Can we agree to disagree on this?

[Mr J]

'Testing' methods over thousands of spins (RX etc.) is fine but lets say that method FAILS.....poor results.

Does that mean its a 100% FACT to never play that method? Lets be honest, a profit of $200 over 700,000 spins is not very impressive (lol), I would not call that a success. Some say testing over 700,000 is too many and some will say testing over 1,000 spins is too few. Sooo, if there is a method that you highly LIKE but it FAILS a long term test, never play it again??

Ken

[xman1970]

Herb always used to say "10,000 placed bets".......

That sounds like a good benchmark to me 

[John Gold]

This is just my own opinion but things like RX are one of the biggest cons to ever hit the gambling forums.

There are numerous reasons why I say this.

1) It can NOT replicate real life conditions. How many people have tried systems/methods at home and they work great. Get to the casino and they tank BIG TIME.

2) It stops people really analyzing the game. It is very easy to run continuous tests on RX without learning anything of any real value.

3) How many times down the years has someone said that a system/method won over the first 25,000 spins and then lost everything over the last 25,000 spins. They then declare the method a failure 

If I were really cynical, I would say the people who created RX had the same intentions as the bookshops in Vegas peddling the latest martingale system.

RX is useless for testing in my opinion.

To answer your question Ken. I think people would be surprised how a lot of 'strategic' methods can actually work if you take a close look at them. The onus is on the player to make things work and not rely on something to do all the work for you. So testing is of no use if you don't know what you should be looking for in the first place.

[Ulysses]

Testing should be carried out with the same conditions as the game you are going to risk real money on IMO.

Say you are testing a method for playing a particular make and model of wheel in the casino. You need data from that particular type of wheel to get as near real stats for testing.

Same with RNG you need number data from the software you are aiming to test and eventually play for real on. Different software platforms have different algorithms to generate results, so testing on results obtained via another source like random.org are completely useless.

Further more testing with a million spins is like a hundred years of playing. Break that testing down and you would see high gains and high losses as would be expected in any situation. The end result is neither here nor there. Unless it had a perfect continual increase in gains from beginning to end. Now every realist knows that's not possible.

What is realistic is the knowledge that a method can produce high gains some of the time and to take the risk that it will reproduce in the real test when you play for money.

[cheese]

This is just my own opinion but things like RX are one of the biggest cons to ever hit the gambling forums.

RX is the greatest tool ever invented for testing roulette.
Its a tool, not a panacea. It doesn't teach you how to play in a
live casino, its not supposed to. It doesn't teach you how to
anaylize the game, its not supposed to. It makes testing
easier, thats what it was designed to do.

BTW, I've read your 'blog' You ain't even ready for RX, I
wouldn't worry about it.......

[John Gold]

RX is the greatest tool ever invented for testing roulette.

I will post up probably the best reply I have ever read on a gambling forum. A guy was playing a system and having great results at the casino. Other people started testing it and could not understand why they were not getting the same figures.

........The most important factor is where you play and what you play.

It works for you because you are playing automated-roulette
This is possibly why this system (at times) worked for you and not others.

Your system would not work very well or for very long with online roulette.
It also does not work very well with live dealer roulette.
There is a reason for this.
I am sure you already know this: Online roulette computer programs generate a very superficial randomness almost all the time.
Doesn't matter where you are in the program, it is going to be weird.
Simply put, it is always a computer's version of what's random. No matter what physics laws you might want to apply, the computer program is usually going to cheat this and not comply over your short spin cycle. .  

Live roulette develops randomness on a much more awesome scale.
Take a look at those live numbers that everybody wants you to download.
Live roulette is studded with quirks caused by the nature of the real wheel.
However, even with the quirks, live roulette eventually evens out and complies with the laws, but over a much more massive spin scale.
An example would be where usually, outside bets do not come close to 50/50 until thousands of spins into a cycle.
That is why Martingale is so fickle, and why Red can come up 26 times in a row, but still get near 50/50 odds over 10,000 + spins. .
These facts do not matter where you're concerned, as you are playing the middle kingdom, Auto-Roulette.
This is also why this is a good system for you.

Auto Roulette is special.
It combines some of the robotic results of a computer, while still being essentially a live wheel, but without much direct human contamination.
Most of this is by proxy.

Because of its so mechanical, auto-wheels tend to give cleaner, purer results, and will tend to be more random over much shorter cycles than a live wheel, which have to contend with much more variables by their less-than- accurate nature.
This one fact works very much in your favour.

Basically, an auto-roulette system will tend to disperse the ball more evenly in shorter time periods.
So, your short cycle has a much better chance of completing itself than with a live wheel.
That is why your system doesn't always translate and play well when run against live wheel numbers, as more idiosyncratic behavior is involved.

There is a couple of caveats to this that I hope can help get your raw system's percentages cleaned up a bit.

First a question: Many auto-roulette systems graph out the last 500 spins in a sub-display. Does yours?
The reason for this is that the systems can display things like "Hot" & "Cold" numbers and the hit rates on all numbers over the latest 500 spins.  This is very attractive to many casual players and gives them an excuse to play robotic roulette, thinking they have a lot of inside information prior to playing.

In a way, this is true. It is a lot of info. It is just that most folks don't know how to turn this kind of information into an attribute.  
The most important information is always what a wheel does NOT do that will help you the most.
When you look at the "more information" screen, they will usually show a graphic of the wheel with the Hot numbers in Red and the Cold numbers in Blue.
Then they will list the hit rates over the last 500 cycle. The rest of the numbers will be displayed in grey.

Here's the rub: Just because a wheel is robotic does not mean it isn't quirky in some ways.
I am often surprised at how uneven the "Last 500" cycle appears on an auto-wheel.
While they are not beaten up or abused by dealers, they do get effected by wear and long term repetitious and continuous play..
This can tell you that just because it is robotic, does not mean it's not biased.
The reason this does not help somebody looking for a bias wheel is the same reason the house has confidence in showing you the info at all.
Almost all auto-wheels give last call almost immediately after the start of spin with no time for anyone to read the ball spin deceleration + rotor and make a visual prediction.

The most important information is going to be the un-hit numbers. Usually over the 500 spin cycle there will be at least 3-4 numbers (sometimes more) with a hit rate of 3 or under.
You should know your wheels by now, so take the time to check this a few times over a 3 day+ period.  While you're at it, also check those hot numbers. If one of them consistently get a high hit %, this usually means there is something askew with the rotor separators.

There are usually 2 types of number separator bars or "number fences". They are usually less than a few centimeters high (1/2 inch or less).

The first type is a solid web that removes from the number rotor in one piece.
These can warp over time and bend slightly, creating a trap for the next number.

The second is a series of screwed in bars, tabbed at the end and set in place with a small screw & lock washer. These can come lose so that when the ball hits them during scatter, it acts like a brake and tends to stop in the adjacent number.
Hence, the number will come up more often, or the adjacent number, less.
Just because an automated wheel is not subjected to the rigors of dealer-play does not mean they don't wear out at certain selective points.

When not taken care of, physical imperfections can cause both the Hot & Cold effect.
However, the house usually only considers Hot numbers a problem. Hot numbers tend to be less reliable, as they get recognized as a liability and fixed more often than cold numbers.
Usually cold numbers are not considered a problem.
After all a number NOT hitting will probably not be a liability or cause players to win by playing them too often, Right?
Not so fast.
Perfect play only produces a 5.76% + or - advantage on the double zero wheel.
If you take 3-4 of those numbers out of the equation, you are changing the odds a few percentage points in your favour, especially when playing an automated wheel that tends to disperse numbers evenly in a short-cycle.
With your Diodoro Mod, if you already know that these "dead" numbers are very unlikely to come up, you never include them in your cycle.
But first, find out if those 3 "sleepers" you find are permanent or not by watching them over more than the 24 spin cycle.
While "proven" long-term hot numbers would always be included.

Another way to change the odds a little:
After you've done your calculations & are choosing your 10 numbers to play. Take a look at the remaining un-hit numbers and see if there is any combo that lines up in a street bet.
Example: if 2 of the un-hit numbers are 14, 15. play the 13,14,15 single-street bet.

If there are more street combos, play these as non-progression single-street-bets also.
Then, pick your 10 numbers.
You have only increased your bet by 1 or 2 units while still covering your 10 un-hits.
Don't double up these "standby" street bets, even if you use a progression.
They are just insurance that allows you to play more than 10 of your un-hit numbers in the 24 cycle.

I hope your auto system includes the graph system, as this can really help you by saving a lot of clocking over time.
Even if you don't have the video info graphs at your auto-wheels, try and take the time to graph your wheel anyway.
Take the old cycles you have played and compare them so that you can try and ID any permanent or semi-permanent intransitive numbers that stand out.

I realize that some players may not agree with my analysis. Or, that there is a dichotomy between types of wheels.
All I can tell you is that when you compare results of the given roulette types, the patterns and numbers differences will concur.........

This post confirms my own thoughts and also what Ulysses posted.

Hey, knock yourself out without RX. You have paid for it, lol.

[Bayes]

Interesting post, John. But I'm not sure how this shows that RX is worthless or a 'con', because it can equally test and analyse spins from your own personal spin file; you're not restricted to its built-in RNG.

As a programming language, RX is poor, but as a tool for testing and analysing spins and systems, it's pretty good IMO. Of course, if your game is bias/advantage play then it IS useless, because you need to be on site to clock the wheels, but that shouldn't count against RX.

[cheese]

I'm not sure how this shows that RX is worthless or a 'con', because it can equally test and analyse spins from your own personal spin file; you're not restricted to its built-in RNG.

I use nothing but my own actual spins on RX or spins
I've downloaded from a real wheel. He puts down RX
when he clearly has no idea what it is or how to use
it. Not ready for primetime, like I said.

[John Gold]

The title of this thread is 'can we agree to disagree'

I say this is one foxy chick!


[attachimg=#]

[xman1970]

The title of this thread is 'can we agree to disagree'

I say this is one foxy chick!


[attachimg=#]

yikes !!! She looks a bit handy with a knife n fork........

[John Gold]

yikes !!! She looks a bit handy with a knife n fork........

You are not wrong! 

[Mr J]

I'de hit it, I don't give a s**t.   

Ken

[cheese]

Screw a woman like that a couple times and you'll
never get rig of her. I see them all the time in Walmart
pushing a cart with an orange baby in it. Those dark
guys will screw anything.

[bombus]

I don't screw fat chicks but I do play losing systems.

So I agree.

No, wait, I disagree.

[Ulysses]

You could employ that b***h to lean on the table and tilt the wheel a little 

[Ulysses]

-