For the MATHS boys

[The General]

RouletteGhost,

I've already explained why in adequate detail.  See post reply #36.

[RouletteGhost]

ok

i will take your word for it

when you

show me

seriously is it that hard to take a log of your spins and post your test of it. show us. prove it. guys like notto PROVES it works. so PROVE it does not

[BellagioOwner]

My thoughts on long run.  There are guys that say " I don't care for long run.  I care for the length of my session 100 200 500 spins.  I make profit in these spins so I don't care what will happen if I play continuously for 1M 1M spins"
WRONG!!!
What they don't  see (and I don't know why.  It's so obvious) is that when when they stop at 200 500 spins in profit, the next time /session they start again from new bankroll thinking it's totally new game.  It's not.  It's only like having click "save" on previous session and load game from there.  The new spins of the new session are not  the first 200 500 for their system.  It's the next Ones AFTER 500 they stopped.  So actually they are now into 1000 spins.  They keep on building long run.  They dont just start new spin counting for their system.  They continue from previous 500!

So when it is said it won't work in the long run it counts all the short runs that are thought seperate! They are not.  It's just long run disguised in short run clothes. 

The only way to call it short run is if you play a SPECIFIC system for just 200-500 spins AND never use it again!  EVER!  All other cases are added in the system's long run  counter 

PS: that's why I disagree with the terms WIn Limit, LImit Loss StopLoss. I think IMHO they are useless!

[RouletteGhost]

if i was a moderator i would push the forum owner to implement ONE rule

if you interject into a thread saying it wont work you MUST post a test showing it not working.......if not comment deleted

otherwise forum integrity is degraded and long time members become insulted, all because YOU SAY SO

doesnt fly

[BellagioOwner]

if i was a moderator i would push the forum owner to implement ONE rule

if you interject into a thread saying it wont work you MUST post a test showing it not working.......if not comment deleted

Agree on that.  My problem is I don't  know how to code on RouletteXTreme or using C++ Or Java Oracle etc.  That's why I know by the maths backing me when a system fails and when not.  But I can't design it in million spins as proof.  So I just prefer to STFU instead of saying it won't work.  While though theoritically I know I'm right I can't code shit to prove  it

[The General]

The house edge consumes roulette systems long before they reach the "long run".  Below are a couple of very crude simple formulas to help you understand why.

Compare the two below.

1. Luck = Variance.   Variance = (3 or 4) x  (the square root of the total number of spins played)  (the 3 or 4 represents standard deviations.  If you prefer a high confidence level, then use 4 or even 5.)

verses

2. The house edge = (5.26% or 2.7%) x (the total number of spins played.)

Try inputting 50, 500, 5000, and 20k in place of the total number of spins.    If you input various amounts of spins then you will find that after 5k to 10k spins that your luck runs out and the house edge becomes a larger value than luck (variance). 

[RouletteGhost]

Agree on that.  My problem is I don't  know how to code on RouletteXTreme or using C++ Or Java Oracle etc.  That's why I know by the maths backing me when a system fails and when not.  But I can't design it in million spins as proof.  So I just prefer to STFU instead of saying it won't work.  While though theoritically I know I'm right I can't code shit to prove  it

anything fails in 1 mill spins i believe. unless it a progression

[The General]

if i was a moderator i would push the forum owner to implement ONE rule

if you interject into a thread saying it wont work you MUST post a test showing it not working.......if not comment deleted

otherwise forum integrity is degraded and long time members become insulted, all because YOU SAY SO

doesnt fly

RouletteGhost,

Please revisit post number 36.  The proof is right there.  If you disagree with what's written, then please explain which part is incorrect rather than posting the same thing over and over.

[RouletteGhost]

source 1

put one's money where one's mouth is
phrase of money

    1.
    informal
    take action to support one's statements or opinions.

source 2

put your money where your mouth is informal› to show by ​your ​actions and not just ​your words that you ​support or ​believe in something



I will wait for that KTF test big guy

[Azim]

Steve,

I had to comment on this...


4. Chart distance between A and B. Repeat the step for however many spins you need.

You guys are just putting words in peoples mouth.


What has previous spins got to do with future spins? Isn'that what all Math guys say?

Please explain... That statement to me.

[BellagioOwner]

Why a slow progression that knows how much to continue in bad times (that's not stop loss) not to be counted for the 1m threshold?  I think some progressions can pass 1M spins in profit.  (actual 1m bets.  No wait triggers etc....)

I have a couple or 3 in mind that some COULD pass! Does anyone knows how to code them?  They can PM me. 

[RouletteGhost]

Why a slow progression that knows how much to continue in bad times (that's not stop loss) not to be counted for the 1m threshold?  I think some progressions can pass 1M spins in profit.  (actual 1m bets.  No wait triggers etc....)

I have a couple or 3 in mind that some COULD pass! Does anyone knows how to code them?  They can PM me.

contact nickmsi

he has helped me before

very very nice guy

cant guarantee he will help you, maybe he was free when i asked.....

[RouletteGhost]

RouletteGhost,

I've already explained why in adequate detail.  See post reply #36.

your explanation is not satisfactory in my book

i need a visual

a test sheet please

so far today you have posted in winkels gut thread and made comments about ktf

so i need to see a test sheet from you for either

[BellagioOwner]

The house edge consumes roulette systems long before they reach the "long run".  Below are a couple of very crude simple formulas to help you understand why.

Compare the two below.

1. Luck = Variance.   Variance = (3 or 4) x  (the square root of the total number of spins played)  (the 3 or 4 represents standard deviations.  If you prefer a high confidence level, then use 4 or even 5.)

verses

2. The house edge = (5.26% or 2.7%) x (the total number of spins played.)

Try inputting 50, 500, 5000, and 20k in place of the total number of spins.    If you input various amounts of spins then you will find that after 5k to 10k spins that your luck runs out and the house edge becomes a larger value than luck (variance).

Agree on variances.  I had checked them out in coin flip  situations and EC bets.  They were useful on some testing on d'Alembert ideas. Comparing them to house edge is interesting though I must admit

[Steve]

if you interject into a thread saying it wont work you MUST post a test showing it not working.......if not comment deleted
otherwise forum integrity is degraded and long time members become insulted, all because YOU SAY SO

No if we removed posts for that reason, it would be a mess. And you are asking General to "show you", but it has already been shown many times. Not just by him, but me too.

Regarding something that was mentioned: yes at times Caleb (General) can be arrogant. And he will "play" with less experienced members, but in most cases, only when provoked. RG calm down, this whole thing is nothing personal. Caleb answered your question and again I've provided ample information to explain what we mean. But it doesnt appear to be understood. Consider:

1. What I said about odds vs payouts, and why you must improve the odds to win roulette

2. Every losing system uses the same approaches that have already proven to fail. I mean approaches like "wait 10 spins then bet on the sleepers". You dont need someone like me or Caleb to tell you it doesnt change the odds. Just do the testing and see for yourself, like with the free software I published. Thats what its for. Then when you see the odds dont change, you can see the system is no better than random bet selection. The odds havent changed. And thats why it loses. Thats your proof.