These following results.
With my daily tests I collect every possible datas. Since a while I stumble about this but can´t find no solution to it.
I played a simple strategy. (No matter what it is) and found these results:
flatbetting 8 days
4
39
39
109
-66
-31
39
39
172 +
If we had stopped at first Plus:
19
27
3
11
-66
31
23
31
79 + less than betting the whole strategy
and now the phenomenon:
if we could have stopped at the "maximum result"
65
43
63
137
-4
81
71
76
532
a multiple win!!!!!!
But the problem is: How can we see that the current result ist the "maximum" possible?
Any ideas?
Winkel,
I have to confess I'm in the dark about what you're trying to get across here. Can you clarify? All I see is columns of numbers and their totals, but I don't see any pattern or understand your comments under each column.
For example,
QuoteIf we had stopped at first Plus:
What does this mean? Isn't the first plus the first number in the column, which is 19?
for example:
If you bet on streets flat bet then you can bet 11 times and end up with +1 if you have a single win.
You will end up -11 with no wins.
But there are spins, where you win twice or 3 times.
If you do several runs you will have results like this
1
1
12
-11
23
but if you would stop at first win (hit) you could have results
+11 (win in first spin)
+6 win in 5th spin
+10 (win in spin 2)
-11 no wins no change in results possible
+5 first win in spin 6
with the multiple wins it could be that the results are higher if you had stopped at the maximum
if you collect
- all end-results
- all stopp-win results
- all maximum results
you will find
- all ends - in the long run you will lose
- all stop wins - in the long run you will lose mor, because you collect all maximum losses but only minimum wins
- all maximum - you will only collect the very best result.
the problem is, that you don´t know when you jhave reached the "maximum"
Right, thanks. Obviously this could apply to any location: streets, singles, splits etc. The answer to the question "what is the maximum?" is the maximum number of hits achieved by any location within its cycle.
This will vary according to location. If betting dozen/column, for example, which has a cycle of 3, you will get 3 hits in a cycle fairly frequently, but for locations with longer cycles such as single numbers you would have to calculate the probabilities of getting 2,3,4 or more wins, with diminishing chances. There's no definitive answer but some simulations might reveal when would be the optimum number of hits after which you should quit.
I'll think about it some more...
Interesting!
@winkel This can be easily achieved but it takes quite a bit of work. Play 100 or even a thousand sessions. While you
are playing you're documenting your lows and highs per session. And based on a large number of sessions you
can count the totals of lowes and divide them by the number of sessions. The same you can do with the highs.
Example:
5 sessions played
You add all highs from each session:
+12
+11
+25
+43
+1
Total +92 / 5 = +18.4 (so that's your ideal moment to quit)
The same goes for your stop-loss.
If you simply measure this inside a spreadsheet you can see that the amount will move over
time and the more sessions you play, the more stable it gets.
I hope this helps!
If you like my reply, don't be shy to signup on www.rouletteprofs.com and add some value back. :)
Quote from: ThirdChaos on Dec 16, 2022, 09:07 PMIf you simply measure this inside a spreadsheet you can see that the amount will move over
time and the more sessions you play, the more stable it gets.
you are far far away from being a rouletteprof.
What you said is simple statistics and we all know where it ends.
I will give you something to think about:
This is played on finals. 34 spins flatbet
first picture:
results after 34 spins -1088
second picture:
results after 34 spins stopp win or any plus -422
third picture:
if had managed to stop at the over all maximum of won chips + 3858 (if max is <0 then end-result is inserted. but not in this picture)
idea011.PNG
idea012.PNG
idea013.PNG
Quote from: ThirdChaos on Dec 16, 2022, 09:07 PM@winkel
If you simply measure this inside a spreadsheet you can see that the amount will move over
time and the more sessions you play, the more stable it gets.
Yes, but the results will approach the average. I.e. 1 win in 12 for a street, 1 win in 37 for a single number and so on. However, what we want is the
maximum, which will take a lot more spins to find than 1000 sessions.
@BlueBuzzard What we definitely know is that we lose -32 to -136 units at most after 34 spins.
We can´t define "maximum" perhaps we can come the other way round and reduce the maximum losses?
Not knowing if -32 as stop-loss will kill the chance to win a minor amount of chips.
Can the saved chips with stop-loss balance the minor wins????
I will test this, but I have to write a new excel-sheet for this.
Quote from: winkel on Dec 18, 2022, 09:13 PM@BlueBuzzard
What we definitely know is that we lose -32 to -136 units at most after 34 spins.
Winkel, can you explain how you arrived at these figures? Thanks.
Ah, I see it's from the stats you posted above. I thought it was something you had calculated.
Nearly one month of coding excel-sheets to give this any sense.
It is horrible, if you have a typing-error or an wrong formula or a error witth copy+paste, you automatically ruin hundreds of sheets of datas and an immens load of work to mend it.
But here we are with the results.
idea014.PNG
I know it is hard to understand if you didn´t code it yourself, but I try to explain:
This shows the results of betting finals in month Oct. 2022
All finals are bet so overall it loses the houseedge.
What it shall show is the changing of results for flat bet, simple progression or steep progression like Atithm.Progression
There are three results for ever kind of bet:
- flatbet all spins
- stopp win/loss (for this I´m still looking for a stopp-point)
- stopp win only (any win or total loss)
total is actually the houseedge for flatbet all spins and shows how the bankroll reacts for each strategy.
losses or wins shows the change in wins or losses if we change the strategy
diff a pos diff tells that we had more wins than losses (or vice versa)
Finalen MasseEgale flat bet with 3 strategies all spins, Stopp in win or loss, stopp in Win
Finalen Prog TvP/Carre) I use simple Fibonacci stretched for lines (Fin 7 8 9 3 numbers) all others prog for Quads (4numbers)
Finalen Prog Arithm means every spin the betsize will be extended by 1 unit (1 2 3 4 5 6 ....)
Pls ask for further explanations of the statistics or how to use the embedded informations.
I will then also present the results for November December
Let´s try to find a conclusion and a way to use this for a strategy
Sorry:
In the first column of the results I forgot to change "flat" so please insert the title of group instead.
First group best result for flat Stopp Win 155 more wins than losses and total of "only -609
Second group best result for combined Stopp Win Loss
Third group best results also for combined Stopp Win Loss
So if we use a progression we have to find nice exit points for either wins or losses.
Next question would be: Which single Group of finales should we bet?
I tested the first 34 spins of each for month October 2022
This board shows, that almost every day all Finals did hit within 34 spins:
idea015.PNG
but we can do better:
We can follow the leader of the pack.
This board shows for each final how often it did hit.
+1 for every hit (1 win or 5 wins is always +1)
idea016.PNG
as you cn see with red colour there are only 1 or two favorites and easy to follow.
pls read: Finals 6 (6,16,16,36) did hit 21 times in 31 days.
Note the clear change in lead between Fin 7 and Fin 8 and then to Fin 6
These kind of data-collection I also have for:
- straights
- lines/streets
- Double streets
- Wheel neighbours 1+1
Very interesting results!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This address skips bs, irregardless of you bs (which finale you determine to play).
As an intro drawing context -- as perhaps already you know, in my play I have abolished stop-loss & kept it as that for a long time. Each game was played till nominal,+, & sessions were a chain of games till the predetermined session goal.
Till my recent system versions this resulted,,due to persisting till +1, in some 'extreme' games having relatively high exposition compared to most others, & also these were extremely long stretching over +200-300.. spins.
For a long time, I battled to come up with a solution that would reduce bankroll to 100u or less, & having the extreme games going to ≈100 spin utmost.
I came to this in two different ways, one pertaining to the system itself & one that might be useful to you.
In short, I tried to somehow 'create the ground' in the otherwise bottomless,something self-generated (for the system) to bounce off.
When I look at your intention & request, my stand is that at least to my current knowledge it is not possible to 'time the market' ≈ which is something you intend to achieve with your 'max point' -- as one of the forms your intentions can take, meaning intention is valid, the form not feasible.
The closes you can come to it in such a form, as Profs said & you've most likely tried it already -- is to set the stop-win at some statistical average, the exact amount, of course, contingent on you/the system itself & its (long-term) performance;
as you pointed out the disadvantage of this is that with cutting off the depletion of profits, the potential of maximized profits gets by cut off too by default.
Now, to the point.
For me the change happened when I started to think differently
-- I asked myself, what actually brings the maximized profits .. & the answer is the compounding interest (mage, king, chessboard tikes, a grain doubled on each fable).
Well, what is compounding interest in essence -- its press, the increase of a unit proportional to the gains.
Then I thought, what if took a few sessions only (not infinitely raising, as one loss would wipe out all the profits) -- a treat them as a group, a betting block, at the end of which the profits would be locked in ..
..& at another, higher level I'd increase the base unit according to the original compounding idea, except now the frequency of its increase is every 3 sessions instead (rather than on each), & thereof its maximized potential of eg. doubling the base unit on each session, would be a bit lowered as traded for the better reliability & steady raise -- effectively the base unit increase would be almost maximized overall for the benefit of locking of profits in.
As you see, I had the same intention, but I tackled the problem from the other side -- I created a bottom to bounce off, meanwhile ensuring pretty much maximized increase of profits overall.
For ease of comprehension; imagine playing EC pressed for 3x spins, risking only 1u throughout the whole press; either ±0 on 2nd or 3rd spin no-hit, +8 on the completed press, or -1 --
except here you replace the spin with the session basis; risking only one bankroll throughout the whole press &
a) potentially meeting your stop-loss threshold one of your reserve bankrolls is gone --
on meeting the press-step success the base unit within the next session het's increased, obviously & .. b) or if the threshold was meet on the 2nd or 3rd session return to the same total bankroll amount with another attempt, c) otherwise is a high gain completed press ..
.. which in turn allows you to increase the overall base uni, & with a few to several successful presses in a row, having even higher = more magnified gains.
Here's the bridge you were looking for.
As a prerequisite, you'll have to first standardize the session goal & stop-loss .. meeting either of those points, then determine if reattempt the press anew .. or move to the 2nd session.
Note that the press does not have to be [1→2→4], can be less .. making the acceleration through the press steps quicker, as well as locking of the profits in on its completion;
& as well on another level, the compounding base unit gets thus increased, in turn being the first 3x-step press value.
Quote from: HardMan on Jan 09, 2023, 04:19 PMThis address skips bs, irregardless of you bs (which finale you determine to play).
Don´t talk to me in this way.
bs = bet selection
Quote from: winkel on Jan 09, 2023, 12:12 AMIt is horrible, if you have a typing-error or an wrong formula or a error witth copy+paste, you automatically ruin hundreds of sheets of datas and an immens load of work to mend it.
That's the problem with spreadsheets and a major reason why I only use them for testing quick "what-if" scenarios. For a lot of calculations they're error prone and not user friendly.
QuoteThis shows the results of betting finals...
Could you explain what "finals" are?
I thought they were groups of numbers having a common final number, but there are only 7 of these (ending in 0 through 6). You have 10? (0 to 9)
Quote from: HardMan on Jan 09, 2023, 04:49 PMbs = bet selection
lol, it's unfortunate that BS = Bullsh*t = Bet Selection. For some there's no difference.
Finales -- you're correct; 3 of those have only 3 per group, you may add 0 when current, & others include 4 numbers per.
Yes, but including all the finals means mixing 3 & 4 number groups which is confusing statistically. There's a big difference between them. It's like including quads with streets.
Quote from: BlueBuzzard on Jan 09, 2023, 05:49 PMI thought they were groups of numbers having a common final number, but there are only 7 of these (ending in 0 through 6). You have 10? (0 to 9)
I calculated them correct.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 bet 4 units win 31
7 8 9 bet 3 units win 32
Quote from: BlueBuzzard on Jan 09, 2023, 06:21 PMYes, but including all the finals means mixing 3 & 4 number groups which is confusing statistically. There's a big difference between them. It's like including quads with streets.
The 4-number groups follow statistically quads and prog is like quads
The 3-number groups follow statistically streets and prog is like streets
This is only about how results react to different bet strategies.
As Betselection we simply bet only 1 finals-group.
Just a reminder:
It doesn´t matter if we win or have a decent betselection.
There is theoretical a big winning, if we stopp at the max.
But we cannot judge if it is the Max or not yet.
Quote from: BlueBuzzard on Jan 09, 2023, 06:21 PMThere's a big difference between them. It's like including quads with streets.
& why not ..
it gives your system a degree of adaptability based on what's out & trending;
there's times that betting streets would not produce a hit for a while, same on quads = for static & rigid (includes finales themselves) .. meanwhile utilizing & where necessary mixing both by 'grouping the numbers' out with appropriate positions puts both, current distribution & system, in ≈resonance.
The statistics calculations should conform to whatever is producing/maximizing the result, innit?
Or as McLaren Automotive amongst others would say, form follows functions.
Quote from: winkel on Jan 10, 2023, 12:58 PMBut we cannot judge if it is the Max or not yet.
& what parameter, including quantified in what, will make you know that?
To the best of my current knowledge -- none.
The whole point of my above post (press) .. you have to have something quantifiable & measurable; otherwise, you are back at hippy mumbo-jumbo, with magical wishes & hope.
But .. as nothing is impossible, with persistence you might just find a way to quantify that as well; at least to an operable & favorable degree, that is.
Quote from: winkel on Dec 09, 2022, 04:26 PMThese following results.
But the problem is: How can we see that the current result ist the "maximum" possible?
Any ideas?
This question appears to be a variant of the two envelope problem. >:D
Quote from: HardMan on Jan 10, 2023, 04:30 PMit gives your system a degree of adaptability based on what's out & trending;
there's times that betting streets would not produce a hit for a while, same on quads = for static & rigid (includes finales themselves) .. meanwhile utilizing & where necessary mixing both by 'grouping the numbers' out with appropriate positions puts both, current distribution & system, in ≈resonance.
The statistics calculations should conform to whatever is producing/maximizing the result
would you care to provide a visual example of this statement ..a very simple one..I think it could really be of help to winkel..
Quote from: BlueBuzzard on Jan 09, 2023, 05:49 PMCould you explain what "finals" are?
maybe this old pdf will help....its years old but when I was younger in this game I managed to get hold of the original author of it...
Quote from: 6th-sense on Jan 14, 2023, 08:36 PMmaybe this old pdf will help....its years old but when I was younger in this game I managed to get hold of the original author of it...
A very great present! Thank you very much!
Quote from: 6th-sense on Jan 14, 2023, 09:04 AMQuote from: HardMan on Jan 10, 2023, 04:30 PMit gives your system a degree of adaptability based on what's out & trending;
there's times that betting streets would not produce a hit for a while, same on quads = for static & rigid (includes finales themselves) .. meanwhile utilizing & where necessary mixing both by 'grouping the numbers' out with appropriate positions puts both, current distribution & system, in ≈resonance.
The statistics calculations should conform to whatever is producing/maximizing the result
would you care to provide a visual example of this statement ..a very simple one..I think it could really be of help to winkel..
First some context:
• as we all know unless relying on some advanced mechanisms potentially some form of advantage play as comps prediction or precognition, there's no ev+ bs
• thereof my system(s) are not bs-centric, meaning relying on other mechanisms to win; although there are bs types that produce better results than others in terms of average spins till hit & similar, although it may not affect the maximums too much
• basically, any type of bs may be inserted into the system as a cartridge .. constituting the
1st order system adaptability • as my base-systems (intra-session module) are parachute-based = advanced extended parachute to be precise, the play moves forward/back through & utilizing various payouts (EC→ST, very occasionally SP .. however not as a single position, more as a lego-type tool appropriately grouping & covering the actives = recent numbers out)
Now, to the more case-specific.
Let's say that the game is in the exposition range requiring ≈Q,ST payout range.
We should strive to transcend in our design & execution of it, what
@BlueBuzzard (exemplary-only) commented as & similar; limit ourselves/system to be designed & executed statistic-centric for the ease of generating stats, by focusing (at a specific time .. relevant to the parachute, or the whole system consisting of one payout only) ..
we may observe that the positioning of a per-spin, or block of spins, placement results in being inadequate to how the actives are coming out.
To be precise & comprehended let's use an example of utilizing the spin placement consisting of ST positions only:
• from the point of view of columns, we may run into an interval where only two are hitting & on a prolonged streak; practically speaking, you'll see either &or both, the resulting actives only hitting two rows of felt, & secondly, other including neighbouring streets will be hitting = all around our effectuated placement
• first off, the quiescent (su within street) areas are being inefficiently covered, where those units or fractions of them may be better utilized & invested somewhere else, according to what is currently! happening .. covering some other numbers as well or instead
• second off, mitigating the above & transforming a potential ST placement, in rigid design-originated, using the so-to-say 'raw credits' by replacing it with a Q position instead; this will, first of all, cover the targeted su numbers within a street anyway, & in addition (ad-hoc) adjust the form to the intent more appropriately or suitably, .. with Q position instead, covering in addition to those eg. two targeted numbers (being the actives within that street), redistribute the raw credits we would also use anyway, as fractions, into two neighboring street numbers .. giving us a better probability of hit
based on what is currently happening as the 2nd order of adjustability.
Thus we may combine both Q & ST payout types as positions in our per-spin placement, adjusting to the dynamic of the state the outcomes are currently in, & until it fizzles out .. giving an additional edge; rather than the positioning remaining static, resulting in such intervals as an effect/consequence if the bs/system interacting with them .. by the use of adjustment on those points of transitions of & maintained through the states instead.
To further support the above & give quantifying tools for the execution of those.
Let's say we, while maintaining the full/big picture, focus on dozens & columns .. we may say that the unfolding of outcomes happens within two states -- all three out (in three spins or more), & only two out .. maintaining the dynamic of the state, whichever permutation is getting realized in, until fizzling out = the appearance of the 3rd, as the unequivocal indication of its termination -- & alternating between them.
As implied above, we don't have to use DZ & CL position types only as bets to take advantage of the fact, per-spin placement may take multiple varieties of forms .. based on the exposition amount, exposition amount after a hit & which hit (having a set of specialized warriors purposed on the task to be executed strategically), & the number of hits required .. in the ad-hoc forming of & adapting the trajectory (=opt between best, most cost-effective predetermined set of them) to ≈ +1 (or insert whatever) & finish the game -- as
the 3rd order of adjustability.
Such 'focused views' can be many & also combined, meanwhile maintaining the awareness of the total picture is imperative, paramount -- let's take into account double streets .. this is the most balanced (middle payout = ease of standardization) & visually easy to track areas (visual dexterity, low cognitive load, transcending the use of per/paper doing all the required for the execution simply in the head) -- further, Qs & ST smoothly fit within those.
The smartest of you already see what I am pointing at ..
After months of testing I found the solution:
Flat betting and StopWin no matter what the amount is.
Quote from: winkel on Dec 16, 2022, 12:18 PMfor example:
If you bet on streets flat bet then you can bet 11 times and end up with +1 if you have a single win.
You will end up -11 with no wins.
But there are spins, where you win twice or 3 times.
If you do several runs you will have results like this
1
1
12
-11
23
but if you would stop at first win (hit) you could have results
+11 (win in first spin)
+6 win in 5th spin
+10 (win in spin 2)
-11 no wins no change in results possible
+5 first win in spin 6
with the multiple wins it could be that the results are higher if you had stopped at the maximum
if you collect
- all end-results
- all stopp-win results
- all maximum results
you will find
- all ends - in the long run you will lose
- all stop wins - in the long run you will lose mor, because you collect all maximum losses but only minimum wins
- all maximum - you will only collect the very best result.
the problem is, that you don´t know when you jhave reached the "maximum"
Nobody knows that, regardless of betting selection.
Hit and run or "playing like a rat" as I call it, doesn't provide any long term profit.
Yes, it might be easier to win just a handful of units, or even just 1, but this cannot go on forever and when that moment comes how many units are you willing to give back or to risk in order to keep on winning that single unit?!
Such tactic is considered to be feasible only by the naïve and shortsighted.
Quote from: BlueAngel on Aug 15, 2023, 12:06 AMSuch tactic is considered to be feasible only by the naïve and shortsighted.
Thks for the compliment.
Why? Are you playing like this?
I thought you were not one of them!
Besides I don't see a valid reason for categorizing numbers as "finals", why do we have to select the specific groups of numbers?
Variance doesn't distinct between black, red, odd, even, high, low, or any kind of artificial groupings among any number.
The objective truth is that every given spin only one number comes up and that number occupies a single slot in the wheel.
That slot might had a letter instead of a number for reference purposes, in that case when you had a sequence forming a, s, h, e then would you complain why the 5th result is not an "s"?!
What I'm trying to say is that roulette doesn't conform to any particular logic/reasoning, it merely coincides sometimes and this is why every kind of betting is always sometimes and not always.
If you just have a conviction but can´t argue it empirical nor theoretical you have to say something like:
QuoteSuch tactic is considered to be feasible only by the naïve and shortsighted.
Day 1, you made profit. How far in the hole did you get? I would try and handle it like the stock market.
Set a profit of 2x your stop loss. Just pure system over time. Lose 2 days, win 1, you break even.