• Welcome to #1 Roulette Forum & Message Board | www.RouletteForum.cc.

News:

The only way to beat roulette is by increasing accuracy of predictions (changing the odds). This is possible on many real wheels.

Main Menu
Popular pages:

Roulette System

The Roulette Systems That Really Work

Roulette Computers

Hidden Electronics That Predict Spins

Roulette Strategy

Why Roulette Betting Strategies Lose

Roulette System

The Honest Live Online Roulette Casinos

.

Started by ego, Sep 29, 04:29 AM 2014

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

ego

.
Sep 29, 04:29 AM 2014

Take a dice with six sides.
It has 98.5% probability that at least one side will repeat at least once.
And the dice has 1.5% probability to show each side once with no present repeat.

Conclusion:
98.5% of times the dice will occur with imbalance.



Lets say i have a dice with eight sides, then the dice has to have more then 98.5% probability to repeat it self and less then 1.5% to alternate.



If i can not catch the repeat during the process when all events is about to show.
Then i don't have 98.5% probability or above to catch at least one repeat.



So if i wait for all event to show exept one sleeping one and play against it "trending"...
Then i face 50/50 situation as the imbalance has alredy occur.
All i can hope for is for the repeaters to continue, but i lost my 98.5% probability advantage.



So if i mix all this, then i come to the following conclusion.
New events come and go at all times and repeating events occur at all times.
And the situation is allways 50/50 when i jump on board as there is no beginning or end of the random flow.



But if i cut the random flow into my personal permanenze with windows of attacks.
Then 98.5% of my windows or cuts of the random flow will have imbalance and 1.5% of the windows will fail.
And no matter how many test i do, so will they show me nothing as the only thing that counts is my own placed bets that is part of my personal permanenze.
So no matter if i play non stop or using hit and run i face the same animal.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

#1
Sep 29, 04:31 AM 2014
Well i just like to say the following.
Lets say i have eight patterns and randomly are going to play against one of them, then i have the odds 1 against 7.

The game is 50/50 and depending on luck.
I can bust at the very first attack with three attempts or i can win ten times in a row.

This does not feel good and i think it is scary.

But lest say i track the eight patterns and wait untill i have one sleeping pattern.
Then i have seven patterns to show and one sleeping.

Now if i play against the sleeping pattern i hope it will continue to sleep.
I hope that the seven patterns that has a show will continue to repeat them self.
This make me feel good, because i feel that i base my selection upon something.
Could be bias or imbalance.

But i know this is wrong.
I know that the sleeping pattern still has 1 against 7 to show and that the game still is 50/50 ...

This is what i try to rap my mind around.
I get pretty good results exprimenting with this.

For example:

W
W
LLW
W
W
LW
LW
W
W
W
LLW
W

I should also based upon this kind of selection say that i change my mind about positive progression or regression up & pull ...
Lets say i use the odds 1 against 7 and win 10 20 30 times in a row as strike ratio.
Then 50% of the bets will be a direct win and give the the chanse to catch a longer strike of 23456789 in a row.
The other 50% will end up with a three attempts attack.

Exampel:

WL
WWWWWWWWL
LLW
WWWWWWL
WWL
LW
LW
WWL
WWWWWL
WWL
LLW
WWWWWWL

Eight attacks start with a direct win and seven of them continue to strike.
The largest hit was eight in a row.

My results are from random org.
My first sample won 23 times in a row before hitting three loses in a row.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

#2
Sep 29, 04:31 AM 2014
2014 09 27

WL
WWWWWWWWL
LLW
WWWWWWL

2014 09 26

WWL
LW
LW

2014 09 25

WWL
WWWWWL
WWL
LLW
WWWWWWL

2014 09 24

LW
WL
WWWL
LLW

2014 09 23

LW
LW
WWL
WWWL

2014 09 22

WWL
LW
WL
LLL
LLW

2014 09 21

WL
LLL
WL
WWWL
LW

2014 09 20

WL
LW
WL
WL

2014 09 19

LW
LW
LW
WL
WL

2014 09 18

LLL
LLL
WWWL
WWL
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

#3
Sep 29, 04:33 AM 2014
I made a grahp over the results - regression up & pull
With this method i play 212345 and start over.



Here i test the same results, but did a Wells twist and only use straight Regression 54321 and start over ...
As you can see so does the peak hit higher ... but i loss less with the first one ...

Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

#4
Sep 29, 04:34 AM 2014
I can now see why some say flat betting and progressions are the same thing.

Even if i might be up so am i pretty sure loses will chop.
Is just a matter of time.

I test a straight regression where i was staking 54321.
I test another clustering selection.

50 sessions
159 units won
80 units lost
total 79 units

Results ...

+1
+6
+0
+14
+10
+1
+6
+0
-20
+0

- -

+10
+0
+10
+0
+1
+6
+6
+1
+1
+1

- -

+0
+1
+1
+13
+1
+10
+17
+6
+1
+23

- -

+1
+0
+0
+1
+1
+0
+0
+0
+1
+1

- -

+0
-20
+0
-20
+0
+1
-20
+6
+20
+0
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

#5
Sep 29, 04:35 AM 2014



Lets say i have 8 patterns and pick 1 of them and play against it.
Then i have 7 patterns in my favour and 1 against me.
The odds is 7 vs 1.

This depends on luck and i don't know for how long i can win and i don't like to pick a pattern randomly to play agains't.
Does not feel good for some reason.

But lets say i track 8 patterns and find that 1 pattern have falling into sleep.
This means that 7 patterns has shown and 1 pattern is sleeping.
Now this feels better as i get a reason to pick one pattern to play agains't (it is a sleeping pattern).
So i hope that the 7 patterns that has a show will continue to repeat and that the sleeping pattern will continue to sleep.

I know the odds still is 7 to 1 and nothing has change.
But i rahter bet my money one something that has no show and sleeping, then randomly pick a pattern randomly.

This is the bet selection.

Now i bet up to three attempts using for example following staking 223.
If i win the first bet i am +2 units and can apply regression and bet 1 unit for the next attempt, from this moment i can catch 123456789 events in a row.
But is a 50/50 chance doing so, but who knows, maybe strikes can compensate for the loses in the long run.

One test i did above was regression up & pull up to six attempts, letting it ride.
212345 that is a total of 17 units profit and cover 2.5 loses.
Lets say i win the hole string of 5 bets then i would not start over, i would play 1 unit and then if a win 2 units and repeat that forumula over and over again (12121212) this would be if i catch strikes above six ...

The down side with this staking is that you need to hit a strong strike to capitilaze.
When you for example get 2 to 3 wins in a row you end up with only +1 unit.
That is the neagative side of the regression up & pull.

I think Weels Regression plan is better.
You staking 54321.
This way if you win once you are up +1 unit, but if you strike two then you are up +6 units (where regression up & pull would end up with +1 unit).
And two wins are pretty common when you aim for strikes.

This is how the LW-Registry look like:

LLWWLLWLWWWWLWLWWLLWWWWLWWLWWWLWWLWWWLLWWWWLW LLL
WLW LLL
WLWWWW LLL
LLL
WWWLW LLL
WWLLWWLWWLLWWWWLLWLLWWWLLWWWLWWLLWLLWWLLW LLL
LWLWLWLLWLLWW LLL
LW LLL
LW LLL
WLWWWLLWW LLL
WLW LLL
W LLL
LWWLLWWWWLLWWWLWWLW LLL
W LLL
WLWWWLW LLL
WLWLWLWWW LLL
WLLWLLWWWLWWLWWWLW LLL
WWWLW LLL
LWWLLWLWWW LLL
WWLW LLL
WLLWW LLL
LLWLWLWWWLWLLWWWWWW LLL
LWLWLWLWLWLWLLWWWLW LLL
LWWWWLWLLWLW LLL
WW LLL
WWWLLWW LLL
LW LLL
WLWWLLWWLWWLWWLLWWLLWWLW LLL
WWWLWW LLL
LLWWLWLWW LLL
WWLWWLLWWLLWLWWWWWLWW LLL
WWWWWLW LLL
WW LLL
LLW LLL
WWWWWWLWLLWWWWLWLWW
WWLLWWLWWWWWWWLWWLWWLWLWWWWLLWLWWWLLWLLWWLLWWLLWLLW LLL
LW LLL
LWWWLLWWLLWW LLL
WLWWLW LLL
WWWWWWWW LLL
LLWLWWLLWWWW LLL
WWWWWWLWWWWWWWLWLWLWWWW LLL
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

#6
Sep 29, 04:36 AM 2014

Some one might think of Pattern Breaker and John Legend ... but fact is i post about this at 2007 or 2008 at gamblers glen ...
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

ego

#7
Sep 29, 01:48 PM 2014

-




Well my conclusion is that this kind of selection does not work, because even if you have the odds 1 to 7 so does the loses chop and destroy you overall winnings.
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.

GLC

#8
Sep 29, 06:12 PM 2014
Thanks for the topic Ego.

Though your conclusion is that it's also a losing pattern to play, getting to peer into your mind and see your thinking process helps us all.
Well, I appreciate it, anyway.

Cheers,
George
In my case it doesn't matter.  I'm both!

ego

#9
Sep 30, 11:39 AM 2014

Thanks for you nice words George ...

Cheers
Denial of gamblers fallacy is usually seen in people who has Roulette as last option for a way to wealth, debt covering and a independent lifestyle.  Next step is pretty ugly-
AP - It's not that it can't be done, but rather people don't really have a clue as to the level of fanaticism and outright obsession that it takes to be successful, let alone get to the level where you can take money out of the casinos on a regular basis. Out of 1,000 people that earnestly try, maybe only one will make it.
-
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions