KFS' GUT-test

[winkel]

A computer will only do exactly what you tell it to do

Tell us precisely what those human decisions are, and a program can be written to make them.
If you can't do that, then what are your decisions based on?

First quote:
I already said I cannot tell a computer or it´s programmer what to do.

second quote:
Everybody who read the main topic can see the thoughts I make up during the spins are coming up.
My decisions or any decisions a human being makes are done in parts of seconds.
They are based upon experience brought to me by "reading" thousands of spins.

and there is another thing: How to transfer this experience to other people or to a computer-code?
Would scientists try to create self-learning software, if it would be able (or easy) to code any possible upcoming variable fact?

e.g. my example for a decision KFS also proved wrong. (see test of crossing 15-15).
I only can tell as an example if there were 5 "0" in a row I don´t bet on a upcoming crossing which has to bet on "0" and viceversa
But I may decide opposite if there are 4 or 3 or two or one "0" before that crossing.

to lead the people to "reading" what is going on, I have to start somewhere, where people can follow my arguments and understand. This is "looking for crossings"

If people are still interested I will decribe how you
- could bet on upcoming crossings.
- could bet without crossings just by watching whats going on
- why and when to jump
etc.

br
winkel

[winkel]

Hi KFS,

You suggested the rules for a test you KNOW would end positive.

what did you expect? that I tell straight away it will lose?

Otherwise you wouldn´t have tried to proof me wrong, would you? 

Thanks for your work and time. I´ve learned a lot new basics for my game.

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

winkel,

what did you expect? that I tell straight away it will lose?

I expected honesty... and seriousness...
I expected rules that would come out positive - as you claim that the clinic way will do!
(Didn't you give me the rules of the clinic way?)

I wanted to prove you CORRECT as you claim that your stochastiks out-performs common math and probability.
I've never studied stochastiks.

Why didn't you give me the rules from your multi-million-spins test that came out positive?

Wasn't your multi-million-spins test performed on a computer?

I already said I cannot tell a computer or it´s programmer what to do.

and there is another thing: How to transfer this experience to other people or to a computer-code?

? ?

I´ve learned a lot new basics for my game.

For a person who's spend as much time developing, testing and using the method as you claim you have, I think that's a remarkable remark.
Anyway, I'm glad you learned some basics of your own method...


I have no more comments in this matter. Really.

Regards,
KFS

[TwoCatSam]

Here we have two men I respect taking opposing sides.  What to do?

Test, of course!

Today I will begin a new and real test of the G.U.T.

I will film it all.

Sam

[Boo_Ray]

nolinks://nolinks.livevideo.com/video/AustinSystems/0F623570355A4D35822D362B3D49CE32/20th-century-cat-2004-.aspx

[smiley=afro.gif]

[winkel]

Hi KFS,

i didn´t wanna upset you. I thought this smiley   would let you read as ironic.

I do believe in this strategy and I still do and I´m not ignoring your tests.

I can´t write down what my decisions are made of I´m not that expressiv in English. That could work if the coder would sit next to me and follow my explanations.

I had several quarrels with coders who tried other strategies of me. They present a result. This is ok so far. But I´m always missing the information of what is going on? Why is the result like it is.

I posted two graphs which showed, that 1 chance is always in the lead over a quiet long period.
As I play I register: I´ve lost this crossing 4 times in a row. so I just don´t bet, till it changes to winning again

There are thre possible moves:
it is winning and winning and ...
it is winning losing winning losing winning losing
it is losing and losing and losing and losing.

the first two in mind will keep me winning with my strategy.

when the first starts losing I´m watching it carefully if there is a turn of trend
when the second follows a winning part I presume it falling into a loosing streak
when the second comes from a loosing streak I presume it falling into a winning streak
the third one I´m watching like the first vice versa.

You can probably imagine what these four simple sentences would cost time and energy and errors coding them!

And as I always said: I´m watching what is going on and add these four to make a decision.
But there many other hints I see and follow, most of them in the main Topic.

My problem is not winning with this, my problem is my ability to teach other people.

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

winkel,

You don't upset me the slightest.

Do you really mean that the positive multi-million-spins test you made wasn't run on a computer?
Done by hand?

How many cycles of 37 spins were there?

/KFS

[Herb]

At some point you need to listen to what others have to say on this forum.  Even if you don't like what they have to say.

When I told you this system didn't stand a chance of working you should have actually read why I said that it was destined to fail.
Long ago, other people had traveled down this path before you.  Rather than insulting them, you should try and build on their knowledge.

  Trying the same methods over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity.

[winkel]

this is my result

please read vom left to right
0; 1; >1; came up in 8.9 million 37spin-clusters; 0 hit in next spin; 1 hit; >1 hit; average of numbers to appear; did really appear

all the green sectors are better than they should.

[winkel]

Hi KFS,

I forgot to explain:
This is only situation spin 37 and the following.

As you remember I said there is difference to the results of a crossing referring to where they appear.

br
winkel

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

Dear winkel,


First of all: The above table is NOT a test to prove your system.
It is a statistical study using no rules-of-method at all.

But that aside:

The bottom line must be: Is the method MONETARY sound?


Let's look at the row "12 - 13 - 12"

The hit-rate was 32.57% and that is BETTER than the math average of 32.43%...
So you say.


It seems that you bet 12 numbers... That is not according to your own rule to bet the HIGHER number. But that's OK.

I read the table such that this one appeared 26,292 times = 26,292 bets x 12u = 315,504u

As you say that you had 32.57% hits this corresponds to the "8,562" figure...

So you had 8,562 hits x 36u = 308,232u

This is a LOSS of 7,272u or 2.3%

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

This part of the post is deleted

Please see my next post

/KFS

[TwoCatSam]

winkel

Let's to to testing.

Sam

[bjb007]

Wonder if I should day this but....

As the outcome depends on decisions made
by the player and since we don't know at
the time of making the decision whether it's
the right one or the wrong one isn't the result
down to luck?

A "full system" shouldn't rely on luck but on
the system rules otherwise the outcome
can't be quantified by any method and
testing with ten players using the same
numbers will produce ten different results.

[Kon-Fu-Sed]

winkel and All,

The end of my previous post was unnecessary harsh and rude and is now deleted.
A rush of  took over-hand - I am sorry for that.

Please accept my apology.


I re-do the end here:

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


Let me quote my-self (from my doc "Roulette Probabilities Made Easier" in the Reference Area):

"Do yo bet in units or in per cent?"


Yes, many of your crossings hit better than the math average says but the math average is already down by 2.7%...


This table shows two values: The math average hit-rate in per cent and the hit-rate you need to make 1 unit profit in 37 bets.

For example the 18-numbers bet:
Math average says 48.649% hits in 37 bets as 18/37 = 48.649%
But you need 50.075% hits to make 1u profit in 37 bets and that is calculated like this:

Bet 18u x 37 bets = 666u
Add 1u for the profit = 667u
As each hit gives 36u back we divide 667 by 36 and the result is that 18.528 hits are needed to cover the 37 bets and give 1u profit.
18.528 / 37 = 50.075%

Bet  MathAv  You Need
---------------------
18  48.649    50.075
17  45.946    47.297
16  43.243    44.520
15  40.540    41.742
14  37.838    38.964
13  35.135    36.186
12  32.432    33.408
11  29.730    30.631
10  27.027    27.853
  9  24.324    25.075
  8  21.622    22.297
  7  18.919    19.520
  6  16.216    16.742
  5  13.514    13.964
  4  10.811    11.186
  3   8.108     8.404
  2   5.405     5.631
  1   2.703     2.853

The differences between your results and what you need are too big to overcome.
Especially when you also include the results that hit less than the math average - the positive ones simply cannot make up for the bad ones...
And give a profit.

Not even 1u in 37 bets.

Too bad, really.
KFS

PS.
The table for a 37units profit in 37 bets is ... deterrent.

[madupz4]

There are thre possible moves:
it is winning and winning and ...
it is winning losing winning losing winning losing
it is losing and losing and losing and losing.

the first two in mind will keep me winning with my strategy.

when the first starts losing I´m watching it carefully if there is a turn of trend
when the second follows a winning part I presume it falling into a loosing streak
when the second comes from a loosing streak I presume it falling into a winning streak
the third one I´m watching like the first vice versa.

br
winkel

Winkel,

This is the exact information I was looking for when I asked you a few days ago of the "best times to bet," in your experience of testing.

This is what I was looking for.  I will try this and see if it makes a difference. 

[madupz4]

-