Author Topic: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)  (Read 1876 times)

0 Members and 163 Guests are viewing this topic.

scepticus

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #30 on: October 05, 2019, 11:32:55 PM »
I don't agree that statistics is a form of maths. Statistics need to be " interpreted " and maths can be used  in that interpretation. Several different  interpretations  can be made from the same set of statistics and  all could be valid . I think it depends on why you want to list the stats in the first place and the intrerpretation you seek from them.
 
The following users thanked this post: fiben7

fiben7

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #31 on: October 05, 2019, 11:40:38 PM »
Just out of curiosity on the definition aspect, Wikipedia reads:

"Outline of statistics
Statistics is a mathematical body of science that pertains to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data,[11] or as a branch of mathematics.[12] Some consider statistics to be a distinct mathematical science rather than a branch of mathematics. While many scientific investigations make use of data, statistics is concerned with the use of data in the context of uncertainty and decision making in the face of uncertainty.[13][14]"
« Last Edit: October 05, 2019, 11:52:58 PM by fiben7 »
 

scepticus

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #32 on: October 05, 2019, 11:52:51 PM »
That  article clearly relates  to the  "Profession" of Statistics from where we get  the term " Statistician"someone who " interprets " statistics .

Statistics themslves are merely a collection of "Events" .
 
The following users thanked this post: fiben7

palestis

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #33 on: October 06, 2019, 01:28:58 AM »
Mr Perfect
Palestis has  said  that he does not use maths but observation . You and I think he is on the wrong track.
I never said I don't use math. Observation with writing and calculations leads to statistical conclusions.
Whether this is  math or not is not the point of the argument It's how it's used that matters.
It doesn't matter what is called, because the point is the conclusions you draw, and not definitions.
Many people insist that what happened before does not change the probability.
By using virtual losses, you don't change the probability. Nobody argues about that.
What you do is avoid UNNECESSARY LOSSES CAUSED BY VARIANCE, or whatever you call the condition where you get 10 black in a row, when it should be every other spin.
Or a dozen missing 20 spins when it should appear in one of every 3 spins.
Or a DS missing for 45 spins when it should appear every 6 spins.
Who can deny that this is happening and it's happening quite often?
You see it all the time just by observing a score board.
One can easily conclude that probability is worthless during a period of an active variance.
What YOU DON'T SEE is that after 10 black, red magically appears within 3-5 spins.
(the majority of the time)
A dozen missing for 20 spins magically appears in about 3-8 spins. Etc Etc.
If what happened before doesn't count,  then y you don't see another 10 black given there are already 10 black on the score board?
Y you don't see a dozen missing for another 20 spins, given it has disappeared for 20 spins already?
The only conclusion that makes sense is that after all the craziness , called variance, exhausted its limits (determined by long term tests), in the next few spins  the target has no choice but to abide but its rightful probability. At lest for one time only, which produces the hit we are looking for. And that's what we want. Nothing more nothing less.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2019, 01:39:26 AM by palestis »
 

palestis

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #34 on: October 06, 2019, 01:58:28 AM »
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.
It's not like this Jesper.
What you say may be true if you sit in one roulette table. And wait for as long as it takes to get a trigger and then wait for virtual losses before you actually play.
When you are in a live casino with 5-10 roulette tables all around you, you don't waste any time.
One or more of them will have the virtual losses that you otherwise had to wait for if you sat in one table. There is no waste of time at all.
Sometimes there are many ready made situations and you have to rush to make bets in 2 or more different tables.
And a martingale type progression will fail much more frequently if you start betting from the beginning, than after virtual losses.
Besides, when you play after some virtual losses, you don't carry the progression for as far as the B/R allows you to. You set a limit on the number of betting steps, that complies with statistical observations.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2019, 02:03:18 AM by palestis »
 

Jesper

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #35 on: October 06, 2019, 08:57:28 AM »
How will a trigger help? If a martingal player wait until 10 reds and then back the black the player expect it will change, and it is a very good chance the player hit in a few spins. But ten reds has the same chance to repeat as any other last ten. Play against the last ten is the same,  Think other is Apophenia.

A large test which compare will comfirm this.  RRRRRRRRRR RRBRBBRBRB has both the same low chance to show back to back.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2019, 09:30:06 AM by Jesper »
 

dobbelsteen

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #36 on: October 06, 2019, 09:37:38 AM »
Your explanation is incomplete>A 10 row ECs has indeed the statistic chance of about 1 /2^10. A 20 row red has a chance of 1/2^20.
Triggers are a tool to play a strategy. This is always better than random betting. The most addict players are random players.
 
The following users thanked this post: palestis, MickyP, fiben7

scepticus

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #37 on: October 06, 2019, 12:06:48 PM »
Palestis

If I understood your past posts correctly you use observation. I don’t see much maths in your posts.  I also remember a post of yours where you said you once were in the casino for 6 hours without a bet and I don‘t see much merit in your approach ..

You have also reduced your exposure from your previous 4 levels so it seems to me that you are still trying to find the optimal  bet for your idea.

The trouble with variance is that we just cannot tell with certainty what future results will be so we can only guess and I think it unwise to  use  a  progression in such circumstances.

Yes, Virtual Bets reduce your exposure but they can also leave  “ money on the table” when they win. If your calculations are correct why the need for Virtual Spins?   Virtual Spins are IMO a sign of  uncertainty and still require us to guess WHEN to bet.
The WHEN really does matter.

I still think you are on the wrong track !  :D
 

palestis

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #38 on: October 06, 2019, 02:20:05 PM »
I don't understand  what you mean by saying I only use observation.
You need to observe roulette score boards to find the right conditions before starting to bet
And what kind of math you need to play roulette?
The math have been done during testing and conclusions have been drawn.
For your info the casino here has minimum $25 and $50.
If there are many players around, they only have one or 2 tables at $25 (crowded), and the rest are $50.
Playing a dozen starting with 25-25-50 will add up to thousands if you lose 4 triggers, @ 3 spins per trigger with the basic dozen progression. That is if you have the B/R and the guts to go all the way to 4 losing triggers.
Starting at $50, you better have well over $20,000 B/R
The virtual losses is not an indication that a system is weak.
As I said many times it is a method that avoids initial unnecessary losses. (which happen often).
And it is CLOSELY REALATED TO THE MIN. CHIP VALUE.
Nobody wants to go thru a cycle of losing thousands $$ first, before a hit produces the  basic dozen profit.
And that's y you use virtual losses.
If the min. starting chip is $1- $5 then there is no problem, and there is no need for virtual losses. At least on my part. I can withstand 4 B2B losses very easily and care free.
But starting at $25 and $50 it's another story.
Many lengthy tests have been done for this system, and it has been found to produce maximum 4 B2B losses. But I still account for the possibility of breaking that record.
Therefore using 2 VL's or more if you happened to run into them is the safest way to play the system.
At least for the minimum chip required in my casino.
If the min. is different in another casino , then it's up to each individual player, to decide when to start betting.
I don't expect you to spend time testing this system, since it's not a system that you would ever play.
But for those who spent time testing it, they have solid answers.
it's up to them how they want to play it. Virtual losses work perfectly for me.
But I don't know the level of patience other players have. 

« Last Edit: October 06, 2019, 02:37:20 PM by palestis »
 
The following users thanked this post: MickyP, fiben7

scepticus

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #39 on: October 06, 2019, 04:34:03 PM »
"  don't understand  what you mean by saying I only use observation.
You need to observe roulette score boards to find the right conditions before starting to bet
And what kind of math you need to play roulette?
The math have been done during testing and conclusions have been drawn.
Palestis
So what maths have been done during testing ?

What kind of maths do you need to play roulette ? Calculations of the chance of your bet winning - and losingand the calculation from  that to determine the bankroll needed to avoid ruin . I haven't seen such calculations in your posts - or any other negative progression Bettor.

 

palestis

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #40 on: October 06, 2019, 11:39:41 PM »
. Palestis
So what maths have been done during testing ?
You don't really need math to do testing.
All you do is look for triggers from a numbers sheet and then see how many spins does it take to get a hit. (not consecutive spins, but separated by 3 spins per trigger).
And you do that for thousands of triggers, so that the results will be beyond COINCIDENCE.
More specifically the purpose of the test is to find out the max. number of B2B trigger losses.
And it has been found that the max. B2B losses (though very rare), is 4.
If those 4 B2B losses were  occurring frequently, it means that 5 and 6 B2B losses would also occur.
If that was noticed in the tests , then the system should be dropped.
But such a case has not been found or reported during those tests.
You may do some math to record the percentage of hits within the 1st trigger, or the 2nd trigger.
But that's not necessary because most players can easily carry a dozen progression for 3 and 6 spins.
Things can get worrisome when you run into 3 and 4 B2B losses.
That's y you use virtual losses.
With 2 VL's a 3 B2B loss is actually the 1st loss.
And for a 4 B2B loss (which is rare), it is actually 2 losses with real money.
If the VIRTUAL LOSSES HAD NO INFLUENCE on subsequent spins, (as some players claim),
then it would've been revealed during those tests. Meaning  5, 6, and 7 B2B losses would've been reported.
But it hasn't happened yet. And it wasn't a few hundred triggers that were tested. it has been thousands. Any deviation from the test results would've occurred already. But it hasn't happened.
What kind of maths do you need to play roulette ? Calculations of the chance of your bet winning - and losingand the calculation from  that to determine the bankroll needed to avoid ruin . I haven't seen such calculations in your posts - or any other negative progression Bettor.
You have to understand that this system was found by the late HARRYJ, when he noticed that after a trigger ( XYX,XXY,YXX), the hit rate was high. Higher than choosing to play a dozen randomly.
That is the basic skeleton of this system.
Beyond that, every player can adapt the system to his playing style.
My playing style is to use as many VL's as possible due to the very high minimum starting chip value.
How can I tell a member to carry $5,000 B/R if he plays with $1 or 50 cent chips?
 Obviously he doesn't need that kind of B/R.
HARRYJ was playing with 10 cent chips. He wasn't trying to become rich in his old age.
He was playing for recreation and end up with a little bit of profit in doing so.
The only math you need for this system is knowing that the max. number of B2B losses is 4 triggers
(12 spins in total ). maybe some day 5.
Beyond that is every player's choice to adapt it to his style and financial strength.
There is no such thing one size fits all.
The only argument that you can come up with , is to doubt the validity of the 4 B2B losses maximum that can occur.
if that's the case then you should perform the tests and see for yourself.
Of course you not going to do it, so there is no need to doubt the hard test work that has been done by a lot of people.
And as I said before this type of test doesn't need excel or any other method that summarizes the results.
Simply  you take the numbers sheet and read down the numbers and see what happens after a trigger.

 

MickyP

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #41 on: October 07, 2019, 03:55:17 AM »
"  don't understand  what you mean by saying I only use observation.
You need to observe roulette score boards to find the right conditions before starting to bet
And what kind of math you need to play roulette?
The math have been done during testing and conclusions have been drawn.
Palestis
So what maths have been done during testing ?

What kind of maths do you need to play roulette ? Calculations of the chance of your bet winning - and losingand the calculation from  that to determine the bankroll needed to avoid ruin . I haven't seen such calculations in your posts - or any other negative progression Bettor.

Septic, Just highlighting your feel good noddy badge slogan. Maybe to drive home your message you should include the word HAZARD, a word your buddy PMS uses You can use maths and multi colours to work out where to place it on your feel good badge... ;D ::) ;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 #42 on: October 07, 2019, 06:22:40 AM »
scepticus if you have general objections about (negative) progressions, start a new topic. I'm tired of good focused topics being sidetracked by general discussions and personal debates.

If you know a few things about my moderation, you know I would like the topics to be focused.
 

scepticus

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2019, 08:58:47 AM »
" You don't really need math to do testing."Thanks Palestis for confirming what I said. You think you don't need maths when testing - I  think you do .Good Luck with your testing .
 

palestis

Re: About Palestis' Single Dozen (secondary topic)
« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2019, 06:32:24 PM »
It looks like you have been consistently ignoring my posts before you answer.  The latest a few posts up.
It is clear that it says that the system has been already tested by me and a lot of other people and conclusions have been drawn..
It doesn't have to be tested anymore at least as vigorously as at the beginning.
So I don't know what you mean by  "good luck with testing".
What kind of math is needed to read numbers and check how many B2B losses occur after a trigger.
Especially the longer ones like 4+ B2B losses, where the rarity of its  happening stands out.