Roulette Outside the BOX

Nicely Played Jekhb! Although I'm not sure how to play the progression exactly? Do you always return to 1u in the next cycle if a number is still behind. So for example number 1 start hitting is cycle 4 and has 3 hits in cycle 4 and is on progresison 1-2-4. In cycle 5 do you start with 1unit again or do you continue with the 4 units?

 

Imagine that it will add to the number of exits.
If you go through cycle 5 and a number has 3 starts and you have 2 starts for your average and your progression is 1-2-4-6-8, then you will have the card 4 because you are missing the 6-8 stroke of the progression to reach your average of 5 outputs. Or so I think, anyway if you notice, Mako put a detailed example of a session.

Congratulations to the great work of Eddy, Mako and others. If I can help or contribute to something, here I am.

regards

 

https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1941-1945-war-leader/never-give-in-harrow-school/

"Almost a year has passed since I came down here at your Head Master’s kind invitation in order to cheer myself and cheer the hearts of a few of my friends by singing some of our own songs. The ten months that have passed have seen very terrible catastrophic events in the world – ups and downs, misfortunes – but can anyone sitting here this afternoon, this October afternoon, not feel deeply thankful for what has happened in the time that has passed and for the very great improvement in the position of our country and of our home? Why, when I was here last time we were quite alone, desperately alone, and we had been so for five or six months. We were poorly armed. We are not so poorly armed today; but then we were very poorly armed. We had the unmeasured menace of the enemy and their air attack still beating upon us, and you yourselves had had experience of this attack; and I expect you are beginning to feel impatient that there has been this long lull with nothing particular turning up!

But we must learn to be equally good at what is short and sharp and what is long and tough. It is generally said that the British are often better at the last. They do not expect to move from crisis to crisis; they do not always expect that each day will bring up some noble chance of war; but when they very slowly make up their minds that the thing has to be done and the job put through and finished, then, even if it takes months – if it takes years – they do it.

Another lesson I think we may take, just throwing our minds back to our meeting here ten months ago and now, is that appearances are often very deceptive, and as Kipling well says, we must “…meet with Triumph and Disaster. And treat those two impostors just the same.”

You cannot tell from appearances how things will go. Sometimes imagination makes things out far worse than they are; yet without imagination not much can be done. Those people who are imaginative see many more dangers than perhaps exist; certainly many more than will happen; but then they must also pray to be given that extra courage to carry this far-reaching imagination. But for everyone, surely, what we have gone through in this period – I am addressing myself to the School – surely from this period of ten months this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. We stood all alone a year ago, and to many countries it seemed that our account was closed, we were finished. All this tradition of ours, our songs, our School history, this part of the history of this country, were gone and finished and liquidated.

Very different is the mood today. Britain, other nations thought, had drawn a sponge across her slate. But instead our country stood in the gap. There was no flinching and no thought of giving in; and by what seemed almost a miracle to those outside these Islands, though we ourselves never doubted it, we now find ourselves in a position where I say that we can be sure that we have only to persevere to conquer.

You sang here a verse of a School Song: you sang that extra verse written in my honor, which I was very greatly complimented by and which you have repeated today. But there is one word in it I want to alter – I wanted to do so last year, but I did not venture to. It is the line: “Not less we praise in darker days.”

I have obtained the Head Master’s permission to alter darker to sterner. “Not less we praise in sterner days.”

Do not let us speak of darker days: let us speak rather of sterner days. These are not dark days; these are great days – the greatest days our country has ever lived; and we must all thank God that we have been allowed, each of us according to our stations, to play a part in making these days memorable in the history of our race."

October 29, 1941.
W. Churchill

 

Hi Mako,

There are ways to limit the amount of numbers in play:

1) Method 1
Play only the first k numbers that show up from the pool
lets say after Cycle1, the numbers pool is 2k even(2k+1 odd, play the first k(even)/k+1(odd)numbers that are awaken on the next cycles
Examples:
Cycle 1: 15 numbers (zero hits). play only the first 8 numbers(k=7, odd 15) as they are awaken for the next cycles
Cycle1: 14 numbers (zero hits), play only the first 7 numbers (k=7, even 14) as they are awaken for the next cycles
The theory stays the same as its half/half plus 1
2) Method 2
Cycle 1 (selection) : Instead of 37 spins, Wait until you have k numbers unhit and then start cycles 2,3... on those numbers only
Example: At spin 61, you have 8 zerohits (pool of numbers) (k=8)
Cycle2 starts at spin 62 and lasts until spin 98
Cycle 3 spin 99-135
and so on.

The 37 spin cycles are as random as they can be, but you don`t have to play random. Make it suit your needs.
It`s all a game of patience and playing at the right time.

Try it. Test it. You will see it will work
Cheers

 

Actually this idea that you need a large number of spins for "statistical relevance" isn't correct. I guess if you're looking for bias then you WOULD need a large sample because the bias wouldn't show in a relatively small sample (although theoretically it could). I agree that more spins is better, but a result could be statistically significant even over a small sample (it's not NECESSARY to have a large sample).

For example, if betting 3 numbers over 500 spins, the expected number of wins is 41, which gives a proportion of 41/500 = 0.0820. This is the "Null" hypothesis. Now supposing you actually get 60 wins using your ace bet selection method (proportion = 60/500 = 0.12); is this evidence that you have something? If you do a test for proportion you only need at least 10 wins and 10 losses in order to satisfy the criteria for normality (bell curve), which is easily satisfied by your data, and doing the test yields the following:

Code:

Null hypothesis: population proportion = 0.082
Sample size: n = 500
Sample proportion = 0.12
Test statistic: z = (0.12 - 0.082)/0.01227 = 3.09699
Two-tailed p-value = 0.001955
(one-tailed = 0.0009775)

Which is highly significant.

I just wish testers would post their results in terms of wins and losses and not just final bankroll balances because it can be very misleading especially if they're using progressions which artificially inflate the variance.

 

I'm on the way to the casino bothers

 

This isn't such a bad idea after all!
The way i play it now is i keep the progression on a number and bring it over to the next cycle.
But maybe it's also an option to start the progression fresh again in the next cycle!
this will reduce the costs drasticly, the turnside is that when you fall behind, there is almost no coming back to a plus situation.
will run some tests. thnx.
eddy

 

thnx will do.

 

This makes it easy to code, thanks Frodo. When you guys have decided on the next incarnation of the system please modify the above algorithm to incorporate the changes, and I'll code it up.

 

lol....3 hours later!

 

One thing i would like to add at this point, is knowing when to stop!
There are sessions where the cycles just don't bring the hits needed to bring your balance to a new high.
What happens is that your still not at a new high and have only a few numbers left, this can be the tricky part, what to do next?
Or that you have played over 200 spins and are way behind.
We need to know when to stop, this is very important.
Do we take first high and set our stop loss point.
What if we don't have a new high with over 200 spins played? we need a stop loss.....

 

Yes agree Eddy, it's too early to pin it down precisely as testing takes a bit of time with this variant, but already it's easy to see that you're right.

So far, and again this will likely change as the testing results come in, it's all about Cycle 6.

If you've managed a significant profit (+250u or more) either before, or by the end of Cycle 6, your risk is rising exponentially past that point (spin 222). Almost to the point where a mechanical stop point of 'win or lose, reset by the end of C6' might ultimately be where we wind up instead of a BR loss limit that triggers a reset.

We'll see though as the data comes in, I tested the 'worst' spin sets from the previous version I was testing in this thread, and surprisingly it won all three and outperformed the base method.

Have done six sessions so far, 1244 total spins, and it hasn't really been in trouble yet. +5176u.

Biggest draw down at any point in those sessions -894u. Total spins in each of those sessions, 217, 220, 190, 240, 156, 221.

 

Sharp and Eugene, the sheep posts are killing me, lol, nice nice.

All comments are welcome, I don't mind the critical analysis as there are sharp minds on the other side, and if you can sift through the bias or negativity, or personal attacks, you sometimes gain insight. Besides, Caleb's 72 different pics of a cow-jumping-over-the-moon are pretty to look at...

 

Sharp trackers Sheep is telling the whole story the way things are .

ND

 

Agree, will need much more testing to pinpoint when or what to do in what situation, and what is the max spins we can play, a safe point as you will. a border of some kind. this is the logical next step in our seach for a HG, atleast as unhits are concerned.
I'm 100% positive that also with unhits a HG can be made, i'm sure of it.
But it needs alot of trial and error to get to that point. But we'll get there, together.

 

To get back to testing,
I had one session up to this point wich never recoverd after never bein' in a plus situation at any point, was only a straight line down memory lane
I kept playing to see where it would go, but it never made it into a positive balance again.
And i played more then 600 spins in that session. but this was one of the first sessions i tested with unhits, never saw it again after this. But i take it as a warning sign, that bad things can always happen in a random game, even when it has limits.

 

So true ... play long enough and you know when to jump off. Difficult to code feelings.

 

I suspect it's going to be a hard floor somewhere around -1500u as the stop, regardless of cycle or timing.

I just had a session I stopped at -1466u at spin 259 because I ran out of spins for that particular table/day and couldn't continue the test with the actual situation that occurred.

But the table bet was up to 122u per spin by that point, which is ludicrous of course if you're chasing just 8 numbers, so -1500u in my mind made sense as a testing stoploss to this point. It may climb or shrink, we'll see, but that's obviously why we test.

That loss session was followed by +1516u and +846u sessions, and thus far on a session basis I'm at 9 wins, 1 loss, 1943 total spins, net units = +6434.

 

There must be a way to avoid these spins from hell, we'll know soon enough when more and more data comes in.
To me personaly a -1500 is a no go.
i have stopped playing this live for now, because we haven't found a solution to this drastic event. i was lucky, that i won 882 euro. but what if i had lost my 500? i couldn't continue because that was all i had i had on me, and what i could spend for a long time.
So i will continue testing things further, trying to find a safe net for all of us. Maybe find out when to stop and just take the loss.

 

yep, this is our next step we need to look into.
when do we jump of.