Testing G.U.T

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Hello winkel, and all,

I hope you had a nice weekend.
I did

(All 20 hours )


winkel,
First of all: Please answer this question:

WHY do you bother checking the differences in our results?

Of course there are differences - we have used two different sets of rules.

But you know exactly what rules I have used at each and every spin in ALL my tests.
And you know exactly what rules YOU have used (or at least meant to use) at each and every spin in THIS test.

You only have to show the differences between the two sets of RULES.
That's all.

You have my set.
You have your set.
You should see the differences immediately.

(And it doesn't require result-checking...)

--------------------

OK, now your post to me... You wrote:

I tried to check the differences between you and my results.

e.g. Day 3 + 4 on Live-wheel, Cannot find your results.

Not for Day 3 anyway, as you have mixed them up.

Day 2 = Sept 05 (Starts [36 - 1 - 28...)
Day 3 = Sept 06 (Starts 14 - 25 - 30...)
Day 4 = Sept 07 (Starts 26 - 15 - 0...)

In your post, you called Day 2 for "Day 3" and don't show Day 3 at all, as Day 4 is correct.
Consequently you also used the wrong row of my table when you showed your revised results.

OK..?

also I added to bet very early 2vs>2

You don't only introduce "early betting" on that crossing.
You introduce the NEW COLUMN ">2".

Your (former?) "clinical rules" say we shall bet on crossings
"=0" vs "=1"
"=0" vs ">1"
"=0" vs "=2"
"=1" vs ">1"
"=1" vs "=2"
This has been posted several times by yourself.
Why do you suddenly introduce column ">2" and the corresponding bet-signal?

pls check

br
winkel

OK... I'll check it... for you...


Day 2 (Sept 05):

Remember: These are the spins you call "Day 3" in your post.

For (the real) Day 2 you originally had the result of -26, I had -26.
We had the same results.

Original:
Spin 27, you bet 16-16, I bet 16-16 (same)
Spin 28, you bet 16-15, I bet 16-15 (same)
Spin 30, you bet 15-15, I bet 15-15 (same)
Spin 31, you bet 15-14, I bet 15-14 (same)
Spin 42, you bet 11-10, I bet 11-10 (same)
Spin 43, you bet 11-11, I bet 11-11 (same)
Spin 48, you bet 14-13, I bet 14-13 (same)

Everything is exactly how we once agreed to bet the "clinical way".

Now, however, you corrected some mistakes and the result was -40

At spin 22, you make an ADDITIONAL BET: You use the new column ">2" and bet "=2" when it's about to cross ("=2" vs ">2")
You make another ADDITIONAL BET on spin 47. Again on "=2" vs ">2"...
*** Those two are not corrections - it's a brand new rule!

On spin 49 you also make an ADDITIONAL BET.
This time you bet 6 numbers. Why six numbers?
Column "=2" has SEVEN numbers...
(That's the closest I can see)

So; with the exception of the bet on spin 49, you have INTRODUCED the new column ">2" into the "clinical rules".
And also INTRODUCED the bet-signal/crossing "=2" vs ">2".
And also INTRODUCED "early betting" on that crossing (Others as well?)

And the bet on spin 49 is a new mistake..?

[highlight]Necessary information required regarding the new column:[/highlight]
Should the columns "=0" and "=1" be bet when they cross ">2"?


That was the spins for Day 2 (Sept 05) - called "Day 3" in the above post.



Day 4 (Sept 07):

For Day 4 you originally had the result of -1, I had -60.

Original:
Spin 28, you bet 16-15, I bet 16-15 (same)
Spin 37, you bet nothing, I bet 11-10
Spin 38, you bet nothing, I bet 11-11
Spin 39, you bet nothing, I bet 11-11
Spin 40, you bet 13-13, I bet 13-13 (same)
Spin 41, you bet 14-13, I bet 14-13 (same)
Spin 42, you bet nothing, I bet 13-13
Spin 43, you bet nothing, I bet 13-13
Spin 46, you bet 10-10, I bet 10-10 (same)
Spin 47, you bet 10-9, I bet 10-9 (same)
Spin 48, you bet 10-10, I bet 10-10 (same)

There were five bets you didn't make but I did.

Now, however, you corrected some mistakes and the result was +6
Let's see what mistakes...

You just said that you added early betting on "=2" vs ">2".
At spin 15 you start betting on the crossing "=2" vs ">2".
And you do so for five times.
As the rule is brand new (because of the new column ">2"), this is different from the original, of course.
(But not corrections of mistakes)

Spins 37 and 38 are now correct.

Spin 39: You bet 11 numbers (column "=0") and after the spin the column goes down one and you record a hit.
According to my output, the situation is like this - before the bet:

=0:  2  5  9 12 14 18 20 29 32 35 36  = 11
=1:  1  3  7 13 15 16 17 19 22 23 24 27 30 31  = 14
>1:  0  4  6  8 10 11 21 25 26 28 33 34  = 12
=2:  0  4  6  8 10 11 21 25 26 28 33  = 11

Number 3 hits but it IS NOT IN COLUMN "=0".
Because [highlight]it's ALREADY in column "=1"![/highlight]

Why?
Because it was hitting at spin 30...

[highlight]*** At spin 30 you have recorded a "2" that should have been a "3"! ***[/highlight]
In your ORIGINAL (Reply #16 at page 2 in this thread) spin 30 is correctly a "3".

So for the rest of the spins after spin 39 the columns are not correct!
(In reality after spin 30)

Making further checking useless...

--------------------------

To conclude:
You make corrections to get a revised result.
That's OK.

But your corrected/revised result is IN FACT from...
* SEVEN new bets based on a brand new column (">2")
* One probable error (bet 6 instead of 7) - the bet is also probably based on that new column
* One SEVERE ERROR - a recorded "2" instead of a "3"

* And TWO corrections...

(And a mixed-up date)


pls check

br
Kon-Fu-Sed

(now more than ever)

[winkel]

Hi KFS,

thx for the check. Now I see where the differences may come from.

- I use my old trigger-chart in excel-sheets I only have columns of "0" "1" ">1" "2" and ">2". I have to change that.
- I don´t save all sheets. so I have to put the numbers in again. sorry for mistakes.

WHY do you bother checking the differences in our results?

Just to see where the differences may hide.

As I said before: I am sitting at the computer waiting for the numbers to appear on the marquee of Wiesbaden or Table1 of CasinoClub.
There might be some human errors by entering wrong numbers or not seeing crossings.

The rules I try to follow (at least in the last test-days)
- bet every crossing <18
- bet the crossing with higher amount of numbers if there are two crossings
- start betting after spin 13
- If a crossing is dead (by betting it to the limit) and another crossing is bet in between, bet the crossing again if still alive
e.g.
14 12 13 10
14 12 13 10
14 11 14 11 (bet 14 died) bet on 1vs2
14 11 14 10
14 11 14 09 (bet 11 died) bet on 14 again

- and of course I am betting on crossings bewtween this columns only:
"0" "1" ">1" "2" ">2"

Necessary information required regarding the new column:
Should the columns "=0" and "=1" be bet when they cross ">2"?

Yes, I do

- stop after spin 50

The rules changed a little bit due to complains in the german forum. so there might be still differences in the early result-days.

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

My dear winkel,

Thank You!

- bet every crossing <18
- bet the crossing with higher amount of numbers if there are two crossings
- start betting after spin 13
- If a crossing is dead (by betting it to the limit) and another crossing is bet in between, bet the crossing again if still alive
e.g.
14 12 13 10
14 12 13 10
14 11 14 11 (bet 14 died) bet on 1vs2
14 11 14 10
14 11 14 09 (bet 11 died) bet on 14 again

- and of course I am betting on crossings bewtween this columns only:
"0" "1" ">1" "2" ">2"

Necessary information required regarding the new column:
Should the columns "=0" and "=1" be bet when they cross ">2"?

Yes, I do

- stop after spin 50

So these are the ironclad rules for the clinical way of G.U.T., then.


...the very same rules that YOU have claimed:

In reply #77 (in this thread, page 6) on: September 17, 2008, 12:49:06 PM »

   
But this is [highlight]a clinical test with iron rules[/highlight], just to show [highlight]it wins more than it loses even with no human interactions[/highlight]

...and also in reply #194 (also in this thread, page 13) on: October 13, 2008, 08:11:17 PM

it is like I said from the beginning: There may be times of losses, but [highlight]long term it wins more often than it loses[/highlight].

this test is [highlight]very clinical no gamblers intelligence[/highlight] in it.

Please confirm.

TIA
KFS

(Maybe back tomorrow)

[winkel]

Hi KFS,

I don´t like this "ironclad" 

I hope I remembered all special situations which needed an explanation.

Otherwise please ask.

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Sorry,

I meant "iron" as in reply #77 (in this thread, page 6) on: September 17, 2008, 12:49:06 PM »

   
But this is a clinical test with [highlight]iron[/highlight] rules, just to show it wins more than it loses even with no human interactions

(Your own word)

Otherwise please ask.

I did!
I asked if you could confirm that what you claim in the quotes are valid for the set of rules you just posted.

Yes or No?
Simple question - Simple answer.


/KFS

[winkel]

Hi KFS,

I am not trying to confuse you or anyone else. but as I wrote before: I´m on drugs and not always master of my own mind. This will not change never ever again.

Despite of that I´m trying to present this idea and teach people to use it.

As far as I´m writing nonsense or behaving strange, I apologize.

so to your question for a short answer: [highlight]YES[/highlight]
But I can´t give any guaranty that I´m not wrong or I forgot something to mention.
Sorry, I hate this state as well.

br
winkel

[The Spiders Kiss]

Hi Sam,
Sorry to  see you have hit a bit of a sticky patch with your BR.
I am doin a little better at this thanks to your posts and I will be interested to see if it can come back from a $600 loss.
You stickin with this are you? I,and I know others ,are rooting for you mate
Good luck
TSK

[TwoCatSam]

TKS

Thanks.  It was a blow.  Yes, my original goal was to pump $201 to $1,000 or loose it.  I'll keep on keepin' on!

Sam

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Hello winkel,

Thank you again for the set of rules.

You offered to help if I have any questions, and now I do...


How are the bets (using the "clinical" rules) in these situations?


=0 =1 >1 =2 >2
13 14 10  8  2  --> No trigger
13 13 11  9  2  --> Trigger A (13-13 =0 vs =1)
13 12 12 10  2  --> Trigger B (13-12 =0 vs =1)
13 11 13 11  2  --> Trigger C (13-13 =0 vs >1 OR 11-11 =1 vs =2)
13 10 14 12  2  --> Trigger D (13-12 =0 vs =2)
12 11 14 12  2  --> Trigger E (12-12 =0 vs =2)
12 11 14 11  3  --> Trigger F (12-11 =0 vs =1)



=0 =1 >1 =2 >2
19 10  8  7  1  --> No trigger
19  9  9  8  1  --> Trigger G ( 9- 9 =1 vs >1)
18 10  9  8  1  --> Trigger H (10- 9 =1 vs >1)
18  9 10  9  1  --> Trigger I ( 9- 9 =1 vs =2)
17 10 10  9  1  --> Trigger J (10-10 =1 vs >1)
16 11 10  9  1  --> Trigger K (11-10 =1 vs >1)
16 10 11 10  1  --> Trigger L (10-10 =1 vs =2)


As you can see; in these cases, the left column is always the same (=0 and =1) but the right one changes.
Is the trigger new for every change of the right column?

Which triggers shall be used, according to the "clinical" rules?



=0 =1 >1 =2 >2
13 14 10  8  2  --> No trigger
13 13 11  9  2  --> Trigger M (13-13 =0 vs =1)
13 13 11  8  3  --> Trigger N (13-13 =0 vs =1)
12 14 11  8  3  --> Trigger O (12-11 =0 vs >1)
12 13 12  9  3  --> Trigger P (12-12 =0 vs >1 OR 13-12 =1 vs >1)
12 13 12  8  4  --> Trigger Q (12-12 =0 vs >1 OR 13-12 =1 vs >1)
12 13 12  8  4  --> Trigger R (12-12 =0 vs >1 OR 13-12 =1 vs >1)


In this case - which triggers to use?
All including O, P and R?
And regarding P and R: Which "version"?

These cases are real cases and nothing I have made up.


I think the rest is crystal-clear!



Thanks In Advance, winkel!
Kon-Fu-Sed

(Not so much any more )

[winkel]

Hi KFS,

I know these situations very well, they are not that rare.

Here actually I say use "gambler´s intelligence"
But you wanna know iron rules 

first Block:
I play the highest trigger (13 "0"s) for two times and it lost, A + B
than I cange to the lower trigger and win and the trigger is gone C
now a new trigger on "0"s D I bet and win
now a "new" trigger on "0" E and bet twice

In the moment I´m testing the way TCS does, betting both triggers despite the limit of 17. I´m not sure about this.


second Block:

Is the trigger new for every change of the right column?

this is the typical risk, when 0s are slow. You are getting a new trigger in every spin. I usually bet this as [highlight]"new triggers"[/highlight]

Block 3:

TCS mentioned this on his videos: [highlight]Stick on the trigger or change?[/highlight]
In the clinical way you can solve this problem:

- play the higher trigger till it dies or is bet dead
- change to possible lower trigger if it is still there and bet till it dies or is bet dead
- change to next trigger 

This means to the last Block:
bet 5 times Trigger on "0"s and then trigger on "1"

This is what I´ve forgotten to mention: In such cases I play 12 numbers also up to 3 times / otherwise only twice.
to make it to iron or lead, you can use betting 12 numbers 3times as rule

If I didn´t express myself correctly please ask again

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Hello winkel,

I am very grateful for the set of rules you posted.


As a small token of my appreciation, I have coded the rules in JavaScript for you.
A "clinical" G.U.T. tracker, so that you, when you test in the future, doesn't have to have errors or doubts.
(Not anyone on-board, for that matter, as I plan to post it...)


I think this tracker can be really nice - it's sooo simple to handle.
Both "live" and "auto" - and ...

Anyway; I don't want to post it immediately as you wrote that there may be things you have forgotten...
(Why don't you write the rules down?)

And there may be things I have misunderstood.

SO!
I have compiled the output from the program for the September days (4 to 30) of your test - 27 sessions in all.
[highlight]It is ATTACHED to this post.[/highlight]

I hope you can really scrutinize it - and not find errors


I think you will find the format of the output convenient.
It looks like this:

Sp Nm W/L  =0 =1 >1 =2 >2  Adv bet                                                    =  BRoll
39 18      12 16  9  6  3 
40  6      12 16  9  6  3 
41 32      12 15 10  7  3 
42 13      11 16 10  7  3  =0:  2  5  7  8 10 15 19 20 21 24 33                      11    +22 N
43 28 L    11 16 10  6  4  =0:  2  5  7  8 10 15 19 20 21 24 33                      11    +11 S
44 32 L    11 16 10  5  5  =0:  2  5  7  8 10 15 19 20 21 24 33                      11     +0 S
45 28 L    11 16 10  5  5  =2:  4 16 23 30 34                                         5     -5 D
46 35 L    11 15 11  6  5  =0:  2  5  7  8 10 15 19 20 21 24 33                      11    -16 H
47 20 W    10 16 11  6  5  =2:  4 16 23 30 34 35                                      6    +14 D
48  9 L    10 15 12  7  5                                                                  +14
49 21       9 16 12  7  5 
50 17      * End of Session


Col 1 = Spin number
Col 2 = Winning number
Col 3 = "W" for a win, a "L" for a loss
Col 4 - 8 = The 5 columns
If there's a bet-signal it is printed next: The column to bet and the numbers in that column
If there's a bet-signal, next comes how many numbers to bet
If there's a bet-signal or was a bet for this spin, next comes the current bank-roll
(The bank-roll is shown before AND after the spin, as spins 47 - 48 above)

If there's a bet-signal, last comes a remark of the kind of signal:

N = Normal New trigger
S = Same column until change value, >36 or dead
C = Column Change value and is a new trigger (only one)
D = Different trigger, current >36 or dead
H = Higher sum trigger (selecting new trigger)
L = Leftmost trigger  (selecting new trigger)

(This is NOT included in the output from the program - I have added them afterwords so there may be errors...)


When I added those remarks, I wasn't confused by one single bet.
They were all "natural" and - I think - conforming to the rules.

The three situations you explained above are all as you said.


Dear winkel; if you can please look through the sessions and confirm them correct or not (and if so; what's wrong) I can finish the tracker - as a Christmas gift to you and all!

TIA
KFS

[TwoCatSam]

KFS

Can't speak for the rest of the crew, but I'm excited. 

Sam

[The Spiders Kiss]

Wow!!!!!!!!
KFS...that sounds like an amazing piece of kit.Will be fun to try it out..Like Sam .I cant wait.Thank you.
TSK

[winkel]

Hi KFS,

now I am confused 

First of all: thank you for the work you do.
I am up over 300 units while you are at -15. I swear, I never tried to cheat my results. So where is the difference?
I will go into it and work it out.

One question:
I found this on Session 17 Sept. 20th:
last bet you bet on =0 means 9 numbers
but as I tried to make up the "iron rules" you had to bet on =1vs>1 14 numbers
the bet on spin 48 is okay, but then I think you should change to "higher" trigger in spin 49.
or did I express that incorrectly? so: sorry then!

Code Select Expand

45 11      11 14 12  7  5 
46  6      10 15 12  7  5 
47 31       9 16 12  7  5 
48  4       9 15 13  8  5  =0:  7  8  9 10 13 14 15 22 24                             9    -88 N
49  3 L     9 14 14  9  5  =0:  7  8  9 10 13 14 15 22 24                             9    -97 S
50 30 L    * End of Session                                                                -97


I think: In the beginning I was very concentrated on bets 0vs1 and 1vs>1 or 0vs>1, because thats the main sorting of my idea.
But I will look after that. Perhaps I can find more hints for "gamblers intelligence"

Thanks so far
and
br
winkel

[winkel]

Code Select Expand

43 20 L    13 10 14 10  4  =1:  0  6  8 10 13 23 24 26 31 35                         10   -128 D
44  5 L    12 11 14 10  4  =0:  2  3  7  9 11 14 15 16 18 19 25 28                   12   -140 H
45 17 L    12 11 14  9  5  =0:  2  3  7  9 11 14 15 16 18 19 25 28                   12   -152 S
46 20 L    12 11 14  8  6  =0:  2  3  7  9 11 14 15 16 18 19 25 28                   12   -164 S
47 17 L    12 11 14  8  6                                                                 -164
48 32      12 11 14  7  7  =0:  2  3  7  9 11 14 15 16 18 19 25 28                   12   -176 N
49 13 L    12 10 15  8  7  =2:  1  4 12 13 22 33 34 36                                8   -184 D
50 20 L    * End of Session                                                               -184


Misunderstanding with this:

Bet spin 48

we bet 3times =0 12units and stop 45 46 47
we would rebet the 12 only:
- another trigger is bet
- the 12 would now trigger e.g. with >1

as here another trigger appears 2vs>2 we would bet this.
I think this is a mix-up with rule: bet higher trigger, if there are two triggers.

br
winkel

[winkel]

-