TurboGenius Turbo, do you remember the discussion on how to select the repeat?

Thanks for answering.

Question though: Have you programmed your idea to see if it will held up, or do you test it mannually.

 

More riddles lol

Why give so many clues if you don't want to reveal your 'secret'?

 

Horse pucky. Win/loss has no bearing of any kind on the next outcome. You cannot make a decision on where to place the next bet on your own ridiculous win-loss selections. I knew there was only one stream to follow in baccarat. You cannot make up streams and pretend they work.

 

Ofc the hypothetical solution model pass statistical signicance test. The more important question is with the proof of concept. I'm prepared to work with properly accredited academics on this front for proper peer review with the intent to publish a academic paper. That's if I'm offered proper accreditation for my work content.

I have to remind myself this is a gambling forum. Lol

 

Good job then! Always test your ideas extensively this is what a lot of people lack on this forum unfortunately.

 

lol, I knew you wouldn't understand it. There is nothing unique about the P/B stream, any bet selection will produce a W/L stream identical to any other. You just don't like it because it proves that all bet selections are equally ineffective. You can't give one reason why not.

That's what you're doing.

 

Here is the stream you are looking for: WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

Now there is only one stream.

 

Sure there is, it comes directly from the shuffled deck. Somebody's pitiful win loss record has no meaning whatsoever and cannot be used to determine the next outcome. How could it, the only useful information it contains is the person doesn't know what they're doing. I knew there was only one stream to follow in baccarat.

 

No, because any bet selection, like FTL, for example, is uniquely determined by the P/B sequence and is derived from it completely. That means the W/L sequence isn't "made up", but must be what it is because the P/B sequence is what it is and there is a rule which maps P/B to W/L. This means it's no less valid to take your next bet from the derived sequence rather than the P/B sequence itself. You could also generate other sequences directly from the P/B stream, like taking every second outcome instead of every outcome which would still give the same characteristics as the entire sequence in full.

I don't think you'll get it though, because you don't do math and logic.

 

I thought so. It's multiple characteristics. Now wake to the world of the real. I'm using multiple characteristics times multiple data streams all at once. From that you get more working opportunities.

Code:

----------------------------------------- 
 W | B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |  --  SN  --  SP 
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  01  --  06    
   |    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  02  --  27    
   | X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  03  --  13    
   |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  04  --  36    
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  05  --  08    
   |    X | X    | X    | X    |   |   |  --  06  --  09    
   |    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  07  --  23    
   |    X | X    |    X | X    | X |   |  --  08  --  27    
   | X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  09  --  13    
   |    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  10  --  14    
   |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  11  --  30    
   | X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  12  --  13    
   | X    |    X | X    | X    |   | X |  --  13  --  10    
   |    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  14  --  23    
   | X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  15  --  26    
   |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  16  --  21    
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  17  --  24    
   |    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  18  --  36    
   |    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  19  --  05    
   |    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  20  --  32    
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  21  --  08    
   | X    |    X |    X |    X |   | X |  --  22  --  20    
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  23  --  04    
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  24  --  15    
   | X    |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  25  --  26    

I've got singles on the weak side, domination, chop, absence of singles as characteristics and I don't have wL lists unless I use any individual characteristic for a bet selection, funded or not. Real win / loss only matters when you put money up. It's the only way to evaluate the ease or difficulty of the session. With visual dexterity I can add perfect patterns and rhythmic clustering that I call the global effect. Spike looks specifically for swarm data. Why? Because often times data streams include swarm clusters. My guess is that you look at data as a matrix. At least you understand that wins or losses are real data and not just past result signaling inferences in conjunction with your effort to find the working data in the stream of results. I would love to see how you chart your multiple data streams. You got the guts to do that?

 

Actually, thinking about it, that's not quite true, because other bet selections can also determine the same bet, but it's still true that the P/B sequence is what determines the W/L. Hey, just trying to save you some time, but if you don't believe it then don't bother. But that would be hypocritical since you're always saying it's the mathboyz who are closed-minded.

 

So do you chart like this:

FTL: wwLwLLwLwLwwwL
OpofLast: wwLwLLwLwLwLwww
Chop: wLwwLLLwwLwwwwwLwLwLLL

 

So you think LLLLLLWLLL has value to determine the next outcome? If your bet election has no value the outcomes of the bet will have no value and be useless.


"You could also generate other sequences directly from the P/B stream, like taking every second outcome instead of every outcome"

You could do this but it would not help you determine the next outcome.

 

No.

Any derived stream, first-off simply gives you an alternative (betting) pattern on offer.

Eg. If/when your EC-based bs' congested appearances =winning streaks (after some time cease) turning into a low-congested interval, you have an alternative bs pattern ready-available for replacement -- of which swarms, so-so & desert seasons might not coincide thus avoiding a bas streak interval.

 

You avoid bad risk by only betting when it's playing your game. You reduce bad risk and transfer bad risk to the casino by never betting when it's not playing your game.
You accept the good risk of making a bet when virtual betting tells you you have far more wins than losses. Just tonight I was tracking the game virtually and I lost five of the first six bets. Then I won the next four in a row. What should I have done? I did not bet of course, anything that changes that quickly will change that quickly back again. And sure enough it went back to losing so I quit tracking. I consider this a win because I gave the casino no chance to get at my bankroll. I wait till it's on my terms not on theirs. This is a huge advantage the player has, we can bet anytime we want. The casino is stuck taking every bet we make, they have no choice. They are sitting ducks.

This sounds easy but it actually takes a tremendous amount of practice to learn when it's playing your game and when it's a false alarm.

 

Getting you correctly you dismissed hedging the risk, simply on/off risk assessment function ?

 

.

 

There are 2 parts to the problem.

First objective is to generate alpha.
Second is to quantify, assess the risk, then manage the risk.

This risk becomes relevant because of your first objective.
The common strategy to manage risk is to hedge the risk.

How many of you can see the parallel similarity between betting roulette spins and and directional speculation of financial assets?

I've been asked on pms and emails this same question.

This post is the answer.

Gambling forums, whether AP or Systems players think of one objective only.
Accuracy of the betselection.

 

I never heard, that system players think about bet selection. In my understanding that is where ball will end its travel. If you know this enough accurate are only one thing about what to think - how you can bet maximal and not get more attention than need...
Theese two are main in game - to be as possible more accurate and after that - bet maximal without attention from casino part...
Of course last without first is worthless...

 

Spike has written his understanding about risk and describe how he quantify, assess and manage risk. This give Spike an advantage.

AP gamblers depend solely on their crude input condition measurements, no determination of risk and risk management.

If you read most people's post they don't mention risk management. Strangely, not many people are interested in risk management.

Understanding risk and incorporating risk management is an important aspect of our betting decision that give the advantage to the player. This is the main determinant of the positive edge.

Spike is correct to point out that the casino has to gamble all spins. Whereas the player has this choice to select which spin(s) to play. That's why casinos love gamblers to sit down and continuously bet all spins, the longer the better for the casino.