To the "coders" and "testers" that contribute nothing but come to rain on parade

[psimoes]

I believe in testing actual real world sessions.

For example a baccarat shoe or 40 roulette spins. Not a million.

By your own logic you should not test anything whatsoever. By testing systems you are exposing yourself to variance, since the wheel won't care if you previously bet money or not while testing. After you test the shit out of zumma, by the time you reach a real wheel you have already crossed the point of no return. Again by your own logic, right?
You should instead blindly take for granted every success story about a system and bet real money right away. Since you prefer to believe in the pied pipers of this forum instead of listening to reason, it should not be a problem.

[Ricky]

But testing a large sample can give you a lot more information such as where the weak points are. You can then use this information to maybe improve the system. Just because the system fails over a million spins doesn't mean it's "a waste of time".

I always test my systems by computer and it gives me a lot of useful information including how much bankroll is needed, maximum drawdowns etc. If you're going to test at all, using a computer can only improve it. Otherwise just be a gambler and don't test at all.

Hi Coderjoe,
I hear what you are saying and I totally agree with your reasoning that a computer simulation, DESIGNED properly, can say a lot about a described method. You probably realize that I am a coder too and have found software like RX Xtreme very valuable in testing software. You mention that the information you can determine from a simulation with many million spins relate to bankroll needed, expected drawdown and ultimately the odds of winning in the long term.

So I want to know with your software you use do you code in these parameters when you test a method like PATTERN BREAKER or do you run the system without any of these parameters to see if it tanks?

You see, I have spent over a year developing a framework where I can plug in a method and define various progression methods like Martingale, D'Alambert,  Labouchere, and positive ones too. I run the method with these different progressions to see which ones would work best when running continuously. This gives me a lot of information to determine level of risk a method is exposed to. Take PB for example. What I liked about this method is it limits the bets to 3 steps with only an eight pattern permutation.

I don't know if you know of a You Tuber called Charlie Barlie, but he described a similar method to PB called PERMUTATIONS where you get the casino to generate the bet selection for you. He had the theory that the roulette wheel could not generate a repeat pattern of 7 spins immediately after it spun it once. This method used a 5 step martingale. I got really burnt thinking how can I lose. Eventually, somewhere in those 5 steps the wheel cannot get all bets right. Well for a while I was doing really well. Made 400 in 2 hours betting between 3-6 base bets. Then I went one too many sessions and in one swoop found myself betting on the 5th step and lost the lot. Charley did warn that using this method it was like being in a ligntning storm. Most times you won't get struck with that pattern repeat but there is a chance you may get struck. So to play this method you can't play continuously. You need to do it hit and run. Sound familiar.

So I have been very wary of method that require you to use that steep progression.

John Legend describes a method that only requires 3 steps or even 2 if you skip the third and accept the loss. He also describes a way to make your bet selection based on what the wheel is doing. So the bet selection comes to a different conclusion each time. It create the random selection for you. You do not need to GUESS and be LUCKY. So if you lose then you give it to the casino. It got lucky.

So as a method I really like the idea and I am sure you were drawn to its cleverness too. So you did what I did and you tried to simulate it to see if it was the "HOLY GRAIL". But as JL said himself, this is not the HOLY GRAIL and should only be used sparingly. Well that's because there is no system that if run continuously will beat the casino. Luck has a great deal to do with the success of any system. BUT luck goes two ways. The casino has to be lucky too. I have terrible luck when it comes to selecting even the simplest of bets R/B. I always choose the one that loses. So why not use a method that makes that choice for you. Sometimes you will win sometimes you will lose.

Roulette is a hard game to crack. The whole design of it, with the house edge and the fact you are dealing with random numbers on each spin make it impossible to find the perfect system to run continuously. That's why you have to run it selectively. My idea, and I am sure you agree is, to run a system in a BOT continuously, you need to alternate between  systems or bet selection methods. As DR says, he uses PB with a 1-2 progression about 2-4 times a visit to the casin. In between he is using other systems. Thats exactly what I am starting to do and it is working for me. If you have followed my posts I have actually been growing a bankroll from a starting $200. If you have read the book ROULETTE : Play to WIN by Brett Morton, he describes exactly what JL has been echoing in this forum for years. I know you have heard me say this constantly, but will say it again. He also explains that to win consistently you need to have PATIENCE and DISCIPLINE. These are human traits and not everyone possesses them. not even me but I am willing to learn to be both of these to enable me to get ahead and grow my bankroll. I need support from other members to share ideas on how I can slowly but surely grow that bankroll. People like DR inspire me to limit my progression to just 1-2 steps or even look for a FLAT BET bet selection. I do have one in my system which I will share with you later but its pretty straight forward but effective

I'll stop here as this post is starting to become a chapter in a book. Look forward to collaborating with you on new ideas that we can test

Cheers,
Ricky

[psimoes]

This method used a 5 step martingale. I got really burnt thinking how can I lose. Eventually, somewhere in those 5 steps the wheel cannot get all bets right. Well for a while I was doing really well. Made 400 in 2 hours betting between 3-6 base bets. Then I went one too many sessions and in one swoop found myself betting on the 5th step and lost the lot.

If I may reply, don´t you think that run from hell could have shown right on your first session if you had arrived to the table at another time?

Or, do you and all hitandrunners defend that randomness itself is pretty neutral and every mechanical system will quickly adapt to it and profit no matter what?

[Joe]

You mention that the information you can determine from a simulation with many million spins relate to bankroll needed, expected drawdown and ultimately the odds of winning in the long term.

So I want to know with your software you use do you code in these parameters when you test a method like PATTERN BREAKER or do you run the system without any of these parameters to see if it tanks?

It depends. With pattern breaker I was only interested in finding out whether the win rate was anything like JL claimed he was getting, so I didn't add code to find other parameters. Actually with roulette much of the time simulations aren't necessary because it's quite easy to calculate the expected results using probability calculus, but if your progression is complicated or the system bets on different amounts of numbers, or both, then it becomes too difficult. That's when I use a computer.

[cht]

Seriously people, the probability winrate of 3 steps JL PB is slightly less than 1:7 due to house edge.

That's not an opinion. It's math.

What JL suggested that with hit&run play the winrate will not dip below 1:7 plus the astronomical winrate he claimed can mean 2 things only -

1. he's one lucky bloke,

2. he's lying.

More important is for the readers to realise this hit&run play will not magically stay above 1:7. No it will not. Yes it dips below 1:7 Except when LUCK is in your favour.

[Ricky]

It depends. With pattern breaker I was only interested in finding out whether the win rate was anything like JL claimed he was getting, so I didn't add code to find other parameters. Actually with roulette much of the time simulations aren't necessary because it's quite easy to calculate the expected results using probability calculus, but if your progression is complicated or the system bets on different amounts of numbers, or both, then it becomes too difficult. That's when I use a computer.

Hi coderjoe
Hitrate is a good judge of a successful system. It is simple maths that if you are getting a hitrate greater than you progression cost of losing then you have a winning system.

When I did the 100 game test these are the results I got based on a 2 step progression. But this does not include using recovery to increase your profit. So you could say you don’t need a recover to test as if it does not even make break even you are fighting an uphill battle

The figures show 81 wins and 21 losses. That’s a win rate of 3.85 which is above break even. So that’s a good start to work on improving as at least it’s positive.

My results include covering the house edge so my wins are slightly less than 1:1 and my losses are slightly more due to the loss of the zero bet as well as the E/C bet. But in this he long run this gets compensated by the zero wins which I usually size to 2 or 3 unit wins.

So for a method that is suggested to be played hit and run it does stand up to the test.

Now the dispute you have with jl is his claims the way he plays. If he is claiming above 10 over long term play then I agree there is a great deal of luck. But given he is spreading his risk among many casinos it’s not entirely unrealistic to be consistently getting high win rates.
If I looked at where  my losses came they were mostly clumped with 3 or 4 consecutive losses. If I lucked out and avoided playing those games or used a different strategy to avoid playing back to back losses then my results may have been more positive. But that’svdown to luck, not the method. My next test is going to reflect more the hit and run over 10 days playing just 10 games a day rather than 17. So the breaks between sessions will be longer. But it will still add up to 100 games. Let’s see if I get lucky and avoid back to back losses. I will increase my bet size too to 10 euros to try and get a more reasonable profit. I will do a recovery using 15 euro base bets for 2 games

Cheers
Ricky

[Ricky]

If I may reply, don´t you think that run from hell could have shown right on your first session if you had arrived to the table at another time?

Or, do you and all hitandrunners defend that randomness itself is pretty neutral and every mechanical system will quickly adapt to it and profit no matter what?

Hi psimoes
I do not know if a single system invented that can defy the long term odds of the roulette wheel. Played continuously the house edge always has the upper hand. That why the casinos love offering this game. And America got even more greedy and added the extra zero.
So how do you defeat  roulette given this long term statistical reality. Some say the only way is to play for a statistically insignificant time and then as soon as you have shown a profit through luck or use of a system or method that challenged the wheel to do something it cannot do in that short period of time you declare a win and ‘run’ before “luck” runs out or should I say before the casino gets lucky. So the difference between the player choosing red or black through some random guess and the wheel using its own randomness to choose red or black is we are putting the shoe on the other foot so to speak. We are challenging the casino to call the result black or red and see if it gets lucky
Given enough time playing the casino will get lucky but if it doesn’t in the short time we are playing then the system has delivered another victory

Whichever way you look at it it all comes down to luck. No system can claim to deliver a consistent profit over time without luck. But I would rather rely on a method to consistently bring me that luck than for me to be lucky using my own selection.

Cheers
Ricky

[DoctorSudoku]

Seriously people, the probability winrate of 3 steps JL PB is slightly less than 1:7 due to house edge.

That's not an opinion. It's math.

What JL suggested that with hit&run play the winrate will not dip below 1:7 plus the astronomical winrate he claimed can mean 2 things only -

1. he's one lucky bloke,

2. he's lying.

More important is for the readers to realise this hit&run play will not magically stay above 1:7. No it will not. Yes it dips below 1:7 Except when LUCK is in your favour.

Since you also claimed success (on the PB thread) using what can be called a mechanical method on baccarat, maybe the same accusations can be levelled against you.

So which one are you?

A lucky bloke?

A liar?

Or both?

[cht]

Since you also claimed success (on the PB thread) using what can be called a mechanical method on baccarat, maybe the same accusations can be levelled against you.

It's your choice to make similar accusations against me.

Yes, I do include this possibility that JL aka FENDER aka Sentinel could be a liar, mostly for the wild obtuse claim of never go below that 1:7 winrate for everyone who plays hit & run. And that astronomically high winrate.

So which one are you?

A lucky bloke?

I must admit some luck is involved.

A liar?

No reason to lie.

Or both?

Mechanical play based on skewed statistical frequency distribution collated from my b&m casino.

I clearly posted that such claims can never be proven.

[cht]

Since you also claimed success (on the PB thread) using what can be called a mechanical method on baccarat, maybe the same accusations can be levelled against you.

So which one are you?

A lucky bloke?

A liar?

Or both?

Is it your strategy to discredit messengers who propose math to destroy our arguments ?

I notice this consistency in your post. You seem to disagree with the validity of math especially that related to short term play aka hit & run.

It's good that you clarify your position about the validity of math with short term play.

[DoctorSudoku]

Are you trying to discredit messengers who propose math to destroy our arguments ?

I notice this consistency in your post. You seem to disagree with the validity of math.

I do not dispute the mathematical arguments against the effectiveness of all gambling methods/strategies (I am a professional engineer and I have a Ph.D. in an engineering field).

If you apply math (expected values calculations) strictly to every method/strategy proposed in this forum, you will end up with a negative outcome.

Yet, you cherry pick methods on which to apply your math arguments to (and then criticize the people who propose those methods).

That is what I am objecting to.

[cht]

I do not dispute the mathematical arguments against the effectiveness of all gambling methods/strategies (I am a professional engineer and I have a Ph.D. in an engineering field).

If you apply math (expected values calculations) strictly to every method/strategy proposed in this forum, you will end up with a negative outcome.

Yet, you cherry pick methods on which to apply your math arguments to (and then criticize the people who propose those methods).

That is what I am objecting to.

Ok now I understand your objection.

I do not criticise JL PB system at all. In fact, I posted earlier my appreciation on the thread.

This following 2 claims repeated many times is to me highly misleading.

1. Anyone playing with patience and discipline short term aka hit&run will somehow give a no worse than 1:7 winrate. It comes across as a guarantee.

This gives the false impression to the reader that he can't lose playing the system.

Personally, after too many emphatic repetition this has to be called out as false.

2. The winrates 100 games list published showed way much higher than this 1:7 winrate.

If it's sharing his good fortune no problem with that.

But the impression given is that anyone who plays hit&run will get this kind of high winrate. Majority of players fail to attain such high winrate is due to their poor patience and discipline.

This is definitely wrong.

I raise caution to the fallacy.

Not criticise him as a person.
However, ignorance and/or lying can be possibilities.

I hope I have clarified my specific objection to his claims.

[cht]

To be correct, I join Coderjoe, psimoes and others to throw caution to the fallacy.

[Andre Chass]

JL's big fallacy:

"For example I played two games today.

Just two games on two different wheels.

It will be 18 hours before I play again.

I fell out of the cycle for 18 hours."

--------------------------------------------------

I don't want detract anyone but it is a big fat fallacy!

You can play after 20 minutes or after 1 hour or after 24h. There's no difference.

The wheel/shoe has no memory.

There's no difference you play 100 games a day o 1game for 100 days.

The wheel/shoe don't give it a crap.

[Ricky]

I don't want detract anyone but it is a big fat fallacy!

You can play after 20 minutes or after 1 hour or after 24h. There's no difference.

Hi Andre,
I am not supporting or rejecting what people like JL are saying about hit & Run having a better win rate than playing continuously. But What I think the point is here is if you are playing this system for a source of living you will protect your bankroll and your profit as much as possible to avoid losing it by exposing your risk to the wheel/shoe more than you need to. So by claiming you will only play 2 games today and not play for another 18 hours should not be taken as this is the formula to success. Its because he probably made his daily profit target or maybe had a loss and did not want to expose himself further. He had the discipline to stop. So to keep his daily win rate up he avoided playing further. Had he continued playing one of two things could have happened. He either continued winning or started losing. So to keep a statistically high win rate he is playing for a statistically insignificant time.

It all about the tortoise and the hare. You can run as quickly as possible to riches and fortune with the risk of ruin, or you can slowly make a small amount each day to sustain a living and over a long period of time amass a small fortune. This could be called HIT & RUN but it is also called being wise with your gambling and not exposing yourself to unnecessary risks if you can avoid it.

Cheers,
Ricky