G.U.T combined with Distance-Tracking

[winkel]

Hi folks,

it is unbelievable that something GUT can be made better.

I found a way to combine Gut-Tracking with Distance-Tracking.

The effect is quite simple: We just bet those numbers which are shown in both selections.
This means instead of betting 17 numbers on "0" we just bet 8 or less.
This effects higher gains and less losses.

It will take me some days to make up a clear explanation of how to handle it.
It is quite complicated and so not for use in BM-Casinos.

You will have results in some days.

br
winkel

[The Spiders Kiss]

Wow Winkel this sounds preeeety cool stuff.
Will be watching and waiting as Im sure will all Gut-tites
TSK

[Allin]

Hi Winkel,

      If you are discipline enough, your current system pretty enough to make good income.  Normally I just play with =0 vs =1 it makes steady income.
But I failed to prove something,  When I tested with 10K of spins It shows me negative (-500$), but when I played with real money it put me in good Position. 

I guess everything cannot rely on Math.

But one thing though, when bad days you should limit yourself to -100 or something, Otherwise emotions drive you NUTS and you blew your entire bank roll in one shot.

Are you sure you wanna go with that direction of 8 or less.!!!

Regards

[winkel]

You will only understand this if you are used to tracker4.exe and the logic behind the G.U.T-Notation

If we start tracking we need one spin which is necessary to get a paralell row of spun numbers and tracked distances.

For my example I use Wiesbaden spins Table 3 from April, 12, 2009
If you track Live-Wheel-Spins start with number of date.
So the first virtual spin of this trot is a "12"

following the first 50 spins:

Code Select Expand

1 12
2 9
3 17
4 28
5 14
6 5
7 3
8 35
9 27
10 5
11 20
12 17
13 4
14 13
15 18
16 29
17 19
18 22
19 23
20 17
21 27
22 9
23 13
24 0
25 25
26 21
27 19
28 23
29 17
30 7
31 7
32 12
33 22
34 3
35 0
36 3
37 31
38 11
39 21
40 16
41 13
42 12
43 0
44 14
45 30
46 32
47 32
48 33
49 26
50 31


[winkel]

These 50 Spins produce the following G.U.T-Tracking

for explanation I will only use the first three columns "0", "1" and ">1"

Code Select Expand

Coups PMZ "0" 1 ">1"
1 12 36 1 0
2 9 35 2 0
3 17 34 3 0
4 28 33 4 0
5 14 32 5 0
6 5 31 6 0
7 3 30 7 0
8 35 29 8 0
9 27 28 9 0
10 5 28 8 1
11 20 27 9 1
12 17 27 8 2
13 4 26 9 2
14 13 25 10 2
15 18 24 11 2
16 29 23 12 2
17 19 22 13 2
18 22 21 14 2
19 23 20 15 2
20 17 20 15 2
21 27 20 14 3
22 9 20 13 4
23 13 20 12 5
24 0 19 13 5
25 25 18 14 5
26 21 17 15 5
27 19 17 14 6
28 23 17 13 7
29 17 17 13 7
30 7 16 14 7
31 7 16 13 8
32 12 16 12 9
33 22 16 11 10
34 3 16 10 11
35 0 16 9 12
36 3 16 9 12
37 31 15 10 12
38 11 14 11 12
39 21 14 10 13
40 16 13 11 13
41 13 13 11 13
42 12 13 11 13
43 0 13 11 13
44 14 13 10 14
45 30 12 11 14
46 32 11 12 14
47 32 11 11 15
48 33 10 12 15
49 26 9 13 15
50 31 9 12 16


[winkel]

These "real numbers" produce the following distances

For explanation I use one direction only!

0
31
18
24
30
31
16
36
14
8
5
21
33
8
17
1
10
25
26
28
3
16
22
25
7
35
35
14
28
23
0
2
32
7
2
35
28
25
28
16
28
21
4
25
27
23
0
21
14
27


Put into the G.U.T-Tracking we get following structure

Code Select Expand

Coups Dis "0" 1 ">1"
1 0 36 1 0
2 31 35 2 0
3 18 34 3 0
4 24 33 4 0
5 30 32 5 0
6 31 32 4 1
7 16 31 5 1
8 36 30 6 1
9 14 29 7 1
10 8 28 8 1
11 5 27 9 1
12 21 26 10 1
13 33 25 11 1
14 8 25 10 2
15 17 24 11 2
16 1 23 12 2
17 10 22 13 2
18 25 21 14 2
19 26 20 15 2
20 28 19 16 2
21 3 18 17 2
22 16 18 16 3
23 22 17 17 3
24 25 17 16 4
25 7 16 17 4
26 35 15 18 4
27 35 15 17 5
28 14 15 16 6
29 28 15 15 7
30 23 14 16 7
31 0 14 15 8
32 2 13 16 8
33 32 12 17 8
34 7 12 16 9
35 2 12 15 10
36 35 12 15 10
37 28 12 15 10
38 25 12 15 10
39 28 12 15 10
40 16 12 15 10
41 28 12 15 10
42 21 12 14 11
43 4 11 15 11
44 25 11 15 11
45 27 10 16 11
46 23 10 15 12
47 0 10 15 12
48 21 10 15 12
49 14 10 15 12
50 27 10 14 13


As you see, we just get another virtuel trot with a different kind of tracking-results and crossings at other points than on the original trot.

[winkel]

If we put both trackings into a paralell we get this:



as you see we have three (lightblue) crossings:
spin 23 0vs1 17vs17 on distance track
spin 29 0vs1 15vs15 on distance track
spin 33 1vs>1 11vs10 on wheel track
(to the other crossings I will return later)

[winkel]

First of all we could bet as we are used to:
We bet the crossing we found on the rules we use. Either the Real-Wheel-numbers or the Distance-Numbers

Second: We could bet both sides: the numbers we have on the same column in either track
If we try this will find find immediately the best way - >

Third: There are same numbers to bet if we play both tracks and there are numbers which appear only in one track.
The best way seems to be to play only the numbers we find in both trackings

[winkel]

So let us have a look at the first crossing at spin 23

It is a crossing on the distances 17 "0"s vs 17 "1"s

These 17 distances we have to bet are:
2
4
6
7
9
11
12
13
15
19
20
23
27
29
32
34
35

BUT we have to translate them to get the "whellnumbers" refering the last spun number 13!
so we get these numbers to bet:
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
20
25
28
34
(these numbers are already sorted)

and we can bet the 20 "0" of the wheelnumbers which are:
0
1
2
6
7
8
10
11
15
16
21
24
25
26
30
31
32
33
34
36

now we compare both rows and find that the green numbers are in both rows.
We bet only these 10 numbers

[winkel]

The next number that was spun is 0, which is no hit.

Next we use the wheelnumbers again, but we have to translate the distances again referring to last spun number 0

Now we have this:


as you see the distance-numbers have changend and we now have to bet only 8 numbers
nest number spun is 25 which hits

[winkel]

the next crossing hits in the first:



the next crossing hits also in the first:

[winkel]

If we play this "combined way" we only win when both trackers have a change in the same column!

so this part of the trot looks very complicated, because there are crossings to bet in every lin, but we have a win only in the last spin.



but let us check how many "combined" numbers we have to bet at each spin
(4;3;4;5;6;4)

at spin 40 we have to bet 4 numbers
at spin 41 - 3
at spin 42 - 4
at spin 43 - 5
at spin 44 - 6
at spin 45 - 4

all together 26 units to bet until the hit.

the whole trot gives us following results
1. 18 units bet - hit 36
2. 4 units bet - hit 36
3. 6 units bet - hit 36
4. 26 units bet - hit 36

units bet: 54
units won: 144
net: +90

any questions?
any comments?

br
winkel

[betatester]

Hello Forum, hello Winkel, and thank you very much for your sharing attitude, patience and generosity. 
I will like to introduce myself as one of those thousand of readers that your GUT thread has registered for all those months of exposition and development. 
As system tester for many years, but not a player (fortunately), I can tell you that your approach is one of the best that I've ever tested.   I'm talking about the original GUT idea.   Early in the first post I build a excel sheet by my own ways and start the testing. 
All that I can said it's that is not purely mechanical, we need to take decisions and guess that the flow will follow in the much favourable way for us.  But properly played it's a winner system. 

The first idea needs the help of some piece of software to be played properly and with the minimum chances to missed any selection. 
Some readers/programmers published "utilities" and "trackers" to do so, and again thanks you very much for the sharing. 
Some times we are betting over a large spread of numbers always 17<, but still large.  .  .   and I don't see myself doing the elemental tracking by manual ways, over paper, in a land casino.   A real one. 
I've tell you that I'm not a player but I've been many times in casinos tracking systems with real spins, even trying to learn some Visual Ballistics.  .  .   not a way for me neither and I've desisted. 
To track properly your system in a landed casino we'll find to many noise, to many "surveillance", to many cameras, the paper has to be big, your concentration too, you must travel to the table each spin to deposit your bets, and retire again, just not to offer your sheet to others eyes.  .  .   register, calculate and approach again.  .  .   uuffff.  .  .   mistakes.  .  . 
I've been trying for years different approaches with the distance travelled between 2 followed spins, one in each direction, and I've arrived to the conclusion that if we don't know "exactly" the section (3 pockets) or even the exact pocket for the release of the ball, all the notations of the distances are pointless.   Even with the exact data, then we must dive into the techniques of VB the exploit the information "gathered" in that distance. 
Other ways seems purely random data.   Which fits in GUT approach.   !!!

Calculate de distance travelled each spin, having as reference the last spun is not either a easy thing to do in a land casino. 
In this case you must add the two (early the will became 3 or four) activities TO DO between two spins. 
- The normal tracking and maintenance of the permanence.   0, 1, >1
- The calculations of the distances. 
- The maintenance of a similar sheet as per the "normal" numbers but for the distances. 
- The calculations of the "revert" selected distances >>> to pockets
- The merge of the two selections. 
- And the betting process (numbers and/or units)
It's simple impossible without a piece of software and a machine or device with you. 
Even with the sheets that I've already programmed (once you have one the "other" works the same but with the distances) I will spend a lot of days just to program the "moving" revert selection algorithm and then a supplementary sheet for the merging.  .  .   Anyway.  .  .   that's my problem. 
But before starting all this work I must tell you that your new approach seems a natural evolution of the original, and it's brilliant and new for me.  .  .   even if I was familiarized with both ways of looking things. 
But.  .  .   hehehe always is GUT to have some BUT, I will like to discuss (in a polite and civilized way, and just to enlarge the deep of your approach) some of the things that, beside complexity, programming, and devices we will find.  .  . 

I will like to know if a man as you, with some allergic to progressions (just as me) have calculated that we will x3 the prob.   of missing the hits.  .  . 
Let me explain, not for you, but for the rest of the followers and readers. 
If we select the numbers remaining to the TWO selections and PLAY ONLY those numbers, you have already admitted that WE WIN ONLY if a change succeed in both marquees (in function of the column) AT SAME TIME. 
So now, we can have Hits in normal way of processing that will not produce a WIN.   Because the outcome of a number that wasn't picked in both selections. 
In the run we will find Hits in the "Distance" tracker that will not produce neither a WIN.   Because the outcome of a number (after being converted from a distance) that wasn't picked in both selections.  So an unexpected distance outcomes.
In the run we will find spins in which SIMULTANEOUSLY it outcomes a number that wasn't a selection in BOTH.   WE missed both. 
AND, last but not least, WE HIT when one number outcomes and it's picked in both selections as you have explained. 
Let me take a breath.  .  . 

As my excel sheets are not finished and I can't prove nothing, I will like to know:
How will you expect to overcome this x3 prob.   of increasing the missed hits?
We will find runs of -36 in a row (betting 4,5, or 6 numbers, by "n" times until -36), and then.  .  .  .  ? progress.  .  .  ?
How many "triggers" (crossings) would disappear, and what we do when the trigger is gone and we are in -ive.  ?
How we would deal with the apparition of other crossing while we are following and betting in another?
You see that without the proper piece of software, even those of us that have understand all the way in and out, we will we unable to run a fair test.  .  . 
Even myself, that  I've not a degree as programmer and I'm just an "aficionado" in excel, I can't do it without a lot of time and programming skills that maybe I haven't. 
It looks logical, it seems a natural evolution of the original, but.  .  .  .   I can't test.  .  . 

Would someone of the programmers, share a utility as complex as this one needed to do properly even the simple test.  .  .  ?

In the meanwhile, Winkel, Thanks again to share this new (and the "old") way of playing, and guess that someone provide us with some "New GUT and Distances Tracker" for the masses. 

Betatester. 

PS.   If the software is done properly it can be filled up in a mobile phone (those news) and maybe we can dream to go without papers to landed casinos. 
If developed just for testing purposes, a natural step before going any longer, it can be made as Java applet or maybe as simple as possible, as .  exe and for the DOS environments, as Tracker4 or others. 

[winkel]

Hi betatester,

you went really deep into it. 

I know all the problems you discuss. To get the line let me explain from the start:

I found very fast, that a trigger like: "If ... Then ..." wouldn´t work. So I was looking for a trigger that not refers directly to the last spin or a mayority/minority of hits. Could say I was lookong for something "behind" that.

First I saw that most systems were talking about sleepers and hot numbers. I was asking myself: How react the "normal" ones and how are they defined.

To make this visible I found the structure of listing Remaining/Hit once/ Hit more than once, we know them now as "0" "1" ">1"
Then I found out that this is following the Binomial Distribution and that there is a difference in the trot, if we have just 1 number that hit 3 times or we had 3 numbers that have hit 3 times or we have 2 numbers three times and 1 4 and 1 5 times. so it this structure was changed to
0 1 >1 2 >2 3 >3 4 >4 and so on.

On the other hand I was always confused of Distance-Tracking. I could believe that there is something in it, but couldn´t find a clue til I started to list the distances in my structure. There I found out that it is following also the Binomal Distribution and Law of Third and it "has to" because otherwise there has to be something wrong with "probability".

Next I put both tracking paralell and found out that they are simply creating both a random trot. (compare with the Quantum - Double Slit Experiment)

But what to do for a prediction in the game?
Only play if both strings are equal at the same point? (e.g.: spin X = 14 13 10 real trot - 14 13 10 at distance track)
Only play if both show a crossing at the same point? (e.g.: spin X = 14 13 10 real trot - 15 14 8 at distance track)
Play if there is a crossing in one of the trackings? (e.g.: spin X = 16 14 7 real trot - 15 15 7 at distance track)
and other possible triggers as 14 13 10 real trot - 10 14 13 at distance track (one shows to bet "0" one shows to bet "1")

At the moment this is simply in the state of an "Idea". As you said the manual testing is very complicated, and I´m not a programmer as well.

On the other hand I found out, that we can even use RNG-permanences and denie the existence of a "Dealer´s signature" or the directions CW and CC. It has no effect to the results we are tracking. This doesn´t mean that there couldn´t be these phenomenons.

What we all are looking for is to hit more than to lose. So till now I found it is also possible just to bet the real trigger in one of the tracks not comparing and crosscheck with the other.

to find out which could be the best bet-selection there should be done a lot of testing.

So this evolution is mostly still "theoretical"

br
winkel

If I didn´t answer one of your questions please aks again

[betatester]

Hello WInkel.   Hello the forum. 

First of all it's for me an honour and a pleasure to share this "theoretical" discussion with you, about your own ideas. 
I agree with you in all your statements because it's something that (until know) I can prove for myself. 
In fact I've discover many years ago how to program the distance algorithm in excel for testing purposes. 
Then I've realized that I was in front of a second set of "reduced" numbers which his behaviour was the same has the "real" permanence numbers outputted by the wheel. 
The universe of events are also reduced to 37 (36 + 1 -37 'the whole' revolution = 0) and we can make and abstraction, obliterating the dealer effect, very reduced due to:
- change in the position of the spinner (sometimes are two, combining one direction to another, and displacing the released position by 1/6 or 1/8)
- continuous change of dealer (spinner) before detecting any dealer signature. 
- the absence of an exact distance measuring, not including the wheel speed or the combination of wheel speed (+/-) ball speed. . . 
- the effect of the new scalloped wheels abroad. 
So we can count on this movement (and his measure) has a 2nd source of random events subjected to the same laws as the original one. 

After this discovery you can use this knowledge has you've stated. . .

The first idea is to play and/or use the same principles in one word and in the other. 

We need double tracking and follow every set separately if coincidence in time and bet times.   Betting accordingly, if any, doubling the bet over the "doubled" number. 
We need double capital and double attention to flags, or triggers (crossings). 
We can reduced the "exposure time" in table by doubling the chances of playing a normal "slightly" better that not, bet selection/nº times to attack before -ive, attending and playing as they outcome. 
And closing the game as soon as we are in +ive. 
We don't miss a hit in whatever form it's going to be produced, but we can expect some sessions from "double" hell too.   Even without trying to bee too greed.   So waiting for the fist hit. . .   while losing. . .   in both fields. . . 

The second idea is to play merge. 
So we need a triple potency of programming while in a simple form we will still need following "taking" decisions, as the "global" way of playing needs too. 
I've said before.  .  .  .   It implies not no be only "mechanical" but taking decisions. 
The chances of playing should be concentrated in the same ranges. 
If be are going to back (bet) 0 against 1, merge with the same set in the other "world". 
By normal rule we can expect win in (at least) 2 of the 3 normal comparatives, if first it's not a hit, concentrated in 0 vs.   1, 0 vs.   >1 and 1 vs.   >1
The merge would result in a more reduced set of numbers than ever.   Has you've stated should go btw 3 an 6 or 7 at max.   per entry. 
But supposing all this, I'm still making guesses. 
All that I can said is that we need a strategic and a lot of testing because it should be sessions in which the outputting numbers will follow both distributions and limits, but we can miss the hits, because the non-pertinence to both groups, and then, the cross his gone.  .  .  .   (it hits.  .  .   but we don't). 
That's my fear.  .  .   the non hitted "Hits".   And I think that I don't explained myself properly in the first post, although you've answered all my questions. 
Of course I know something that is called probability propensity and we can think that we are concentrating the "guesses" more than not while merging the two sets. 
But I (we) need something to test.   Some tool.   My own excel sheets expanded with the reversed algorithm, or some "magical" contribution of the readers and regular posters. 

But Winkel, you're into something great, because I think that the best it's still to come, in some ways. 
Take a look to other threads and posts, without dismissing nobody and respecting and taking into account every shared focus or way. 
The normal exposed way with "some credit" for the audience, consist in waiting for a non occurrence (said 4, 5 or "n" times) of a large set of numbers (sometimes more than 14 and going until 24) and back them blindly (and progressing) for "n" times.  .   until you reach the table limits or you sure ruin.   No decisions in btw.   I've prove this (to myself) with every "new" approach of that kind as soon as published, but I'm very lazy to post -ive things.   Sorry. 

While is rare seeing a run with 6 or 7 followed misses, using the simple rules of your system, not speaking of that new promising one, that his goal is to reduce the set of numbers bet each time, allowing to quit the game early with more net win, and/or start a new track, or possibility to reduce the previous loosed spins. 

I will follow the expansions of my excel sheets and I promise than as soon as I have some news I will publish them.   But actually I don't think that I have the skills to carry it until the end. 

Very honoured. 
My best regards. 

Betatester. 

[betatester]

-