G.U.T. C B A

[TwoCatSam]

Dear Friends--both pro and con..

I am not going to be convinced at this writing that the G.U.T. is pure luck.  At some point in the future I may declare it was all a lucky streak and I may declare I am making real, spendable money from this method of betting.

Be it right or be it wrong--I am going beyond the original thought behind this and finding new ways to bet crossings.  Mainly, I bet 15/14 just like winkel said.  But I am finding by using double crossings and reverse crossings, I am able to win more.  (If I turn off the T.V.)  This is from today's actual play:

Look at spin #50.  I bet the 15 numbers in the 1 column.  What happened?  It won but it also won (reverse) on the 0 vs 2.  Did I get paid twice?  No!  Why bring it up?  Because there are "decision" times when you have to decide where to put your money.  Look at it this way:  I can bet 8 numbers or 15 numbers.  The 15 numbers-win does exactly the same thing as the 8-numbers win.  Here a win on the 1 column did double duty.  No one, even winkel, has to see it my way--but it works.

[attachimg=#]

[hoper35]

That's the important thing, Sam.  Give it a chance (or a few of them).  If it works for you then keep it and work with it.   


Ron.

[Marven]

I have checked out the GUT CBA, nice job KFS!

I was tempted to quickly run some actuals on it today and ended up doing 80 sessions for the fun of it, with 50 spins each.
That would be 4000 spins.

I'm no GUTer to be honest, but here are the results for anyone who might be interested:

[table=,]
Session,,End Result
1,,+42
2,,-47
3,,+29
4,,+119
5,,+103
6,,-32
7,,+115
8,,+39
9,,-61
10,,-15
11,,+67
12,,+26
13,,-27
14,,-24
15,,-9
16,,+3
17,,+34
18,,-25
19,,-21
20,,-23
[/table]

[table=,]
Session,,End Result
21,,+14
22,,+136
23,,+92
24,,-52
25,,-22
26,,+74
27,,-9
28,,+70
29,,-64
30,,+115
31,,-97
32,,-74
33,,+32
34,,-40
35,,-40
36,,+33
37,,-2
38,,-42
39,,+14
40,,+27
[/table]

[table=,]
Session,,End Result
41,,-33
42,,+14
43,,-46
44,,+2
45,,+59
46,,-59
47,,-38
48,,-3
49,,+112
50,,+45
51,,+0
52,,-63
53,,-18
54,,+22
55,,+0
56,,+1
57,,-99
58,,+52
59,,-68
60,,+2
[/table]

[table=,]
Session,,End Result
61,,+2
62,,-31
63,,+52
64,,+8
65,,-24
66,,+26
67,,+13
68,,+23
69,,+113
70,,-13
71,,+41
72,,-48
73,,+34
74,,-46
75,,-26
76,,-14
77,,-4
78,,+28
79,,+84
80,,-5
[/table]

================================
Total Profit: +553 in 4000 spins.
Giving an average of 0.13 unit per spin.
================================

Best regards and happy holidays to all!

Your friend,
Marven

[Handsome1]

I hope, that there will be also vote for the most reliable person. I would give very good points for KFS. He do not take his words back, because he knows what he is doing. I only trust for him what he says 

[Kingpin]

Now you did it Mr. Chips.  You've made Worm cry.

There, there Worm.  The mean Mr. Chips has gone away.

Although i'm not your biggest fan Herb, This Cracked me up Good [smiley=3D-Smil/36_1_20.gif]

[Herb]

I'm glad you enjoyed it. haha

Sometimes people are a little too fragile these days. 

[Kingpin]

LOL, still makes me laugh when i read it now (nothing personal mr. chips and Worm). Guess it's the power of the darkside haha 

By the way Herb, are there any systems you would reccomend or do you just dont believe in beating roulette?

BR
Kingpin

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Hello all,

winkel wrote above:

Law of the Third : When Pascal or Gaus started to explore this, they were testing with 36 numbers not with 37. so one trot had 36 spins not 37.

Within 36 Trials hitting 36 different numbers the law showed up like this:
24 numbers appeared
12 of them apeaared mor than once.

36 24 12 this is 3/3 2/3 1/3

So ... this "law"...
A) ... in reality has nothing to do with roulette as it's only applicable for 36 numbers and 36 trials
B) ... shouldn't be called a "law" at all, as it's only applicable for 36 numbers and 36 trials and thus it's merely one special situation out of an infinite number of situations...

So: This "law" is not a law if the amount of numbers or trials are different from 36.


However: The math laws and probability rules that - in reality - creates the "Law of the Thirds" are of course applicable for ANY amount of numbers and trials.
Those rules and laws create distribution with a fully normal random fluctuation.
Fluctuations have averages.

And for 37 numbers and 37 spins there are in average (and approximately)...
* 13 numbers with no hits,
* 14 numbers with one hit and
* 10 numbers with more than one hit.

The "Law of the Thirds"...? Where is it?

[highlight]This is the "Law of 13-14-10"![/highlight]

Jokes aside: Do you understand why I said that the "Law of the Thirds" is nothing but one special situation?
The 37 numbers for 37 trials situation is another special situation conforming to the exact same math and probability rules as the "Law of the Thirds".
(But it isn't named...)

The math laws and probability rules are of course applicable for any amount of numbers and trials.
And ALL distribution conforms to those rules and laws.
Because distribution IS math and probability.

For example, the test-data shown in winkel's TEST-GUT thread shows the "Law of 13-14-10" distribution conclusively:
The average for no hits (column "=0") was 13.05 (13) numbers after 37 spins
The average for one hit (column "=1") was 14.2 (14) numbers after 37 spins
The average for more than one hit (column ">1") was 9.75 (10) numbers after 37 spins

I'd say that most of the time, the column-values at the 37th spin were within +-3 from the "Law of 13-14-10".
Check it yourself:
Check if column "=0" is 10 - 16
Check if column "=1" is 11 - 17
Check if column ">1" is 7 - 13
At the 37th spin.
Most of the time...

And a method dealing with such figures, HAS to be math based.
Because the figures are math based.


Those figures are averages.
(And approximations)

Now winkel, you write something about those averages that I don't really understand:

The average appears only in about 6,3% of all trots of 37 spins.

I guess it's a matter on how you calculate but for the 37th spin to have

* 13 numbers with no hit is a 20.4% chance (approx) of all (0 - 36 numbers) without a hit
* 14 numbers with one hit is a 13.3% chance (approx) of all (0 - 36 numbers) with one hit
* 10 numbers with more than one hit is a 26.5% chance (approx) of all (0 - 36 numbers) with more than one hit


Within the interval you mention (10 to 21 numbers with no hits - the "=0"-column) you have 98.2% of all 37-spins cycles in the "=0" column.
(Maybe I misunderstood that interval...)

So this method bets in an interval of fully normal random fluctuation in distribution - within the limits of 98.2% of all 37-spins cycles for the "=0" column.

And as the method places bets in situations during normal random fluctuation in distribution, the method is also ruled by normal probability rules and math laws as it is those rules and laws that give the normal random fluctuations in distribution.

The crossings WILL meet and/or cross - eventually. Of course they will. They HAVE to.
But when?

Only time will tell.


I really whish you Good Luck, all who believe in the G.U.T.
Yes I do.

Myself, I am checking distances


KFS

Note: Placing bets on hunches and GUT-feelings using the GUT method as a guide, is quite another thing than the above. IMO it's no longer a math-based method.

[The Spiders Kiss]

  Blimey KFS.........dunno about all the maths but the G.U.T. works more times for me than it loses
TSK

[winkel]

As I posted in "Testing the G.U.T" I have done another test.

During this tests I made the following procedure:

I sit and watch the numbers coming up, do my bets and add next number.
I have the clinical rule in mind and try to follow them exactly.
After I finished the 50 spins and did my statistics. I took the numbers and put them in the GUTCBA and compared both results.
mainly the results came up identically.

In the facts the didn´t came up equal it had following reasons:

1. I didn´t see all crossings
2. I sticked on crossings where the program already changed to another crossing
2. There are 3 or 4 situations where the rules/the programming is not exact.
e.g.
13 12 12 bet 13 12
13 12 12 loss
13 12 12 loss the crossing is dead next would be bet on 12 12
13 12 12 loss 12 12
now the GUCBA is returning to bet 13 12
but 13 12  is still dead and we should bet 12 12 again

I will express again: you don´t have to bet til spin 50!
You can stop at any spin or jump.
The possible outcomes you can check in G.U.T-Testing

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Hi winkel,

As I understood it the rule when a crossing is going "fat" (>36u limit reached) was to select a "best" crossing excluding the "fat" one.
We agree on that, it seems.

The "fat" crossing was - again as I understood it - to be considered "fat" until another crossing had been bet.
After this it was considered "live" and thus could be selected.
This is the way the program works. As you have noticed.

But that was not what you meant by this:

we bet 3times =0 12units and stop 45 46 47
we would rebet the 12 only:
- another trigger is bet
- the 12 would now trigger e.g. with >1

in reply #338 in your "Testing GUT" thread?

Question:
The "fat" crossing should be considered un-selectable until... when?
Until the bet crossing is "dead" or "fat"?
(The 12-12 in your example above, is "dead" or "fat")

Or?


Tell me and I'll fix it.
KFS

[winkel]

Hi KFS,

no need to fix it. This problem "only" appears in that area when 0 1 and >1 are nearly the same with 12 and 13 numbers in each group. and its very rare and has no effect on the results. it has to be 4 and more hits on the >1

and we are involved in nearly every rule we made up when this combinations appears.

The main mistake I make by betting (compared to your GUTCBA) is at such situations:
If I bet a group which is fat or dead and its number didn´t change, I don´t bet it again until it changed.

e.g.
14 13 10 6
14 13 10 5 1
14 12 11 6 1
14 12 11 4 2
14 12 11 3 3
14 11 12 4 3
14 10 13 5 3 here I wouldn´t bet 14 0s

especially when all groups are 12 or 13 this is often leading to being on the wrong group after every change of bet-selection.

Your GUTCBA is a very nice program to control my bettings. Often I have better results and often the GUTCBA has better results. In the end GUTCBA is the better bettor!   

Here we meet exactly the point where GUT is producing that one little favor we need:
missing bets
avoiding traps like the one mentioned above
gamblers intelligence to decide to bet or not to bet by experience.
stopping in a win situation or stopping at bad start.
or jumping if in doubt.

thanks for your help and work.

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Alles gut, then

Great!
KFS

[RCEC]

G.U.T. is indeed very good!
If handled perfect! !All Crossings!

Winkel´s Idea formerly called RNF or as you say = 0 = 1 =>1
in the Binomialdistribution is a strange secret

europeanroulette 37 numbers

in spin 36 there is

= 0 //13,79843033526010000000
= 1 //13,79843033526010000000
> 1 //9,4031393294798

in spin 37 there is

= 0 //13,42549978565850000000
= 1 //13,79843033526010000000
> 1 //9,7760698790814

so we have(digital)

36 // 14/14/9
37 // 13/14/10

how to hell  can R(=0) cross F(>1)

CU
Gerry

[TwoCatSam]

Gerry

0 vs >1 is what I called the "winkel non-crossing crossing".  I understand you.  When 0 is 14 and >1 is 13 there will be no "crossing", but bet it anyway!  winkel said it wins and it does.  Now when it's 0 vs >1 and 14 vs 14 you have a "true crossing" albeit backward in the hit causes only one data point to move.

Sam

[TwoCatSam]

-