Hi guys,
if someone want to test the R8 (Roul-eight system ) I have an excel sheet to show you...
Please for the a programmer that can test this system it seem easy to implement the data I have.
Any volunteer around?
Welcome back mate. :good:
Hello Jimenez. Hello Forumers.
When "somebody" erased, post by post, one by one, your last thread, (it was a monday,weeks ago) I was ready to "upload" my results and my coments.
Unfortunately I can see how the post was erased as the sand goes in our hands.
This is the resum of my tests:
In a overall review, this is a system that plays around 4% of all the possibles grids.
Exactely 387 over 9000 grids tested.
The results of this test gives a grand total of -52 units.... AFTER 9000x8= 72.000 spins !!!
The way I choose to test was in "octets". If a need to stop the tracking in spin 3, p.ex., then I noted also the rest of spins until 8th, and then start a new one.
So I tested in "chunks" of 8 spins long.
The results should be the same if you only discard the 3 first results for the 1st column (if ""prohibited figure appears) or the 6 first results if the figure appears in the 6th spin.
The same if you quit in the 7th spin.
The results should be the same if you took all the stripe and discard each time the first spin, and count the next eight spins as new grid, and so....
If we play columns too, then we can play maybe 8% of the grids. But for worse results...!!!
9.000 Grids on Dozens
we play 220 times one unit, winning 67 times (+134) and losing 153 times (-153)= -19
we play 167 times two units, winning 106 times (+106) and losing 61 times (-122)= -16
= -35 units.
by then the 0 have hitted us 11 times = -16 units
Total= -51 units
We have invested 904 units over the "green"
But if we were started with 100 units, at this moment, after 9.000 grids (72.000 spins) we should have less than the half in our pocket !!!
Jimenez.... hummm...
This is a finite case "space".
The total num. of possibles grids are 19.683, (27)3.
It seams like if we play over (only) the 4% (+/-) of them.
And over them, we win ONLY in 1/3 lossing the 2/3.
For a result (-5,7%) close (but bigger than the expected -5,4%
Jimenez, you maybe have had a lot of look using it, playing it combined with columns and another 12 more virtual grids. I don't know...
But this is not a system than you can said that it wins because you choose a moment to bet in wich the prob. are in your side... Nope
Again. This is a finite space.
The number of grids that goes has you think are in opossition with the ones that do not.
And your (-ive) expectation is the same than any other boring system.
-2,7% on single chances, and -5,4% for the rest.
I think that restart the thread after it was erased it's pointless.
All the best.
Betatester
I spent many many hours testing R-8 and I can tell you it is a worthless system and I could go into the many reasons why this is so as I analyzed it vigorously and tested it extensively, but I won't bother to take the time to do so as I already wasted so much time with it. More disturbing than the fact that it is a worthless system (not unusual) is that it was advertised with false comments as being a very valuable system. So one ends up paying an emotional toll as well as wasting a lot of time (and $, if anyone actually paid $2000 for it), when one is lead to believe that something is very good and valuable and will be quite profitable, when in fact the opposite is true.
I'm sure this post will get deleted, same as last time when I explained in detail the problems with this system and why it is not what it was touted to be, which is why jiminez deleted the whole R-8 thread.
Hello Simon,
Due to complaints, self-moderation of threads was discarded.
Regards.
Quote from: betatester on September 23, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
The way I choose to test was in "octets". If a need to stop the tracking in spin 3, p.ex., then I noted also the rest of spins until 8th, and then start a new one.
So I tested in "chunks" of 8 spins long.
The results should be the same if you only discard the 3 first results for the 1st column (if ""prohibited figure appears) or the 6 first results if the figure appears in the 6th spin.
The same if you quit in the 7th spin.
The results should be the same if you took all the stripe and discard each time the first spin, and count the next eight spins as new grid, and so....
The results should be NOT the same if you took all the stripe and discard each time the first spin, and count the next eight spins as new grid...infact it should be tracked like this..
Quote from: betatester on September 23, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
Jimenez.... hummm...
This is a finite case "space".
The total num. of possibles grids are 19.683, (27)3.
19.683? here we are..they are much less check the excel sheet out..
Quote from: simon on September 23, 2009, 01:34:20 PM
I spent many many hours testing R-8 and I can tell you it is a worthless system and I could go into the many reasons why this is so as I analyzed it vigorously and tested it extensively, but I won't bother to take the time to do so as I already wasted so much time with it.
Please post the results with the permaneces that are on the WEB thanks.
There are tons of permanences on archives so everybody can see..
There is the excel sheet where in some possible grids only we can bet.
excel sheet,
] sorry I have uploaded it twice.
Quote from: jimenez on September 23, 2009, 09:49:34 PM
Please post the results with the permaneces that are on the WEB thanks.
I tested it on my own real spin data and I am not going to waste another minute with it showing what happened, etc. If other people want to spend time with it they can have at it. You don't even know how to test your own system, you think there is some magical starting and ending point when the only way to test the system is to start a new trial on every single spin throughout the spins, which is the way I tested it, because obviously someone could start playing the system at any entry point in the cycle of spins. The system is bogus because the events you think are so unusual don't even occur because you RE-USE four of the outcomes to complete the series. And there are other problems with the system but I am not going to go into it. No one made a lot of money with this system as they falsely claimed-- it's impossible. Anyone that wants to pursue it-- good luck, be my guest.
Hello.
@ Simon, I agree 100% with you :good:
The tests should give the SAME results in real spins, in RNG spins, or in whatever combination of both.
The results would be the SAME i f you count 8 spins at time, or one new spin EVERY TIME, renewing the grid.
The same if you discard the spins sawn until a "prohibited figure appears", in 4th spin, or in 6th spin, or in 7th spin.
EXACTELY THE SAME. >=(-5,4)
Caro Amico, you better change your alias. Jimenez doesn't win a great tournement in years, but he knows how the game he play his made off. He plays regulary well/not so well. That's all.
By instance, the num of possible combinations of 3 elements in a 3x3 grid are 27x27x27=19.683 ways, and they doesn't care if you beleive or not.
All the best.
Betatester
@Betatester, I 'm not agree 100% with you
Quote from: betatester on September 24, 2009, 06:54:17 AM
The results would be the SAME I f you count 8 spins at time, or one new spin EVERY TIME, renewing the grid.
not true from my point of view.
:nono:
Cari amici you should change your nicknames since you think to win at roulette without considering the patterns and the third of law applied at them...
I have posted a system (that it is just an original idea), fully explained and just asked for a program to test it.Tons of informations and you continue to ask more an more..what do you want ..? The money to play it?
I was refering of the num of possible winning combinations of 3 elements in a 3x3 grid that they are much less as shown on that excel sheet..
All the best.
:dance1:
Jimenez
Hello @Jimenez.
"pisha", "cusha"... (my budy, listen...)
Points of view are like ...holes. Everybody have one. You have yours, and I got mine.
1st/ Ok for share your system. Agree with that.
I never publish one, even if this same morning I've tried a "for me" new way to exploit "law of third".
Complex way... much more than yours... well the results (mine) for the "most imaginative way of the week" were -5,4% with his variability. I have tested for myself (My system. My own idea, in 10 min. it was done). Withouth the need of yours instructions or another programmer than my skills.
So I will stay with my "nick". I think it fets me. But I will not share "this morning" sytem (mine) with the forumers because I don't like to have spend the time to the people with pompous titulars threads, don't spend much time on it (even mine over the other's).
2nd/at last you provide to the forum with ALL the information to program it.
When I was with the code it tooks me less time to do it, in a correct and very visual way to test for myself, than to redact in english this post.
But a lot of trials to now what was happen.
My results (with your instructions) are 100% reliable.
I do test with "regular", excel random... and random.org
As Simon, enough time spend on it.
3th/ the number of possible combined winning situations in your system are equal to the sum of the combined negatives ones, less the vigorish of the game on outside bets.
Do your swing. Look for another "hole". Take care on "put" and do the less "bogeys" as you can.
Kind regards.
Quote from: betatester on September 23, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
In a overall review, this is a system that plays around 4% of all the possibles grids.
Who cares about the percentage since the possible winning grids are much less.We are interested on them only I don't count this for example
1.3
2.3
2.1
This is not a possible grid...
we are talking only of the possible winning grids.
Quote from: betatester on September 23, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
Exactly 387 over 9000 grids tested.
:whistle:
Quote from: betatester on September 23, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
The way I choose to test was in "octets". If a need to stop the tracking in spin 3, p.ex., then I noted also the rest of spins until 8th, and then start a new one.
So I tested in "chunks" of 8 spins long.
The results should be the same
;D
The result should be the same...Bravo, good way of thinking..prove that...
took all the stripe and discard each time the first spin, and count the next eight spins as new grid this is the only possible and fastets procedure and here you are right.
Quote from: betatester on September 23, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
If we play columns too, then we can play maybe 8% of the grids. But for worse results...!!!
Columns and dozens are the same ...go to play cricket , it is much better.It is people like you that ruin a forum liker this..How is possible to write that the columns and dozens are different chances?
Quote from: betatester on September 23, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
-2,7% on single chances, and -5,4% for the rest.
the 2.7% and 5.4% are percentages that refer to zero tax of different roulette tables as we should call it.Has nothing to refer with the system.You are talking about the zero tax on american and french roulette...
Quote from: betatester on September 23, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
And your (-ive) expectation is the same than any other boring system
boring because you don't know how to bet on roulette game.You want a very fast betting procedure to push up the adrenaline level on your blood and so losing the cash..Bravo. :sarcastic:probably you are working for a Casino somewhere..
And last but not least this the right excel sheet that I post for implementing a program to test the system.
On the other two I posted previously there are some mistakes.