DOES WAINTING FOR AN EVENT TO HAPPEN HAVE ANY MERIT , HOW MANY HERE BET EVERY SPIN .
"DOES WAINTING FOR AN EVENT TO HAPPEN" >>> or waiting for it NOT to happen after a LARGE number of spins....then attack? Due? People slam against a number(s) not being due but what about an EVENT? :yahoo: Ken
Thats interesting ,what about an event then it stops after a x amount of spins and betting against it .TINO
Would one or both of you guys pls explain what you would call "an event" ??
Thanking you both in advance...... :good:
In my experience coding systems (for myself and others), waiting for an event does not produce any benefit in terms of winning more bets than if you were to bet every spin.
However, I did find that there is one rather large benefit from not betting every spin (and this may seem quite obvious...but it wasn't to me at first):
Significantly less exposure to the house edge... Every time you place a bet on the roulette layout (even if you win) that bet was subject to the house edge. Let say for instance you went to the table with $100 and you won $100 (by betting every spin) and the largest drawdown you experienced was $20. Now you think to yourself, "wow, this isn't so bad, I've got it made".
Mathematically speaking, you will always lose at a rate of 2.70% to the house. So you're eventually going to experience that loss. The longer you play and the more exposure to the house edge you're giving yourself, the more likely you are to experience that loss in "one lump sum" (meaning you not only lose everything you've won, but you also end up down...close to the rate of 2.70%).
Think of the house edge this way (especially if you've just experienced a great winning streak): The casinos version of compound interest on the money they "lent you" through you winning. If you've had a great winning streak, it is likely that the casino is going to ask for their "loan" (your winnings) to be paid back along with all the interest (house edge) all at once (or close to it).
Now, not betting all at once makes it much easier for you to realize that you're giving back the money you've just won (in the form of a losing streak) and for you just walk away before you've given it all back. If you're not playing every spin, it would be difficult for the house to "take all of their money back" in just a couple of spins (provided you're not betting enourmous amounts).
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about the House's "Hold" on your money (not the House Edge, but the House "Hold"):
A player with a certain total amount of money may not win or lose all their money instantly, such that the total of all bets they make will often be greater than the total of the money they actually started with. The house edge applies to each bet made; not the total money, which means the player can end up losing significantly more than 5.26% of his starting money. For example it is likely that a player with $100 making $10 bets on red will be able to bet more than 10 times, because sometimes he wins. He may end up betting a total of 20 times on red. This means the expected value is 20×$10×5.26% = $10.52, over 10% of his money is now in the 'hold' despite the game having a 5.26% house advantage. A player who continually bets until they run out of money will give the house 100% hold
In the quote above from Wikipedia, it says the Expected Value... That means the casino can mathematically calculate what you're "worth" to them even if you're winning (scary isn't it?).
Continue to play (especially every spin) and you're very likely to make that calculation true.
Here is a picture that illustrates the only benefit I've found associated with betting less than every spin (lessening exposure to the house edge):
Legend:
Green Line - Betting Every Single Spin on Red (no reason just betting Red every single spin)
Maroon Line - Betting Every Other Spin on Red (Again, no reason, just betting every other spin on Red)
Yellow Line - Betting Every 3rd Spin on Red (Again, no reason, just betting every 3rd spin on Red)
So, at spin 1,000 for the maroon line, it has bet half as many times as the green line has at spin 1,000. At spin 2,000 for the maroon line it has bet the same amount of times the green line has at spin 1,000.
At spin 3,000 for the yellow line it has bet the same amount of times the maroon line has at spin 2,000 and it has bet the same amount of times the green line has at spin 1,000.
In other words, when each line ends in the picture below, each line has placed the same exact amount of bets as every other line. Notice how the balances are all almost exactly the same?
Also notice how at spin 1,000 for the two lines that didn't bet every single spin the balance is above that of the line that DID bet every single spin?
You might also notice that if you were to "stretch" each line out to the same length, they would all look very, very similar.
[attach=#]
Most of the systems I design and construct use select spins and therefore will never bet every spin. In the 4Selecta system for example,
'sections' are used, that will identify 'active' numbers, example as follows :
Spielbank 5.12.08
6
3
28
21
29
21*
16
18
19
33
0
13
19*
25
21*
23
30
14
36
30*
21*
29*
3*
35
* repeat numbers
The above is 24 select spins from 97 actual spins.
There are other systems that uses different 'sections', which facilitate various advantages over continuous spins.
Richard
Generally speaking, the only difference between playing each spin and not playing each spin, is that you waste time in the later. Nothing else.
If your system wins, you'll win faster betting every spin. If it loses you will loose faster.
For example it makes no difference playing a 4-step Marty betting every spin on red, or playing a 4-step Marty betting on red after 5 Blacks have come.
However there are exceptions. The only reason to wait, is to wait for an exceptional deviation from standard distribution to occur and bet on the correction (something like the Marigny de Grilleau approach).
I always bet every spin. I have no idea what the next outcome will be, so I make my best educated guess. There are no reliable triggers that work with random outcomes, so you're almost compelled to bet every spin. Not doing so just prolongs the game for no apparent reason. If you have a system that makes you wait, my advice is to get another system.
Here is a further example where using select spins is very advantageous :
The Signum system EC Black and Red
[table=,]
select sp,R/B,Symbols,+/-
34,R,,
32,R+1,,
10,B 0,M-1,
0,,,
10,B+1,,
16,R 0,OOO,
0,,,
23,R+1,P+1,
32,R+2,OOO,+1
4,B+1,M-1,
14,R 0,M-2,0
35,B-1,M-3,+1
30,R-2,M-2,0
18,R-1,M-3,-1
36,R 0,M-4,0
19,R+1,M-5,+1
25,R+2,M-6,+2
36,R+3,M-7,+3
28,B+2,M-8,+4
36,R+1,M-9,+5
1,R+2,M-8,+4 units
[/table]
This and the previous example shows that select betting is not a waste of time, but can be very profitable, when used by a system
designed for that purpose.
Richard
select betting is not a waste of time, but can be very profitable>>>
Not as profitable as betting every spin. But thats OK, El Chipo, we'll wait for you to catch up. We understand your handicap...
Well, Spike :jester:, I have given examples of profitable select betting, lets see you produce examples of your "educated guessing"
as per usual it will be a big fat zero :-X :D
Quote from: Spike on September 08, 2009, 10:58:35 PM
I always bet every spin. I have no idea what the next outcome will be, so I make my best educated guess. There are no reliable triggers that work with random outcomes, so you're almost compelled to bet every spin. Not doing so just prolongs the game for no apparent reason. If you have a system that makes you wait, my advice is to get another system.
So are you saying you will walk up to the table and commence betting immediately without even looking at the marque, or even one result?
Quote from: bombus on September 10, 2009, 11:08:15 AM
So are you saying you will walk up to the table and commence betting immediately without even looking at the marque, or even one result?
Question for Spike still hanging... do you have an answer?
So are you saying you will walk up to the table and commence betting immediately>>
After I record the last outcomes so I can determine the next bet.
Spike,
I still don't understand why you need to record when the past 18 numbers are already recorded and shown on the marque board for you? Especially when you are only playing the "short-term." Why not just look up? :scratch_ones_head:
Quote from: Madupz4 on September 12, 2009, 05:30:27 AM
Spike,
I still don't understand why you need to record when the past 18 numbers are already recorded and shown on the marque board for you? Especially when you are only playing the "short-term." Why not just look up? :scratch_ones_head:
I think he might mean record the past results on a custom made chart or card that he brings with him.
Quote from: Spike on September 12, 2009, 03:33:54 AM
So are you saying you will walk up to the table and commence betting immediately>>
After I record the last outcomes so I can determine the next bet.
Thanks, Spike.
But doesn't recording past outcomes equate to waiting for a number of spins before betting commences?
And isn't record taking always done in a mechanical fashion, thereby instilling a mechanical element into the method?
Quote from: Madupz4 on September 12, 2009, 05:30:27 AM
I still don't understand why you need to record when the past 18 numbers are already recorded and shown on the marque board for you? Especially when you are only playing the "short-term." Why not just look up? :scratch_ones_head:
He plays three EC's, like I do (well, if I'm not playing VB which is more powerful for me, when the conditions are right), so I do understand the need for some manual charting.
I mean, if you have an edge playing one EC, then playing three at the same time will only accelerate your winnings, right Spike?
Quote from: bombus on September 12, 2009, 07:07:03 AM
And isn't record taking always done in a mechanical fashion, thereby instilling a mechanical element into the method?
I'm not Spike, but personally, recording the data is done mechanically, but interpreting it is done very non-mechanically.
Well put up with some-thing.
Values, variance, math, probability and statistics.
How many attempts for an attack 3 5 7 9.
Frame 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 and so on.
What to capture?
X = End of day.
Singles contra series.
920108 Ecart 3.44 +1 +1 +1
920124 Ecart 3.27 +1 +1 +1
920127 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920131 Ecart 3.00 +1 -5 +1
920205 Ecart 3.40 +1 -5 +1
920211 Ecart 3.12 +1 +1 +1
920213 Ecart 3.41 +1 .X .X
920214 Ecart 3.12 +1 +1 +1
920218 Ecart 3.12 .X +1 .X
920219 Ecart 3.27 .X .X +1
920302 Ecart 3.64 +1 +1 +1
920325 Ecart 3.40 -5 +1 +1
920406 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920428 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920519 Ecart 3.54 -5 +1 -3
920520 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920527 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 +1
920609 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 -3
920612 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 .X
920613 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920617 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920622 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920716 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920720 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920723 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920810 Ecart 3.02 -5 .X .X
920818 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 +1
920824 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920826 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 -3
920827 Ecart 3.15 +1 -5 +1
920903 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 +1
920904 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 +1
920909 Ecart 3.00 .X .X +1
920915 Ecart 3.18 +1 +1 +1
920923 Ecart 3.02 +1 +1 +1
920924 Ecart 3.00 +1 .X +1
920930 Ecart 3.29 +1 +1 +1
921002 Ecart 3.12 +1 +1 +1
921005 Ecart 3.88 +1 +1 +1
921005 Ecart 3.15 +1 +1 +1
921014 Ecart 3.70 +1 +1 -3
921022 Ecart 3.50 +1 .X .X
921024 Ecart 3.65 +1 +1 +1
921027 Ecart 3.00 +1 .X +1
921030 Ecart 3.00 +1 +1 .X
1th) 39/15
2th) 39/15
3th) 35/12
Any one can put up with statistics with out tell how they play!
But none does.
Do you know what an Value is?
Do you know what math is?
Do you know what probabiltiy is?
Do you know what statistics is and how it produce an variance?
There is not much here in this post all you have opinions, so what is fact and fiction?
What direction should some one contribute with an value and knowledge you can gain important information from?
So much talk about flat betting and no how-to.
Cheers LS
How do you grasp mechanical and how the flow unfold.
None, indication, tendency.
The only true non mechanical is an blind man who put hes chips on the carpet with out a tought.
Cheers LS
"recording the data is done mechanically, but interpreting it is done very non-mechanically"
Hi Marven,
Maybe we have a definition problem here. I'm not sure what "mechanically" means to you. But to me it means that specific parameters are taken into account and according to them, specific out comes. Basically, "mechanically" means that every time you have the same input (data), you have the same output (conclusion, decision). According to this definition, "non-mechanical" means random choices based on intuition, psi or whatever, in which case I don't ee the need to collect data in the first place.
I'm with kav and LS on this. If you can't explain your method or system in terms of a sequence of "IF-THEN" statements then you may as well scatter your chips randomly over the table.
If you have a method which wins consistently, as Spike claims he does, there must be some kind of structure to the betting otherwise you wouldn't do any better than random. I've had discussions with Spike over this before, and all I get from him is smoke and mirrors. ::)
Quote from: kav on September 12, 2009, 07:41:19 AM
"recording the data is done mechanically, but interpreting it is done very non-mechanically"
Hi Marven,
Maybe we have a definition problem here. I'm not sure what "mechanically" means to you. But to me it means that specific parameters are taken into account and according to them, specific out comes. Basically, "mechanically" means that every time you have the same input (data), you have the same output (conclusion, decision). According to this definition, "non-mechanical" means random choices based on intuition, psi or whatever, in which case I don't ee the need to collect data in the first place.
Hi kav,
I understand what you're trying to say, and I do admit it's a tricky thing. Usually when I say
mechanical bet selection, I mean the old classical/conventional trigger-based one. E.g. Wait for Red to hit and bet on even Red. This type of mechanical is a blind one. It does not take into account observing the random flow and extracting conclusions and decisions based on it. They simply take one (or more) of two (or more) possible events that random can throw, and bet on it blindly. You can literally spend a lifetime testing systems and this classical approach will ALWAYS end up with one result: The chances of winning equal the chances of losing, minus the house edge, therefore a long term loss.
In THAT SENSE, I label my way of play non-mechanical.
Within this way, it is absolutely acknowledged that each spin is an independent trial, etc. Each spin does not abide by any imagined rules, but the ensemble of many of these trials forms something called the short term random flow. As a "flow", it (in itself) has certain slight characteristics (for lack of a better word), invisible to the untrained eye.
It is therefore true that if you give me the same ensemble/data flow twice, I will interpret it the same way (okay, I'm no computer nor am I that experienced yet, so maybe a LITTLE bit differently each time, but I would say in 95% of the time the betting decision I make is the same).
Now in THAT sense, you may feel free to label it "mechanical". Personally, if I had to, I would describe it as an
advanced form of "mechanical".
So Lucky is definitely right:
Quote from: Lucky Strike on September 12, 2009, 07:40:09 AM
The only true non mechanical is an blind man who put hes chips on the carpet with out a tought.
Yes I think it's virtually impossible to play any method without a degree of mechanicality (is that a word?) creeping in at some point.
And the fact that almost everyone to a man needs to watch how the numbers behave for a while before betting means that no one bets every spin.
If you have a method which wins consistently, as Spike claims he does, there must be some kind of structure to the betting otherwise you wouldn't do any better than random.>>>
No structure. I see a betting opportunity and then I determine what the best bet is. A betting opportunity is a multi layered thing, its not as simple as "I see A has happened so now I bet B." I have to make make decisions to arrive at an educated guess, its never cut and dried. Random is slippery, you can never get ahead of it, you can only try and keep up.
I mean, if you have an edge playing one EC, then playing three at the same time will only accelerate your winnings, right Spike?>>>
Actually, no. I play 3 because 1 or 2 of them often produce no betting opp's, so I depend on the 3rd. And sometimes they all go dormant and I break even for awhile. I've tried tracking as many as 6 EC's at once and its too many. 3 is optimal.
watch how the numbers behave for a while before betting means that no one bets every spin.>>>
I don't watch how the numbers behave, I don't watch the numbers at all. I record the EC's and look for betting opp's, which I see in every spin. Very seldom do I skip a spin, maybe 3 times in 100.
Quote from: Spike on September 13, 2009, 03:42:15 AM
watch how the numbers behave for a while before betting means that no one bets every spin.>>>
I don't watch how the numbers behave, I don't watch the numbers at all. I record the EC's and look for betting opp's, which I see in every spin. Very seldom do I skip a spin, maybe 3 times in 100.
Record the numbers - Record the EC's, it's the same thing.
You still need to skip some spins to start off. If you use the Marque, then that's the same as skipping those spins.
I understand that perhaps once the betting commences there are few to no more skipped spins, but at the beginning....
I only bet about 35-40% of hands in a shoe of baccarat. I find that making virtual paper bets when my selection is not coming good will help keep my "variance" from getting to out of whack. I think that this is vital, especially for we who use a progression.