Author Topic: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)  (Read 1740 times)

0 Members and 33 Guests are viewing this topic.

palestis

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2019, 08:11:29 PM »

  Idea is to test if virtual losses on trigger improve ( reduce) back to back losses in any way.
  It's easy to do  ( relatively).
There is no way to perform a general test that applies to every trigger for every different system.
Every system has its own trigger, and a unique number of B2B losses that it can tolerate.
For this system it has been observed that the max. number of B2B losses that it can suffer is 4.
Maybe some day someone will see 5
If you play a DS do you really expect the max. B2B losses to also be 4?
How about a street?
Virtual losses do not reduce B2B losses.
What they do is, protect the player form losing when B2B losses occur. Because he doesn't bet with real money while he's betting virtually.
It's a vey simple concept.
You bet from the beginning and when you run into a long series of B2B losses (which will certainly happen), you lose your shirt.
You wait for some Virtual losses and then you play the remainder of the steps up to the max. step that the B2B losses have been observed to go.
The money saved from losing the first steps virtually, will enable you to go all the way to the last step.
You only lose if you break the B2B record of losses.
But do you really think that you will consistently be so unlucky  to break the record every time you play?
If so, then you will hold the record of being the world's most unluckiest player.

« Last Edit: October 01, 2019, 08:22:42 PM by palestis »
 

MrPerfect.

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2019, 09:37:52 PM »
Palestice,  if one wish, he can test anything. No need to test all possible variants.  Just need to make an excel to test this general type of systems. Something with numbers in one column, next columns will test if number belongs to specific groups ( if yes one value, if not - nothing...)... on other columns you can specify trigger, test for skips... test for back to back losses...
   No need to perform all automatically as well..  can format all as a table and filter desired conditions to other table,  where specific test will be performed.
  After compare same amount of trials with tiger and without it... with virtual losses and without it... ets.
  It's not bla. .bla. .. l already made similar programs before. It just takes time. But if someone will wanna do it, l can help with some complex formulas, like count skips, for example, or give ideas how to create a logic engine with structure of columns themselves. ..
 

scepticus

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2019, 11:13:18 PM »
Mr Perfect

It cannot be proved that Palestis  will be a long term loser,  only actual results can do that.  Because his method is not supported by the maths does not mean it will fail - only that his method is unsupported by the maths.

That said, I don’t agree with using a negative progression here  . Negative progressions suggest to me a lack of confidence in the actual method .He has reduced his exposure which suggests that he was too   optimistic before and is searching for the optimal progression . 

Good luck to him I say ! He ,at least, has stuck his head above the parapet by posting his actual method .
I think he sometimes  regrets not sticking to his earlier  view DO  NOT post  a winning system !    ;D

 

kav

  • https://www.youtube.com/c/rouletteman
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Thanked: 1345 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2019, 06:10:22 AM »
Mr. Perfect I warn you publicly for the last time to not disrupt one of the best topics in the forum.

This topic is already near 100 pages and 200K views. Start a new topic about it if you want to question the merit of the system. This thread is for those who believe that the system has value.
 

Joe

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2019, 07:58:00 AM »
The argument about the benefit of using virtual losses sounds plausible on the face of it but it's fallacious I'm afraid. It's fallacious because by waiting for virtual losses, what you're doing is effectively looking for long losing runs, and yes, you will find them because all patterns of the same length are equally likely. Virtual losses would work only if some patterns were less likely than others, but that isn't the case.

Anyway it will become more clear when I've coded palestis's system, which will prove it.

@palestis, your examples of what happens when you don't use triggers and virtual losses isn't convincing because you are cherry picking and looking for cases where betting on certain outcomes fails. It's easy to 'prove' a case in hindsight and when you're being selective. A proper test will show that virtual bets and no virtual bets generate the same results, ie that there is no merit in using triggers.
 
The following users thanked this post: scepticus

kav

  • https://www.youtube.com/c/rouletteman
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Thanked: 1345 times
  • Gender: Male
Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2019, 06:00:35 PM »
Here you can post commentary and fundamental disagreements and questions about Palestis' Single Dozen Method.

That other thread is near 100 pages long already, so we split the discussion in two topics to be easier for the reader to follow the discussion.
This one is more focused in questions and criticism. (negative feedback)
The other thread is about understanding and developing the system with new ideas. (positive feedback)
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP

Jesper

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #21 on: October 05, 2019, 04:07:04 PM »
As wellknown, virtual bets do not change the odds, previous spin do not tell the ball or the player what is next. If we take simple negative progression martingale, we are very likely to fail in 1 of 1000 wins, which cost all. If we have a stoploss we may stand longer  (time), but for sure see the bank drain in many trials instead of one.  Virtual bets wait for many losing spins make the player stay long in time. The player can win for years, but has not placed many bets. The presence of the player do not change the outcome in a predicational way. We can get information from other means, and rush for a bet a day or so. Less play less losing and maybe winning.
 
The following users thanked this post: scepticus

MickyP

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #22 on: October 05, 2019, 05:21:31 PM »
We all know that variance relative to a specific system comes in waves and these waves differ in lengths. Surely it is wise to include virtual betting during a negative variance wave and bet strategically to catch positive waves. Palestis does exactly this with his use of virtual losses. He has explained this in great detail but then again its a different story for online RNG players.
 

scepticus

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #23 on: October 05, 2019, 05:50:55 PM »
The other thread is about understanding and developing the system with new ideas. (positive feedback)

kav
Doesn't this show that others don't  accept that Palestis' own method works for them ? If not why not ? And does THEIR modification work for others? or is it " Variations on a theme " ?
 
 

MrPerfect.

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #24 on: October 05, 2019, 08:25:37 PM »
I think this tread existence is a clear sign that dosen hunting is a hype. No reasonable argument is allowed in 100 pages of bubbling about creation of unreasonable.  Even proposition to help to test it is not welcome. 
   As Scepticus stated, this " system" don't use math, or not" based on math"... l do not remember exact wording, but anyone understand that it doesn't follow common math or logic.
  Kav made a statement  it needs " beliving" to be allowed to post there... very weak position, he could change his avatar for a clown with less shame. What ??? New religion? It's enough to see Jeova witnesses who are not old enough to have seen Jesus,  yet Jeova...
   Now we get " single dosen wintesses".
 Shame. Being unable to test a system or use excel becomes a good deed and a trace of character of this new religion belivers,  same as Jeova followers, they do apeal to feelings and emotions and do not welcome common logic, math or any argument. It has a stamp " for cretins only" , that's how l see it.
  Anyone with the brain, put " thanks " on my post, so l know there are normal people besides me here.
 

MickyP

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #25 on: October 05, 2019, 08:28:05 PM »
Septic, I'm sure Kav will answer your question.

Have you tested Palestis Single Dozen System yourself? Have you tested to see how virtual play changes the dynamics of the risk/reward ratio? Have you tested playing 4 spins instead of 3? Have you tested and looked at eliminating dead numbers in a dozen to increase returns? Have you tested to see what can be done to generate continuous play? The triggers are a good starting point for these tests.

Once you have done some actual testing you will see that the triggers have a universal application and each player can use them to mold their own method that fits their style of play. The idea is to fit the play to your personality or approach. so you can make money from it. If there was no merit to the triggers then I would have not bothered with them.
 

MrPerfect.

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #26 on: October 05, 2019, 08:41:26 PM »
Mickey... would you mind to populate how you define " dead numbers" ? Do they stink, or something?
 

MickyP

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #27 on: October 05, 2019, 08:57:08 PM »
When you poke them, they don't move. No ball will go near them; maybe because of the smell Hahaha ::) ::) :o ;D
 

scepticus

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #28 on: October 05, 2019, 10:08:55 PM »
Mr Perfect
Palestis has  said  that he does not use maths but observation . You and I think he is on the wrong track.
Others don't. They are entitled to their opinion but they will learn that we must use a form of maths.-Eventually!
 

fiben7

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #29 on: October 05, 2019, 10:29:17 PM »
Scepticus, do you think statistics and econometrics is a "form of maths"? Because virtual losses, triggers and maximum observed b2b losses do rely on statistics, isn't it?