Roulette has no memory but statistics have different opinion!

[cht]

Because last time i tested, it wasnt convincingly unpredictable. Same reason that online casinos wont use it.

"wasn't convincingly unpredictable".
Can you be more specific how you come to this conclusion.
That it gives the bettor what kind of predictable advantage?

[cht]

..... but you can't say that none of the results are statistically insignificant, just based on the number of bets. You don't need many thousands of bets to show significance.

Can you provide a framework what's the minimum requirement to satisfy signifance for EC bet.

[Steve]

It had repeating sequences where clusters of numbers gave clues to numbers in the near future. Old excel versions had the same problem although much worse.

There were other issues and i concluded almost every prng has problems. It doesn't mean they are fully exploitable though even after testing billions of spins.  Every prng is different.

[cht]

It had repeating sequences where clusters of numbers gave clues to numbers in the near future. Old excel versions had the same problem although much worse.

There were other issues and i concluded almost every prng has problems. It doesn't mean they are fully exploitable though even after testing billions of spins.  Every prng is different.

Hv you tested RS prng to determine if this repeating clusters giveaway flaw exist as well to the extent that it's exploitable?

[Steve]

No, i dont have time to test every play money game.

Besides if someone wants to seriously test a system, never use an unknown source of spins. And you can't easily test enough spins to properly test a system, with with RS or MPR.

Use auto software for volume testing. Anyone who says they don't need to test that many spins because they'll never play that many spins doesn't understands basics.

[Joe]

Can you provide a framework what's the minimum requirement to satisfy signifance for EC bet.

After around 5000 bets you will reach the 'long run' betting the even chances, which means you're past the point before which you can attribute success to luck. Luck runs out after that, so if you're still in profit - flat betting - you probably have reasons for optimism, although it doesn't necessarily mean you have the HG. But you don't need anywhere near this number to get 'statistically significant' results. Just because it's possible to get a great result by chance in a relatively small number of bets, doesn't mean it's not statistically significant. This is because (a) again you have to know the limits of luck; if the result goes beyond 3 or 4 standard deviations it may well be more than luck, and (b) just because it's possible to get a lucky streak this is still unlikely as long as you're not playing over and over until you get a good score, like a scammer might do so he can then cherry-pick and 'prove' his system works on youtube.

In MPR, you essentially have one shot, although there are people who have multiple accounts. If you have one chance to prove your system and it seems to be winning, more likely than not you have something and it's not just luck.

[Joe]

And which username has statistically significant results, with positive results? Maybe a few, but still well writhin norms.

I'm not saying anyone has statistically significant results, only that you can't say that nobody has. You don't know because the scoring system doesn't measure it; it only ranks players. So you could say player X is better than player Y, but you can't say whether player Y's results are statistically significant or not.

[Azim]

Use auto software for volume testing. Anyone who says they don't need to test that many spins because they'll never play that many spins doesn't understands basics.

I would say Steve is right here.

Personally, you have to be honest with yourself.  What do I mean by that?  Stop wasting time on number generators. Random.org has been around for years. They don't know what you using the number's for. They have no reason to cheat. If they did, trust me they wouldn't have been around this long.

Download 100,000 numbers from there. Write your software to beat those numbers. Problem solved you have a winning system. Wrong.

Once you have created the system from 100,00 spins download another file with 1,000,000. Run your software through that and see where it stands.

Good luck.

[Joe]

The true 'test' of a winner isn't even it beating a million spins. It's having a valid reason or cause of why it wins. If you can demonstrate mathematically or physically why it must win, then you can rest easy. Otherwise, there's always going to be the doubt and possibility that it will eventually fail.

[Azim]

The true 'test' of a winner isn't even it beating a million spins. It's having a valid reason or cause of why it wins. If you can demonstrate mathematically or physically why it must win, then you can rest easy. Otherwise, there's always going to be the doubt and possibility that it will eventually fail.

There will always be people in doubt.   Again, you can take a horse to the water but can't make it drink. If you really do have a winning system, would you share it?  As long as you are happy with it, go play it. Why have the negativity in your life?

[gizmotron2]

If you want to prove it on mpr, please do so and shut everyone up.

But please dont do what turbo did - brag, then leave when he started losing, attack the game and me, then move to RS where there are loads of millionaires.

What I meant by this "meaning nothing" is that by my own experience this is not real money. There's very little "skin in the game" going on with it. I do get that people make claims and then don't stick to them. My own work on Reading Randomness includes quitting a session at 7 net losses and ending each session at 3 net wins. This was suggested to have those learning it create a fixed data set for research purposes.  That went to establishing a balance point at 2.33 sessions won to balance one lost session at 7 net losses. Most trying this went along with those restrictions. But getting $100 from this simulated play for each session goes to a different aspect of Reading Randomness. I know what it takes to wait for opportunity and to avoid pitfall. For me it is completely simple. I'm beating this game with one data group and its two sets.  I normally search for opportunity among 6 groups and 12 sets. So once I get beyond it just being luck I still don't think this will prove anything. There is no risk other than reputation.  I did a lot of things that are considered very difficult and very scary in my earlier days. In every one of the activities I was lousy at first. This challenge is after I went through lousy long ago regarding Roulette. So just because I can do this does not mean other people will be willing to go through lousy to get to the level of skill that it takes. 

[gizmotron2]

Giz, I don't know how the scoring system on MPR works, for some reason Steve doesn't want to tell us, but however it works, you can't have a blanket scoring system for all bets, staking systems etc which accurately tells you whether your results are statistically significant. You have to take into account how many numbers you're betting, and the number of wins. Then there's the question of statistical power (probability of a Type II error). I'm not suggesting that any of the systems players are using are long-term winners, but you can't say that none of the results are statistically insignificant, just based on the number of bets. You don't need many thousands of bets to show significance.

Systems don't work because the player sticks to them. Then the system walks right into a sequence that kills them off. I don't do that. I watch for changes. I'm very good at seeing conditions change. You must act fast and be agile in doing so. System players are mostly asleep. It's a skill. I know how to get in on singles on the weak side for instance. It's just a matter of seeing conditions and taking a small section of the condition before it ends. That is a skill. It's also a skill of becoming aware of the current condition of effectiveness in the session.  System players don't bother with that either.

[maestro]

Systems don't work because the player sticks to them. Then the system walks right into a sequence that kills them off. I don't do that. I watch for changes. I'm very good at seeing conditions change. You must act fast and be agile in doing so. System players are mostly asleep. It's a skill. I know how to get in on singles on the weak side for instance. It's just a matter of seeing conditions and taking a small section of the condition before it ends. That is a skill. It's also a skill of becoming aware of the current condition of effectiveness in the session.  System players don't bother with that either.

i do not think that by betting even chances you will go long way

[gizmotron2]

The true 'test' of a winner isn't even it beating a million spins. It's having a valid reason or cause of why it wins. If you can demonstrate mathematically or physically why it must win, then you can rest easy. Otherwise, there's always going to be the doubt and possibility that it will eventually fail.

I have demonstrated that a constant unending flat bet on Red alone causes the effect that I search for in order to win a session. It brings out the up and down waves that naturally occur. It then becomes a matter of just playing those waves effectively. So that alone should answer the "why" question in Reading Randomness.  So the obvious question once that is stipulated would be is it possible to read the  up and down waves. By playing at MPR all I can do is demonstrate it in long term testing. Someone suggested 5,000 bets placed.  I can keep track of sessions won and if any sessions lose, then sessions lost and get a win to loss ratio. But I would need a stop loss point to determine that. Since this is not my 7/3 suggestion for people learning Reading Randomness I think I will give myself a lot of room to maneuver. I will take a lost session at $1.000 down from the session's start point. I don't use martingale type progressions to recover. I just bet small when I can't see opportunity and bet big when I do. Since this is all about proving that there are opportunistic targets in randomness that should be a good enough test. For me the math and the odds are irrelevant.

[Herby]

Look up this principle of thermodynamics and educate yourself about entropy. Match the game played with this principle. There's much more than the game I revealed.

Hi CHT,
I give it a try if you give me your played numbers which fit to your posted picture of the results.
Cheers