Thank you Mr Chips for your contribution you are what this forum is all about.

[Mr Chips]

If we are going to be praising Mr. Chips, then shouldn't we also be praising James Wendall?

The big difference is that I produce verifiable results and I don't regurgitate endless splurge about gamblers
fallacy, which we all know is itself a fallacy.

[Davey-Jones]

I am a little curious about what your definition of "Verifiable" is.

[Mr Chips]

Gambler's Fallacy is acknowledged by every Encyclopedia. 

So we are supposed to believe that they are all wrong, but that you are right?

You have tested so few spins that you have no verification whatsoever.

I have used Signum for a number of years at casino's here in the the UK and so it has been well
tested. I am now producing verifiable results, Spielbank spins on the website and SD will also be
shown.

According to wikipedia the standard deviation for even  money roulette bets is considered the lowest
of all casino games, therefore as the number of placed bets climbs from hundreds and into thousands
it would have to be your contention that the SD could not achieve a score of 3.0 or above say 6.0
or even above that figure.

[winkel]

Why don't you have the system coded?

This reduces the chance of the data being curve fitted. 

This is what Konfused did when he tested Winkel's method.  He tested over a millions spins and showed how the results were close to the expected -2.7%

Snowman. Herb or whatever you call yourself,

Konfused didn´t code G.U.T he just tested every crossing over 10 million spins.
That the results were -2,7 males the G.U.t winning, because it proofs that randomness follos rules.

BTW means that result that in a great number of trials there is a equal outcome of all numbers.
To achieve that there need to be waves.

These waves can be detected and used.

You claim to be mathguy, but you are just an idiot sitting in a church claiming there is no god.
The next sentence is: I know all and forever, believe in me!

@the Forum-Leaders

Why do we have to stand this annoying person

[Mr Chips]

Why don't you have the system coded?

This reduces the chance of the data being curve fitted.  

This is what Konfused did when he tested Winkel's method.  He tested over a millions spins and showed how the results were close to the expected -2.7%

You have dodged the question, no doubt because you are afraid of the outcome. The results from
Spielbank spins can be checked, so you can't  cast any doubts in that direction. According to you
it should be impossible to get a SD of 3.0 even from say 2000 placed bets. A score of 6.0 would be
impossible according to you and above that well!

[Landis]

Here's an example.

You come to a point in your play where you should continue betting or quit.  Both are the correct bet according to your rules.  So, you look ahead and see that if you continue betting you will lose, consequently you chose to quit as a result of looking ahead.  It's like a time traveler coming to a fork in the road and then looking ahead to the future to see which way he should have turned.

This is frequently what happens when people manually test systems without a computer.  Even with computer testing it can still happen.  It's easy to do.  Winkel does the same thing.  Just about everyone will if an iron clad set of rules is not laid out in advance and followed.  It's human nature.  It takes a great deal of experience to properly test these systems correctly. 

By the way, This is in no way a jab at you or anyone.

-Landis

[winkel]

Landis

If you know everything and do it better, why don´t you sit at a table and win instead of annoying people with your hate?

I know the answer you lost more you could afford.

You are the loser? Go away.<<Edited

[Mr Chips]

Mr. Chips,

Your rules tend to bend and flex just a bit much.  For starters, many people can't seem to find a concrete set of rules to follow when using your system.  It would appear that you, at times, change the rules to back fit the data.  In other words, you're looking back in time and changing how you would have bet.  I don't really mean this in a negative way.  It's just a result of your manual testing.  The exit strategy is also a bit lose and vague.

The maximum number of entries for the Signum system is 20. An entry refers to recording of a symbol
and a losing zero. The only exception to that rule is if there is a long winning trend and will then exit
when the trend comes to an end. A member of this forum not me, produced such a session, where there
were several losing zero's and yet still made a profit of +9 units.

There are no rules to change, as everyone who understands Signum knows about the Formations, that is
the various patterns which are created by the symbols. There are a number of members who have
produced more winning sessions than losing ones. Are you also accusing them of changing the rules
to back fit the data?

Your criticisms when scrutinised don't stand up. The members here have produced results similar to
the ones I have shown on the website.

The fact of the matter is when faced with certain results, which are not to your liking, you make feeble
excuses and try to discredit such results. Your main get out is a sytem has to be tested for millions
of spins and most probably using some obscure PRNG.

As far as Even Chance bets, it requires very few spins according to the maths to show that it is impossible
for the SD to  climb for example to 6.0 and above. It certainly doesn't require millions of spins. If you
consider it does then your credibility here will be at an all time low. If someone says they can flip a coin,
so that the SD will increase, you would say that is a nonsense and it would not require millions of coin
flips to prove it.

[Tangram]

I was curious to see how Mr Chips' system has performed in terms of SD, so taking the results posted on his site (spielbank spins from Jan through to April), the total placed bets were 1475 with a profit of 342.  From these figures you can calculate that there were 907 wins and 568 losses.

Now, the expected number of wins is 1475 x (18/37) = 717 (rounded down).

And the SD is

sqrt(np(1-p))

= sqrt{(1475)(0.4865) (0.5133)} = 19.2

So the z-score (number of SD's above the mean) is (907 - 717)/19.2 = 9.90

I know this hasn't been "verified" by anyone other than Mr Chips yet, but it's certainly impressive. The chance of getting this result due to chance is basically zero.

[Breeze88]

HI Tangram .. Nice Job 


the z score climbed up from 3.6 or something to 9.90 .. is another proof that the signum system is worth to learn and master it...



thnx

[Tangram]

Here's an example.

You come to a point in your play where you should continue betting or quit.  Both are the correct bet according to your rules.  So, you look ahead and see that if you continue betting you will lose, consequently you chose to quit as a result of looking ahead.  It's like a time traveler coming to a fork in the road and then looking ahead to the future to see which way he should have turned.

I agree that this can be a possibility, but what would be the point of "cheating" in this way? and why would Mr Chips go to all the trouble of creating a web site, and posting verifiable results that anyone who takes the trouble to learn the system can check for the themselves, if he was going to fudge the results? this kind of unconscious cheating would be very quickly exposed by anyone who works through the same sets of spins, and they would question any discrepancies. I would think that Mr Chips would take great care to make sure that he was not fiddling the books.

[lucky_strike]

Mr Chips.

I am happy that you change your mind before so Tangram could measuring it for you.

An Estat of 9.90 is incredible so gratulations.

LS

I end this topic because it was meant to be an thank you for your efforts.
Now it has become the old boring story again.

If some one want to continue to criticize signum or Mr Chips efforts you can return to the  correct thread/topic to do so.

[Lanky]

Hi Lucky.

I have cleaned up this Topic.

I removed some...
I edited a couple and I left what some would most probably call dodgy ones there.
(dodgy)=Lucky to still be there.

I told people days ago that this would happen if it continued.......It did continue...so I did what I said I would do.

Good OnYa Mate.

Lanky.

[Lanky]

-