People often ask me what the longest streak can be on the red and black or ECs in general. So I've created a formula that will help all of the system players determine the maximums. The math involved is very simple and it just requires a pencil and some paper.
1. Simply take the number 2 (as in two chances) and divide by 2 until you reach zero.
2. Next, once you reach zero, simply count the number of times that you had to divide and this will tell you what the max run can be on either the red or the black.
Note: In order to find the true max runs you must use a pen and paper because a calculator will round off creating an error in the calculation. Again, you must keep dividing until you actually reach zero.
Best of luck,
The General :)
It will tell you the max losing run length that you should consider, it will give the you highest level of confidence when playing your triggers, and it will help maximize your wins! :)
You can use occam's razor to sharpen the pencil
Quote from: Turner on Aug 16, 05:22 PM 2016
You can use occam's razor to sharpen the pencil
Just googled and read about it
Lol
Fan. Tast. Ic.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 16, 05:36 PM 2016
Just googled and read about it
Yep....."Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" :thumbsup:
Quote from: Turner on Aug 16, 06:07 PM 2016
Yep....."Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" :thumbsup:
Indeed
No coorelation to roulette.
Anyone seen 30 reds in a row? Once in a lifetime scenario
His proposal doesn't apply to real world roulette
Trying to make a point i guess
Dividing by 2 will never hit 0. Whats this have to do with roulette
Trolling
Trolls are easy to spot these days
If you're someone that believes in triggers, then you need to know that number. So don't give up so easily!
Just trying to be helpful. :)
Quote from: The General on Aug 16, 06:19 PM 2016
You give up tooo easily. I guess you don't want your triggers to work.
Geez, just trying to be helpful. :)
Hey man
If u enjoy being here then more power to ya
Troll away sir
The way u say trying to be helpful is obviously sarcasm and with the added smiley face? Grown man? A grown man?! Noooooo.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 16, 06:10 PM 2016
Whats this have to do with roulette
Probability shows there could be 100 reds, but its so high its negligible
I dont look up to see if an asteroid is heading directly for me every time I go out, but it has a probability.
Most likely same as 100 reds.
Its silly to consider it.
Quote from: Turner on Aug 16, 06:25 PM 2016
Probability shows there could be 100 reds, but its so high its negligible
I dont look up to see if am asteroid is heading directly for me every time I go out, but it has a probability.
Most likely same as 100 reds.
Its silly to consider it.
Exactly.
A solar flare can wipe out the power grid tomorrow.
What actually matters is odds vs payout.
Quote from: Steve on Aug 16, 08:51 PM 2016
What actually matters is odds vs payout.
Add a "member repeats this" button
Hehehehehehe
Well I could, but it might overload the server. The same things need to be repeated because very basic things are not being understood, so the same approaches get repeated a billion times.
QuoteDividing by 2 will never hit 0.-RouletteGhost
Where's your proof?
It will never reach zero; you can always cut anything in half, even a half from a half, ad infinitum. But of course given an inifinite number of spins even 1000 reds in a row will occur. If they don´t occur in a 10 million spins test, I´d say that´s because 10 million spins are not "infinite enough" :thumbsup:
How about counting the decimal places to determine the longest streak in a given finite number of spins?
Ex: 2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2÷2=0.0078125.
0.00 would mean 999 or less spins where you could expect a streak of 9 reds.
Quote from: psimoes on Aug 17, 12:00 PM 2016It will never reach zero; you can always cut anything in half, even a half from a half, ad infinitum
That would mean two objects can be infinite close to each other. But is that the reality? The two atoms eventually have to touch. Can the distance be smaller than the size of an atom? I'm sure there is some scientific explanation to this, but it is as hard to believe. Just like it is hard to believe that 40 EC repeats would ever happen. :)
Quote from: ati on Aug 17, 01:06 PM 2016
That would mean two objects can be infinite close to each other. But is that the reality? The two atoms eventually have to touch. Can the distance be smaller than the size of an atom? I'm sure there is some scientific explanation to this, but it is as hard to believe. Just like it is hard to believe that 40 EC repeats would ever happen. :)
Absolute 0 fascinated me in physics class
What scientists think halpen at absolute 0.
Not really relevant to this though
You can split atoms. Now particles, there will come a time when someone asks "what are particles made of" and someone will reply "we reached a point where we can say that particles are undoubtly made of several other things, we don´t know what they are yet but we´re getting there".
Unless the Microcomos is finite. Which means finite data to be computed, thus totally predictable in some distant future.
Theres parts of this universe where physics as we know it does not work
Crazy to fathom
QuoteTheres parts of this universe where physics as we know it does not work
Crazy to fathom-RouletteGhost
Yep, like on roulette system forums.
Quote from: ati on Aug 17, 01:06 PM 2016Just like it is hard to believe that 40 EC repeats would ever happen. :)
We only believe it if we see it but...if im not mistaken 33 has happened b4 in a B&M . Could be 31 or 35. I forgot. But its possible. Huge winning night for the casino that night. As most didnt follow but bet against it. ::)
Cheers
So for dozens/columns you divide 3 by 3 and so on?
Quote from: Turner on Aug 16, 06:25 PM 2016
Probability shows there could be 100 reds, but its so high its negligible
I dont look up to see if an asteroid is heading directly for me every time I go out, but it has a probability.
Most likely same as 100 reds.yes 100 red manc's coming at ya :lol:
Its silly to consider it.
Quote from: nottophammer on Aug 17, 05:48 PM 2016yes 100 red manc's coming at ya
It would be hard to find 100 red mancs,
100 c***ney reds, easy
You need to stop thinking along the lines of how many times in a row. Focus on the probability of the NEXT spin. Why? Because unless you have an edge, it's all the same.
Can you base a system on 10 consecutive reds not happening? Yes but it wont work and is exactly the same as betting on any other sequence. This is just simple stuff not being understood.