anybody succes with CashBuilderX Strategy

[bombus]

...On those numbers you would have had 8 completions (16 units)
and one side is still in progress (not the best example)...

Ok, before I move on any further I'll play those 15 numbers and try to match your result.

[Mike]

Buck, could you run these 50 numbers through the system so I can check that the code is doing what it should? Let me know the final result, thanks.

17
4
24
26
33
2
3
3
23
28
16
9
1
15
19
5
6
27
7
5
0
24
9
13
3
7
8
16
29
26
31
33
1
12
0
2
15
32
28
27
5
31
31
8
16
14
22
3
26
32

[Buck]

Just about to head out for the night mate, will run through it tomorrow properly.
Had a quick quick look, it either just makes the target or just loses, hard to work out manually in a hurry.
Sorry for delay . . .
Tomorrow.

[Steve]

I suggest test the working principle, which is that the sequence is supposed to make RB more prdictable. It doesnt. If you test the principle, you will know whether or not the system CAN OR CANNOT work. I already did testing and found what I expected: no edge. Now you can find out for yourself, either take the easy or hard way.

[ll l ll l lll ll]

In my brief testing I agree that the sequence itself does not work.  It is no different than following any random pattern or playing random against random.  I tested it flat betting and it performs the same as randomly betting red or black however which way you choose.

However when it is combined with the unique staking system of playing the two colors against each other it becomes a totally different animal.  I have not really seen a unique staking system like this before in regards to how the two Even Chances are fighting each other at the same time.

Time will tell.  Long term testing will be needed to see if a true advantage can be accomplished.

[Steve]

Barcode, the thing is if accuracy of predictions is not improved, no staking or money management will make a difference. It is absolute scientific certainty.

The only thing money management will ultimately be controlled by is plain luck. But nobody needs to take my word for it. Yes time tells.

[Buck]

Barcode, youre exactly right, you cant deny how effective all of that combined is. Every time you play, it just works. Its not about the selection, that just takes away decision making. The way the numbers behave this is extremely effective.
Long term short term WHATEVER . . . when applied at the table playing roulette, THIS WORKS . . .anyone prove me wrong otherwise.
Love getting that feedback . . . thanks mate

[Steve]

Buck, I have already proved you wrong. Unfortunately not everyone underestands why you cannot beat roulette without increasing the accuracy of predictions. It is spelled out at nolinks.genuinewinner.com/truth.html but still not everyone understands it. I have proven your bet selection doesn't increase accuracy of predictions.

It is very common for people to test a system and initially see positive results, only to realize that extensive testing shows it tanks. Either way, everyone can find out for themselves.

[Buck]

Mike
Tested those numbers . . .

Strategy finished at the number 5 red - couldnt continue

Loss of only $150
Thx

[Mike]

Ok thanks Buck. I should have the system coded today and will send you the results file, although it will probably be tomorrow your time.

[Mike]

Buck, I have already proved you wrong. Unfortunately not everyone underestands why you cannot beat roulette without increasing the accuracy of predictions. It is spelled out at nolinks.genuinewinner.com/truth.html but still not everyone understands it. I have proven your bet selection doesn't increase accuracy of predictions.

It is very common for people to test a system and initially see positive results, only to realize that extensive testing shows it tanks. Either way, everyone can find out for themselves.

Steve is correct. There really isn't any mystery about why MM and progressions ON THEIR OWN cannot work although it may take you a long time to realise it, and some people will never 'get it'.

It's easier to see why progressions fail if you think about them as just a collection of bets, and NOT in the particular order that you play them - ie; not as a sequence of e.g. 1,2,4,8,16, etc but just as betting sometimes 1 unit, sometimes 2 units etc. This is a perfectly valid way of thinking about it because spins are independent - you could select out all your bets according to what you staked - for example the 8 unit bets might be R B R B RR BBBB R etc, the 16 unit bets might be BB R RRR R etc and if you played them that way you would end up with the same results as if you had played them in a linear sequence (1,2,4,8,16). Now it's easier to see why progressions can't work, because in effect, it's just as if you were flat betting different amounts at different times - the assumed advantage of a progression is an illusion, it's meaningless.

Since progressions are ultimately equivalent to flat betting, you need to increase the accuracy of predictions in order to win in the long term.

[I have cookies]

Now it's easier to see why progressions can't work, because in effect, it's just as if you were flat betting different amounts at different times - the assumed advantage of a progression is an illusion, it's meaningless.

Since progressions are ultimately equivalent to flat betting, you need to increase the accuracy of predictions in order to win in the long term.

That was very nice written.
I like the last line and think it boils down to one simple basic principal.

My 2 cent what is and what is not a good method.

First if some one can not gain at least +1 unit and it overcome the attempts doing so - then there is no way to success and why should it be when there is no positive expectation.

Secondly if some one does succeed to certain degree - then a good bench mark would be to make a net gain of 10% placing 1024 bets flat betting where at least +1 unit overcome the amounts of attempts.

[Mike]

I'm running a little behind on this, but it's probably about 85% done. How's the manual testing holding up with those who have the system?  

[bombus]

I'm running a little behind on this, but it's probably about 85% done. How's the manual testing holding up with those who have the system?  

I'm struggling with it, replaying several sessions to make sure I haven't made any boo boos.

I must say I don't like the way the bets escalate quickly when on a losing streak.

I have had bets go from $30 to beyond $120 within a handful of spins and unlike martingale, still been in minus even after winning.


From what I've seen so far and this is not conclusive, I would say in the first instance it would have been nice if the author had just posted it on the forums for free like many of us do with our work, but for $37 sure, you could check it out you might learn something or it might prompt some new idea to help you in your search to beat the game. But for $299, I would say go and buy a nice bottle of red wine and take your mother out for dinner to a fine dine restaurant; She won't be here forever you know, but roulette and casinos probably will.

[Mike]

Thanks for the feedback bombus. 

I'm pretty much there with the program but I'm not getting the same result as Buck did with the spins I posted above. I think the problem is with the stop loss rule. It says in the doc to set aside profit which is not to be touched, and you should quit when you have 60 units, but supposing you have your 60+ units profit, but only 20 units left in the bank, do you still quit? in that case you have actually lost 20 units overall (60 units profit + 20 units bank). The way I've coded it is not like this, which is I suspect why I'm not getting the same result.

[Mike]

-