Hi from Germany. I'm a Scotsman myself and I would just like to say that's a CANNY BOOK that you guys have put together. Ill get to the point great maths, great method, and its great wining nearly 95.58% of the time.............BUT MAN O MAN O MAN as the Germans would say, Its a hell of a long wait at times. Could you give me some advice as how I could play say more sections at once, eg.10 11 and 12 sections at the same time allthough its enough for me to concentrate on just 1 section. I personally i'm trying for someone to install in my mobile say something like java in my mobile that would alert me to sleepers say 8 to 12 this would simplify the paper work and give the player more time betting than waiting around for 12 numbers to fall asleep before he does.If someone could install a programme like this in a mobile it would undoutably be more popular than ROULETTE EXTREME Imagine ALL YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IS PUNCH IN THE SPIN and the program could inform him that 8 section is ready to wake up and three spins later eg a 12 and a 6 and so on,and keep the player correct with betting symutainlasly as this would be impossible to do noting everything down on paper....95.3899938765% of the time,only joking.....PS I'm up 4500€ using your method and only lose because I have no patients I some time say eg I wait for 12 section for 12 then say the outside number is not properly out of site I sometimes start the progresion and this is my downfall.THANKS ONCE AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT JS: all the best from BERLINER BRUCE......wait for your reply eagerly
Regarding the sleeper stuff: It doesn't work. This includes the John Solitude garbage.
Research the Wizard of Odds website or Gambler's Fallacy for more information.
Good Luck!
Himmm......Have you tested it by using roulette extreme and real spins from eg Hamburg are YOU a sour scammer.NOBODY CAN ARGUE that the maths are correct and BTW W O ODDS ALSO says the same about probability THOUGHT this was a constructive forum,and for people to criticise is so easy without backing up there claims.JOHN SOLITUDE CAN do THIS; CAN YOU.................TO CRITISISE WITHOUT BEING CONSTRUCTFUL IS NEGATIVE....I await your your constructive criticism..yours BERLINER[4500€ better off thanks to the MAN called JOHN SOLITUDE]BRUCE.....
This is constructive forum, some of the nicest there on the Internet.
Herb is trying to save return of all gained because it is so accepted that the roulette never be won long term.
Math people do not need tests to tell you that nothing in roulette wins. not hot numbers, not sleepers, no nothing. The proof is that the roulette not win because it paid less than the fair.
Better that way so casinos feel safe and continue providing the game. If the game was officially decreed as beatable, is immediately removed from the casino halls.
However, we accept that as roulette players and try to win consistently, we hope that our temporary gain for us last a lifetime.
You won temporary €4,500. You may win €1,000,000 and mathematicians will say that it is temporary.
Be proud of your gain, but also get used to be only temporary gain acceptance by math. This is what healthy and advisable to avoid fights and complex for wanting the math to accept that the game is beaten by your method or any other method.
Many people want to be accepted that they have defeated roulette, but the math just simply find the combination that breaks the gain. Do not fall into fights because of that. Gain at the casino in peace of mind with your method when it works for you.
Hope this post is constructive. I encourage you to create simulator and see if it is winner in 1 million or 2 million or 2 billion spins but remember the 2 billion spin is unique. Next 2 billion spin are different.
Nothing wins in the length of all samples, only important is it wins in your personal experienced numerical sample of your own.
WannaWin
Thanks WW,I TOTALLY agree...but it is I THAT PROPSED THE QUISTION about doing the test, and so have many in the forum and they all had positive results.BUT PLEASE try runing 1 000 000 spins on my behalf and for many others out there that use the raindrop method.Nobody until now has told me that this method does not work please try to be zhe first.but remember this TEMPORARYwin also included many PERMANT losses
I stand by my previous comments.
I can back up my comments with mathematics.
The John Solitude raindrops method is built on the "Gambler's Fallacy". (The notion that because an event has not occurred in a very long time that it's in some way due to catch up or occur).
There is not a need to test a system built on this backwards line of thinking. The end results are already known.
The system came about because of John Solitude's poor comprehension and understanding of probability.
-Herb
Its normal to have mostly won sessions on the book when you hand test a sleeper system with a progression. After maybe 10.000 hand testet spins you might have 500 placed bets and 1 - 2 losing sessions. And you think, "is this too good to be true ?", and well yes it is. I had a similar system heavyli in profit for 310.000 spins just to lose it all, and then some, between the spins from 310.000 and 350.000. On a 6 months basis it ran with typicly some 520 - 540 profit sessions and 3 - 5 losing sessions.
Test file: nolinks://nolinks.roulette-board.de/pages/kelly_1prozentplatzer.zip (nolinks://nolinks.roulette-board.de/pages/kelly_1prozentplatzer.zip)
Thread: nolinks://nolinks.roulette-board.de/index.php?showtopic=5452 (nolinks://nolinks.roulette-board.de/index.php?showtopic=5452)
The test zip file consists of some 10 separate tests where you see all numbers and placed bets and bet sizes as they appear. You have to scroll 99 spins between each session because the sleeeper tracking part was set as default to 99 spins. When you scroll down through the test documents you will find that there are a huge amount of spins between each losing sessions, hence why a handtester will get all exited after 1 week of hardd work and maybe only 1 or 2 losing sessions. The computer will pretty soon find the reality though.
You need to do it by computer and get so many placed bets booked so that it can be statisticly measured, when you do that, you will see that the math kicks in as it is supposed to be.
When you reverse on bad trends, you will automaticly reduce the amount of winning sessions that needed just that little extra bet to become positive instead of negative. For instance, in my system case, if I either cut 2 or steps of the progression to minimize losses, the amount of losses would automaticly increase from for example 500:3 to 490:133. So in the end , you end up with the - 2.7%. My experience is that you can`t counter trend your way out of the negative expectation, because you will stand with new sample sizes and combinations that will create new win/loss ratios, but the negative edge still remains the same.
In the program I used, it is pretty easy to analyse the bad scenarios and construct a helping rule to sort those out, just to realise that this extra rule stuffed other good scenarios up. I finished up blue in the head with with 5 - 10 different rule scenarios all finishing with - 2.7%. The enemy permanenz would just be moved to other months that were good months before.
Edited By Lanky.............Lets try & not use the F Word Please Guys
My question is then: If you know you are facing a losing trend, why not just bet the opposit of what would be "correct" bet placement in the winning trend.
Obviously quitting while ahead makes more sense than the opposit, and minimizing losses should be essential in the day to day business, but it just doesn`t turn a system positive in the long run. Or at least no one has ever showed it could be done. And since the math is against us, i got a feeling that the some 100 tests + indiviual changes (stop loss, progression, degression, session progression, Kelly betting) i ran that came out with the same procentual loss, no matter how they were applied, in fact you can`t really play roulette "wrong", that they werent just a unlucky fluctation that happened to endd up with - 2.7 or - 1.35%.
Hey Bruce,
Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, but I was out on vacation.
Thanks for the positive feedback.
To answer to your question: as you have experienced yourself, it is not so
easy in a noisy environment with lots of distraction going on to concentrate
on purely playing by the stats.
And it can also become quite boring sitting around, collecting a large
sample before playing. And... even doing so is no guarantee for success:
it's only a way to maximize your chances from a stat point of view.
Yes, it is possible to play several sectors at once (depending on how much
you are willing to risk and the specific limits of the table you are
playing, however it takes a lot of discipline, practice and a lot of
concentration to keep up with the stats while doing so).
As you may be aware in most venues it is illegal to use electronic devices
for tracking the tables.
I'm glad you're up at this point, however I must warn you:
the JSWFA is probably one of the more robust systems out there (and people
who do write and have reported very good results with it), but on a blue
Monday or when you experience a very bad run of the wheel it might fail you,
which typically leads to a set-back. If we do play it ourselves we search
for a table which allows for the most amount of repetitive plays on a
sector, between the lowest and highest amount of bets (the spread).
Playing automated roulette (NOT videoroulette) is also a way of cutting the
tipping cost to the dealer (and as such decreasing the house edge).
Friendly regards,
Ronald
John Solitude Wheel Frequency Analysis.....
Somehow, I have this in my collection of systems.
Does Matty's software identify this or was it jb's? Or neither.
Someone write it and let's put this thing to the test.
Sam
NOW thats what am talking about SAM, HERB just says it just dont work.gamblers fallacy,,,,,,,,maybe,,,,,,,well lets see.Maybe it mght be an idea if a junior member can put his tuppence in, to see how many times a 12 section doesnt APPEAR for over 22 spins,Then we could make quick calculation on the wins holding against the losses.Hamburg spins anyone
Hi sam, thanks for taking an interest,and for some here at the forum it mite just seem old hat,but not to bruceeboy oh no I'm there with you all the way.But I do feel to test the method to its full we should strongly consider my last post on the general board, testing sections from say 8 - 18 simultanesouly as others who play the raindrop here in Berlin would be a great interest as this is our goal. It would certainly combat the boredom.thanks again sam.Kind regards berlinerbruce
Hi Bruce, and All,
Regarding the 12-numbers sector hitting within 22 spins...
I don't know if it's doing you any good but I can show you stats for the hits within a 24-spins sequence.
Within some 350,000 24-spins sequences you will find APPROXIMATELY
5,500 x a pre-defined 12-numbers set repeats twice
19,700 x a pre-defined 12-numbers set repeats 3 times
49,000 x ... 4 times
93,300 x ... 5 times
141,700 x 6 times
174,400 x 7 times
177,500 x 8
152,600 x 9
110,000 x 10
67,700 x 11
35,000 x 12
14,700 x 13
5,800 x 14
1,800 x 15
484 x 16
94 x 17
22 x 18
Why "pre-defined"? Because you have to look for something... ;)
Suppose you look for 12-numbers sectors. So you have to define them first - all three of them.
Now take something like 350,000 24-spins sequences and look for the three 12-numbers sectors and you will find approximately 49,000 cases of a 4 times hit.
And you will find approximately 177,500 8-hits (maximum - well, thereabouts)
Note that up to three such cases can be found in the same sequence - one for each 12-numbers set.
As the figures are for all three sets, I guess you could divide them by 3 and find a guiding figure for a specific 12-numbers set.
Where I got the figures? Hamburg spins, actually.
nolinks://xerxx.se/oops/stats/rese/resein.html (nolinks://xerxx.se/oops/stats/rese/resein.html) ("Repeats within a sequence")
Click "Columns" or "Dozens" in the menu to the right and you will find stats for 3, 6, 9...21 and 24...30, 33 and 36-spins sequences.
Simply do averages from the two tables for approximate numbers (I did above :))
(Any 12-numbers set has the same probability as another to hit - a wheel-sector or a numerical dozen or a column or 12 randomly selected numbers doesn't matter; they are all 12 numbers - 12/37 to hit.)
Regards,
KFS
Thanks for your reply and a read it with great interest, but i think you misunderstand that we are not looking for predefined 12 section here with this method, no not at all as you state you say there are 3 sections of 12 this ofcourse would be correct if we would try and split the table by 3.But we are monitoring 37 sections of 12 as the same goes for an8 section and 18 section and so on, hope you get back to me on that KFS ,KIND REGARDS BERLINERBRUCE
bruce
How do you play it? I just read his piece again. Do you wait for six numbers to sleep for 27 spins? Or 18? Do the numbers have to be a contiguous section or may they be spread out over the whole wheel?
Sam
yes that's the one sam but i tend to stay on sections 8 and above so according to the statistician from JSWFA an 8 section entry point would be 19 and a 12 section for example would be a 12 spin entry point and remember what i said to kfc there are 37 groups of 12 and also for an 8 section or for any other section for that matter,and you don't have to wait every 12 spins for an entry point,any spin could be your entry point because of the 37 groupings. Thanks for your interest sam hope this helped.best regards berlinerbruce
Let's start with and include 0 and go for eight numbers:
0 32 15 19 4 21 2 25 <---We would want those to sleep for 19 spins? Now the next sector:
32 15 19 4 21 2 25 17 <--We have removed the 0 and added the 17 and we still have 8 numbers. And so on around the wheel.
bruce, is this the system you used to make the money you speak of ?
Sam
Yes sam sorry if i'm not explaining this properly but that's the general idea. But when you sit down at the monitor you jot down the last 12 spins[if one was playing a 12 section] then after this any spin in the future could be an entry point. whats your opinion sam have you tried this or anything similar.all the best bruce
No, I have not tried it. Maybe I should.
Later.........going to dinner.
Sam
Hasnt Victor proven he can stay ahead with his Lw system. Last I heard, he was ahead after many months, and his losing sessions could be recovered in less than 1 winning session?
You know, I must revisit the Lw system and see if it still bores me stiff! I did so well until I lost my mind. Same ol' song, different verse. I won steadily with it witho
I haven't seen you before. Welcome!
If you truly want to know about the Lw system read every word Lanky has written. He pumped his bankroll up about four times with it.
Dang, those were the good ol' days!
Health and wealth to you, Lanky!
Sam
Hello Bruce,
I wrote:
"you could divide them by 3 and find a guiding figure for a specific 12-numbers set"
You wrote:
"but I think you misunderstand that we are not looking for predefined 12 section here"
"But we are monitoring 37 sections of 12"
I actually didn't misunderstand anything...
As I said, you can divide the figures by 3 to get the figures for one set.
You run 37 pre-defined sets set of 12 numbers so just multiply the one-set figures by 37 ;)
OR another way to look at the figures I posted are as if they were for all 37 pre-defined sets but found in some 28,000 24-spins sequences...
Regards,
KFS
*sigh*
Search "Gambler's Fallacy". Save some time. There isn't a need to test this one.
But it would be so rotten easy for someone with a brain! Suppose I could talk to the animals:
"Computer, take all the Spielbank numbers, all 1,000,000 of them. Got 'em? OK! Look for any eight contiguous numbers that have not hit in the past nineteen spins. When you find such a group, note them and then note how many spins it takes for one of them to hit. Give me a little print-out I can read."
I simply can't stop and learn Roulette Extreme at this point. I should think someone would want to either confirm Solitude or prove him wrong.
Sam
Eight contiguous numbers unhit for nineteen spins?
You'd be in for a long wait I think.
Better get someone in to look after the cats
for a month or two while you wait...
bj
That was my first thought upon reading the method. BUT, a dollar is where you find it. Suppose you were playing some other system and just punching numbers into a program and suddenly it highlighted a bet? Well, if you make $5 that's a fiver you didn't have before.
bruce says he has won 6,000 pounds or euros or something with it.
Sam
Sam
How old did Bruce say he is?
All that waiting around....
In a casino?
I'm feeling bored just thinking about it.
Amazing how many ways there are
to pick 8,10,12 random numbers.
That's it BJ that's our goal, play more sections, but its hard to see them all when your concentrating on just one. As i said before every spin is an potential entry point. Lets get this tested once and for all. Kind regards bruce
MAN O MAN,,,, kfs yes sorry i got you now, couldn t see the wood for the trees..WE ARE ONE STEP FURTHER thanks berlinerbruce
bj
As per Sam, I exaggerated:
BERLINER[4500€ better off thanks to the MAN called JOHN SOLITUDE]
Don't know where I got 6,000 Euro.
Sam
It's quite easy to prove the JS method doesn't work:
Prove: FACT, Roulette is a game of independent trials.
JS (Clercx) has been gambling for only a couple of years. When he came up with his ideas, he failed to realize that roulette was a game of independent trials. His poor understanding of roulette probability lead him to believe that events become due to catch up or hit when the standard deviation of the poorly performing numbers reach a certain standard deviation level. Unfortunately, he also poorly understood how to use and interrupt the standard deviation testing.
He wrote his JS methods in an attempt to make money. His scam involved soliciting donations from people rather than charging out right for his system. He also attempted to make money by trying to sell books via links form his chaotic and difficult to follow website.
-----------------------------------------------
Here's more for you to read regarding the Gambler's Fallacy.
Gambler's fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the false belief that if deviations from expected behaviour are observed in repeated independent trials of some random process then these deviations are likely to be evened out by opposite deviations in the future. For example, if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up a larger number of times than is expected, a gambler may incorrectly believe that this means that heads is more likely in future tosses.[1] Such an event is often referred to as being "due". This is an informal fallacy.
The gambler's fallacy implicitly involves an assertion of negative correlation between trials of the random process and therefore involves a denial of the exchangeability of outcomes of the random process.
The inverse gambler's fallacy is the belief that an unlikely outcome of a random process (such as rolling double sixes on a pair of dice) implies that the process is likely to have occurred many times before reaching that outcome.
Contents [hide]
1 An example: coin-tossing
2 Psychology behind the fallacy
3 Other examples
4 Non-examples of the fallacy
5 References
6 See also
7 External links
[edit] An example: coin-tossing
The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a coin. With a fair coin, the chances of getting heads are exactly 0.5 (one in two). The chances of it coming up heads twice in a row are 0.5×0.5=0.25 (one in four). The probability of three heads in a row is 0.5×0.5×0.5= 0.125 (one in eight) and so on.
Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row. A believer in the gambler's fallacy might say, "If the next coin flipped were to come up heads, it would generate a run of five successive heads. The probability of a run of five successive heads is (1 / 2)5 = 1 / 32; therefore, the next coin flipped only has a 1 in 32 chance of coming up heads."
This is the fallacious step in the argument. If the coin is fair, then by definition the probability of tails must always be 0.5, never more or less, and the probability of heads must always be 0.5, never more or less. While a run of five heads is only 1 in 32 (0.03125), it is 1 in 32 before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so they do not count. The probability of five consecutive heads is the same as that of four successive heads followed by one tails. Tails isn't more likely. In fact, the calculation of the 1 in 32 probability relied on the assumption that heads and tails are equally likely at every step. Each of the two possible outcomes has equal probability no matter how many times the coin has been flipped previously and no matter what the result. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses is the fallacy. The fallacy is the idea that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds of a bet in the future. This kind of logic would only work if we had to guess all the tosses' results before they are carried out.
As an example, the popular doubling strategy of the Martingale betting system (where a gambler starts with a bet of $1, and doubles their stake after each loss, until they win) is flawed. Situations like these are investigated in the mathematical theory of random walks. This and similar strategies either trade many small wins for a few huge losses (as in this case) or vice versa. With an infinite amount of working capital, one would come out ahead using this strategy; as it stands, one is better off betting a constant amount if only because it makes it easier to estimate how much one stands to lose in an hour or day of play.
[edit] Psychology behind the fallacy
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman proposed that the gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias produced by a psychological heuristic called the representativeness heuristic [2][3]. According to this view, "after observing a long run of red on the roulette wheel, for example, most people erroneously believe that black will result in a more representative sequence than the occurrence of an additional red,"[4] so people expect that a short run of random outcomes should share properties of a longer run, specifically in that deviations from average should balance out. When people are asked to make up a random-looking sequence of coin tosses, they tend to make sequences where the proportion of heads to tails stays close to 0.5 in any short segment moreso than would be predicted by chance [5]; Kahneman and Tverksy interpret this to mean that people believe short sequences of random events should be representative of longer ones [6].
The representativeness heuristic is also cited behind the related phenomenon of the clustering illusion, according to which people see streaks of random events as being non-random when such streaks are actually much more likely to occur in small samples than people expect [7].
[edit] Other examples
The probability of flipping 21 heads in a row, with a fair coin is 1 in 2,097,152, but the probability of flipping a head after having already flipped 20 heads in a row is simply 0.5. This is an example of Bayes' theorem.
Some lottery players will choose the same numbers every time, or intentionally change their numbers, but both are equally likely to win any individual lottery draw. Copying the numbers that won the previous lottery draw gives an equal probability, although a rational gambler might attempt to predict other players' choices and then deliberately avoid these numbers (for fear of having to split the jackpot with them).
A joke told among mathematicians demonstrates the nature of the fallacy. When flying on an aircraft, a man decides always to bring a bomb with him. "The chances of an aircraft having a bomb on it are very small," he reasons, "and certainly the chances of having two are almost none!".
A similar example is in the film The World According to Garp when the hero Garp decides to buy a house a moment after a small plane crashes into it, reasoning that the chances of another plane hitting the house have just dropped to zero.
Hi Bruce, and All,
Regarding the 12-numbers sector hitting within 22 spins...
(Any 12-numbers set has the same probability as another to hit - a wheel-sector or a numerical dozen or a column or 12 randomly selected numbers doesn't matter; they are all 12 numbers - 12/37 to hit.)
Regards,
KFS
HI JFS, I looked up the JSWFA,,,, once again and that's where it conflicts, js says that lets say you've got 12 numbers and lets say 2 of them lay in a section, JS would tell us if the section has been hit say three times but not our 2 numbers JS would tell us that that our section has already hit 3 times so now our chances are of getting a hit on these two numbers are decreasing. He claims that after 100 spins sections on the wheel balance them self out o lot quicker than single numbers. Confused well I sure am,,,thanks for you help KFS by for now BERLINERBRUCE........WOW herb that was one hell of a statement you made there do you really think they are SCAMMERS
Simple luck.
Mr. Chips,
There is no disputing that roulette is a game of independent trials. It's an absolute fact. To argue otherwise is absurd.
*sigh*
For roulette not to be a game of independent trials, each pocket would have to be blocked from hitting again or a no spin would have to be called if a number occurred more than once.
However, random roulette IS a game of independent trials. A number is not blocked from hitting more than once. Therefore the chance of a number hitting remains 1 in 37 or 1 in 38 at each spin, regardless of the numbers that occurred on the previous spins.
Arguing that roulette is not a game of independent trials is foolish.
OK OK HERB, fact is it THATS WHAT YOU ARE AFTER,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, INDEPENDENT TRIAL YOU SAY,,,,,,berlinerbruce SAYS CORRECT HERB,,,,,,,, THE WHEEL HAS NO MEMORY ALSO COORRECT,,,,,,,, 1 number has INDEED ON EVERY SPIN THE SAME CHANCE OF APPEARING AS IT HAD FROM THE PREVIOUS, but its a known fact that A GROUP OF NUMBERS lets say AFTER 50 -100 spins will EVEN THEM SELFS OUT BEFORE 12 INDUVIDAL NUMBERS WILL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,this is FACT.... NOT LUCK HERB,,,,,,,siiiighhh.. I wait for the honarable member to reply,,,,BUT AS ALWAYS KIND REGARDS BERLINERBRUCE
Let's discuss this in the chat. I think you have a misunderstanding of roulette probability.
Mr. Chips,
You asked for proof, so I provided it.
Luck lasts as long as it lasts. It ends when it ends.
HI MR C, the reply your are receiving are quit NORMAL from a mathematician who can't explain a method or system that TRULY WINS and can stand the test of time IE victors lw,,,for example THE RAINDROP METHOD,,,,,,,,, by JOHN SOLITUDE, here are SOME OF THE MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS THAT OUR HERB USES TO DISCREDIT SUCH METHODS AND PEOPLE,,,,and I QUOTE,,,,,,,,,and boy boy AM I GONA QUOTE,,,,,,,,,garbage,,,,,,,,,luck,,,,,,,,simple luck,,,,,,,don't work,,,,,,hes just a scammer,,,,,,,,,,gamblers fallacy,,,,,,,,does need not to be tested,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, YOU OUT THERE HERB, YEEEEHAAAAAAAA,,,,, CANT see much mathematical formulas there mr CHIPS CAN YOU,,,,,,,kind regards berlinerbruce
Berlin,
I'm in the chat if you want to discuss this further.
Bruce,
You wrote "YOU OUT THERE HERB, YEEEEHAAAAAAAA,,,,, CANT see much mathematical formulas there mr CHIPS CAN YOU,,,,,,,"
This was written by Herb:
"An example: coin-tossing
The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a coin. With a fair coin, the chances of getting heads are exactly 0.5 (one in two). The chances of it coming up heads twice in a row are 0.5×0.5=0.25 (one in four). The probability of three heads in a row is 0.5×0.5×0.5= 0.125 (one in eight) and so on.
Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row. A believer in the gambler's fallacy might say, "If the next coin flipped were to come up heads, it would generate a run of five successive heads. The probability of a run of five successive heads is (1 / 2) raised to the power of 5 = 1 / 32; therefore, the next coin flipped only has a 1 in 32 chance of coming up heads."
I have bold the formulas (it's actually only one) as you seemed to miss them. This is the only formula you will need.
But it's the basics, of course. You have to replace the numbers by what's relevant for you...
Example: The probability of three heads in three attempts is 0.5×0.5×0.5= 0.125... Says the text.
The same example for a selected 12 numbers (a 12/37 = 32.43% chance) to hit three times in three attempts: .3243 x .3243 x .3243 = .0341 = 3.41%
The exact answer is 1728 / 50653 which is calculated like this: (12 x 12 x 12) / (37 x 37 x 37) and gives 1/29.313 = 3.41% (quite close, anyway)
If you want to know the chance for a dozen to NOT hit at all (a 25/37 or 67.568% chance per attempt) in three attempts:
.67568 x .67568 x .67568 = .30847 = 30.847% OR
(25 x 25 x 25) / (37 x 37 x 37) = 15625 / 50653 = 1/3.242 = 30.847%
You can of course mix winning and losing % if you want to know, for example, the % for ONE EXACT "two wins and two losses in four attempts" (something like 4.8% for 12 numbers)
Simple as that.
BTW. The text talks about things happening "in a row".
That is, actually, not quite correct. It should be "in ... attempts".
There is nothing that says that you have to make your attempts in a row... As each and every number has the same probability to hit at each and every spin, independent trials, it doesn't matter which spins - as long as they are FUTURE ones, that is.
Happy multiplying!
KFS
PS. This is not an opinion of mine - it's a proven math formula.
KFS, you explained that very well... nice job.
Matt
FYI,
What I wrote was a straight cut and paste from Wikapedia. :)
The text was also well written.
Hi lads, just like to thank you all for the feed back and its been read now over 790 times, as you can see its created a lot of interest. If you read my original post it wasn't to try to discredit the method nor credit it for anyone it was just to inform the player how the devils wheel has been behaving,regardless of what method a player wishes to play. A big thanks to you all for your advice and especially to MATTYMATZ ,HERB, got a guy calling round today to fix that spreadsheet that MATTYMATZ kindly gave me, a great tool. Was playing at DB yesterday and 7 numbers of my section was on the third column the question is if the player was alerted to this would this alter the players decision,i think at least he would like to know, all the best BERLINER BRUCE.................I'm off its SPITING ;D ;D ;D ;D
First of all, I would like to state that I have my own section on this forum, so if there are any other questions, please adress them in the proper section: nolinks://vlsroulette.com/ask-john-solitude/ (nolinks://vlsroulette.com/ask-john-solitude/)
However, I would like to reply to some of the wild accusations and misinterpretations that have been made in this thread, by one member, who obviously didn't take the time to actually read Roulette Fact and Fiction, my website or my space on this forum.
Readers should also be aware that some members -I'm not talking about this member in question-
can have business reasons to try and discredit the John Solitude Roulette Fact and Fiction website.
Namely because they advocate a strategy of playing which involves purchasing expensive books or systems
(which have been proven they do NOT work in a real casino environment, or people stating otherwise backed out of proper investigation in the presence of a statistician or some member may operate as covert sellers who are only present on these forums only to get in touch with possible future clients -for instance by adressing them personally.
Member states:
He wrote his JS methods in an attempt to make money. His scam involved soliciting donations from people rather than charging out right for his system. He also attempted to make money by trying to sell books via links form his chaotic and difficult to follow website.
INCORRECT AND COMPLETELY RIDICILOUS
The pdf guide 'John Solitude's Roulette Fact and Fiction' is a FREE download:;
it has always been so and is still so today.
There was NEVER money charged for it, although at the time -on Ebay for example,
some people tried to cash in for what has always been a free download on our site.
PROOF
This is the direct link. No donation needed to download.
nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be/guides/JSRoulette2006.pdf (nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be/guides/JSRoulette2006.pdf)
However, hosting a website COSTS money
(to us, the people running the JS site).
We do pay on an annual basis for the name registration and server space (cost = around 107 € on annual basis).
You can check by going to whois and look up the prices for our domain and server provider).
One could argue it's possible to rent webspace for FREE, but typically this means you have to allow ads
(of which as a webmaster you have only limited control of the content). We chose to NOT do so.
If we would have wanted to make money, we would chosen to do so.
As you can see for yourself on nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be (nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be) ,
we do NOT allow for advertisement of casino's NOR of system sellers (right banner).
The only ads on our website are from Amazon (which are rather, than making us money, proof that people almost never take or have taken the time to reading a book) and there is a link to Roulette Xtreme (which is a test program for Roulette systems, not a roulette system). We do support Roulette Xtreme because it allows people to run simulations BEFORE they decide to risk their money.
nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be/links.html (nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be/links.html)
So, readers who do want to support our initiative can make a donation
(they have NEVER been obliged to do so to download our 125 pg. guide).
Making a donation of 7 $ also included an Excel spreadsheet
allowing you to calculate standard deviation, stats and learn how the calculations are done.
nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be/download.html#JSExcel (nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be/download.html#JSExcel)
The member in question has obviously NEVER taken the time to read the Roulette Fact and Fiction guide.
Yes, I do know what gamblers fallacy is. Let me adress this one:
People who come to these forums or write to us,
basically always have asked me the same question: which system to play to make money.
If one tells people (as I have told so many times before, even on this forum): roulette is a negative expectancy game, because there is a house-edge, they'll want to take a shot at it anyway.
So the second question is:
if you choose to play roulette anyway, fully accepting the risk you can loose money, which system would you play?
The JSWFA is based on combination probabilitytheory, or in common men terms:
if you place a bet for X amount of spins, how high is the chance your bet will turn out right?
Because the JSWFA actually needs a rare event BEFORE a player starts betting, it reduces the risk a player comes into a casino and is betting for hours on end, without having a break. (which is actually why most people loose a lot of money on gambling: if one is betting for hours on end on is starting to loose track of what one is doing: this is a scientific fact > your mindset is narrowing).
The betting behavior of the JSWFA is trying to make the chance that you'll win the bet as high as possible,
within these limitations:
a) the risk a player takes on roulette is NOT fairly awarded, no matter what the bet is ( = the house-edge)
b) depending on the casino and the table, there is a spread (which is there to protect the house, not the player, because if there was no limit on roulette and a player would have unlimited capital, the game could be beaten, even in the long run)
c) if one is playing on a dealer opererated table, the tips even increase the house-edge (so the chance you'll loose is even higher)
As it is stated in the JSWFA:
we chose to play automated (but still mechanical) roulette for several reasons:
a) less risk of making errors in placing the bets
(same bet button + on some machines the possibility of increasing the bet)
b) on the machines we were playing (French Roulette) at the time the spread was very high
(minimum bet 0.25 € / max bet. 150 €), so we started out with the lowest bet to take maximum advantage of the
spread (= the amount of times we could repeat the beat without running into the upper limit); if we lost the bet we
didn't loose an arm or a leg
c) cutting out the dealer tips
Do I recommend people to play roulette: NO
Do I recommend people, if they want to play roulette anyway to play the JSWFA: YES
Certainly (because it tries to maximise your chances you'll win the bet, still within the limitations you ARE playing a negative expectancy game).[/b]
Personally we played roulette for entertainment and because we found it a challenge to come up with a system that is robust as it can be, within the set of rules that are applied by the house.
Do I recommend people to look into other games if they want to be certain they win money: YES.[/b]
Several people asked me this question before: if you choose to NOT play roulette, but you want to gamble anyway and increase your chances of winning, what game should I play.
I would recommend to learn limit Texas Hold Em poker. This game can be beaten FOR SURE and you'll even have far less problems doing so, than trying to beat roulette.
One of the main reasons many people criticised our website is because it also attacked people who are actually charging LARGE AMOUNTS of money for systems and other strategies of playing on roulette that are as good or as bad as the JSWFA (which is for free).
Read all about them here:
nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be/scams.html (nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be/scams.html)
And once again: running a website is NOT for free.
Yes, we do accept donations and I can assure you they only serve to keep our website online, we certainly do not make a profit on it.
The member in question probably never went as far as thinking if you allow readers to download a 125 pg. guide for free (without having to make a donation) and you only receive 7 $ donations once in a while (very rarely we receive a higher donation than 7 $), one is certainly NOT in it for the money.
We could have easily charged several 100 $ for the document and spreadsheet but never decided to do so,
because we wanted to make the distribution as high as possible. We have succeeded in this goal and that's the reason that two years later, the John Solitude initiative and the JSWFA still is alive today.
If the member would argue otherwise: I would recommend he writes a 125 pg. guide, distribute it for free,
only allows Amazon ads (because the Google is swamped with system sellers) and a link to Roulette Xtreme,
and you would come to the conclusion, John Solitude is a project of goodwill, rather than making money.
If one wants to know the background of the John Solitude initiative,
you can do on our website.
So, if you do support our initiative and want to keep the website online,
please feel free to make a donation (because in november we do have to pay for the website expenses,
and if the site does not become at least self supportive, it will simply disappear):
And probably... a lot of people who be very happy for that
(for instance because the scammer section on our website is still a needle in their profits).
nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be/index.html (nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be/index.html)
Hi all,
I just want to follow up on what KFS wrote. I'm just pointing out a math tool that I find useful. Binomial Probabilities can be easily calculated on the net. For anyone that doesn't excel at math or has been out of school for quite a while (I fall into at least one of these categories) may want to try a site like
nolinks://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html (nolinks://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html)
I'm not married to this address, so if you don't like it, then find another site by doing a yahoo/google search of "binomial probability calculator". As far as I know, they work basically the same way with the same alpha variables, which I'll try to explain below.
Here's an example -
Say you wanted to know the probability of 1 dozen showing at least 2 times in 10 spins while playing a 00 wheel. Input the info as follows:
in my basic terms
n=10 n is the total spins
k=2 k is the number of hits or wins that you're looking for
p=12/38 p is the number of possible winning spaces on the wheel / 37 or 38
q - don't worry about the q
result - P: 2 or more out of 10
0.873736733273106
Hope this helps someone. RP
JS wrote it in an attempt to make money. His scam involved soliciting donations from people rather than charging out right for his system. He also attempted to make money by trying to sell books via links form his chaotic and difficult to follow website.
The system presented relies heavily on the notion of rare events that become due to hit or catch up. This is straight up gambler's fallacy and can not work in the long run. JS's experience with roulette is very limited. He has at best limited knowledge of the game and maybe two years of playing experience. He is definitely not an expert in regards to the game.
On this forum there are better systems that are more fun to play.
-Herb
Quote from: Herb on October 18, 2008, 02:50:26 PM
JS wrote it in an attempt to make money. His scam involved soliciting donations from people rather than charging out right for his system. He also attempted to make money by trying to sell books via links form his chaotic and difficult to follow website.
The system presented relies heavily on gambler's fallacy and can not work in the long run. JS's experience with roulette is very limited. He has at best limited knowledge of the game and maybe two years of playing experience. He is definitely not an expert in regards to the game.
Herb,
Please state why he is scamming while his book has always been free to download? I don't see the connection.
Your free to make a donation. Nobody's is forced to make one, it's out of free will.
I've read the guide. I've been to the website. I've said enough. I've made my point.
Herb,
It's now very obvious to me you were only trying to discredit the initiative,
without having actually read the guide, the website or my section on this forum.
I do advise you to do so, before making wild accusations.
You did not come up with a single argument against the message I've written in my message above,
so I won't even bother to discuss it anymore. You've said enough, because there is actually nothing more to be said, is there?
A scammer is someone who charges people outrageous sums of money for systems, strategies or devices which do not work in a real environment (or even advices people to do so).
If scamming is letting readers download a 125 pg. guide FOR FREE -see link above- (no donation required to download the pdf file) and warning them for the risk involved, you and I obviously have a very different definition of what a scammer is.
Readers can check for themselves on my website,
read the guide or my section on this forum, and decide for themselves.
Hello dear John_Solitude.
Our server is open to host your website [highlight]for free[/highlight] with your own FTP account and MYSQL database shall you wish to integrate with our space (you will keep being nolinks.john-solitude.be (nolinks://nolinks.john-solitude.be)).
It is currently NOT top notch space as we aren't agressive with the ads, but it may be in the future (namely this month) when there is implemented a new ads model to see if we can afford a Virtual Private Server with guaranteed ram memory and processor cycles out of ads and not a shared server which depends on the other websites' activity for getting faster or slower.
Right now, what we have is yours. Don't worry for the payload at the server, it isn't top notch but it isn't top crappy either ;) We can handle some visits as we currently are.
That is what I wanted to say. Any other fellow roulette publishers who want to use the server for publishing your files, you are more than welcome to join.
Shall we in the future be big enough to host a Dedicated server with hardrives of roulette information, it will be awesome... but for now, let's grow at our own pace and -of course- share the resources we have with the roulette community.
Regards,
Victor