Precognition - PROOF! results from MPR - the real holy grail

[ignatus]

What the ***??  THIS is the leaderboard ?

Winrate alone does not make you no.1, as steve said? other things matter? ---

[precogmiles]

What the ***??  THIS is the leaderboard ?

Winrate alone does not make you no.1, as steve said? other things matter? ---

haha, I am not taking anything away from other leaderboard.

But it does not make any sense how someone who has a lower winrate and has reset their bank roll many times can be above someone with a high winrate and who still has their original bankroll.

[luckyfella]

Not sure what your goal is

Promote precognition ?

Promote yourself ?

Poor approach that worsened everything

Other then your antics is the latest entertainment on steves forum

Your lack of math doesn't help

Sorry, have to speak my mind
Not arrogance

You got our attention

The standards of skeptism has gone a few levels up

You have destroyed everything that steve has done for precog

Too bad you don't realise it

Watch Henry Fonda's performance in 12 angry men
Or read about Joseph Goebbels work

Steve, I am not knocking precog
I don't write off anything prematurely
It has to be done the proper way
Else the stand up comedy is the forest

[Steve]

But it does not make any sense how someone who has a lower winrate and has reset their bank roll many times can be above someone with a high winrate and who still has their original bankroll.

Ive explained the algorithm many times. I openly published it for criticism, and anyone could have suggested something better. Nobody did.

If someone has a genuine 5% edge over 1000 spins, and someone else got lucky with a bad system and profited as if they had a 20% edge with just 500 spins, the second player would probably rank higher. This would be correct.

Every possible algorithm will probably have a situation where something is not quite right. For example, if we rank on win rate alone, then someone with 10 spins could out-rank a player with the HG. And it would encourage a lot of duplicate account.

The spins played, the amount bet, amount won, amount lost all contribute to the win rate and ranking. I believe it is the most balanced and fair algorithm, but it should apply only to the top 10 or so players. The other rankings cant be accurate without more data.

If someone wants to suggest a better algorithm, I'm all ears.

[precogmiles]

Not sure what your goal is

Promote precognition ?

Promote yourself ?

Poor approach that worsened everything

Other then your antics is the latest entertainment on steves forum

Your lack of math doesn't help

Sorry, have to speak my mind
Not arrogance

You got our attention

The standards of skeptism has gone a few levels up

You have destroyed everything that steve has done for precog

Too bad you don't realise it

Watch Henry Fonda's performance in 12 angry men
Or read about Joseph Goebbels work

Steve, I am not knocking precog
I don't write off anything prematurely
It has to be done the proper way
Else the stand up comedy is the forest

You sound very bitter and seem like Just another arrogant skeptic from the looks of it.

If you are serious about trying to understand precognition and other psi phenomena go do the research. I can provide you with links if you would like.

I am still not going to do a million trails for you, just to make you convinced.

The purpose of this pwithp account was to test what progression would work best with my precog abilities.

Wake up from the darkness of materialism. Stop being bitter be happy for me.

[luckyfella]

You sound very bitter and seem like Just another arrogant skeptic from the looks of it.

If you are serious about trying to understand precognition and other psi phenomena go do the research. I can provide you with links if you would like.

I am still not going to do a million trails for you, just to make you convinced.

The purpose of this pwithp account was to test what progression would work best with my precog abilities.

Wake up from the darkness of materialism. Stop being bitter be happy for me.

Ofc I am happy for you

About bitter, you can try other words like negative, naysayer, jealous, hater, loser.......

On your offer of links, I prefer to be late on this one
No thanks

[precogmiles]

Ive explained the algorithm many times. I openly published it for criticism, and anyone could have suggested something better. Nobody did.

If someone has a genuine 5% edge over 1000 spins, and someone else got lucky with a bad system and profited as if they had a 20% edge with just 500 spins, the second player would probably rank higher. This would be correct.

Every possible algorithm will probably have a situation where something is not quite right. For example, if we rank on win rate alone, then someone with 10 spins could out-rank a player with the HG. And it would encourage a lot of duplicate account.

The spins played, the amount bet, amount won, amount lost all contribute to the win rate and ranking. I believe it is the most balanced and fair algorithm, but it should apply only to the top 10 or so players. The other rankings cant be accurate without more data.

If someone wants to suggest a better algorithm, I'm all ears.

You’re right there will never be a perfect system.

The winrate table above uses the top 100 from the original leaderboard, removes anyone with less than 100 spins and orders by winrate.

One suggestion is to color code the rows by winrate

Red for any player below 0.97
Orange for players between 0.98 and 0.97
Green for players between 1.10 and 0.98
Gold for players above 1.10

This will allow anyone to see how viable the players strategy is. This will also make it clear for example that while a player might be ranked in the top 30 they infact have lost money.

Just a more visually informative way since the table does not have filters.

[precogmiles]

Ofc I am happy for you

About bitter, you can try other words like negative, naysayer, jealous, hater, loser.......

On your offer of links, I prefer to be late on this one
No thanks

Then good day to you too sir.

[Taotie]

So we've got pwithp on 500 spins, and pmiles on 200 spins. Why no mention of this guy on a more reliable 9000 spins?

[Joe]

Every possible algorithm will probably have a situation where something is not quite right. For example, if we rank on win rate alone, then someone with 10 spins could out-rank a player with the HG. And it would encourage a lot of duplicate account.

This is true, there will always be situations when, temporarily at least, the ranking method doesn't reflect an edge, but it should be designed to reflect the edge IMO, so I think the formula should be profit or loss divided by the total stakes currently bet. This gives the true edge and it's irrelevant whether you use a progression. Perhaps if people saw this they wouldn't sacrifice bet selection to money management.

[precogmiles]

So we've got pwithp on 500 spins, and pmiles on 200 spins. Why no mention of this guy on a more reliable 9000 spins?

Hahahaha because I use that as my test account. I do not practice precog on that account.

pcm is actually a good example of why I focus on winrate. I have reset my bankroll multiple times on that account, have a winrate only slightly above the average and I am in 16th position.

[Taotie]

Oh, right.   

[precogmiles]

update for the winrate leaderboard...

All players with a more than 200 spins and winrate of 1.0 or higher. Ranked by winrate



Do you see a pattern here?

Totals


Bankroll: 63722
Spins: 1854
A. Bet: 133417
A. Won: 167589
Winrate: 1.31438522

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but these are hardcore facts.

[amk]

Congrats Pre!

I hope you can briefly explain how you play.

Perhaps a fictional session description play by play as an example.

You do mention you have a template or a word to that degree

could you describe "it"

it cant be tested on RX, only through personal spin by spin decision "making"

so only the "lucky" winners would succeed with it anyway

looking forward to your reply

[Steve]

I do believe in precog, but one of the problems with testing is it takes too long to get a statistically relevant sample to prove anything properly.