Note: All the "Thread reply #" references below are for this thread:
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/testing-zone/a-gut-situation-tested/msg24874/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/testing-zone/a-gut-situation-tested/msg24874/)
(My "A GUT-situation tested" thread)
Why this test?
winkel claims that 2.7%-losing bets can be combined to give a positive end result.
But when asked for an example, he cannot point to one single such situation.
He claims - as I understand it - that it is because of the stochastik distribution of those losing bets, that the end sum will be positive.
Because when one bet loses, another bet will win... or something like that.
(Thread replies #6 and #16 plus several in his own GUT-threads)
I said that it is a false claim.
A few or many -2.7% results simply CANNOT - according to math laws and probability theories - be combined in such a way that they end up positive.
(Thread reply #4)
But that's what MATH says.
winkel claims that his method is NOT a MATH method but stochastik...
(Thread reply #16)
So I asked winkel for a set of rules for a test and we agreed to use these:
Columns to use:
=0 vs =1, >1 or =2
=1 vs >1 or =2
A crossing is:
a) The "=0" or "=1" column is equal to one or more of their respective "vs"-columns
b) The "=0" or "=1" column contains 1 number more than one or more of their respective "vs"-columns
Consider any crossing where the bet is < 18 numbers.
Select the crossing to bet as the one that gives the highest added value
(f ex 13-12-12 bet 13 as 13+12=25 whereas 12+12=24)
if conditions are met by more than two columns.
Select the leftmost column to bet if there are more than one to choose from.
Stop at +40u or better.
Do not pass spin #50.
(Thread replies #25 and #26)
Later he added an instruction I interpreted as:
"Do not bet more than 36u on a losing column even if the trigger is the same."
How the first test was made:
We ran 10 sessions outputing ALL information spin by spin: The contents of columns, all bets, hits etc.
After that, the program output tables of results and bets for those 10 sessions.
After that, the program continued for an additional 9,999,990 sessions.
Then the TOTAL results and the BETS results tables for all the 10,000,000 sessions were output.
The output for the 10 first sessions was done in order to:
a) Check that the program was working according to the rules
b) Check that the bets were recorded correctly in the tables
This 10-sessions output is included to make it possible for you to check that the program works properly - or not.
WE didn't find any errors...
When we saw the results tables for this test, we wanted to verify it, so we made TWO more tests in the same manner.
They ended approximately the same as the first one.
One last test - Wiesbaden:
As the probability is high that some of you want a LIVE-wheel test we also fed the program with the Wiesbaden Table #3 spins I have.
(If you want to replicate the test, the same spins-file can be found in the Downloads area, members section, "KFSfiles" from Aug 24)
We started each day at spin #1.
When the first session ended we re-started at spin #21. Then at spin #41 etc, starting every 20th spin:
1, 21, 41, 61, 81, 101... As long as there were AT LEAST 50 spins left for the day.
We used the complete file.
NOTE:
As this test contains considerably fewer sessions than the "main" tests (only a few thousands, I'm afraid), the TOTAL results should be taken as INDICATORS - not as statistically secured data - and the BETS results tables should be read with extreme caution as the shown sums are relatively small.
(A 10-sessions output is included for this test also.)
All complete test outputs (TOTAL and BETS results tables and the 10-sessions sample) for the four tests is found in the zip-archive that's attached to this post.
TEST #1
=======
TOTAL RESULTS:
TOTAL Number of sessions: 10,000,000
TOTAL Number of bets: 89,197,389
TOTAL Bet units: 1,028,787,821
TOTAL Number of hits: 27,805,183
TOTAL Won units: 1,000,986,588
TOTAL NET in units: -27,801,233
TOTAL NET in per cent: -2.70232913264629
TEST #2
=======
TOTAL RESULTS:
TOTAL Number of sessions: 10,000,000
TOTAL Number of bets: 89,199,950
TOTAL Bet units: 1,028,755,699
TOTAL Number of hits: 27,809,375
TOTAL Won units: 1,001,137,500
TOTAL NET in units: -27,618,199
TOTAL NET in per cent: -2.68462172572616
TEST #3
=======
TOTAL RESULTS:
TOTAL Number of sessions: 10,000,000
TOTAL Number of bets: 89,221,682
TOTAL Bet units: 1,028,985,301
TOTAL Number of hits: 27,809,047
TOTAL Won units: 1,001,125,692
TOTAL NET in units: -27,859,609
TOTAL NET in per cent: -2.70748367084789
TEST #4 - WIESBADEN
===================
TOTAL RESULTS:
TOTAL Number of sessions: 29,028
TOTAL Number of bets: 257,888
TOTAL Bet units: 2,969,754
TOTAL Number of hits: 80,623
TOTAL Won units: 2,902,428
TOTAL NET in units: -67,326
TOTAL NET in per cent: -2.26705646326261
Example of how to read the BETS RESULTS tables:
Columns
=0 =1 Bets Hits Math Predict Hits MathAverage ResDff% Bet U Won U Net U Net U %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 12 3132068 1099917 1097922 - 1102990 1100456.324 -0.049 40716884 39597012 -1119872 -2.750
Column "=0" contains 13 numbers and...
...column "=1" contains 12 numbers so they will cross and bets are placed.
3,132,068 such Bets were placed...
...and there were 1,099,917 Hits.
Math predicts somewhere from 1,097,922 to 1,102,990 hits betting 13 numbers 3,132,068 times.
(That's the mathematical average minus and plus NOT breaking the 3SD barrier.)
Math average for 13 numbers bet 3,132,068 times is 1,100,456.324 hits (13 / 37 x 3132068).
The actual result had a difference of -0.049% from the math average.
For the 3,132,068 Bets a total of 40,716,884 Units was payed.
The 1,099,917 Hits gave 39,597,012 Units back.
That is a Net of -1,119,872 Units...
...or -2.750% of the total bet.
TEST #1:
========
BETS RESULTS:
Columns
=0 =1 Bets Hits Math Predict Hits MathAverage ResDff% Bet U Won U Net U Net U %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 17 998699 458567 457368 - 460355 458861.702 -0.064 16977883 16508412 -469471 -2.765
17 16 1721158 792175 788841 - 792763 790802.324 0.173 29259686 28518300 -741386 -2.533
16 16 2064925 892956 890805 - 895076 892940.540 0.001 33038800 32146416 -892384 -2.701
16 15 2527558 1092782 1090636 - 1095360 1092998.054 -0.019 40440928 39340152 -1100776 -2.721
15 15 2909209 1179294 1176897 - 1181921 1179409.054 -0.009 43638135 42454584 -1183551 -2.712
15 14 2773157 1124259 1121801 - 1126705 1124252.837 0.000 41597355 40473324 -1124031 -2.702
14 14 3225286 1218549 1217766 - 1222991 1220378.486 -0.149 45154004 43867764 -1286240 -2.848
14 13 2517474 953111 950250 - 954866 952557.729 0.058 35244636 34311996 -932640 -2.646
13 13 3132068 1099917 1097922 - 1102990 1100456.324 -0.049 40716884 39597012 -1119872 -2.750
13 12 1952396 686702 683976 - 687978 685976.972 0.105 25381148 24721272 -659876 -2.599
12 12 2536912 822798 820546 - 825019 822782.270 0.001 30442944 29620728 -822216 -2.700
12 11 1462871 474160 472747 - 476143 474444.648 -0.059 17554452 17069760 -484692 -2.761
11 11 1148525 341189 339984 - 342922 341453.378 -0.077 12633775 12282804 -350971 -2.778
11 10 321836 95938 94904 - 96458 95680.972 0.268 3540196 3453768 -86428 -2.441
10 10 131845 35675 35151 - 36117 35633.783 0.115 1318450 1284300 -34150 -2.590
10 9 28344 7572 7437 - 7884 7660.540 -1.155 283440 272592 -10848 -3.827
9 9 1629 387 345 - 448 396.243 -2.332 14661 13932 -729 -4.972
9 8 118 28 15 - 42 28.702 -2.448 1062 1008 -54 -5.084
Columns
=0 >1 Bets Hits Math Predict Hits MathAverage ResDff% Bet U Won U Net U Net U %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 17 223 106 81 - 124 102.459 3.455 3791 3816 25 0.659
17 16 2391 1096 1026 - 1171 1098.567 -0.233 40647 39456 -1191 -2.930
16 16 4598 1974 1888 - 2089 1988.324 -0.720 73568 71064 -2504 -3.403
16 15 30855 13348 13082 - 13603 13342.702 0.039 493680 480528 -13152 -2.664
15 15 50045 20420 19960 - 20618 20288.513 0.648 750675 735120 -15555 -2.072
15 14 240806 98149 96902 - 98346 97624.054 0.537 3612090 3533364 -78726 -2.179
14 14 344655 130763 129556 - 131264 130410.000 0.270 4825170 4707468 -117702 -2.439
14 13 1207310 456235 455222 - 458418 456820.000 -0.128 16902340 16424460 -477880 -2.827
13 13 870660 305623 304572 - 307243 305907.567 -0.093 11318580 11002428 -316152 -2.793
12 11 3234500 1049488 1046502 - 1051552 1049027.027 0.043 38814000 37781568 -1032432 -2.659
11 11 2420516 719292 717480 - 721746 719612.864 -0.044 26625676 25894512 -731164 -2.746
11 10 2476960 735506 734236 - 738551 736393.513 -0.120 27246560 26478216 -768344 -2.819
10 10 1379005 372902 371140 - 374268 372704.054 0.053 13790050 13424472 -365578 -2.651
10 9 1218083 329896 327742 - 330682 329211.621 0.207 12180830 11876256 -304574 -2.500
9 9 539302 131583 130237 - 132126 131181.567 0.306 4853718 4736988 -116730 -2.404
9 8 401052 97539 96739 - 98368 97553.189 -0.014 3609468 3511404 -98064 -2.716
8 8 131667 28437 28021 - 28916 28468.540 -0.110 1053336 1023732 -29604 -2.810
8 7 85603 18604 18148 - 18870 18508.756 0.514 684824 669744 -15080 -2.202
7 7 21570 4037 3909 - 4253 4080.810 -1.073 150990 145332 -5658 -3.747
7 6 11780 2249 2102 - 2356 2228.648 0.913 82460 80964 -1496 -1.814
6 6 2352 382 328 - 435 381.405 0.155 14112 13752 -360 -2.551
6 5 1121 186 145 - 218 181.783 2.319 6726 6696 -30 -0.446
5 5 179 25 11 - 37 24.189 3.351 895 900 5 0.558
5 4 63 14 1 - 16 8.513 64.444 315 504 189 60.000
4 4 14 0 0 - 4 1.513 -100.000 56 0 -56 -100.000
4 3 1 0 0 - 1 0.108 -100.000 4 0 -4 -100.000
Columns
=0 =2 Bets Hits Math Predict Hits MathAverage ResDff% Bet U Won U Net U Net U %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 16 1 1 0 - 1 0.459 117.647 17 36 19 111.764
16 16 14 6 1 - 11 6.054 -0.892 224 216 -8 -3.571
16 15 55 27 13 - 34 23.783 13.522 880 972 92 10.454
15 15 482 193 164 - 227 195.405 -1.230 7230 6948 -282 -3.900
15 14 1457 608 535 - 646 590.675 2.932 21855 21888 33 0.150
14 14 7641 2858 2765 - 3018 2891.189 -1.147 106974 102888 -4086 -3.819
14 13 20635 7880 7599 - 8016 7807.837 0.924 288890 283680 -5210 -1.803
13 13 66431 23316 22972 - 23709 23340.621 -0.105 863603 839376 -24227 -2.805
13 12 162091 56868 56375 - 57527 56950.891 -0.145 2107183 2047248 -59935 -2.844
12 12 322933 104554 103937 - 105533 104735.027 -0.172 3875196 3763944 -111252 -2.870
12 11 295724 95844 95147 - 96674 95910.486 -0.069 3548688 3450384 -98304 -2.770
11 11 248843 73753 73297 - 74664 73980.351 -0.307 2737273 2655108 -82165 -3.001
11 10 719740 214124 212814 - 215140 213976.756 0.068 7917140 7708464 -208676 -2.635
10 10 1024893 276414 275650 - 278346 276998.108 -0.210 10248930 9950904 -298026 -2.907
10 9 1298535 351600 349438 - 352473 350955.405 0.183 12985350 12657600 -327750 -2.523
9 9 943438 229282 228235 - 230735 229484.918 -0.088 8490942 8254152 -236790 -2.788
9 8 1217321 295443 294685 - 297525 296105.108 -0.223 10955889 10635948 -319941 -2.920
8 8 608486 131819 130602 - 132527 131564.540 0.193 4867888 4745484 -122404 -2.514
8 7 603581 129996 129545 - 131463 130504.000 -0.389 4828648 4679856 -148792 -3.081
7 7 192434 36821 35892 - 36921 36406.432 1.138 1347038 1325556 -21482 -1.594
7 6 162343 30888 30241 - 31186 30713.540 0.568 1136401 1111968 -24433 -2.150
6 6 33930 5372 5299 - 5705 5502.162 -2.365 203580 193392 -10188 -5.004
6 5 25782 4260 4004 - 4358 4180.864 1.892 154692 153360 -1332 -0.861
5 5 3421 443 403 - 522 462.297 -4.174 17105 15948 -1157 -6.764
5 4 2398 342 274 - 374 324.054 5.537 11990 12312 322 2.685
4 4 223 27 11 - 38 24.108 11.995 892 972 80 8.968
4 3 148 15 5 - 27 16.000 -6.250 592 540 -52 -8.783
3 3 4 1 0 - 1 0.324 208.333 12 36 24 200.000
3 2 2 0 0 - 1 0.162 -100.000 6 0 -6 -100.000
Columns
=1 >1 Bets Hits Math Predict Hits MathAverage ResDff% Bet U Won U Net U Net U %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 16 62 38 17 - 40 28.486 33.396 1054 1368 314 29.791
16 16 934 411 359 - 449 403.891 1.759 14944 14796 -148 -0.990
16 15 32148 14018 13636 - 14168 13901.837 0.835 514368 504648 -9720 -1.889
15 15 125715 51069 50444 - 51487 50965.540 0.202 1885725 1838484 -47241 -2.505
15 14 640891 259798 258642 - 260999 259820.675 -0.008 9613365 9352728 -260637 -2.711
14 14 1189929 450960 448657 - 451830 450243.405 0.159 16659006 16234560 -424446 -2.547
14 13 2233170 844001 842809 - 847157 844983.243 -0.116 31264380 30384036 -880344 -2.815
13 13 2453627 862378 859842 - 864328 862085.162 0.033 31897151 31045608 -851543 -2.669
13 12 2993615 1052366 1049333 - 1054288 1051810.675 0.052 38916995 37885176 -1031819 -2.651
12 11 2929671 949249 947760 - 952567 950163.567 -0.096 35156052 34172964 -983088 -2.796
11 11 2180182 648154 646138 - 650186 648162.216 -0.001 23982002 23333544 -648458 -2.703
11 10 2217874 659574 657326 - 661410 659367.945 0.031 24396614 23744664 -651950 -2.672
10 10 1463652 395449 393970 - 397193 395581.621 -0.033 14636520 14236164 -400356 -2.735
10 9 1569045 425686 422398 - 425735 424066.216 0.381 15690450 15324696 -365754 -2.331
9 9 947633 230515 229253 - 231758 230505.324 0.004 8528697 8298540 -230157 -2.698
9 8 1100400 267536 266315 - 269015 267664.864 -0.048 9903600 9631296 -272304 -2.749
8 8 602770 129873 129370 - 131287 130328.648 -0.349 4822160 4675428 -146732 -3.042
8 7 766967 166008 164750 - 166912 165830.702 0.106 6135736 5976288 -159448 -2.598
7 7 390412 74038 73128 - 74595 73861.729 0.238 2732884 2665368 -67516 -2.470
7 6 561148 106377 105283 - 107043 106163.135 0.201 3928036 3829572 -98464 -2.506
6 6 267435 43463 42796 - 43939 43367.837 0.219 1604610 1564668 -39942 -2.489
6 5 447626 72278 71849 - 73327 72588.000 -0.427 2685756 2602008 -83748 -3.118
5 5 204498 27471 27172 - 28098 27634.864 -0.592 1022490 988956 -33534 -3.279
5 4 408071 54855 54490 - 55799 55144.729 -0.525 2040355 1974780 -65575 -3.213
4 4 181634 19827 19240 - 20033 19636.108 0.972 726536 713772 -12764 -1.756
4 3 450122 48667 48037 - 49286 48661.837 0.010 1800488 1752012 -48476 -2.692
3 3 200798 16230 15914 - 16647 16280.918 -0.312 602394 584280 -18114 -3.007
3 2 670110 54831 53663 - 55003 54333.243 0.916 2010330 1973916 -36414 -1.811
2 2 315473 17120 16672 - 17433 17052.594 0.395 630946 616320 -14626 -2.318
2 1 1563174 84439 83648 - 85344 84495.891 -0.067 3126348 3039804 -86544 -2.768
1 1 819696 22058 21714 - 22594 22153.945 -0.433 819696 794088 -25608 -3.124
Columns
=1 =2 Bets Hits Math Predict Hits MathAverage ResDff% Bet U Won U Net U Net U %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 15 2096 836 783 - 917 849.729 -1.615 31440 30096 -1344 -4.274
15 14 5194 2118 2000 - 2211 2105.675 0.585 77910 76248 -1662 -2.133
14 14 24564 9337 9067 - 9522 9294.486 0.457 343896 336132 -7764 -2.257
14 13 61775 23381 23013 - 23735 23374.324 0.028 864850 841716 -23134 -2.674
13 13 139290 48705 48406 - 49474 48939.729 -0.479 1810770 1753380 -57390 -3.169
13 12 311381 109341 108605 - 110203 109404.135 -0.057 4047953 3936276 -111677 -2.758
12 12 381404 123851 122832 - 124565 123698.594 0.123 4576848 4458636 -118212 -2.582
12 11 606771 196566 195697 - 197884 196790.594 -0.114 7281252 7076376 -204876 -2.813
11 11 250870 74896 73897 - 75269 74582.972 0.419 2759570 2696256 -63314 -2.294
11 10 334925 99409 98779 - 100365 99572.297 -0.163 3684175 3578724 -105451 -2.862
10 10 860874 231973 231433 - 233904 232668.648 -0.298 8608740 8351028 -257712 -2.993
10 9 1083922 293112 291565 - 294338 292951.891 0.054 10839220 10552032 -287188 -2.649
9 9 738449 179260 178517 - 180728 179622.729 -0.201 6646041 6453360 -192681 -2.899
9 8 779923 190176 188575 - 190847 189711.000 0.245 7019307 6846336 -172971 -2.464
8 8 445779 96300 95561 - 97209 96384.648 -0.087 3566232 3466800 -99432 -2.788
8 7 408360 87987 87505 - 89083 88294.054 -0.347 3266880 3167532 -99348 -3.041
7 7 226524 43144 42297 - 43415 42855.891 0.672 1585668 1553184 -32484 -2.048
7 6 176794 33354 32954 - 33941 33447.513 -0.279 1237558 1200744 -36814 -2.974
6 6 107598 17729 17086 - 17811 17448.324 1.608 645588 638244 -7344 -1.137
6 5 66401 10811 10483 - 11052 10767.729 0.401 398406 389196 -9210 -2.311
5 5 53812 7291 7034 - 7509 7271.891 0.262 269060 262476 -6584 -2.447
5 4 23902 3276 3072 - 3388 3230.000 1.424 119510 117936 -1574 -1.317
4 4 29723 3175 3053 - 3373 3213.297 -1.191 118892 114300 -4592 -3.862
4 3 8634 940 847 - 1019 933.405 0.706 34536 33840 -696 -2.015
3 3 18684 1493 1403 - 1626 1514.918 -1.446 56052 53748 -2304 -4.110
3 2 3280 282 220 - 312 265.945 6.036 9840 10152 312 3.170
2 2 13028 672 627 - 781 704.216 -4.574 26056 24192 -1864 -7.153
2 1 1132 63 39 - 84 61.189 2.959 2264 2268 4 0.176
1 1 11511 300 259 - 363 311.108 -3.570 11511 10800 -711 -6.176
CONCLUSION:
Don't think for a split second that losing bets can be combined in ANY way to get a positive end-result.
Why winkel claims this is beyond my imagination...
But that claim was the MAIN reason to test this method.
Having the results, I stand by every single word I wrote in my "GUT-situation" thread:
(nolinks://vlsroulette.com/testing-zone/a-gut-situation-tested/msg24874/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/testing-zone/a-gut-situation-tested/msg24874/))
In the first post and in reply #5, regarding testing
In reply #4, regarding losing results being positive in the end
In replies #5 and #9, regarding this method being a Gambler's Fallacy method
(And all the rest as well)
As everything I have to say is found in that thread, I will not repeat it here.
This GF-/GUT-matter has taken too much time and effort, ending at the usual -2.7%.
Hey: My CALCULATOR showed -2.7% in a SECOND!
Didn't yours?
This is my last post regarding this GF method.
I'll leave winkel and his followers alone from now.
That's a promise.
KFS
PS.
We will of course re-run the tests if you find errors in the output.
Hi KFS,
thanks a lot for that testing.
But there is a mistake in it:
The list {=0 vs >1} is not possible because there is only one combination that will appear this is 19-18
because >1 ist going straight upwards from 0 to 37
pls check if there is a miscalculating >1 >2 etc. these are all sums climbing steadily
br
winkel
F ex Session 2 in GUTTW.txt:
59 12 Lost BR: -50 C =0: 2 9 10 13 14 17 19 20 25 27 29 30 36 = 13
=1: 0 3 6 7 8 11 16 18 23 24 33 35 = 12
>1: 1 4 5 12 15 21 22 26 28 31 32 34 = 12
=2: 1 5 12 15 21 22 28 31 34 = 9
*** NO BET - Too many bets on same col
60 33 C =0: 2 9 10 13 14 17 19 20 25 27 29 30 36 = 13
=1: 0 3 6 7 8 11 16 18 23 24 35 = 11
>1: 1 4 5 12 15 21 22 26 28 31 32 33 34 = 13
=2: 1 5 12 15 21 22 28 31 33 34 = 10
*** NO BET - Too many bets on same col
61 26 C =0: 2 9 10 13 14 17 19 20 25 27 29 30 36 = 13
=1: 0 3 6 7 8 11 16 18 23 24 35 = 11
>1: 1 4 5 12 15 21 22 26 28 31 32 33 34 = 13
=2: 1 5 12 15 21 22 28 31 33 34 = 10
*** NO BET - Too many bets on same col
62 34 C =0: 2 9 10 13 14 17 19 20 25 27 29 30 36 = 13
=1: 0 3 6 7 8 11 16 18 23 24 35 = 11
>1: 1 4 5 12 15 21 22 26 28 31 32 33 34 = 13
=2: 1 5 12 15 21 22 28 31 33 = 9
*** NO BET - Too many bets on same col
63 3 C =0: 2 9 10 13 14 17 19 20 25 27 29 30 36 = 13
=1: 0 6 7 8 11 16 18 23 24 35 = 10
>1: 1 3 4 5 12 15 21 22 26 28 31 32 33 34 = 14
=2: 1 3 5 12 15 21 22 28 31 33 = 10
* BET Col =1
/KFS
another misscalculation
Quote32 17 C =0: 1 3 4 6 7 8 11 15 22 23 25 30 31 33 36 = 15
=1: 0 2 5 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 27 28 34 = 15
>1: 9 20 24 26 29 32 35 = 7
=2: 20 24 26 32 35 = 5
* BET Col =0
33 35 Lost BR: -19 C =0: 1 3 4 6 7 8 11 15 22 23 25 30 31 33 36 = 15
=1: 0 2 5 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 27 28 34 = 15
>1: 9 20 24 26 29 32 35 = 7
=2: 20 24 26 32 = 4
* BET Col =0
34 9 Lost BR: -34 C =0: 1 3 4 6 7 8 11 15 22 23 25 30 31 33 36 = 15
=1: 0 2 5 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 27 28 34 = 15
>1: 9 20 24 26 29 32 35 = 7
=2: 20 24 26 32 = 4
*** NO BET - Too many bets on same col
a bet on column 1 with 15 numbers cannot produce a loss of -19
pls check
Quote from: winkel on October 19, 2008, 03:04:49 PM
Hi KFS,
thanks a lot for that testing.
But there is a mistake in it:
The list {=0 vs >1} is not possible because there is only one combination that will appear this is 19-18
because >1 ist going straight upwards from 0 to 37
pls check if there is a miscalculating >1 >2 etc. these are all sums climbing steadily
br
winkel
Hi KFS
forget this, my fault. My claim is wrong
sorry sorry sorry
br
winkel
Quote from: winkel on October 19, 2008, 03:17:27 PM
another misscalculation
Quote32 17 C =0: 1 3 4 6 7 8 11 15 22 23 25 30 31 33 36 = 15
=1: 0 2 5 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 27 28 34 = 15
>1: 9 20 24 26 29 32 35 = 7
=2: 20 24 26 32 35 = 5
* BET Col =0
33 35 Lost BR: -19 C =0: 1 3 4 6 7 8 11 15 22 23 25 30 31 33 36 = 15
=1: 0 2 5 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 27 28 34 = 15
>1: 9 20 24 26 29 32 35 = 7
=2: 20 24 26 32 = 4
* BET Col =0
34 9 Lost BR: -34 C =0: 1 3 4 6 7 8 11 15 22 23 25 30 31 33 36 = 15
=1: 0 2 5 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 27 28 34 = 15
>1: 9 20 24 26 29 32 35 = 7
=2: 20 24 26 32 = 4
*** NO BET - Too many bets on same col
a bet on column 1 with 15 numbers cannot produce a loss of -19
pls check
sorry for this as well, I didn´t see an earlier bet with 4
Thanks KFS for your hard working in testing this.
Quoteforget this, my fault. My claim is wrong
So, Winkel, in view of the test results are you saying that you were mistaken in believing that your system is a long-term winner? :-\
Hi bliss,
I think he meant his claim that...
"The list {=0 vs >1} is not possible because there is only one combination that will appear this is 19-18 because >1 ist going straight upwards from 0 to 37"
/KFS
Hi KFS,
is it possible to get a graph of the bankroll-developement?
The results had to be like I said: all single crossings go to -2,7%
That the sum therefore also has to be -2,7% is a matter of fact, isn´t it.
What a test like this cannot do is make human decisions.
And in the main topic I always said: Watch what is going on. I can´t give rules of this way to play.
What I can offer:
KFS takes any 10 sessions (doesn´t matter of winning or losing or evenmony)
Then we will do a simulated Live-game and I trie to produce better results than the "clinical" rules produced.
I will also argue every decision I do.
If KFS doesn´t wanna do this he can give the permanences to anyone he trusts, even @herb.
br
winkel
Hi winkel,
Regarding graphs, I don't think so...
One RNG test takes several hours and a graph output has to be programmed - probably also taking several hours.
The Wiesbaden test can be replicated in full by anyone.
Regarding the rest:
Please read your own Reply #12 in this thread (the quote also):
nolinks://vlsroulette.com/testing-zone/a-gut-situation-tested/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/testing-zone/a-gut-situation-tested/)
You suggested the rules for a test you KNOW would end positive.
Regards,
KFS
QuoteWhat a test like this cannot do is make human decisions.
This is something that is often said when a simulation gives negative results, and I have a big problem with it. The "rigidity" of a computer simulation is a strength, not a weakness. A computer will only do
exactly what you tell it to do - no more and no less. How often do we hear that you should "stick to the plan", "don't get emotional", "be disciplined" etc. Well, a computer is the most disciplined "player" imaginable. Furthermore, it never gets tired, distracted by the pretty waitress, or needs to take a piss. But when it "loses", we are told that it lacks those "human" decisions which are needed to ensure success! ::)
Tell us precisely what those human decisions
are, and a program can be written to make them.
If you
can't do that, then what are your decisions based on?
QuoteA computer will only do exactly what you tell it to do
QuoteTell us precisely what those human decisions are, and a program can be written to make them.
If you can't do that, then what are your decisions based on?
First quote:
I already said I cannot tell a computer or it´s programmer what to do.
second quote:
Everybody who read the main topic can see the thoughts I make up during the spins are coming up.
My decisions or any decisions a human being makes are done in parts of seconds.
They are based upon experience brought to me by "reading" thousands of spins.
and there is another thing: How to transfer this experience to other people or to a computer-code?
Would scientists try to create self-learning software, if it would be able (or easy) to code any possible upcoming variable fact?
e.g. my example for a decision KFS also proved wrong. (see test of crossing 15-15).
I only can tell as an example if there were 5 "0" in a row I don´t bet on a upcoming crossing which has to bet on "0" and viceversa
But I may decide opposite if there are 4 or 3 or two or one "0" before that crossing.
to lead the people to "reading" what is going on, I have to start somewhere, where people can follow my arguments and understand. This is "looking for crossings"
If people are still interested I will decribe how you
- could bet on upcoming crossings.
- could bet without crossings just by watching whats going on
- why and when to jump
etc.
br
winkel
Hi KFS,
QuoteYou suggested the rules for a test you KNOW would end positive.
what did you expect? that I tell straight away it will lose?
Otherwise you wouldn´t have tried to proof me wrong, would you? :D
Thanks for your work and time. I´ve learned a lot new basics for my game.
br
winkel
winkel,
Quotewhat did you expect? that I tell straight away it will lose?
I expected
honesty... and seriousness...
I expected rules that would come out positive - as you claim that the clinic way will do!
(Didn't you give me the rules of the clinic way?)I wanted to prove you CORRECT as you claim that your stochastiks out-performs common math and probability.
I've never studied stochastiks.
Why didn't you give me the rules from
your multi-million-spins test that came out positive?
Wasn't your multi-million-spins test performed on a computer?QuoteI already said I cannot tell a computer or it´s programmer what to do.
Quoteand there is another thing: How to transfer this experience to other people or to a computer-code?
? ??? ?
QuoteI´ve learned a lot new basics for my game.
For a person who's spend as much time developing, testing and using the method as you claim you have, I think that's a remarkable remark.
Anyway, I'm glad you learned some basics of your own method...
I have no more comments in this matter. Really.
Regards,
KFS
Here we have two men I respect taking opposing sides. What to do?
Test, of course!
Today I will begin a new and real test of the G.U.T.
I will film it all.
Sam
nolinks://nolinks.livevideo.com/video/AustinSystems/0F623570355A4D35822D362B3D49CE32/20th-century-cat-2004-.aspx (nolinks://nolinks.livevideo.com/video/AustinSystems/0F623570355A4D35822D362B3D49CE32/20th-century-cat-2004-.aspx)
;D ;D[smiley=afro.gif]
Hi KFS,
i didn´t wanna upset you. I thought this smiley :D would let you read as ironic.
I do believe in this strategy and I still do and I´m not ignoring your tests.
I can´t write down what my decisions are made of I´m not that expressiv in English. That could work if the coder would sit next to me and follow my explanations.
I had several quarrels with coders who tried other strategies of me. They present a result. This is ok so far. But I´m always missing the information of what is going on? Why is the result like it is.
I posted two graphs which showed, that 1 chance is always in the lead over a quiet long period.
As I play I register: I´ve lost this crossing 4 times in a row. so I just don´t bet, till it changes to winning again
There are thre possible moves:
it is winning and winning and ...
it is winning losing winning losing winning losing
it is losing and losing and losing and losing.
the first two in mind will keep me winning with my strategy.
when the first starts losing I´m watching it carefully if there is a turn of trend
when the second follows a winning part I presume it falling into a loosing streak
when the second comes from a loosing streak I presume it falling into a winning streak
the third one I´m watching like the first vice versa.
You can probably imagine what these four simple sentences would cost time and energy and errors coding them!
And as I always said: I´m watching what is going on and add these four to make a decision.
But there many other hints I see and follow, most of them in the main Topic.
My problem is not winning with this, my problem is my ability to teach other people.
br
winkel
winkel,
;D You don't upset me the slightest.
Do you really mean that the positive multi-million-spins test you made wasn't run on a computer?
Done by hand?
:o
How many cycles of 37 spins were there?
/KFS
At some point you need to listen to what others have to say on this forum. Even if you don't like what they have to say.
When I told you this system didn't stand a chance of working you should have actually read why I said that it was destined to fail.
Long ago, other people had traveled down this path before you. Rather than insulting them, you should try and build on their knowledge.
Trying the same methods over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity.
this is my result
please read vom left to right
0; 1; >1; came up in 8.9 million 37spin-clusters; 0 hit in next spin; 1 hit; >1 hit; average of numbers to appear; did really appear
all the green sectors are better than they should.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.roulette-board.de%2Fuploads%2Fpost-89-1224521165.png&hash=bf8e431b6c820cde3de7950eb00baaaf3daddbe4)
Hi KFS,
I forgot to explain:
This is only situation spin 37 and the following.
As you remember I said there is difference to the results of a crossing referring to where they appear.
br
winkel
Dear winkel,
First of all: The above table is NOT a test to prove your system.
It is a statistical study using no rules-of-method at all.
But that aside:
The bottom line must be: Is the method MONETARY sound?
Let's look at the row "12 - 13 - 12"
The hit-rate was 32.57% and that is BETTER than the math average of 32.43%...
So you say.
It seems that you bet 12 numbers... That is not according to your own rule to bet the HIGHER number. But that's OK.
I read the table such that this one appeared 26,292 times = 26,292 bets x 12u = 315,504u
As you say that you had 32.57% hits this corresponds to the "8,562" figure...
So you had 8,562 hits x 36u = 308,232u
This is a LOSS of 7,272u or 2.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------
This part of the post is deleted
Please see my next post
/KFS
winkel
Let's to to testing.
Sam
Wonder if I should day this but....
As the outcome depends on decisions made
by the player and since we don't know at
the time of making the decision whether it's
the right one or the wrong one isn't the result
down to luck?
A "full system" shouldn't rely on luck but on
the system rules otherwise the outcome
can't be quantified by any method and
testing with ten players using the same
numbers will produce ten different results.
winkel and All,
The end of my previous post was unnecessary harsh and rude and is now deleted.
A rush of >:D took over-hand - I am sorry for that.
Please accept my apology.
I re-do the end here:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me quote my-self (from my doc "Roulette Probabilities Made Easier" in the Reference Area):
"Do yo bet in units or in per cent?"
;)
Yes, many of your crossings hit better than the math average says but the math average is already down by 2.7%...
This table shows two values: The math average hit-rate in per cent and the hit-rate you need to make 1 unit profit in 37 bets.
For example the 18-numbers bet:
Math average says 48.649% hits in 37 bets as 18/37 = 48.649%
But you need 50.075% hits to make 1u profit in 37 bets and that is calculated like this:
Bet 18u x 37 bets = 666u
Add 1u for the profit = 667u
As each hit gives 36u back we divide 667 by 36 and the result is that 18.528 hits are needed to cover the 37 bets and give 1u profit.
18.528 / 37 = 50.075%
Bet MathAv You Need
---------------------
18 48.649 50.075
17 45.946 47.297
16 43.243 44.520
15 40.540 41.742
14 37.838 38.964
13 35.135 36.186
12 32.432 33.408
11 29.730 30.631
10 27.027 27.853
9 24.324 25.075
8 21.622 22.297
7 18.919 19.520
6 16.216 16.742
5 13.514 13.964
4 10.811 11.186
3 8.108 8.404
2 5.405 5.631
1 2.703 2.853
The differences between your results and what you need are too big to overcome.
Especially when you also include the results that hit less than the math average - the positive ones simply cannot make up for the bad ones...
And give a profit.
Not even 1u in 37 bets.
Too bad, really.
KFS
PS.
The table for a 37units profit in 37 bets is ... deterrent.
Quote from: winkel on October 20, 2008, 01:41:32 PM
There are thre possible moves:
it is winning and winning and ...
it is winning losing winning losing winning losing
it is losing and losing and losing and losing.
the first two in mind will keep me winning with my strategy.
when the first starts losing I´m watching it carefully if there is a turn of trend
when the second follows a winning part I presume it falling into a loosing streak
when the second comes from a loosing streak I presume it falling into a winning streak
the third one I´m watching like the first vice versa.
br
winkel
Winkel,
This is the exact information I was looking for when I asked you a few days ago of the "best times to bet," in your experience of testing.
This is what I was looking for. I will try this and see if it makes a difference.
KFS,
I understand what you are saying. But what about this. You start playing a session, I have played some sessions now and in almost all sessions I was @ +15-30 units. Than I kept playing to end the session (50 spins) and saw my BR drop down to break even, win some or loose.
What happens when we play our sessions and quit when we are up. Would that have influence on the outcome of our play?
Hi JHM,
I really think you should address all your questions regarding winkel's method to winkel.
Regards,
KFS
Quote from: JHM on October 21, 2008, 01:42:52 PM
What happens when we play our sessions and quit when we are up. Would that have influence on the outcome of our play?
the rules for this test: stopp at >+39
br
winkel
Quote from: winkel on October 22, 2008, 09:04:31 AM
Quote from: JHM on October 21, 2008, 01:42:52 PM
What happens when we play our sessions and quit when we are up. Would that have influence on the outcome of our play?
the rules for this test: stopp at >+39
br
winkel
When you say stop at +39, then you would restart of back track and begin again correct?
QuoteWhat happens when we play our sessions and quit when we are up. Would that have influence on the outcome of our play?
It would have no effect.
In the long run, this system will still lose.
Quote from: Herb on October 22, 2008, 03:22:58 PM
QuoteWhat happens when we play our sessions and quit when we are up. Would that have influence on the outcome of our play?
It would have no effect.
In the long run, this system will still lose.
How abouth this. Don't play progression. Just play your sessions like you would normally. When you have lost a few times and down like -13-13-10-10 (total -46). Start a new game and bet 2 units (estimate the situation yourself). You're not playing a progression, but just raise a new flat bet / bet situation. It seem that the G.U.T. with winkel's rules (stop after 2 loss, depending on the total nr's.) never losses much bet situations following up.
--- Edit ---
;)
KFS
Because:
- There was a time when quotes didn't exist (years ago). Than quotes came, and in times it has become a habit (speaking for myself here).
- For others who join the topic and are not following the topic it is easier to read (again I'm speaking for myself).
- Some people don't quote when they reply to post which is not directly up. It's confusing.
Why quote not, it surely doesn't kill somebody :)
---- Edit ----
Address all your questions regarding USING winkel's method to winkel.
He's got a thread for that.
If you want help calculating the true loss in units in his proof-of-positive-ending, posted above, I can help you with that.
/KFS
Edit.
Thank you for the calculations offer.
---- Edit ----
I'll have the calculations ready by tomorrow.
KFS
Forget the argue, it's misunderstood. Sorry for that.
That would be very nice KFS. The help is appreciated :)
KFS as for the calculations, this is my thought
Start a session bet flat 1 units p. number.
Session(50 spins) ends positive, start next session and bet 1 units again.
When session ends negative start new session and bet 2 units
Session ends end positive, start next session and bet 1 units again.
When session ends negative, start new session and bet 3 units
Session ends end positive, start next session and bet 1 units again.
All bets per session are flat bets.
Etc. etc.
Do this up to 10 unit's p. number.
I hope this is clear and you can calculate this, would be great :)
KFS
OK, you hit the proverbial nail on the head. This quote within a quote within a quote is annoying. People, you can edit quotes. You can also put your words in a the quote to make it look like the poster said it. What's that all about? A quote is a separate statement from yours. If you want to make a point and you want to use the poster's words, just erase everything but the pertinent line.
As a second-hand administrator, if I get one PM complaint from any member about a quote that is written in, I will delete that post until it is fixed. I've said before, write outside or below or to the right of the last QUOTE at the bottom. Do NOT write to the left of above it.
It is done and I have let it pass as I know the people doing it have read what I said and don't want to follow my guidelines. I did not delete their posts as I got no complaints and it would have been acknowledging their little dig.
One PM complaint from one member and I'll delete every post with writing inside the quote!
Fair enough?
Sam
Quote from: Kon-Fu-Sed on October 23, 2008, 07:42:44 AM
A PIG FLEW OVER MY HOUSE!! The K man did not say that. It's a "lie quote". This is writing inside the quotes.
This is outside!
Don't always believe quotes.
Or anything else....
Sam
Dear JHM,
QuoteForget the argue,
Forget what argue???
;)
Regarding the calculations I offered you:
What you ask for now is calculations USING the method but for several reasons I cannot not do that.
winkel is far better suited.
I offered to calculate the results in units, for winkel's "proof-of-positive-ending" that he posted above, because it lacks that IMO vital information.
At least he said "
this is my result" when he posted the table...
(The table is in Reply #23 on page 2 in this thread)
As he also said: "
[highlight]all the green sectors are better than they should[/highlight]", I will
only calculate the [highlight]green[/highlight] ones:
5-27- 5: Bet 5u x 29 = -145u, Won 36u x 4 = +144u ==> Net: -1u
5-28- 4: Bet 5u x 22 = -110u, Won 36u x 4 = +144u ==> Net: +34u
6-25- 6: Bet 6u x 310 = -1,860u, Won 36u x 53 = +1,908u ==> Net: +48u
7-23- 7: Bet 7u x 1,980 = -13,860u, Won 36u x 376 = +13,536u ==> Net: -324u
7-24- 6: Bet 7u x 2,313 = -16,191u, Won 36u x 446 = +16,056u ==> Net: -135u
8-21- 8: Bet 8u x 7,317 = -58,536u, Won 36u x 1,624 = +58,464u ==> Net: -72u
8-22- 7: Bet 8u x 12,930 = -103,440u, Won 36u x 2,871 = +103,356u ==> Net: -84u
9-20- 8: Bet 9u x 46,436 = -417,924u, Won 36u x 11,330 = +407,880u ==> Net: -10,044u
10-17-10: Bet 10u x 32,680 = -326,800u, Won 36u x 8,835 = +318,060u ==> Net: -8,740u
10-18- 9: Bet 10u x 109,235 = -1,092,350u, Won 36u x 29,531 = +1,063,116u ==> Net: -29,234u
11-15-11: Bet 11u x 36,489 = -401,379u, Won 36u x 10,962 = +394,632u ==> Net: -6,747u
11-16-10: Bet 11u x 166,722 = -1,833,924u, Won 36u x 49,612 = +1,786,032u ==> Net: -47,892u
12-13-12: Bet 12u x 26,292 = -315,504u, Won 36u x 8,562 = +308,232u ==> Net: -7,272u
12-14-11: Bet 12u x 167,485 = -2,009,812u, Won 36u x 54,339 = +1,956,204u ==> Net: -53,608u
14-12-11: Bet 12u x 430,143 = -5,161,716u, Won 36u x 139,594 = +5,025,384u ==> Net: -136,332u
15-11-11: Bet 11u x 358,612 = -3,944,732u, Won 36u x 107,135 = +3,856,860u ==> Net: -87,872u
15-15- 7: Bet 15u x 14,336 = -215,040u, Won 36u x 5,848 = +210,528u ==> Net: -4,512u
16- 5-16: Bet 16u x 39 = -624u, Won 36u x 25 = +900u ==> Net: +276u
16-11-10: Bet 11u x 187,105 = -2,058,155u, Won 36u x 55,735 = +2,006,460u ==> Net: -51,695u
16-15- 6: Bet 16u x 505 = -8,080u, Won 36u x 228 = +8,208u ==> Net: +128u
16-16- 5: Bet 16u x 23 = -368u, Won 36u x 10 = +360u ==> Net: -8u
17- 3-17: Bet 17u x 1 = -17u, Won 36u x 1 = +36u ==> Net: +19u
Totals for the GREEN (good) bets only:
The total bet was 17,980,567u.
The total number of bets were 1,601,004 giving an average bet of 11.2308 units or numbers / bet.
The total number of hits were 487,125 hits, and that is
+2.00SD (Standard Deviation calc'd on 11.2308-numbers bets).
Probability predicts 484,216 - 487,706 hits and the math average is 485,960.9655 hits (for 11.2308-numbers bets).
The total loss was 444,067u =
-2.4697% of the total bet.
To be only
29u positive -
smallest possible - there was a need of an
additional 12,336 hits...
Good Luck JHM, and all.
Really.
Sorry KFS
i totally failed to argue my list.
I didn´t say that these crossings are the "ever-best"
I just wanted to say and failed:
There is always a fluctuation:
some crossings are winning
some are losing
some lose and win and lose and win
This is also in the long run to see.
These periods of wining and losing streaks are watchable and you can play on (or play not)
In a test like you did you collect all streaks wining and losing.
with my players Intelligence I try to avoid the losing ones.
Therefore we do following: check the Table to play on.
take the last 10 days, check crossings
take the last day (11th) check crossings
result: crossing x-x is winning in both : bet
result: crossing y-y is winning and yesterday it is losing (bet carefully!)
result: crossing z-z is losing in both : don´t bet
result: crossing a-a is losing and yesterday winning (bet carefully!)
works only at casinos like CC or Wiesbaden (and any other Casinos that give the spins of the day)
br
winkel
winkel,
So now we have to also use
yesterday's results when we
gamble today?
Is that what you mean?
Have you mentioned it somewhere in your GUT-thread?
How did you do that in your 10,000,000 spins test that ended in positive?Wasn't the table you posted at page 2 the results of that test?
If not: Why did you post the table and say:
Quote[highlight]this is my result[/highlight]
please read vom left to right
0; 1; >1; came up in 8.9 million 37spin-clusters; 0 hit in next spin; 1 hit; >1 hit; average of numbers to appear; did really appear
[highlight]all the green sectors are better than they should.[/highlight]
So what if they turn up more than they should as long as they LOSE MONEY?
What was the purpose of posting that table?Can you please show us ONE piece of proof that your method ends up positive?
So far you have ONLY shown proof of the opposite.
QuoteI didn´t say that these crossings are the "ever-best"
Why didn't you post your "ever-best" crossings, then? Only ONE SINGLE ONE...
It must surely be the ones to use in your method - right?
Have you shown them in your GUT-thread (or somewhere else, maybe)?
If not: Are you going to? When?
If you have done a proper test (or a statistical study, for that matter) it cannot possibly take a lot more space to post than the results of my tests - like the tables on the first page in this thread. There simply are not more situations/triggers to show...
I, for one, think it would be really interesting to see those results-tables.
One thing though: Please include bets, hits and nets
calculated in units - as that is what is put on the table.
Why do you always post proof that your method is losing and not the winning proof you claim to have?
Regards,
KFS
PS.
Everyone watch out this weekend!
I will give you my "
Brick-and-Mortar GUT-tracker"
Yes; a tracker to use inside casinos and they will ALLOW IT!
(Actually: They provide it... ;))
let me explain it with this
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.roulette-board.de%2Fuploads%2Fpost-89-1224073862.png&hash=577ad71803aa72f30caada7d17406cd2adfe42ab)
this is the crossing only at one single position at spin 37 only
we start with any bet 0vs or 1vs>1 and control L/W
at about the 10th bet we see that "1"s win and go betting steady on this crossing
at about bet 20 we notice losing and better performance of 0vs1
til spin 55 we have a win-loss-win-loss-win-loss situation we don´t mind about but are carefully watching
then the "1" are performing better so we change to them.
at bet 79 the "0" cross the "1" and we start betting them
so we go on analysing every single crossing we only bet crossings with a trend of rising or sideways.
by a harddisk corruption I lost all my datas so I can´t post the list of test-results.
I only can lead people to the way of playing it, but I cannot start with confusing lists of datas to be watched, I have to start with the simple steps of betting:
bet a crossing
watch what´s going on.
also you can´t carry books of lists to the casino and check every possible data, you wouldn´t be able to bet. therefore you need a "feeling" for whats going on.
br
winkel
winkel,
Quoteby a harddisk corruption I lost all my datas so I can´t post the list of test-results.
In Reply #98 in your own thread you said:
QuoteThe data is not even on my computer it is the result of a test [highlight]done by three different computer-freaks[/highlight]
Please ask them... All three haven't had hard-drive crashes, have they?
Maybe they can re-run the test for you?
Was that a [highlight]test of your method-rules[/highlight] or was it a [highlight]statistical study[/highlight] of fixed situations - like the table you posted above?
*** If it was a test, you HAVE defined rules, for the program, that give a positive result - but you say you cannot.
*** If it was a statistical study I can do that anytime, but you claim above that it cannot show a positive result...
But you claim that the test ended in 163,345u positive...
::)
But tell me, please, what I asked above:
What was so special with the green-marked triggers in your table that you had to tell us about them?
And why can't we see the figures for your "ever-best" triggers?
Regards,
KFS
PS.
The Brick-and-Mortar GUT-tracker is developing nice...
When I'm losing, I feel like brick and mortar is in my gut!
Can't wait to see this creation, KFS!
Sam
Soon - it's on it's way...
You're going to laugh!
But it's no joke...
KFS
Quote from: Kon-Fu-Sed on October 24, 2008, 09:01:40 AM
But tell me, please, what I asked above:
What was so special with the green-marked triggers in your table that you had to tell us about them?
And why can't we see the figures for your "ever-best" triggers?
Hi KFS,
there is nothing special with that triggers. The green marks just show that there are always some triggers that appear more often than others.
And please notice: this is not constantly. some of the green might have turned to losing. some of the not marked might have turned to winning.
When you look at the my charts you will see there are long streaks of winning or losing. I bet or don´t when the trend is turning.
Maybe the double-crossing-possibility is not clear enough so I will give another chart with a single opportunity:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fnolinks.roulette-board.de%2Fuploads%2Fpost-36-1201389191.jpg&hash=feab9410deea2108d6f788264ddfde07fdb749b8)
this is crossing 14 14 9 at position spin 37
as you see a bet on R or "0" is losing constantly: conclusion: I dont bet this crossing on spin 38
this you can easily repeat on every crossing at any position.
br
winkel
winkel,
I think you are a strange person...
When you posted the table, you wrote:
Quote[highlight]this is my result[/highlight]
please read vom left to right
0; 1; >1; came up in 8.9 million 37spin-clusters; 0 hit in next spin; 1 hit; >1 hit; average of numbers to appear; did really appear
[highlight]all the green sectors are better than they should[/highlight].
Now you write:
Quotethere is nothing special with that triggers.
So; as a reply to me you post an essentially useless / worthless table...
I find that a bit strange...
Please answer:
Was your 10,000,000 spins test that ended positive 163,345u...
... a [highlight]test of your method-rules[/highlight] or was it...
... a [highlight]statistical study of fixed situations[/highlight] - like the table you posted above?
*** If it was a rules-test, you have defined rules for the program, that give a positive result -
but you say you cannot because of human decisions...
*** If it was a statistical study I can do that anytime, but you claim above that it
cannot show a positive result...
But you claim that the test ended in 163,345u positive...
How did you come to that figure?
(And what about your "ever-best" triggers - will you ever reveal them?)
Have a nice weekend,
I really have to log-out now.
KFS
Quote... a statistical study of fixed situations - like the table you posted above?
more or less it has been this.
The way it was done I tried to explain above. sorry if I couldn´t express what I mean. My brains are damaged by illnes.
Quote(And what about your "ever-best" triggers - will you ever reveal them?)
see my try above: there is no "ever best" there are only long streaks of winning or losing.
br
winkel
:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\'(Winkel sorry to burst your bubble,but this method doesn't beat the house edge,IF you where to bet after a hit ,this may help a little.I can justify my claim as I tested this method many moons ago, and I still have a similar code,It was discussed over at V.I.P.and coded as Hitters v's Sleeper's.I would suggest you retry and use after a hit rather than having no entry point and changing your mind to fit the curve good luck -You'll need it. :-[
Hi rev,
statements like yours I love most.
1. I don´t bet after a hit. This may happen but it´s accidently.
2. What did you test? the G.U.T? I bet you didn´t
3. I´m convinced you´re not knowing what we talk about.
4. Hitters vs sleepers is what I did a revolution on. I put in a third kind of watched signature
Please read first the topic and then you´re comments are welcome.
br
winkel
Hi Winkel -I tested 18 numbers unhit against 18 numbers that hit-bet selection =before a hit,You call it a cross over??I have looked at Kon fu's explanation an it's clear enough, he does'nt dress a method up in fancy type .There's no advantage here Infact no one here can offer a half descent betting opportunity .you can say your approach is different but we both know the result's keep stringing them on.lol ;D
Quote from: rev on October 25, 2008, 08:16:26 PM
Hi Winkel -I tested 18 numbers unhit against 18 numbers that hit-bet selection =before a hit,You call it a cross over??I have looked at Kon fu's explanation an it's clear enough, he does'nt dress a method up in fancy type .There's no advantage here Infact no one here can offer a half descent betting opportunity .you can say your approach is different but we both know the result's keep stringing them on.lol ;D
Just another pain in the ass. Why don´t you go back to V.I.P (and please take herb with you)
Than you can tell each other every day and every minute that nothings gonna beat the house-edge.
no regards
winkel,
You wrote:
Quote
sorry if I couldn´t express what I mean. My brains are damaged by illnes.
PLEASE take all the time you need to express yourself clearly - should you decide give a reply.
It's always better to give a clear answer after a while, than a blurry and quick one.
[highlight]
There is no hurry[/highlight] - I will not nag at you.
You wrote:
Quote
The way it was done I tried to explain above.
Where are you trying to explain how to end a computerized test in positive?
I think there are only three posts that can be in question...
Do you mean in reply #20?
You say that there are THREE POSSIBLE moves W-W..., W-L-W-L-W-L and L-L-L-L.
I thought there was an almost infinite number...
That cannot even be remotely regarded as an attempt for an explanation of how to end a test in positive figures. Can it?
Or maybe in reply #48?
There is a diagram of some sort (showing one particular session, I think) and you also say that you have lost the test-result data.
Do you use the ONE-session diagram to show how the 10,000,000 test could end positive?
No explanation in there. Or?
Can it be reply #52?
You show another diagram, now of one single crossing and also say that the "green" triggers in the table you posted may turn into losing triggers...
So I guess you just want to show that the trigger in this diagram ALSO can become a losing trigger...
But that's not an explanation ... I think...?
You claim that it is possible to end positive... But no explanation of HOW... That I can find...
You gave me the "clinical rules" that you have [highlight]claimed several times will end positive[/highlight].
But it didn't in any of the four tests - and you said:
Quote
what did you expect? [highlight]that I tell straight away it will lose?[/highlight]
So you know that the clinical way is a long-term loser, then...?____________________________
You say that you have lost your test-results due to a hard-drive crash...But you DO post a lot of data in tables and diagrams - do they come from
OTHER TESTS then...?
And you say that the table above, with the green triggers, was NOT part of the 10,000,000 spins test that ended 163,345u positive.
But to me it seems just like an output from just such a ("more or less") statistical study.
So it seems - at least to me - like you have done
MORE THAN ONE 10,000,000 spins test / statistical study ("more or less").
And so I wonder: Why not simply re-run the POSITIVE test - or ask the three computerfreaks to do it?
I mean; you should do that instead of running NEW and NEGATIVE tests, as [highlight]you know how to come out positive[/highlight]?
And if you have made ONLY ONE TEST I'm really curious about the origin of the table with the green triggers, and why you posted it with the words
"[highlight]
this is my result[/highlight]"
and
"[highlight]
all the green sectors are better than they should[/highlight]",
But when you were told that it was a losing result you changed your mind: It was
no longer your results!
Now all of a sudden it was [highlight]
NOTHING SPECIAL[/highlight]...
____________________________
You say that your positive test was MORE OR LESS a statistical study:How does it differ? Exactly, please.
Please: Take all the time you need to express yourself correctly.
We are NOT in a hurry.Peter (who writes the test-programs for me) has shown you and everyone that he is able to do the test for you.
He is also
willing to do it - if it doesn't end up -2.7%, that is.
So please give a [highlight]TRUE description[/highlight] of how to make a computerized "more or less" statistical 10,000,000 spins study that will
end 163,345u positive.
Or just [highlight]
positive anything[/highlight], unit-wise, would be nice.
Again: Please, take all the time you need to express yourself correctly.
____________________________
But honestly - this is my GUT-feeling about all this:There is no 10,000,000 spins "more or less" statistical study that really [highlight]ends 163,345u positive[/highlight], if calculated correctly.
The 163,345u-figure comes from a [highlight]miscalculation[/highlight] of a statistical study you made in Excel and posted a part of above ([highlight]the "green-trigger" table[/highlight]).
When you found that some of the hit% - the ones you marked green - [highlight]were above average[/highlight] you got happy and excited.
Due to this excitement you simply forgot that "[highlight]
hit above average in %[/highlight]" doesn't always means "[highlight]
give a positive net result in units[/highlight]".
And so you calculated the NET WINS for the EXCESS HITS (there's the miscalculation) and ended up [highlight]+163,345u[/highlight].
And because of this, you actually believed that you had a winning method.
(Yes; I really think so, because I don't think you're a bad person)Because of your excitement over the positive net, coupled with your belief, you just forgot to run it on another sample and make tests of rules.
That would explain why the "clinical rules" failed in all of my four long-term tests.
Only after I showed that the %-winning (green) triggers were losing units-wise, you actually re-ran the Excel-sheet and found out the truth.
And that would explain why you suddenly changed your mind about the table from being "[highlight]
my result[/highlight]" to being "[highlight]
nothing special[/highlight]".
So this is my conclusion after the last few weeks in this GUTter:You have NO method that WILL end correctly programmed, 10,000,000 spins, "more or less" statistical studies [highlight]
anywhere in the positive.[/highlight]
Let alone the
+163,345u you claim.
And you know it.
[highlight]But you actually DIDN'T know it before October 20.[/highlight]
(Yes; I really think so, because I don't think you're a bad person)If you, on the other hand, show such a method and prove my conclusion wrong I hereby, as everyone can see now, promise that in public...
* I will make all apologies due to you
* I will take back every negative word I've said to and about you
* I will take back the conclusion I made after the test (at page 1)
* I will of course take back the conclusion I made above
* I will acknowledge everything you've said about your method
* And I will - if you allow me - be your #1 supporter, showing in count-less examples and tests that you are correct
Until then, I have nothing to add regarding this "
look at independent numbers being distributed" method.
And I will not.
So if the method isn't shown, this is
my absolutely last post regarding this GUT-testing matter - don't expect a reply to anything but that.
[highlight]
Everything I have to say is already said.[/highlight]
(Twice, I think)
Take all the time you need, winkel.KFS
KFS,
I don't think there is even one system that stay up in a 1.000.000> test. Why? Because the table odds don't allow it.
Does this make the game of Roulette impossible to beat?
Hello,
I had a question and I think you will probably have the greatest insight anywhere.
Might it be possible for you to see how many times a street does not appear over 55 spins in a 1 million spin cycle? I have found some data and the longest stretch a street has not appeared was 120 spins in 1 million spins. I am trying to discover how many times it went over 55 spins in the 1 million spin cycle.
Would you be able to run a test for this?
Thank you very much for your time and hope I may hear from you. . . . .
I have been able to reproduce the numbers that have been posted on this thread to prove that this is a wrong tree to bark at.
If you can't follow the instructions provided. You should keep things to yourself.
Well for those who really understand and are working at it, will know that this can only be programmed to prove the theory wrong.
I am willing to sit down with anyone and go over the same amount of number's one by one(spin by spin), and we will come out ahead to an amount that we will shake our heads.
We might not even have reached the first 100,000 and covered the losses produced on this thread.