### Author Topic: A message for thanks to Charles win3million  (Read 35516 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Junscissorhands

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #165 on: October 19, 2017, 02:31:54 AM »

Yes that's why in my earlier posts i've said some people won't find the final form of the bet.

There are way too many variables. During my researches i've had many WOW / Eureka! / Lightbulb -moments.

Look at Duncan's picture again. Look at the table vertically, note down the first 3 from top to bottom you see RCC the winning (orange) result was or is ALWAYS C. Try finding 7 other combinations of 3 and the winning or losing result next to it. All of them have exactly the same WINNING or LOSING result

There are many, many things hidden in those charts.

The following users thanked this post: kav

#### Reyth

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #166 on: October 19, 2017, 07:24:04 PM »

Just an update -- THIS IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT ON AN INTELLECTUAL LEVEL -- I believe I have been focused in the right direction METHOD-WISE but applying that method I have been steeped in ignorance, well, because that's what I do best?

So keep in mind that the general method I post above is correct but some of the concrete data regarding specific spin scoring (C or R) may be incorrect; but the general method still applies.

Anyway, the framework for the testing software is complete but I am just now realizing the ignorance in application and am modifying the software to be completely accurate in accord with REALITY.

A person can go insane over this stuff...  Let me give you a little example:

The patterns that we trap by each Trigger, change based on the sequence.

In the results the repeting Col ( win) is not included....

Wow I just realized (after some more hair pulling) that I can simply make a program that runs all 64 sequences against each individual sequence and apply all 4 triggers to each of those 64 results, generating a score for each trigger for each of the 64 possible results for each possible sequence.

Did I just type that!?

.
Stage 1 Input all sequences COMPLETE
Stage 2 Generate all root bets COMPLETE
Stage 3 Score all triggers against each sequence COMPLETE
Stage 4 Output all scores COMPLETE
Stage 5 Produce analysis of all scores COMPLETE

Well some interesting news but ultimately bad news.

To my surprise, the patterns we bet against pre-existing sequences DO make a difference, in fact of the 4 triggers that I tested there will always be ONE of them that outperforms the rest.  I have attached an .xls sheet with the data, just change the .txt back to .xls before opening.

However, unfortunately even though one pattern will always do better versus a pre-existing sequence, the performance of those specific patterns are quite underwhelming; you can see on the sheet in the column entitled "Runs" how many times 6 bets were placed, with each hit yielding 1 point.  None of the patterns can even average a score of 1 hit per test.  There is still a column that is not accounted for with about a 31% chance but that, at best would make it less than 1.5 hits per test.

I didn't just accept the computer test, I went to a competitive roulette site and lost 4 sessions in a row.

So I am going to be giving up on this unless at some point I should think of something I missed.

« Last Edit: October 20, 2017, 08:18:36 AM by Reyth »

The following users thanked this post: kav

#### vitorwally

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #167 on: October 20, 2017, 09:20:39 PM »
As a guy that was reading this topic, as it was developing, without an account, I kind of felt obligated to register myself and leave some opinions.
1st. Even if charles was bluffing all the time just looking for easy money i think that at least he motivated some folks to try to win at this game.
2nd. Apparently he wasn't bluffing and the notes of the now dead webpage are solid.
3rd. Congrats for the guys that supposedly figured out this puzzle and thumbs up also for the others giving their best to reach it.
Finally, I also have my approach for charles mystery system even though I think it is still far far away from the original point of view. Either-way, as Reyth said, maybe at some point the things that are missing us would be more clear.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Reyth

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #168 on: October 20, 2017, 09:52:50 PM »
Thanks for posting Wally!  Maybe there is some way to improve the triggers to get them to perform positively.

I think one thing that has confused me is going back 6 spins -- I don't know how this relates to how Duncan kept betting opposite of last spin; in other words, how is betting depending on the current spins connected with the spins that occurred 6 iterations in the past??

Also how could he play so many individual sessions using the SAME betting pattern?

Why does he score each mini session with R or C (probably 6th spin back) and how in the heck does that affect any of our current spins?

If I can't make the betting method make sense, I don't feel inclined to pursue it.

Glad you are still trying to work through it and thanks again for posting!

LOL. Ok MAYBE its like this:

He scores the column for the 6th spin back and bets against that event but FROM THEN ON he only deals with the current spins, betting opposite of last.

See how like bizarre and non-sensical that is??
« Last Edit: October 20, 2017, 09:56:40 PM by Reyth »

#### Junscissorhands

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #169 on: October 21, 2017, 10:21:09 AM »
It is not always 6 spins, the 64 has a double meaning. Being..coverage of the table during play but also the forming and play of the triggers.  How many spins needed is depending on how many repeaters there are.

It´s really important that you shouldn´t emphasize on decoding the exact way of play like Duncan has posted. First a good understanding of clusters and randomness is needed.

The win3m basically stimulates you into finding your own bet after cluster analysis.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 10:24:53 AM by Junscissorhands »

The following users thanked this post: jerome26b

#### jerome26b

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #170 on: October 21, 2017, 10:23:29 AM »
think about it what's the sense to play something because of a trigger 6 spins backs it's nonsense really... i was able to reduce a little bit the variance i got at my second 1000 spins sequence not -100 but around -70 but still not perfect. If the system can work it's only for one reason and this why it's the best results i have ever achieved flat bet until now (but not winning yet or profit too small and variable to worse it)

jerome

#### Junscissorhands

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #171 on: October 21, 2017, 10:28:06 AM »
If you want the exact same results as Duncan has posted, your single COL or DOZ needs to have an average profit of 13-14 units plus after around 100 spins.

The following users thanked this post: Esenin

#### Reyth

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #172 on: October 21, 2017, 12:39:07 PM »
Since he is not changing his betting method no matter how he scores the row, it is clear (if his method really works) that the key is in the scoring of the row and it is 100% dependent on whether it is scored a "C" or a "R"; that scoring method also determines which columns represent a forecasted result of "C" and "R" on the upcoming spin.

The only clues we have from his posts here is that it is based on the 3 movements and analysis of 6 spins back.

Ok, maybe I should analyze the 64 sequences to determine which result is more frequent with each one, "C" or "R".  This will be relatively easy.

OK, update!

I failed to take into account all the data.  What I have proven is that he is not betting the  6th back result of COLUMNS with COLUMN bets and that amazingly it DOES make a difference which patterns we bet VS. specific spun patterns.

What if the triggers are:

1) R/B 6th spin back + E/O 6 spins back, betting columns to trap E/O & COLORS
2) R/B 6th spins back + E/O 6 spins back, betting dozens to trap E/O & COLORS
3) ("more odd and uneven things")
4) ("more odd and uneven things")

Betting every time on the 6th back result is guaranteed to produce a unique pattern that is a mirror of the last 6 spins.

I should get better results basing my scoring on colors AND EC.

I am going to start simple and just bet Columns for colors.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 07:09:00 PM by Reyth »

The following users thanked this post: kav

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 288 times
• Gender:
##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #173 on: October 22, 2017, 08:31:40 PM »

Please folks, go back to school.  Learn some math and basic probability.  Use common sense or find an adult to set you straight.

« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 08:34:28 PM by Real »

#### Reyth

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #174 on: October 22, 2017, 08:52:34 PM »
Well there is SOME potential merit here or if not, how would you explain that certain betting patterns do better long-term than other betting patterns against a particular pre-existing sequence and that every pre-existing sequence has one betting pattern that does better than the rest?

Keep in mind that that is a pre-existing sequence of 6 spins, with a betting pattern that corresponds with each of those 6 spins, for 6 new spins.

I realize this doesn't fit into your roulette world view, but HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN IT?

Granted the best pattern still loses badly but that's not the point.  The point is that since this phenomenon exists, POTENTIALLY there is a way to develop a pattern that DOES win.

I will not accept an answer of "past spins have no effect on future spins, the wheel has no memory, kthxbai!" because I am asking a specific statistical question about a specific statistical phenomenon and a pet phrase doesn't address my question.

To make this question as user-friendly as possible, here is the statistical output  for 16M spins against the pattern CCCCCC:

Past Seq....BP #1.......BP #2.............BP #3........BP #4.............#1 Hits......#2 Hits......#3 Hits......#4 Hits.......Total Runs
CCCCCC...RRRRRR...CCCCCC...CRCRCR...RCRCRC...2664466...5521230...4092511...4093185...5609428

I can show you this same phenomenon on every one of the 64 possible sequences (I have attached the full sequences a few posts up).

Why does CCCCCC do better against CCCCCC more than the other patterns?  Why should it make a difference?  Why isn't it a shotgun scatter across all sequences?  Again, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS??
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 09:08:42 PM by Reyth »

The following users thanked this post: kav

#### vitorwally

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #175 on: October 22, 2017, 09:06:32 PM »
@Real
Let's imagine that all the fuzz around win3million's special bet is baseless as you say. I kind of don't mind. People are turning heads to find a way to figure out the method, and, genuinely, isn't it the reason we love roulette? As long as this topic keeps giving hope I think there's no reason for such harsh posts. I think this problem solving pro-activity is what unites us after all.

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

#### Real

• Fighting the war on absurdity one foolish idea at a time.
• Hero Member
• Posts: 1693
• Thanked: 288 times
• Gender:
##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #176 on: October 23, 2017, 07:35:28 AM »
One step forward and three back.  I hope you don't believe this garbage.

#### MrPerfect.

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #177 on: October 23, 2017, 10:56:12 AM »
To Base betting decision on past data, data needs qwolity. Random groups of numbers offered for a bet by casino ( outside betts) do not represent nessesary qwolity in order to make a decision.
Problem is that these groups of numbers are scattered randomly around the wheel. Such past data do not limit degrees of freedom of the system.
Degrees of freedom are limited when we say something like " in this condition(s) , ball has only so much to go , and most probable stop(s) is/are, because....".
" Because " part has to be verified to the high level of confidence and be statistically significant in its correlation with final result, or some other point into the spin.

#### Reyth

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #178 on: October 23, 2017, 01:42:18 PM »
Well at least I should be able to improve the quality of my testing.

#### MrPerfect.

##### Re: A message for thanks to Charles win3million
« Reply #179 on: October 23, 2017, 02:36:06 PM »
How so? How to test is already a publick domain.  You obviously can compete with collective effort of  best mathematicians of human history... if you wish. But wouldn't it be more productive improve quality of tested material ( data) or quality of hypothesis?