Testing CODE 4

[atlantis]

Hi Ophis,

Thanks for new tracker, by the way

I honestly think AMK and/or JohnLegend should be the ones to provide these parameters for you as it is really amk's creation and and JL has experienced play to good effect over many sessions...
I am now working on an offshoot of code 4 combining JL's SLIDE and MATRIX principles so I feel that the information you require should therefore be best sourced from one of them.

Cheers,
A.

[marivo]

Thanks for new version of MST!

[woods101]

Hi guys,
Just my tuppence worth but I guess if you did just dip randomly into a pool of results rather than run system consecutively then yes, I think the guys would argue that you would get different results. This must be acceptable no? as an example- if you tested a system and had never won more than 10 games consecutively without losing at least one, then you would make the assumption that you will always lose at least 1/10 games playing solidly. If you were to play for only 3 games a session then it would be possible that you may meet that 1/10 losing game a lot less. Yes you could also meet it a lot more or the odds may also be the same, but what you are introducing is possibilities in replacement of definite outcome. To play continuously makes the 1/10 losing game an almost definite reality (it becomes impossible to avoid) To play hit and run reduces it to a possibility (you may never encounter it), if you believe in h and r that is!

I know you maths guys would argue there is no difference but....

Woods

[amk]

@ amk,

Since this is your baby, would you be kind enough to post the rules here? Thanks.

Hello Bayes,

Sorry that I haven't replied yet. Been busy. I will get the parameters up for CODE 4 by today or tomorrow if that is alright.

[superman]

I know you maths guys would argue there is no difference but

The issue is not wether hit n run works or not, it's the methods involved, the argument/discussion is stating that the method has zero to do with the success or lack thereof, the whole play centres around being lucky to avoid a loss as soon as you approach the table/screen, the only reason we simulate over extended periods of time/spins is to see if it will last and not turn up any suprises/losses too often, all these methods fall within the expected norm of hit/loss ratio that is all we are making a point about, the fact that the hype is so OTT needs to be proven as flanel/fluff/hype and in that people can see for themselves it's not the bet selection, JL himself states its all about TIMING but he wont give any further details about the timing of his and one or two others luck as about the same amount of people have had the opposite luck as their timing was out/wrong.

So, to those who you who haven't had the losses yet, hows this timing work then?

[woods101]

Fair play Supe.

[Bayes]

Hi guys,
Just my tuppence worth but I guess if you did just dip randomly into a pool of results rather than run system consecutively then yes, I think the guys would argue that you would get different results. This must be acceptable no? as an example- if you tested a system and had never won more than 10 games consecutively without losing at least one, then you would make the assumption that you will always lose at least 1/10 games playing solidly. If you were to play for only 3 games a session then it would be possible that you may meet that 1/10 losing game a lot less. Yes you could also meet it a lot more or the odds may also be the same, but what you are introducing is possibilities in replacement of definite outcome. To play continuously makes the 1/10 losing game an almost definite reality (it becomes impossible to avoid) To play hit and run reduces it to a possibility (you may never encounter it), if you believe in h and r that is!

Woods

I don't buy it. There isn't any reason to suppose that playing continuously means you will encounter more losses, if the total number of PLACED BETS is the same. It may take longer (in terms of TIME) to lose playing hit and run, but that only gives the ILLUSION of not losing so much. If you play a system as JL recommends - say 2 games and OUT, then repeat the next day, then you've placed anywhere between 2 and 8 actual bets. Let's say you place 4 bets per day on average for that system. Someone who plays continuously for a few hours might place 40 bets, which means that he's likely to find the losing sequences about 10 times faster than the hit and run guy.

There is no justification whatsoever for concluding that hit and run gives any advantage. You can prove this for yourself. Get a spin file and start at the beginning, work through it taking out a few spins at random intervals (this represents hit and run). Now take exactly the same number of decisions from the file, but this time as one continuous sequence (from anywhere in the file). You will find that you get the exact same distribution and characteristics as the numbers which were formed from all the little hit and run samples pooled together.

To play hit and run reduces it to a possibility (you may never encounter it), if you believe in h and r that is!

Woods, you can't be serious. You're saying that IF YOU BELIEVE in hit and run, then it will work for you? I think you've been reading too much Harry Potter.

[Blood Angel]

What's the difference between Hit 'n' Run and having a win target??

[Bayes]

Hi Blood Angel,

As I understand it, hit 'n run means having a SMALL win target. So you make your few units, then get out. That might be a good strategy if you plan to play roulette only once in your lifetime,  but if you're going back day after day, it's meaningless.

Suppose you're dropped into the middle of a large circular minefield. You need to get out on foot and have no idea where the mines are buried. Furthermore, whichever direction you take doesn't matter because it's a circle and you're in the middle. Does it make sense to believe that walking a few steps, then taking a break, walking a bit more, then stopping etc will result in a better than average chance of not having your legs blown off than just setting off and keeping going until you get out?

Of course not, it's absurd. But that's the way the hit 'n' run guy thinks. 

[ophis]

You dont need to be math genius.

IF in continous spins there is more LOSES than WINS....
then its common sense that playing hit and run you WILL encounter more losses than wins.....

and if u dont.... then i suggest playing LOTTO.

[Blood Angel]

Hi Bayes
Im firmly in the "hit and run makes no difference" camp...but whilst I was typing a reply in this thread my earlier question came to me.
Thanks for your reply.

[superman]

IF in continous spins there is more LOSES than WINS....

Or enough losses to take back your accumulated winnings.

then its common sense that playing hit and run you WILL encounter more losses than wins.....

and if u don't.... then i suggest playing LOTTO

So it boils down to luck as has been said by numerous members already but them hit n run guys just don't want to know about it, its timing

[vundarosa]

If you will define "Hit and Run" or "The way someone would play" then I sure can code it. 

...Take 1 Million spins.
Start form Random place and play until when?
Lose progression? (how many times)
You are in Profit? (how much)
Numbers of spins have passed? (how much)
Then go to another Random place. (do it 365 times to indicate year result?)

Will that be enough Hit and Run for you?

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

Ophis, out of curiosity on how the results would look like....

Say one is a full time player, playing 10 hrs a day in a live table with 60 spins an hour. The player is playing 5 sections a day. A Code4 section is usually done in 20spins i.e 2 decisions.

So one would play 20 spins, skip through 120 spins (10/5=a section every 2hrs=120 spins), then play his next section and so forth...

could you simulate the player's results from a live dealer's spin file?

vundarosa

[ophis]

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

Ophis, out of curiosity on how the results would look like....

Say one is a full time player, playing 10 hrs a day in a live table with 60 spins an hour. The player is playing 5 sections a day. A Code4 section is usually done in 20spins i.e 2 decisions.

So one would play 20 spins, skip through 120 spins (10/5=a section every 2hrs=120 spins), then play his next section and so forth...

could you simulate the player's results from a live dealer's spin file?

vundarosa

To clarify...

Use LIVE spins.
1. Play until 2 Decisions
(if we include progression in case of loss.... then it could be as much as 8 bets. Correct?)
2. Skip 120 spins (add any random to it?  +/-  0-15 spins randomly will be ok?)
3. GOTO 1

that's all? how many spins you want to be done like that?

[vundarosa]

To clarify...

Use LIVE spins.
1. Play until 2 Decisions
(if we include progression in case of loss.... then it could be as much as 8 bets. Correct?)
2. Skip 120 spins (add any random to it?  +/-  0-15 spins randomly will be ok?)
3. GOTO 1

that's all? how many spins you want to be done like that?

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

2 A 2 C 
1 B 3 B 
3 C 3 C 
3 A 2 A  bet here 1/1(win as per example) 3/3 9/9 27/27
1 A 2 A  and here 1/1 3/3 (win as per example) 9/9 27/27
3 C 2 B   

win or lose both decisions/lines, end game: skip 120 spins and start over

vundarosa