Testing CODE 4

[amk]

Hello Bayes,

Here are the parameters for CODE 4, just as they are stated in the first CODE 4 thread...


Note down the last 12 spins of dozens/columns alternating into 3 groups each 4 wide..

Example:  numbers 1,2,3 are dozens, letters A,B,C are columns

                             2B1C
                             3C2A
                             2C3A
                              .........  fourth pattern


Once we have our 3 groups each 4 wide we are betting that the fourth pattern will be different from the first... In this case we are betting on dozens 1/3 then columns A/C then dozens 2/3 then columns A/B  Playing progression is 1/1, 3/3, 9/9, 27/27

JohnLegend plays two games back to back:

2B1C
3C2A
2C3A
........ play against 2B1C
........ play against 3C2A

If it doesn't cost you much time you could test both, the single game and back to back game....
There is a third option as well and this covers the zero. Ofcourse far more units involved but just for testing sake would be interesting. JohnLegend lost his first game due to a zero.........

It is to be played HIT AND RUN and with this I mean play a game then play another game with a minimum of 20+ spins between games. Ideally it would be great to have say 200 spins between games but I don't know how you would do this with your limited live wheel spin data.......

Let me know what you think...........

If anybody else has any thoughts it would be appreciated as well...........

[woods101]

Hi Bayes, Ophis, Superman,

Total respect to your knowledge on this broad subject. Without stepping of piste re: topic thread, given your awareness of the game and that of it's players, what is your opinion then of the widely held believe by most successful players, that it is better to spend as little time as possible in a casino as the longer you play, the more you risk a loss? This is a stance held by most who claim their wins are in the majority. Do you acknowledge any truth regarding this or are all these people living an illusion based on the fact that they're lucky, and they play less/place less bets? I presume the latter holds true for all three of you. Would this be the case?

Thanks
Woods

[monaco]

my understanding would be that those successful players would come to the table with a reactionary way of playing - seeing what is happening & then choosing their method of play to correspond to what they are seeing, rather than approaching the table with a mechanical bet that they are going to play already decided & no matter what..

so in that respect the aim is to take advantage of short-term results & therefore play for a shorter time, but it could not be termed that they are just playing 1 method 'hit and run' in the sense i think it is being used sometimes here..

i might be wrong though    (not putting myself in that successful player category  )

[superman]

Do you acknowledge any truth regarding this or are all these people living an illusion based on the fact that they're lucky

My opinion is yes and no, those players will get losses during the time at the table and if over a month or two you strung their play/s in a long line you would see the win/loss ratio would be the same as if they had played all day for 1 day only.

The big argument here is when A member states he plays to miss the losses with his timing, what tosh, said player has no way of knowing WHEN those losses will arrive, we can only take his word for his winnings, he was challenged at some point months ago to play when someone else could watch him, he failed to do that, why?

but it could not be termed that they are just playing 1 method 'hit and run' in the sense i think it is being used sometimes here

Exactly, that sums up the discussion on the other threads

[Bayes]

Here are the parameters for CODE 4, just as they are stated in the first CODE 4 thread...

Thanks amk. One way to simulate the hit 'n' run would be to use spins from wiesbaden, maybe a separate day for each session, just as you would if playing for real.

Anyway, I'm away for about a week so won't get around to coding it until after 20th Aug.

[amk]

Alright Bayes.........

Sounds good. Just use live spin data from many different days and jump back and forth between them all.........

[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?

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

Ophis / Bayes,

Are you still testing this one?!

vundarosa

[Bayes]

I haven't forgotten about this vunderosa, but I have a question for John first.

@ John,

When testing systems, I assume you don't play live but use recorded spins. If so, where do you get the spins and how do you simulate the Hit & Run strategy?

[vundarosa]

I haven't forgotten about this vunderosa, but I have a question for John first.

@ John,

When testing systems, I assume you don't play live but use recorded spins. If so, where do you get the spins and how do you simulate the Hit & Run strategy?

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

not sure John is following this thread....

vundarosa

[amk]

I am here to Bayes...........

JohnLegend should be here shortly, he loves roulette just as much as you do......... 

[userpairs]

Everyone here knows that probability of number 5 in roulette is 1/37 at any given moment, yes? So what's the point of hit and run actually? Just a simple question.

[Bayes]

Hi userpairs,

There isn't any point at all to hit and run. JL claims it works and that he gets far better results than playing "continuously", whatever that means (since you're always playing "continuously" whether you keep sessions short or not).

I would like to test JL's systems on his terms, but so far he hasn't shown much interest in telling me what they are...

[amk]

There might not be Bayes................

However, when someone tells me they have a strikerate of 1001 to 1 for a method I pay close attention..............

[vundarosa]

Hi userpairs,

There isn't any point at all to hit and run. JL claims it works and that he gets far better results than playing "continuously", whatever that means (since you're always playing "continuously" whether you keep sessions short or not).

I would like to test JL's systems on his terms, but so far he hasn't shown much interest in telling me what they are...

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

Bayes, you could, for now,  look at the terms i posted to Ophis in this thread and run a test with them. From reading Johns posts I believe they are close enough to how JL plays

vundarosa

[warrior]

Original rules with 1/1, 3/3, 9/9, 27/27 progression.

[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

After that it didint recover anymore.




Not sure about Z-Score calculations.  Could you verify them Bayes?

This looks alot like the stock market graphs ,they take a while to recover also nothing is forever winning and nothing is forever loseing, so make the best with what happens today win or lose, 1600000 spins in a real casino, we hope the states does not take that long to get out of the hole .