In a PM conversation this system came up: nolinks://rouletteforum.cc/full-systems/random-versus-random-winning-ways/ (nolinks://rouletteforum.cc/full-systems/random-versus-random-winning-ways/)
The person asked: "Do you think this, as the author claims, is a long term winner?"
Let's find out.
I knocked up a simulation on excel, tested without the zero for ease of coding, played as deciphered by the spreadsheet attached in the above thread. The following comprises 32 tested sessions, with a maximum of 400 numbers. This is a relatively small sample but should give us an idea of the merits of the system and whether or not the results are random.
The author states that you would lose a BR of 100 units, at worst, every four sessions, meaning that in order to be worthily profitable we'd have to aim to win 40 units per session, at least.
Here are the sessions:
[table=,]
Trial,Spins,END,High,Draw
1,144,-121,9,130
2,123,+43,43,15
3,157,+40,40,20
4,141,-106,33,139
5,115,+40,40,14
6,127,+40,40,27
7,143,+40,40,12
8,150,+41,41,23
9,177,-111,37,148
10,179,-104,26,130
11,165,+40,40,16
12,217,+40,40,57
13,144,+40,40,43
14,185,+41,41,41
15,23,-104,0,104
16,155,+40,40,25
17,206,+40,40,66
18,171,+43,43,19
19,240,-107,36,143
20,127,-113,17,130
21,181,+40,40,51
22,147,+40,40,20
23,212,+40,40,79
24,233,+40,40,51
25,214,+40,40,114
26,197,+40,40,29
27,133,+40,40,46
28,189,+40,40,11
29,133,+40,40,29
30,28,-101,1,102
31,157,+41,41,46
32,113,-100,21,121
Ttl.,5026,-32,-,-
[/table]
It's a fact...er, my opinion, that by now, any advantage would be apparent. The results are random and based on luck, or lack of it. Every session, though, was positive at one point by a minimum of 20 units. Considering the overall figures so far, to play safely, you would need to take 1500 units to the table, aim to win that 20, maximum, and be prepared to lose it all. More trials can be run to find out how often losing 1500 units happens. Is is possible? I think so.
Quote from: Number Six on July 25, 2010, 07:25:18 PM
...Is is possible? I think so.
It is very possible, in fact inevitable.
No system can be relied upon to win every session, which means there
will be losers.
The fact is that although not every session that goes into drawdown will end up a big loser, every big loser starts by going into drawdown.
But the author also stated......
That you can stop play in any state of the session when some in plus.
Also stated....that it wins 3-4 sessions,and loses one/but real night play sessions of 350-400 spins/
and that approximately it wins per a session 80-110 units.
And the author have 46 Wiesbaden perm....37 winning ones and 9 losing ones,
to prove that...but whats the point.
So, firstly the test is not valid because I need to have a win goal of 80 units? Secondly, it's not valid because I didn't use numbers from night time at Wiesbaden?
Surely you're kidding?
The fact is, you can adjust the parameters all you want, but it isn't going to work. And I can prove it. While you may enjoy sharing your ideas with others, it is, actually, irresponsible to try to convince people that this system is a "long term winner", when clearly it isn't. See the attached graph for an idea of what happened in a continuous simulation. The results are entirely random and based on pure luck, meaning that even with no zero the best you will ever do is break even. It is like many other bet selections in that eventually you enter a ruinous draw down that lasts many thousands of spins and in terms of time and money it is simply impractical, and almost impossible, to play through it.
Also, I see that you are trying to suggest I have some how doctored the results. This, I'm afraid, is nothing more than childish. I have a coded spreadsheet. Anyone is welcome to it. DUH! People like you truly amaze me. While the system is a failure, for the sake of your fragile ego I'll PRETEND its not. OK?
Here's another set of trials using the recommended 400 spins. Unfortunately they are not from Wiesbaden night time, since it doesn't make a blind bit of difference as long as they are random, which they are.
[table=,]
Trial,Spins,END,High,Draw,Min,Mx Bet
1,400,106,106,50,-10,16
2,400,63,78,128,-64,19
3,400,92,98,44,-10,12
4,400,63,63,215,-172,24
5,400,78,90,96,-42,16
6,400,63,64,120,-113,20
7,400,82,84,103,-72,16
8,400,67,95,151,-56,21
9,400,66,88,82,-54,16
10,400,69,92,81,-70,15
11,400,100,102,317,-282,27
12,400,68,68,233,-194,26
13,400,92,102,62,-55,14
14,400,-4,71,112,-74,18
15,400,90,90,104,-91,16
16,400,-2,68,215,-193,23
17,400,73,73,169,-158,22
18,400,-246,22,1041,-1019,42
19,400,71,71,376,-326,32
20,400,86,91,49,-22,12
21,400,45,56,185,-171,24
22,400,89,91,117,-111,19
23,400,-814,30,950,-920,44
24,400,-169,54,196,-142,27
25,400,80,92,37,-8,10
26,400,90,90,29,-5,9
27,400,84,104,85,-33,15
28,400,47,86,77,-23,15
29,400,76,86,69,-65,15
30,400,84,84,90,-54,16
31,400,99,101,97,-98,18
32,400,68,69,208,-147,22
[/table]
Using the recommended stop loss of 100 units, the overall profit from these trials would be 147, after placing 12,800 bets it's not worth the time and the results are still due to random chance. Taking the end result after 400 spins would yield a greater profit for ten times as much risk, but the results are still random. In short, the bet selection can't work and betting 3 ECs at the same time will lead to devestating drawdowns. These drawdowns are unavoidable and eventually a point arrives at which escaping and breaking even becomes impossible due to lack of capital. According to the graph above, in a bad drawdown as illustrated you'd be 25,000 units in the hole. Who wants THAT?
Hey keel44,
Answer me this: using the author's recommended stop loss and win goals the profit from 13000 spins was 150 units. I have just run another ten trials, testing the system exactly as specified and the profit after 17000 spins is 20 units. I'm quite confident that in another ten trials there'd be a deficit. Are these results due to random chance? Yes. Are they impressive? Not really. Tell me what parameters YOU'D use and I can curve-fit the results to make you feel better.
:)
Your egos are getting in the way of logical thinking. You can't make a doomed system work by constantly altering the goal posts, you're then guilty of fudging the results for some bizarre reason I can't even begin to comprehend. I'd guess desperation. Nor can you use "experience" or gut feeling to predict a drawdown. This is just an baseless technique system designers use to throw out perfectly valid results. Maybe we shouldn't bother testing systems at all these days, in order to avoid bruising the ego of creator, and just dive in feet first? Jeez, you can't accept that it won't work no matter how long you do or don't play for or how much you do or don't aim to win. Didn't see this one coming...
Fragile ego?????
You got to be joking.....me,I like to help ppl.to beat the game
You.....why do you preach your negatives only on this forum
but not on others????
Even you should know what am I about here.
Where did you get your sessions from?????
Test it with past live numbers,not rng.
Have you ever entered casino in your life???
I'm sure you didn't,in fact I know it,and you know that I know it.
Yes, in the face of your system being deemed a failure, your fragile ego has now been bruised. It's why you're resorting to questioning my source of numbers and how often I do or don't play roulette. Explain to me how either of these things has anything to do with the test results. Perhaps you're trying to coax me into giving you a new idea? I don't think so. Sometimes the truth hurts, no need to cry about it, though.
Here is the automated spreadsheet, remember to remove the zeros from your samples otherwise it won't work. Knock yourself out.
Giving me a new idea?????
What a freak you are.
I been here for 40 years,and still kicking,
you be in your sofa with your computer for
couple years,traying to prove that nothing
works.Is your every day life functioning at all.
Your kind of ppl./as know where you are from,
which you profess to me,but you forgot/are
all same...perfectionists,and there is nothing
perfect,but successful,yes.
Medo, what can I say?
Your system doesn't work. What is the point in pretending it does? I don't see the need to get uptight about it, you're supposed to be an adult, after all. You posted the bet so it would be tested, right? If you didn't want it testing you should have put that in the thread...."Here is a system, play it, you will win, but please don't test it properly beforehand..."
Yes, I think you need new ideas. It's not unreasonable to think that after all this time, you're lacking inspiration.
Quote from: Number Six on July 26, 2010, 03:52:44 PM
Medo, what can I say?
Your system doesn't work. What is the point in pretending it does? I don't see the need to get uptight about it, you're supposed to be an adult, after all. You posted the bet so it would be tested, right? If you didn't want it testing you should have put that in the thread...."Here is a system, play it, you will win, but please don't test it properly beforehand..."
Yes, I think you need new ideas. It's not unreasonable to think that after all this time, you're lacking inspiration.
Dear num.6,
I have tested it with more then 15000 real spins/which is the only way/in last several nights real playing it have won
each night with it/on my way of playing/and now you are comming out of nowhere telling me --my system don't work--
I,nor anybody else have ask you to test it.I presented the base of the bet/didnt claim it is HG nor even any claim
of the sort,except that it wins on the long run,and let the ppl.test it for themselves,and play it the way they want.The base is most important/look Boo_Ray idea on these basis/and there will be some more improvements on this bet
in the future that I'm working on.Nevertheless,I didn't get knocked out,disscouraged nor disapointed with your comments,nor can I verbally fight with you/English is my 3th.language/---but still am going tonight to earn some
more money with this method,and you,my friend,stay in your sofa in front of your computer and try to find some
more methods that don't work...........BTW-are you getting awarded for this??????Or you only want to prove to us how great mathematic you are.Maybe you are in your field,but this is roulette man,and unless you experience it
in live,you can't really discus about it,let alone criticise any method.Go to casino and find out new world.
Honestly, what are getting so uptight about? It's just a roulette system. It's not like I've just blown up your house and now I'm rubbing your nose in it. In the thread you said the system would win long term. I coded it and predictably, it's very impractical....economically, it is too impractical to play. You know why most people dismiss tests like these? Because they have hpreviously hand tested and subconciously curve fitted the results to arrive at the outcome they want. It's not a flaw in people, it just happens.
Take the spreadsheet, use it yourself and watch it fail yourself. If you don't believe my eyes, maybe you'll believe your own.
But the author also stated......
That you can stop play in any state of the session when some in plus.>>>
Or just as easily never be in profit at all, with no 'plus' place to stop at. ALL system pushers say that, 'just stop when you're ahead'. Like being ahead was always expected.
It does achieve a profit a lot of the time - will it in every session? No.
If anyone is playing this, I would stand by my initial suggestion, however lowering the win goal to 15 units, and for that you'd still need a BR of 1500. It carries a lot of risk for a gain that is comparatively paltry - 1% - and is just about practical with those numbers. As a roulette progression system it is completely unremarkable. It will win the 15 unit target a lot of the time, but the one time it loses, there goes your winnings, probably some or most of your BR and it's back to square one. In a very bad drawdown, ones that last many thousands of spins, you'd be burning through the money. Same old story, really. It will lose in the long run....99% sure about that. The other 1% depends on some extrapolation.
Quote from: Spike! on July 26, 2010, 05:22:45 PM
But the author also stated......
That you can stop play in any state of the session when some in plus.>>>
Or just as easily never be in profit at all, with no 'plus' place to stop at. ALL system pushers say that, 'just stop when you're ahead'. Like being ahead was always expected.
You too Brute.Haven't you read previous n6 posts....that every of 30 his tests
the method was in plus about 20 un.in same stages.Cause I was aware of this FACT have stated
that one can stop play when some in plus.And you are a preacher of reading randomness???
Here is your chance to do so.Funny you 2 guys only sound these songs on this forum.
I wonder why is that?????Why not on other forums????Its very obvious,but will live it to readers imagination./color]
Quote from: Number Six on July 26, 2010, 05:16:23 PM
Honestly, what are getting so uptight about? It's just a roulette system. It's not like I've just blown up your house and now I'm rubbing your nose in it. In the thread you said the system would win long term. I coded it and predictably, it's very impractical....economically, it is too impractical to play. You know why most people dismiss tests like these? Because they have hpreviously hand tested and subconciously curve fitted the results to arrive at the outcome they want. It's not a flaw in people, it just happens.
Take the spreadsheet, use it yourself and watch it fail yourself. If you don't believe my eyes, maybe you'll believe your own.
I have a spreadsheet in front of me right now,of my last night 288 spins played
in which won 57 units,and wanted to scan it to you via your excel...but the problem is when
I click zero in there,everything goes upside-down.
What kind of talk is that;Because they have previously hand tested
and subconciously curve fited results to arrive to the outcome they want..........Now after this comment of yours,I have no more comments sir.You are frustruated young man that never enter a casino in your life,you relie on your computer and what it says and orders you to do.Me,I relie on my 40 years playing experience,knowledge about real envoirment of casino happenings and acquaintance of each wheel with which was playing with.
There is a great difference between us 2.---n6.
Well, I don't know about subconscious curve-fitting. If you don't know the outcomes in advance of placing bets it shouldn't happen.
But really, No. 6 is right. There's no value in shooting the messenger if test results don't go according to the way you want them to. It's hardly fair on the tester if, having posted a system with clear rules, you then appeal to other rules (usually vague and ill-defined) which were not mentioned and apparently should have been invoked when test results turn out negative. These are always only mentioned when the system fails, which of course is easy, like everything always is in hindsight.
Some even say that computer tests are useless, that they don't take into account - what? the way you would have bet on a whim if that particular sequence came up which only NOW you know about? that's absurd. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) applies here. If you don't specify exactly what your decisions are under all circumstances, you can hardly blame the computer for doing exactly what you tell it, no more and no less. The way some people talk about computers and testing makes me laugh; it's as though they believe that the computer has SOME intelligence, but not enough to "play" a system "intelligently", so they then declare that all computer testing is without value.
A computer has NO intelligence and no initiative whatsoever. It's just a dumb pile of microchips. If someone tells you that you have a mind like a computer, you shouldn't feel flattered! A computer program is just a list of instructions, if you leave things off the list which you would have included in manual play, how can you then dismiss computers as being worthless when its results don't match those of manual play? It's like saying cars are worthless because if you fall asleep at the wheel, often you crash!
Bayes,
Wouldn't you be n6,by any chance.
You 2 should embrace each other
and go to some casino watching real
happenings.Telling a man that he is
curve-fitting is insulting,and wit you 2
don't wish to communicate any longer.Amen
The spreadsheet doesn't accomodate the zero. I've told you that at least twice in this thread already - moreover, the coding is correct and the test has been conducted properly, this can be verified easily, so there really can be no argument that the test is incorrect.
Look, Iboba. Sorry that your system turned out to be economically impractical. It's not exactly the end of the world.
In 200 sessions of 400 spins, played as you recommended, the lowest profit recorded was 16 units and the largest drawdown was 1405 units. No session lost, meaning the profit is very healthy but it's incredibly unlikely that you'd be able to win a minimum of 15 units in every session played, in that respect it's an unremarkable progression system. Eventually it's almost certain that you'd lose several times, wiping out those profits and probably most of the initial BR. With your recommended BR of 100 units, you'll probably lose on average once every three sessions. Failure is guaranteed for people who don't have the psychic ability to read the future. The results are random and based on luck, this can also be verified if necessary. In testing, the goal posts can be moved as much as you want. But it makes no difference to long term results.
Quote from: medo on July 27, 2010, 08:14:00 AM
Bayes,
Wouldn't you be n6,by any chance.
You 2 should embrace each other
and go to some casino watching real
happenings.Telling a man that he is
curve-fitting is insulting,and wit you 2
don't wish to communicate any longer.Amen
That's the ticket, attack the poster and not the post! :boredom:
When people repeatedly resort to ad hominem in any circumstance, not just in the face of hard facts, you can't take them seriously, nor do they deserve any respect for it...it really speaks volumes about the person or people in question, especially when they resort to such acts in a place you can't respond. They have a skewed train of thought that is driven either by personal dislike or cognitive biases, they'll go to extreme and desperate lengths to discredit you...all because of some crappy roulette system. Either way, it's not worth getting hung up on. You test someone's system, it fails and suddenly you're a scumbag and a charlatan because you bruised a few egos. There really is no argument, since mine is based on fact that can be verified and the pups at Victor's forum are basing theirs on faulty logic.