I'll explain what I mean by that in case anybody doesn't already understand.
A lot of systems are designed around "rare events" such as a number not appearing for 100 spins then betting that number, or a street repeating 10 times so we bet all of the other streets, etc, etc.
But, I got to thinking, how many of these "rare events" actually matter. I mean, in Poits 12 million RNG test, every number over the course of those 12 million spins slept at one point for over 400 spins.
The only "rare event" that I can think of that is worth designing a system around is a lot of numbers coming out in a set of 37 spins without a repeat, because the one rule that we all know a roulette wheel will always obey is in 37 spins you won't ever see 37 different numbers come out. So, like a system I recently posted, you wait until in 16 spins only 16 numbers come out (no repeats) and then start betting on those 16 numbers until a repeat appears. Obviously a repeat may not appear until spin 30 or spin 33 but one will come out eventually.
So, what are everybodys thoughts on what other "rare events" if any (and discounting the one I already mentioned is also up for discussion) are worth designing a system around?
QuoteSo, like a system I recently posted, you wait until in 16 spins only 16 numbers come out (no repeats) and then start betting on those 16 numbers until a repeat appears. Obviously a repeat may not appear until spin 30 or spin 33 but one will come out eventually.
So, what are everybodys thoughts on what other "rare events" if any (and discounting the one I already mentioned is also up for discussion) are worth designing a system around?
There aren't any rare events that you can exploit. This is called "gambler's fallacy".
Quote from: Herb on June 16, 2009, 03:12:18 AM
There aren't any rare events that you can exploit. This is called "gambler's fallacy".
So you're of the opinion that it is totally possible (and just as likely) for 37 different numbers to come out in 37 spins as, say, 2/3rds of them?
Just to make it clear Herb, I value your opinion and I am in no way starting an argument. I am absolutely open to being corrected. I've read a lot of the threads you've started and threads you have put in your two cents on. So please, do not take what I just said as a defensive comment. It is merely a question.
@rjeaton >>> Not a bad concept but of course the specifics of it are a bit more of a challenge. "Gamblers fallacy" is over rated, pay no attention. People love hiding behind that catch phrase, it makes them FEEL the power between their toes. Its a PHRASE, nothing more, it caught on decades ago in the gambling world and is still hip. Its NO different than if someone sneezes.....what do you say to that person? Its a phrase bro, nothing more. Ken
Quote from: rjeaton1 on June 16, 2009, 03:22:54 AMSo you're of the opinion that it is totally possible (and just as likely) for 37 different numbers to come out in 37 spins as, say, 2/3rds of them?
Rj, my friend, math-wise, the sequence 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 is as likely.
"Gambler's fallacy" players work in the assumption they won't see some sequences over others while they are alive. They aren't immortals, hence they discard some sequences to be seen in their lifetime (fallaciously, agreed). For instance, 50 reds in a row, or -yes- 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
If you device a method for which the above sequence make it lose, then as a "gambler's fallacy" player you can bet fairly confident you may not lose in a lifetime.
A math guru will be just as wary as with any other method as he will constantly fear after every "1", the wheel will throw 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 towards him.
Now imagine a system which "beats infinity" (0.00000000000000000000000000000001% positive edge, guaranteed to beat infinity with 100% certainty), but in practice has such horrible drawdowns that make it unplayable at casino conditions with real table limits.
Math gurus will bet that system instead of what Mr. J is doing...
Good point Vic and I am NOT starting crap with this again. lol I'm only saying, the "gamblers fallacy" term is nothing more than a couple catchy words, thats all it is. If I had to GUESS, I would say in the last 18-24 months of my profits, 80% came from gamblers fallacy. So, I am either lying about it or its true but how can that be explained? Or, 80% of pure luck. I have NEVER got into the BS of 12 reds hit, now its time for a black. Are my ideas similar? Yes, but nothing even close to red/black. Ken
Another thing rjeaton >>> I started a thread a while back in terms of "event betting". I study the concept to this day........ EVENTS, which are not the same as gamblers fallacy or furthest back etc. If we made a list, we can come up with a few examples of events that *WILL* 100% happen. The big problem (obviously) is WHEN! Ken
Why is it that the less someone knows about mathematics and gambling, the more certain they are that all mathematicians and all of the encyclopedias are wrong? Especially when it pertains to gambler's fallacy? LOL. :)
Back at ya >>> why is it when a person cant win playing roulette but someone else does (not everytime) throwing around the term "gamblers fallacy" makes them FEEL better in their tummy? ROFL If you dont win, DO NOT blame me for it, its not my fault. Ken
To be 100% *FAIR*........ I win and I dont know if you win or lose, I have no idea. I have a good guess but no evidence. Ken
Quote from: Mr J on June 20, 2009, 02:59:49 PM
Another thing rjeaton >>> I started a thread a while back in terms of "event betting". I study the concept to this day........ EVENTS, which are not the same as gamblers fallacy or furthest back etc. If we made a list, we can come up with a few examples of events that *WILL* 100% happen. The big problem (obviously) is WHEN! Ken
I'm going to see if I can find that thread Mr. J, it seems as though you and I are thinking along the same lines. I too haven't ever played the "12 reds bet black things". All my systems rely on inside number bets, but as of late, I've been incorporating "events" into when/why I bet.
For instance, I wrote an RXtreme file that bet the following way (it failed miserably, but there ended up being a HUGE upside...read on to hear what)
The system was as follows:
Track 3 spins of the wheel. If in those 3 spins only 2 numbers came out (one number doubled) like this: 1,1,21 or 1,30,1 or 30,1,1 (you get the idea)
then bet EVERY number on the table except for those two numbers. Want to know what happened (as if you couldn't guess)...miserable failure.
It would win roughly 30 times in a row, then fail, then work 30 times, then fail, etc.
The upside I mentioned earlier, was that the event of only 2 numbers coming out in 4 spins was a relatively "likely" event.So, I re-wrote the .DGT file to track 3 spins and only bet when the aforementioned event happened, but instead of on the un-hit numbers, bet on the hit numbers (using a progression of course, as only betting on two numbers, the progression required isn't terrible at all).
Now what did I have? A GREAT success. Seriously...it's a great system....try it out yourself. As you and I have both said/agreed on, it's just a pain not knowing WHEN the event will happen.
The making of a list you mentioned Mr. J....I think I like that idea...
Quote from: VLSroulette on June 20, 2009, 02:33:25 PM
Rj, my friend, math-wise, the sequence 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 is as likely.
"Gambler's fallacy" players work in the assumption they won't see some sequences over others while they are alive. They aren't immortals, hence they discard some sequences to be seen in their lifetime (fallaciously, agreed). For instance, 50 reds in a row, or -yes- 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
If you device a method for which the above sequence make it lose, then as a "gambler's fallacy" player you can bet fairly confident you may not lose in a lifetime.
A math guru will be just as wary as with any other method as he will constantly fear after every "1", the wheel will throw 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 towards him.
Now imagine a system which "beats infinity" (0.00000000000000000000000000000001% positive edge, guaranteed to beat infinity with 100% certainty), but in practice has such horrible drawdowns that make it unplayable at casino conditions with real table limits.
Math gurus will bet that system instead of what Mr. J is doing...
Glad to have your input on the subject Victor! I totally understand that "math wise" I will find it an impossible to find something that isn't more likely than another...or vice versa.
It's just funny how sentences (when being explained by somebody who stands firmly on the grounds of math) end sentences with, "sure it can happen, you just might not ever see it in your lifetime". Well, I understand that it is totally possible for me to lose playing the system that relys on betting against an event "that I might not ever see in my lifetime". But...if I might not ever see it in my lifetime, why not bet against that event?
It seems betting that way certainly makes more sense than betting against an event that "I'm guaranteed to see in my lifetime" (2 reds in a row for instance).
Just to make it a little clearer, I'm not saying I'm looking for events that won't ever happen, as I understand that I "mathematically" cannot find one. I'm saying I'm looking for events that are "smarter" bets than others.
@Herb >>> again, this gamblers fallacy thing you talk about is....new to me, please explain. lol I have drastically changed my style over the last 6 months or so. Yes, still incorporating SOME of my older ideas but with a "twist" (not sure what to call it?) One person knows of my latest "idea" and it is doing VERY WELL !!! I dont think it is gamblers fallacy (I laugh when I type those 2 words) because I need a SOLID definition of what it is. Feel free to slam me for a while, I'm off to the movies. Ken
also Herb, please understand I'm not arguing with you. I understand from a mathmatics point of view what you're saying.
But, I'm speaking from a realistic point of view. I mean, you and I both know that if we saw 33 different numbers come out, we would bet on those 33 numbers.
Well, I could be wrong about what you would bet actually, but I know that I would bet on those 33 numbers and I very likely would win (again, from a mathmatics point view this is incorrect) but from my experience it is a good bet. As I've analyzed over 5 million spins using that program Tangram made for me and still haven't seen 37 different numbers in 37 spins. The most I've seen so far is 33.
Arnt table limits there because of this ''Rare events (if any)''
I remember back in the early days saying right what are the odds of seeing 12 spins with all 12 streets appeared..I didnt know the odds but I jumped in when I seen 9 spins with 9 streets appeared betting the 9 streets lost,,,,,more chips on the 10streets now lost again,,,,,, betting all my bankroll on the 11 streets and I lost again it hit the unhit street.....SO I HAD 12 SPINS WITH 12 STREETS APPEARED.
MAYBE.... if we wait for the RARE EVENT TO STOP then bet for that rare event not to happen again any time soon. ???
what im trying to say is the table limits seem to kill all our ''gambers fallacy'' ideas
regards
mattjono
If you play any system or method that involves tracking past spins looking for sequences/triggers it is fallacious and therefore incorporates some element of the fallacy. Anyone who says otherwise must be able to fire thunderbolts out of his ass. If you're looking for a specific set of fixed circumstances or events, then bet with them or against them you are a system player and know nothing about randomness, because if you did you'd know those circumstances aren't always going to go in your favour. That's why systems fail. It's a simple fact that most people are desperate enough to ignore....hell, some people even argue that it's a bunch of BS. Doubtless nearly everyone uses a progression, which means the system is actually a time bomb. You might win 99 session in 100, but the one you lose (when you get inevitably BULLDOZED by the randomness, wipes out everything). Situational betting is more effective as it's constricted by less rules than a system and doesn't rely on x or y, but it's still fallacious - that doesn't mean, though, that you can't become a proficient tactical bettor and win consistently.
QuoteArnt table limits there because of this ''Rare events (if any)''
No, the table limits are there to protect the casino against cheating. It protects the casino from a single high bet where the player/dealer could cheat. It is most certainly NOT in place to prevent up as you lose system players from winning.
RJ, listen.
There is an "ethereal infinite sample" on which every possible numerical sequence is realized... a sequence of 1000 reds in a row? No problem, it is there at the ethereal infinite numerical sample. All the combinations are in fact assumed to be realized there at such level...
Also, there are "worldwide" actuals, which are those limited to the ones experienced since the wheel is spinning in our planet.
Our world record may not be at 1000 reds in a row simply because there are not enough played spins yet, in fact, worldwide record can very well be at less than 40 reds in a row.
And now the set of actuals that matters the most: The one belonging to the player. A single player's personal record may not even reach 20 reds in a row... Such a single player can be betting the martingale his whole life after 10 in a row and end up in profit. My point?
You only need to beat YOUR personal set of actuals. You do not need to "beat the world" nor "beat infinity" to be profitable ... All that matters is what happens in the actual numerical sample you experience with your real money bets. This is limited, this isn't forever. We bettors are mortals and hence are not exposed to infinity and won't see every numerical sequence realized. This is a fact. It is NOT insane to take this as a starting point.
Also, while you can't take infinity to compare against (everything is already realized) you CAN (and frankly should) guide by worldwide records: You either win your whole stay on earth or set a new record for the planet :)
Victor is right... forget about the 'ethereal infinite sample'. It has no place in the smallness of real life roulette sessions.
Number six is right... whatever you do, incorporate some randomness circumvention (is that possible?), and initially try and do it without any progression.
Mattjono is right... of course the table limit is there to stop controlled progressions from gaining an edge. We'd all be filthy rich and casinos would all be closed if there were no limits. It could stop cheating too I suppose.
Herb is right... (Within a practical sense) you can't change the math as we know it.
MrJ is right *cough* It is "possible" to turn a blind eye to 'gamblers fallacy' and continue on your merry way to profits, luck will play a part though, guaranteed.
Doubtless nearly everyone uses a progression, which means the system is actually a time bomb.>>>
Most people are part time players. They use a progression and because they are up, money wise, they think gamblers fallacy is a joke or wrong or doesn't apply to them. They have yet to hit those back to back to back losing sessions that wipe out all the profits from the last 30 winning sessions. Its coming, just leave them to their ignorance. Its easy to be optomistic when you don't understand the game your playing and you're winning.
Quote from: Spike on June 20, 2009, 09:32:16 PM
Doubtless nearly everyone uses a progression, which means the system is actually a time bomb.>>>
Most people are part time players. They use a progression and because they are up, money wise, they think gamblers fallacy is a joke or wrong or doesn't apply to them. They have yet to hit those back to back to back losing sessions that wipe out all the profits from the last 30 winning sessions. Its coming, just leave them to their ignorance. Its easy to be optomistic when you don't understand the game your playing and you're winning.
I agree with the fact that progression systems can be time bombs. It has happened to me (I was up over $5,000 in a period of about a week or so...then lost all of it in a day or two plus some of my own money...terrible stuff...)
But, anyway... I urge you take a look at this thread and the post in that thread this link takes you too: nolinks://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=10446.msg66763#msg66763
If you don't feel like reading it all, that's fine with me, I'll go over the point I'm trying to make here.
That system involves progression betting. It has made over 1,000 units in over 100,000 spins with a max drawdown of just over 100 units.
Now, am I going to lose eventually or have the progression busted? More than likely, yes. Which is why there are two safety measures built into that system. They are as follows:
If it goes past 7 bets into the progression it stop betting and tracks new numbers and waits for the next betting opportunity. The next time a betting opportunity arises it starts betting with a newly calculated progression that tries to win back the previous losses from the last lost 7 step progression....HOWEVER, if in those 7 bets it lost more than 200 units the next time a betting opportunity arises it does not try to win back any previous losses.
Also, if it loses more than 200 units BEFORE it has reached the 7 bets in a row it also quits betting and re-tracks new numbers. When the next betting opportunity arises it will not try to win back those previous losses.
So, if you have a consistent winner with a system that involves progression betting that wins more often than it busts a progression, you can come to a "common drawdown" point. At this point you stop the progression and start over again.
The system mentioned in that thread I've linked too has won over 1000 units. I can lose 5 times CONSECUTIVELY and still just end up back where I started in terms of my BR. So, my point is, a progression betting system does not HAVE to end either winning or in a "end of the world" type scenario where you want to leave the casino crying. (as I've unfortunately had to experience...)
Bottomfeeder Bombus as usual is pissed because he cant win, this is his way of venting. He claims *cough* he also wins but sure spends more time on message boards, rather than actually playing. I find that suspicious and odd. Ken
Quote from: VLSroulette on June 20, 2009, 07:59:49 PM
RJ, listen.
There is an "ethereal infinite sample" on which every possible numerical sequence is realized... a sequence of 1000 reds in a row? No problem, it is there at the ethereal infinite numerical sample. All the combinations are in fact assumed to be realized there at such level...
Also, there are "worldwide" actuals, which are those limited to the ones experienced since the wheel is spinning in our planet.
Our world record may not be at 1000 reds in a row simply because there are not enough played spins yet, in fact, worldwide record can very well be at less than 40 reds in a row.
And now the set of actuals that matters the most: The one belonging to the player. A single player's personal record may not even reach 20 reds in a row... Such a single player can be betting the martingale his whole life after 10 in a row and end up in profit. My point?
You only need to beat YOUR personal set of actuals. You do not need to "beat the world" nor "beat infinity" to be profitable ... All that matters is what happens in the actual numerical sample you experience with your real money bets. This is limited, this isn't forever. We bettors are mortals and hence are not exposed to infinity and won't see every numerical sequence realized. This is a fact. It is NOT insane to take this as a starting point.
Also, while you can't take infinity to compare against (everything is already realized) you CAN (and frankly should) guide by worldwide records: You either win your whole stay on earth or set a new record for the planet :)
Yet again Victor, your thoughts are infinitely helpful! ; ;D
I've been trying to come up with a way to word what exactly it was I was trying to get at, and you've hit the nail on the head.
Thanks!
Another point/question that does not get talked about too much...... Lets say my average loss on a progression is $2,800. In the past two months (with my new method) my AVERAGES have been (I'll use 3 visits for example) +$2,500 -- +$3,300, twice and THEN lose $2,800. Yes I know, type your speach again. But Ken, but Ken!!! Just watch, you'll lose it all back. Maybe, but at least I can say I have the balls to play/find out. Can you? (then the funny response back is....."heck no, I wouldn't be that stupid to even try") Thats ok, keep on with the speaches and the quotes from 200 years ago. On this board, I would say maybe 25 posters actually play the game and maybe 8 of those, have the guts to lay their ass on the line. Guys like Herb, Spike, Bottomfeeder Bombus, Number Six ETC ETC ETC ETC, why listen to them? I get nothing out of it. Ken
Maybe, but at least I can say I have the balls to play/find out. Can you?>>>
Thats like saying I jumped off the roof and nothing happened and I have the balls to do it again. It proves nothing. You should enjoy your winnings and quit worrying about it. The math is definately against you and you can't cheat the math forever, thats a fact. Just be aware that what you're doing won't last and be prepared for the correction. Who knows, because you play part time it may take awhile. If you played every day, it would probably be a different story. Lucky streaks have been known to last years if you don't push it.
I like analogies just like you Spike. Not sure if I agree with THAT one but no biggie. Speaking of "worrying". Its funny, some days I could careless about the negative posters and some days it bothers me. I win, I pay bills, nothing fancy about it. Ken
Quote from: rjeaton1 on June 20, 2009, 09:46:02 PM
I agree with the fact that progression systems can be time bombs. It has happened to me (I was up over $5,000 in a period of about a week or so...then lost all of it in a day or two plus some of my own money...terrible stuff...)
But, anyway... I urge you take a look at this thread and the post in that thread this link takes you too: nolinks://vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=10446.msg66763#msg66763
If you don't feel like reading it all, that's fine with me, I'll go over the point I'm trying to make here.
That system involves progression betting. It has made over 1,000 units in over 100,000 spins with a max drawdown of just over 100 units.
Now, am I going to lose eventually or have the progression busted? More than likely, yes. Which is why there are two safety measures built into that system. They are as follows:
If it goes past 7 bets into the progression it stop betting and tracks new numbers and waits for the next betting opportunity. The next time a betting opportunity arises it starts betting with a newly calculated progression that tries to win back the previous losses from the last lost 7 step progression....HOWEVER, if in those 7 bets it lost more than 200 units the next time a betting opportunity arises it does not try to win back any previous losses.
Also, if it loses more than 200 units BEFORE it has reached the 7 bets in a row it also quits betting and re-tracks new numbers. When the next betting opportunity arises it will not try to win back those previous losses.
So, if you have a consistent winner with a system that involves progression betting that wins more often than it busts a progression, you can come to a "common drawdown" point. At this point you stop the progression and start over again.
The system mentioned in that thread I've linked too has won over 1000 units. I can lose 5 times CONSECUTIVELY and still just end up back where I started in terms of my BR. So, my point is, a progression betting system does not HAVE to end either winning or in a "end of the world" type scenario where you want to leave the casino crying. (as I've unfortunately had to experience...)
RJ, I think you partially answered your own question above.
"What Rare Events (If Any) Actually Matter When it Comes to System Designing"
The "rare event" of progression busting corrections actually matter when it comes to system designing.
Quote from: Mr J
I like analogies just like you Spike. Not sure if I agree with THAT one but no biggie. Speaking of "worrying". Its funny, some days I could careless about the negative posters and some days it bothers me. I win, I pay bills, nothing fancy about it. Ken
So according to you a person who has their head screwed on is a negative poster? Don't blame us because you haven't got the mental capacity to see past progressive betting. All you talk about is what is "due", the definition of "due", can something be "due", is the number 14 "due" because it hasn't appeared for 600 spins. Your winning is down to luck. You won a bunch of dollars a few times, then lost a bunch of dollars. You're ahead a bunch of dollars. Take some maths lessons and understand that you're lucky. You haven't got anything special. Your bet selection is flawed and useless, that's why you use a progression. The progression makes you feel secure because the event you're backing is surely "due". And the only time you put your ass on the line is when you preach the nonexistence of gambler's fallacy...oh, and also when you rely on that "due" event to pay your bills. You sound like a degenerate gambler. I wouldn't be surprised if you're an addict. I hope you're not.
"Your bet selection is flawed and useless" >>> You dont even know it. LOL As far as the word "due", I have not used that word in a long time. If you follow along like the third grader I know you are, I prefer to say "more likely to hit" *AND* my new method has NOTHING to do with using past numbers, ALSO which I posted more than once. Dont blame you??? lol I should thank you, not blame you. If it was not for fellas such as yourself, I could not of made some VERY NICE profits. I thank you for that. I need guys like you to post. It helps me MORE than you know. lol I know this coolbreeze >>> For every 3 visits, I am up around around 3K. I go to the casino 2-4 times per week. Average play time is 7-10 hours. I win, you dont. Keep on venting Number Six, we're all here for you bro. ROFL Ken
Another thing for anyone reading........follow the question. What "type" of person do you think would post "bitter" to another poster who is doing well? Think about it, easy answer. Ken
Quote from: bombus on June 20, 2009, 10:54:11 PM
RJ, I think you partially answered your own question above.
"What Rare Events (If Any) Actually Matter When it Comes to System Designing"
The "rare event" of progression busting corrections actually matter when it comes to system designing.
While this is true Bombus, when I asked the question posed in the topic of this thread, I was more referencing what events can we design a system around.
You can't design a system around progression busting corrections until you actually have a system. Then you can work in the corrections for the progression.
I'm more or less asking what "rare events" can we take into account for the initial design of a system. We can work in the rest after that.
"Hmm, you Ken?" >>> Nope, thats funny but try again. Come on, YOU know the answer. Its on the tip of your tongue. LOL Ken
"rare events" <<< Although I agree with you, be careful of your wording. They will drool over what you just posted. Its an easy way for an ATTACK! Sad, but true. Ken
Keep trying Herb. I win and it BUGS the heck out of ya! ROFL Ken
Another thing for anyone reading........follow the question. What "type" of person do you think would post "bitter" to another poster who is doing well? Think about it, easy answer. Ken
I'm sorry Mr. J., but you're not making any sense. I'm guessing alcohol is part of your posting and betting strategy as well.
No one is attacking you, Mr J. Don't be so hypersensitive. You take umbrage when someone disagrees with you and tells you about fallacy, which you are desperate to deny. And you call ME a third grader, whatever that is. I don't need to know your bet selection to understand it's flawed. That is the point. You're lucky. You've got nothing. You deny it. That isn't my problem. So now you're not tracking past spins. Suddenly, what, you're an advantage player? And I'm pretty sure I've got a bigger edge than you, considering that you don't appear to know much about the game.
Attacking? You girls are not much of a challenge for me. I'm not mad or pissed etc. You cant take away my winnings but keep trying, I guess? Let me know how that works out for you. "You've got nothing" >>> You're probably right, my bad. "So now you're not tracking past spins. Suddenly, what, you're an advantage player?" >>> I posted well before today that my NEWER method does NOT track past spins, nice try hotshot. Advantage player? LOL You can file that with gamblers fallacy. "you don't really know anything about the game" >>> I know more than you do and I make (net) more than you. Stuff that in your stockin. Ken
Another thing for anyone reading........follow the question. What "type" of person do you think would post "bitter" to another poster who is doing well? Think about it, easy answer. Ken
No, but I do well. Is it the same as successful? I dont think it is (my opinion), I could be wrong. Its all in the definitions. Ken
Sucks, hey?? >>> For every 3 visits, I am up around around 3K. I go to the casino 2-4 times per week. Average play time is 7-10 hours. No tracking of any numbers. LONG progression is used (2 numbers). Nothing hot, cold or DUE. Ken
I thought you were down 5k in your lifetime of playing? That doesn't sound very successful.
Quote from: Mr J
Sucks, hey?? >>> For every 3 visits, I am up around around 3K. I go to the casino 2-4 times per week. Average play time is 7-10 hours. No tracking of any numbers. LONG progression is used (2 numbers). Nothing hot, cold or DUE. Ken
You're joking?
@Shorty >> If you're gonna quote, do it right bro. My AVERAGE for the last 8 years, down (total) 5K. Year after year, the visits per week varied. The last 18 months (average) I'm *UP* 22K. Those visits are a bit more routine. 2-4 per week. My BASE of different methods is 2-3 in the last 6 months (average). The last 18 months was/is 3-6 methods. Ken
"You're joking?" >>> Why didn't you post that reply like 8 posts back?? Ken
Another thing for anyone reading........follow the question. What "type" of person do you think would post "bitter" to another poster who is doing well? Think about it, easy answer. Ken
Another thing >>> What are the averages for some of the posters here? This is my GUESS, if this is NOT you, I apologize......... 1-2 visits to the casino per MONTH. 2-4 hours of play. Using dollar units. There is NOTHING wrong with those averages but people fall over when I tell them mine. lol You have to understand, I have plenty of cash for playing, plenty of free time. No kids/wife to support, no car payment etc. I live about 20 minutes from the casino. I play like I post and have few worries. If some feel threatened by all that, tough, you'll get over it. Ken
I'm NOT pointing my finger at anybody but....
Let's keep it civil pls guys.....
Ok @ the moment, but we can ALL do without it boiling over....
thanking you in advance.....
"Your bet selection is flawed and useless" >>> You dont even know it.>>
You have a progression and no bet selection, actually. No big deal.
Ever see a plane fly over your house? Know what keeps it in the air? Math. Oh, metal and engines help, but without the proper math, it would not get off the ground. You can't argue with math, it never ever EVER lies. So if what you're doing seems to be beating the math, its an illusion. You're having a lucky streak. And all lucky streaks end.
I'm glad you're winning, Ken, I'm not jealous in the least. But be aware of whats happening, you'll feel better for it.. Its hard to conceptualize it will ever turn on you, but I know you know it will, I can tell by the questions you ask. You think people here HOPE it will, and thats not really true. When you have a bad water heater in your basement, you can tell yourself all day long theres nothing to worry about, but you really know better..
Quote from: rjeaton1 on June 20, 2009, 11:20:12 PM
While this is true Bombus, when I asked the question posed in the topic of this thread, I was more referencing what events can we design a system around.
You can't design a system around progression busting corrections until you actually have a system. Then you can work in the corrections for the progression.
I'm more or less asking what "rare events" can we take into account for the initial design of a system. We can work in the rest after that.
Yes RJ.
That's why I said partially answered. If you are to use them, then progression busting possibilities are important and should be right up there in the design stage.
As for the events you are focusing on, it's very difficult to be specific because there are just so many variables.
I think, worthy of close observation is, how long an event can be sustained, and how close together can similar events occur.
So for argument sake let's say the event is something as simple as,
Game 1) Street 1-3 is dominant after 28 spins.
Game 2) Street 1-3 remains clearly dominant for the next 28 spins.
Game 3) Street 1-3 remains dominant for the next 28 spins.
Game 4) Street 1-3 sleeps for the next 28 spins.
1 street sustaining dominance for 3 game cycles is an event of sorts.
Switching off in game 4 is an event of sorts.
So designing when to jump on an event, and for how long matters.
Game 1 you track, game 2 you bet street 1-3 for a win, game 3 do you continue with the legitimate bet on street 1-3, or do you look for another bet in anticipation of the event switching off?
What would be a similar event to switch on to? Perhaps the second dominant street?
And so on.
Switching mechanisms would be very important for event betting. Make it multi layered event betting with multi layered switching mechanisms.
A lot like a railway system that has a multitude of tracks to shunt between. The more tracks the better.
Food for thought anyway.
Cheers.
Quote from: bombus on June 21, 2009, 02:18:30 AM
Yes RJ.
That's why I said partially answered. If you are to use them, then progression busting possibilities are important and should be right up there in the design stage.
As for the events you are focusing on, it's very difficult to be specific because there are just so many variables.
I think, worthy of close observation is, how long an event can be sustained, and how close together can similar events occur.
So for argument sake let's say the event is something as simple as,
Game 1) Street 1-3 is dominant after 28 spins.
Game 2) Street 1-3 remains clearly dominant for the next 28 spins.
Game 3) Street 1-3 remains dominant for the next 28 spins.
Game 4) Street 1-3 sleeps for the next 28 spins.
1 street sustaining dominance for 3 game cycles is an event of sorts.
Switching off in game 4 is an event of sorts.
So designing when to jump on an event, and for how long matters.
Game 1 you track, game 2 you bet street 1-3 for a win, game 3 do you continue with the legitimate bet on street 1-3, or do you look for another bet in anticipation of the event switching off?
What would be a similar event to switch on to? Perhaps the second dominant street?
And so on.
Switching mechanisms would be very important for event betting. Make it multi layered event betting with multi layered switching mechanisms.
A lot like a railway system that has a multitude of tracks to shunt between. The more tracks the better.
Food for thought anyway.
Cheers.
It's actually pretty funny, I didn't even see the "partially" part. My eyes just saw "I think you've just answered your own question". Sorry about that.
Although, I'm happy I said it, as you've given some very valuable (in my opinion anyway) input. I appreciate you taking the time to type all that out, haha.
It's this kind of thing I was looking for. Any foundation upon which I/we can build upon...good stuff. Thanks again.
another rare event is three in a row. 1.1.1.
@ Pins>> It's actually interesting that you said that. I designed another system around the rare event of three in a row. Although it probably isn't what you'd expect.
You don't bet, only track spins until you see two of the same number come out back to back (I.E. - 23,23). Then, you bet that number.
You'd be surprised at how often 3 in a row actually happens. You can test this sytem out yourself using the .DGT file I uploaded (its in the thread "Ultimate RXtreme .DGT File - Test any inside numbers system you can think of).
The reason that system is successful is because yet again, that is an event that WILL happen...the problem is when.
But, as you're only betting on one number for one spin, until a bet trigger is signaled, the progression is VERY LIGHT on you BR.
It can get pretty steep however, as the gap between one win and another can sometimes go VERY long.
"and no bet selection" >>> Spike, are you asking or telling me this? Ken
End of the day, I think you should be doing the opposite of the obvious.
Build your methods around common events, not rare events.
Rare events are just that, rare, and therefore very sporadic in nature. Unreliable to say the least.
Common events are far more dependable.
A common event could be the ball landing within a 5 or 7 pocket section of the wheel more than once in 5 or 7 spins.
Using continuous tracking would instigate a very fertile betting formula.