@ turbo

[winkel]

From what I see on his website, a forum of his in preparation too, so I am sure at least it will be deprived of such things. 

I don´t have a website. And I don´t own a forum or trying to put one up!

Why do liers like you fancy such a Bullshitting

Winkel, relax. Drazen wasn't talking about your web site but someone elses.

[denzie]

I know that. But your winnings with free money do count. Thats my point.
You still arent understanding the math.

Ok so he got let's say 100k free over the months. Still my respect to turn it into 7mil 

At least that's what my math tells me 

[winkel]

And why do people have to "figure it out"? To Winkel, Turbo, priyanka, denzie and any other "baiters",

Where in my posts did I "bait" You are a liar!

[ozon]

Hi Falkor
Your tests show that we have a soft edge. Play against coldest street. But have you checked whether playing 11 streets for 1 time, zero will not  eat profit.
Let's say we play 3k spins a day that's 6 hours.
In a month we have about 100k spins, which gives us 120 units a month.
You have to see how variance looks, how big a budget we need.
I assume 2000 units could be enough.
What generates a 5% return on capital.
It's not much work time but having a bot that would play 6k spins a day. It would have been better.

[falkor2k15]

ozon, the test wasn't for profit, it was to test the concept of hot vs. cold and whether there's any negative edge/bias playing cold - based on Turbo's suggestion on the best way to lose a bet. Whether that edge is greater than 2.7% is irrelevant since we are just testing the concept - not practical play - but from this test we can at least deduce that if there's negative edge for cold then there's most likely a positive edge solution for hot. And, to some extent, this test has also succeeded on Dozens, though there were bigger draw-downs - went from 1,000 down to 290, overall.

[Bayes]

@ falkor, it's hard to see what the overall result is from your tests. Can you give an expectation based on the data?

If Turbo is right and hot numbers do better than cold numbers, why don't we see it? Perhaps he would like to suggest a test we can do to confirm or refute it?

I'm not as closed-minded as you seem to think I am. If the data says hot numbers are better, then so be it, but I've yet to see it.

[Drazen]

I don´t have a website. And I don´t own a forum or trying to put one up!

Why do liers like you fancy such a Bullshitting

Thank you very much Herr winkel for your kind words.

As mod nicely noticed I was referring to Bayes and his website and his forum there.

My best hope is that I was able to put my lying on even higher level with this.

Cheers

[falkor2k15]

@ falkor, it's hard to see what the overall result is from your tests. Can you give an expectation based on the data?

If Turbo is right and hot numbers do better than cold numbers, why don't we see it? Perhaps he would like to suggest a test we can do to confirm or refute it?

I'm not as closed-minded as you seem to think I am. If the data says hot numbers are better, then so be it, but I've yet to see it.

The other dozens test I did has failed - it ended +900 in profit - so the result is due to variance. However, both street results seemed consistent for negative edge. Why would it work on streets and not dozens...?

I think I might have a 3 million dataset to retest streets...

[Turner]

Thank you very much Herr winkel for your kind words.

As mod nicely noticed I was referring to Bayes and his website and his forum there.

My best hope is that I was able to put my lying on even higher level with this.

Cheers

You have become more trouble since you moved to Ireland

Must be the drink

[RayManZ]

The concept is a bit more than such a straightforward interpretation. To be able to understand you must try removing the cap on next spin odds are 1/37 or 1/38 and it never changes. If you are not able to, you will never be able to understand this. Try this one for a change, think about the odds of a spin repeating itself. When there is one spin only available, the odds of that spin repeating itself is 1/37. When there are two spins already available the odds of a repeat happening in 3rd spin is 2/37. So as you see, the odds of a spin repeating increases gradually till it becomes 1 when all the spins have spun. So if you consider this as a one set, even though the odds of next spin always remains 1/37, the odds of a repeat happening in next spin, constantly changes and in an increasing curve. I am sure the odds changing in this fashion is a fact.

Now try moving on to the next step. Take the numbers that repeat in the above sequence and create another sequence. Does odds or predictability change? Thats a question I would love you to find the answers yourselves, if you are really interested in understanding what is happening.

There were specific examples like there never being 38 numbers in 38 spins.  I refuted this. But now are vague tg explanations that are impossible to test, because they are too vague.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: odd of a repeat: 1/37

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: 15
Spin 3: odd of a repeat: 2/37

The more spins you play the greater the odd get.

Now apply this to a number repeating 2 times, 3 times, 4 times.

But it does not matter what anybody says here. Because steve can't wrap his head around it. He can't apply it to a working bet selection. So everybody else is just wrong and he is right.

The people that understand it will never fully explain it. They can only prove what they are saying is true by explaining there system fully. Nobody is going to do that.

[nottophammer]

Ray
what if the owner, Bayes, Turner and even Falkor understand how a nice easy bet this is, that they don't wont others jumping on the wagon, so they try to confuse and make it look like it fails.

[cht]

Ray
what if the owner, Bayes, Turner and even Falkor understand how a nice easy bet this is, that they don't wont others jumping on the wagon, so they try to confuse and make it look like it fails.

You never know. 

[falkor2k15]

Why is this so hard to understand?

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: odd of a repeat: 1/37

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: 15
Spin 3: odd of a repeat: 2/37

The more spins you play the greater the odd get.

Now apply this to a number repeating 2 times, 3 times, 4 times.

But it does not matter what anybody says here. Because steve can't wrap his head around it. He can't apply it to a working bet selection. So everybody else is just wrong and he is right.

The people that understand it will never fully explain it. They can only prove what they are saying is true by explaining there system fully. Nobody is going to do that.

A repeat is just the 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc.) appearance of a number. If we bet 1 dozen it's 33% and if we decide to then bet 2 dozens, the odds change to 66%, but the payout is less. So there's nothing significant here - it's simply based on how many numbers are included, and to cover them all would mean less payout.

[Bayes]

Why is this so hard to understand?

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: odd of a repeat: 1/37

Spin 1: 29
Spin 2: 15
Spin 3: odd of a repeat: 2/37

The more spins you play the greater the odd get.

Now apply this to a number repeating 2 times, 3 times, 4 times.

But it does not matter what anybody says here. Because steve can't wrap his head around it. He can't apply it to a working bet selection. So everybody else is just wrong and he is right.

The people that understand it will never fully explain it. They can only prove what they are saying is true by explaining there system fully. Nobody is going to do that.

Come on guys, this is really really basic stuff. A single spin always has the same probability, but a sequence of spins can have different probabilities, depending on how long the sequence is. The classic gambler's fallacy is to wait until some sequence has partially occurred, then jump in thinking that the original probability applies to the remainder of the sequence. It doesn't. Those spins which have passed have gone, so their probability is 1. You have to calculate the probability afresh.

So for example because 10 reds are rare, it's thought that your chance of getting a win is greater if you wait for 9 of them and then bet black. If the original probability of getting at least one black in 10 spins is 99.99%, then (so the thinking goes), if you wait for 9 reds some of that probability must be "transferred" to the next bet, so although the probability of a black may not be 99.99%, it's got be more than 18/37 right?

Wrong.

Ray
what if the owner, Bayes, Turner and even Falkor understand how a nice easy bet this is, that they don't wont others jumping on the wagon, so they try to confuse and make it look like it fails.

So now it's a conspiracy? Oh please...   

[falkor2k15]

Come on guys, this is really really basic stuff. A single spin always has the same probability, but a sequence of spins can have different probabilities, depending on how long the sequence is. The classic gambler's fallacy is to wait until some sequence has partially occurred, then jump in thinking that the original probability applies to the remainder of the sequence. It doesn't. Those spins which have passed have gone, so their probability is 1. You have to calculate the probability afresh.

So for example because 10 reds are rare, it's thought that your chance of getting a win is greater if you wait for 9 of them and then bet black. If the original probability of getting at least one black in 10 spins is 99.99%, then (so the thinking goes), if you wait for 9 reds some of that probability must be "transferred" to the next bet, so although the probability of a black may not be 99.99%, it's got be more than 18/37 right?

Wrong.

So now it's a conspiracy? Oh please...   

They aren't referring to probability over multiple spins. The above example is always for the next spin in terms of changing odds, but it's misleading. Imagine Lines:
1 Line bet = 1/6. Profit = 5
2 Line bet = 2/6. Profit = 4
3 Line bet = 3/6. Profit = 3
4 Line bet = 4/6. Profit = 2
5 Line bet = 5/6. Profit = 1
6 Line bet = 100% guaranteed. Profit = 0.

That's just a more honest, transparent, way of re-wording Priyanka and RayManZ's overrated "fact" about repeats and changing bias (described more like a magician's levitation trick - without mentioning the hidden ropes in terms of risk/reward).