PATTERN BREAKER test results

[Joe]

Hi guys, I've attached the results of a simulation of PATTERN BREAKER. I used a kind of generic EC, labels 0 & 1, and there is no house edge of any kind but that doesn't detract from the results. Here are the first 4 games in the output file which I've attached :

*** GAME #1 ***
Waiting for 7 unique patterns...
111
001
011
001
000
110
111
001
100
010

Opposite of remaining pattern :010
1 Bank :  -1
1 Bank :   1
Bank after game #1:   1   W

*** GAME #2 ***
Waiting for 7 unique patterns...
101
101
001
111
011
001
100
101
101
011
111
101
000
101
100
110

Opposite of remaining pattern :101
1 Bank :   2
Bank after game #2:   2   W

*** GAME #3 ***
Waiting for 7 unique patterns...
111
110
101
101
000
101
000
001
001
011
101
010

Opposite of remaining pattern :011
0 Bank :   3
Bank after game #3:   3   W

*** GAME #4 ***
Waiting for 7 unique patterns...
100
110
110
110
100
101
001
111
010
111
111
110
110
001
011

And here are the final results after 20,000 games:

------ SUMMARY ------

Final Balance : 104 units
Gain from Wins = 17513
No. Busts = 2487
Check : 17513 - 2487 x 7 = 104
Ratio of wins:busts : 7.04 to 1

The final balance of +104 is almost certainly due to there being no house advantage, and given that, it's not statistically significant anyway. The ratio of wins to busts is right about where it should be assuming no house edge.

[Joe]

To be honest I wasn't really expecting anything different, and further tests give the same kind of results. I'm not denying that the author of the system may have won with it, I'm only saying that those results are almost certainly due to luck.

[denzie]

To be honest I wasn't really expecting anything different, and further tests give the same kind of results. I'm not denying that the author of the system may have won with it, I'm only saying that those results are almost certainly due to luck.

Right on the money 

[RouletteGhost]

People winning with it for years

Accept that.

No one is playing 20 thousand games.

Trust it isn't luck

[Andre Chass]

People winning with it for years

Accept that.

No one is playing 20 thousand games.

Trust it isn't luck

I agree with you RG

I think the game is much more than only math.
There are other factors that make a winning player. And you know what those factors are.

"However, as an intelligent, knowledgeable, and disciplined player, things are not as forbidding as the mathematicians would lead one to believe. 

First, the player will not be playing continuously 24 hours per day every day.  He will limit his time and capital exposure, then use his methods to maximize his chance to capture a profitable trend in the ebb and flow of Baccarat decisions.  Always, the player will employ smart money management to conserve and protect his bankroll against adverse trends in the game.  Realistically, the player should experience many trips to the casino with profitable results.

Treat your play as a business and remember the more educated your guesses become the more profit is more likely to come."

Stuart quote

[Joe]

No one is playing 20 thousand games.

Hi RouletteGhost,

So should I stop the simulation when the system shows a profit? ;-)

The idea behind a simulation is to show what happens over a longer test, when luck runs out. Besides, John Legend says he has played 14,000 games, which is not so far from 20,000. Any system can win over a few hundred or even a few thousand spins. The reason I knew the system wouldn't give any advantage is because it's based on the fallacy that the wheel has a memory. Using events as triggers in that way never makes any difference, I know because I've coded hundreds of systems. But still it's an interesting approach.

[cht]

Hi RouletteGhost,

So should I stop the simulation when the system shows a profit? ;-)

The idea behind a simulation is to show what happens over a longer test, when luck runs out. Besides, John Legend says he has played 14,000 games, which is not so far from 20,000. Any system can win over a few hundred or even a few thousand spins. The reason I knew the system wouldn't give any advantage is because it's based on the fallacy that the wheel has a memory. Using events as triggers in that way never makes any difference, I know because I've coded hundreds of systems. But still it's an interesting approach.

14,000 games from multiple roulette wheels at different roulette online casinos that won way above the 7:1 rate. The current rate is 50+ : 1 that only sentinel and Andre have claimed to achieve. Nobody else playing online live dealer casino has done this skipping over losers as they come according to math.

Yes the losers come at the rate of 1:7. The simple trick is to skip over them to play the other 7 winner games. Be patient,  stay disciplined stop play when losers come itlr.  Play the winners only in a hit and run fashion, don't be greedy - secret sauce to 7 nice easy peasy winners. This gives 50:1 instead of 7:1

[Joe]

The simple trick is to skip over them to play the other 7 winner games.

How do you skip over losers? Do you mean wait for virtual losses?

[denzie]

How do you skip over losers? Do you mean wait for virtual losses?

Nope. By being lucky. Some win and most lose. Your results are exactly what i expected. But of course some just dont get it......great job 

[cht]

How do you skip over losers? Do you mean wait for virtual losses?

Honest answer - I don't know. 

Luck, blessed, midas touch, god of gamblers - CYF.... 

[Joe]

Thanks for being honest. All I can do is to simulate the system as described. Obviously if there are rules which I don't know about and which make the difference between winning and losing, then the simulation won't show the amazing results which are claimed by John Legend and some others. But hey, don't shoot the messenger. 

[RouletteGhost]

I go by real life results not simulations

If people are winning as they claim that’s all that matters

Another reason why your simulation is a waste of time is that we stop on a win

We do not continuously play. We take the loss when it happens. And the wins overcome the losses

People winning don’t care about a 20 thousand spin simulation. These people are doing one game a day in some cases

[RouletteGhost]

One last thing I’ll say

Winning 130 games and losing 4 with a minor three step progression may be more than luck

[Joe]

@ RouletteGhost,

I go by real life results not simulations

Well I can't simulate you chatting to the dealer or scratching your arse, but does it matter?

John Legend is always going on about patience and discipline, as though it's the most important part of any system. But a computer never runs out of patience and never makes mistakes, so it can't be that aspect of playing which is the problem with the simulation, can it?

So what is it? What's the missing ingredient which I left out of the simulation which causes these win rates of 10:1 or more when according to the maths and simulations it's only 7:1?

Another reason why your simulation is a waste of time is that we stop on a win. We do not continuously play.

It makes no difference whether you wait for more spins before starting a new game or play continuously. The simulation does actually get a random number of spins after each game which simulates a "stop".

People winning don’t care about a 20 thousand spin simulation. These people are doing one game a day in some cases

Maybe you don't but I'm sure most people here are looking for a system which wins in the long term. How do you know it's not just luck if you don't test over the long term? All systems win at times just by luck. If you don't test past when luck runs out you may well be deluding yourself that it's a winner.

I changed the code so now the file generated can be opened in a spreadsheet, it includes the lengths of the win/loss streaks. Take a look you'll see that long winning streaks are not uncommon, the highest I've seen is 73.
But the stats are no different from just betting on red with a 3 step martingale. You have an 87.5 % of a win, which is very close to the results of the sim. Waiting for the last pattern is a complete waste of time.

[Winner]

Coder Joe is right in saying it makes no difference in waiting or betting on a continuation.
There is no bet that can beat this game .