The JL Challenge

[iggiv]

those links are not working anymore for me

[GARNabby]

The z-score gives an objective measurement of the success or otherwise of a bet selection.

Like hell, that's like holding onto the ass-end of something.  Don't require a z-score to know if what you're doing is working; or to know that "where there's smoke, there's fire".

Anyway, if you're really a thick-head AP, or "doubing Thomas"... just simulate it.

[Skakus]

@ GARNabbey,

You’re a bac player, do you think there’s any advantage to the multiple streams of EC bets within roulette over the single stream of a bac shoe or not?
Do you as a player sit down to 1 table, or do you move between several tables, thereby playing multiple streams of data?

[Skakus]

@JL,

As they say in poker >>> Read 'em and weep.  link:://:.gigabean.co.uk/s_test.html

[Stepkevh]

Iggiv, it should work, the link works for me
This is JL's

link:://:.gigabean.co.uk/jltest.html

And Skakus link is above me

[TwoCatSam]

Just looking at the two links--and I'm too tired to copy them---JL has reports for Aug 2 and they are dozens.  Skakus has reports for Aug 3 and they are reds at the end.

Different time zones?  Gremlins in the machine?

Why dozens on one test and reds on another?

Sam

[Stepkevh]

i dont think that i understand what you mean but the most obvious answer would be

"thats what they played last"

[Johnlegend]

@JL,

As they say in poker >>> Read 'em and weep.  link:://:.gigabean.co.uk/s_test.html

Fantastic work Skakus, I hope to join you at four figures within the next week. I can't see you ever losing, so long as you keep the staking sensible.

[Johnlegend]

Just looking at the two links--and I'm too tired to copy them---JL has reports for Aug 2 and they are dozens.  Skakus has reports for Aug 3 and they are reds at the end.

Different time zones?  Gremlins in the machine?

Why dozens on one test and reds on another?

Sam

That's just our choices Sam, Skakus is going to prove roulette can be beaten longterm using a smart filtering even chance method. I'm attempting to prove it can be beaten longterm using a double dozen method, and even more crucially a progression that just about everyone thinks won't survive longterm.

5000 points is the goal. I Think that will show my method is a longterm winner if I can achieve that goal.

[Bayes]

Like hell, that's like holding onto the ar*e-end of something.  Don't require a z-score to know if what you're doing is working; or to know that "where there's smoke, there's fire".

You're missing the point, the z-score doesn't just tell if you if something is working, it allows you to compare where you are in relation to a standard (the normal distribution).  For example, which is better:  27 wins after 48 bets, or 52 wins after 93 bets?

z-score is analogous to putting fractions over a common denominator, it allows you to compare more easily where you are in relation to where you've been. Looking at profit only can be misleading, especially if you're using a progression or betting different amounts of numbers each spin.

[Bayes]

There's a big difference between Skakus updates and JL updates. Skakus is doing fine.  It can't be true that they are both the same software.  When i try to load JL updates into Excel, there are gaps between the sessions.  Each session has one additional blank between the last session.  After 15 sessions, for example, there might be 15 blank lines in between sessions.  Skakus is fine.  Has not lost any data, even though he has as many or more bets than JL had when his software first started messing with the already uploaded data.  It just doesn't make sense to me why already uploaded data should be deleted, and in the latest case, it truncated "283" to "28". 

So my suggestion is to copy Skakus version over to JL and of course reset where he is currently at.

That's not a bad idea, Still. 

The code is exactly the same (apart from the different file names), but the format of the html file might have been slightly different in Skakus' case. The problem is I can't write results directly to the file but have to download it first, then remove the last html tag, write to the file, then upload it again. I'll try using Skakus' file and if that doesn't work, I'll change to a database format. You'll still see all the results, just not every day. The important thing is the bank (final result) isn't being affected.

[Bayes]

those links are not working anymore for me

It's a crappy web host, sometimes I have to hit enter 20 or more times before I get a connection. Anyone else having the same problems?

[Stepkevh]

sometimes 3 or 4 times before connection

[Johnlegend]

Well there you go guys.

Ask a man a straight question while he's actively viewing and posting on a thread and what do you get?... Squat, that's what you get.

Make of it what you will, but I say GARNabbey can not be relied upon for much. Might be a good team mate in a game of scrabble, or good for rolling the joints at a pot party, but not much else.

Garnabbey is negative. I have no time for such people. If I thought like him id have never played this game at all. You Skakus are showing this games beatable. I am starting to take it up with a method. That is looking impregnable. I have always believed theres a barrier that random simply isnt interested in crossing too often. In fact there are several. What we have to do is identify them. Then the games for the taking.

A thought ran through my mind about a week ago. While playing the zone. It was to do not with what I had seen during my time playing that method. But what I hadnt seen. Now I am exploiting that observation that's all. The times I have been taken to step 4 of the progression haven't worried me. Because I am only using one trigger a lot of the time for speeded turnover. In its purest form there will be two triggers. And If there were a five step progression 242 points. I seriously doubt you would ever lose. I cannot opperate a five step progression because Bayes has instigated a 100 point betting limit. The 5th step would require a 162 point limit.

But like I said. I can never see that losing. Random is simply exhausted by the time it gets to 5 most of the time let alone 7. I have moved into a nice position now with a bank of 520 points. FIVE is now 378 and 0. Lets see how far it can go before I surrender my progression.

[GARNabby]

@ GARNabbey,

You’re a bac player, do you think there’s any advantage to the multiple streams of EC bets within roulette over the single stream of a bac shoe or not?
Do you as a player sit down to 1 table, or do you move between several tables, thereby playing multiple streams of data?

Thanks for your good questions, Skakus.  Gives me the opportunity to write out this stuff in some sort of context.

There're likely as many such independent "streams" (of information) in either of the casino-games.  And, some of the best bits of information to the harder problems are those few which aren't obviously, directly laid out, but as-related.  You just have to train yourself to look out for those while go along.

The problem with the non-independent "streams" is that given all of any such (information) of a type, there could be no usable conclusion, not even by any form of Chaos Theory... it remains random.  For example, track all of the "random walks", of varying lengths, within a very-long sequence of random outcomes.  Even thought it's mathematically-known that each such "walk, and sub-walk at each level", shall, with certainty, return to an "even state" over enough trials, those shall cancel each other out at each point in terms of an overall, predictable direction to an "even state".  Better to try to match up the basic exponentially-recursive fractal form of the "random walk" to the situation at-hand... a specific, parametric path instead of a general one.

This is not an evening out in the real, direct sense.  For example, even though Einstein realized that physics follows math, to an extent at least, he contradicted that by going on to note that Space-Time, ie, our universe, "Just is".  Well, if everything just is, then it wouldn't require a bunch of mathematical equations to "knit it together".... we could move separate of the gravitational and electrical fields.  So, by evening out, if at all under a particular application, it's meant to occur by complex means (which aren't about such per se, on the surface.)  It's not even a matter of knowing, or not, an infinite history of random results before guessing at the one at-hand.  Though with baccarat, for a number of reasons, i prefer to limit the length of the appropriate finite "streams" to that of each shoe.

The two basic "streams" have to do with the regular outcomes as additive, or exponential, in nature.  Additive means how many outcomes the one side is ahead of the other; exponential means that in terms of those side's streaks, over the course of many outcomes.  (The multiplicative denotes the ratio, or quotient, of the number of one side's outcomes to the other's.  But that's merely the first two types of basic "streams" taken over-and-over-again to infinity.)  In baccarat, those basic "streams" can be taken in the carding and betting senses, P/B and L/W.  For example, one might try waiting for 4 P's to come off before putting some martingale on up to 4 B's.  Though i might try that, but in some more-elaborate form, after seeing the 4 P's come off several times in quick succession, as it's unlikely to ever see a bunch more in the absolute sense, it's the waiting for the 4 P's that means the waiting for the even-longer runs of P's, which then will naturally occur by probability.  Even when we wait for the one side to get ahead by, say, five outcomes, and then bet for it to return to its "even state", we're waiting for those even-longer runs of the one side, which then will naturally occur by probability.  Nor does it help us to try to average things out by running a bunch of "random walks" at once, as, at some point, there will be a lot of the runs which don't return to an "even state".  So, some other bit of the overall puzzle is required to make these basic, and other advanced, "streams" work for us.  (The "random walks" over sequences of outcomes does equate to a bunch of individual outcomes... can as much eventually get up one unit over nine tries, but lose all nine on the tenth try before you get up one again.  Those must return to an "even state" before you go broke to work.)

At the board which i admin, (i don't own or operate it,) backed up to review a lot of the conventional mathematics of the casino-games, thrown out some fundamentally-new re-thinking on that, and left it to the reader to re-think and re-arrange it all into working systems.  I believe that i can well defend everything there, but, as of yet, haven't been afforded the opportunity to begin doing so.  (I like to throw out stuff which leads to something but only after a bit of further thought.  Like the bumper sticker, "I like attention, but not yours.")