Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

G.U.T combined with Distance-Tracking

Started by winkel, April 13, 2009, 08:16:25 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eatlines

Manel, GUT is a very good system but impossible to play it in a real casino, even with a program on a PDA.  Electronic devices are prohibited in real casinos.
I don't know if system works on electromechanical roulette, by the way and respect the law that regulates these devices, need to be real random and unpredicted results but who knows.

winkel

Quote from: eatlines on April 16, 2009, 04:02:31 PM
...GUT is a very good system but impossible to play it in a real casino, even with a program on a PDA.  Electronic devices are prohibited in real casinos.
I don't know if system works on electromechanical roulette, by the way and respect the law that regulates these devices, need to be real random and unpredicted results but who knows.

Hi eatlines,

I´ve played it in a Real-Casino. that is possible, but you have to exercise a lot.
On the other hand I think that is the second step to make. The first is to elaborate this system that we can be sure, that the return is much better than the basic G.U.T represents.

The basic G.U.T wins once and has two losses. at an average of 11 to 12 numbers bet, we are just able to beat the house-edge.
On my experiences it works on any kind of random-number-system.

This new structure reduces the numbers to bet.

Quote from: betatesterThat's my fear.  .  .   the non hitted "Hits".

That is the thing we have to explore:
We bet less numbers when we merge
We miss hits on numbers we rejected

Does this equalize or does it give us an advantage?

more later, my head goes out range.  :o

br
winkel

betatester

Hi forum.   Hi Winkel.   Hi eatlines. 
I must know you.   But I can't said if you're Ed, Ray, or another "old" friend.   Best to you. 
Hi Winkel.   It's late to me too. 
I agree with you:
QuoteDoes this equalize or does it give us an advantage?
That's exactly what we must do in next days/posts. 

In other sense, eatlines, when you said:
QuoteGUT is a very good system but impossible to play it in a real casino, even with a program on a PDA.    Electronic devices are prohibited in real casinos. 
I don't know if system works on electromechanical roulette, by the way and respect the law that regulates these devices, need to be real random and unpredicted results but who knows. 
You're right.  But once build you can make with (the) your code, the things that you think it fits to your regular moral and point of view, regarding also the place that you chose to play your real money.

For me it can be made.  I maybe show myself as an "enemy" to landed casinos.  That's not the case.  But I have seen an extensive use of mobile phones very near the tables, maybe some years ago, but those things happens.  Not in every casino, but it can be made.
From the moral point of view it's the same if we use those "facilities" at home (playing over the net) or in a real casino.  What does it changes?

I will like to post things to contribute to developement of this thread, and maybe i piss off the place when inserting my coment about devices and his use, just forget it.
Anyway we will need a piece of software to prove this approach .
Keep your moral at safe land and don't you look for mine or others.  I will never ask for yours.
It was just a thought.

All the best.

Betatester.

betatester

Hello.  
Winkel, please, could you answer the next questions.    When you can.  

I count (have attributed) the pockets as this:
Pock   Numb
1   0
2   32
3   15
4   19
5   4
6   21
7   2
8   25
.   .   .      .   .   .  
35   35
36   3
37   26

When calculating the intermediate distances it doesn't care because any sort will give us the same results, but when reversing the calculations we can obtain diff.    results (selection) if you sort (attribute) the pockets in reserve way.   .   .    (or in any other).  

p.   ex:
Pock   Numb
1   0
2   26
3   3
4   35
5   12
6   28
7   7
8   29
.   .   .      .   .   .  
35   19
36   15
37   32
That doesn't signifies that mine is better than yours, but we have to choose a "normalized" list of equivalences BTW 37 pockets from 1 to 37 and 37 numbers, from 0 to 36.    Otherwise we can obtain different results in the reversing process.  
I can adapt mine to yours if you publish.  

In other side I think that we are both committing the same mistake when calculating, and registering the distances.  
The first distance couldn't be 0.  
We must count like this:
(in your example)
#   PERM    POCKET (my sort)  DISTANCE
1   12   34      NUL (but not 0)
2   9   28      31
3   17   9      18
4   28   33      24
.   .   .  
We must reserve the distance 0 for the numbers that repeats, meaning a full revolution = 37 pockets
As you correctly calculated in the spin nº 31, in which 7 repeats after hitting also in spin nº 30 and you register as 0 distance.    Correct.  
But we couldn't start registering the first distance traveled as 0.  
We could, at max.    register the nº pocket as first distance traveled.   .   .  
In your example:
1   12   34   (34)
2   9   28   31
3   17   9   18
and so on.   .   .  
I think that this "tweaks" in a minor way the tracking.  
That's the way I've used in the excel sheet that I uploaded.  
But I'm thinking in change that cell for a NUL one (not a white, but one filled with an ' per example) then the count changes a little but is more correct and real.  

But I think that the most important thing is to established a "fixed" set of equivalences pockets/real numbers.  
In other ways.    I've finished the sheet with the mobile selection and the reverse algorithm, but while I'm obtaining the same distances as you do, when converting to pockets  and then to numbers, my list results in a different selection than yours.  

Best regards.  
Betatester.  

winkel

Hi betatester,

I do it the follwing way:

when I test with a real wheel I put the date at start number (because at start of the day the ball always lies in that pocket)

[table=,]
spin   ,   wheel   ,   dist
todays date ->   ,   (18)   ,   
1   ,   5   ,   27
2   ,   31   ,   7
3   ,   36   ,   24
4   ,   29   ,   17
5   ,   33   ,   29
6   ,   12   ,   11
7   ,      ,   

[/table]

If you are checking a RNG just put the first spin as "date" and start tracking numbers and distances from 2. spin


I´m only counting in one direction:
from 12 to Zero the distance is 4
from 0 to 12 the distance is 33

when the 12 is last number an I have to play distance 4 I will have to bet #0
I don´t see a reason to turn over the notation

br
winkel

betatester

Hi forum. 
Hello Winkel, and thanks for your answer.   It's was a moment of confussion by my side.   Now it's solved. 
We are doing the same thing but.  .  . 
Take a look at your notes.  .  . 
When you list the distances traveled at spin 23 you list the next ones:

"These 17 distances we have to bet are:
2
4
6
7
9
11
12
13
15
19
20
23
27
29
32
34
35

You see.  .  . 
0 distance is not in the list, while the first 1 repeater comes in spin #31 with the nº:7, repeating spin #30 > distance = 37 > 0. 
Until spin 31 !!! While your list extracts a situation at spin 23. 
At spin 23 we haven't see a distance 0 yet, so 0 must be in the list of non outcomed distances. 
That's due to your imputation for 0 distance in the first spin.  

But what is worst.  .  .   that causes that I don't register the flag to bet on the 0 vs 1 outcomed distances until spin 25, while your calculations leads you to see a cross coming at spin 23 with a 17 vs.   17. 
See the picture below:

At spin 23 (with the outcome of 13, so a 22 distance after 9) I've properly registered 18 vs.   16
At spin 24, 0 comes, that's a distance 25 after 13 and then all changes.   But I (we) should have hit at first after the "trigger" with 17 vs.   16 in spin 25. 

And so, my list to distances to be betted after spin 23 is different, including distance 0. 
It looks like:
The list of distances (18) not outcomed at spin 23:
0
2
4
6
7
9
11
12
13
15
19
20
23
27
29
32
34
35

Well.   After all it's a little discrepancie. 
But following the same thrill as in spin 23 number 13 outcomes, then we just need to register the 18 distances, including the 0, just to check out. 
As you can see, for my, the number 13, laids in pocket 13, anyway.  .  . 
from pocket 13 we play:
Sum   Pocket   Real Number
13+0: 13   13
13+2: 15 11
13+4: 17   8
13+6: 19   10
13+7: 20   5
13+9: 22   16
13+11: 24   1
13+12: 25   20
13+13: 26   14
13+15: 28   9
13+19: 32   7
13+20: 33   28
13+23: 36   3
13+27: 40 > 3   15
13+29: 42 > 5   4
13+32: 45 > 8   25
13+34: 47 > 10   34
13+35: 48 > 11   6
Once sorted the numbers chosed to bet (withouth merging) counting only the 0 distances applied to the pocket that occupies the number 13 are (after my calculations):
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 25, 28, 34

while you post, for the same "momento":
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20, 25, 28, 34

And I've the same natural numbers selection as you:
0, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36. 

Merged gives: 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 25, 34. 

All is working properly (at least in my new sheet). 

So, don't you worry.   I can start the tests !!!
But revise the 0 case distance as first notation in your notes. 

I will post some results, and the sheet, when it shows more understable. 

Thanks again. 
Best regard. 

Betatester

winkel

Hi betatester,

there is a misunderasstanding.

the trot starts with a 12.

as I wrote it is Wiesbaden-live-Table, so I used the date as starting-number. Unfortunately the date-numbers is the same as the first spun number.

So for comparing my tracks you should have a trot like this:

(12) number of date = starting-poket
12 - first spun number = distnce to "date" 0
etc.

pls compare my posts (replies) number 3 to 6

br
winkel

betatester

Hello Winkel.
I understand now.

Thank you very much.
Betatester

betatester

-