*PATTERN BREAKER*

[Robeenhuut]

I just noticed Gizmotron's data on a variation of PATTERNBREAKER in post #1245, a few posts back.  that's what i call robust data, given no flaws in the testing.  Now all i have to do is figure out what exactly he did, and run my own tests to verify.  Assuming it checks out, I would not consider a bet on that data to be a gamble, provided the bet size was rightly proportional to BR.

It showed total loss and a strike rate well below John's. But it was not HAR

[Still]

It showed total loss and a strike rate well below John's. But it was not HAR

If it shows a total loss, then i'm not doing the math right.  The point is to have a large body of data LIKE THAT before proceeding with any kind of bet.  Please show me how you are doing math on that data. 

[Robeenhuut]

If it shows a total loss, then i'm not doing the math right.  The point is to have a large body of data LIKE THAT before proceeding with any kind of bet.  Please show me how you are doing math on that data.

Multiply number of wins by a win in a session then multiply number of losses by a total loss in a session then compare. In my math about more than 20k loss.

85k - 15kx7 = - 20k

[Still]

Multiply number of wins by a win in a session then multiply number of losses by a total loss in a session then compare. In my math about more than 20k loss.

85k - 15kx7 = - 20k

If that's the case, and your math is not mistaken, then it (whatever was tested) won't work. If there are no other values that can be plugged in for win/losses (the progression) that will work, then,  NExT! 

[Still]

But it was not HAR

As for HAR, that too is easy to test with a computer program so it's results could be compared with the non-stop data stream.  If it still doesn't work, then HAR, if it works at all, must have something to do with human consciousness messing with parallel universes.  I would not need to understand why.  All that is needed is DATA.  It's harder to generate data when a lone human is testing HAR against non-stop play...but it could be generated.  It's just not likely to be generated because few would have the stamina and time to carry out a truly scientific test on that concept.  Because i'm not a gambler, i would not play an otherwise losing system trusting in HAR without a lot of DATA to support.  But i would play it if the data supported.  Data is KING here in a complex world of paradox where random number generators can be influenced by collective consciousness. 

[Robeenhuut]

Well Speed has shown some promising data but doesn't think it's playable because of too large % drawdowns.  I disagree it can't be improved.  He won't let me help.  But all it takes is one person to show that it's possible to win long term flat to show that there MAY be more than one way to do it.  I have reason to believe that at least one person has provided sufficient data to show the wheel can be beat flat. 

In the Bayes challenge, JL showed an ability to win flat, showing a trend on the chart that suggests it was not random.  He has since dropped the ball because he has apparently deviated from sticking with a winning formula.  It's hard to say because he has not provided analysis as to why FIVE was not working as well as on the BAYES software, notwithstanding the need to move the wheel. 

ego has shown some promising data. 

And you can't ignore what Flat_Ino is doing, if its true this is a way of life and a stream of income for him.   

Sorry if i'm leaving anyone out who deserves to be considered here to win, not lose less. 

The point is there is sufficient data to have an open mind, and pending my own tests to double-check their work, i intend to play to win...or not at all. 

I have been distracted lately, so am not where i want to be with test results.  But all i really need to see is a chart with a lot of data points to tell what is a winner, and what is a gamble...given no flaws in the test process. 

I don't have time to program every method suggestion that comes out, because my testing platform is not set up for efficiency yet.  So i have to sit back, and wait see till threads peter out before i can really determine, usually by general enthusiasm, what would be worth programming.

More power to those who can be long term winners without generating a ton of data through programming.  I don't have that kind of power or patience.  So i won't proceed till i've generated a lot of data myself, through programming, so as to avoid the much harder work of hand-calculating and/or tracking real-time bets.

 

Still

Speed posted a chart that survived 1M spins. Yet he is smart enough not to conclude thats a winning system. I tested just for fun Reversed Labby and it survived also 1M spins but it required long sessions and a huge BR. You can test everything until you drop dead and there is always the moment that you think that you got it. Then you test bit more or worse start playing and a big disappointment comes sooner or later. All systems that make some promise or based on data seen if you are a frequent player or tester. You make educated guesses based on that. But all of them are based on a smaller or bigger fallacy. Unfortunately data collected in large number of spins behaves with large dose of predictability only in large number of spins.
Most people here when somebody posts something ask why it should work. Usually there is some theory that explains it. If this theory works more than it does not in sets of spins you were given you make money and its possible but not guaranteed  to make money even in the long run.
So if somebody comes up with a winning system he should be able to answer the most basic question... Why if in large number of continuous spins your system fails it could make long term profit played in shorter sessions.
As to John's run with FIVE the Bayes RNG challenge was considered flawed and i had problem believing his stats. And theory behind it did not make sense.

[Turner]

Something came to me and it ironic to say the least. Most people are familiar with Monty Python. For a long time now JL has reminded me of the Black Knight in one of their films. Even though he is defeated and is there with no arms or legs, just a head on a body, he continues to brag and boast how he is going to win.
Whats the name of that film again?.....ang on, its come to me now........THE HOLY GRAIL...

[Still]

Still

Speed posted a chart that survived 1M spins. Yet he is smart enough not to conclude that's a winning system.

Or, he is too proud to ask for help from another perspective.  Not smart.  It had positive expectancy over a seriously significant weight of data, whatever it was.  What matters: Did it land far enough into positive territory to show that it could not have been random?  There are ways to test for that.  And if not random, then its a winning system. Question then, can your BR handle it?  His answer was NO, so not playable from BR point of view...and from how much time might pass before reaching a new high.  You're assuming he is smart enough to figure out how to fix that problem...or smart enough to declare the problem is not fixable.   I don't assume that.   

I tested just for fun Reversed Labby and it survived also 1M spins but it required long sessions and a huge BR.

See what i said above.  You are assuming it can't be fixed.  I don't assume that and for good reason.

You can test everything until you drop dead and there is always the moment that you think that you got it. Then you test bit more or worse start playing and a big disappointment comes sooner or later.

This is a problem with the operator, not the machinery.  One will be a good scientist, another will be a bad scientist.  While there is promising data out there, it's too early to be using terms like "always".  That sounds like prejudice to me.  I can speculate on the reasons for the prejudice but not now. 

All systems that make some promise or based on data seen if you are a frequent player or tester.

This is a malformed sentence so i can't really comment on what its supposed to mean. But i notice the term "all" as probably another prejudiced statement.  You have A LOT invested with your position, that's for sure.  And if you are right, it means you are happy to gamble. 

You make educated guesses based on that. But all of them are based on a smaller or bigger fallacy.

There's that term "all" again.   And if I'm not mistaken, this is an argument against doing any scientific testing in search of an actually winning system.  It also appears to me that you would not recognize a winning system if you saw it (the data to support it). 

Unfortunately data collected in large number of spins behaves with large dose of predictability only in large number of spins.

...unless it behaves predictably in small sets of spins too.   The data will determine that, not prejudice.  Methods with positive expectancy can be massaged till its draw-down characteristics are manageable.  Now, maybe that's my own prejudice.  But i have good reason to believe it, and think it is worth the time to test, rather than spending equal time arguing against running tests...all the while spending time at the table...gambling.   

Most people here when somebody posts something ask why it should work. Usually there is some theory that explains it.

I see this as trolling.  You have already decided nothing is going to work, and are happy to gamble. So why engage that line of tact?  People believe things work because they have had a modicum of luck which has yielded some interesting data.  Some of it is admittedly "voodoo".  Its up to the rest of us to test it, even they do not understand why it works.  Sometimes people post a method after only a hundred lucky bets.  Why bother them with 'Why, why?'   Just put it on low priority for testing.  But if someone comes in with a method backed by a LOT more data, again, why ask why?   There are two choices: be a troll or run a test of your own.  Better yet, run a test and publish the results wherever someone believes his system works (but doesn't). 

If this theory works more than it does not in sets of spins you were given you make money and its possible but not guaranteed  to make money even in the long run.

There's one way to find out if any method proposed works; test it.  Theorizing is just a way to justify not running a test.  Its understandable why you would not want to test; it takes time and effort.  But it also takes time to theorize why not, and it takes time to stand at the table...gambling. I can see why the Wizard of Odds would not want to run tests.  If you feel he is infallible and feel your math skills are at his level, then why not hang around his site and school the people that challenge him?  Why come here?  I don't intend to master his level of math, so for me, testing accomplishes the same thing without going years to a university.  For less work, i can know the same thing he knows, but only i will have a chance to discover something he does not know.

So if somebody comes up with a winning system he should be able to answer the most basic question... Why if in large number of continuous spins your system fails it could make long term profit played in shorter sessions.

A system that fails (does not have any positive expectancy flat betting) over large continuous spins is not a winning system, unless, against all odds, there is a magic progression that overcomes it, and enough evidence to warrant a test.

  I think you are specifically talking about JL and HAR here.  I've already addressed HAR, and how easy it would be to test it along with (side by side) whatever computer program tests a large number of continuous spins.  Otherwise, its a matter of human consciousness messing with parallel universes.  Since you don't know how that works, it would be better to have that tested as well, except its harder to test.  Bayes came up with a way to test that, and Superman is insuring the test is not flawed.  A test like that takes more time.  Till the test is done, why not let people believe what they want.  JL is, or was, probably the hardest working scientist here, and in exchange for his data, i think he is entitled to be over-optimistic at times.  At least he is out to win, and is not happy to be just another trolling gambler. 

As to John's run with FIVE the Bayes RNG challenge was considered flawed and i had problem believing his stats. And theory behind it did not make sense.

Well i don't believe JL profited from the flaws in Bayes system.  And if not, his data was very significant. 

Finally, you are being rather self-contradictory.  There is simply no theory of winning in your book.  So nothing that proposes to win is going to makes sense to you!  So go over to Wizard of Odds site, or learn to run some tests and contribute to this forum! 

Thanks very much! 
Still

[iggiv]

nobody has to prove anyone anything. if John is doing good in roulette then he is doing good. Even
if he reminds someone of Freddie Kruger or Predator.

And some people forget what those forums were created for. They were not created for winning or losing arguments. They were created for friendly exchange of ideas. That's what JL was doin here. Maybe his ideas were wrong  who knows. But at least he tried and worked on it. He said he is winning in roulette, good for him.

And some people gloriously defeated him in arguments. Good for them. Maybe it will help them  defeat roulette too.

[Robeenhuut]

nobody has to prove anyone anything. if John is doing good in roulette then he is doing good. Even
if he reminds someone of Freddie Kruger or Predator.

And some people forget what those forums were created for. They were not created for winning or losing arguments. They were created for friendly exchange of ideas. That's what JL was doing here. Maybe his ideas were wrong  who knows. But at least he tried and worked on it. He said he is winning in roulette, good for him.

And some people gloriously defeated him in arguments. Good for them. Maybe it will help them  defeat roulette too.

Iggiv

John wanted to prove at any cost that he was right. He relentlessly pushed his ideas here and implied that "masses" here had no patience and a frame of mind to defeat roulette. It did not sit well with some members here including me. So why do you act surprised that some members jumped on him? I never attacked him personally ok in the end i accused him openly of embellishing his stats. I know you had a problem with that. And there was no chance of winning an argument with John.

Regards

[Turner]

nobody has to prove anyone anything. if John is doing good in roulette then he is doing good. Even
if he reminds someone of Freddie Kruger or Predator.

And some people forget what those forums were created for. They were not created for winning or losing arguments. They were created for friendly exchange of ideas. That's what JL was doing here. Maybe his ideas were wrong  who knows. But at least he tried and worked on it. He said he is winning in roulette, good for him.

And some people gloriously defeated him in arguments. Good for them. Maybe it will help them  defeat roulette too.

You are such a part pooper Iggiv. It was a joke, you know? A bit of fun....a laugh. Do these phrases mean anything to you?

[Turner]

And there was no chance of winning an argument with John.

Not quite correct Matt....."and there was no chance of him addmitting you had won an argument"

A subtle difference

[iggiv]

You are such a part pooper Iggiv. It was a joke, you know? A bit of fun....a laugh. Do these phrases mean anything to you?

of course not. i don't know about jokes and fun.  i cry all night when i read this forum.





But on the other hand all this looks like heroic kicking a dead elephant.

[Robeenhuut]

Or, he is too proud to ask for help from another perspective.  Not smart.  It had positive expectancy over a seriously significant weight of data, whatever it was.  What matters: Did it land far enough into positive territory to show that it could not have been random?  There are ways to test for that.  And if not random, then its a winning system. Question then, can your BR handle it?  His answer was NO, so not playable from BR point of view...and from how much time might pass before reaching a new high.  You're assuming he is smart enough to figure out how to fix that problem...or smart enough to declare the problem is not fixable.   I don't assume that.   

See what i said above.  You are assuming it can't be fixed.  I don't assume that and for good reason.


This is a problem with the operator, not the machinery.  One will be a good scientist, another will be a bad scientist.  While there is promising data out there, it's too early to be using terms like "always".  That sounds like prejudice to me.  I can speculate on the reasons for the prejudice but not now. 

This is a malformed sentence so i can't really comment on what its supposed to mean. But i notice the term "all" as probably another prejudiced statement.  You have A LOT invested with your position, that's for sure.  And if you are right, it means you are happy to gamble. 

There's that term "all" again.   And if I'm not mistaken, this is an argument against doing any scientific testing in search of an actually winning system.  It also appears to me that you would not recognize a winning system if you saw it (the data to support it). 

...unless it behaves predictably in small sets of spins too.   The data will determine that, not prejudice.  Methods with positive expectancy can be massaged till its draw-down characteristics are manageable.  Now, maybe that's my own prejudice.  But i have good reason to believe it, and think it is worth the time to test, rather than spending equal time arguing against running tests...all the while spending time at the table...gambling.   

I see this as trolling.  You have already decided nothing is going to work, and are happy to gamble. So why engage that line of tact?  People believe things work because they have had a modicum of luck which has yielded some interesting data.  Some of it is admittedly "voodoo".  Its up to the rest of us to test it, even they do not understand why it works.  Sometimes people post a method after only a hundred lucky bets.  Why bother them with 'Why, why?'   Just put it on low priority for testing.  But if someone comes in with a method backed by a LOT more data, again, why ask why?   There are two choices: be a troll or run a test of your own.  Better yet, run a test and publish the results wherever someone believes his system works (but doesn't). 

There's one way to find out if any method proposed works; test it.  Theorizing is just a way to justify not running a test.  Its understandable why you would not want to test; it takes time and effort.  But it also takes time to theorize why not, and it takes time to stand at the table...gambling. I can see why the Wizard of Odds would not want to run tests.  If you feel he is infallible and feel your math skills are at his level, then why not hang around his site and school the people that challenge him?  Why come here?  I don't intend to master his level of math, so for me, testing accomplishes the same thing without going years to a university.  For less work, i can know the same thing he knows, but only i will have a chance to discover something he does not know.

A system that fails (does not have any positive expectancy flat betting) over large continuous spins is not a winning system, unless, against all odds, there is a magic progression that overcomes it, and enough evidence to warrant a test.

  I think you are specifically talking about JL and HAR here.  I've already addressed HAR, and how easy it would be to test it along with (side by side) whatever computer program tests a large number of continuous spins.  Otherwise, its a matter of human consciousness messing with parallel universes.  Since you don't know how that works, it would be better to have that tested as well, except its harder to test.  Bayes came up with a way to test that, and Superman is insuring the test is not flawed.  A test like that takes more time.  Till the test is done, why not let people believe what they want.  JL is, or was, probably the hardest working scientist here, and in exchange for his data, i think he is entitled to be over-optimistic at times.  At least he is out to win, and is not happy to be just another trolling gambler. 

Well i don't believe JL profited from the flaws in Bayes system.  And if not, his data was very significant. 

Finally, you are being rather self-contradictory.  There is simply no theory of winning in your book.  So nothing that proposes to win is going to makes sense to you!  So go over to Wizard of Odds site, or learn to run some tests and contribute to this forum! 

Thanks very much! 
Still

Still

From what i see here your main contributions here  so far are charting of the progress of JL challenge and constantly getting on my case. I suggest that you learn how to interpret some basic stats like Gizmo's here first. And for tests i use RX,Random.org,some actuals from here and my own data.

Regards

[Gizmotron]

It showed total loss and a strike rate well below John's. But it was not HAR

H&R is a form of magical thinking. If you want to beat roulette you must be aware of the current conditions and attack them when they are in a more advantageous state. All hit and run does is make the randomness more random. Now if that sounds useless to you that's because it is. If, on the other hand, you believe that more randomness makes you win more, then perhaps you should ask yourself why it should. I prefer seeking the truth. The truth will save you more money than learning the truth will.