be with LIVE spins, of course, because that's what he used to develop his methodology.

Dangle (love the name -- is he related to Droop?) you didn't mention if your tests were on real or simulated (RNG) spins.

[dangle]

Ah, well, I should point out that I first read this thread a few weeks ago but never got round to responding.  I forgot he was developing software.  Despite my testimony I should think people will still want to test it.  Unfortunately I don't have the simulation I myself wrote, it was lost when I replaced my PC.

On another note, I did find it curious to see the differences between his test with real dealer spins and RNG.  However, I doubt there's anything conclusive in it since the sample he used was small, too small really for a full test.  Upon the request of my "partner" I wrote a sim for American roulette, and that test was done with live spins.  The results were pretty miserable as I recall.  Actually, my mate was quite disgused.  I think he felt "Don" had spun him a bit of a yarn.  I really have no opinion.  We tested the system and found it a failure.  It's not the first and won't be the last.

[esoito]

As you say, dangle (short pause for a titter)  folk will want to do their own testing.

Hopefully his software will have an import function for testing over several thousand spins...the more the merrier, of course.

I suspect Don is pretty genuine. After all, he has a very public profile in several academic and corporate arenas which help him earn his daily bread.

Surely he would not want to compromise his reputation with anything that's not above board ...would he?

And it's free, after all. (So no ripoff involved.)

[dangle]

I'm not suggesting he's up to anything sinister.  Far from it, actually.  We found him to be an amiable and very helpful guy.  What I'm saying is, he seemed overly convinced that he had, or has, cracked the game.  I mean we spent quite a bit of time learning his system and swapping emails, but in the end, when we did a full simulation, the thing didn't perform any better than expected. 

The problem is, Don's theories are unproven and, in fact, you can easily disprove them in a roulette context without doing any testing whatsoever.  Short term patterns either exist in totality or they don't exist at all.  Since every combination of defined length has the same odds of occurring, then every observed permutation is either a pattern or it isn't.  While this is a debatable subject, either way, there can be no advantage gained because all bets are equal and the house always has the payouts on its side. 

[Bayes]

As I've commented in a previous post, my impression on reading the system document and his website are that he doesn't really know what he's talking about with regard to probability theory. For example, on this page: link:://:.neworiginalthinking.com/DesMaking/law-of-the-third.html
he says:

The practical implications of this equation is that it enables predictability of occurrence of immediate future outcomes based on the past observations in repeated independent and mutually exclusive random events.

This is a contradiction, because if events are independent you can't possibly predict future outcomes based on past observations of them - part of the very meaning of 'independent' is that the events have no 'memory'. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to know what 'mutually exclusive' means either, if he did he would understand that independent events can't be mutually exclusive.

Also, he talks as though he has discovered some new relationship regarding the 'law of the third', referring to the equation as 'Colonne's value'. I don't mean to be harsh, but this is simply nonsense. The relationship is a simple consequence of the geometric distribution and has been explored in a thread by 'bliss' in a post on VLS (see 'Some math, and the law of the third' in the reference section).

This, together with the overly complicated explanation of his system, hasn't exactly filled me with a burning desire to test it, grandiose claims not withstanding. dangle's results only confirm what I suspected all along, but still, I'll give the software a trial if it ever materializes.

[esoito]

"Furthermore, he doesn't seem to know what 'mutually exclusive' means either, if he did he would understand that independent events can't be mutually exclusive."

But surely, (scratches head) events that are independent are, by definition, 'mutually exclusive'...?

I mean, they're hardly 'mutually inclusive' -- if you get my drift. 

[Bayes]

Hi esoito,

If two events are mutually exclusive, it means they cannot occur together. So, for example the event of both the ball landing on a red number and the event of it landing on a black number cannot occur on the same spin. If one event excludes the other, there must be a dependence between them - ie; they are not independent. Don says: "...in repeated independent and mutually exclusive random events." Presumably by "independent" he is referring to the fact that knowing the result of any outcome gives no clue to the next, but by adding "mutually exclusive" he contradicts himself, because if outcomes were mutually exclusive, then you would have a clue to the next outcome, ie; you would exclude the outcome that just occurred.

[esoito]

"If one event excludes the other, there must be a dependence between them - ie; they are not independent."


Ah. Through a glass darkly...Yes, I see what you mean.

I hadn't thought of it that way before.

Well explained. Thank you.

[dangle]

Well, I have to say that his terminology is quite tortuous.  Roulette is not as complicated as Don makes it out to be.  Though, his theories are sugar-coated with ostensibly logical arguments, or arguments that do, at least, sound impressive.  It would be nice to have some evidence to believe in, but there is none and, to me, it makes the author sound moderately deluded (or clueless).  I think the person that initially gave me the system was quite taken in by it all, but ultimately it turned out to be a lot of chaff.

[strato1985]

people i did spend a bit of time on this..

It works when the wheels spinning lots of positives, bit hard to keep track of, and when its on the negative it's bad.

either way i tried this an failed, it looks good but i couldn't get it to work for me

[Jordan]

If something is good it works for everybody