If we could build a bridge between ....

Started by winkel, Dec 09, 2022, 04:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 14 Guests are viewing this topic.

HardMan

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.



winkel

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.

HardMan


BlueBuzzard

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)



BlueBuzzard

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.

HardMan

Finales -- you're correct; 3 of those have only 3 per group, you may add 0 when current, & others include 4 numbers per.

BlueBuzzard

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.

winkel

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

winkel

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.

winkel

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.

HardMan

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.

HardMan

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.

HardMan

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.

TwoUp

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


6th-sense

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..