*PATTERN BREAKER*

[atlantis]

= +20u profit

Well - less %commission on some of those!

A.

[Ricky]

Well I'm glad you agree with me that simulations (or bots, which are the same thing) are superior to manual play in this respect. I thought you were saying that there is some statistical reason for hit & run being a better way to play, which would be true only if you knew in advance when would be a good time to "hit" and a good time to "run", which of course you don't ;-).

It seems that JL doesn't agree with you though. He can't explain the very large discrepancy between the results of my simulation and his results, even though the simulation followed the rules of the system to the letter. He just says hit & run can't be simulated. Maybe he just doesn't understand how programming works, but any decisions you make at the table can be simulated as long as you have all the rules and specify actions to take following all eventualities. There are other programmers here and they will agree with me.

I'm not here to try to convince anyone not to play PB or any other system, but what I object to is people dismissing computer simulations as being somehow irrelevant, or saying that they are worthless because nobody plays a million spins. That is missing the point entirely. And besides, a million spins played by one person is no different than 1000 spins played by 1000 people, or 100 spins played by 10,000 people. In either case if you pool the results together you end up with a million spins.

Hi Coderjoe I was trying to pick out some of your quotes but the whole post seems to make the same point I want to address.

Let me make it quite clear. I am not SIMULATING using my bot. I am playing real $$$$$$$. My own money. I have spent over 1 year testing my system with fake money to test its robustness. I am past that. I am now using it to make me money. At the same time I am testing PB.

My BOT is not running simulations. I have done the simulations and if you look at my very first posts I shared the results using my understanding of PB. For me the 5000 spin simulation using RNG showed a profit. But what does that prove? nothing in the real world. But it did give me enough confidence to explore this method more.

Once I complete my testing I suspect I will also see a big discrepancy with your results because I think you are not taking the "state" of play of the wheel into account in your simulations. I am not sure if you have coded stop losses or recovery sessions. I have done all these things. Also what I am doing to simulate Hit and Run and not staying in the game betting continuously is to create some rules where I will go into track only mode if I get x wins in a row. eg if we know we will get about 5-8 wins before we encounter a loss playing continuously then my bot will stop betting after getting 5 wins. It will then wait for that loss to occur and then resume betting immediately after to hopefully not see 2 losses in a row. Adding this logic has improved my performance compared to when I was running non stop. But it still can be improved.

Cheers,
Ricky

[Ricky]

And besides, a million spins played by one person is no different than 1000 spins played by 1000 people, or 100 spins played by 10,000 people. In either case if you pool the results together you end up with a million spins.

Coderjoe, the big important difference between 1 million spins played in one simulation and 1000 spins played by 1000 people etc is that these are spins from different events on different wheels where there is different random events. You may say that one random event is the same as another played at a different wheel but how can this be so? It all comes to spreading the risk among all those wheels at all those different times. I can't quantify the difference but it is not the same as playing the system sequentially on those 1 million spins and expect to get the same result as the many people playing 1000 spins. Each has their own bankroll, bet size, stop loss. So there really is no comparison.

[Ricky]

Well - less %commission on some of those!

A.

Picky

[Joe]

Let me make it quite clear. I am not SIMULATING using my bot. I am playing real $$$$$$$.

Ricky, the point is that a bot doesn't rely on human input or decisions and neither does a simulation, so in that respect they are the same. Some people think that bots or simulations don't work because they can't make "human" decisions, but they're wrong.

I'm happy to incorporate any changes or suggestions into the simulation which you think may improve the win rate. When I wrote the simulation I followed JL's rules; he didn't say anything about taking the state of play into account like you are. Obviously I can only simulate the rules which are given so it's hardly fair to complain that the simulation gave negative results because it didn't take into account certain rules which I didn't know about! 

[Joe]

I can't quantify the difference but it is not the same as playing the system sequentially on those 1 million spins and expect to get the same result as the many people playing 1000 spins. Each has their own bankroll, bet size, stop loss. So there really is no comparison.

I'm assuming that each of these players are playing the same system and following the same rules. If you can't quantify the difference then for all intents and purposes there is no difference. The system is simple, when 7 patterns have come you bet on the 8th. Where is the data which says that there is a better/worse time to start tracking the patterns? JL doesn't mention this at all, he just says that he quits after a few games and starts another game "later", whenever that may be.

It sound like you're trying to object to the validity of simulations again. ;-)

[bikemotorman]

A session this morning.

PB did fine take a look.

Stuart

[Ricky]

Ricky, the point is that a bot doesn't rely on human input or decisions and neither does a simulation, so in that respect they are the same. Some people think that bots or simulations don't work because they can't make "human" decisions, but they're wrong.

I'm happy to incorporate any changes or suggestions into the simulation which you think may improve the win rate. When I wrote the simulation I followed JL's rules; he didn't say anything about taking the state of play into account like you are. Obviously I can only simulate the rules which are given so it's hardly fair to complain that the simulation gave negative results because it didn't take into account certain rules which I didn't know about! 

Hi Coderjoe,
I don't think "complaining" is what we are doing. We are just pointing out a few facts that refute your claims.

But having said that I had a close look at your results and I think you have misinterpretted your own results. Your results show the following:

------ 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

Are you saying your results showed you won 17K times and lost 2.5K times.
How is this a losing system. It performed exactly as JL says it performed. Maybe I am missing something. But if I am not mistaken, you have taken these figures and just calculated a flat 7 unit loss for every bust. You have not taken into consideration the recovery round for example where you bet 2-4-8 for 2 games immediately after a loss.

Also, how many back to back losses were recorded in your simulation ie WWWWLLWWWWLLL

You see what JL does is when he gets WWWWWLWW those last two wins are played at 2-4-8 progression so he has recovered half his loss. But if he were to get WWWWLLWWW the second loss would put him in a deeper loss due to the increased bet but he still can get out of it assuming he does not have too many losses while in recovery mode.

So just by adding the above logic you may find that your simulation was a success after all and we would not be having this debate over the merits of PB

Let me know if I am missing something in interpreting your results.

Cheers,
Ricky

[Ricky]

I'm assuming that each of these players are playing the same system and following the same rules. If you can't quantify the difference then for all intents and purposes there is no difference. The system is simple, when 7 patterns have come you bet on the 8th. Where is the data which says that there is a better/worse time to start tracking the patterns? JL doesn't mention this at all, he just says that he quits after a few games and starts another game "later", whenever that may be.

It sound like you're trying to object to the validity of simulations again. ;-)

Hi Coderjoe,
I think you missed my point. The point is you were trying to say that 1000 people playing 1000 games is going to give you the same results as 1 person playing 1 million games but I pointed out the differences relating to the other factors involved rather than the method. A person will stop playing when they meet their profit target and/or stop loss. Each person has their own bankroll.

Besides read my latest post where I need some clarification on how you interptreted your results

cheers,
Ricky

[Ricky]

Ok,
PB Andre version needs some serious discussion to turn it into the HOLY GRAIL system that we have been looking for. I just came across a 4-peat but thankfully missed placing a bet (thanks coderjoe, you saved me from another 140 euro loss by addressing your posts)


Now this pattern formed 4 repeat but failed on the 5th attempt. So we need to formulate a plan to avoid getting stung by a marty progression on the 4th pattern.

Now I am thinking along the lines of FLAT BETTING for 1 step AFTER the 3rd pattern is formed. ie the 9th hand of the pattern BPP BPP BPP  start betting P. If we lose then decide do I call it a loss and wait for the next trigger or do I continue the progression?

My recent analysis shows in the context of 100 games we will come out ahead stopping here and taking the small loss requiring just one game to recover.

Now what we can do is WAIT for the result of the next hands to see if the 4th repeat does form. As in the above, if it does, I would make my 2nd bet against it forming a 5th time. With this example we would have won. So the progression would be 1-2 but only bet on hand 1 of the 4th repeat and hand 1 of the 5th repeat if the 4th completed.

Let me know your thoughts on the merits of this approach.

Cheers,
Ricky

[Joe]

How is this a losing system. It performed exactly as JL says it performed. Maybe I am missing something. But if I am not mistaken, you have taken these figures and just calculated a flat 7 unit loss for every bust. You have not taken into consideration the recovery round for example where you bet 2-4-8 for 2 games immediately after a loss.

That's correct Ricky, I didn't do any recovery because JL didn't specify any in the rules. By the way, he posted those particular rules in another forum, not here. Also don't forget in this simulation I didn't take into account the house edge, so the results are more favourable than they "should" be.

You can say that I should have incorporated this or that tweak, but I was going strictly by JL's rules, and the important stat was the win rate of 7 : 1 which is right on what it should be according to probability. But JL says that he's been getting 10 : 1 or better. Is this anywhere near what you've been getting?

[Joe]

A person will stop playing when they meet their profit target and/or stop loss. Each person has their own bankroll.

This isn't really relevant to the most important stat which is the win rate. Whether people stop at different times or use different progressions, win goals etc won't change the win rate which is what denotes the edge and what JL has consistently claimed is way above 7:1 (the probability expectation).

[Ricky]

7 : 1 which is right

Hi Coderjoe,
thanks for clarifying. So my interpretation was correct. I won't dispute the win rate because this is going to be different for everyone depending on their method they use and the actual spins experienced. We are not disputing that LUCK has something to play in obtaining a win rate of 7 or 10 or 33. This is gambling after all.

What we are trying to do is find the method of play that is going to maximize the rate of return.  So this is where progression comes into it. Everyone has a different tolerance to risk and therefore use different progressions. Some use a 3 step, others limit it to 2 steps where the third step is not worth the risk.  I do a 0-1-2 step in my BOT betting FOR/AGAINST depending on the result of the first spin. The basic rule is
DON'T bet the 1st spin
IF 1st spin would have WON betting AGAINST then continue betting AGAINST in next 2 spins.
IF 1st spin would have LOST betting AGAINST then switch to betting FOR the pattern in next 2 spins

The idea here is I am seeing all 3 spins and not stopping after the 2nd spin. I get to see if the 8th pattern did result immediately AFTER the 7th pattern but I am limiting myself to a 1-2 progression.

So my breAK EVEN is much more than 7:1 its more like 25:1 because I am only risking 3 units not 7 units.
With 1 game to go I am currently at 78W 21L so my figures are correlating well with making a small profit as what others have experienced playing HIT & RUN but I am playing more often than 1-10 games a day. With recovery built in my actual profit is 3 euro. So I have a way to go to improve this result because this result would not be acceptable if it were typical of my next 14,000 games playing this way. I need to get to at least 85W:15L to make this worthwhile.

As a bot I do not mind that it is grinding small profits because I have not spent the time playing it. But I do expect it to generate several hundred dollars a day to make it worth the effort. So playing less and for higher units will probably show an improvement.

Cheers,
Ricky

[Proofreaders2000]

I have an idea to present

Since the first bet of the Original PB has the highest success rate

How about a positive progression on the first bet.
-or maybe an Oscar's Grind on the first bet?

[Ricky]

I have an idea to present

Since the first bet of the Original PB has the highest success rate

How about a positive progression on the first bet.
-or maybe an Oscar's Grind on the first bet?

Hi ProofReader, thanks for the suggestion and you are absolutely right. My results for 100 games playing 2 steps show:

So I think we can do the following: Bet BIG first step. If it loses then we reduce profit expectation to 1/2 or 1/3 of the First bet
So progression would be 2-3 or 4-6
This limits risk to 5 or 10 units but maximizes 1st step return to 2 or 4 units and 2nd step return to 1 or 2 units unit
I will add these What ifs to my current results and do a comparison of returns together eith the recovery bets
Cheers,
Ricky