[RANDOM VERSUS RANDOM--WINNING WAYS] Tested

[medo]

Honestly, what are getting so uptight about? It's just a roulette system. It's not like I've just blown up your house and now I'm rubbing your nose in it. In the thread you said the system would win long term. I coded it and predictably, it's very impractical....economically, it is too impractical to play. You know why most people dismiss tests like these? Because they have hpreviously hand tested and subconciously curve fitted the results to arrive at the outcome they want. It's not a flaw in people, it just happens.

Take the spreadsheet, use it yourself and watch it fail yourself. If you don't believe my eyes, maybe you'll believe your own.

I have a spreadsheet in front of me right now,of my last night 288 spins played
in which won 57 units,and wanted to scan it to you via your excel...but the problem is when
I click zero in there,everything goes upside-down.
What kind of talk is that;Because they have previously hand tested and subconciously curve fited results to arrive to the outcome they want..........Now after this comment of yours,I have no more comments sir.You are frustruated young man that never enter a casino in your life,you relie on your computer and what it says and orders you to do.Me,I relie on my 40 years playing experience,knowledge about real envoirment of casino happenings and acquaintance of each wheel with which was playing with.
There is a great difference between us 2.---n6.

[Bayes]

Well, I don't know about subconscious curve-fitting. If you don't know the outcomes in advance of placing bets it shouldn't happen.

But really, No. 6 is right. There's no value in shooting the messenger if test results don't go according to the way you want them to. It's hardly fair on the tester if, having posted a system with clear rules, you then appeal to other rules (usually vague and ill-defined) which were not mentioned and apparently should have been invoked when test results turn out negative. These are always only mentioned when the system fails, which of course is easy, like everything always is in hindsight.

Some even say that computer tests are useless, that they don't take into account - what? the way you would have bet on a whim if that particular sequence came up which only NOW you know about? that's absurd. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) applies here. If you don't specify exactly what your decisions are under all circumstances, you can hardly blame the computer for doing exactly what you tell it, no more and no less. The way some people talk about computers and testing makes me laugh; it's as though they believe that the computer has SOME intelligence, but not enough to "play" a system "intelligently", so they then declare that all computer testing is without value.

A computer has NO intelligence and no initiative whatsoever. It's just a dumb pile of microchips. If someone tells you that you have a mind like a computer, you shouldn't feel flattered! A computer program is just a list of instructions, if you leave things off the list which you would have included in manual play, how can you then dismiss computers as being worthless when its results don't match those of manual play? It's like saying cars are worthless because if you fall asleep at the wheel, often you crash!

[medo]

Bayes,
Wouldn't you be n6,by any chance.
You 2 should embrace each other
and go to some casino watching real
happenings.Telling a man that he is
curve-fitting is insulting,and wit you 2
don't wish to communicate any longer.Amen

[Number Six]

The spreadsheet doesn't accomodate the zero. I've told you that at least twice in this thread already - moreover, the coding is correct and the test has been conducted properly, this can be verified easily, so there really can be no argument that the test is incorrect.

Look, Iboba. Sorry that your system turned out to be economically impractical. It's not exactly the end of the world.

In 200 sessions of 400 spins, played as you recommended, the lowest profit recorded was 16 units and the largest drawdown was 1405 units. No session lost, meaning the profit is very healthy but it's incredibly unlikely that you'd be able to win a minimum of 15 units in every session played, in that respect it's an unremarkable progression system. Eventually it's almost certain that you'd lose several times, wiping out those profits and probably most of the initial BR. With your recommended BR of 100 units, you'll probably lose on average once every three sessions. Failure is guaranteed for people who don't have the psychic ability to read the future. The results are random and based on luck, this can also be verified if necessary. In testing, the goal posts can be moved as much as you want. But it makes no difference to long term results.

[Bayes]

Bayes,
Wouldn't you be n6,by any chance.
You 2 should embrace each other
and go to some casino watching real
happenings.Telling a man that he is
curve-fitting is insulting,and wit you 2
don't wish to communicate any longer.Amen

That's the ticket, attack the poster and not the post! 

[Number Six]

When people repeatedly resort to ad hominem in any circumstance, not just in the face of hard facts, you can't take them seriously, nor do they deserve any respect for it...it really speaks volumes about the person or people in question, especially when they resort to such acts in a place you can't respond. They have a skewed train of thought that is driven either by personal dislike or cognitive biases, they'll go to extreme and desperate lengths to discredit you...all because of some crappy roulette system. Either way, it's not worth getting hung up on. You test someone's system, it fails and suddenly you're a scumbag and a charlatan because you bruised a few egos. There really is no argument, since mine is based on fact that can be verified and the pups at Victor's forum are basing theirs on faulty logic.

[Number Six]

-