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

Roulette-focused => Outside The Box => Topic started by: rrbb on May 30, 08:46 AM 2016

Title: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 08:46 AM 2016
Hi all,

I just wanted to share a fun view of roulette. It might be difficult to grasp at first, but really it is fun!

Disclaimer: it is a view, not a strategy. It might trigger some interesting thoughts however

Most people think of roulette numbers as unrelated. Which of course they are: they are the embodiment of the definition of random. Unrelated, unpredictable.

Now lets see if we can come up with some kind of relation (which is indeed based on the pigeonhole principle...)


a. lets create a new sequence of numbers, based on numbers spun
b. in order to to this, we interpret a number spun as the position within a certain sequence of numbers. This position has a number attached to it
c. after a number is spun, we manipulate the sequence as follows:we remove the number that we pointed at
d. AND we glue it to the beginning
e. we keep on doing this

example
lets start we sequence 1,2,3,...,34,35,36
a. lets assume we get number 35.
b. 35 is the 35th position in our sequence. The value is 35 (1,2,3,...,34,35,36)
c. now we create a new sequence: remove 35 from the old sequence (1,2,3,...,34,35,36)
d. and glue it to the beginning: 35,1,2,3,...,34,36

e. etc

Now the fun part starts!
We can use this "dynamic sequence" to create a totally new set of straights, splits etc... I will illustrate this with halves:

in our example we got number 35. We interpreted it as the position in the number sequence. To create highs/lows however, we look at the position of that number within the previous sequence. In this case it is position 35. As this falls in the second half, we assign it "high"

now lets assume that the next number is 35 again! The old sequence was 35,1,2,3,...,34,36. So now we assign it the "low" (first position)

If we do this for all possible number groups we get a "number systems" that is random and similar to what we are used to. I you would only use this number set, you would not see any difference with roulette numbers spun.

So what is the fun part?
Every set of random numbers can be used to create another set of random numbers BUT the sets themselves are related!

How? For example: when we have a repeat in the first set on the straights, in the second set, this will occur in 99.7% of the cases on "low". Or, even stricter: a repeat on straights in one system will will occur in the second system for 99.99994% on the first two dozens.

try it yourself, play with it!

Fun isn't it?

rrbb
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on May 30, 09:29 AM 2016
when you put your number always at the top dont you create bias in new born random stream and this one is might not be good
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 09:35 AM 2016
Quote from: maestro on May 30, 09:29 AM 2016
when you put your number always at the top dont you create bias in new born random stream and this one is might not be good

Hi Maestro! You honor your name: good question!

Did you create this new number stream according to the recipe? I assure you that it is unbiased: it is a random as random can be! But better than my assurance is your validation of falsification of my statements!

rrbb

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on May 30, 09:38 AM 2016
maybe i did not read it right but say after your second 35 how numbers will look like can you post it
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 09:41 AM 2016
Quote from: maestro on May 30, 09:38 AM 2016
maybe i did not read it right but say after your second 35 how numbers will look like can you post it

Yep, I will create an example!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 09:51 AM 2016
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 09:41 AM 2016
Yep, I will create an example!

Here you go, I hope it makes things clearer...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on May 30, 10:39 AM 2016
Thanks rrbb

This comes at the right time. Very hard period of my life starts. I lost my job today so I ll have more then plenty of time to think about the game while 20 % of unemployment rate spits in my face...  :(

I definitely need to start think very seriously outside the box if I want to survive from now on  :-\

Cheers
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 10:50 AM 2016
Quote from: Drazen on May 30, 10:39 AM 2016
Thanks rrbb

This comes at the right time. Very hard period of my life starts. I lost my job today so I ll have more then plenty of time to think about the game while 20 % of unemployment rate spits in my face...  :(

I definitely need to start think very seriously outside the box if I want to survive from now on  :-\

Cheers

Hi Drazen,

That is horrible! I truly hope you will be able to land a job quickly!

rrbb
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: TurboGenius on May 30, 10:54 AM 2016
Quote from: Drazen on May 30, 10:39 AM 2016
Thanks rrbb
This comes at the right time. Very hard period of my life starts. I lost my job today so I ll have more then plenty of time to think about the game while 20 % of unemployment rate spits in my face...  :(
I definitely need to start think very seriously outside the box if I want to survive from now on  :-\
Cheers

Don't spend that free time thinking about this game. Look at it as a opportunity to begin something even better (hopefully not gambling related). I've walked away from jobs only to have it result in better things happening. Start your own business - find something that you like to do and jump in with both feet. My advice worth a grain of salt - but still good advice.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: NextYear on May 30, 11:04 AM 2016
@Drazen

Welcome to the club!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on May 30, 11:11 AM 2016
Thanks for you kind words.

Well I meant thinking about the game in terms what makes me happy in hard moments. I know it is wrong to think about gambling as a way of making steady income, although who can make that, he simply isnt gambler. That is how I see it.

Huh my friend, trust me that is very simple to say from your side. Here things are very hard in whichever direction you start looking :/

Starting my own business requires of course some financial stretch, which I simple dont have. Even if you have a job here, you make just enough for your monthly needs and no way of saving anything, which is perfectly realistic possibility in western Europe or US...




Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on May 30, 11:19 AM 2016
nice example rrbb but dont realy like the clouds...lol...cant you just simply show step by step so everyone can see and stupid person like me understand how is right way to do it,picture you did is like i will send you half source code of something...thanks
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on May 30, 11:23 AM 2016
sorry to hear this Drazen...they say when door closes other one opens..but hope you will get job..things always happen for reason even we dont get the reason most of the time
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 11:30 AM 2016
Hi Drazen,

I know myself how consoling thinking about "numbers" can be. It actually helped me weather a really difficult period in my life.

Although I do not know where you are from, but I have to agree with TurboGenius: however bleak the future might seem, there is a silver lining.

Btw what country are you from? What is your profession?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on May 30, 11:37 AM 2016
i see what you doing rrbb, so new random stream will be position of hit number on your penultimate sequence....so what properties did new random stream have did you check it or is just thinking out loud..so looks to me that you just using roulette to mix up  your consecutive numbers...so to me your new sequence will look  like outcomes of galton board
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 11:43 AM 2016
Quote from: maestro on May 30, 11:37 AM 2016
i see what you doing rrbb, so new random stream will be position of hit number on your penultimate sequence....so what properties did new random stream have did you check it or is just thinking out loud

What do you think Maestro? am I just thinking out loud?

rrbb
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on May 30, 11:51 AM 2016
well it is not very plite to answear qustion with question..but yeah i said what i think in my previous post..good luck with it
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on May 30, 11:52 AM 2016
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 11:30 AM 2016
Hi Drazen,

I know myself how consoling thinking about "numbers" can be. It actually helped me weather a really difficult period in my life.

Although I do not know where you are from, but I have to agree with TurboGenius: however bleak the future might seem, there is a silver lining.

Btw what country are you from? What is your profession?

We will see what the future will bring. But the odds for getting a job here are like winning a lottery..

I am from Croatia and I have one more year to graduate on faculty of economics, although now I ll have to delay that. But that diploma here is totally useless anyway. I know you can't understand that as everything here is way to twisted for you people who live in normal countries to comprehend. It is really shame that I have to say this for my country but it is true. The whole system of values is wrong here.  I could speak till the day ends what is wrong here, but no point. I feel  :-[ enough.

I ll just hope better days will come and lets continue with the topic.  :thumbsup:

Best

Drazen
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: TurboGenius on May 30, 12:07 PM 2016
I would leave. Easy for me to say - there are jobs everywhere here in the US despite what's reported ie. "unemployment rates", it's just that people would rather stay home and get paid instead of work (some). But anyway, in a country such as that - I would do everything in my power to get out of there. Govts that keep people in poor conditions is just a means to control the masses.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 12:08 PM 2016
Quote from: maestro on May 30, 11:51 AM 2016I could speak

Yes Maestro, you are right, sorry for that it is indeed impolite!

Yes I checked: the new set is fully random if you can not win on roulette, you can not win on this new set. Simple as that BUT I think I started this thread also with a remark about finding a relation. These two sets are dependent in a really peculiar way.

I'm not going to claim anything here. You may or may not find it useful. I hope you like it though: it is fun!

The "straights" in the second (new) number stream are the positions of the roulette numbers in the "dynamic sequence".
So if we bet on a "number" in the second stream, we actually bet on a position in the dynamic stream. and the position in the dynamic stream is again linked to a  roulette number.

But here is the twist: the roulette number that is associated with position in the dynamic number stream varies!!

Again: I do not claim anything, but if you want to spend a couple of hours having fun, play with it!

grts rrbb
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on May 30, 12:20 PM 2016
yep i like it ...hope people like it too ..thanks
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 12:21 PM 2016
Quote from: TurboGenius on May 30, 12:07 PM 2016
I would leave. Easy for me to say - there are jobs everywhere here in the US despite what's reported ie. "unemployment rates", it's just that people would rather stay home and get paid instead of work (some). But anyway, in a country such as that - I would do everything in my power to get out of there. Govts that keep people in poor conditions is just a means to control the masses.

I think Turbo makes a very valid point: it seems that you are bright, are good at english: thinking out of the box in this case could well mean looking over the borders. Thanks to Schengen you should be able to travel freely within  Europe.

Of course: money etc could be an issue. But as you are an economics student there could also be possibilities of an internship. In most cases this will be just enough to "hang" on, but at least it might open other possibilities (and you will be amazed about the "support" laws in north european countries (why do you think so many people flee to mainly the northern countries?)

good luck!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on May 30, 12:47 PM 2016
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 12:21 PM 2016
could well mean looking over the borders

Ah yes rrbb

I don't know how many friends of mine have gone over the border... Besided everything else, my country now due to very bad situation faces enormous problem of economics migration too. So many high educated people have gone. Population is devastated. Mostly to Germany and Ireland. And you are right. If I could personaly choose where to go it would be to Norway or Sweden. That is how I dream my country has living standard for its citizens. Well to be honest even half bad as their would be good for me. Few months ago I read that Norway king faced problems with surplus in their economy! Oh C mon! Darn unbelievable! If only my country has such sweet problems. Now imagine totally opposite state of economy and you will get situation in Croatia.

My options here are extremely limited, and unfortunately short. Not like in roulette where they are limited, but wide :)

Cheers
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: denzie on May 30, 12:52 PM 2016
It's full of eastern europeans here. The last 10 years they grow like moslims. But they come to work though. But one thing is not fair! !!! They don't bring there sexy ladies here!!!!!!!!  :-\
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 01:00 PM 2016
Quote from: Drazen on May 30, 12:47 PM 2016
Ah yes rrbb

I don't know how many friends of mine have gone over the border... Besided everything else, my country now due to very bad situation faces enormous problem of economics migration too. So many high educated people have gone. Population is devastated. Mostly to Germany and Ireland. And you are right. If I could personaly choose where to go it would be to Norway or Sweden. That is how I dream my country has living standard for its citizens. Well to be honest even half bad as their would be good for me. Few months ago I read that Norway king faced problems with surplus in their economy! Oh C mon! Darn unbelievable! If only my country has such sweet problems. Now imagine totally opposite state of economy and you will get situation in Croatia.

My options here are extremely limited, and unfortunately short. Not like in roulette where they are limited, but wide :)

Cheers

Wow,

I honestly did not know it is that bad. Somehow we do not get that kind of news here. I kind of saddens me that a whole country can be ruined for years to come because it does not take care of it's citizens.

rrbb
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on May 30, 01:33 PM 2016
Quote from: denzie on May 30, 12:52 PM 2016
They don't bring there sexy ladies here!!!!!!!!  :-\

That is very true, dough. One thing we are still not lack of is sex ladies. Our ladies are well known by their beauty. But women here are very nice example of natural selection. The law of stronger.

Who says that love doesn't go through the stomach is wrong. So whoever can make more easily that the lady is full, wins... I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. It doesn't mean they are all cheap and sort of a ho*ker but they simply want easier future for themselves. I think that is very logical by itself. So if you park your Bentley, BMW or some other show of your prosperity, you will have significantly higher odds of going out with a very attractive lady then me, who doesn't have a job, doesnt have a car and lives in one older house. More or less everywhere maybe you will say, but especially in humble environment like mine.

I don't have a car, nor I can afford one, so trust me that I know what I am talking about :)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: bobby on May 30, 01:43 PM 2016
Quote from: Drazen on May 30, 01:33 PM 2016Who says that love doesn't go through the stomach is wrong. So whoever can make more easily that the lady is full, wins... I hope you understand what I am trying to say here. It doesn't mean they are all cheap and sort of a ho*ker but they simply want easier future for themselves. I think that is very logical by itself. So if you park your Bentley, BMW or some other show of your prosperity, you will have significantly higher odds of going out with a very attractive lady

I believe this transcends borders, lol. No different here in the US. 

(link:://static.deathandtaxesmag.com/uploads/2016/02/trumpfartclaims-640x425.jpg)

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: denzie on May 30, 01:43 PM 2016
Gold diggers are everywhere. Seen the YouTube videos with guys who lean against a Ferrari or lambo?  The ladies never seen the guy but would get in....


Till he goes to the shit car parked next to it  :twisted:

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on May 30, 01:44 PM 2016
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 08:46 AM 2016
Hi all,

I just wanted to share a fun view of roulette. It might be difficult to grasp at first, but really it is fun!

Disclaimer: it is a view, not a strategy. It might trigger some interesting thoughts however

Most people think of roulette numbers as unrelated. Which of course they are: they are the embodiment of the definition of random. Unrelated, unpredictable.

Now lets see if we can come up with some kind of relation (which is indeed based on the pigeonhole principle...)


a. lets create a new sequence of numbers, based on numbers spun
b. in order to to this, we interpret a number spun as the position within a certain sequence of numbers. This position has a number attached to it
c. after a number is spun, we manipulate the sequence as follows:we remove the number that we pointed at
d. AND we glue it to the beginning
e. we keep on doing this

example
lets start we sequence 1,2,3,...,34,35,36
a. lets assume we get number 35.
b. 35 is the 35th position in our sequence. The value is 35 (1,2,3,...,34,35,36)
c. now we create a new sequence: remove 35 from the old sequence (1,2,3,...,34,35,36)
d. and glue it to the beginning: 35,1,2,3,...,34,36

e. etc

Now the fun part starts!
We can use this "dynamic sequence" to create a totally new set of straights, splits etc... I will illustrate this with halves:

in our example we got number 35. We interpreted it as the position in the number sequence. To create highs/lows however, we look at the position of that number within the previous sequence. In this case it is position 35. As this falls in the second half, we assign it "high"

now lets assume that the next number is 35 again! The old sequence was 35,1,2,3,...,34,36. So now we assign it the "low" (first position)

If we do this for all possible number groups we get a "number systems" that is random and similar to what we are used to. I you would only use this number set, you would not see any difference with roulette numbers spun.

So what is the fun part?
Every set of random numbers can be used to create another set of random numbers BUT the sets themselves are related!

How? For example: when we have a repeat in the first set on the straights, in the second set, this will occur in 99.7% of the cases on "low". Or, even stricter: a repeat on straights in one system will will occur in the second system for 99.99994% on the first two dozens.

try it yourself, play with it!

Fun isn't it?

rrbb
If you get 35 twice then will the new "dynamic" sequence have two 35s?
35, 35, 1, 2, 3
or do we not count repeats in the new sequence:
35, 1, 2, 3
?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MumboJumbo on May 30, 02:00 PM 2016
I am also from same country like Drazen, it is true what he said especially for young people here :( , no job, no future, only casinos.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: denzie on May 30, 02:18 PM 2016
Quote from: MumboJumbo on May 30, 02:00 PM 2016only casinos.

Luckily you good at roulette  ;)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Turner on May 30, 02:55 PM 2016
Quote from: Drazen on May 30, 10:39 AM 2016I lost my job today

oh mate....really sorry to hear that

Turbo said it right....anything but gambling

I refer you to the great philosopher (not known for philosophy really) Jim Steinman from his song for Meatloaf called "two out of three aint bad"

"There aint no Coup de Ville hiding at the bottom of a Crackerjack box"
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 04:28 PM 2016
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 30, 01:44 PM 2016
If you get 35 twice then will the new "dynamic" sequence have two 35s?
35, 35, 1, 2, 3
or do we not count repeats in the new sequence:
35, 1, 2, 3
?

Hi Falkor,

Read the recipy! You take out the first 35, and add the new 35 to the beginning, so in the case of your example nothing changes.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on May 30, 04:40 PM 2016
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 04:28 PM 2016
Hi Falkor,

Read the recipy! You take out the first 35, and add the new 35 to the beginning, so in the case of your example nothing changes.
Hi rrbb, I read the instructions and I checked out your picture with the bubbles. You don't show what happens to the dynamic sequence during a repeat - only uniques (0s). In your opening post you only went as far as to say that "now lets assume that the next number is 35 again! The old sequence was 35,1,2,3,...,34,36. So now we assign it the "low" (first position)" but without showing what the new dynamic sequence will look like having the number 35 appeared twice. Will it remain:
35, 1, 2, 3 (A)
or change to:
35, 35, 1, 2, 3 (B)
?  :question:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on May 30, 04:54 PM 2016
Yes you are right: i was a little bit ambiguous and unclear.

The thing is: you only want unique numbers in your dynamic sequence, so there must be only one 35.

And i found indeed that in i made the mistake of starting to talk about "position" (just a writing error, in the examples i showed it correctly): the dynamic sequence is based on the values (as maestro described correctly).

Hope this clears things up!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on May 30, 04:56 PM 2016
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 04:54 PM 2016
Yes you are right: i was a little bit ambiguous and unclear.

The thing is: you only want unique numbers in your dynamic sequence, so there must be only one 35.

And i found indeed that in i made the mistake of starting to talk about "position" (just a writing error, in the examples i showed it correctly): the dynamic sequence is based on the values (as maestro described correctly).

Hope this clears things up!
Clear and understood - thanks!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on May 30, 05:12 PM 2016
Some initial thoughts:
1. Seems like a rather interesting original idea to create dependency across numbers and most of the carpet playing positions at the same time.
2. Knowing if a dynamic dozen or street is likely to "peak" seems less of an advantage than knowing if an original carpet dozen/street will hit - based on a trigger from the 2nd table - since there's no cheap way to cover a dynamic position since the game doesn't allow us to use "custom" playing positions. However, such dependencies might help narrow down a group of numbers in the 2nd table - even if the main aim here is instead to use the 2nd table to help with predicting the first table.
3. What are the "events" here as opposed to the individual "spins" - latter defined previously as a sub-section of an event?
4. In the same vain as Random(er) Thoughts, the main problem here is knowing how to take advantage of dependencies:
a) wait for one table to show a trigger and then bet on the opposite table to peak also.
b) bet on both tables simultaneously based on some trigger.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on May 30, 06:22 PM 2016
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 12:08 PM 2016
The "straights" in the second (new) number stream are the positions of the roulette numbers in the "dynamic sequence".
So if we bet on a "number" in the second stream, we actually bet on a position in the dynamic stream. and the position in the dynamic stream is again linked to a  roulette number.

But here is the twist: the roulette number that is associated with position in the dynamic number stream varies!!
This part is so confusing. Let me attempt to "translate" this:
1) The straights = individual numbers?
2) "Second (new) number stream" = I don't see a "2nd" new number stream; I only see a set of numbers (nn) as generated from the random wheel.
3) position in the dynamic stream = which pigeon hole as opposed to any particular value
4) a roulette number that varies = too vague!

Original:So if we bet on a "number" in the second stream, we actually bet on a position in the dynamic stream.
Translation: So if we bet on a new number generated from the wheel we are betting on an associated pigeon hole in the dynamic stream.
Does that sound right? I guess something must be lost in translation.

Edit: new number stream = D1! Oops I never noticed that before...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on May 30, 07:45 PM 2016
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 12:08 PM 2016The "straights" in the second (new) number stream are the positions of the roulette numbers in the "dynamic sequence".
So if we bet on a "number" in the second stream, we actually bet on a position in the dynamic stream. and the position in the dynamic stream is again linked to a  roulette number.

But here is the twist: the roulette number that is associated with position in the dynamic number stream varies!!
27 = position 1
5 = position 6
9 = position 10
24 = position 25
35 = position 1
20 = position 23
18 = position 21
33 = position 34
15 = position 20
19 = position 23

But since table 2 is generated from table 1 via the dynamic number recipe shouldn't we expect there to be a connection between D1 and it's associated pigeon hole? And if there was a 3rd number associated with the pigeon hole then presumably it would be on the same row? However, I don't really see any significance. I doubt we can create dependencies between different rows that would help us predict the future from the past and present. How would betting on D1 help us since we have to know the nn value first? I dunno I am just totally confused.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on May 30, 08:37 PM 2016
QuoteHow? For example: when we have a repeat in the first set on the straights, in the second set, this will occur in 99.7% of the cases on "low". Or, even stricter: a repeat on straights in one system will will occur in the second system for 99.99994% on the first two dozens.
Does this mean that repeats occur on more recent numbers as opposed to an old number that appeared 25 spins ago?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Rolletti on May 31, 01:49 AM 2016
Enter D1 figures in a GUT tracker and you will see the trot behaves like original spun roulette numbers would. showing crossings and favourits at the expected positions.

random stays random.

R.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on May 31, 07:47 AM 2016
<enter D1 in Gut tracker> this one cracked me,just made my day .....lol
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on May 31, 08:07 AM 2016
Quote from: maestro on May 31, 07:47 AM 2016
<enter D1 in Gut tracker> this one cracked me,just made my day .....lol
What's the joke? I don't get it.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on May 31, 03:47 PM 2016
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 12:08 PM 2016
These two sets are dependent in a really peculiar way.

Hm.. is there any possibility that way is somehow related to the number Pi ???

Drazen
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: PeaBea65 on May 31, 07:57 PM 2016
Quote from: Drazen on May 30, 10:39 AM 2016
This comes at the right time. Very hard period of my life starts. I lost my job today so I ll have more then plenty of time to think about the game while 20 % of unemployment rate spits in my face...  :(

Very unfortunate Drazen, good luck for the future, I hope it all works out.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on Jun 01, 10:12 AM 2016
falkor you did not get the joke...thats too bad...why everything is being filtered in Gut.... :'(
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on Jun 01, 10:14 AM 2016
to be honest i just post this one to keep topic alive as i am tired of this political crap going on...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on Jun 01, 10:33 AM 2016
so rrbb what would you play then..because you got so many options..
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 01, 11:07 AM 2016
I'm going to code this soon and do a few tests based around the repeats as it's got me thinking...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Tamino on Jun 01, 11:09 AM 2016
It`a a lottery  pure and simple. The game cannot be beaten  no matter which way  you slice the mustard . . Monsieur PLascal has seen to that.


.I give this  method  the lowest of the lowest wining rating a minus F 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 01, 11:11 AM 2016
Quote from: Tamino on Jun 01, 11:09 AM 2016
It`a a lottery  pure and simple. The game cannot be beaten  no matter which way  you slice the mustard . . Monsieur PLascal has seen to that.


.
Are you iggiv's replacement in fulfilling this social role?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on Jun 01, 11:56 AM 2016
@Tamino with all due respect mate but this one Pascal got his so called wager where result was is that you better believe you have nothing to lose...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jun 01, 01:48 PM 2016
ND is a harsh cat
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Tamino on Jun 01, 02:47 PM 2016
RG


This calls for a double ROFLMAO.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Jun 01, 02:58 PM 2016
RG,

Sometimes experienced adults may come across as harsh.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: RouletteGhost on Jun 01, 03:15 PM 2016
Quote from: The General on Jun 01, 02:58 PM 2016
RG,

Sometimes experienced adults may come across as harsh.   :thumbsup:

Get off your pedestal

You are no better then anyone here

Step. Off. The. Pedestal.

(link:://ih1.redbubble.net/image.6188362.9000/raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa:ca443f4786.jpg)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: denzie on Jun 01, 03:41 PM 2016
Common General....click that button ....
very very adult  ;)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Turner on Jun 01, 03:46 PM 2016
Quote from: The General on Jun 01, 02:58 PM 2016
RG,

Sometimes experienced adults may come across as harsh.   :thumbsup:

And they may come across as caring
And they may come across as a dickhead
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: PeaBea65 on Jun 01, 08:02 PM 2016
Quote from: The General on Jun 01, 02:58 PM 2016Sometimes experienced adults may come across as harsh.   :thumbsup:

Once again I find myself agreeing with you General, I now see why Steve likes having you around.  A voice of reason in the wilderness is a good thing sometimes.

Quote from: Turner on Jun 01, 03:46 PM 2016
And they may come across as caring
And they may come across as a dickhead

Yes...Turner.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: PeaBea65 on Jun 01, 08:16 PM 2016
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jun 01, 03:15 PM 2016
Get off your pedestal

You are no better then anyone here

Step. Off. The. Pedestal.

Words you should heed yourself RG.  The double standards just keep on keeping on here.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: NextYear on Jun 02, 01:21 AM 2016
@Denzie

:thumbsup: Good one! Didn't know something like that exists!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: denzie on Jun 02, 01:59 AM 2016
Ooooh I got smited.  Why oooooo why ?
:'(   :'(   :'(
I'll never be the same again.

On a positive note +11/-8
I'm up 3 units  :love:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 07, 07:51 AM 2016
As usual another interesting topic initiated  here - but without any useful responses from the OP; nevertheless, I will now move onto coding this to test some stats and hope for some interesting results.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 07, 10:26 AM 2016
Here's how it's looking so far...
(link:://s32.postimg.org/5f2dzvalx/outside.png)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 07, 10:50 AM 2016
How many repeats should we track this for? Presumably we cannot play this continuously otherwise we won't know whether a number is a repeat or not? Or are we only looking for repeats within the last 36 spins?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jun 24, 05:52 PM 2016
Quote from: falkor2k15 on May 30, 08:37 PM 2016Does this mean that repeats occur on more recent numbers as opposed to an old number that appeared 25 spins ago?

Yes.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jun 25, 04:49 PM 2016
Has everyone given up on this 'view' already?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 25, 05:56 PM 2016
I can't continue without knowing the answer to this since rrbb's examples were so limited:
"How many repeats should we track this for? Presumably we cannot play this continuously otherwise we won't know whether a number is a repeat or not? Or are we only looking for repeats within the last 36 spins?"
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on Jun 25, 08:17 PM 2016
Quote from: 3Nine on Jun 25, 04:49 PM 2016
Has everyone given up on this 'view' already?

Very soon I ll have to give up on a few views, and luckily this is not one of those.

Cheers
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herby on Jul 01, 05:05 AM 2016
Quote from: 3Nine on Jun 25, 04:49 PM 2016Has everyone given up on this 'view' already?

Interesting view, and I think falkor already uses it for dozens, quads and lines ...
I once read in this thread and then forgot it (too much work besides the hobby), so I hope not to get hit ( how can some people smite some others ?) to push this thread up ...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jul 02, 07:05 AM 2016
Yes, Herby, this one is still a bit puzzling to me.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herby on Jul 02, 08:22 AM 2016
Quote from: 3Nine on Jul 02, 07:05 AM 2016Yes, Herby, this one is still a bit puzzling to me.

Hallo 3Nine,

you roll a die, the outcomes: 2,4,1,3,4,3,5,6,5,1
result: 2 ->{2}
result: 4->{4,2}
result: 1 ->{1,4,2}
result: 3 ->{3,1,4,2}
result: 4 ->{4,3,1,2}     4 changes to the first position !
result: 3 -> {3,4,1,2}     3 changes to the first position !
result: 5 -> {5,3,4,1,2}
result: 6 -> {6,5,3,4,1,2}             all positions in the brackets are taken, now we can begin to make a new list

next result: 5   comes from position 2 from within the brackets, so new result: 2
-> {5,6,3,4,1,2}             
next result: 1 comes from position 5 from within the brackets, so new result: 5
-> {1,5,6,3,4,2}
             
The last result of rolling the die changes to the first position in the brackets, the position from where it comes from inside the brackets gives you the new result

That’s the way how I understood.
Hope it helps …  :smile:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jul 02, 08:48 AM 2016
Thanks, Herby.  Yes, that's how I see it and built my sheet around that.  I also see WHERE those repeats occur the majority of the time.  But, how do we use that information?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herby on Jul 02, 09:05 AM 2016
Quote from: 3Nine on Jul 02, 08:48 AM 2016how do we use that information?

We are now able to tranform one random sequence into another.
There is nothing more to wish in this world.  ^-^
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jul 02, 03:42 PM 2016
I've seen enough to believe otherwise but we shall see.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on Jul 04, 07:53 PM 2016
Here I am seeing a plenty of abundance I was only dreaming about. Amazing.

But the time just for me and my thoughts around the game has a much bigger cost then I originally predicted. So different view is necessary. First I have to find the best way how to transform that as much as possible in my favor. This is still my biggest love.

The forum will still be here I know, but I have a feeling I started to fall behind some things recently.

First buying my own laptop, brushing my English on some course, and getting driver license as soon as possible is very desirable.

So 3nine I am also puzzled here. I guess only time will tell how to solve that.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Priyanka on Jan 03, 03:52 PM 2017
Praline - You asked me how this topic can be interpreted. Let me give you an example to explain this. See the following picture on lines.

(link:s://s30.postimg.org/wmi7xtrr5/Capture.jpg)

If you see I have marked in yellow the place when we get repeaters. If you see the position of the repeaters, 1,2 and 3 will appear the most and 4,5,6 will appear least. That is the interpretation.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Jan 03, 04:50 PM 2017
Got it. Thank you
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: RMore on Jan 03, 04:53 PM 2017
I must be stupid or something because, while I understand the concept of repeaters, I am not understanding the term "repeaters" since I see repeaters that you have not marked in yellow. The number 9 is line 2 and that is a repeater - of the very first spin which is also line 2. Number 6 is a repeater but you haven't marked that one but you have the 1 that follows? So can you perhaps define the term "repeater" for me please?  Thanks.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herby on Jan 03, 06:34 PM 2017
Quote from: RMore on Jan 03, 04:53 PM 2017The number 9 is line 2 and that is a repeater
Hi RMore,
It could help if you look at it as cycles.
Yellow marked is the beginn of  new cycle.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Kattila on Jan 03, 06:57 PM 2017
I see it this way (because i use this concept a lot) :

It s all about the position/distance between the same group, so yes number 9 and
number 6 are *repeaters* , they repeat (as group) in position/distance  5 :

251442 ( see between same group , group 2 in this case , we have distance 5)
144231 ( see between same group, gr. 1 i this case , we have again dist. 5)

And important :

* 1,2 and 3 will appear the most and 4,5,6 will appear least*

so distances 1, 2 and 3 are the important ones....

It s like a cycle that  start and end with the same group.
If we take group 3 like example , then :
33 is dist 1
323 (or 343..etc..)  is dist 2
3213 ( or 3243..etc..) is dist 3
31123 ( or 32443..etc..)  is dist 4
...so on...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: RMore on Jan 03, 07:09 PM 2017
OK - thanks guys - will try to look at it from that viewpoint. Some more thinking required I see.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Kattila on Jan 03, 07:45 PM 2017
I looked again at the Pri picture(at Position) and seems that could be that my interpretation
is different from what she want to say , not sure , maybe she can clarify it .
Anyway what i wrote above is my way to track the positions/distances.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herby on Jan 04, 05:37 AM 2017
Hi Kattila,
Pri just shows a part of the history in her picture/table, but enough if you know the principle from this thread.

this could help:
link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17115.msg160194#msg160194 (link:://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=17115.msg160194#msg160194)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Jan 12, 08:38 AM 2017
Can somebody help me with tracker for this outside the box thinking. Something better then mine will be great!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Feb 16, 06:58 AM 2017
Hi all,
See attached, have fun with it.  I put a ton of time and energy into this as I'm not an Excel guy.  Hope it helps!

pwd - Rforum

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Feb 16, 07:10 AM 2017
 O0 Now that I understand the context of how edge works based on all the different concepts that Priyanka covered, I was planning to look at parallel streams soon - in particular the "positions" stream to see if it's more comfortable than other methods, as well as trying to understand why Priyanka prefers it. However, I've had to put it on the back burner for now because I want to develop something more fun that starts out betting small and ends up in a positive progression that can win big in a short time based on parlaying bets and parachuting. Whatever happens though I will visit this eventually - way too interesting to pass up on!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Feb 19, 07:01 PM 2017
38 downloads.  Interesting.  Let me know if anyone is interested in a sheet for 00.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: bbb128 on Feb 24, 09:07 AM 2017
Hi 3Nine

is there a "special" reason your sheet have 37 numbers instead of 36 ?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Feb 24, 09:25 AM 2017
Quote from: bbb128 on Feb 24, 09:07 AM 2017
Hi 3Nine

is there a "special" reason your sheet have 37 numbers instead of 36 ?

Hi,
That depends on how you define "special" -  in this case, it represents Zero.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jun 17, 09:55 AM 2017
Hey rrbb,
Been a while, eh?  It's been almost exactly a year now since you wrote, "I will share an excel with you later!"  Just curious if I'll ever see your version of this 'view' 

Hope you're well.

Best,
39

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on Jun 17, 11:24 PM 2017
Hmmm, you'r sure i did not share that sheet?

If so, sorry. On the other hand it is really simple to create yourself.

The idea is this: you start of with the normal sequence: 1, 2, 3, ..., 36, 0.

Every number spun is placed at the beginning of the sequence, and removed fron its previous positition:

E.g:
Number spun: 3. This gives sequence

3, 1, 2, 4, ...

Number spun 36:
36, 3, 1, 2, 4,..., 35, 0

Etc.

Of course, if we would just bet on the straights, well, thats just plain stupid.

The interesting thing however: define a "dynamic low" as the first 18 numbers. What are the odds that a repeater falls within the dynamic low?

A holy grail? No. But what it teaches us:
1. Roulette is not about numbers
2. We are allowed to be creative

In this case we used the birthday paradox to enhance the bias.

Fun isn't it?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jun 17, 11:45 PM 2017
Oh, I'm sure!  Nice reminder though.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: rrbb on Jun 17, 11:51 PM 2017
Of course this comes at a cost.

What most people do not realise is that a repeat tends to occur on a partition (half, dozen etc) that contained the previous repeat.

Priyanka nicely showed this in one of her posts.

This means that during a cycle there MUST be a bias towards the other partitions (so if the previous repeat was on red, in the cycle after the repeat, there is a small bias towards black).

In the case of the dynamic low/high, this is not the case anymore...

Be aware also: this is purely statistics. You will not be able to win consistently with it. Do not let the law if large numbers get to you!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Jun 20, 03:57 AM 2017
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 17, 11:51 PM 2017
Of course this comes at a cost.

What most people do not realise is that a repeat tends to occur on a partition (half, dozen etc) that contained the previous repeat.

Priyanka nicely showed this in one of her posts.


This means that during a cycle there MUST be a bias towards the other partitions (so if the previous repeat was on red, in the cycle after the repeat, there is a small bias towards black).

In the case of the dynamic low/high, this is not the case anymore...

Be aware also: this is purely statistics. You will not be able to win consistently with it. Do not let the law if large numbers get to you!
This part is not true. For example with Dozen Cycles:

Cycle 1: 1233
Cycle 2: 3...

3 has already appeared once, so there's 63% chance that the repeat will be that 3 (73% whatever halve the 3 represents) because the 3 only needs one more hit to repeat. But the previous cycle has nothing to do with that statistic. Carrying over the defining element (known as Principle A) causes some "anomalies" as described in this topic by Priyanka and praline:
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18814.0

Again, the act of carrying over the defining element isn't responsible for the 63%...
31... the repeat is dependent on the uniques that come before, so here there is more chance of a repeat on 3 or 1 as opposed to 2. Whatever the previous cycle was has nothing to do with it. We can create fresh cycles every time and the stat will hold.

I hope I made that clear? We need to move away from this old world thinking...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jul 02, 08:20 AM 2017
Hey Red,
I've created a private group for select members who want to focus on this 'view' - as I'm doing this by invitation only with people I trust I would love to have you be a part of it if you have time.  The purpose is to optimize and enhance this view as best we can with a bit of group think.

As always, you can reach me via PM or email.

All the best. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: stringbeanpc on Jul 03, 02:55 AM 2017
Interesting concept here by rrbb.

To me this seems somewhat similar to what chance explains here
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19055.0

I appreciate all explanations about this, so that I can comprehend it better.

Attached is an RX script that rearranges the spins in dynamic sequence as rrbb
explains in the first post. Consider this scipt version 1 to experiment with.

It does this for each of the last 37 spins.

But it also does this for the last 6, 9, 12 & 18 spins

When time permits I will add funcionality to track the position sequence of
staights (last 1 number  will be postion 1)
splits   (last 2 numbers will be postion 1)
streets  (last 3 numbers will be postion 1)
lines    (last 6 numbers will be postion 1)
dozens   (last 12 numbers will be postion 1)
halfs    (last 18 numbers will be postion 1)

This is how I comprehend what rrbb is showing in the example from post 5

Enjoy,
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: stringbeanpc on Jul 03, 02:59 AM 2017
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 09:51 AM 2016
Here you go, I hope it makes things clearer...

rrbb,

Your example does NOT show either zero or double zero in the sequence.

is it correct to ignore 0 or 00 if either wins ?

otherwise we could have 19 splits, 13 streets, etc.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jul 12, 07:26 AM 2017
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 17, 11:51 PM 2017Be aware also: this is purely statistics. You will not be able to win consistently with it. Do not let the law if large numbers get to you!

How about them apples?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jul 12, 07:27 AM 2017
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 17, 11:24 PM 2017The interesting thing however: define a "dynamic low" as the first 18 numbers. What are the odds that a repeater falls within the dynamic low?

and how do we get this to 100%?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Taotie on Jul 12, 11:25 AM 2017
Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers

Ironically, you have to put it all in the box, otherwise you just end up with a big mess spilled all over the place, like a dog's breakfast.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herby on Jul 12, 11:51 PM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Jul 12, 07:26 AM 2017
How about them apples?

Hi 3Nine,
you are Freudianian ?

"apples and pears" or missing an "i"  O0

(my lousy English leads to misunderstanding)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Jul 15, 04:34 PM 2017
Hey Red,
Would love your take on this 'view' for baccarat.  Look forward to chatting again soon.

Best.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Scarface on Jul 15, 05:56 PM 2017
Anyone believe in the Law of Attraction?  Always seems like anytime I'm playing at a table when everyone is rrally positive, and there are alot of "good vibes" I always win

Especially seems true when everyone has their money on the same number
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Jul 16, 12:41 PM 2017
Quote from: Scarface on Jul 15, 05:56 PM 2017

Anyone believe in the Law of Attraction?  Always seems like anytime I'm playing at a table when everyone is rrally positive, and there are alot of "good vibes" I always win

Especially seems true when everyone has their money on the same number


Scarface,
Your post raises the age old "chicken and egg" question -- which is the cause and which is the effect.

By invoking the Law of Attraction, you are saying that an overall positive mood at the table is somehow the "cause"of the most heavily bet numbers being hit (the effect).

Well, the converse (opposite) could very well be the case:

A lot of the heavily bet numbers are -- because of random chance -- hitting frequently and that is the "cause" of all the joyous hooting and howling at the table (the effect).

So what is the "chicken" and what is the "egg" in this context?

Hmmmm.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Scarface on Jul 16, 07:44 PM 2017
Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 16, 12:41 PM 2017
Scarface,
Your post raises the age old "chicken and egg" question -- which is the cause and which is the effect.

By invoking the Law of Attraction, you are saying that an overall positive mood at the table is somehow the "cause"of the most heavily bet numbers being hit (the effect).

Well, the converse (opposite) could very well be the case:

A lot of the heavily bet numbers are -- because of random chance -- hitting frequently and that is the "cause" of all the joyous hooting and howling at the table (the effect).

So what is the "chicken" and what is the "egg" in this context?

Hmmmm.

Yes, I see what you're saying.  I'm not sure if I believe the LOA exist since it's not been proven scientifically.  BUT, this is just something I have exerienced.  I have more luck when playing for fun making random selections, than I do tracking numbers or playing a system.  My best wins were all in recreational fun mode.  Sure it could be all luck though  :)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Aug 22, 02:54 PM 2017
hey Red,
Do we still need to refer to the "dynamic stream" other than to create the new set?

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Taotie on Aug 23, 01:01 AM 2017
Quote from: Scarface on Jul 16, 07:44 PM 2017...it could be all luck though

Now you're talking outside the box. Congrats!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 23, 03:38 AM 2017
Quote from: Taotie on Aug 23, 01:01 AM 2017
Now you're talking outside the box. Congrats!
And 3Nine is talking to a brick wall!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Aug 23, 04:13 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Aug 22, 02:54 PM 2017
hey Red,
Do we still need to refer to the "dynamic stream" other than to create the new set?
Post#1, fun part is the essence of what rrbb wants to share, not the re-streaming per se. He re-iterated on post#91/93.

His approach to roulette is much similar to priyanka(I read about 10 pages from the back moments ago after taotie posted the random thoughts link on another thread today. Too bad ppl were clearly missing the gist of what priyanka shared on that thread). rrbb himself would have learnt more from what's shared by pri.

It's the quality of the stream, not the whatever stream anyone can conjure up.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Aug 23, 04:37 AM 2017
Quote from: cht on Aug 23, 04:13 AM 2017
Post#1, fun part is the essence of what rrbb wants to share, not the re-streaming per se. He re-iterated on post#91/93.

His approach to roulette is much similar to priyanka(I read about 10 pages from the back moments ago after taotie stringbeanpc posted the random thoughts link on another thread today. Too bad ppl were clearly missing the gist of what priyanka shared on that thread). rrbb himself would have learnt more from what's shared by pri.

It's the quality of the stream, not the whatever stream anyone can conjure up.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 23, 05:08 AM 2017
Quote from: cht on Aug 23, 04:13 AM 2017
Post#1, fun part is the essence of what rrbb wants to share, not the re-streaming per se. He re-iterated on post#91/93.

His approach to roulette is much similar to priyanka(I read about 10 pages from the back moments ago after taotie posted the random thoughts link on another thread today. Too bad ppl were clearly missing the gist of what priyanka shared on that thread). rrbb himself would have learnt more from what's shared by pri.

It's the quality of the stream, not the whatever stream anyone can conjure up.
I don't think Priyanka advocated positions - at least not till rrbb/reddwarf first posted this topic?

What was the gist of what Priyanka was trying to tell people? I read it quite carefully.

Why does one stream have more quality than another? Reddwarf said that all universes (collection of spins) are the same and obey the same rules.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Aug 23, 05:12 AM 2017
Quote from: cht on Aug 23, 04:13 AM 2017rrbb himself would have learnt more from what's shared by pri.

LoL
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Aug 23, 08:15 AM 2017
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 23, 03:38 AM 2017
And 3Nine is talking to a brick wall!

Are you sure about that? 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Aug 23, 08:17 AM 2017
Quote from: cht on Aug 23, 04:13 AM 2017
Post#1, fun part is the essence of what rrbb wants to share, not the re-streaming per se. He re-iterated on post#91/93.

His approach to roulette is much similar to priyanka(I read about 10 pages from the back moments ago after taotie posted the random thoughts link on another thread today. Too bad ppl were clearly missing the gist of what priyanka shared on that thread). rrbb himself would have learnt more from what's shared by pri.

It's the quality of the stream, not the whatever stream anyone can conjure up.

This iteration of Priyanka would not exist without reddwarf/rrbb.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Aug 23, 08:22 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Aug 23, 08:15 AM 2017
Are you sure about that?

Keep this in mind, Falkor.  One word can change everything.  Clearly, you haven't found it. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Aug 23, 08:26 AM 2017
Quote from: cht on Aug 23, 04:13 AM 2017
Post#1, fun part is the essence of what rrbb wants to share, not the re-streaming per se. He re-iterated on post#91/93.

His approach to roulette is much similar to priyanka(I read about 10 pages from the back moments ago after taotie posted the random thoughts link on another thread today. Too bad ppl were clearly missing the gist of what priyanka shared on that thread). rrbb himself would have learnt more from what's shared by pri.

It's the quality of the stream, not the whatever stream anyone can conjure up.

😂😂😂

Cht rrbb is reddwarf, reddwarf mentored priyanka 👌
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Aug 23, 12:21 PM 2017
Oops ! After reading through more I realise I made a mistake of the chronological order of who's who....my apologies.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 23, 12:30 PM 2017
Quote from: cht on Aug 23, 12:21 PM 2017
Oops ! After reading through more I realise I made a mistake of the chronological order of who's who....my apologies.
You naughty man, don't do it again... reddwarf is king... or is it Dyksexlic?  :question:

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=2886.0
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Aug 23, 12:40 PM 2017
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 23, 12:30 PM 2017link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=2886.0

hmmm idk, dyksexlic did come up with it first.  But redd took things to new levels.   
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Aug 23, 01:13 PM 2017
Dyksexlic made 26posts here mainly on php, it means he must have posted on vls earlier going back 10yrs.

"Consider the principle a 'conceptual visualisation tool'."...... Dyksexlic

I just made a post about it on the other MoneyT thread the other day. Hmm...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Aug 23, 03:11 PM 2017
I hope there are still a few of us who believe that what rrbb and Priyanka showed is no BS and is really the only way to win consistently. (using math) They both have received way too much attack on this forum for showing a new way of thinking, while the recycled ideas are usually applauded by most members.
These two guys are obviously not scammers, and I don't think they ever wanted anyone to praise their names and call them Gods. There is a very good reason they shared just enough for us to see that there are different ways. Many great minds said over the years that no sane person would share a consistent winning method on a public forum. It would spread like fire, and that would be the end of roulette as we know it.
Last year I have exchanged a few PM's with rrbb, he didn't share any secrets with me, but he asked me to be careful what I post and what I keep to myself. Not that I have any secrets :) He just thought that I understood more than I really did.
Due to my lack of intelligence I may never be able win at roulette, but I will still believe some people can.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on Aug 23, 03:34 PM 2017
Quote from: cht on Aug 23, 12:21 PM 2017
Oops ! After reading through more I realise I made a mistake of the chronological order of who's who....my apologies.

Why does it matter?

I dont see this anyhow important from a perspective of a person who is trying to figure it all out. The process of understanding the riddle by itself is already complicated enough, let alone relationships between those people.

I think I would be perfectly satisfied if I could play like them, without knowing who are they and why they are playing game of seek in their community  :D
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Aug 24, 07:58 AM 2017
Quote from: ati on Aug 23, 03:11 PM 2017
I hope there are still a few of us who believe that what rrbb and Priyanka showed is no BS and is really the only way to win consistently. (using math) They both have received way too much attack on this forum for showing a new way of thinking, while the recycled ideas are usually applauded by most members.

In a warped sense it's a good thing.

These two guys are obviously not scammers, and I don't think they ever wanted anyone to praise their names and call them Gods. There is a very good reason they shared just enough for us to see that there are different ways. Many great minds said over the years that no sane person would share a consistent winning method on a public forum. It would spread like fire, and that would be the end of roulette as we know it.

Dyksexlic, reddwarf, rrbb, priyanka - from one led to the next, each one of them contributed their part on this journey. Personally, I include Winkel in the list.

Last year I have exchanged a few PM's with rrbb, he didn't share any secrets with me, but he asked me to be careful what I post and what I keep to myself. Not that I have any secrets :) He just thought that I understood more than I really did.
Due to my lack of intelligence I may never be able win at roulette, but I will still believe some people can.

Keep it SIMPLE - it's simple nothing complicated, don't complicate it. At the same time be open-minded, very open-minded and also be creative with your open-mind, the possibilities depend on you alone. Let it come to you in your own time, not today perhaps someday.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: DoctorSudoku on Aug 24, 08:56 AM 2017
Quote from: cht on Aug 24, 07:58 AM 2017



Aren't rrbb and reddwarf the same person/poster? I thought they were.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 24, 09:12 AM 2017
QuoteKeep it SIMPLE - it's simple nothing complicated, don't complicate it. At the same time be open-minded, very open-minded and also be creative with your open-mind, the possibilities depend on you alone. Let it come to you in your own time, not today perhaps someday.
That's the attitude Priyanka had, and to some extent praline, but it takes away from the appreciation of numbers and nature. There are very many concepts involved here with ever-growing terminology. To keep tarnishing it with "simple" is to take it for granted. That's why I think the HG has been used mostly to bolster people's egos, as there's no passion behind it. I think reddwarf/rrbb was the only person who truly appreciated the complexity and wasn't just out to make money.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Aug 24, 09:42 AM 2017
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Aug 24, 09:12 AM 2017
That's the attitude Priyanka had, and to some extent praline, but it takes away from the appreciation of numbers and nature. There are very many concepts involved here with ever-growing terminology. To keep tarnishing it with "simple" is to take it for granted. That's why I think the HG has been used mostly to bolster people's egos, as there's no passion behind it. I think reddwarf/rrbb was the only person who truly appreciated the complexity and wasn't just out to make money.

Comical, really.  If it weren't for YOUR ego you would already have a solution.  Complexity is never the way, yet, all you keep doing is that. Not to mention hacking everyone else's work (especially, Priyankas) and trying to label it your own.  To be blunt, it's always and only about YOU. 

This is my final post here guys.  Wish you all well.  There's not much else for me to see other than the entertainment value of the so-called flat earth nonsense.

Have fun and be well. 




Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Aug 24, 10:18 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Aug 24, 09:42 AM 2017
Comical, really.  If it weren't for YOUR ego you would already have a solution.  Complexity is never the way, yet, all you keep doing is that. Not to mention hacking everyone else's work (especially, Priyankas) and trying to label it your own.  To be blunt, it's always and only about YOU. 

This is my final post here guys.  Wish you all well.  There's not much else for me to see other than the entertainment value of the so-called flat earth nonsense.

Have fun and be well.
You're just a "Forum Hater" as Dyksexlic used to say:
link:s://:.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=8906.0

Not that I take it personally, as I know I'm not the cause of all the hatred in your heart.

"Complexity is never the way, yet, all you keep doing is that. "
So, taking a number, creating a new random stream, having a shuffle of the original stream, and then looking for connections between official dozens and self-created dozens, is not complex? How about all the applications of Pigeonhole Principle:
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19303.msg180503#msg180503
Is that not complex? It might not need to be just to make a quick buck from a single variation, but true understanding and appreciation of all the concepts, including VdW and Friends' Theorem, is no simple matter.
None of my topics are about me - they are about sharing information - not simple solutions to make a quick buck only to forget about the pioneers (like reddwarf, Dyk) and all their hard work that went into it over several years. Calling it "simple" is to downgrade over 1000 days of deep thought processing and problem solving. Even you admitted to having a few years taken away from you after reading Dyk's post. It's just so arrogant, patronizing, and condescending to render such achievements as "simple", but without empathy you cannot possibly understand.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Sep 24, 06:43 AM 2017
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 17, 11:51 PM 2017
Of course this comes at a cost.

What most people do not realise is that a repeat tends to occur on a partition (half, dozen etc) that contained the previous repeat.

Priyanka nicely showed this in one of her posts.

This means that during a cycle there MUST be a bias towards the other partitions (so if the previous repeat was on red, in the cycle after the repeat, there is a small bias towards black).

In the case of the dynamic low/high, this is not the case anymore...

Be aware also: this is purely statistics. You will not be able to win consistently with it. Do not let the law if large numbers get to you!

You may want to read this again since 'someone' was so quick to dismiss it. 



Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Sep 24, 06:48 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Sep 24, 06:43 AM 2017
You may want to read this again since 'someone' was so quick to dismiss it.
Yea I checked that one out a while back, looks good with lines and I track the ECs stats for bias as well.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 03, 07:26 PM 2017
try this for a change:

0. generate the dynamic sequences, while doing so
1. whenever the random number is greater or equal than 19, the roulette number that is pointed at by the second stream is what you do NOT bet on
So basically you start betting on all numbers, except for the roulette numbers that you indirectly get via this rule.

- rrbb
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 04, 08:01 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 03, 07:26 PM 2017try this for a change:

0. generate the dynamic sequences, while doing so
1. whenever the random number is greater or equal than 19, the roulette number that is pointed at by the second stream is what you do NOT bet on
So basically you start betting on all numbers, except for the roulette numbers that you indirectly get via this rule.

- rrbb


How did you interpret this?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 04, 09:31 AM 2017
I tried it and i didnt gain any advantage
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 04, 09:33 AM 2017
maybe it is just a way to show that when it comes to a repeat, the high's from second stream aren't to consider?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 04, 09:53 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 04, 09:33 AM 2017
maybe it is just a way to show that when it comes to a repeat, the high's from second stream aren't to consider?

First let me clear up how i understood the quote

so 20 hits....in the second stream i wont bet on positions 20-36

24 hits.....i wont bet on positions 24-36

etc

3nine, how did you understand it?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 04, 11:30 AM 2017
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 04, 09:53 AM 20173nine, how did you understand it?

Not like that.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 04, 11:42 AM 2017
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 04, 09:53 AM 2017First let me clear up how i understood the quote

so 20 hits....in the second stream i wont bet on positions 20-36

24 hits.....i wont bet on positions 24-36

etc

Why you have "36"?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 04, 11:49 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 04, 11:42 AM 2017
Why you have "36"?

I did my chart with 36 number and left out the zero
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 04, 11:51 AM 2017
20 - 36

means that you dont bet position 20 and position 36

or

you dont bet only position 20?

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 04, 11:52 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 04, 11:30 AM 2017
Not like that.

ok then how do you understand it?

Quote0. generate the dynamic sequences, while doing so this part is easy
1. whenever the random number(to me this means the result from roulette) is greater or equal than 19, the roulette number that is pointed at by the second stream (to me this means the position on the chart) is what you do NOT bet on
So basically you start betting on all numbers, except for the roulette numbers that you indirectly get via this rule.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 04, 11:55 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 04, 11:51 AM 2017
20 - 36

means that you dont bet position 20 and position 36

or

you dont bet only position 20?

all the numbers in position 20-36...(betting on 19 numbers)

because if i just pick 20 what money will i make betting 35 numbers?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 04, 12:00 PM 2017
i started with betting all 36
every time that i have new random number higher then 18, i ruled out that position till i have 18 numbers bet.


so 20 hits....in the second stream i wont bet on positions 20

24 hits.....i wont bet on positions 24-20

and so on till only low positions left
but im not sure its correct
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 04, 12:07 PM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 04, 12:00 PM 2017
i started with betting all 36
every time that i have new random number higher then 18, i ruled out that position till i have 18 numbers bet.


so 20 hits....in the second stream i wont bet on positions 20

24 hits.....i wont bet on positions 24-20

and so on till only low positions left
but im not sure its correct

The reason why i dont believe thats correct is because if you chart the cycles for the positions then your ruling out all the wins on the repeat.

also is seems as if the positions cycle faster because of the fact that they are always changing.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 04, 12:13 PM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 04, 12:00 PM 2017
i started with betting all 36
every time that i have new random number higher then 18, i ruled out that position till i have 18 numbers bet.


so 20 hits....in the second stream i wont bet on positions 20

24 hits.....i wont bet on positions 24-20

and so on till only low positions left
but im not sure its correct

What's in position 20?  What's in position 24?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 04, 12:14 PM 2017
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 04, 12:07 PM 2017also is seems as if the positions cycle faster

Can you, please, explain what do you mean?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 04, 12:19 PM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 04, 12:13 PM 2017What's in position 20?  What's in position 24?

numbers that are changing constantly.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 05, 07:20 AM 2017
Shall we continue?  So much more to see and learn.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 05, 07:33 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 05, 07:20 AM 2017Shall we continue? 
Sure!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 05, 11:03 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 05, 07:33 AM 2017
Sure!

Cool.  Well, since Red and Pri want to continue to play hide and seek, perhaps we start at the beginning?  (as in, the reason rrbb started this thread?)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 05, 11:26 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 05, 11:03 AM 2017
Cool.  Well, since Red and Pri want to continue to play hide and seek, perhaps we start at the beginning?  (as in, the reason rrbb started this thread?)

Alright im all ears....
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 07, 09:06 AM 2017
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 08:46 AM 2016
If we do this for all possible number groups we get a "number systems" that is random and similar to what we are used to. I you would only use this number set, you would not see any difference with roulette numbers spun.

So what is the fun part?
Every set of random numbers can be used to create another set of random numbers BUT the sets themselves are related!

How? For example: when we have a repeat in the first set on the straights, in the second set, this will occur in 99.7% of the cases on "low". Or, even stricter: a repeat on straights in one system will will occur in the second system for 99.99994% on the first two dozens.

try it yourself, play with it!

Fun isn't it?

rrbb

So from my understanding

1.If we only use the set created we will not see a difference

2.The sets created are related

3.A repeat on a regular will happen 99% on the first half of the created table

We don't know when the repeat will happen but we do know which numbers will repeat if and when a repeat happens.


How do we solve the when?

Or

How do we avoid the losses and get more wins?

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on Oct 08, 08:17 AM 2017
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 07, 09:06 AM 2017

How do we solve the when?

Or

How do we avoid the losses and get more wins?

If I would had to pick one question, I would go with 2nd.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Taotie on Oct 08, 08:47 AM 2017
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 07, 09:06 AM 2017We don't know when the repeat will happen but we do know which numbers will repeat if and when a repeat happens.


How do we solve the when?

Or

How do we avoid the losses and get more wins?


As for the when, I wouldn't wait around for repeats in the first place.

You will never get more wins than you deserve, and as for the losses I would say they are unavoidable So use sensible MM,
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 09, 03:33 PM 2017
Sorry, Money, I'm struggling with the best way to present this as it's intentionally confusing.  Plus, there are still members lurking that I'm not a big fan of (for obvious reasons). 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 09, 04:53 PM 2017
I understand...

I haven't had time to look into it further.  But soon I will.

How is everyone else doing with this one?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:16 AM 2017
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 07, 09:06 AM 2017We don't know when the repeat will happen but we do know which numbers will repeat if and when a repeat happens.
From what you have written, the way i read it is slightly different. We do know 99.xxxx% of the time when the repeat will happen, but we dont know which exact spin it happens. And I dont think anyone can predict that mathematically.

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 07, 09:06 AM 2017
How do we solve the when?
Or
How do we avoid the losses and get more wins?
Now that we have solved when, avoiding losses and getting more wins is a puzzle everyone of us would love to solve, but is eluding us.

Instead of trying same things again and again may be we can try different things. I am trying a game where i use three streams. ECs, lines and streets. While EC repeat happening in the "low" as per your definition is only 50%, as we use lesser and lesser numbers like lines and streets, this percentage keeps increasing. 

This game am referring to can be played in few simple steps using this information you have given. I am not sure whether it will give an advantage or not, but definitely can help think in  a slightly different way.

1. Use three streams EC, lines, streets for the spins from roulette and maintain them in parallel.
2. Try keeping these streams unique all the time with no repeats. Say for example if spins, 27, 24, 30, 2 and 4 appears in that order, our EC stream will have 1 element, line stream will have 1 element and street stream will have 2 elements.
3. Try removing "high" elements as per your definition. Again if we have spins 20, 24, 30, 18, 2. Then our EC stream will have 1 element, line stream will have 3 elements and street stream will have 5 elements. Line stream only has 3 elements even though there are 4 uniques appearing one after other because to keep "low" elements only we can only have 3 elements in that stream at any point in time.
4. Place your bet only on streets that appears in all the three streams. No waiting, no looking for events, keep betting continuously. It is a process as someone mentioned.

Example from yesterdays West spiel casino spins.

27
15 - Street 25-27
8 - street 25-27, 13-15
23 - 13-15, 7-9
6 - 13-15, 7-9, 22-24
30 - 7-9, 22-24, 4-6
2 - 22-24, 4-6, 25-27, 28-30

and so on..... It goes deep in red in flat bet before the sessions ends in +21.

And before anyone jumps in "No. There is no change in odds of next spin". Just an idea based on what 3Nine posted.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:34 AM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:16 AM 2017Try keeping these streams unique all the time with no repeats. Say for example if spins, 27, 24, 30, 2 and 4 appears in that order, our EC stream will have 1 element, line stream will have 1 element and street stream will have 2 elements.
Hmm. Street stream will have 5 elements
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 10, 10:26 AM 2017
What?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 10, 10:56 AM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:16 AM 2017

1. Use three streams EC, lines, streets for the spins from roulette and maintain them in parallel.
2. Try keeping these streams unique all the time with no repeats. Say for example if spins, 27, 24, 30, 2 and 4 appears in that order, our EC stream will have 1 element, line stream will have 1 element and street stream will have 2 elements.
3. Try removing "high" elements as per your definition. Again if we have spins 20, 24, 30, 18, 2. Then our EC stream will have 1 element, line stream will have 3 elements and street stream will have 5 elements. Line stream only has 3 elements even though there are 4 uniques appearing one after other because to keep "low" elements only we can only have 3 elements in that stream at any point in time.
4. Place your bet only on streets that appears in all the three streams. No waiting, no looking for events, keep betting continuously. It is a process as someone mentioned.

Example from yesterdays West spiel casino spins.

27
15 - Street 25-27
8 - street 25-27, 13-15
23 - 13-15, 7-9
6 - 13-15, 7-9, 22-24
30 - 7-9, 22-24, 4-6
2 - 22-24, 4-6, 25-27, 28-30

and so on..... It goes deep in red in flat bet before the sessions ends in +21.

And before anyone jumps in "No. There is no change in odds of next spin". Just an idea based on what 3Nine posted.

Ok I see what you mean and I understand how to set it up. 

I will look into it tonight, thank you.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on Oct 10, 02:06 PM 2017
Thank you Priyanka!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Oct 10, 02:39 PM 2017
Is this all about reintrepreting past history in a hope to add an offset that will somehow resonate with the future random outcomes?

If so, why not translate to another base? I recommend base 9:

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

translate to

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2
4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3

So for ex. 1=1, 15=7, 23=7, 18=1, etc.
New numbers have apparently nothing in common with the old ones, but the connection is there.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Oct 10, 02:46 PM 2017
Betting last two columns.
1, 4, 7 are Column A
2, 5, 8 are Column B
3, 6, 9 are Column C

24 W
0  L
7  L
33 L
22 W
2  L
19 L
5  W
7  L
3  W
23 W
30 W
33 W
6  W
30 W
33 W
28 W
-- -- --
24 W
21 W
11 L
35 L
13 L
0  L
17 W
14 W
26 W
23 L
16 W
26 W
33 L
7  W
9  W
10 L
-- -- --
6  W
23 W
11 L
20 L
27 W
0  L
25 W
3  W
6  W
24 W
23 W
19 L
34 W
13 W
35 W
31 W
-- -- --
11 W
5  L
18 W
23 W
26 W
27 L
10 W
30 L
33 W
19 L
7  L
7  W
29 W
1  W
13 W
0  L
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: denzie on Oct 10, 03:20 PM 2017
Ah matrix style.... Where Lanky at with his crap. There was a time I actually believed in it. Anyway good luck  :)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 10, 03:52 PM 2017
Quote from: psimoes on Oct 10, 02:39 PM 2017why not translate to another base?

Why not try to understand the importance of this topic?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Oct 10, 04:22 PM 2017
@ Denzie,

Thanks, but it´s not a matrix. The numbers are just placed that way to more easily locate the respective counterparts. There´s no relation between the horizontal and vertical lines. Not that it matters much. Past spins are past spins. It´s only good for looking like you´re following your gut when in reality you´re using a betting method. Not that it matters much.

We use base 10 because we were born with ten fingers. Some tribe in Papua New Guinea only count up to 10. Higher than 10, like "How many birds are on that tree?" they simply say  "LOTS".

Reality doesn´t change if we represent it using another base. With base 3 for ex. 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on are not used.

1 2 3 11 12 13 21 22 23 31 32 33 111 112 113 121 122 123 131 132 133 211 212 213 221 222 223 231 232 233 311 312 313 321 322 323 331 332 333 1111 1112 1113 1121 1122 1123 and so on.
Number 21 for example would therefore be represented by 133. To use it on roulette I´d simply add 1+3+3=7, but you can use in a different way. If 133, 3 is dominant, so each time 21 shows up,  bet Dozen 3 or Column C. If 18 shows up, represented by 123, then No Bet...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Oct 10, 04:24 PM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 10, 03:52 PM 2017
Why not try to understand the importance of this topic?

Because it´s not really that important?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 10, 04:46 PM 2017
Quote from: psimoes on Oct 10, 04:24 PM 2017
Because it´s not really that important?

If it's not, why you are posting here?
Not to offend you, just want to see something new and not the interpretation of old topics.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on Oct 10, 04:51 PM 2017
 Psimoes, what would happen with your method if we would replace numbers on the wheel for example with Playboy covers? With what that could resonate?

But on the other side it has to be seen if Pri-s method might show a boner >:D
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 10, 04:52 PM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:16 AM 2017We do know 99.xxxx% of the time when the repeat will happen, but we dont know which exact spin it happens.

Is it wrong to think that :

"Where" a repeat will happen is last 18

And "when" are cycle lenghts

?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Oct 10, 05:11 PM 2017
See Post #1
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 08:46 AM 2016So what is the fun part?
Every set of random numbers can be used to create another set of random numbers BUT the sets themselves are related!

It´s just another way to look into PAST SPINS. You can´t use it to predict future spins, no matter how fancy your formulas are.


Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 10, 05:13 PM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 10, 04:52 PM 2017
Is it wrong to think that :

"Where" a repeat will happen is last 18

And "when" are cycle lenghts

?

Yes that's how it is... the when is the spins and we don't know which spin it will be based on the cycle length
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 10, 05:21 PM 2017
Quote from: psimoes on Oct 10, 05:11 PM 2017
See Post #1
It´s just another way to look into PAST SPINS. You can´t use it to predict future spins, no matter how fancy your formulas are.

Yes it's another way to look at the spins

But

No your wrong.  There is a way to use the information to create a method.

Why??

Because dependence was created

Repeat happens in low numbers of your new table 99% of the time.   Numbers are constantly changing meaning you won't be on the same numbers!

It's worth looking more into it.  This is not just another topic 😝
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Oct 10, 05:41 PM 2017
Good luck then.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 10, 06:08 PM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:16 AM 2017And I dont think anyone can predict that mathematically

So maybe, Money was right...  The main target is not a repeat, it's an underlying process?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 10, 06:15 PM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:16 AM 2017It is a process as someone mentioned.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 10, 06:36 PM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 10, 06:15 PM 2017


And combination.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 11, 06:32 AM 2017
Hope these help someone sort through Priyanka's example.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 11, 12:32 PM 2017
"But wait, there's more..."

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/10/11/temp_869402.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/JSFQ)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 12, 08:40 AM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:16 AM 20174. Place your bet only on streets that appears in all the three streams. No waiting, no looking for events, keep betting continuously. It is a process as someone mentioned.

Can I ask... how is this betting continuously if there's a condition that must be met? (place only on streets that appear in all three)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: RayManZ on Oct 12, 09:36 AM 2017
Maybe because you can start a new game at any new spin. So you after 5 spins you have 5 games.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 12, 09:41 AM 2017
Quote from: RayManZ on Oct 12, 09:36 AM 2017
Maybe because you can start a new game at any new spin. So you after 5 spins you have 5 games.

Im not sure what your saying, but the way it sounds; it doesnt make sense  because of the condition priyanka set.  Each spin will not align so there will be no bet sometimes.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 12, 12:16 PM 2017
More fun with stats.  One more to go.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/10/12/temp_180521.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/JQ5S)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 12, 03:54 PM 2017
alright, moving on.  it's crickets here and no one wants to answer questions.   Good luck.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 12, 04:22 PM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 12, 08:40 AM 2017
Can I ask... how is this betting continuously if there's a condition that must be met? (place only on streets that appear in all three)

Only way i can think of is if the opposite side also has the condition being met....  i havent attempted it yet, just speaking out loud.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 12, 04:52 PM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 12, 08:40 AM 2017Can I ask... how is this betting continuously if there's a condition that must be met? (place only on streets that appear in all three)

I am not sure if i undersood the question but i will try to answer.

It is not a condition, it is like a simple characteristic that unify this three streams. We can't have a situation like "no bet", because the last street will always be a part of all streams.

Also, this answer can be used to progress with the following sentence:

Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:16 AM 2017Line stream only has 3 elements even though there are 4 uniques appearing one after other because to keep "low" elements only we can only have 3 elements in that stream at any point in time.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 12, 10:46 PM 2017
 :question:
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:16 AM 201727
15 - Street 25-27
8 - street 25-27, 13-15
23 - 13-15, 7-9
6 - 13-15, 7-9, 22-24
30 - 7-9, 22-24, 4-6
2 - 22-24, 4-6, 25-27, 28-30

I think it  is logical that the next bet will be:

1-3, 4-6 and 28-30
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Priyanka on Oct 12, 11:15 PM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 12, 10:46 PM 2017
:question:
I think it  is logical that the next bet will be:

1-3, 4-6 and 28-30
Praline - this is correct. And always there will be a bet because there always will be a street that is in all the three streams. There can never be a situation where this cannot happen and you will have to wait.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 13, 06:52 AM 2017
Cool, thanks.  Now, what to do with all this information...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 13, 07:01 AM 2017
And thank you Praline.  At a glance, I wasn’t clear on why Priyanka was using only the Half of Lines (last 3) but a full line of High and Low sequence. Why not half there?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 13, 09:23 AM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 12, 11:15 PM 20171-3, 4-6 and 28-30

Why 28-30?  This is not in all three streams.  Low repeated so that sequence is only 1.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 13, 09:30 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 13, 09:23 AM 2017
Why 28-30?  This is not in all three streams.  Low repeated so that sequence is only 1.
We retrack till last repeated ec

6 l. L
30 h. LH
2 l  LHL become HL
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 13, 09:36 AM 2017
LHL is a new cycle starting with L. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 13, 10:24 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 13, 09:36 AM 2017
LHL is a new cycle starting with L.

This type of retracking is used almost in all priyanka's examples.
Basicly we retrack till the partition that is repeated.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 13, 10:41 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 13, 10:24 AM 2017
This type of retracking is used almost in all priyanka's examples.
Basicly we retrack till the partition that is repeated.

Not clear on the example.  Sorry. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 14, 10:12 PM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 13, 10:41 AM 2017
Not clear on the example.  Sorry.

Nevermind, I get it.  Thanks Praline. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 16, 11:11 AM 2017
Check out this set!

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/10/16/temp_598658.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/JnGL)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 16, 12:49 PM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 16, 11:11 AM 2017
Check out this set!

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/10/16/temp_598658.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/JnGL)

I'm having a hard time understanding what you want to show us with this post.

Tracking regular lines that can happen once in a while also.

Position 6 was hot in this case
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 16, 03:42 PM 2017
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 16, 12:49 PM 2017I'm having a hard time understanding what you want to show us with this post.

Just a cool sample.  Nothing to see.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 16, 03:49 PM 2017
rrbb:

I hope you played with Nicksme excel. If so, you would have noticed that sometimes it is a tie: both R and B would lead to an AP. in around 12% of the cases this happens.

There are now two options: either we lower the number of L's in the bets that we would place make (no tie),

OR we create a second stream on which we would bet in case of a tie (or maybe, we ONLY bet when we have a tie on the first stream).

Hint: start playing around with a new "stream":
if two subsequent colors are identical, we give it the value "1". Otherwise we give it the value "2". This is an half again!

Now we apply VdW sequence on this new stream, we ONLY bet when the first stream has a tie, and when the second stream would indicate we should bet (so no tie on the second stream, but with the possibility of an AP).

I leave the details to you. Do you notice anything???
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Nickmsi on Oct 16, 08:49 PM 2017
"rrbb:

I hope you played with Nicksme excel. If so, you would have noticed that sometimes it is a tie: both R and B would lead to an AP. in around 12% of the cases this happens.

There are now two options: either we lower the number of L's in the bets that we would place make (no tie),

OR we create a second stream on which we would bet in case of a tie (or maybe, we ONLY bet when we have a tie on the first stream).

Hint: start playing around with a new "stream":
if two subsequent colors are identical, we give it the value "1". Otherwise we give it the value "2". This is an half again!

Now we apply VdW sequence on this new stream, we ONLY bet when the first stream has a tie, and when the second stream would indicate we should bet (so no tie on the second stream, but with the possibility of an AP).

I leave the details to you. Do you notice anything???"


Here is another similar way to play VDW with multiple streams.  Use 3 streams as follows:

Stream #1: Black, bet any Black AP.

Stream #2: Red, if no Black AP then bet any Red AP

Stream # 3: Different or Same, if no Black or Red AP or if a mutual Bet, then bet D or S.

Cheers
Nick

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Oct 16, 09:36 PM 2017
Hi guys, I did check out VdW quite a bit. I use this excel sheet to try various things out. Now that I know more about roulette I thought it's a waste anyway so it be good to share this maybe someone might find good use to improve their system betting. I also have one done for bacs, shout out if you want it. Good luck !
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 17, 01:23 PM 2017
Quote from: Nickmsi on Oct 16, 08:49 PM 2017
"rrbb:

I hope you played with Nicksme excel. If so, you would have noticed that sometimes it is a tie: both R and B would lead to an AP. in around 12% of the cases this happens.

There are now two options: either we lower the number of L's in the bets that we would place make (no tie),

OR we create a second stream on which we would bet in case of a tie (or maybe, we ONLY bet when we have a tie on the first stream).

Hint: start playing around with a new "stream":
if two subsequent colors are identical, we give it the value "1". Otherwise we give it the value "2". This is an half again!

Now we apply VdW sequence on this new stream, we ONLY bet when the first stream has a tie, and when the second stream would indicate we should bet (so no tie on the second stream, but with the possibility of an AP).

I leave the details to you. Do you notice anything???"


Here is another similar way to play VDW with multiple streams.  Use 3 streams as follows:

Stream #1: Black, bet any Black AP.

Stream #2: Red, if no Black AP then bet any Red AP

Stream # 3: Different or Same, if no Black or Red AP or if a mutual Bet, then bet D or S.

Cheers
Nick

Nice one, Nick.   My guess is most will think it's too much work ;)

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 17, 01:29 PM 2017
A 'PROCESS' is NOT an 'EVENT', but CONTINUALLY happens. 

Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 17, 04:34 PM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 10, 08:16 AM 2017Now that we have solved when, avoiding losses and getting more wins is a puzzle everyone of us would love to solve, but is eluding us.

This one is funny. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 20, 06:56 AM 2017
Most of the time the roulette line repeat happens on the low derived straights. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 23, 03:50 PM 2017
I wonder how we can use the ordinality here?  Any ideas? 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Priyanka on Oct 23, 04:54 PM 2017
3Nine - the whole post started with ordinality or ordinal numbers. They are nothing but the position of spins.  The second stream that you created - “derived stream” - is the ordinal set. 

The term low derived straight, low derived lines is a form of using the ordinality. If it is unclear I can explain with an example.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 23, 05:34 PM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 23, 04:54 PM 2017
3Nine - the whole post started with ordinality or ordinal numbers. They are nothing but the position of spins.  The second stream that you created - “derived stream” - is the ordinal set. 

The term low derived straight, low derived lines is a form of using the ordinality. If it is unclear I can explain with an example.

Please provide an example...

Maybe it would shed some light on how to combine the facts( repeats happen on low and It's dependent on stream 1)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Priyanka on Oct 24, 06:09 AM 2017
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 23, 05:34 PM 2017
Please provide an example...

Maybe it would shed some light on how to combine the facts( repeats happen on low and It's dependent on stream 1)
I will give an example using double streets in creating ordinal set.

Consider the following 6 spins.
31,31,25,22,34,33

The double streets for this will be
6,6,5,4,6,6

However the ordinal stream considering we start with double streets 123456 will be
6,1,6,6,3,1

Now look at where the original double streets has repeated with numbers in ordinal stream - 1, 3 and 1.  If we take 6 double streets then all of them are low numbers with high numbers being 4,5 and 6. 

That example should clarify ordinal numbers and why repeats in original stream will happen statistically in the low number in their ordinal stream.  As you go up and up like streets, splits and straights the probability of this occurring increases. 

However as always the big question and funny old puzzle is how to apply this while playing.  :o

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 24, 07:28 AM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Oct 24, 06:09 AM 2017
However as always the big question and funny old puzzle is how to apply this while playing.  :o

Parallel game with a different set on same number group 🤔

Based on the tracking the parallel game should have the same outcome on the low but with different numbers
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Badger on Oct 24, 12:02 PM 2017
Priyanka, would this be on the right track?

"Place each spin selected into the pigeonhole corresponding to its largest odd divisor (which must be one of  1, 3, 5, . . . , 17)." (Dyksexlic)

"All the numbers in roulette are connected logically and consecutively.  Always choose your pairings going forward." (VADDI)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Priyanka on Oct 25, 09:43 AM 2017
Badger - Am not claiming that I know the solution. That puts me in a place where am not qualified to say this approach is right or wrong. However pigeon hole pricinple, friends and strangers theorem does have legs and we will have to do some kind of pairing to create dependencies. So yeah, we need to think in the direction you are stating here if we have to induce dependencies.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Badger on Oct 25, 04:35 PM 2017
Thanks Priyanka  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 25, 07:44 PM 2017
rrbb:

To give you a quick start and something totally out of the box:
1. Of course numbers cannot be predicted. This is the most important fact. All roulette systems based on prediction are futile. Please keep on trying. This is extremely stupid, all people who keep on doing this do not deserve a HG!

lol, this one killed me.  Plenty of system (and spreadsheet) sellers may want to read this one a few times...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Badger on Oct 26, 04:21 AM 2017
VADDI said something similar :

"To demonstrate how deep my thinking has gone, let me ask this question?
Based on what I've said about balance and connected numbers (based on the pairs table) ...
How could you use already landed numbers to 'predict' numbers that are likely to land next? :)
Now, that is the kind of mad-scientist question that leads to the grail.
No, you can't precisely predict which number will land next, but there's a way to get as close as you possibly can. :)
Please don't try to answer this question. I'm just throwing it out there. But it has do with observing how numbers connect to each other after every 4 spins, based on the pairs table. ;)"
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Badger on Oct 26, 06:05 AM 2017
I know that RRBB and VADDI are not the same person, but consider this :

They both base their approaches on repeaters.
They both have a framework “going forward”.
They both use cycles.
For both, the last 4/5 spins are the spins that they are “interested”  in.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 3Nine on Oct 29, 06:22 PM 2017
Hey Badger
Maybe this will help - I don’t know but I do know a ton of people behind the scenes have all the info redd “never shared before”

See below. Good luck.
>>>>>>

Sorry for the long pause: indeed traveling for work.

OK, now keep your hat one, here it comes: everything told you is true: except for one thing: the HG I gave you.

In a minute I will give you the real one, so do not get angry: I just wanted to test you. This is a tremendous gift, and I just wanted to make sure you are the right person. I never shared tis before.

You are indeed no fool, you keep your act together, and most important, you are a decent, responsible person. This is like the box of Pandora, treat in carefully! (actually better, play it RNG at home, stay below the radar, do not get greedy)

VdW is really great, and cycles are great, and indeed while working with these, I stumbled on my method. It is different from Priyanka's.

Look at the numbers: 36 (or 37, 38). You can create all kind of halves.
1. let's use the high/low
2. let's create DYNAMIC halves for these partitions (i.e. a partition is a grouping of numbers, straights are partitioned in groups of 1 number, splits are groups of 2 numbers etc): straights, splits, street and double street in the following manner:
A. keep track of the unique "partitions" till you have half: so in case of straights, make sure that the halve has the last 18 unique numbers etc
B. Do this for all partitions
C. Now bet that the next half will be the same as the previous one (so you bet the last 18 unique numbers in case of straights, the last 9 unique splits in the case of splits etc)


I leave the betting amounts to you, and no, no progression is needed...

good luck!

Btw: this has everything to do with cycles


Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 30, 10:37 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 16, 03:49 PM 2017rrbb:

I hope you played with Nicksme excel. If so, you would have noticed that sometimes it is a tie: both R and B would lead to an AP. in around 12% of the cases this happens.

There are now two options: either we lower the number of L's in the bets that we would place make (no tie),

OR we create a second stream on which we would bet in case of a tie (or maybe, we ONLY bet when we have a tie on the first stream).

Hint: start playing around with a new "stream":
if two subsequent colors are identical, we give it the value "1". Otherwise we give it the value "2". This is an half again!

Now we apply VdW sequence on this new stream, we ONLY bet when the first stream has a tie, and when the second stream would indicate we should bet (so no tie on the second stream, but with the possibility of an AP).

I leave the details to you. Do you notice anything???



what should i see, once i have done this?
i noticed that if we bet only when its a tie on the first stream, on the second its never a tie.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 30, 10:44 AM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 29, 06:22 PM 2017
I don’t know but I do know a ton of people behind the scenes have all the info redd “never shared before”

Funny because this is the info that was shared with you personally by redd, so your one of those ppl!

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 30, 10:46 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 30, 10:37 AM 2017


what should i see, once i have done this?
i noticed that if we bet only when its a tie on the first stream, on the second its never a tie.

I don't think this is the correct way because what 3nine failed to mention was that in that same letter redd said this is not the way!  I believe it's good but not the HG we been searching for

So I think the same idea is used but with different information.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 30, 10:51 AM 2017
thanks for saving me some time. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 30, 11:07 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 30, 10:37 AM 2017Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 16, 08:49 PM 2017
rrbb:

I hope you played with Nicksme excel. If so, you would have noticed that sometimes it is a tie: both R and B would lead to an AP. in around 12% of the cases this happens.

There are now two options: either we lower the number of L's in the bets that we would place make (no tie),

OR we create a second stream on which we would bet in case of a tie (or maybe, we ONLY bet when we have a tie on the first stream).

Hint: start playing around with a new "stream":
if two subsequent colors are identical, we give it the value "1". Otherwise we give it the value "2". This is an half again!

Now we apply VdW sequence on this new stream, we ONLY bet when the first stream has a tie, and when the second stream would indicate we should bet (so no tie on the second stream, but with the possibility of an AP).

I leave the details to you. Do you notice anything???



what should i see, once i have done this?
i noticed that if we bet only when its a tie on the first stream, on the second its never a tie.


 




SORRY, GUYS. THERE WAS A CODDING ERROR. NOTHING TO CONSIDER IN THIS POST.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 30, 01:41 PM 2017
Quote from: 3Nine on Oct 29, 06:22 PM 2017

A "Good bye" would be better. Thanks for your help.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Oct 30, 02:18 PM 2017
This one must be correct... with a little tweak :xd:
1 million spins 226 units of profit  :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
And it goes directly to my collection of winning systems. The collection is now expanded from 0 to 1... what a great achievement after 3 years of rx, readings and writings with testings...LOL
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 30, 03:28 PM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 30, 01:41 PM 2017
A "Good bye" would be better. Thanks for your help.

😂

I don't know what got into this guy!  I guess he mad at everyone 😂
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 30, 03:29 PM 2017
Quote from: praline on Oct 30, 02:18 PM 2017
This one must be correct... with a little tweak :xd:
1 million spins 226 units of profit  :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
And it goes directly to my collection of winning systems. The collection is now expanded from 0 to 1... what a great achievement after 3 years of rx, readings and writings with testings...LOL

Looks good to me! Heading in the right track.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 31, 06:23 PM 2017
So I went back through all the ideas and some notes I made.  I came across some very interesting data

I kept creating methods and as soon as I saw to many losses I would give it up. Until today!!! 

Now this out of the box method showed the repeat idea

Pri showed the idea of not waiting for a repeat but use the information continuos.

If you create something that losses don't be afraid to look into the opposite bet.  You might just have a winner 😱🎁
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Oct 31, 11:30 PM 2017
I did work to compare VdW with repeaters and VB, I can't find the potential to be even close to the latter two. Praline's 226 from a million spins is pathetic, not taking a knock just stating it as it is. Not too far off from Nickmsi earlier data which says that variance extremes is limited. Then what.....?

Years has gone by with plenty of hype about non-random play, seriously anybody can post real profitable edge from this ? I doubt.....
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Nov 01, 07:05 AM 2017
Quote from: cht on Oct 31, 11:30 PM 2017Praline's 226 from a million spins is pathetic
Completely agree with you, it will took two years of 24 hours play to earn those 200 units. 😁
Quote from: cht on Oct 31, 11:30 PM 2017seriously anybody can post real profitable edge from this ?
Why should somebody post something profitable? Nobody want to easily share the Hg, because of years spent to discover it with hard work and sacrificing life and time you could spend with family and friends.
However these sacrifices are the only way to protect the Hg.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Nov 01, 08:33 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Nov 01, 07:05 AM 2017
Completely agree with you, it will took two years of 24 hours play to earn those 200 units.

Maybe there is a way to play as if your playing more spins!

Roulette is random.  You can take spin 1 and 9 and 17 and make a game!

You can even play regular spin 1 and 2 and 3 and create a different game with the same data.

Do you really have to wait 1 million spins?  Or can you create different games using the same data?

Think about it
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Nov 01, 08:22 PM 2017
The hard work is not appreciated this days!
You need to be a social engineer to earn your holly grail,  you need to LIE, you need to forget about your dignity, and just follow what an "elected" has to say. I've been followed by one of those, he always said " you are so fun"ing close to the solution, you are so fun"ing smart, you will definitely find it"...
Unfortunately I didn't received all those tips and answers like maestro and 3nine, and I have to find  by myself the solution.
And now, that I'm on this stage, I want to ask!
How You, priyanka and reddwarf, decided who deserve to have a possibility to find an answer? How you select people who can change their point of view? Who are you to decide which of us is better and who really want to change this world...???
Priyanka and Rrbb, for my taste, you are Not so smart as you think, or at least not so generous ! You have shared your knowledge with an awful people like maestro that can't write on forum without offending anyone, or 39  that even created the group to control and mislead people who really want to "understand" and not just to accept what other have discovered.
This little forum is just a microscopic image of the world.. The "know-how" people are sharing their knowledge with cannibals, while others are betting black after 7 red.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Nov 01, 08:25 PM 2017
And again I can't rate my own post. But I'm proud of it
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ignatus on Nov 01, 11:55 PM 2017
Quote from: praline on Nov 01, 08:25 PM 2017
And again I can't rate my own post. But I'm proud of it

Yes? For those who have not found the "grail" i don't believe there is such a thing, as a "grail"...all systems/progressions WILL lose in the End, it's just a question of time, WHEN it will happen. So? What can we do? Find a DECENT betselection,......and find a DECENT progression. (Because Flatbet will also lose, sooner or later!!) Greed will kill you,.. you can have a "happy streak", for some time, and you never think it's going to End? Guess what, you better take that money and run, now, when do we run? STOPLOSS & WINGOAL IS ESSENTIAL. Knowing when to Quit when you're ahead of the game. There is No other way??, you cannot play Endlessly and hope to win forever,... (That's what i "know").
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 02, 12:42 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Nov 01, 08:22 PM 2017
The hard work is not appreciated this days!
You need to be a social engineer to earn your holly grail,  you need to LIE, you need to forget about your dignity, and just follow what an "elected" has to say. I've been followed by one of those, he always said " you are so fun"ing close to the solution, you are so fun"ing smart, you will definitely find it"...
Unfortunately I didn't received all those tips and answers like maestro and 3nine, and I have to find  by myself the solution.
And now, that I'm on this stage, I want to ask!
How You, priyanka and reddwarf, decided who deserve to have a possibility to find an answer? How you select people who can change their point of view? Who are you to decide which of us is better and who really want to change this world...???
Priyanka and Rrbb, for my taste, you are Not so smart as you think, or at least not so generous ! You have shared your knowledge with an awful people like maestro that can't write on forum without offending anyone, or 39  that even created the group to control and mislead people who really want to "understand" and not just to accept what other have discovered.
This little forum is just a microscopic image of the world.. The "know-how" people are sharing their knowledge with cannibals, while others are betting black after 7 red.
hahaha a burst of frustration. I 'Like' your post that came 2 yrs late.  :lol:

No worries, you didn't miss anything that I can tell you. Move on from this topic that's my advice do you a lot of good. The casinos couldn't care less of this kind of stuff, technologically they're so way ahead to take care of this minor blip. There're bigger battles to fight definitely not here. Read this to get you up to speed what we're actually dealing with.

link:://:.casinolifemagazine.com/news/cammegh-heralds-gli-approval-mercury-360-rrs-wheel
link:://:.cammegh.com/product.php?product=slingshot2
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on Nov 02, 01:30 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Nov 01, 08:22 PM 2017
The hard work is not appreciated this days!
You need to be a social engineer to earn your holly grail,  you need to LIE, you need to forget about your dignity, and just follow what an "elected" has to say. I've been followed by one of those, he always said " you are so fun"ing close to the solution, you are so fun"ing smart, you will definitely find it"...
Unfortunately I didn't received all those tips and answers like maestro and 3nine, and I have to find  by myself the solution.
And now, that I'm on this stage, I want to ask!
How You, priyanka and reddwarf, decided who deserve to have a possibility to find an answer? How you select people who can change their point of view? Who are you to decide which of us is better and who really want to change this world...???
Priyanka and Rrbb, for my taste, you are Not so smart as you think, or at least not so generous ! You have shared your knowledge with an awful people like maestro that can't write on forum without offending anyone, or 39  that even created the group to control and mislead people who really want to "understand" and not just to accept what other have discovered.
This little forum is just a microscopic image of the world.. The "know-how" people are sharing their knowledge with cannibals, while others are betting black after 7 red.

I am quite sad to read this my friend. But I can understand where is this coming from.

In this voyage I found myself a HG of life I think. Do I need a roulette one then? Good question. Being ok with anything that hits you and trying to make difference wherever you can will make you happy. Not money from roulette no matter for what purpose you might use it... It sounds trivial but it is true.

I think you are wrong when you are estimating efforts vs rewards. Look at Ignatus or Falklor for example. Honestly, for their efforts I think they deserve what they are looking for. But yet, they are light years away....

There is a quote on which I really hooked up: "In the end you might or might not get it". And it seems I took it for granted.

Be well Pavlo

Drazen
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on Nov 02, 03:47 AM 2017
QuoteUnfortunately I didn't received all those tips and answers like maestro


i told you before no one gave me any tips or whatsoever
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: maestro on Nov 02, 03:59 AM 2017
Quotewith an awful people like maestro that can't write on forum without offending anyone

oh i did not realize this so please everyone accept my deepest apologies from myself for me being such a dickhead and asshole
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Badger on Nov 02, 04:38 AM 2017
I think it's important to remember that roulette is a random game.
Out of 37 spins, 24 numbers hit on average leaving 13 unhit.
These unhits express themselves as repeaters. BUT it is important to remember that
for a number to become a repeater, it must first hit once.
So you need to take a step back and let repeaters help you WHERE to bet.
Then zoom in and bet where the most chance of success lies within the repeats.

I think that is the direction we should be looking at.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 02, 07:27 AM 2017
Repeaters is most definitely the way to go - Hit to repeat1.

I posted about it earlier. How I record down spin results filtered with AP means the following -
1. Choose the wheel - wheel bias
2. Choose the dealer - dealer signature
3. choose the spin - visual ballistic

The last one is the tedious one. You wait for the correct spin you want and then record down the spin result. 2-3 hrs of 200+ spins for 33 spin results, then start flat bet on clusters(normally 7-8numbers) from spin34 to spin 40 based on correct spin pt3. Easily double your br each session.

The result is shown below. No special secrets. About AP, google read about the subject and practice with your eyes till they get twisted, says denzie.  :thumbsup: That's the key skill really. And know when the casino is out to screw you.  :twisted:

The casino will take action against you if you play like I do, I posted on another thread. :o

So better to play this at your local b&m casino. It's not difficult to do the analysis with pen and paper instead of excel sheet. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Nov 02, 08:09 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Nov 01, 08:22 PM 2017
The hard work is not appreciated this days!

Unfortunately I didn't received all those tips and answers like maestro and 3nine, and I have to find  by myself the solution.

And now, that I'm on this stage, I want to ask!
How You, priyanka and reddwarf, decided who deserve to have a possibility to find an answer? How you select people who can change their point of view? Who are you to decide which of us is better and who really want to change this world...???

This little forum is just a microscopic image of the world.. The "know-how" people are sharing their knowledge with cannibals, while others are betting black after 7 red.

Praline, it's not their fault.  It's hard to tell ppls motives and intentions.  Also they can't speak to every single person that wants to learn.

But yes 3nine is deceitful!  He doesn't have an HG, he just manipulated ppl to share information with him so he can try to figure it out.  I'm sure redd and Pri caught on to that. 

I do understand your frustration!  I hope your hard work pays off and you find what your looking for.

I found something that works using the ideas but it's not to my liking yet.  It wins flatbet playing every spin, but betting on to many numbers.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Nov 02, 08:11 AM 2017
I'll share some info here today to help see things different
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Badger on Nov 02, 08:53 AM 2017
"Btw: this has everything to do with cycles"

I think a lot of misunderstanding about cycles. Every one is going off on a tangent trying to predict the next number using cycles. VdW is mathematically very pretty but just confuses the issue.
Cycles is the explanation of why a system can win. For example, lets say your bet selection has an average of 4 spins per cycle before a win.
That means on average you would play 1x2x3x4 chips(-10) to win 8.
Now random can make you have longer spins per cycle and shorter, but on average you would be winning 8 units every 4 spins.
Very much like a limited martingale progression.

I think Reddwarf was also Ginger Molloy on the old VLS forum and maybe those posts should be studied for further insight. As for myself, I am not very good with maths.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Nov 02, 09:56 AM 2017
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Nov 02, 08:09 AM 2017Praline, it's not their fault.  It's hard to tell ppls motives and intentions.  Also they can't speak to every single person that wants to learn.
You are right. It was just another episode of "giving up".
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Nov 02, 10:20 AM 2017
Quote from: praline on Nov 02, 09:56 AM 2017
You are right. It was just another episode of "giving up".

I've had my share of those 😩
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Nov 02, 02:08 PM 2017
I think I have to apologize to all the people mentioned in my recent post. Everyone can do and share what they want, and it's only my problem if I can't change my point of view.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Nov 08, 02:39 PM 2017
Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 08:46 AM 2016
So what is the fun part?
Every set of random numbers can be used to create another set of random numbers BUT the sets themselves are related!

How? For example: when we have a repeat in the first set on the straights, in the second set, this will occur in 99.7% of the cases on "low". Or, even stricter: a repeat on straights in one system will will occur in the second system for 99.99994% on the first two dozens.


So if new numbers are glued at the end of the new sequence, instead of  the beginning, should the repeats occur 99.7% on "high" then?
How can that have an edge?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Nov 08, 05:42 PM 2017
Quote from: psimoes on Nov 08, 02:39 PM 2017
So if new numbers are glued at the end of the new sequence, instead of  the beginning, should the repeats occur 99.7% on "high" then?
How can that have an edge?

Try to read a thread of priyanka called " birthday paradox" or something similar.. It doesn't metter if you put ALL "last 18" in the beginning or the end of your random stream, you will always have ~99,7 repeats from last 18.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Nov 09, 03:36 AM 2017
Thanks but that´s not what the OP talked about, is it?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Nov 09, 09:02 AM 2017
Anyone?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Nov 09, 09:43 AM 2017
Example attached.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Nov 09, 10:43 AM 2017
There´s a slight error in there... of course "high" numbers on a die are not 5, 6 and 7, but 4, 5 and 6 instead...

Anyway the point being, it appears the repeats showing up in the "low" numbers of the dynamic sequence are being considered as some newly found property in the random flow, or some "non-random hidden event" or whatever, when in fact it´s only an artifact created during the reinterpretation of PAST SPINS made in that particular way of adding numbers as they show up to the start of the new sequence. That still doesn´t give an edge to your betting plan.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Priyanka on Nov 10, 09:47 AM 2017
Quote from: psimoes on Nov 09, 10:43 AM 2017That still doesn´t give an edge to your betting plan.
Thinking about it, you are absolutely right psimoes. There is no edge. But if and only if there is a way to lose some of the losing spins using this sequence. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: psimoes on Nov 10, 10:28 AM 2017
At this level of abstraction, unbiased randomness is null, so "to lose less" is at the same potential as "to win more". Future being unknown, neither offer any advantage over the other, so this observation is well equally useless.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 10, 12:46 PM 2017
Why must it be that in this abstract sequence it becomes possible to lose the loss ?  :question:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Nov 10, 01:27 PM 2017
Quote from: cht on Nov 10, 12:46 PM 2017
Why must it be that in this abstract sequence it becomes possible to lose the loss ?  :question:

You know where the repeats are coming from.  You don't know when.  But if you chase repeats only then you will lose.

So there's a way to catch the repeats and avoid many losses! 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 10, 02:07 PM 2017
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Nov 10, 01:27 PM 2017
You know where the repeats are coming from.  You don't know when.  But if you chase repeats only then you will lose.

So there's a way to catch the repeats and avoid many losses!
I know when, binomial distribution reveals repeat concentration between 34-40spins.

The real problem is the random quality of the spins. To overcome it apply AP to extract uniform spins that remove the random and chaotic nature of spins.

I have described my way in a logical manner, posted results here.

Aside from repeated obscure claims that this supposed abstract sequence can possibly give predictable results, do you have anything else to offer ?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 10, 02:17 PM 2017
This writeup gives a good insight into the world of AP, the 2 letters that casinos fear.

link:://:.blackjackforumonline.com/content/roulette-strategy-for-the-modern-game-dealer-steering-and-tells.htm
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Steve on Nov 10, 02:50 PM 2017
Some players mess around with fallacy and others see the many weak points of the game. It's not hard to exploit them.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Andre Chass on Nov 10, 03:03 PM 2017
A advice who is looking for a system that wins long term. You are wasting your time.

The only way to beat roulette is predicting which sector of the wheel the ball will land on.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Steve on Nov 10, 03:43 PM 2017
Sounds like you've turned... to the dark side (AP)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Andre Chass on Nov 10, 04:13 PM 2017
Some good reading...

link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-advantage-play/


Do the Roulette System Course!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Madi on Nov 10, 04:53 PM 2017
Dont throw this rubbish statement everyday. The only way to beat bla bla. Study five year at least and then come to a conclusion not everyday.people predicting single number everyday and winning. The reality.who cares for sector when they  predict  single number. And long term winning system. Dont talk about what u dont know.there are at least 20 people on this forum who can show their system  qualify  at least five million spin.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Andre Chass on Nov 10, 05:08 PM 2017
Can you? if so, what are you doing here?
Leave this forum and go make money an be rich... enjoy life in your mansion, your expensive cars and beautiful women.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Madi on Nov 10, 05:35 PM 2017
Yes i can. U also making money . What u doing here then??
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Madi on Nov 10, 05:43 PM 2017
I am answering and dont ask this question to any other. How forum can be used? Say moneyT has a winning system  which earn $22 /100spin. After getting advice from priyanka in forum he upgraded and now he win $200/ 100 spin. This is why people come to forum beside they earn. Put it in ur head.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Andre Chass on Nov 10, 05:48 PM 2017
Do you believe in Santa Claus too?

Roulette has been studied for centuries and all types of systems have already been tested. Do not want to reinvent the wheel. Do you know someone who got rich by betting on roulette other than luck?
It's all a guess game. The only way is by predicting sector. It's my opinion.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: nottophammer on Nov 10, 06:03 PM 2017
go on boys PUMP IT UP  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Madi on Nov 10, 06:14 PM 2017
Happy to show you the otherside if u like.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Proofreaders2000 on Nov 10, 07:45 PM 2017
Why can't playing & winning Roulette be easy?

all of these theorems and no guarantee of a consistent winner.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Steve on Nov 10, 07:49 PM 2017
Consistent winning is not that hard. But you can't say guarantee profit in 30 spins or so. Even a casino can make a loss on a table over a week with random bet players.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 10, 09:44 PM 2017
Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on Nov 10, 07:45 PM 2017
Why can't playing & winning Roulette be easy?

It's not even possible let alone easy when you have to find consistent patterns out of random distribution.

all of these theorems and no guarantee of a consistent winner.

Theorems by itself is of little use. The logical application of theorems makes them useful to predict winners.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 10, 10:00 PM 2017
Here's an example of the abstract sequence that RRBB and chance allude to. Analyse this new abstract sequence with fx TA, you get solid prediction - you need a computer to do this analysis though. Btw I prefer bacs, hate the green zero.  :xd:

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19055.0

Column C is the original result, Columns K, L are the abstract sequence.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 11, 02:51 AM 2017
I did a search on the forum to find Colbster started 2 threads in 2012 about fx technical analysis for roulette that I talked about. Read about it here.

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=8395.0

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=8531.msg74882#new

If you've a good indicators method for scalping or swing trading, TA is a solid approach to betting casino games.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: praline on Nov 19, 05:43 PM 2017
Quote from: Priyanka on Nov 10, 09:47 AM 2017But if and only if there is a way to lose some of the losing spins using this sequence. 

Do you mean, win the loosing spins with parallel bet selection, based on derived streams?
We can use the straights only from last three lines as one game to catch a repeat in about 78%, and the purpose of the second game will be winning some spins during the cycle using a non random strategy, like friends and strangers or other mathematical theorems??
But this two games will be dependent from the same random number generated by roulette and at the same time they are independent  :question: very confusing...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Badger on Nov 20, 01:31 PM 2017
No Praline. I think Priyanka is talking about sorting results into hits and non hits.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Badger on Nov 20, 01:49 PM 2017
Praline
Here's a post by Luckyfella on the old VLS forum (I think it's the same thing Priyanka is saying)

"The base concept of my system is to look for skewed distribution graph with steep fall off point. Take the bet at this fall off point which should be clearly observable from historical data. This happens with inside bets rather than outside bets.
Read my 1st post carefully. Read and reread until you get the true meaning what Im trying to say. In everything we're trying to do whether vb, ap, method, whatever we're trying to find 1. a skewed distribution graph and 2. a steep fall off point. This steep fall off point is what everyone of us is looking for no matter what approach one adopts. If and when you can understand and appreciate this you've taken a HUGE step to move beyond the basics, reset your mindset correctly and position yourself for the next all important stage of the journey which includes-

1. Does this skewed distribution with a steep fall of point exist?

2. What are we looking for that has this characteristic in the 1st place?

3. Why must it be so? Not necessary but if backed with logic/rationale the better

4. Is this observation from past event  1.temporary or 2. localised, meaning in that casino only ?

5. It takes tonnes of hard work to hunt for it, many of which will turn out as false trail. You only need one to be profitable. This is where LUCK plays a HUGE role. You need to be LUCKY and gambler smart to stumble upon it.

6. You also need to know how to test the data in a quick, effective and informative manner. This aspect is very much underestimated cos with this skill your able to elimate the useless, point you search in the correct direction while quickly narrowing the possibilities.

7. Pts 5/6 means you must be an excellent data miner with an astute gamblers mind. Sorry guys, you've got to have a lot of the correct dna greys between your ears.

8. If and when you do finally fish out this rare species you still have to consider the physical and practical aspects, eg. Do you need partners to work with, the number of hours/session, sessions/day, days/week, number of tables/session and so on.

Its a long hard road ahead. Are you prepared for all the above? Are you serious enough to take all of the above as personal sacrifice to chase a highly probable illusion? Ask 1st do you have the necessary tools between your ears? Never work alone, your not clever enough.

I made this ardous journey and today as priviledged member of a resort casino the transport, stay and food is paid for the casino, the only requirement to qualify for this priviledge is to place the required bets at the tables. The casino miss me cos if I dont show up theyll sms/email me and offer me goodies to entice me back there. What are they afraid off? That I run away with their chips and never come back sayonara. They need to win them back.

I tell you this not to boast or gloat. This is the gamblers reality. Either you scoop or you go bust and straight to the poor house. Theres no halfway house. Now that you know are you still up to it or have you change your mind? Its all or nothing the rest will only waste your money, time and life. The choice is yours to make.

Good day to all."
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 20, 07:00 PM 2017
Quote from: Badger on Nov 20, 01:49 PM 2017
Praline
Here's a post by Luckyfella on the old VLS forum (I think it's the same thing Priyanka is saying)

"The base concept of my system is to look for skewed distribution graph with steep fall off point. Take the bet at this fall off point which should be clearly observable from historical data. This happens with inside bets rather than outside bets.
Read my 1st post carefully. Read and reread until you get the true meaning what Im trying to say. In everything we're trying to do whether vb, ap, method, whatever we're trying to find 1. a skewed distribution graph and 2. a steep fall off point. This steep fall off point is what everyone of us is looking for no matter what approach one adopts. If and when you can understand and appreciate this you've taken a HUGE step to move beyond the basics, reset your mindset correctly and position yourself for the next all important stage of the journey which includes-

1. Does this skewed distribution with a steep fall of point exist?

2. What are we looking for that has this characteristic in the 1st place?

3. Why must it be so? Not necessary but if backed with logic/rationale the better

It becomes logical when you see it with your own eyes.

4. Is this observation from past event  1.temporary or 2. localised, meaning in that casino only ?

5. It takes tonnes of hard work to hunt for it, many of which will turn out as false trail. You only need one to be profitable. This is where LUCK plays a HUGE role. You need to be LUCKY and gambler smart to stumble upon it.

6. You also need to know how to test the data in a quick, effective and informative manner. This aspect is very much underestimated cos with this skill your able to elimate the useless, point you search in the correct direction while quickly narrowing the possibilities.

7. Pts 5/6 means you must be an excellent data miner with an astute gamblers mind. Sorry guys, you've got to have a lot of the correct dna greys between your ears.

8. If and when you do finally fish out this rare species you still have to consider the physical and practical aspects, eg. Do you need partners to work with, the number of hours/session, sessions/day, days/week, number of tables/session and so on.

Its a long hard road ahead. Are you prepared for all the above? Are you serious enough to take all of the above as personal sacrifice to chase a highly probable illusion? Ask 1st do you have the necessary tools between your ears? Never work alone, your not clever enough.

I made this ardous journey and today as priviledged member of a resort casino the transport, stay and food is paid for the casino, the only requirement to qualify for this priviledge is to place the required bets at the tables. The casino miss me cos if I dont show up theyll sms/email me and offer me goodies to entice me back there. What are they afraid off? That I run away with their chips and never come back sayonara. They need to win them back.

I tell you this not to boast or gloat. This is the gamblers reality. Either you scoop or you go bust and straight to the poor house. Theres no halfway house. Now that you know are you still up to it or have you change your mind? Its all or nothing the rest will only waste your money, time and life. The choice is yours to make.

Good day to all."
The answer is in my post#271 & #272.

I have revealed the secret that guys like luckyfella told about earlier but they did not give the details.

I have given the details but I decided not to show you guys this steep fall off point how to do it in a graph.

Step 1 - translate the original result into parallel dynamic streams, I did 2stage in my example post#271.

Stage 2 - plot this result in a graphical format (3graphs, I scan 6graphs per shoe), then search for this steep fall off point. Use fx TA, post#272.

I shared about fx TA the day I joined this forum. Just check out my posts if you are interested.

How solid is this fall off point if you manage to pin point it ?

Average 2-6 net banker/player. You can play roulette ECs instead of bacs. But when you have enough experience you will know why bacs is the better game.

How many fall off points per bacs shoe ?

At least 1bettable fall off point on average ?

What is the max drawdown per fall off point ?

2 chips for stop loss per fall off point.

I'm certain this method has never been shared in detail anywhere on any forum.

You need a rc to spot this fall off point and the casino you play at must allow the use of rc.

This is 1 of the 2 systems play that can beat casino games.

Cheers !
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 20, 07:17 PM 2017
I have also posted the details about the other systems play that can win, ie. repeaters post#238 and other posts on the forum.

Do the hard work to check it out yourself. This is a necessary process to convince yourself, no one can do this for you. You only believe your eyes and what you see, not another persons words.

Cheers !
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: cht on Nov 20, 08:00 PM 2017
Quote from: Badger on Nov 20, 01:49 PM 2017
6. You also need to know how to test the data in a quick, effective and informative manner. This aspect is very much underestimated cos with this skill your able to elimate the useless, point you search in the correct direction while quickly narrowing the possibilities.

7. Pts 5/6 means you must be an excellent data miner with an astute gamblers mind. Sorry guys, you've got to have a lot of the correct dna greys between your ears.

8. If and when you do finally fish out this rare species you still have to consider the physical and practical aspects, eg. Do you need partners to work with, the number of hours/session, sessions/day, days/week, number of tables/session and so on.

Its a long hard road ahead. Are you prepared for all the above? Are you serious enough to take all of the above as personal sacrifice to chase a highly probable illusion? Ask 1st do you have the necessary tools between your ears? Never work alone, your not clever enough.
Tbh, about pt7 after reading many posts on this forum and others it shows there's plenty evidence that indicates the necessary tools between the ears is not there. It's a brutal comment not meant as an insult.

I've always said the practical aspect is the most difficult. It's not only about beat the game that's not enough, it's mostly about how to beat the casino which is another huge topic to look at. I agree about never work alone, you work in a team to watch each others back. Even if you're darn smart you still do make mistakes.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Badger on Nov 23, 01:38 PM 2017
Could anybody who understands non random suggest a session bankroll.
VADDI recommended 120 units for his system.
He also recommends ending play at around 25 spins. Is this what rrbb meant when he said not to let the law of large numbers catch up with you?

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Apr 26, 10:51 AM 2018
Quote from: Badger on Nov 23, 01:38 PM 2017
Is this what rrbb meant when he said not to let the law of large numbers catch up with you?

No.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 08, 03:46 AM 2018
Finally I figured this out!!!! :thumbsup: :xd:

My new quote in my signature is for you guys

I have no way of thanking you cause everyone is a ghost now.  So hopefully i post this here and you get the message.

Thank you Redd, Pri, Dyksexlic!!!!

question/notes
-Creating your own bet.  Im sure theres no right or wrong way of doing it but maybe there is a better way. 

-Also I tried making sense of u:dxu>=n.....but if you played ramsey(red/black) with it, certain combinations cause you to fail due to the repeats.  so something is missing to break out of that.  Not sure if i apply the same solution i found with this. 

So many things to try and test.  But i feel like i wasted years just getting to this point, my brain is tired of chasing dead ends.  Maybe ill stick to this solution for a while and return for advance play after i enjoy the fruits of my labor for a while.

Im a student of the game and would like to further advance the knowledge attained tho,  Would be nice if one of you guys posted,.....
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Oct 08, 10:36 AM 2018
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=cD-yu1_XNSA
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Oct 08, 11:19 PM 2018
Quote from: Blueprint on Oct 08, 10:36 AM 2018
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=cD-yu1_XNSA

I expected to hear from you 😂

🐦🕳
🐦🕳🐦
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herby on Nov 03, 01:10 PM 2018
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 08, 03:46 AM 2018
-Also I tried making sense of u:dxu>=n.....

dxu looks similar to du/dx  ...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Nov 04, 06:10 AM 2018
DxU= 2x3= 6
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herby on Nov 04, 07:43 AM 2018
Quote from: Blueprint on Nov 04, 06:10 AM 2018
DxU= 2x3= 6
Tnx for answering.

I thought of a Differential of a function (shooting with canons at the pidgeons  :-[)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Nov 04, 11:06 AM 2018
Quote from: PassionRuleta on Nov 04, 09:28 AM 2018
Hello, I think I know what you mean and it might be the same as what I found, because the repetitions also happened to me, if you want we could talk. regards

lol, two peas in a pod.  Perfect.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Jan 01, 11:17 AM 2019
Wow if only i had found this topic a while ago.. This is my first post. After a few weeks of studying and playing around with the concepts outlined in Random Thoughts combined with these dynamic streams, I became a member tonight just to give special thanks to Rrbb + priyanka... Thank you! What I have found is truly amazing, mathematically magical.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Mar 16, 10:31 AM 2019
Quote from: praline on Oct 12, 10:46 PM 2017
:question:
I think it  is logical that the next bet will be:

1-3, 4-6 and 28-30

I think it IS the logical answer, and not that it matters, but logically, I don't think it would have been written in this order.....
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Mar 16, 10:35 AM 2019
Quote from: praline on Oct 13, 09:30 AM 2017
We retrack till last repeated ec

6 l. L
30 h. LH
2 l  LHL become HL

And not for this reason!!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 16, 04:37 PM 2019
It's all just apples and pears.  No big deal.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 17, 05:12 AM 2019
Interestingly, if fruits grow on 2  fruit trees, does it mean that they will ripen on one a little earlier than the second and vice versa?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 17, 07:05 AM 2019
Quote from: Person S on Mar 17, 05:12 AM 2019
Interestingly, if fruits grow on 2  fruit trees, does it mean that they will ripen on one a little earlier than the second and vice versa?

Perhaps, but why would it matter?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 17, 12:23 PM 2019
I think this is called balance, but how to approach it and not be knocked down by the edge of the house?

Although this is a big question for me, the complexity of unpredictability, where it arises, I can not catch this delicate turn of events ...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 17, 01:13 PM 2019
Quote from: Person S on Mar 17, 12:23 PM 2019
I think this is called balance, but how to approach it and not be knocked down by the edge of the house?

Although this is a big question for me, the complexity of unpredictability, where it arises, I can not catch this delicate turn of events ...

Yes, you’ll need a main bet and sub bet to create balance.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 17, 02:12 PM 2019
Thank you
This is exactly where my mind cannot connect things.  :(
I can not imagine if you just play on red and black, create such an arrangement. Of course, the madness to put both colors at the same time.
Yes, you can connect EC + Doz, and get chances of 6/1 :o, but it does not fit.
Apparently I'm not looking there ....
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Mar 17, 04:52 PM 2019
I'm also stuck finding a way to connect two games in a way that would give positive results.

The main challenges I'm having are
-betting on a process, so no waiting for triggers (by triggers I mean the stages in a cycle when I have the highest probabilities to win)
-a simple way to play, something where I would not need excel formulas to track the games
-be able to utilize the information from two dependent streams to create a winning game, and also to find/create two streams that would work together

I've been struggling with these for years. I spend hours every day trying different things, but in the end I realize that most of the time I'm doing the same thing over and over.

In relation to this thread, I have tried many ways to play the roulette streams and the derived streams in parallel, I use cycles and statistics, but I always end up with two parallel losing games. Or something close to break even. Sometimes I spend all day to reread all of Pryinaka's, rrbb's, MoneyT's posts, but I seem to be too dumb to see the "obvious"  :)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 17, 05:23 PM 2019
Yes, ati - continuous play.  You look at the last number spun then jump in.  Then play every spin.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Mar 17, 05:43 PM 2019
Is that the way to play both inside and outside positions?

In the examples that were given over the years, there are almost always no bet situations and waiting for a situation to happen. Probably that's why it is a bit more difficult to grasp why it would make sense to play every spin.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 17, 05:59 PM 2019
There is a difference between waiting for an event and converging on an event.

For example, betting for a repeat to happen is waiting for an event.

Converging towards a repeat placing bets every spin is not waiting for a repeat.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Steve on Mar 17, 06:06 PM 2019
There are many "events" in roulette that do not have any effect on future spins. It's therefore pointless to consider them.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 17, 06:08 PM 2019
Quote from: Steve on Mar 17, 06:06 PM 2019
There are many "events" in roulette that do not have any effect on future spins. It's therefore pointless to consider them.

Thanks for your new and innovative ideas.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Steve on Mar 17, 07:07 PM 2019
You probably think you're being sarcastic. Keep in mind the idea is as old as the universe. But people arent getting it, which is why it must be repeated.

As for innovative ideas, I've given my suggestions in the outside the box area. All I'd add is think of ways to use numbers 3,6 & 9. But not in a stupid way like a progression. Think of cause and effect.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 17, 07:12 PM 2019
Steve, the condition is NaN.  So, moot point above. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 17, 07:14 PM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 17, 05:59 PM 2019
There is a difference between waiting for an event and converging on an event.

For example, betting for a repeat to happen is waiting for an event.

Converging towards a repeat placing bets every spin is not waiting for a repeat.

It turns out that we somehow need to come to this event, but as long as we expect it, we are playing a parallel game. Is this mechanical interest scheme 50% break-even and 25% win?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 18, 03:13 PM 2019
digging in the archives... see attached.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Elite on Mar 19, 12:42 AM 2019
Quote from: Steve on Mar 17, 07:07 PM 2019
You probably think you're being sarcastic. Keep in mind the idea is as old as the universe. But people arent getting it, which is why it must be repeated.

As for innovative ideas, I've given my suggestions in the outside the box area. All I'd add is think of ways to use numbers 3,6 & 9. But not in a stupid way like a progression. Think of cause and effect.

That is a scientist approach ...3 6 9.. How to use... Plz elaborate some details  tq
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 19, 10:24 AM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 18, 03:13 PM 2019
digging in the archives... see attached.

Tell me please - is it length?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 19, 10:34 AM 2019
Derived.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 19, 11:16 AM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 19, 10:34 AM 2019
Derived.
Derived means the other numbers created in the second set  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 19, 11:37 AM 2019
This question tormented me for a couple of weeks.
He is off topic and may seem silly, but I'm not afraid to seem like a fool. O0
Why 100 spins?
In some topics on this topic, a session or cycle is always limited to 100 spins.
Is it the edge math of the house or something else?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 19, 12:57 PM 2019
Quote from: Person S on Mar 19, 11:37 AM 2019
This question tormented me for a couple of weeks.
He is off topic and may seem silly, but I'm not afraid to seem like a fool. O0
Why 100 spins?
In some topics on this topic, a session or cycle is always limited to 100 spins.
Is it the edge math of the house or something else?

number of spins is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 20, 08:41 AM 2019
Simple question.

You roll a fair 6 sided die 25 times and a whole bunch of numbers come up including 1,2,3,4, and 5 about 5 times each in a random sequence but 6 does not appear.

What is the chance that 6 appears on the next throw?


(a) Greater than 1/6
(b) Less than 1/6
(c) 1/6
(d) Can't tell from the information given.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Anastasius on Mar 20, 08:45 AM 2019
The odds remain the same

But the probability of a 6 has increased.

Am i correct
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 20, 08:58 AM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 20, 08:41 AM 2019
Simple question.

You roll a fair 6 sided die 25 times and a whole bunch of numbers come up including 1,2,3,4, and 5 about 5 times each in a random sequence but 6 does not appear.

What is the chance that 6 appears on the next throw?


(a) Greater than 1/6
(b) Less than 1/6
(c) 1/6
(d) Can't tell from the information given.

@Anastasius

The topic is outside the box, so it's open to all answers!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Anastasius on Mar 20, 09:03 AM 2019
Im right  8)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Bigbroben on Mar 20, 09:05 AM 2019
Depending on the reasons 6 has not appeared yet:

1) The dice is heavier on one side so it tends not to land on it;
2) The dice thrower makes it on purpose, he knows his stuff;
3) There is no nr6 on the dice.

If one of the above statement is true, then the odds are less than 1/6.  If all false, 1/6.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 20, 09:10 AM 2019
It's a fair die and a fair throw, if that helps anyone decide  :smile:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Anastasius on Mar 20, 09:15 AM 2019
If u have 10 shots at a 1/10 target do u have better chance to hit with 1 shot or 10? Therefore 1/10 remain same.probability increases with trials

Doesnt mean also u cant miss 100 times but
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Bigbroben on Mar 20, 09:17 AM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 20, 09:10 AM 2019
It's a fair die and a fair throw, if that helps anyone decide  :smile:

You have my answer, then.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 20, 11:39 AM 2019
The better question, how many times can the 6 repeat on the next toss?

0.


Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: precogmiles on Mar 20, 12:38 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 20, 09:10 AM 2019
It's a fair die and a fair throw, if that helps anyone decide  :smile:

Odds/probability of a given event does not exist it is a pseudo reality.

There are only probability frequencies in regards to knowledge.

So for example the average person would have a probability of 1/6 for knowing if a 6 would occur.

While a trained precog would have a higher probability for knowing a 6 would occur.

So to answer your question... it depends who is observing and who is rolling.

I don’t think anyone will like my answer but it is the reality.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Mar 20, 12:47 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 20, 08:41 AM 2019What is the chance that 6 appears on the next throw?

(c) 1/6

I know where you are going with this :)
No one can tell you what the next outcome will be, but we can tell that a number will repeat on the 3rd or 4th roll more often than not. And if you roll 4 unique numbers in a row and the repeat comes on the 5th roll, the last 3 numbers have a higher probability of repeating than the 1st one. Even though all 4 numbers seem equally likely to repeat. You can test it for a million rolls, this will still hold.
This is a statistical imbalance that we are trying to utilize. It's just a piece of the puzzle, and it is a puzzle for a very good reason.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 20, 01:06 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 20, 08:41 AM 2019
Simple question.

You roll a fair 6 sided die 25 times and a whole bunch of numbers come up including 1,2,3,4, and 5 about 5 times each in a random sequence but 6 does not appear.

What is the chance that 6 appears on the next throw?


(a) Greater than 1/6
(b) Less than 1/6
(c) 1/6
(d) Can't tell from the information given.

The correct answer is C

Doesn’t matter how many spins the chances are always the same!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Bigbroben on Mar 20, 01:09 PM 2019
It's in french but it's an quantic out-of-the box concept.  Could inspire anyone...
Oh!  The cat repeats, oh! it's unique now.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 20, 01:38 PM 2019
Quote from: ati on Mar 20, 12:47 PM 2019I know where you are going with this...

Probably not where you think... for this thread, there are no right or wrong answers!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 20, 01:42 PM 2019
Quote from: Bigbroben on Mar 20, 01:09 PM 2019
It's in french but it's an quantic out-of-the box concept.  Could inspire anyone...
Oh!  The cat repeats, oh! it's unique now.

Le chat de Schrodinger  :question:  :wink:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Bigbroben on Mar 20, 01:49 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 20, 01:42 PM 2019
Le chat de Schrodinger  :question:  :wink:

Although Schroedinger's cat has more odds of being there if someone put it in the box in the first place, unless it has some vibratory quantic abilities of evading through matter.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 22, 09:19 AM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 18, 03:13 PM 2019
digging in the archives... see attached.

Statistics on dynamic highs / lows
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 22, 10:09 AM 2019
and how will that help?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 22, 01:11 PM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 22, 10:09 AM 2019
and how will that help?

Quote rrbb: How? For example: when we have a repeat in the first set on the straights, in the second set, this will occur in 99.7% of the cases on "low". Or, even stricter: a repeat on straights in one system will will occur in the second system for 99.99994% on the first two dozens.

In the normal game will not bring benefits, must be the key. You need to look for a connection - it's like pipets are hard. I'm still fighting...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 22, 07:17 PM 2019
I believe he called it a 'magical relation'
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Mar 23, 04:34 PM 2019
Maybe someone can give me an answer here
Once Priyanka wrote that if EC bets repeatet in cycle of 2 spins is some kind of change in probability that the next decision will be the opposite of the EC which was the repeater
I can not find this post, but I am interested in the opinion of people who conducted tests of Priyanka's theorems, or indeed there was some increase of the edge on the side of this EC.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 23, 04:42 PM 2019
Quote from: ozon on Mar 23, 04:34 PM 2019
Maybe someone can give me an answer here
Once Priyanka wrote that if EC bets repeatet in cycle of 2 spins is some kind of change in probability that the next decision will be the opposite of the EC which was the repeater
I can not find this post, but I am interested in the opinion of people who conducted tests of Priyanka's theorems, or indeed there was some increase of the edge on the side of this EC.

Sounds like a theory, def not a theorem!

I tested that for someone 20 years back. It's complete rubbish, the chance remains the same.

You may find a collection of Priyanka's ramblings here:

link:://clinandrdria5.rssing.com/chan-4018025/all_p235.html

Maybe the post is linked or copied. Good luck!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Mar 23, 04:46 PM 2019
Of course, theory
Sometimes, as I write quickly, I do basic mistakes.
English is not my basic language
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Mar 23, 04:51 PM 2019
Firefox
Maybe in your search, you have found a bet selection, which in some way gave an edge to the EC.
I am referring to subtle deviations that we could prove by  tests
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 23, 05:11 PM 2019
If that were the case, I wouldn't have spent so much time on VB in the interim, and casinos would probably not be still offering roulette as a game!

I can see it may be an enticing concept. If you turn up at a wheel and all you have to go on are some previous spins. It's natural that one may want to predict results from that, or at least get an edge somehow.

The fact remains that each spin is a fresh independent trial. Aside from clocking spin data and betting late, only by recording thousands of spins and looking for bias, or looking for short term bias due to tilt and dealer consistency have I ever been able to get an edge.

And these type of edges always apply to numbers and sectors, never to dozens or even chances.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 23, 05:18 PM 2019
ozon,
here's a simple example.

let's assume you look at lines and its cycles. Instead of defining lines (the first line of a cycle), you could also look at the defining halves (the first half of a line cycle).

The funny thing is:
1. at a repeat you have a probability >50% that the repeat is on that half
2. because every constant bet is a losing bet, this must mean that when there is no repeat, the probability that you will get the defining halve is <50% 

So "dependence" creates a bias.

check it for yourself.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 23, 05:38 PM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 23, 05:18 PM 2019
ozon,
here's a simple example.

let's assume you look at lines and its cycles. Instead of defining lines (the first line of a cycle), you could also look at the defining halves (the first half of a line cycle).

The funny thing is:
1. at a repeat you have a probability >50% that the repeat is on that half
2. because every constant bet is a losing bet, this must mean that when there is no repeat, the probability that you will get the defining halve is <50%

So "dependence" creates a bias.

check it for yourself.

So, give us a sequence of 1's and 2"s where you think the probability of 1 or 2 following that sequence is greater than 50%.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 06:00 PM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 23, 05:18 PM 2019
ozon,
here's a simple example.

let's assume you look at lines and its cycles. Instead of defining lines (the first line of a cycle), you could also look at the defining halves (the first half of a line cycle).

The funny thing is:
1. at a repeat you have a probability >50% that the repeat is on that half
2. because every constant bet is a losing bet, this must mean that when there is no repeat, the probability that you will get the defining halve is <50%

So "dependence" creates a bias.

check it for yourself.

Are you really trying to help? Or just trying to get someones attention?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 06:15 PM 2019
Those actually looking for information...

Break down what you’re looking at. 

Why do repeats happen from most recent numbers?

How can you use this?  Don’t try any testing....just THINK and try to solve
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 06:39 PM 2019
Also if you studied cycles you would know  for example that the dozen that defines the cycle wins over 60% .... but each partition has its own set of stats to it.

I’m not just throwing numbers at you! This information can be used..

If I gave you the answer you would think it’s logical..... that’s how simple it is

Now I’m sure there’s more complicated and more ways to make it better.  But if youre here to just make a winning bet that works for you. 

Think of the info you see, how to use.  Forget about odds and trying to win.  Forget about zero for now.

Just look at the info and see what happens.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 23, 07:04 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 06:00 PM 2019
Are you really trying to help? Or just trying to get someones attention?

All I've ever done is tried to help those willing to also do the work.  I'm not the one here for attention - I'm not a 4 year old.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 23, 07:06 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 23, 05:38 PM 2019
So, give us a sequence of 1's and 2"s where you think the probability of 1 or 2 following that sequence is greater than 50%.

Read it again so you're clear on what it is actually saying.

11
121
122

or

22
212
211

67%, math boy.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 23, 07:11 PM 2019
You can do the work for Lines.  You're welcome.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 23, 07:24 PM 2019
You'll notice Ozon, that though these people pretend to know the answers and talk knowledgeably about pigeon holes, cycles, or Van de Waerden, when asked to give actual practical betting applications, they either answer the question with another question, throw their toys out of the pram, or carry on with some other prevarication.

You can draw your own conclusion as to why that may be!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 07:34 PM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 23, 07:06 PM 2019
Read it again so you're clear on what it is actually saying.

11
121
122

or

22
212
211

67%, math boy.

First piece of actual info that actually came from you!

You know they won’t understand what you just did

They don’t speak this language
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 07:40 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 23, 07:24 PM 2019
You'll notice Ozon, that though these people pretend to know the answers and talk knowledgeably about pigeon holes, cycles, or Van de Waerden, when asked to give actual practical betting applications, they either answer the question with another question, throw their toys out of the pram, or carry on with some other prevarication.

You can draw your own conclusion as to why that may be!

It’s been talked about countless times in the forum.  It always comes down to...

If someone has a way to beat this game they will not share step by step on how to do it.

You can believe whatever you’d like.  Information has been shared to help those searching figure things out.  But no one will give things to you in a platter.  Especially after putting in countless hrs trying to figure it out.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Mar 23, 07:49 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 23, 07:24 PM 2019when asked to give actual practical betting applications, they either answer the question with another question, throw their toys out of the pram, or carry on with some other prevarication.
why do you think that is? you answered it yourself
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 23, 05:11 PM 2019If that were the case, I wouldn't have spent so much time on VB in the interim, and casinos would probably not be still offering roulette as a game!
If a method that beats the house would openly shared, casinos would quickly adapt and lower the payout or not offer roulette at all. I think this will happen eventually. I understand that you think I'm crazy, but we shall see.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 23, 08:04 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 07:34 PM 2019
First piece of actual info that actually came from you!

You know they won’t understand what you just did

They don’t speak this language

Oh ok, how about my countless spreadsheets and thousands of hours of work?  Grow up, Mel.  I'm not the enemy here. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 23, 08:11 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 07:40 PM 2019
It’s been talked about countless times in the forum.  It always comes down to...

If someone has a way to beat this game they will not share step by step on how to do it.

You can believe whatever you’d like.  Information has been shared to help those searching figure things out.  But no one will give things to you in a platter.  Especially after putting in countless hrs trying to figure it out.

I could tell 1000 people how to do it.  Only a few would be motivated enough to try it.  The problem is that most people are just to inherently lazy, lack the foresight, skill set, and motivation to win.  Gaining the edge is a goal post that's far out of reach of the snowflake generation.  They require immediate gratification  and in many cases aren't even willing to leave their home computer in order to actually travel to a casino.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 23, 08:11 PM 2019
Quote from: ati on Mar 23, 07:49 PM 2019If a method that beats the house would openly shared, casinos would quickly adapt and lower the payout or not offer roulette at all. I think this will happen eventually. I understand that you think I'm crazy, but we shall see.

You are not crazy, we have already seen that happen. I won £1000's on biased wheel play in the 1990s. I'm certain other people were doing the same. The casinos were making money still I'm sure, but they wanted to improve their bottom line on roulette.

So they adapted. Brought in new types of wheels of solid construction without screw frets and other things which had been exploited.  The new wheels had higher more random scatters too.

If, hypothetically, someone invented a successful non-random staking system that gave a few percent edge, they would just alter the payout to 33-1 or 30-1 or add an extra 0 like Sands. I've seen 30-1 payouts on ferry crossings where the punters are not going to be around for long, so the house wants a big edge to take their rake quickly.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 23, 08:14 PM 2019
By the way, the largest bias wheel win on the LV strip took place in 2010.  At the time, the wheel was practically brand new.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 23, 08:21 PM 2019
True, they can still fall down on testing of new wheels and installation and maintenance procedure. But overall it's much harder than it was, or maybe I've just been unlucky looking!

I'm going to have another look at this aspect later this year.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Mar 23, 08:22 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 06:15 PM 2019
Why do repeats happen from most recent numbers?

How can you use this?  Don’t try any testing....just THINK and try to solve

Very good question. I've been thinking about this, and honestly, I can't answer why recent positions are more likely to repeat. The chance of a repeat increases with every new unique outcomes, but that doesn't answer why the more recent uniques are more likely to repeat.

I'm still struggling to find how to use the information between two sets as you suggested. I have tried every way I could think of to play the random roulette stream and the derived stream, but it always loses. Sometimes even in my dreams I'm stitching together outcomes and positions :D The two sets are definitely dependent, but I'm not able to take advantage of it.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 08:23 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 23, 08:21 PM 2019
True, they can still fall down on testing of new wheels and installation and maintenance procedure. But overall it's much harder than it was, or maybe I've just been unlucky looking!

I'm going to have another look at this aspect later this year.

You can look at non random and you can play any wheel  :xd:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 23, 08:23 PM 2019
They don't test new wheels like you think they do.  The problem is the assembly, not so much the manufacturing.

Drop me an email and I'll show you some of the data.   

By the way, it took me all of five minutes to find the wheel in 2010.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 08:24 PM 2019
Quote from: ati on Mar 23, 08:22 PM 2019
Very good question. I've been thinking about this, and honestly, I can't answer why recent positions are more likely to repeat. The chance of a repeat increases with every new unique outcomes, but that doesn't answer why the more recent uniques are more likely to repeat.

I'm still struggling to find how to use the information between two sets as you suggested. I have tried every way I could think of to play the random roulette stream and the derived stream, but it always loses. Sometimes even in my dreams I'm stitching together outcomes and positions :D The two sets are definitely dependent, but I'm not able to take advantage of it.

When you test your ideas... which partition do you play with?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 23, 08:26 PM 2019
Quote from: The General on Mar 23, 08:11 PM 2019
I could tell 1000 people how to do it.  Only a few would be motivated enough to try it.  The problem is that most people are just to inherently lazy, lack the foresight, skill set, and motivation to win.  Gaining the edge is a goal post that's far out of reach of the snowflake generation.  They require immediate gratification  and in many cases aren't even willing to leave their home computer in order to actually travel to a casino.

Here’s a generation snowflake definition - “or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own.”


Pot calling the kettle black, eh?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 23, 08:29 PM 2019
QuoteThe chance of a repeat increases with every new unique outcomes,

Care to show the math that supports that statement?

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 23, 08:30 PM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 23, 08:26 PM 2019
Here’s a generation snowflake definition - “or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own.”


Pot calling the kettle black, eh?

I'm several generations before the snowflake generation.  ::)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 08:44 PM 2019
Quote from: The General on Mar 23, 08:29 PM 2019
Care to show the math that supports that statement?

3nine posted this....

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2019/03/23/source0aaa5.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/UrPUa)

It shows in which position a number repeated for lines, streets, splits,  straights

If you look as the groups get bigger.  The repeat comes sooner before all numbers show up
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Mar 23, 08:45 PM 2019
Unfortunately with casinos this is so, they try not to leave, no possibility of advantage over them. I also understand the work involved in advancing the edge strategies.
If it can cause problems, I may not talk about it in an open forum.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Madi on Mar 23, 08:47 PM 2019
Quote from: The General on Mar 23, 08:23 PM 2019


By the way, it took me all of five minutes to find the wheel in 2010.

Seems to me russians are giving vodka free.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Mar 23, 08:48 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 08:24 PM 2019
When you test your ideas... which partition do you play with?
Mostly lines, sometimes quads and dozens. I don't mix them to keep things simple. Maybe I should? I also try to convert bets to straights occasionally, so I could find a way where for example I can bet less than 12 numbers but have 1/3 chance to win.
Any play with straights I can only test spin by spin, as it is too diffiult for me to code in excel.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 23, 08:57 PM 2019
QuoteThe chance of a repeat increases with every new unique outcomes,

Again, where's the math that supports your wild statement?

My point is this...If the number zero has just hit, what makes it more likely than any other number to hit on the next spin or the next series of spins?
Doesn't the number of pockets, not the numbers that have hit,  determine the probability of a number winning on the next spin?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Mar 23, 09:15 PM 2019
Quote from: The General on Mar 23, 08:57 PM 2019
Again, where's the math that supports your wild statement?

My point is this...If the number zero has just hit, what makes it more likely than any other number to hit on the next spin or the next series of spins?
Doesn't the number of pockets, not the numbers that have hit,  determine the probability of a number winning on the next spin?
What I meant was that the chance of repeat for any of the unique numbers increases. So before the 2nd spin you have 1/37 chance to see a repeat, but before the 6th spin you have 5/37 to see any of the last five numbers repeat.
We think in cycles, so there is always a new first spin after on repeat.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 23, 09:20 PM 2019
Quote from: ati on Mar 23, 09:15 PM 2019
What I meant was that the chance of repeat for any of the unique numbers increases. So before the 2nd spin you have 1/37 chance to see a repeat, but before the 6th spin you have 5/37 to see any of the last five numbers repeat.
We think in cycles, so there is always a new first spin after on repeat.

There's nothing there that you can exploit.  The probability of winning doesn't change from one spin to the next and the payout is short.  This means that you can't side step probability or use it to your advantage.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 09:30 PM 2019
Quote from: ati on Mar 23, 08:48 PM 2019
Mostly lines, sometimes quads and dozens. I don't mix them to keep things simple. Maybe I should? I also try to convert bets to straights occasionally, so I could find a way where for example I can bet less than 12 numbers but have 1/3 chance to win.
Any play with straights I can only test spin by spin, as it is too diffiult for me to code in excel.

You almost have the correct idea....

This next piece of info I will share, I believe only me and blueprint know outside of Dyksexlic, Redd,Pri!


But it’s crucial and once I share it, it might help many of you.  It might not seem as important.  I will not go into further details.  I will not speak more on this and I suggest if you find anything else after you keep it from the forum! 

93% of the repeats on doubles streets happen on positions 1,2,3 of the dynamic sequence.

If you use the information dead on you will lose to the house edge; it will be just like playing an ec 50/50.  Letting you know so you won’t waste your time with that route.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 23, 09:32 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 09:30 PM 2019
You almost have the correct idea....

This next piece of info I will share, I believe only me and blueprint know outside of Dyksexlic, Redd,Pri!


But it’s crucial and once I share it, it might help many of you.  It might not seem as important.  I will not go into further details.  I will not speak more on this and I suggest if you find anything else after you keep it from the forum! 



Here we go again...the hints and secret squirrel game.   ::)  I hope nobody is gullible enough to believe him.  Please folks, don't put on the cult robe or send Gypsies money.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 09:41 PM 2019
Quote from: The General on Mar 23, 09:32 PM 2019
Here we go again...the hints and secret squirrel game.   ::)  I hope nobody is gullible enough to believe him.  Please folks, don't put on the cult robe or send Gypsies money.

Believe what?  I stated a fact.  Where did I say give me money for sharing free info?

Facts can be tested and seen by everyone.

Not sure what you’re after or trying to prove.  But facts are facts! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 23, 09:43 PM 2019
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2019/03/23/sourceeb7bd.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/Urjhi)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 10:03 PM 2019
Frodo, I would like to hear you’re input on this topic
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 24, 09:13 AM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 23, 07:06 PM 2019
Read it again so you're clear on what it is actually saying.

11
121
122

or

22
212
211

67%, math boy.

Money said we do not understand.
OK. I will try ...
11
121
122

1 combination gives us a loss
2 combinations win

2 combinations = 67%
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 24, 10:28 AM 2019
So what is the next bet, 1 or 2? They are both 50% (- the house edge if 0 (s) is/are present)

The next spin is all you can bet on. The previous even chances have absolutely no bearing on it. You get no cash from the casino for forming an arithmetic progression of even chances or whatever other nonsense is being used as a basis.

One can ask all the greatest mathematicians and scientists on the planet, and they will give you exactly the same answer.

No wonder the gurus hide behind a pile of secrecy and mumbo jumbo - because they have no advantage whatsoever!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 24, 10:42 AM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 24, 10:28 AM 2019
So what is the next bet, 1 or 2? They are both 50%

The next number is all you can bet on. The previous even chances have absolutely no bearing on it.

One can ask all the greatest matheticians and scientists on the planet, and they will give you exactly the same answer.

No wonder the gurus hide behind a pile of secrecy and mumbo jumbo - because they have no advantage whatsoever!

Chances are constant, this is absolute. But if I try to look at things in combinations, I do not interpret them as chances for the next spin.
I begin to think that they are not so important. Of course, this is my opinion, if Math-guys confirm this, I will only be glad
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 24, 04:09 PM 2019
As soon as you try to predict, you fall into the trap and the law of large numbers will always catch up. 

I’m not predicting. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Madi on Mar 24, 04:44 PM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 24, 04:09 PM 2019
As soon as you try to predict, you fall into the trap and the law of large numbers will always catch up. 

I’m not predicting.

I have seen u mention this in different place. What that? Only one case its possible if u play 37 number.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 24, 04:58 PM 2019
If one can't predict, one can't play roulette.

Unfortunately you have to place a bet before the outcome of a spin. Any bet you place is your prediction.

You can call it anything you want, and use any amount of prevarication or double speak you want, but if you don't bet,  you don't play. You may as well just sit watching the numbers till paint dries and you grow old.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 24, 05:14 PM 2019
Ok, cool.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 24, 05:28 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 24, 04:58 PM 2019
If one can't predict, one can't play roulette.

Unfortunately you have to place a bet before the outcome of a spin. Any bet you place is your prediction.

You can call it anything you want, and use any amount of prevarication or double speak you want, but if you don't bet,  you don't play. You may as well just sit watching the numbers till paint dries and you grow old.

Predicting isn’t the only way to play...

look at blueprint example...

67% no predicting!  Everything is tied to these numbers.

Dependence creates a bias

Multiple dependent events going on you just have to pick which ones will give you a profit overall
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 24, 06:32 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 24, 05:28 PM 2019
Predicting isn’t the only way to play...

look at blueprint example...

67% no predicting!  Everything is tied to these numbers.

Dependence creates a bias

Multiple dependent events going on you just have to pick which ones will give you a profit overall

If each spin of the wheel is an independent trial, then how is that possible?  ::)

Can you provide an example on how it gives the player an edge?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 24, 09:30 PM 2019
QuoteDependence creates a bias

By the way, there is no dependence between roulette spins.  Each spin is independent of the previous spins.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 24, 09:37 PM 2019
Quote from: The General on Mar 24, 09:30 PM 2019
By the way, there is no dependence between roulette spins.  Each spin is independent of the previous spins.

I’m not here to convince you.  Good luck to you.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 25, 12:05 AM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 24, 05:28 PM 2019
Predicting isn’t the only way to play...

look at blueprint example...

67% no predicting!  Everything is tied to these numbers.

Dependence creates a bias

Multiple dependent events going on you just have to pick which ones will give you a profit overall

11
121
122

I do know what he is doing, he is just listing  cycles in your terminology when 1 comes first. Cycles where a repeat is formed,  I didn't ask for cycles though, but as usual he answers another question. Yes 2/3 of cycles have both 1 and 2.  Cycle length 2.... order 1 and order 2. 67%.  Not too useful.

But to play along with your terminology for a bit. If you take the first number as 1 and then play for the end of the cycle and bet on 1:

First line 1 wins (W). EOC. C1 01 ...... Win 1 (50%)
Second line 2 wins (L) then 1 wins (W). EOC. C2 02 ....Break even (25%)
Third line  2 wins (L) then 2 wins (L). EOC. C2 01.....Lose 2 (25%)

E(x) = Sum xPr(x) = 1 x 0.5  + 0 x 0.25 - 2 x 0.25 = 0.5 - 0.5 = 0

So we played a cycle and the expectation is 0 units. If we'd played on 2 to the end, we'd have won 2 units 25% and lost 1 unit 50%, and broken even 25%. Same result, expectation 0 units.

As according to the prevailing conditions, as green zero did not come up and take a rake.

I asked for a situation where non-random would give an edge and he failed to demonstrate it.

So, still waiting....



Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 25, 01:38 AM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 25, 12:05 AM 2019
11
121
122

I do know what he is doing, he is just listing  cycles in your terminology when 1 comes first. Cycles where a repeat is formed,  I didn't ask for cycles though, but as usual he answers another question. Yes 2/3 of cycles have both 1 and 2.  Cycle length 2.... order 1 and order 2. 67%.  Not too useful.

But to play along with your terminology for a bit. If you take the first number as 1 and then play for the end of the cycle and bet on 1:

First line 1 wins (W). EOC. C1 01 ...... Win 1 (50%)
Second line 2 wins (L) then 1 wins (W). EOC. C2 02 ....Break even (25%)
Third line  2 wins (L) then 2 wins (L). EOC. C2 01.....Lose 2 (25%)

E(x) = Sum xPr(x) = 1 x 0.5  + 0 x 0.25 - 2 x 0.25 = 0.5 - 0.5 = 0

So we played a cycle and the expectation is 0 units. If we'd played on 2 to the end, we'd have won 2 units 25% and lost 1 unit 50%, and broken even 25%. Same result, expectation 0 units.

As according to the prevailing conditions, as green zero did not come up and take a rake.

I asked for a situation where non-random would give an edge and he failed to demonstrate it.

So, still waiting....

You finally did one step into the correct direction.

But no one here is going to give things to you on a platter.  But take my last response to you where I told you what I would play as a gift and work that out using this idea. 

See what you can come up with...

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 24, 06:43 PM 2019
To be honest with you depends how I’m playing.

But I would have won way before 33 uniques and multiple wins atleast a minimum of 2 wins

33 uniques equals

Atleast 10 ec cycles
Atleast 8 dozen cycles
Atleast 4 double streets cycles
Atleast 2 street cycles

When I say atleast it means that’s the minimum. Worst case scenario!  So normally it’s more.

Also my current game play is streets mixed with unique numbers.  So 33 uniques is profitable for me!

The way I would play is to remove a unit off any number that showed up within the street I am playing.

The system profits flatbet over 60 spins.  Then playing uniques compliments and gives it the edge to boost it. 

My street bet wins flatbet the more spins I bet and the unique play gives me the real profit

Two systems at play all based on info I’ve talked about  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 25, 10:18 AM 2019
Well I just showed playing an EC  cycle has no advantage. You've said yourself here and elsewhere that playing DS cycles alone has no advantage. Priyanka said the same things about streets and dozens.

So why should playing two things at once, both with a disadvantage, factoring in zero, make something with an advantage? The maths does not stack up.

How have you confirmed this advantage

(a) Calculation
(b)  Computer testing over many 100,000s of spins
(c) Perception and records from manual testing over a small number of spins.
(d) Advantage not quantitavely confirmed, only qualitatively.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 25, 11:09 AM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 25, 10:18 AM 2019
Well I just showed playing an EC  cycle has no advantage. You've said yourself here and elsewhere that playing DS cycles alone has no advantage. Priyanka said the same things about streets and dozens.

So why should playing two things at once, both with a disadvantage, factoring in zero, make something with an advantage? The maths does not stack up.

How have you confirmed this advantage

(a) Calculation
(b)  Computer testing over many 100,000s of spins
(c) Perception and records from manual testing over a small number of spins.
(d) Advantage not quantitavely confirmed, only qualitatively.

The advantage is math based and holds.  It’s hard to spot it because of how big and how stacked the odds are against you in this game.

But if you use paper and pencil and work out information it makes sense and you can see it easier.  Then you can apply more spins and a lot of data to confirm it.

Yes The advantage is very small and can be seen with ec.  But requires minimum of 60 spins to see it start taking effect.

I know every spin in roulette is independent!

But there are dependent events happening.  If you find these dependent events then they just might help you gain an advantage.

For instance I shared 2 different dependent events. 

1. Dozen that defines the cycle repeats 60%

2. 93% of Line repeats in position 123 of rrbb chart

These events show dependency!  Can be used to you’re advantage!

I believe I’ve shared Enough info for everyone to come up with a way to win.   

Figure out how these events show dependency and figure out what you can do to try to win and avoid some loses. 

And you have your self a method that wins!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 25, 01:17 PM 2019
Well the odds are not stacked against you very much. Only 2.7%. Which is why I can win under the right conditions using VB. I only need to consistently eliminate a small area where the ball falls less. Just a handful of pockets is enough.

Assuming for the moment, a small advantage hypothetically exists on a single zero wheel, would the same method be enough to overcome the double zero wheel?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 25, 01:53 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 25, 01:17 PM 2019
Well the odds are not stacked against you very much. Only 2.7%. Which is why I can win under the right conditions using VB. I only need to consistently eliminate a small area where the ball falls less. Just a handful of pockets is enough.

Assuming for the moment, a small advantage hypothetically exists on a single zero wheel, would the same method be enough to overcome the double zero wheel?

Stacked against you because house edge is 2.7

But if you try predicting, due to variance and law of large numbers it’s very hard to stay close to even and only lose to the house edge using a mechanical method.  Things get worse if you add a progression. 

VB is great but you can only win under the right conditions. 

Just playing ec alone you can get 60% win rate.  That overcomes bothe wheels.

Imagine it like this for example playing straights  1/36 but winning at 1/12 odds when choosing

You still lose some spins but your choosing at better odds then you should be. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 25, 02:08 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 25, 01:53 PM 2019Just playing ec alone you can get 60% win rate.  That overcomes bothe wheels.

There seems to be some inconsistency there.

I showed above just playing a cycle of even chances did not lead to an edge. And you confirmed that playing DS alone even with your 93% statistic did not of itself lead to an advantage.

I thought the assertion was that two or more losing dependent cycles had to be played in parallel to achieve a small advantage. Yet you say just EC alone gives a 60% win rate.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 25, 04:38 PM 2019
 technically a cycle either starts on, and ends before a repeat, or it starts after a repeat and ends on a repeat. That kind of depends on the view.

Can anyone from experienced participants give an example of these cycles?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 25, 05:05 PM 2019
short test
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Mar 25, 05:13 PM 2019
The forum is full of examples. Even the message that you copied from rrbb is a reply to examples of cycles.

What he means is that in a cycle there are only unique numbers. So on a repeat the cycle has ended and the new cycle has already started.

It would look like this for dozen cycles. There are cycles of length 1,2 and 3.

132/321/3/3/31/3/321...

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 25, 05:14 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 25, 02:08 PM 2019
There seems to be some inconsistency there.

I showed above just playing a cycle of even chances did not lead to an edge. And you confirmed that playing DS alone even with your 93% statistic did not of itself lead to an advantage.

I thought the assertion was that two or more losing dependent cycles had to be played in parallel to achieve a small advantage. Yet you say just EC alone gives a 60% win rate.

You didn’t play correctly!  You just had an idea and I’m telling you you’re heading in the right direction.

You can achieve a win with just 1.  But with more you can improve the win

No inconsistency, still saying the same thing.

I told you what to look for.  You don’t need to run around in circles.  I pointed at it for you. 

Now you want me to show you how step by step?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 25, 05:26 PM 2019
Quote from: ati on Mar 25, 05:13 PM 2019
The forum is full of examples. Even the message that you copied from rrbb is a reply to examples of cycles.

What he means is that in a cycle there are only unique numbers. So on a repeat the cycle has ended and the new cycle has already started.

It would look like this for dozen cycles. There are cycles of length 1,2 and 3.

132/321/3/3/31/3/321...

For someone who understand better they would read it like how you showed

But for someone starting out it’s easier like this

1323... carrry over the 3 to start new cycle

3213.....carry over the 3 to start new cycle

33.....carry over the 3 to start new cycle

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 25, 05:45 PM 2019
Thank you boyzzz!
It turns out 2 types:
1-starts and ends before repeating (length 2-3)
2 starts after repetition and ends with repetition (length 1)
I understand this ttak ...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Mar 25, 05:59 PM 2019
It's so hard to find the proper application of all the statistics. But I'm sure once you find it, it becomes obvious.

Sequences like the below are the worst. If I play every spin in both streams, I can easily lose 15+ units before the two cycles end.
There also seem to be a contradiction on the 5th and 6th spins, because one of the statistics says that there is over 90% chance that one of the last 3 lines will repeat. The other stat says there is over 60% chance the repeat will come from the low position.
Once you said you can't win playing for just repeats or playing for just uniques, I'm not sure if you still think that's true. If it is, then the question is, when to switch bets?

(link:://pichost.org/images/2019/03/25/Capture.jpg)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Mar 25, 06:01 PM 2019
.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 25, 06:24 PM 2019
Quote from: Person S on Mar 25, 05:45 PM 2019
Thank you boyzzz!
It turns out 2 types:
1-starts and ends before repeating (length 2-3)
2 starts after repetition and ends with repetition (length 1)
I understand this ttak ...

Or so?
33 length 1
33 - length1 (starts after repetition and ends at repetition)
322 - length 2 (started after repetition and ended before repetition)
For repetition, I take the defining dozen.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 25, 06:49 PM 2019
Quote from: ati on Mar 25, 05:59 PM 2019
It's so hard to find the proper application of all the statistics. But I'm sure once you find it, it becomes obvious.  YES

Sequences like the below are the worst. If I play every spin in both streams, I can easily lose 15+ units before the two cycles end.
There also seem to be a contradiction on the 5th and 6th spins, because one of the statistics says that there is over 90% chance that one of the last 3 lines will repeat. The other stat says there is over 60% chance the repeat will come from the low position.
Once you said you can't win playing for just repeats or playing for just uniques, I'm not sure if you still think that's true. If it is, then the question is, when to switch bets?

(link:://pichost.org/images/2019/03/25/Capture.jpg)

First understand the statistic and then you will find you’re answer.

In the chart you posted that’s only 7 spins.   The 93% chance didn’t have enough spins to kick in.  Right there is your 7% chance.

Do atleast 50 spins so you can see the percentages better.  100 spins is good and 200 spins clears it up.

1000 spins or more is just so you can see it holds no matter what

10000 is to much and unnecessary because you will see the same percentages just with more spins

You can do 100000 spins, but it’s no point percentages will hold!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: redhot on Mar 26, 01:25 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 25, 06:49 PM 2019
First understand the statistic and then you will find you’re answer.

In the chart you posted that’s only 7 spins.   The 93% chance didn’t have enough spins to kick in.  Right there is your 7% chance.

Do atleast 50 spins so you can see the percentages better.  100 spins is good and 200 spins clears it up.

1000 spins or more is just so you can see it holds no matter what

10000 is to much and unnecessary because you will see the same percentages just with more spins

You can do 100000 spins, but it’s no point percentages will hold!

Easy to test and confirm this using the cycle length stats for double streets:

Cycle Length 1: 166288 --- 16.6288%
Cycle Length 2: 277432 --- 27.7432%
Cycle Length 3: 278163 --- 27.8163%
Cycle Length 4: 185184 --- 18.5184%
Cycle Length 5: 77330 --- 7.733%
Cycle Length 6: 15603 --- 1.5603%

These results are from 1 million cycles.

"93% of the time the repeat will be from the last 3 double streets" - So immediately we can include all CL1, CL2 and CL3 as they have no option other than to repeat from the last 3 so that gives us

166,288 + 277,432 + 278,163 = 721,883 cycles

For CL4 we have 1,2,3,4,(R). The repeat (R) could be from the last 3 results (2,3 or 4) OR it could be from the first result (1). The odds of it being from the last 3 are 3/4, the odds of it being from the first result are 1/4.

There were 185184 cycles that ended CL4, 3/4 of these would have the repeating number coming from the last 3 results which is:

185184 * 0.75 =  138,888

Applying the same logic to CL5 and CL6 we have:

CL5 = 77330 * 0.6 = 46,398
CL6 = 15603 * 0.5 = 7,802

In total:

721,883+138,888+46,398+7,802 = 914,971 cycles where the repeat was from the last 3 results.

914,971 / 1,000,000 = ~ 92%

The percentage holds over 1 million cycles
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 26, 01:59 PM 2019
Quote from: redhot on Mar 26, 01:25 PM 2019
Easy to test and confirm this using the cycle length stats for double streets:

Cycle Length 1: 166288 --- 16.6288%
Cycle Length 2: 277432 --- 27.7432%
Cycle Length 3: 278163 --- 27.8163%
Cycle Length 4: 185184 --- 18.5184%
Cycle Length 5: 77330 --- 7.733%
Cycle Length 6: 15603 --- 1.5603%

These results are from 1 million cycles.

"93% of the time the repeat will be from the last 3 double streets" - So immediately we can include all CL1, CL2 and CL3 as they have no option other than to repeat from the last 3 so that gives us

166,288 + 277,432 + 278,163 = 721,883 cycles

For CL4 we have 1,2,3,4,(R). The repeat (R) could be from the last 3 results (2,3 or 4) OR it could be from the first result (1). The odds of it being from the last 3 are 3/4, the odds of it being from the first result are 1/4.

There were 185184 cycles that ended CL4, 3/4 of these would have the repeating number coming from the last 3 results which is:

185184 * 0.75 =  138,888

Applying the same logic to CL5 and CL6 we have:

CL5 = 77330 * 0.6 = 46,398
CL6 = 15603 * 0.5 = 7,802

In total:

721,883+138,888+46,398+7,802 = 914,971 cycles where the repeat was from the last 3 results.

914,971 / 1,000,000 = ~ 92%

The percentage holds over 1 million cycles

I said I’m only speaking facts and thank you for showing numbers to back it up!

I think that’s enough info in the forum!  With that everyone should be a able to come up with some ideas on how to improve their games or create a winning method.

Please don’t post anymore Facts!  Let everyone do their own work. 

Enough info has been posted!  Anyone wanting to learn and win can go with facts and find other facts!

Facts will help you win this game!  You just learned something new that you didn’t know before and was hidden within the stats.

If you look at things differently you might find gems!

With this gem alone you have an edge! Work in private and good luck
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 26, 02:20 PM 2019
Dyksexlic attempted to share similar facts but his riddles were good. I’m still having trouble figuring some out.  But you should understand his word roulette a bit better try going back to that post
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 27, 11:59 AM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 26, 02:20 PM 2019
Dyksexlic attempted to share similar facts but his riddles were good. I’m still having trouble figuring some out.  But you should understand his word roulette a bit better try going back to that post

Trying to decipher a gypsy's scam? Are you really that gullible? ::)

Read more on the history of the game and basic probability before another scammer comes along and steals your money.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 28, 06:22 AM 2019
Can you tell me why 92-93% is a good stat, Money?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 28, 08:56 AM 2019
The recipe for quick calculation of the number of game positions:
2ECx3Dz = 6 poses
3Dzx6DS = 18 poses
2ECx12Str = 24 poses
Etc.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 28, 09:30 AM 2019
Quote from: The General on Mar 27, 11:59 AM 2019
Trying to decipher a gypsy's scam? Are you really that gullible? ::)

Read more on the history of the game and basic probability before another scammer comes along and steals your money.

Clearly f*cking clueless!

Not even worth replying to you anymore seriously. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 28, 09:39 AM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 28, 09:30 AM 2019Not even worth replying to you anymore seriously. 

Agreed. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 28, 09:59 AM 2019
Quote from: Person S on Mar 28, 08:56 AM 2019
The recipe for quick calculation of the number of game positions:
2ECx3Dz = 6 poses
3Dzx6DS = 18 poses
2ECx12Str = 24 poses
Etc.

Now what?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 28, 10:40 AM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 28, 06:22 AM 2019
Can you tell me why 92-93% is a good stat, Money?

67% of the time, an even chance cycle ends with the same partition that started the cycle. That can't be exploited either. Whichever way you bet the expectation is a zero sum game over the three branches of the cycle.

If it could be exploited, you wouldn't need to worry about DS or dozens or uniques or anything else. You'd just be cashing in on EC Cycles.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 28, 10:53 AM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 28, 10:40 AM 2019
67% of the time, an even chance cycle ends with the same partition that started the cycle. That can't be exploited either. Whichever way you bet the expectation is a zero sum game over the three branches of the cycle.

If it could be exploited, you wouldn't need to worry about DS or dozens or uniques or anything else. You'd just be cashing in on EC Cycles.

You can cash in on ec but it’s not worth it as much because the pay is even. It NEEDS progression to boost winning.

Yes it can be exploited
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 28, 10:59 AM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 28, 06:22 AM 2019
Can you tell me why 92-93% is a good stat, Money?

You know I’m not going to do that.... why not how nor what’s next.

It’s not that I don’t want to help anyone.   I shared enough.  Especially, I thought you guys would understand when i threw the percentage out there.

But everyone hitting me up making things more complicated and asking what’s next.... The solution is so simple if I tell you; you will feel stupid for not thinking of it.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 28, 11:08 AM 2019
Now you are simply back to martingales, labs, and D'Alamberts etc on an even chance. The concept of a cycle is not helpful. It goes back to "is there a limit to random." Yes cycles and patterns exist but they are random, and cycles do complete with random choices . But non of those facts  can be exploited.

You can win short term with a negative progression but as soon as you start getting into that stuff, you expose large bets to the house edge, and at some stage the progression will fail.

Round in circles here. I've not seen any demonstration of any edge in this topic. Only statistical facts which can't be exploited.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 28, 11:13 AM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 28, 10:59 AM 2019
You know I’m not going to do that.... why not how nor what’s next.

And you know the question wasn't for me. 

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 28, 11:15 AM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 28, 11:08 AM 2019
Now you are simply back to martingales, labs, and D'Alamberts etc on an even chance. The concept of a cycle is not helpful. It goes back to "is there a limit to random." Yes cycles and patterns exist but they are random, and cycles do complete with random choices . But non of those facts  can be exploited.

You can win short term with a negative progression but as soon as you start getting into that stuff, you expose large bets to the house edge, and at some stage the progression will fail.

Round in circles here. I've not seen any demonstration of any edge in this topic. Only statistical facts which can't be exploited.


You're wrong.  Same concepts can be used on Baccarat, too. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 28, 11:29 AM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 28, 11:15 AM 2019

You're wrong.  Same concepts can be used on Baccarat, too.

Yes they can be used on Baccarat with the same result. No gain on the house edge. Except the house edge is less in Baccarat, especially if you bet on Banco. So yes, if you want to enjoy cycles, play Baccarat and you'll have an edge close to minus 1% instead of  minus 1.35%.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 28, 11:35 AM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 28, 11:08 AM 2019
Now you are simply back to martingales, labs, and D'Alamberts etc on an even chance. The concept of a cycle is not helpful. It goes back to "is there a limit to random." Yes cycles and patterns exist but they are random, and cycles do complete with random choices . But non of those facts  can be exploited.

You can win short term with a negative progression but as soon as you start getting into that stuff, you expose large bets to the house edge, and at some stage the progression will fail.

Round in circles here. I've not seen any demonstration of any edge in this topic. Only statistical facts which can't be exploited.
Youre not paying attention!

The progression is needed cause the winning is so small since it’s an even chance bet

50/50.... but you’re winning at 60% minus house edge

It’s very small profit window.  The progression helps win more.

But it’s not needed..... depends on your bankroll and goals and how long you actually want to sit and play, I guess.

But if you can boost winning for double street or streets or splits then that’s much better return with no progression
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Mar 28, 11:37 AM 2019
Here this should help someone

How Steve likes to say....

All you’re really doing is increasing the accuracy of you’re  bet!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Mar 28, 11:46 AM 2019
Quote from: Person S on Mar 28, 08:56 AM 2019
The recipe for quick calculation of the number of game positions:
2ECx3Dz = 6 poses
3Dzx6DS = 18 poses
2ECx12Str = 24 poses
Etc.

If I were you, I'd concentrate on an even chance cycle. If that can be beaten, then the concept of cycles is a valid tool.

Even chance cycles are simple to analyse.

There are only 3 branches:

a =>

aa
aba
abb

2/3 of the time it completes with a. If you can use that fact to get an advantage, the game can be beaten.

You can try any bet or no bet pattern you want. You can even bet on b. Neglecting 0 for the moment, you'll always break even (sum of win/loss times their probabilities ). Which proves you can never beat a real game when zero is added.

If this simple cycle cannot be beaten, it is a waste of time looking at dozens or lines etc.

So try it and prove to yourself it is impossible.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 28, 12:09 PM 2019
Thanks for the advice Fire!
Research results are ongoing. I experiment with both the original and the finished version ...
There was a modified version of the RRBB - 38 spins-13W / 4L, 47 spins-19W / 13L
This is not ideal, errors follow, so you need to train more, but the main thing is a flat rate !!
Php + 3
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 28, 12:13 PM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Mar 28, 09:59 AM 2019
Now what?

Trying to see parallel universes. ::)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Mar 28, 12:30 PM 2019
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2019/03/28/source1d6a9.jpg) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/UhX0Q)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Mar 28, 04:43 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Mar 28, 11:46 AM 2019You can try any bet or no bet pattern you want. You can even bet on b. Neglecting 0 for the moment, you'll always break even (sum of win/loss times their probabilities ). Which proves you can never beat a real game when zero is added.

Zero doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Mar 30, 11:15 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 08, 03:46 AM 2018My new quote in my signature is for you guys

Interesting!
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Oct 08, 03:46 AM 2018My new quote in my signature is for you guys

Been looking over this guys posts.... Think i know where he /she is going... Interesting that signature is chosen.. Hmm... What if we look at pigeonhole principle "with different eyes"! So, we distribute first, then find that the end result MUST contain! Anyone keen to work on this new view???
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Mar 31, 11:49 PM 2019
Quote from: mickavelli on Mar 30, 11:15 PM 2019
Interesting!
Been looking over this guys posts.... Think i know where he /she is going... Interesting that signature is chosen.. Hmm... What if we look at pigeonhole principle "with different eyes"! So, we distribute first, then find that the end result MUST contain! Anyone keen to work on this new view???

The pigeon hole principal for roulette is absurd.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Apr 01, 09:14 PM 2019
This positions problem is quite infuriating. rrbb is right that both number sets are completely random and that their "peculiar" relationship is based around the repeat being on recent numbers or positions. I've tested it and not been able to find an exploit. When creating position cycles I did find that it was possible to bet both sides at a cheaper price on some occasions where a number and position happened to both be the same; I need to code that as lines to find out more about that concept as dozens didn't provide enough opportunities.

It doesn't seem like rrbb uses position cycles - only the primary stream. I did find that when both streams (dozen cycles + position cycles) were aligned that CL1 and CL2 occurred above average when a pos cycle began with position 1 - but betting them doesn't seem to result in any edge for some reason.

The only other idea I got is to add the positions stream of the cycle lengths to try to find out "when" the repeat is likely to happen on position 1 (or dynamic low).

rrbb said that his HG is based around "betting multiple partitions at the same time" = betting multiple groups or number sets. He suggested something along the lines of betting a unit on dynamic low and then if win to parlay the +1 unit onto a number, so that the number gets +70 in the realm of 72 number roulette. However, I don't really understand the logic behind parachuting from an EC to a number in the context of positions.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Apr 01, 09:50 PM 2019
Here's how it looks with Number, Dozen Cycle, Dozen Positions, Dozen Cycle Length Positions, and Dozen Position Cycles:

(link:s://i.postimg.cc/pdB65w9m/dp.png)

Next I'll add lines to it and see if there's a right time to parachute (doubtful!)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Apr 02, 02:12 AM 2019
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 01, 09:14 PM 2019I've tested it and not been able to find an exploit.
Me neither. If you play both sets at the same time, you will have more losses, despite the dependency, so it's not the way to use them. It would be too simple....
I don't think I fully understand the concept of parallel games either. I always thought that it should be two different set of numbers like the roulette stream and the ordinal stream introduced in this thread.
But what if you simply switch your bets between uniques and repeats? That could also be parallel game but on a single set?

In a cycle, we know at every stage what is the most likely event to happen statistically, therefore we can play an "ideal" game, but that will also lose. And whether we are betting for unhit or repeat, we are betting on events, that we expect to happen. Therefore we are predicting. It was mentioned quite a few times that we should not bet on events, and should not predict what is most likely happen in the next spin.
I'm trying to think in a different way to eliminate the predicting and come up with a process based method. As rrbb mentioned it is very difficult to grasp, and it was not discussed in detail on the forum.

I maybe over complicate things again, who knows. But I feel I need to do something totally different, because I tested the cycles, statistics, catching repeats etc more than enough times in these years to see that I'm not getting anywhere. At least I have seen for myself what doesn't work :)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Apr 02, 09:47 AM 2019
Have you not considered the possibility that this could all be a very elaborate hoax. Nobody has any proof that anyone has an advantage. They have the perfect excuse not to share any more than they want. If they have the benefit of studying mathematics at a high level, they also have the opportunity to muddy the waters by introducing topics that while valid in themselves, have no practical use in formulating a method to beat the game. Such a method involves looking at immediate past results and formulating a staking system based on those, the kind of thing that roulette system players like to do. It's exactly that, but dressed up in a different way.

Why should anyone do this under false pretences? Well, some people's minds are completely derranged. They enjoy being at the centre of of a web of intrigue. They enjoy planting seeds that lead nowhere and then leaving. Certain things that people who are involved with his have written have proved, to me anyway, that they are frauds.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Apr 02, 10:09 AM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Apr 02, 09:47 AM 2019
Have you not considered the possibility that this could all be a very elaborate hoax. Nobody has any proof that anyone has an advantage. They have the perfect excuse not to share any more than they want. If they have the benefit of studying mathematics at a high level, they also have the opportunity to muddy the waters by introducing topics that while valid in themselves, have no practical use in formulating a method to beat the game. Such a method involves looking at immediate past results and formulating a staking system based on those, the kind of thing that roulette system players like to do. It's exactly that, but dressed up in a different way.

Why should anyone do this under false pretences? Well, some people's minds are completely derranged. They enjoy being at the centre of of a web of intrigue. They enjoy planting seeds that lead nowhere and then leaving. Certain things that people who are involved with his have written have proved, to me anyway, that they are frauds.

You seem hung up on proof so you may want to spend some time here > link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16972.0
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Apr 02, 02:26 PM 2019
Quote from: ati on Apr 02, 02:12 AM 2019
Me neither. If you play both sets at the same time, you will have more losses, despite the dependency, so it's not the way to use them. It would be too simple....
I don't think I fully understand the concept of parallel games either. I always thought that it should be two different set of numbers like the roulette stream and the ordinal stream introduced in this thread.
But what if you simply switch your bets between uniques and repeats? That could also be parallel game but on a single set?

In a cycle, we know at every stage what is the most likely event to happen statistically, therefore we can play an "ideal" game, but that will also lose. And whether we are betting for unhit or repeat, we are betting on events, that we expect to happen. Therefore we are predicting. It was mentioned quite a few times that we should not bet on events, and should not predict what is most likely happen in the next spin.
I'm trying to think in a different way to eliminate the predicting and come up with a process based method. As rrbb mentioned it is very difficult to grasp, and it was not discussed in detail on the forum.

I maybe over complicate things again, who knows. But I feel I need to do something totally different, because I tested the cycles, statistics, catching repeats etc more than enough times in these years to see that I'm not getting anywhere. At least I have seen for myself what doesn't work :)
For there to be any edge +/- then there has to be some kind of prediction. This doesn't mean you can predict the very next spin, but it means enough of the next spins will go your way as to result in edge. rrbb's description of a "process" was extremely vague let alone any description of what form a HG might take. This is very telling. Sure, numbers go from being uniques to repeats and then back to uniques. One could call this a "process", I suppose, but it's tracked via a cycles framework. And If a bet selection is based on uniques or repeats then it has to be based on a trigger within that framework, which involves some kind of predictability - even if it isn't 100% accurate - hence the term Priyanka used (and others) "accuracy of predictions". So not only has a HG been teased upon us - but an even more fanciful mechanism that doesn't use any kind of prediction - all rather far-fetched IMO. Even if there's no evidence for a HG there should at least be evidence for an alternative to prediction - the so called "process"-based method - yet there isn't anything there that can be substantiated. It all just sounds like a load of BS.

Other people then come along like parrots and just quote the same nonsense without adding any further clarity - resulting in the same effect of putting themselves up and other people down - not too dissimilar from a priesthood in control of a holy book.

I'm sure David is a very accomplished mathematician - able to describe many facts relating to number combinations - but in terms of overcoming random his claims are very suspicious. Perhaps he used his expertise to try to beat Roulette in the past, but in the end failed, and finds it too painful to admit the shame of defeat. Maybe he is hoping somebody else can solve it for him. Therefore, David could well be living some kind of false reality where he's this mathematician/gambler/celebrity figure who even has followers like Blueprint/3Nine worshiping the ground he walks upon despite screwing him over with more grandiose/condescending remarks after leading him into a false sense of security:

"I just wanted to test you. This is a tremendous gift, and I just wanted to make sure you are the right person. I never shared this before.
You are indeed no fool, you keep your act together, and most important, you are a decent, responsible person."

Of course no further elaboration was ever given - adding insult to injury - so much for being the chosen one! Show that to a psychology major and I'm sure he would have a field day explaining such arrogance bordering on psychopathy; deliberately vague, creating deliberate confusion and generally messing with people's heads are abusive traits indicating such a disturbance.

Again, I think if Roulette can be beaten then it requires some kind of prediction. David and Priyanka (apparently used different methods for beating Roulette) also mentioned "dependency", which again implies triggers and prediction. I also think variance avoidance and using it to stagger a negative progression cannot yet be completely dismissed, but again that's prediction related. If nobody can even differentiate a process over prediction then we have a serious problem and one should therefore be very weary of taking that person too seriously.

P.S. Dyksexlic's inspiration also seemed to be leading a fanciful life when it came to describing the pigeonhole principle and how we go from A (no pigeons in any holes) to have 2 or more pigeons in one hole - akin to there being some kind of magical process to get from A to B:
link:s://:.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD09xx/EWD980.html

"The colleague that posed me this problem had been challenged with it by one of his graduate students. When we met again he was utterly amazed to hear that the problem could be solved without pen and paper, and when I told him my solution, he looked so puzzled that I am not sure he understood it. "Of course I know the Pigeon-hole Principle, but I never.....", and then wandering thoughts prevented him from completing the sentence. Was he still looking for the objects and the compartments? The way he had been introduced to the principle and all the imaginations that went with it was obviously a barrier to its straight-forward application. I felt that I had had a glimpse of something frightening."

We now know better that throughout history mathematicians love to dazzle and confuse people:
(link:s://pics.me.me/einsteins-relativity-work-is-a-magnificent-mathematical-garb-which-fascinates-6076386.png)

Quote from: Priyanka on May 04, 05:16 AM 2016
Same here. Initially I needed pen and paper but not anymore. It is quite easy once you have grasped it.

Who wants to join the club? All you have to do is carry on quoting and peddling the same nonsense to the next generation...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Apr 02, 02:45 PM 2019
One can quite easily unpick Priyanka when she said that the method gained "increased accuracy in prediction due to statistical anomoly".  She then quoted an example where 75% of closure of a line cycle came from results in the previous 3 lines. This may very well be true but it is useless. The same way as knowing 67% of closure to an EC cycle will come from the first EC in the cycle is useless.

So, certain stuff quoted may be fact, but crucially it does not lead to an exploitable increase in prediction ability.

It is simply fallacy content presented in a slightly different manner.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Apr 02, 02:56 PM 2019
Spot on! Unfortunately, there's just so much mathematical stuff to get through - but none of it has anything to do with random numbers or finding an exploit. It's just facts about number combinations. Yet it makes it so difficult for us to dismiss them because we have to go through all the mathematical corpus first before finding out we are still at break even no matter what kind of game within a game we play. Everything they told us we can verify as being true for the break even game, but when it comes to edge, dependency, and mechanisms other than prediction it's just empty claims with nothing to back them up. Steve was adamant that Priyanka was cheating at his game, and there was a bug found in her spreadsheet that supposedly showed edge based around position 1 bets - proven to be fraud.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Apr 02, 04:25 PM 2019
I belive she also altered server logs on multi player roulette, or at least changed data in the link: communication between her client and the server. You'll have to ask Steve exactly what was done, but she did freely admit she was capable of doing so, and did so.

At the same time her personal account was winning massively. Her justification for altering logs or tampering with communication was apparently nothing to do with her account winning(!) but in actual fact an academic exercise to test on behalf of "a friend"  whether the system could snoop on details of a player's method.

The whole explanation has so many holes and inconsistencies, she'd be convicted on the spot in any court, beyond reasonable doubt. For example, why would Steve want to know details of maths based staking systems when he is continually denouncing such methods and promoting alternatives?

Anyone who would indulge in such activity such as tampering with the communication with a game server has to be viewed with suspicion. Examination of her posts reveal other such inconsistency which point to a less than honest motive.

This is not to say she had considerable mathematical talent and a good way with words too, but I'm very wary of anything she's said given some of the evidence presented.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 02, 04:36 PM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 02, 10:09 AM 2019
You seem hung up on proof so you may want to spend some time here > link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=16972.0

Very good topic for everyone to read.

You can say what you want about Pri but she attempted to have a discussion that might have been able to show you things beyond the table.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 02, 04:38 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Apr 02, 02:45 PM 2019
One can quite easily unpick Priyanka when she said that the method gained "increased accuracy in prediction due to statistical anomoly".  She then quoted an example where 75% of closure of a line cycle came from results in the previous 3 lines. This may very well be true but it is useless. The same way as knowing 67% of closure to an EC cycle will come from the first EC in the cycle is useless.

So, certain stuff quoted may be fact, but crucially it does not lead to an exploitable increase in prediction ability.

It is simply fallacy content presented in a slightly different manner.

Again because you can’t find the correct application to this information.  It doesn’t mean it can’t be done or that it don’t exist.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Apr 02, 04:55 PM 2019
Smoke and mirrors, I'm afraid. She couldn't find an application either, and she alluded to this too, though in somewhat oblique fashion as was her wont. The only good thing appears to be she wasn't directly scamming anyone, the only benefit for her being the intellectual nature of the discussion, and her position within it.

There's nothing wrong with having a discussion about new ideas. However, one should be totally honest about one's own motives and findings. If one isn't then, don't have the discussion, or at least be prepared for the roof to fall in at some point, because you will be exposed.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 02, 04:58 PM 2019
I’ve been trying to think of how I can show proof.  But the only way is to show what I would bet.

If I did that you can reverse engineer it

So it’s really a tough spot 🤷‍â™,️

Then we have ppl like falkor if anything revealed he would post it all over the place and talk about it in the open.

Thought of selling it in a form of a spreadsheet but again can be reverse engineered.

Even had ppl telling me to reveal to them and we can share their winning each time they play.

I’m not in a comfortable position where I can say I’ve made enough money from this to give it up! Honestly!

But i have no reason to lead anyone in a search for something that isn’t real.

So Firefox you can chill with your accusations and ramblings about not having anything solid.  Just no way for me to comfortably prove it without revealing it.

What do I get from that?  Proving to someone behind a computer

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 02, 05:02 PM 2019
So next best thing is to give hints and for those that really want it.  They can put things together and maybe even find something better

And mathematically I don’t even know how to explain why it works.  Which is why pri also mentioned she didn’t want to get into that

It makes almost no sense of why it works.

Things have to be moved around for you to see it.  But again that’s revealing what to do
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Apr 02, 05:04 PM 2019
While I was writing here I already showed up a bit of a new ...
Guys, I can develop your paranoia further.
Imagine Pri, RRBB is a secret casino service.
Which, trying to mislead the players, is trying to attract more customers.
Someday you will believe it. Mind game ...
Even now I believed it, but how about the graphics of authoritative users who have gone this way and saw what it all means. I also try to find him, but I do not forget that I just live.
Do not walk on the leash of gambling.
Regarding trust - for example, personal messages on the forum can be easily viewed by its owner, so the level of confidentiality is also an issue.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Apr 02, 05:19 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 02, 04:58 PM 2019
I’ve been trying to think of how I can show proof.  But the only way is to show what I would bet.

If I did that you can reverse engineer it

So it’s really a tough spot 🤷‍â™,️

Then we have ppl like falkor if anything revealed he would post it all over the place and talk about it in the open.

Thought of selling it in a form of a spreadsheet but again can be reverse engineered.

Even had ppl telling me to reveal to them and we can share their winning each time they play.

I’m not in a comfortable position where I can say I’ve made enough money from this to give it up! Honestly!

But i have no reason to lead anyone in a search for something that isn’t real.

So Firefox you can chill with your accusations and ramblings about not having anything solid.  Just no way for me to comfortably prove it without revealing it.

What do I get from that?  Proving to someone behind a computer
Just answer this - does you system either:
1) "Predict" every spin in the short term
2) "Predict" *most* of the spins during the long term
3) Does not predict at all and uses a "process"

If it's (3) then can you explain how a "process" differs to prediction without revealing the HG?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 02, 05:36 PM 2019
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 02, 05:19 PM 2019
Just answer this - does you system either:
1) "Predict" every spin in the short term
2) "Predict" *most* of the spins during the long term
3) Does not predict at all and uses a "process"

If it's (3) then can you explain how a "process" differs to prediction without revealing the HG?

A process is just the way the method is done

FTL - follow the last can be seen as a process

Each spin your doing the same thing whether you win or lose but it’s just the template your following

Now within the process you have youre decisions whether you bet this or that or no bet

But based on youre process all youre decisions are already set in stone.

No thinking of what to do or play next.

Pri showed a process in her example around page 12 or 13 not sure   

Process is just going with the flow
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Apr 02, 05:55 PM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 02, 05:36 PM 2019
A process is just the way the method is done

FTL - follow the last can be seen as a process

Each spin your doing the same thing whether you win or lose but it’s just the template your following

Now within the process you have youre decisions whether you bet this or that or no bet

But based on youre process all youre decisions are already set in stone.

No thinking of what to do or play next.

Pri showed a process in her example around page 12 or 13 not sure   

Process is just going with the flow
Your decisions must be based on a trigger, right? So they are predictions based on a bias that you expect to manifest in the long term?

If you look at Priyanka's examples there's no way she's doing the same thing continuously. Her games usually stopped after losing a cycle and appeared to involve virtual wins/losses. There were elements of FTL, and she did once mention "glorified FTL". Again, the decisions must represent prediction, as you have to choose the right road. Her bets were structured around the cycle event despite looking quite alien at times, so trying to describe that as anything other than prediction might be a way of trying to throw us off if we are getting close to finding out a winning method?

Was your first system ECs + Numbers? Priyanka and Red seemed to describe the easiest system as betting ECs and then switching (or indeed stitching) to numbers. This came up again in terms of positions discussion. Red said not to abuse that system because it's easily spotted. And I think I might have just found a way to break out of the EC cycle to successfully parachute in the direction of individual numbers with a bias, and it's indeed prediction related so why not come completely clean? I won't hold you to ransom, Mel!   :wink: Only j/k, but it's certainly a positive change to be communicating with you in a down to earth manner for once.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 02, 06:00 PM 2019
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 02, 05:55 PM 2019
Your decisions must be based on a trigger, right? So they are predictions based on a bias that you expect to manifest in the long term?

If you look at Priyanka's examples there's no way she's doing the same thing continuously. Her games usually stopped after losing a cycle and appeared to involve virtual wins/losses. There were elements of FTL, and she did once mention "glorified FTL". Again, the decisions must represent prediction, as you have to choose the right road. Her bets were structured around the cycle event despite looking quite alien at times, so trying to describe that as anything other than prediction might be a way of trying to throw us off if we are getting close to finding out a winning method?

Was your first system ECs + Numbers? Priyanka and Red seemed to describe the easiest system as betting ECs and then switching (or indeed stitching) to numbers. This came up again in terms of positions discussion. Red said not to abuse that system because it's easily spotted. And I think I might have just found a way to break out of the EC cycle to successfully parachute in the direction of individual numbers with a bias, and it's indeed prediction related so why not come completely clean? I won't hold you to ransom, Mel!   :wink: Only j/k, but it's certainly a positive change to be communicating with you in a down to earth manner for once.

No triggers!  And I won’t answer that question

The method red mentioned was ec + lines not on numbers
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: poobear on Apr 03, 02:21 AM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 02, 05:36 PM 2019
But based on youre process all youre decisions are already set in stone.

No thinking of what to do or play next.
Red and Pri both claim they start betting straight away. This makes sense if the betting decisions are already set in stone. So betting can start at any time using our predetermined template?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: redhot on Apr 04, 07:58 AM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 02, 05:02 PM 2019
And mathematically I don’t even know how to explain why it works.  Which is why pri also mentioned she didn’t want to get into that

It makes almost no sense of why it works.

Hi MoneyT,

This seems to be a contradiction to what you've said previously:

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 23, 06:39 PM 2019
If I gave you the answer you would think it’s logical..... that’s how simple it is

How can the bet be logical if you have no idea why it works?

You also mentioned that the advantage is math based:

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Mar 25, 11:09 AM 2019
The advantage is math based and holds.  It’s hard to spot it because of how big and how stacked the odds are against you in this game.

Are you saying that it can be proven mathematically but you don't understand how?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 04, 08:51 AM 2019
Quote from: redhot on Apr 04, 07:58 AM 2019
Hi MoneyT,

This seems to be a contradiction to what you've said previously:

How can the bet be logical if you have no idea why it works?

You also mentioned that the advantage is math based:

Are you saying that it can be proven mathematically but you don't understand how?

Yes sounds like a contradiction

Simple cause the solution you’ve done it before.  The steps have been done in the learning process.  So it’s nothing new to you!

It can be proven once you understand it. But you have to move around the stats and apply them differently to see it.  But you won’t get this part unless you already know what to do.

So maybe the way I said it sounds like a contradiction because of spoke of both before and after....
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Apr 04, 09:17 AM 2019
I see it a little different.

There is a certain point where there is not a formal, mathematical PROOF for it.  No one has that - and I mean no one.  If they did, it would be published.

The funny thing is there is also no formal proof that the game cannot be beaten as demonstrated by the thread I shared earlier. 

It's all rather surreal, isn't it?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Apr 04, 10:43 AM 2019
You must be a roulette millionaire by now, Blueprint.

Do you play the $1000 tables!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Apr 04, 11:01 AM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 04, 09:17 AM 2019
I see it a little different.

There is a certain point where there is not a formal, mathematical PROOF for it.  No one has that - and I mean no one.  If they did, it would be published.

The funny thing is there is also no formal proof that the game cannot be beaten as demonstrated by the thread I shared earlier. 

It's all rather surreal, isn't it?

Yes there most certainly is proof.  Lol! ::)

(link:://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuCpMKD0fJg/UmGhkH6oQDI/AAAAAAAAOcQ/0aPJPGTm1ME/w1200-h630-p-nu/Mike-breaking-bad.gif)
You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Apr 04, 11:08 AM 2019
RTFT
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Apr 04, 11:10 AM 2019
The only thing that's being validated here for both of you (the shitty, outdated browser Firefox and TG) are your own personal beliefs. 

Sad, really. 

I'll go with experience every time over your personal BELIEFS.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Apr 04, 11:33 AM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 04, 11:10 AM 2019
The only thing that's being validated here for both of you (the shitty, outdated browser Firefox and TG) are your own personal beliefs. 

Sad, really. 

I'll go with experience every time over your personal BELIEFS.

Where's your proof that all of the experts, mathematicians, and history are wrong? ::)

By the way, there's also proof that the earth is round. ::)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Apr 04, 11:54 AM 2019
Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 04, 11:08 AM 2019
RTFT

There's no proof in the thread. Only claims.

I think this thread should be relegated to the system players only forum... or maybe the Fantasia forum ... Falkor could supply you a Luck Dragon if you ask him nicely  :twisted:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Apr 04, 01:24 PM 2019
I'm so happy you both have it all figured out!!   Enjoy your RESULTS. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Anastasius on Apr 04, 02:08 PM 2019
Which method  is better. Passion roulete or this method in here that i have no idea what it is
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Apr 04, 03:11 PM 2019
Quote from: Anastasius on Apr 04, 02:08 PM 2019
....or this method in here that i have no idea what it is

It's quite simple. First take the DERIVED  sequence and form a parallel stream.

THINK about dependency. Form cycles in the real streams and THINK about the FACTS about the closure of those cycles. THINK how the cycles are DEFINED. THINK of innovative ways in which parallel but DEPENDENT universes might be DERIVED.

Do not WAIT and do not PREDICT. What DEPENDENCIES are there between real and imaginary streams?

How can you focus on more than 37 numbers by PARACHUTING onto virtual numbers and get a certain PROFIT because of DEPENDENCY on a parallel real stream? THINK and work it out for hours with a PENCIL AND PAPER and you will see the way.

You can view it as different UNIVERSES. Maybe not with numbers but with apples and pears. Do you want apples or pears? Maybe you want apples but you only get pears. Can you THINK of a way to catch more apples? What are the FACTS? What are the distances between the objects in the derived stream and the real stream? Are they friends, or are they strangers?

Once again do not PREDICT. Do not WAIT. Do not HEDGE. THINK of a way that DEPENDENCY must give you the fruit that you want.

Only by THINKING about the FACTS  will you EARN the answer.

If I said any more I'd be giving it away. So when you find it, be sure to GUARD it closely.

Good luck in your QUEST!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 04, 07:04 PM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Apr 04, 03:11 PM 2019
It's quite simple. First take the DERIVED  sequence and form a parallel stream.

THINK about dependency. Form cycles in the real streams and THINK about the FACTS about the closure of those cycles. THINK how the cycles are DEFINED. THINK of innovative ways in which parallel but DEPENDENT universes might be DERIVED.

Do not WAIT and do not PREDICT. What DEPENDENCIES are there between real and imaginary streams?

How can you focus on more than 37 numbers by PARACHUTING onto virtual numbers and get a certain PROFIT because of DEPENDENCY on a parallel real stream? THINK and work it out for hours with a PENCIL AND PAPER and you will see the way.

You can view it as different UNIVERSES. Maybe not with numbers but with apples and pears. Do you want apples or pears? Maybe you want apples but you only get pears. Can you THINK of a way to catch more apples? What are the FACTS? What are the distances between the objects in the derived stream and the real stream? Are they friends, or are they strangers?

Once again do not PREDICT. Do not WAIT. Do not HEDGE. THINK of a way that DEPENDENCY must give you the fruit that you want.

Only by THINKING about the FACTS  will you EARN the answer.

If I said any more I'd be giving it away. So when you find it, be sure to GUARD it closely.

Good luck in your QUEST!

Nice wrap up, I couldn’t have done it any better 👏👏👏👏👏

Any questions or concerns regarding this topic feel free to ask Firefox.  He has just graduated to mentor status
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: -Katalyst- on Apr 04, 11:37 PM 2019
Quote from: Anastasius on Apr 04, 02:08 PM 2019
Which method  is better. Passion roulete or this method in here that i have no idea what it is

Hi Anastasius - what chance have you got to understand this if the AP/VB pros don't seem to grasp it or are well and truly over it in their attempts to entertain the possible notion that there are other ways  :question:

**learned scholars usually aren't the ones that have the break through because of their conditioned way of thinking - therein lies the problem!
""science progresses one funeral at a time"

What Money & Bluey are reigniting/resharing is more than adequate for members to go, investigate and find their own way - unfortunately peeps have to let go of the old way of thinking to even cross those boundaries of ‘assumptions’ or so called reality
- for majority on here - it ain’t going to happen!

No dramas - each to their own   ;)

-Best-
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: The General on Apr 05, 12:41 AM 2019
Quote from: -Katalyst- on Apr 04, 11:37 PM 2019
Hi Anastasius - what chance have you got to understand this if the AP/VB pros don't seem to grasp it or are well and truly over it in their attempts to entertain the possible notion that there are other ways  :question:

**learned scholars usually aren't the ones that have the break through because of their conditioned way of thinking - therein lies the problem!
""science progresses one funeral at a time"

What Money & Bluey are reigniting/resharing is more than adequate for members to go, investigate and find their own way - unfortunately peeps have to let go of the old way of thinking to even cross those boundaries of ‘assumptions’ or so called reality
- for majority on here - it ain’t going to happen!

No dramas - each to their own   ;)

-Best-

(link:s://media.aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/LARSON_1986_Ship_of_fools_web.jpg)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: redhot on Apr 05, 12:46 AM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 04, 08:51 AM 2019
Yes sounds like a contradiction

Simple cause the solution you’ve done it before.  The steps have been done in the learning process.  So it’s nothing new to you!

It can be proven once you understand it. But you have to move around the stats and apply them differently to see it.  But you won’t get this part unless you already know what to do.

So maybe the way I said it sounds like a contradiction because of spoke of both before and after....

Thanks MoneyT,

You mentioned moving around the stats and applying them differently, can you give an example of this?

The problem with the stats is that when you break them down and look at them, they're really just the expected values based on probability, no matter how appealing they may sound (defining dozen will be the repeat 60% etc...)

Expected = break even = no edge.

I'm struggling to see a way around this

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Apr 05, 02:05 AM 2019
Quote from: redhot on Apr 05, 12:46 AM 2019The problem with the stats is that when you break them down and look at them, they're really just the expected values based on probability, no matter how appealing they may sound (defining dozen will be the repeat 60% etc...)
I think the defining element being the same as the previous is a bit misunderstood. It is the same more than 50% because of cycle length 1's. Every time you remove CL1's, the statistic turn the opposite and the defining element will be more likely to be different from the previous. Even Priyanka asked someone long time ago to try and remove CL1's, and notice the difference.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: -Katalyst- on Apr 05, 02:11 AM 2019
Quote from: The General on Apr 05, 12:41 AM 2019
(link:s://media.aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/LARSON_1986_Ship_of_fools_web.jpg)

Too right! - something like that!  :thumbsup:

Rich Fool - Rich Idiot  :smile:
-Best-
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Joe on Apr 05, 04:26 AM 2019
Quote from: Firefox on Apr 04, 03:11 PM 2019It's quite simple. First take the DERIVED  sequence and form a parallel stream.

THINK about dependency. Form cycles in the real streams and THINK about the FACTS about the closure of those cycles. THINK how the cycles are DEFINED. THINK of innovative ways in which parallel but DEPENDENT universes might be DERIVED.

Do not WAIT and do not PREDICT. What DEPENDENCIES are there between real and imaginary streams?

How can you focus on more than 37 numbers by PARACHUTING onto virtual numbers and get a certain PROFIT because of DEPENDENCY on a parallel real stream? THINK and work it out for hours with a PENCIL AND PAPER and you will see the way.

You can view it as different UNIVERSES. Maybe not with numbers but with apples and pears. Do you want apples or pears? Maybe you want apples but you only get pears. Can you THINK of a way to catch more apples? What are the FACTS? What are the distances between the objects in the derived stream and the real stream? Are they friends, or are they strangers?

Once again do not PREDICT. Do not WAIT. Do not HEDGE. THINK of a way that DEPENDENCY must give you the fruit that you want.

Only by THINKING about the FACTS  will you EARN the answer.

If I said any more I'd be giving it away. So when you find it, be sure to GUARD it closely.

Good luck in your QUEST!

Interesting post, but is it your own or are you just taking the mick? It seems odd from someone who, judging from prior posts, believes that all systems are bunk.  ???
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Apr 05, 06:17 AM 2019
Quote from: ati on Apr 05, 02:05 AM 2019
I think the defining element being the same as the previous is a bit misunderstood. It is the same more than 50% because of cycle length 1's. Every time you remove CL1's, the statistic turn the opposite and the defining element will be more likely to be different from the previous. Even Priyanka asked someone long time ago to try and remove CL1's, and notice the difference.

I think we can link the defining element as follows:
with a cycle length of 1 - 100%,
2 - 50%,
3 - 33%.
Plus, we have statistics on the length of the cycle, is it possible to calculate all this by contacting the statistics?
I may be wrong, but correct me if this is not correct - 1st element W, 2 - L / W (breakeven), 3 - L
But the disadvantage is that we do not know which cycle to appear and this is again a guessing game.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: falkor2k15 on Apr 05, 02:39 PM 2019
Quote from: ati on Apr 05, 02:05 AM 2019
I think the defining element being the same as the previous is a bit misunderstood. It is the same more than 50% because of cycle length 1's. Every time you remove CL1's, the statistic turn the opposite and the defining element will be more likely to be different from the previous. Even Priyanka asked someone long time ago to try and remove CL1's, and notice the difference.
No big difference to notice! Nothing enlightening about choosing particular options during a cycle. Was previously discussed here (link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=25944.30). Why would these targets be favorable over any others? Everything breaks even as you know:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/bYQxw47S/dcycles.png)
So no original ideas here. 3.5 years later nothing has changed. All these different forms of smoke and mirrors are all part of the same break even game - different ways of dressing up the same turd.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: precogmiles on Apr 05, 03:31 PM 2019
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 05, 02:39 PM 2019
No big difference to notice! Nothing enlightening about choosing particular options during a cycle. Was previously discussed here (link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=25944.30). Why would these targets be favorable over any others? Everything breaks even as you know:
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/bYQxw47S/dcycles.png)
So no original ideas here. 3.5 years later nothing has changed. All these different forms of smoke and mirrors are all part of the same break even game - different ways of dressing up the same turd.

Bravo!! I appreciate you persevered for 3.5 years. Time well spent atleast you now know that AP is the only way to play.

your options are:

visual ballistics/computers, dealer signature or precognition

take your pick
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Apr 06, 08:06 AM 2019
Quote from: falkor2k15 on Apr 05, 02:39 PM 2019No big difference to notice! Nothing enlightening about choosing particular options during a cycle.
I don't think that's true. Just create a system with random flat bets, and create another system where you consider cycles, positions and statistics before the bets. There is a noticeable difference. I agree that if you break down the cycle stats, the expected return is zero, but the tests show different results.

Please see below a chart of a typical follow the last H/L EC bet, and below that a chart for a simple system where I track dozen cycles, but only bet on H/L, based on what happens in the cycle. Both flat bet for 30K spins.
It has and extremely low win rate, and I don't know how to make it better, but the variance can be much smaller when we use cycles in our play I think.

(link:://pichost.org/images/2019/04/06/ec98544.jpg)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Apr 06, 04:11 PM 2019
So are you trying to track when a dozen cycle is defined by say dozen 1 or 3, and then betting high or low as a dependent EC on a high or low dozen completing the cycle? If so, then what happens if the cycle is defined by dozen 2, is that a no bet?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Firefox on Apr 06, 05:45 PM 2019
Not the same, but Falkor's example of playing two positions on dozens and line cycles, and winning when both lose independently:

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20445.0
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Apr 06, 06:30 PM 2019
I didn't save the file, but in this specific test when a cycle ended, I always bet the last high or low EC. So if the defining element in the cycle was the 2nd dozen, and a straight number was 13 to 18 then the next bet was on low, if 19 to 24, the next bet was high. There is no good reason why, I also tried betting the opposite, but that gave negative result. So I can be accused of curve fitting :)
This is not a winning method, it only uses cycles and statistics. In the next 30K spins it could go down to zero or negative.
I just tried to show that making betting decisions based on cycles can somewhat reduce variance.
Nick posted something similar in the random thoughts thread a couple years ago.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Joe on Apr 07, 05:32 AM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 04, 07:04 PM 2019
Nice wrap up, I couldn’t have done it any better 👏👏👏👏👏

Any questions or concerns regarding this topic feel free to ask Firefox.  He has just graduated to mentor status

Firefox was just yanking your chain. He doesn't really believe what he wrote.  >:D
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 07, 06:19 AM 2019
Quote from: Joe on Apr 07, 05:32 AM 2019
Firefox was just yanking your chain. He doesn't really believe what he wrote.  >:D

I know I was being sarcastic  :lol:

Plenty of the stuff he said made no sense

“THINK of innovative ways in which parallel but DEPENDENT universes might be DERIVED.”

“You can view it as different UNIVERSES. Maybe not with numbers but with apples and pears”


😂🤣
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Anastasius on Apr 07, 09:01 AM 2019
Keep doing 30k tests it looks good.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Apr 08, 02:21 AM 2019
I'm having fun playing with the stats / new table... Been looking at Positions etc like dozens...
For example Double streets..

Pos 1 + 2 = Doz 1
Pos 3 + 4 = Doz 2
Pos 5 + 6 = Doz 3

For example...

Result + Dynamic stream

2      213456
4      421356
1      142356
5      514236
3      351426
4      435126
2      243516
6      624351
5      562431
3      356241
1      135624
1      135624
4      413562

Derived  ---> Converted to Dozens

2   --->  1
4   --->  2
3   --->  2
5   --->  3
5   --->  3
4   --->  2
5   --->  3
6   --->  3
5   --->  3
5   --->  3
6   --->  3
1   --->  1
6   --->  3


Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 08, 02:45 AM 2019
Quote from: mickavelli on Apr 08, 02:21 AM 2019
I'm having fun playing with the stats / new table... Been looking at Positions etc like dozens...
For example Double streets..

Pos 1 + 2 = Doz 1
Pos 3 + 4 = Doz 2
Pos 5 + 6 = Doz 3

For example...

Result + Dynamic stream

2      213456
4      421356
1      142356
5      514236
3      351426
4      435126
2      243516
6      624351
5      562431
3      356241
1      135624
1      135624
4      413562

Derived  ---> Converted to Dozens

2   --->  1
4   --->  2
3   --->  2
5   --->  3
5   --->  3
4   --->  2
5   --->  3
6   --->  3
5   --->  3
5   --->  3
6   --->  3
1   --->  1
6   --->  3

Nice post continue working behind the scenes  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: redhot on Apr 08, 05:15 AM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 08, 02:45 AM 2019
Nice post continue working behind the scenes  :thumbsup:

Hey MoneyT,

Do you actually use the derived stream in play or is it just a useful learning tool?

Using it in live play at the casino with pen and paper must be quite difficult I'd imagine...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blood Angel on Apr 08, 07:07 AM 2019
Quote from: mickavelli on Apr 08, 02:21 AM 2019
I'm having fun playing with the stats / new table... Been looking at Positions etc like dozens...
For example Double streets..

Pos 1 + 2 = Doz 1
Pos 3 + 4 = Doz 2
Pos 5 + 6 = Doz 3

For example...

Result + Dynamic stream

2      213456
4      421356
1      142356
5      514236
3      351426
4      435126
2      243516
6      624351
5      562431
3      356241
1      135624
1      135624
4      413562

Derived  ---> Converted to Dozens

2   --->  1
4   --->  2
3   --->  2
5   --->  3
5   --->  3
4   --->  2
5   --->  3
6   --->  3
5   --->  3
5   --->  3
6   --->  3
1   --->  1
6   --->  3
Hi, I’m unsure how you worked out the derived dozens.. can you please explain? 
Thanks BA
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blood Angel on Apr 08, 07:28 AM 2019
Quote from: Blood Angel on Apr 08, 07:07 AM 2019
Hi, I’m unsure how you worked out the derived dozens.. can you please explain? 
Thanks BA
I didn’t ask the question very well.. I get that DS 3 for example is derived as D2 etc. What I don’t understand is that the
numbers you quote as DS don’t match the first set.. sorry ok my mobile so not easy to show.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: redhot on Apr 08, 08:50 AM 2019
Quote from: Blood Angel on Apr 08, 07:28 AM 2019
I didn’t ask the question very well.. I get that DS 3 for example is derived as D2 etc. What I don’t understand is that the
numbers you quote as DS don’t match the first set.. sorry ok my mobile so not easy to show.

The derived number relates to the position of the result in the dynamic stream

For example, on spin 3 the result is DS 1. This is in position 3 of the dynamic stream so the derived result is 3.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Apr 08, 09:56 AM 2019
Quote from: redhot on Apr 08, 08:50 AM 2019For example, on spin 3 the result is DS 1. This is in position 3 of the dynamic stream so the derived result is 3.
This ^^^

I'm just trying some things mate. Its just another stream you could play. You could also do the same with the 12 streets grouped into 3 etc and play those like dozens... Actually i was thinking we could create 6 groups of 2 that each add up to 13...
Like I said just trying things mate! It's a shame this thread has so many takeaways, yet nobody wants to brainstorm!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blood Angel on Apr 08, 11:07 AM 2019
Quote from: redhot on Apr 08, 08:50 AM 2019
The derived number relates to the position of the result in the dynamic stream

For example, on spin 3 the result is DS 1. This is in position 3 of the dynamic stream so the derived result is 3.
Got it thank you.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blood Angel on Apr 08, 11:09 AM 2019
Quote from: mickavelli on Apr 08, 09:56 AM 2019
This ^^^

I'm just trying some things mate. Its just another stream you could play. You could also do the same with the 12 streets grouped into 3 etc and play those like dozens... Actually i was thinking we could create 6 groups of 2 that each add up to 13...
Like I said just trying things mate! It's a shame this thread has so many takeaways, yet nobody wants to brainstorm!
Hi mate. I understand these are just ideas. I need to understand the ideas to try and help as I’ve been looking at this thread for a while. Thanks for your input :)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Apr 08, 01:11 PM 2019
Quote from: mickavelli on Apr 08, 09:56 AM 2019It's a shame this thread has so many takeaways, yet nobody wants to brainstorm!

Why would that be a good idea? 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Apr 08, 07:11 PM 2019
Quote from: Blood Angel on Apr 08, 11:07 AM 2019Got it thank you.
Cool mate :thumbsup:

Quote from: Blueprint on Apr 08, 01:11 PM 2019Why would that be a good idea? 
Because n+1 is better than none mate.  Anyway, this whole thread was started with this quote.. "Now lets see if we can come up with some kind of relation (which is indeed based on the pigeonhole principle...)
I don't know what everyone else is exploring but this is what i'm working on mate... So who here has played around with the uniques between repeats that keep getting talked about???? Got some ideas
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Apr 08, 07:40 PM 2019
Quote from: mickavelli on Apr 08, 07:11 PM 2019
Cool mate :thumbsup:
Because n+1 is better than none mate.  Anyway, this whole thread was started with this quote.. "Now lets see if we can come up with some kind of relation (which is indeed based on the pigeonhole principle...)
I don't know what everyone else is exploring but this is what i'm working on mate... So who here has played around with the uniques between repeats that keep getting talked about???? Got some ideas

Millions of ideas.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Apr 08, 08:03 PM 2019
I reckon we need to add some things to this thread and start with working on them....

"For all who had been following, you would have by now realized that while non-random is good, we often get into a dead-run. An example of a dead-run is below where you are trying to play for a dozen to repeat in 4 spins, you get sequences like 1231, 2311, 3121 etc. As Drazen and Turner rightly pointed out, there is still an opportunity to get these sequences over and over and over again that you can get into a deep hole. The key is how can overcome these dead-runs with a parallel bet or a parallel selection, which is the alternate game played on its own will give you a negative result, but played together will  make this dead-heats into winning combination. "



Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blood Angel on Apr 09, 05:28 AM 2019
Hi MoneyT101,

Do you always end that session when you reach +1 ?
Cheers BA
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Apr 10, 12:22 PM 2019
How to prove or disprove the paradox.
There is a bit of math, my level does not allow to understand, but it can be useful for someone.
Interest part - Probabilistic or non-probabilistic induction
The Raven Paradox - link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: MoneyT101 on Apr 10, 07:39 PM 2019
Quote from: Blood Angel on Apr 09, 05:28 AM 2019
Hi MoneyT101,

Do you always end that session when you reach +1 ?
Cheers BA

No and yes....

Yes I played a game where I win each session on +1.  But the problem is I had to wait a lot for my betting opportunities to show up.  Even tho it was short under 12 spins.  Still don’t like the waiting.

So I did some more digging and found a way to play every single spin and just go with the flow but never having to use progression.

Here are results using streets with 200 spins... I didn’t add the zero so should be a Lower
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blood Angel on Apr 11, 12:47 AM 2019
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Apr 10, 07:39 PM 2019
No and yes....

Yes I played a game where I win each session on +1.  But the problem is I had to wait a lot for my betting opportunities to show up.  Even tho it was short under 12 spins.  Still don’t like the waiting.

So I did some more digging and found a way to play every single spin and just go with the flow but never having to use progression.

Here are results using streets with 200 spins... I didn’t add the zero so should be a Lower

Nice going! Thank you

BA
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Apr 11, 02:34 PM 2019
What is the thickest hint you could give us, given our inflamed brain.
Dyslexic mentioned that understanding and observation should help to understand what is happening.
Maybe we do not have this microscope that would see it all at x1000000 magnification, only one thing that people have been looking for for 3-4 years, and she didn’t bring them anything, says so. Sorry it was my anger
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Hairyballs on Apr 12, 11:12 AM 2019
Thickest hint Money has given is he has not considered zero in the example he has posted. Considering these are 200 spin data the moment he adds zero into the mix the result is going to go either side of break even. 

Also just wondering whether Money plays with actual money or is it all only on paper?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Apr 22, 09:19 AM 2019
in alchemy, the Great Work is the process of processing and transformation of raw material, with the aim of obtaining a philosopher's stone. This process consists of three different operations: nigredo, albedo and rubedo. From the first stage, to the last, to the opening, this is a sequential purification of the material and psyche from waste, which hinders the spiritual development of a human being.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Jun 27, 04:54 PM 2019
I spent the last two days testing a concept that basically relies on some Pri theories.
Seemingly, they do not give a visible advantage, and in the combination they create an edge, though temporary.
I used EC and 1 dozen.
You do not play every spin but just wait for the appropriate order dozens
after about 4k spins and around 1k triggers, and was up 120 units.
the results grew very regularly, unfortunately up to 6k spins dropped to 60 units, it seems to me that zero and HE, it began to play its role.

Someone has made any progress in achieving profits in longrun, thanks to the concept included in this topic, whether long-term results have driven to the values eaten by HE
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Jun 27, 05:02 PM 2019
I now look at the graph that ATI added a few pages earlier and maybe I gave up quickly and I thought that after 6k spins the trend will be minus, and maybe it was just a pullback and the chart would start to grow again, it's hard to define the edge, even I do not know how to count it, based only on manual tests that are carried out in shortrun.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Jun 28, 05:14 AM 2019
I'm spending hours almost every day to study and test the concepts, so I may have been able to achieve a small edge over no zero games a couple of times, but what I'm looking for is a steadily increasing linear chart. That would be the true edge.
In some tests the overall profit goes up over many thousands of spins, but there are always periods where it breaks even or loses a bit for 1-2K spins, and in my view that's not a winning system. In a casino with zero added, who would want to play 2K spins just to break even or lose?

My problem is that I cannot simulate my "advanced" ideas, when there are various betting decisions involved, depending on the situations.
For example, let's say I'm tracking dozens, and at a point my simulation should check what was the previous cycle length, which dozens have shown so far in the current cycle, within those dozens what are the most recent unique numbers, then decide what to bet on and calculate the possible win/loss amounts. There is no way I could do something like this in excel.
And I'm not sure if it makes sense to over-complicate things this much, you could never do these calculations in a real casino. Without a tracker it would be hard enough just to keep track of cycles and defining elements.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Joe on Jun 28, 06:55 AM 2019
Quote from: ati on Jun 28, 05:14 AM 2019And I'm not sure if it makes sense to over-complicate things this much, you could never do these calculations in a real casino. Without a tracker it would be hard enough just to keep track of cycles and defining elements.

Well I don't think it makes much sense to limit systems to what you can do in a real casino, if you can play online.  ;)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Jun 28, 07:29 AM 2019
I just see it.
Zero will probably kill this strategy.
I am surprised and, after 10 k spins, I am still a plus on the wheel with zero
But unfortunately it is only +34 units
And the profit no longer grows.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Jun 28, 07:38 AM 2019
However, it seems to me that the wheel with La partage rule.
It is within the reach of the profit
My trigger is simple, completely to play in the BM casino.
Only here is the time, if it would work rather in the game, RNG enters, otherwise the game will take ages.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Jun 28, 08:17 AM 2019
ATI
Now looking at your chart.
If you still have a file with settings, and you want to optimize the results, playing EC add the simplest 3 step positive progressions 1-2-4, after losing always return to 1 unit.

I would still be grateful how exactly you described how you selected the High / Low choice.
Because unfortunately I do not understand it
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Jun 28, 01:29 PM 2019
I don't use progression anymore, only flat bet.
Unfortunately I don't have the file anymore. Don't get deluded by that chart, it looks nice but that could not have been a long term winner. And you can notice what I mentioned in my previous post, there can be periods where it breaks even for 5000 or more spins.

I'm sure that the first bet after a dozen cycle ended was on the last high or low, and it always showed positive result, but now I tried to replicate it and it isn't different from any random bet.
I have attached the excel sheet, it isn't really useful, but you might be able to modify it to have better results. It only bets on high or low after a dozen cycle ended.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Jun 28, 02:09 PM 2019
I might add that I'm well aware that this kind of play is not going to be a long term winner I'm looking for, but it's a fun activity for me to play with numbers in excel and see different test results.
My systems always missing some key elements that a winning system must consist.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Jun 28, 06:19 PM 2019
Some time ago I did simulations on a wheel without a zero
to confirm the theories that streets in the first half of the cycle are more likely to hit.
I played just the last 5 streets, I optimized the minimum edge, positive progression 1-2-4-8
and I had these results
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ozon on Jun 28, 06:27 PM 2019
Unfortunately, after adding zero, the results were negative.
I thought recently whether there would be a difference, adding to automatic play only and always the last 5 streets to join cycles, that is after hit starting from one street, play up to 5 streets and how not to hit play the last 5 streets to hit.
Unfortunately, then it would be hard to get anymore by positive progressions.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: saihtaM on Sep 21, 11:26 AM 2020
Hello,

Quote from: rrbb on May 30, 08:46 AM 2016For example: when we have a repeat in the first set on the straights, in the second set, this will occur in 99.7% of the cases on "low". Or, even stricter: a repeat on straights in one system will will occur in the second system for 99.99994% on the first two dozens.

There is another way to achieve an outcome like this.


I haven't found a way to exploit this (or to beat roulette), but it certainly shows that we

a) don't have to look at past spins in order to create "cycles", and
b) that we can link them to certain betting positions by chosing our numbers accordingly.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: bbb128 on Apr 18, 12:58 AM 2021
 thank you Priyanka for helping us to "open" our eyes.  :ooh:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Jul 10, 02:26 PM 2021
Quote from: saihtaM on Sep 21, 11:26 AM 2020There is no need for an actual repeat in the numbers spun in order to get the corresponding "cycle" lenghts. Any number spun can fulfill that role depending on the environment we create.

Hey saihtam,
I see your view...
So instead of....
A- Roulette choosing
B- We bet
C- Roulette determining

You are now....
A- Choosing
B- Roulette determining

And your creating cycles off how many numbers u had to choose at random before getting a hit....

But on your next example your Low and the way rrbb explained Low are different... you are betting the Low numberset on the layout no different to your first example because roulette knows no order nor length,   and rrbb is showing statistically where a repeat happens when u create a low from previous spins

I was thinking though for your cycles of how many #'s do I have to bet for a hit, u could also look at the opposite for an unhit, so...
Bet 35 numbers/ hit
Bet 34 numbers/ hit
Bet 33 numbers/ hit
Bet 32 numbers/No hit = cycle length 4
Thanks



Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Jul 16, 04:27 PM 2021
Quote from: saihtaM on Sep 21, 11:26 AM 2020
I haven't found a way to exploit this (or to beat roulette), but it certainly shows that we

a) don't have to look at past spins in order to create "cycles", and
b) that we can link them to certain betting positions by chosing our numbers accordingly.

Thanks for the great ideas Red.  ;)

Quote from: mickavelli on Jul 10, 02:26 PM 2021I was thinking though for your cycles of how many #'s do I have to bet for a hit, u could also look at the opposite for an unhit, so...
Bet 35 numbers/ hit
Bet 34 numbers/ hit
Bet 33 numbers/ hit
Bet 32 numbers/No hit = cycle length 4

Yeah, there are probably many ways to create and define cycles. We could also rearrange the number in our cycle, after all past spins have no value, right?

Let's say for example the random stream we get is:

1
29
12
11
30
32
3
25
11

But after every spin, we could rearrange the numbers in an ascending order, so at the end the cycle would look like this:

1
3
11
12
25
29
30
32
11

We could also rearrange the numbers on the table after every spin, to create a desired pattern. But the issue is that the patterns would only be there after the spin and after our rearrangement, so we wouldn't be able to bet on them.

The question is, does this messing around with cycles have any use? I don't think so. Or at least I couldn't find any. All of this leads to waiting for a repeat or a trigger. So what exactly are the events or the repeats that we are looking for?
Perhaps we need to forget the numbers and not wait for them to repeat.
If I'm not mistaken the famous Dyk said that a repeating number is not an event we need to look for. Every spin is an event, and how you define those events completely depends on your perspective. The same event is a repeat and a unique at the same time. There are always opposite sides. So what else can repeat, other than numbers?
There has to be something, the HG supposed to be based on the pigeonhole principle, which is based on repeats.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Jul 16, 09:35 PM 2021
Agree there are endless ways to create games and cycles.......

Quote from: ati on Jul 16, 04:27 PM 2021The same event is a repeat and a unique at the same time.

I think your talking about 1 stream(straights) repeating and at the same time 1 stream(positions) staying unique??
And vica versa???
You could combine a repeat and a unique into 1 stream let me show u how with another view haha....
Just thinking out loud lol...
So let's say a high number is placed at the beginning of the sequence....
For every high number placed in Low positions, a Low number is forced into the high
But what is the difference between the High number on Low and the Low number on High?? Like the guy above said roulette doesn't know what u have labelled a hit...
Shouldn't the low numbers on high also hit 99% of the time before all high numbers are moved to low??
So u could also pair these... A high straight is paired with the low straight it forces into high.....
It is no different to chasing straight  repeats on low....
But now u have 1 stream and when u have a unique(straights) u also have a hit on repeat....
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Jul 19, 10:27 AM 2021
Quote from: saihtaM on Sep 21, 11:26 AM 2020b) that we can link them to certain betting positions by chosing our numbers accordingly.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Jul 24, 02:58 PM 2021
Quote from: mickavelli on Jul 16, 09:35 PM 2021I think your talking about 1 stream(straights) repeating and at the same time 1 stream(positions) staying unique??

No, that's not what I mean. Look at the other topic by rrbb, when he suggested that we should look into "processes". We can always have two sides or groups of numbers. For example the hit and the unhit numbers in a cycle. Those are two sides, after a spin event we get a new number, which we call unique and move it to the "hit group". But there is an other perspective, if you look at unhit number as a group, that group repeated when we got a unique number. So the same event is an unhit and a repeat, relative to your point of view.
The question should probably be, how do we cover both sides at the same time? I have had lots of ideas but in many years I couldn't come up with a working betting plan. But I will never give up.

Quote from: mickavelli on Jul 16, 09:35 PM 2021But what is the difference between the High number on Low and the Low number on High?? Like the guy above said roulette doesn't know what u have labelled a hit...
Shouldn't the low numbers on high also hit 99% of the time before all high numbers are moved to low??

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. You are talking about both Low (1-18) and High (19-36) numbers and low and high numbers (positions) in the dynamic set, right?
I personally don't see the use of the dynamic set and the derived set that were introduced in this thread. I have spent hundreds of hours working with these, and I find this a very nice way to see how random streams behave, how uniques and repeats are statistically connected, etc. But do we really need all that information? Every cycle supposed to be a new beginning and it shouldn't matter what numbers came 5 cycles ago and in what order.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: mickavelli on Jul 28, 03:58 AM 2021
Quote from: ati on Jul 24, 02:58 PM 2021Look at the other topic by rrbb, when he suggested that we should look into "processes". We can always have two sides or groups of numbers. For example the hit and the unhit numbers in a cycle. Those are two sides, after a spin event we get a new number, which we call unique and move it to the "hit group". But there is an other perspective, if you look at unhit number as a group, that group repeated when we got a unique number. So the same event is an unhit and a repeat,
Cheers Ati , oh my bad I see what your saying, I've looked at the hit and unhit,  quick observation though.... the way u explained = "Hit" can never actually win the first cycle...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Jul 28, 07:24 AM 2021
Yeah, these terms are a bit confusing. In this case a "hit" doesn't mean a win, just a number that already appeared within the cycle.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Jul 28, 07:47 AM 2021
Quote from: saihtaM on Sep 21, 11:26 AM 2020a) don't have to look at past spins in order to create "cycles"

This got me thinking, what if we choose only the starting number of a cycle, then write down whatever roulette gives us? Would the statistic that the repeat will happen on the same EC more than 50% still hold?
So if we only choose red numbers for our first spins, would then the repeat happen also on red more the 50% of the time? Or is this structure only exists if we have one long continuous random stream?

It's just a thought. Even if it held, it wouldn't be any more useful than a totally random stream.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Aug 01, 08:56 AM 2021
Why would it matter where first came from?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: ati on Aug 01, 12:54 PM 2021
I'm unsure. The view introduced in this topic and most things shown by Priyanka is based on cycles and statistics that are defined by the repeats. If we ignored the positions where the repeats happened and always made up are own position as the first element in a new cycle, the statistics would still hold. So it makes me question what use all of these have if any.

For example, without looking at past results and doing any spins, I could just say every time that the first dozen in a cycle is dozen 1. In this case >60% of dozen repeats would happen on dozen 1.
I think this proves that the repeat statistics aren't really dependent on actual past results. The repeats can statistically depend even on virtual results.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Aug 01, 01:36 PM 2021
It will hold as soon as you designate something as “first” much like it will hold no matter what you determine as a half.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Drazen on Sep 14, 01:52 PM 2021
Quote from: ati on Jul 16, 04:27 PM 2021
There has to be something, the HG supposed to be based on the pigeonhole principle, which is based on repeats.

Oh where, oh where is the trick? :)

The pigeonhole principle is cool indeed. But how to exploit it? Do we understand the mechanism that we need (want) to exploit?

I mean Pigeonhole principle (so as for example Erdos-Szekeres theorem and many other in Ramsey theory) works only under the assumption there are no repeats. So the sequence has to be unique. As soon as the possibility of a repeat comes into the game, it won't hold anymore....

So if we would have roulette numbers coming out without the possibility of a repeat, we could devise a betting plan (set in stone) that would win every single time and in some cases even way before all options would be spun... But as we know everything in roulette can repeat: numbers, cycles, distances...

QuoteSuppose I have a big bag with 37 numbered balls (each ball has a different number from 0 to 36 printed on it). I can't see the balls in the bag. They are 'randomly' mixed up.

I place my hand in the bag to pick up a ball, then write the number on a piece of paper. Then I put the ball back in the bag, shake the bag and mix the 37 numbers, put my hand back in the bag and choose another ball, write the number on the paper again and put the ball back in the bag, and so on

I wonder what Dyksexlic was trying to convey with this example? How do we create and bet in roulette such a sequence, if at all?

So what is that what we want to get with PHP in roulette? Is PhP used as a part of a betting mechanism or to give us something else?  :question:

Cheers

Drazen


Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: nottophammer on Sep 14, 04:30 PM 2021
Yeah non-hit and repeats
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: nottophammer on Sep 15, 06:21 AM 2021
You make the decisions
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Sep 15, 06:57 AM 2021
If one element in the first set is larger than another element in the first set, then the element in the second set that is mapped to the larger element will be larger than the element in the second set that is mapped to the smaller element.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Sep 16, 06:14 AM 2021
Apparently I can't post anything due to "foul language" in a post of an image.  Hmm. 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Blueprint on Sep 16, 06:26 AM 2021
Quote from: Drazen on Sep 14, 01:52 PM 2021Oh where, oh where is the trick?

"There is no magic involved." - rrbb
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: nichedelico on Sep 17, 03:52 AM 2021
This message is from Cht

The pigeonhole principle translated into math when applied to roulette outcomes is:

nlog2(1/37)+.....+nlog2(1/(37-(r+1))+.....nlog2(1/(x-r+1))+.....nlog2(1/2)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: CarpeDiem on Aug 20, 12:28 PM 2022
If you are only observing the effect, you'll get nowhere. Cycles and statistics will get you nowhere.
Taking single numbers into account, what causes 99,99... % of the time a repeater on the Low partition on singles? A repeat on the last 18 numbers.(see 1st post in this thread)
Anyone that has a working method has an answer to this question.
The answer can only be this: you will chose not to play a guessing game. You will forget about hope and the 1000 other methods you read on online forums(including this one). They will lead you to perdition. Forget hot numbers and cold numbers. They are an illusion. Substitute the numerals with 37 types of cars. Or 37 names of people.37 words. Now, you are already ahead of the game. There are no "dozens", no "even chances", no "colors" or "quads"

IF you were to bet on a spun number,your sequence from hell will be this: all 37 numbers appearing in the last 37 spins. No way around that. Table limts and unfair payout will lead you to Minus.
You will probably have to wait for the extinction of life on Earth and Death of the Universe, but say for the sake of it, imagine you are there with a roulette wheel and you got that run from hell.
Once a 37 spin cycle ends, you will observe something: the number of unhits  equals the number of 1+ display.(record this in your mind)
That is the balanced state.
You now that have restricted the play session to max 37 spins, and as you have limited the number of permutations, you've cut one (out of the many) Random tentacles.
If you play only hit numbers, you will lose.
If you play only unhit numbers, you will lose.
So obviously, within a 37 spaces game, the winning bet has to include both the hit and unhit numbers. At the same time.
Your goal will be to achieve Balance.
At the end, from chaos(roulette spins), you will get order.
There are 2 school of thought, one that focuses on Repeaters (chaos) another one that focuses on End State:Ballance(order). Both can be used to profit.
The law of large numbers is your number 1 enemy. Play the same numbers, the same color and same method(bet) and you will lose.
All methods fail unless you find ballance.
This thread initiated by rrbb is not the Holy Grail, but it gives you food for thought. Remember from this thread only this:
1)repeaters happen on the Low side of the dynamic appearances 99 percent of time. That is just 1 principle.
2) you need to create a game, where you set up dependancies. Divide everything by half, then create opposite pairs. The color, the perfume, the class Name of the pairs does not matter in this selection. The pairs need to be mutually exclusive.
The only way to exploit the dependancies is to seek the balance. That is all.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 20, 01:57 PM 2022
Quote from: CarpeDiem on Aug 20, 12:28 PM 2022If you are only observing the effect, you'll get nowhere. Cycles and statistics will get you nowhere.
Taking single numbers into account, what causes 99,99... % of the time a repeater on the Low partition on singles? A repeat on the last 18 numbers.(see 1st post in this thread)
Anyone that has a working method has an answer to this question.
The answer can only be this: you will chose not to play a guessing game. You will forget about hope and the 1000 other methods you read on online forums(including this one). They will lead you to perdition. Forget hot numbers and cold numbers. They are an illusion. Substitute the numerals with 37 types of cars. Or 37 names of people.37 words. Now, you are already ahead of the game. There are no "dozens", no "even chances", no "colors" or "quads"

IF you were to bet on a spun number,your sequence from hell will be this: all 37 numbers appearing in the last 37 spins. No way around that. Table limts and unfair payout will lead you to Minus.
You will probably have to wait for the extinction of life on Earth and Death of the Universe, but say for the sake of it, imagine you are there with a roulette wheel and you got that run from hell.
Once a 37 spin cycle ends, you will observe something: the number of unhits  equals the number of 1+ display.(record this in your mind)
That is the balanced state.
You now that have restricted the play session to max 37 spins, and as you have limited the number of permutations, you've cut one (out of the many) Random tentacles.
If you play only hit numbers, you will lose.
If you play only unhit numbers, you will lose.
So obviously, within a 37 spaces game, the winning bet has to include both the hit and unhit numbers. At the same time.
Your goal will be to achieve Balance.
At the end, from chaos(roulette spins), you will get order.
There are 2 school of thought, one that focuses on Repeaters (chaos) another one that focuses on End State:Ballance(order). Both can be used to profit.
The law of large numbers is your number 1 enemy. Play the same numbers, the same color and same method(bet) and you will lose.
All methods fail unless you find ballance.
This thread initiated by rrbb is not the Holy Grail, but it gives you food for thought. Remember from this thread only this:
1)repeaters happen on the Low side of the dynamic appearances 99 percent of time. That is just 1 principle.
2) you need to create a game, where you set up dependancies. Divide everything by half, then create opposite pairs. The color, the perfume, the class Name of the pairs does not matter in this selection. The pairs need to be mutually exclusive.
The only way to exploit the dependancies is to seek the balance. That is all.

quality post ..best one i have seen by a member for quite a while...everyone should read this over and over
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 20, 02:13 PM 2022
QuoteThe only way to exploit the dependancies is to seek the balance. That is all.

The balance is a knife's edge.
Many words leading nowhere. Nice philosophie. But it got nothing to do with the things happening in roulette.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 20, 03:18 PM 2022
Quote from: winkel on Aug 20, 02:13 PM 2022The balance is a knife's edge.
Many words leading nowhere. Nice philosophie. But it got nothing to do with the things happening in roulette.

another great comment too...people should also read this
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 20, 03:26 PM 2022
Quote from: 6th-sense on Aug 20, 01:57 PM 2022At the end, from chaos(roulette spins), you will get order.

like this comment also....for example the streams ds...if 1st stream is in order 123456...another stream 654321

eventually both streams observed will end up in alignment...ie they will both match in the same order .it has to
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 20, 04:08 PM 2022
Quote from: CarpeDiem on Aug 20, 12:28 PM 2022f you play only hit numbers, you will lose.
If you play only unhit numbers, you will lose.
So obviously, within a 37 spaces game, the winning bet has to include both the hit and unhit numbers. At the same time
like this part also
how many times have i said this...it has to be an all encompassing bet...you have to include or subtract any options...spin by spin...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 20, 04:10 PM 2022
Quote from: CarpeDiem on Aug 20, 12:28 PM 2022The law of large numbers is your number 1 enemy. Play the same numbers, the same color and same method(bet) and you will lose.

totally true...a static system only wins when it comes in and loses out of this condition
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 20, 04:11 PM 2022
Quote from: 6th-sense on Aug 20, 01:57 PM 2022Your goal will be to achieve Balance.

this is the knife edge...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 20, 04:23 PM 2022
Whatever chance you bet (from ECs to plein) and how many off them they all appear due to their possibility.

If you take one rotation of the chance, you will always find 1 3rd winning 1 3rd breaking even 1 3rd losing. for that you don't need the large numbers of spins - any hundreds will do.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 20, 04:34 PM 2022
Quote from: winkel on Aug 20, 04:23 PM 2022Whatever chance you bet (from ECs to plein) and how many off them they all appear due to their possibility.

If you take one rotation of the chance, you will always find 1 3rd winning 1 3rd breaking even 1 3rd losing. for that you don't need the large numbers of spins - any hundreds will do.

so true...don,t disagree....
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herbyx on Aug 21, 05:24 AM 2022
Quote from: winkel on Aug 20, 04:23 PM 2022for that you don't need the large numbers of spins - any hundreds will do.

It's almost the same:
- You look for the trend of the sequence
- You look for a limit of the sequence


Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: CarpeDiem on Aug 21, 08:24 AM 2022
The process does not mean waiting (hoping /wishing/guessing)  for an event to happen ( a "last" number to appear, a "secret" pattern" to fill up, etc.); That is a losing proposition, a simple product of your imagination. It will lead you nowhere.

When you construct a game (bet):
You look for a continuum process.  When you know something has to happen, you will "tune" your session to match that Certainty.

The  (only true)  goal is to discover the dependant nature of events. Until you get that, you have no bet.

Instead of playing a guess game, what other games can you play at the roulette table?

Reduce the complex nature of random in smaller parts which you can solve. Divide et imperam!

I'll give you a head start: you have a bag of 100 green cubes and 100 orange spheres. For the sake of visualisation/understanding, we'll reduce the problem into 2 groups.
The rules of the game (which you set) are: you place the objects in a bag, and then extract 200 times an object and place it on the table.

What will you know after 200 spins:
-No matter how you randomize the extraction, at the end of the 200 spins, your bag will be empty
-you follow no trends, no patterns, no limts, no math, no statistics.
- a 3 year old can do it, and will reach the same conclusion.
-random will be just random. And it will not affect you.

The only and i mean only way to stay ahead is to bet knowingly. Unless you see the dependancies, and use them to get to a balanced state, you will get nowhere. Once (!) you know the balanced state, you have an option: to Choose chaotically, or orderly. The choice is yours.

Let this sink in.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: leoncino74 on Aug 21, 08:39 AM 2022
28
28
15
6
21
5
10
31
25
17
21
9
1
10
35
2
31
3
26
10
33
2
22
18
32
17
30
30
3
21
19
29
16
36
6
25

unhit and 1+ they are not the same. For unhit =0 and for 1+ from 2 to unlimited

where am I wrong  , thank you
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 21, 01:55 PM 2022
So it is the same if you say 18 green cubes and 18 orange spheres?
Sunset and sunrise at the same time, death and birth at the same time and still talking with puzzle pisses.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 21, 02:49 PM 2022
QuoteInstead of playing a guess game, what other games can you play at the roulette table?

Some kind of a "Preset"-game.

As I explained before: Win as much as you want: Just play the progression!

For example: You wanna play DS: Take a dice and play that DS the dice shows.

You know:
Your chance to win is 1 out of 6 (6/37 to be precise).
Every rotation of a DS (6spins) your DS "has" to appear once.

Now think about:
What to do, if DS doesn't appear once a rotation?
What to do, if DS does appear exactly once a rotation?
What to do, if DS does appear more than once a rotation?

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 21, 02:54 PM 2022
Mutually exclusive pairs - I was thinking this applies to unique and repeats, if a unique comes it can not come from a repeat - it is excluded. And if a repeat comes, it can only come from a unique, not from a non-unique.
The balance turns out and the lines and streets on all locations, but apparently important only the numbers, and perhaps the splits as 12 streets still sometimes appear, but 18 splits and 37 numbers is very rare.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 21, 02:56 PM 2022
37 numbers of course not that very rare once a year for example, but once in a billion billion years.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 21, 02:59 PM 2022
Here are 37#
32
15
14
30
4
16
3
29
4
28
3
34
35
2
21
1
4
35
10
26
17
4
23
18
2
20
37
22
32
28
21
37
31
20
19
1
4
5
10
22
7
21
31
13
7
10
20
17
27
2
13
33
21
6
36
10
25
3
24
22
7
29
5
20
8
21
9
33
36
32
1
16
5
1
32
36
19
20
33
3
32
35
34
7
22
13
8
23
10
25
28
19
29
1
26
1
30
20
4
16
4
31
6
4
8
4
6
34
6
30
30
24
10
16
19
1
17
1
34
16
20
32
29
35
16
10
4
26
26
3
24
20
1
8
24
4
22
34
23
37
32
24
6
37
25
9
14
12
22
17
10
3
36
24
8
35
37
30
33
1
26
28
8
35
2
20
32
3
6
27
17
7
6
31
15
8
7
23
12
31
10
37
30
27
30
27
10
12
9
36
33
30
31
28
17
2
27
1
36
29
7
6
35
18
34
14
14
3
37
36
7
6
36
37
27
31
27
29
23
8
8
37
28
31
16
3
24
15
13
37
9
21
34
24
20
12
32
8
18
17
19
12
16
37
34
9
26
26
9
23
18
22
19
13
1
25
26
23
21
15
31
16
26
36
11
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 21, 03:00 PM 2022
Here also same 37#
32
15
14
30
4
16
3
29
28
34
35
2
21
1
10
26
17
23
18
20
0
22
31
19
5
7
13
27
33
6
36
25
24
8
9
12
11
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 21, 03:08 PM 2022
I recently did a test.
On average, the last of 6 DS appears on 15 spins, ie this flow 12541552646124656513 - and only on 20 spins appeared DS3. Bet on the first DS in this example - DS1 and waited for hits when the last one appeared. In the beginning everything was smooth, there were a lot of hits, but then, as usual, everything was broken) There were sequences of 9-12 spins very short and no hits.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 21, 03:10 PM 2022
Are these real spins?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 21, 03:16 PM 2022
What is the point of real or fake, are we looking for something that has to happen?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 21, 03:21 PM 2022
Why include in your search something that has no value.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 21, 03:24 PM 2022
I can give y more from live, is there value?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 21, 03:26 PM 2022
Only you know.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 21, 04:50 PM 2022
 person i can't find a flat solution yet but I can find a bet on this example.Screen Shot 8-21-2022 at 11.47 PM.png
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 21, 04:56 PM 2022
If you play only on hits or only on no hits, you will lose.
It turns out that the bet must switch from one to the other, or it must record both hitting and non-hitting numbers simultaneously. If it's the second type, it's playing with parallel streams, but you can't track that by playing in a land-based room and registering numbers for bets, for example. I would call this type of betting Twix
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 21, 05:03 PM 2022
How many derived can you create so you don't focus only on the one on the example!!!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 21, 05:07 PM 2022
Quote from: alexlaf on Aug 21, 04:50 PM 2022flat solution yet but I can find a bet on this example.
With Ds I do not understand your strategy, if it is a game for positions in parrallel streams, I have not succeeded in it.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 21, 05:10 PM 2022
I also created derivatives of derivatives, i.e. a third parallel stream, but this only made the task more difficult, and was stupid :)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 21, 05:17 PM 2022
From derived I keep only the position of the repeat 1,2,3.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 21, 05:22 PM 2022
Anyway, it's a throwing puzzle all those years or I am focusing on the wrong area,
Ty for your time Person.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 22, 01:43 PM 2022
Although balance applies to 37 spins, can we say averages are also balance?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 22, 02:41 PM 2022
37# look that balance
(1)#15 (2)#19 (3)#3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3


Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 22, 04:05 PM 2022
Yes Alex I understand, but for 37 spins this balance will not be constant it can be 13-13, 17-17 in the photo, etc.... I meant the balance of the average, for example, the number appeared on 200 spins, then it is out of the average, because the average is also a kind of balance and what we know what will happen. But not always in 1 cycle, it can take time... Can we argue that this is the case?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 22, 04:17 PM 2022
For all that we are looking at now, the most difficult thing is to apply it, I am looking inside the cycles to apply something..
Whatever y play they say balance is the key so you can say that.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 22, 04:37 PM 2022
We know there is a balance, but we don't know how many will be on one side. There is no constant value, changing all the time from cycle to cycle, 11-11, 14-14, 13-13, 11-11, yes, it will 100% happen, but what those pairs will be is unknown.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 22, 04:46 PM 2022
If we focus just on one game!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 22, 09:56 PM 2022
"Balance" is just another word for "Pattern".
You see it when it's there. But you can´t foresee it.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 23, 02:16 AM 2022
Quote from: winkel on Aug 22, 09:56 PM 2022"Balance" is just another word for "Pattern".
You see it when it's there. But you can´t foresee it

depends by what your idea of balance is i suppose....

balance and pattern to me is not the same....the unhit and repeats matching at the end of a cycle although the same isn,t the balance being talked about in a balanced game as mentioned by CarpeDiem 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 23, 08:45 AM 2022
37 numbers no matter how you sort them up, will never give a balance.

the 37th number is always the disturbing one.

18 hit and 18 unhit (where is the 37th number counted?)

3 DS hit and 3 DS unhit (where is the 37th number counted.

Everybody who is eleminating the 0 is bound to fail.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 23, 10:26 AM 2022
Quote from: winkel on Aug 22, 09:56 PM 2022"Balance" is just another word for "Pattern".
You see it when it's there. But you can´t foresee it.
Winkel is there a pattern every 37 and why 37? Does PHP principle has something to do?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: saihtaM on Aug 23, 11:54 AM 2022
Quote from: leoncino74 on Aug 21, 08:39 AM 202228
28
15
6
21
5
10
31
25
17
21
9
1
10
35
2
31
3
26
10
33
2
22
18
32
17
30
30
3
21
19
29
16
36
6
25

unhit and 1+ they are not the same.
Yes, they are. 12 unhit numbers, 12 repeats. (There is a difference between 12 repeats and 12 repeating numbers.)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herbyx on Aug 23, 12:50 PM 2022
Quote from: saihtaM on Aug 23, 11:54 AM 2022Yes, they are. 12 unhit numbers, 12 repeats.

Confirmed.
36 spins, 12 unhit, 24 different numbers, 1+ spins counted:12
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 23, 12:53 PM 2022
But why does the tracker say the balance is 37. Did not fall out + unique + unique of which came a repeat show that eats balance.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herbyx on Aug 23, 01:22 PM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Aug 23, 12:53 PM 2022But why does the tracker say the balance is 37

If you count, there are only 36 spins.
More I don't know.  :question:

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 23, 03:06 PM 2022
Quote from: alexlaf on Aug 23, 10:26 AM 2022Winkel is there a pattern every 37 and why 37? Does PHP principle has something to do?

If you start at spin 1 counting the numbers that hit you will find in a graph that you get a line climbing steadily.
If you count the numbers of unhit you will find in a graph that the line is falling steadily.
Both lines have to cross and will cross for certain.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 23, 03:27 PM 2022
hence the gut tracker....hence my wave tracker...using all 3..unhit unique and repeat for a rolling 37
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herbyx on Aug 23, 04:11 PM 2022
point of intersection

data from above
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 23, 04:34 PM 2022
Are you referring to Markov Winkel?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Irish88 on Aug 23, 04:35 PM 2022
I assume spin 24 is not a coincidence? Where repeats start appearing more then no hits?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 23, 05:27 PM 2022
The reps float from spin 2 to spin 26 at most. Well, I.e. we have almost 100% guarantee if in 26 spins will be all unique, then already on 27 spin replay will still come. Although everything can go the wrong way... A large number of reps from spin 20 to 37 and above, although it happens and the first 20 spins can pile up a lot of reps.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 24, 07:11 AM 2022
Quote from: alexlaf on Aug 23, 04:34 PM 2022Are you referring to Markov Winkel?


No! I refer to myself.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herbyx on Aug 24, 07:38 AM 2022
Quote from: Irish88 on Aug 23, 04:35 PM 2022I assume spin 24 is not a coincidence? Where repeats start appearing more then no hits?
It's somwhere around spin 24.

Below the diagram from above plus the counted repeats (without first appearing !)

As there are 36 spins it refers to 36 spins =>  Count(UNHIT) = COUNT(Repeats)
To be seen at the last point.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 25, 01:46 PM 2022
Can anyone give an example of how to draw a bell-shaped curve in 37 spins.
What is the order of operations?
Thank you!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 25, 02:01 PM 2022
QuoteCan anyone give an example of how to draw a bell-shaped curve in 37 spins.

You can´t do this. You can make a bell curve of many results of 37 spins. But 37 spins give only 1 result. (e.g. 14 nonhit)

Your understanding of a bell-curve is wrong.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 25, 02:50 PM 2022
Yes, I don't understand this curve, looking for details.... I.e. by taking cycle 37 we write how many repetitions were both unique and non-unique... Or do we need 2 parameters dormant and dropped out? And also such a question, averages and bell are the same?
Thx!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 25, 02:59 PM 2022
Does the transition of the cycle still hold ie from 36 > 37
example 14 13 7 2 1 >> 15 12 7 2 1?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 25, 03:19 PM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Aug 25, 02:50 PM 2022Yes, I don't understand this curve, looking for details.... I.e. by taking cycle 37 we write how many repetitions were both unique and non-unique... Or do we need 2 parameters dormant and dropped out? And also such a question, averages and bell are the same?
Thx!

this on a 37 spin rolling basis gives the wave tracker..which ive posted..you will not get a bell curve with this..but a lot of crossings like winkels gut tracker.....

and tbh you are going off the topic of this thread...pretty sure there is a thread for winkels gut tracker....
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 25, 03:57 PM 2022
to keep it on track and away from the 37 spin cycle...thats on my other thread...and crossing on winkels thread...

there are lots of stuff to think about cycle and cycle closures.....carpediem balance isn,t a pattern...or what most think balance should be...

but lets look at at one point he,s says ...different games...most like to play for a repeat..

he does say a repeat can be a game?...

how would this work? how could you play for a repeat....

it was mentioned on my thread why not play with repeats after 37 spins...

with this being rrbb thread we have to use the tools in front of us to do this....

so lets look ...lets take the 4 number groups..red odd red even..black odd black even...

lets combine a rolling 37 spins on ayks tracker and only click on the repeats tab to highlight repeats...

THEN let us only bet what group numbers and groups and their numbers that are out that are highlighted and repeated ...for the cycle closure....

does this give a better choice than random...does this limit the amount of units bet.. ...does this win flatbet overall...

does zero come into play if its repeated? 




does this need turbos progression...

i,m going on holiday in two days ...but just want everyone to stop veering off this topic and listen to what carpediem has said....

the streams tracker is only a part of the overall picture ...

think a little bit differently ..at least its a start rather than be stuck in the same rut...

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 25, 04:11 PM 2022
can you start from spin 1? or from spin 37 and just keep going an a rolling basis...can you catch those hot repeats ? you just need to think in a different way and come up with ideas..thats all ..what else can you come up with?
could you stick to just unique? or unhit ?

or is there something else you could combine ? to play alongside your option? dyslexic certainly did...

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 25, 04:17 PM 2022
Let's try not to deviate, and you mean something similar to the race analogy? Yes, the 4 groups will not go evenly, someone will definitely come to the finish line first, it will be +1 on 37 spins.
The choice of bets is better than random, it is already structured and conscious - what carpediem told us.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 25, 04:22 PM 2022
You can start with 1 back and 37, but I think that 37 is more convenient, because there is information, and if we put from the first back, what do we have? Only 1 number that came out and 36 options to choose - a very wide field for a single bet...Imho
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 25, 04:55 PM 2022
I,m not deviating ..I,m keeping topic on course and throwing you ideas out...directly related to this thread...the horse race anology..you need to choose horses..this gives a basic choice..
What else gives you that?
Yes u may not choose the right horse at a particular spin on closure...
But it's better choice than guessing ..

The topic is about hits using the streams tracker to your advantage..

Not using it as it as it is....

That's clearly stated..I gave this example to maybe open your mind to this fact..
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 25, 05:16 PM 2022
6Th so on this example i started from #3 for a six-line bet and a hit on #4...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 26, 04:47 PM 2022
I did not understand part of the explanation, at the end of 37 we will have groups that have more repetitions than the laggards, there may be groups with an equal number of repetitions. Do we need some kind of filter to select the leaders? Or do we stick to all 4 groups no matter who is where?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 26, 04:52 PM 2022
And we are not trying to play on 1 spin. Here was a test so far unsuccessful 111 spins, did not choose a group - bet flat. In principle it is possible to fix the maximum, but I decided to see what will happen next.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herbyx on Aug 27, 02:12 AM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Aug 26, 04:47 PM 2022at the end of 37 (spins) we will have groups that have more repetitions than the laggards
Let's make a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment):

You have a result at the end of every
37 spins = Count(Unhits) + Count(1 Hits) + Count(Repeats without the first hit)

Important: Count(Repeats without the first hit): the first hit of the number is not counted

Now you take one of the repeats and put it to an unhit position, and again, until all unhit positions are filled with one ball.  => no repeats are left over, only single 37 single hit

Important: you start with 37 - you end with 37, the number stays constant

The other way round: the repeats can only come from the number of unhits - always !

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 27, 06:51 AM 2022
I really can´t see what you are looking for!

Do you look for a constant trigger, an indicator or signal?

What shall it do?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 27, 07:30 AM 2022
Herbie I agree with you, for example you can imagine that the roulette is evenly distributed every 37 spins fall out all 37 numbers, in this order on 74 spin all 37 will return to their original position.
What Herbie says. This is similar to what RRBB presented as an example process, so we will have not 3 but 2 states for the drop-down numbers. Heath and Anhit. This is probably a mathematical trick and we will have a problem if we try to pick up the bet. I think proper development in the system should be based on reps and averages. Repeaters are always there, and 100% happen, although not 100% predictable, but if we learn how to improve accuracy, the system will obviously be better.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 27, 07:41 AM 2022
I think we're looking for a signal that sounds like "hey we see an entry point it's time to start betting".
Although the signal, the trigger, and the indicator all seem to be one thing.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: saihtaM on Aug 27, 08:22 AM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Aug 27, 07:41 AM 2022I think we're looking for a signal that sounds like "hey we see an entry point it's time to start betting".
Although the signal, the trigger, and the indicator all seem to be one thing.

According to reddwarf (emphasis mine):

Quote from: reddwarf on Feb 11, 06:24 AM 2012I can and will not speak for the others, but i can tell you what way3 is NOT:
1. waiting for an event you need to win
2. guessing or predicting numbers
3. progression
4. waiting for a trigger
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 27, 09:29 AM 2022
He probably meant the primitive systems that wait for 9 reds to start betting on black.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: saihtaM on Aug 27, 09:42 AM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Aug 27, 09:29 AM 2022He probably meant the primitive systems that wait for 9 reds to start betting on black.

Maybe. But that would imply that a winning method is not fundamentally different from primitive systems, just more "complex".
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 27, 11:17 AM 2022
let me tell you the ultimate truth with roulette:

in 37 spins and with 37 possible results there are 37^37 possible outcomes or results.

every trigger you find, triggers also the loss.

the only thing you can do is to watch the permutation and follow the possible next step.

for example:

we know: that the first repeat might happen at spin 6 7 or 8.
we know: always betting the hit numbers at that points will make you lose
we know: the chance to win at these spins is about 16% (for each bet)
we know: repeats can also happen at the 2nd, 3rd, 4th spin
we know: all depends on the starting with a first spin.

what can we do:

36
25
15       
21
8       
4       

we could watch at these spins a different way:
we could have started with the 2nd spin
we could have started with the third spin and so on.

36   
25  25 
15  15   15    
21  21  21  21
8    8    8   8   8
4    4   4   4   4

for the first column we expect a repeater. but the repeater can also be a result of the other 4 columns.
why should we bet all 6 numbers of the first column it mustn´t be the number 36 or 25 to become the repeater. and then bet 7 numbers when there was no repeat and then 8 and then 9 and so on.

So why don´t we just bet the last 4 numbers (2/3rd by accident?)
We know we can also be wrong, but we won´t risk 6 7 8 9 10 (40 units) but only 4 4 4 4 4 (20 units) and still be in profit in a win.

the spins came up with
6        lose 4 (15 21 8 4)
36 oh dear we were wrong lose 8 (21 8 4 6)
28        lose 12 (8 4 6 36)
28    lose 16 win 36 (4 6 36 28)

because we know within 13 spins there will be 2 reapeaters.
because we know after 6 spins there might appear a repeater ( 6+6 =12 -> two repeaters)

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 27, 11:51 AM 2022
You also can bet any other count of numbers:

you can bet last 5 number for 7 times
last 4 numbers for 9 times
last 3 numbers for 11 times


this kind of betting you can transfer to every other chance except EC
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 27, 12:07 PM 2022
Is this flat winkel , i got a gap to hit lets say 20 round
20 x 4 or after 4 x 9 do i reset!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 27, 01:25 PM 2022
@alexlaf

I only design strategies with flatbet.

What most people don´t realize:
If I give you a strategie, which winns 80 times in 100 bets, that also means you lose 20 bets.
It is not said that the 20 losses appear every 5th spin.
They also can happen 20 times in a row.
Nobody can tell if the losses are at the beginning or in the middle or at the end of the 100 spins.
It can happen they are at the end of 100 and in the next cluster at the beginning. so you can lose 40 times in a row.

Keep that always in mind.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 27, 01:59 PM 2022
Quote from: Herbyx on Aug 27, 02:12 AM 2022Let's make a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment):

You have a result at the end of every
37 spins = Count(Unhits) + Count(1 Hits) + Count(Repeats without the first hit)

Important: Count(Repeats without the first hit): the first hit of the number is not counted

Now you take one of the repeats and put it to an unhit position, and again, until all unhit positions are filled with one ball.  => no repeats are left over, only single 37 single hit

Important: you start with 37 - you end with 37, the number stays constant

The other way round: the repeats can only come from the number of unhits - always !
Herbyx should the first stage look like this or no?
0   0   0   
1   0   0   
2   2   1   
3   3   2   r
4   0   0   
5   0   0   
6   3   2   r
7   0   0   
8   1   1   
9   0   0   
10   1   1   
11   1   1   
12   0   0   
13   1   1   
14   1   1   
15   0   0   
16   3   2   r
17   0   0   
18   0   0   
19   0   0   
20   4   3   r
21   1   1   
22   1   1   
23   1   1   
24   0   0   
25   0   0   
26   0   0   
27   1   1   
28   3   2   r
29   1   1   
30   0   0   
31   2   1   
32   2   1   
33   2   1   
34   2   1   
35   1   1   
36   0   0   
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: saihtaM on Aug 27, 02:43 PM 2022
Quote from: saihtaM on Aug 27, 09:42 AM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Aug 27, 09:29 AM 2022He probably meant the primitive systems that wait for 9 reds to start betting on black.

Maybe. But that would imply that a winning method is not fundamentally different from primitive systems, just more "complex".

Correction, I should have said:

"Maybe. But that would imply that the winning method he was talking about is not fundamentally different from primitive systems, just more 'complex'."
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 28, 05:54 AM 2022
Quote from: Herbyx on Aug 27, 02:12 AM 2022Now you take one of the repeats and put it to an unhit position, and again, until all unhit positions are filled with one ball.  => no repeats are left over, only single 37 single hit

I also don't get this part:-\
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herbyx on Aug 28, 06:58 AM 2022
Hi alex,

look at Person's  pic:

13  14  10  13

"rouletteforum.cc/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=46702"

With Ayk's tracker, 37 spins the first and last number (I colored red) have to be the same. (not really important, just a fact, I think - as I know less and always lesser )

I think it's better to go back to 6-th statements and posts. 


Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 28, 09:49 AM 2022
Ok, I got this, but how do I decide whether UNQ or REP to get that?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herbyx on Aug 28, 10:51 AM 2022
Quote from: Herbyx on Aug 28, 06:58 AM 2022Person's  numbers are more general:

13  14  10  13

You see:   13 14 10        :    Sum = 37
                     14 10  13  :    Sum = 37

Without knowing something now I would compare with 6th's recently shown diagrams, if I only would remember where they are.

This is the end of my klingon language, or was it latin ?    :question:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 28, 02:16 PM 2022
Quote from: Herbyx on Aug 28, 10:51 AM 20226th's recently shown diagrams
Can someone repost the diagrams from 6th!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Herbyx on Aug 28, 02:51 PM 2022
I meant the second pic

rouletteforum.cc/index.php?msg=254615
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 28, 03:12 PM 2022
After 37 or until 37?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 28, 04:05 PM 2022
I may be veering off topic, but an interesting experiment can be conducted. It's about how long we have to wait for all 37 numbers playing one number in a cycle of 37 spins.
So spin 1 rolls 27 we bet for 37 spins on the number 27.
If we win or lose it does not matter.
If the cycle ends on the number 27 we do nothing, and continue to bet on this number.
But for example the cycle ended on number 36 we bet on 27 and 36 for 37 spins.
If the next cycle does not fall within these two numbers, we add a new number to the bet and continue to spin 37 spins.
I wonder how many cycles it will take to cover all 37 numbers.
Although I did not conduct this test because I do not know how to code, but I am sure that these 37 will come out not within 37 cycles, but much further. It could be 100 cycles or more.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 28, 04:08 PM 2022
Person s you are veering off the topic..there are different threads for your idea...

Please keep this thread on track
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: 6th-sense on Aug 28, 04:14 PM 2022
Winkel has give his ultimate truth about roulette..

Yet it still contains the essence of what to bet within certain spin counts...that even without his meaning to pertains to a lower half of his example..

So is winkels idea the ultimate truth or not...everyone who is activated on my software can quickly check this..

Let them post if it is the truth and works..or not...but winkel did explain it can lose or hit at any point....

Winkel is very knowledgeable..but is this truth correct ..?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 29, 03:08 PM 2022
Does the cycle ends where it begins?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 29, 05:30 PM 2022
I'm more interested in creating the principle of couples. We need to divide the table into H/L halves. Or we need to divide the low derivatives into 2 halves i.e. from 18/2=9. Two halves of 9.
Mutually exclusive pairs with sandalwood flavor to create simply in case we divide the table into 2 parts - it would be pairs 1-36,2-35,3-34, etc. 18 in all. The rest is still a mystery...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 29, 05:45 PM 2022
Can we bet then the last 4 as winkel told from those 18!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 29, 05:54 PM 2022
It wouldn't work, I tested Vaddy by playing with 8 numbers - constantly discarding the old number, but it didn't work.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 29, 05:58 PM 2022
These 4 seem to hit well, but the betting amount will dig a hole.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 29, 06:01 PM 2022
For sure there is more then just betting all the time the last of something...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Aug 30, 07:52 AM 2022
let me tell you a story:

In a forum someone publishes some thousend spins for testing.

A guy lets call him Raz looked at the first spins and found out that betting Red after Zero could be a good strategy. So he tested several hundred spins more and found out he wins 80 out of 100 spins and  was convinced: That is the winning System because the trend is your friend.
He gathered his money went to the casino next day. After three hours he left bankrupt.

Same day another guy lets call him Baz created an idea every time Zero is coming out I will bet Black.
He looked at some spins and it didn´t work. so he tested several hundred spins and found he loses 80 of 100 bets.

What do you think did the second guy?
Did he go to the casino thinking this trend must end?
Imagine if Baz had been simultanesly betting as Raz, Baz would have won all the chips, that Raz lost.

This is Roulette, besides: there are no Baz. Nobody tests a strategy -50% and then goes to the casino to win with it. Everyone would rather dismiss the idea.

Think about.

A system is found only when it works. But when its time is over it will be a losing system.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Aug 30, 09:53 AM 2022
Winkel with what are you winning now? The story was n1.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Aug 31, 07:10 AM 2022
The first guy fell victim to the variance in the casino, and the second guy fell victim to the variance during the test.
Conclusion - don't play if you don't know what it can do.
Or create a system that has a couple of eons of time to spare.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 04, 02:51 PM 2022
A bit of reflection. So, in the beginning we know from Notto's stats that there will be about 4 repeats in 20 spins. So there will be more unique ones in that span, and the repeats will be from spins 21 to 37. We can simplify and say that there will be more repeats in the next 20 spins. We end up with 40 spins and 20 will have more uniques and the next 20 will have more repeats. Nothing new, but it could be interesting.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 04, 03:01 PM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Sep 04, 02:51 PM 2022there will be about 4 repeats in 20 spins. So there will be more unique ones in that span, and the repeats will be from spins 21 to 37.

Yes and No at the same time.

This is anaverage, not a standard outcome.

I know a spin-sequence with only 11 different numbers and another with 33 different numbers.

At spin 25 (my calc-point) there 18 or 19 unhit 13 or 14 unique hit and 4 or 5 hit more than once.

don´t mix statistical average with reality.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 04, 04:13 PM 2022
Here what can be at spin 20
read:
there were 8 times 3 repeaters(2) at spin 20
there were 7 times 30 reapeaters(2) at spin 20

8    0    275    3    0    0    0
7    0    176    30    0    0    0


count  0-hit  1-hit  2-hit  3-hit  4-hit

29    0    0    0    0    0    0
28    1    0    0    0    0    0
27    3    0    0    0    0    0
26    17    0    0    0    0    0
25    102    0    0    0    0    0
24    350    0    0    0    0    0
23    818    0    0    0    0    0
22    1346    0    0    0    0    0
21    1482    0    0    0    0    0
20    1017    11    0    0    0    0
19    413    0    0    0    0    0
18    112    112    0    0    0    0
17    11    23    0    0    0    0
16    0    390    0    0    0    0
15    0    185    0    0    0    0
14    0    877    0    0    0    0
13    0    560    0    0    0    0
12    0    1061    0    0    0    0
11    0    628    0    0    0    0
10    0    801    0    0    0    0
9    0    462    0    0    0    0
8    0    275    3    0    0    0
7    0    176    30    0    0    0
6    0    66    164    0    0    0
5    0    33    721    0    0    0
4    0    6    1378    0    0    0
3    0    5    1627    46    0    0
2    0    0    1216    384    3    0
1    0    1    464    2018    331    11
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 04, 05:01 PM 2022
Quote from: winkel on Sep 04, 04:13 PM 2022there were 7 times 30 reapeaters(2) at spin 20
Thank you, about the 30 repetitions, didn't understand the last post. Do you mean that there were 30 repeats such as x5,x4 etc. in the first 20 spins? 
I agree that averages are not reliable. There should be a maximum and minimum range. But I look on the other hand, maybe you should not bet on the whole group, so as not to cover much, but only on part of it?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 04, 05:08 PM 2022
If we cover everything - yes our chance of hitting will = 100%, provided it happens on the next back. But if we reduce the numbers, of course it won't be 100% if we miss on one spin, but I assume we won't be that bad during the next spins.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 04, 05:32 PM 2022
perhaps a table you can understand better:

at spin 20 the most combination is:

21# unhit 12# hit once and 4# hit twice which happend 893 times

read the table accordingly:

28 1 6 1 1 0 0    1
27 3 5 1 1 0 0    2
27 3 4 3 0 0 0    1
26 6 2 2 1 0 0    2
26 5 4 1 1 0 0    8
26 5 3 3 0 0 0    2
26 4 5 2 0 0 0    3
26 3 7 1 0 0 0    2
25 8 2 1 0 1 0    1
25 8 2 0 2 0 0    3
25 7 3 1 1 0 0    22
25 7 2 3 0 0 0    14
25 6 5 0 1 0 0    3
25 6 4 2 0 0 0    33
25 5 6 1 0 0 0    23
25 4 8 0 0 0 0    3
24 9 3 0 0 1 0    5
24 9 2 1 1 0 0    27
24 9 1 3 0 0 0    19
24 8 4 0 1 0 0    32
24 8 3 2 0 0 0    99
24 7 5 1 0 0 0    140
24 6 7 0 0 0 0    28
23 9 4 1 0 0 0    411
23 8 6 0 0 0 0    140
23 11 2 0 0 1 0    3
23 11 1 1 1 0 0    26
23 11 0 3 0 0 0    10
23 10 3 0 1 0 0    78
23 10 2 2 0 0 0    150
22 13 1 0 0 1 0    2
22 13 0 1 1 0 0    14
22 12 2 0 1 0 0    82
22 12 1 2 0 0 0    86
22 11 3 1 0 0 0    589
22 10 5 0 0 0 0    573
21 14 1 0 1 0 0    34
21 14 0 2 0 0 0    11
21 13 2 1 0 0 0    544
[b]21 12 4 0 0 0 0    893[/b]
20 15 1 1 0 0 0    185
20 14 3 0 0 0 0    832
19 17 0 1 0 0 0    23
19 16 2 0 0 0 0    390
18 18 1 0 0 0 0    112
17 20 0 0 0 0 0    11

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 04, 05:36 PM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Sep 04, 05:08 PM 2022but I assume we won't be that bad during the next spins.

by the way: What about the two systems I directed you to?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: leoncino74 on Sep 04, 05:50 PM 2022
puoi indirizzare anche me per favore ai sistemi, grazie mille
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: nottophammer on Sep 05, 03:50 AM 2022
Winkle shows 4 repeats is the most common, reply #631
In Colbsters topic. "Are there really 37 possible outcomes"? Math section are 2 pieces of info. Replies #29 & #44
Now if you think repeats over 40 spins showing every 10 spins as, 1-3-5-7; plus, at 60 spins, 30 repeats are fare.
As you start a stream, where's the larger group? Spins 1-10. Spins 11-20 the larger group is depleting.
There's a topic called "WTF" betting the 1x. Is this not in the area of spins 21-30. It's 5 non-hits and 5 repeats. Then spins 31-40; 7 repeats and only 3 of the remaining non-hits.
Every one seems to agree with the law of the third, apart from at least one person, with umpteen member names and is Winkles favourite. The 24 seen in reply #29 is LOTT.
The 1-3-5-7=16 repeats at 40 spins. The other spins 24 in total are what? Non-hits.
Now like in GUT, you watch the stream build and eventually you get a crossing. Hope everyone has noted the 19-18 is to be avoided unreliable.
While you're waiting for this crossing you track either way non-hits; 9-7-5-3=24 or repeats 1-3-5-7=16. Like Winkle says in GUT, you make a decision. If you have 10-0; repeats are -1. Someone's reference point spin 13 says could or should had 2 repeats. If by 13 spins and no repeat. The question is how many consecutive unique will come. But the most common repeats shown in reply #631 shows 4 repeats.
If you've got this far 16 spins NO REPEAT, what's happening to the larger group? Are we heading to Saint Steve's all 37 numbers will hit once?
To quote "there's always a game".
KTF's cousin named WTF (if everyone agrees) bottom of page 10 in testing zone.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 05, 05:47 AM 2022
Quotepuoi indirizzare anche me per favore ai sistemi, grazie mille

Just click on the avatar of someone you like to know more about.
Then click on "show posts"
Then click on "topics"

an you will see all systems they have offered.

And most of all:

Read the whole topic again and again.
Before you ask questions that are answered several times in the topic.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 05, 01:35 PM 2022
Quote from: winkel on Sep 04, 05:36 PM 2022What about the two systems I directed you to?
Yes, looked at both of them. There were no screenshots in the chain system on the other forum, and I never understood how to put on 2 chains, only one.
And the wheel system is 1 spin betting, 8 groups from 1 to 9 numbers in total. It is clear that the last groups where 6-9 numbers will hit more often. Although just got the idea if betting on 1 number 37 spins, if number from group 2 - 18 spins, from group 3 - 12 spins, etc. This takes us away from one spin. But I'm not in a position to test yet as I don't have a spare pair of eyes)
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 05, 02:01 PM 2022
I thought you were a smart guy. But I failed.
If you can´t manage to see the screenshots, you wouldn´t understand none of my strategies.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 05, 02:19 PM 2022
next one pls..
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 05, 03:27 PM 2022
Quote from: winkel on Sep 05, 02:01 PM 2022If you can´t manage to see the screenshots, you wouldn´t understand none of my strategies.
Perhaps, but are there any successful ones among those who have understood?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 05, 03:53 PM 2022
I, like anyone with a limited and far from great mind, look at how many pages there are in a thread, and if there are only 2 pages and no discussion, then either the topic is not covered, or the author has laid out a system so complex that only he understands it. If you are looking for a mind that thinks in unison with you and then declares that everyone around is an idiot, well congratulations can keep the gift and enjoy it at home sitting in the attic with cats.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 05, 04:14 PM 2022
They will take the HG with them person and life keeps going.  :smile:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 05, 04:41 PM 2022
obviously you didn´t read it:

QuoteThanks Janusz

Very good details and clear examples.

Bankroll management is excellent from you. 👍

I got +54 in <10 spins 😀

QuoteYour system have lot of merit.

When 2 parallel sequences are running its like i am sitting with my Grandpa on the table 👴. When first one losing, 2nd  one (my grandpa) keep loading me with chips 😀

You are genius 👍

QuoteNo waiting time, no hectic calculations...good one bro
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 06, 04:12 AM 2022
Of course I have.
You remember Jehb1976, so he also wrote positive reviews in some threads, but ended up losing out.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 06, 04:41 AM 2022
I´m not vain. You asked for positive replies.

You are not positive and you will end up losing as well.

If you think you can disregard 30 years of experience and studying roulette, do so.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 06, 08:38 AM 2022
He lost bcs was missing the 1% that they all keep for themselves!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 06, 08:39 AM 2022
I can't because it would look like an ant being bullied by an anteater.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 06, 08:49 AM 2022
Alex, I understand them if the riddle is well thought out and on public display, maybe 5% of people will discover it. Even Waddy has emailed someone with the missing piece, as there are no such strong minds capable of cracking that nut. And there are good thinking people on this forum and they know how to code and do tests. And they have known roulette for quite a long time, but for some reason this nut does not lend itself to them either. Then there are two options, either there is no nut or the riddles are so complex that it takes many years of life before they are solved. I do not know this is not the 19th century, computers speed up calculations and show the truth, i.e. it helps save a ton of time and does not fall into traps of the mind, like when you test only with pen and paper. And still you don't see people who have something, or they are so scared they are afraid to show their stone.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 06, 08:55 AM 2022
Rather, when they walk into a casino hall or sit down to an online game, they still get the jitters of being spotted and the actions applied, and on the one hand it's their reward, but on the other it's like a curse. But that's rather normal - as freedom comes at a price.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 06, 09:04 AM 2022
This is getting boring.
Whatever. . I would like to know what they are thinking!
Today I will start a new thread but I will give them some food to think not the actual point ill keep it for me. Oh, they are not smart damnn it.
He has no right to call you a not-smart guy.
How the f@K should we know how he solved that peace or how he got there!!! 
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: nottophammer on Sep 06, 09:34 AM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Sep 06, 04:12 AM 2022Of course I have.
You remember Jehb1976, so he also wrote positive reviews in some threads, but ended up losing out.
If you understand the riddles. This makes bundles of doshA shit load.jpg
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 06, 10:09 AM 2022
Hi Notto .. here is a round I did.
This was an ok session.
Can y tell me how to survive from the most balanced game when they are going one by one on top?
Thank you
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: nottophammer on Sep 06, 10:53 AM 2022
Have you looked at last post at GF.
Where ask Gigi & Ceasar if Turbo's riddle is true
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 06, 10:55 AM 2022
Hay Alex in line 15 - 2 repeats of #35.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: nottophammer on Sep 06, 11:00 AM 2022
17x #17 318
16x #17 292 is this correct
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: nottophammer on Sep 06, 11:02 AM 2022
S even before line 15 it makes sh-i-t loads of dosh
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 06, 11:13 AM 2022
I take the first column as we are only betting on repeats, so we see that we have 9 repeats in this column.
And now our real average is 392/9 = 43.5, the edge of the house has swallowed us. These are my primitive calculations...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 06, 11:17 AM 2022
The others can be counted in the same way.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 06, 11:46 AM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Sep 06, 10:55 AM 2022Hay Alex in line 15 - 2 repeats of #35.
Thank you Person i got something wrong bsc was all by hand and many spins
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 06, 12:52 PM 2022
QuoteHe has no right to call you a not-smart guy.
How the f@K should we know how he solved that peace or how he got there!!!

I don´t know if other posts refer to me. but that quote above definitely.

Alex,

I didn´t say he is not a smart guy. I just said is not smart enough. That is a difference.
If the next sentence belongs to me as well:
You could know everything if you asked me. But neither you nor Person S did.
You just complaint.

What the hell are you awaiting? A fully explained system that works with every spin, 1000 spins a day 7 days a week, 53 weeks a year for 1000 years?
Explained in one sentence, never losing a bet?

There is no such systems in the world. The solution is you yourself. Know when to start, know when to stop. No need, no greed, no emotions.

You are losing? - change your betselection.
to what? - a second third or fourth other betselection you tested and you know, what is winning at that time.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 06, 02:08 PM 2022
((I take the first column as we are only betting on repeats, so we see that we have 9 repeats in this column.
And now our real average is 392/9 = 43.5, the edge of the house has swallowed us. These are my primitive calculations...))

I was counting on the secondary gap and not on the actual hit of a nr but sometimes there also was hard bcs I am dealing with 4 nr at that moment.

Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 06, 02:35 PM 2022
Quote from: winkel on Sep 06, 12:52 PM 2022I didn´t say he is not a smart guy. I just said is not smart enough. That is a difference.
If the next sentence belongs to me as well:
You could know everything if you asked me. But neither you nor Person S did.
You just complaint.

1/  I thought you were a smart guy. But I failed
1b/ I was thinking for asking you but at the time I am reading some of your posts and my next step was to ask you for (help) {as I did with 6th and never respond}.


What the hell are you awaiting? A fully explained system that works with every spin, 1000 spins a day 7 days a week, 53 weeks a year for 1000 years?
Explained in one sentence, never losing a bet?

A fully explained system that works YES
That works with every spin NO
1000 spins a day 7 days a week NO
53 weeks a year for 1000 years NO
Explained  in (as much time is needed) one sentence
Never losing a bet NO
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 06, 03:12 PM 2022
Perhaps the Mach column has value too.
4-7
3-7
2-1
1-1
I still have a lot of plans for tests and not enough time.
Winkel we both complain and do not complain - well we are not insensitive neural networks in a cyborg shell.
And sometimes new information comes in that takes time to digest. For example the Law of Arxinus, Winkel if you know this phenomenon, can you enlighten us a bit about the possibility of applying it to the game.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 07, 08:51 AM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Sep 06, 03:12 PM 2022For example the Law of Arxinus,

If there would be any mathematical phrase, which would advantage the prediction of random outcome, there would be no random anymore.

The only constructions that be applied to roulette are the theories of mathematicians who work in probability theories. like Markov
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 07, 06:32 PM 2022
Perhaps we need a stretch in which the variance cannot attack the bet and bring it down. But all I know about this taming is that the session should not be long, for example 500-1000 spins.
In general I suppose the opening text of this thread shows the birthday paradox and the law of 2/3.
That's why the repeats are more frequent from the lower half of the cycle as he can't build up a mass of probability to show all 37.
We have a second problem which is unfair payouts, there are chances to win but payouts and number of bets are burned, earlier I thought it was good when top dozen is shown at 61% but as it turned out betting on each spin is underdrawn on chips and no statistics will help, yes Priyanka said that playing statistics is a bad idea. But we need a group of spins, not a single spin, and then how to combine all this is a big question for many years...
I don't know about Markov's chains, I know that he is my countryman and a mathematician.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 07, 06:36 PM 2022
It turns out Markov was not alone, but there were three of them, all from the same family and mathematics
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Bigbroben on Sep 07, 10:03 PM 2022
Averages
Statistics
Trends

It's al irrelevant since the wheel has no memory.  It ignores past spins.
Every spin is a new game.  Actually every spin is just that: a spin.

So it all comes down to exactly this: house hedge.  And precisely there on the long run.
No matter what.

To win is to be lucky.
To win for a while is to be lucky for a while.

Sure one can ''feel'' it...
But then these are just feelings the wheel couldn't care less about.

All of this here is not outside the box.

Some are better story tellers than others.

All past trends and stats are converging to the inevitable immediate odds: 36/37×nrs played.
It's all that matters.

Sorry
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 08, 10:01 AM 2022
Is there a chance that is better to play around with the sweet spot of the curve?
I know it's only 500 but it's flat.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 08, 03:15 PM 2022
Alex, with positive progression ? It's just that the picture shows that there was a progression.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 08, 03:19 PM 2022
Yes on the parallel forum Hal wrote that you should not play at the extremes of the curve, but how can you visualise them? What will be on the left and what will be on the right, dormant and unique?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 08, 03:51 PM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Sep 08, 03:15 PM 2022Alex, with positive progression ? It's just that the picture shows that there was a progression.

Just on a few bets i did a simple 1,2,3 yes
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 08, 03:53 PM 2022
session 2
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 08, 05:12 PM 2022
There are those too, but the winning percentage is lower.
This looks good - and it's about 20 short sessions. Short as the knowledgeable people said
It can be hopeless and fail somewhere. But it can also be the other way round.
50/50 basically.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 08, 05:25 PM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Sep 08, 05:12 PM 2022This looks good
Yeap
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 09, 05:37 AM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Sep 08, 03:19 PM 2022What will be on the left and what will be on the right, dormant and unique?
From this point of view when I am testing I play one the middle not left and right.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 09, 03:19 PM 2022
one more!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 09, 05:03 PM 2022
cold? looks cool
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 09, 05:06 PM 2022
Do you know what the red numbers mean?
The guidebook is not very clear whether this is good or bad :вопрос:
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 09, 05:14 PM 2022
Net win and net you mean!
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 09, 05:20 PM 2022
YES
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 10, 04:00 AM 2022
If wins are coming where is the problem with those nr!
 The last test was advance on betting usually I start from 1 unit if needed go up on a win.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 10, 06:00 AM 2022
The analogy with a bell-shaped curve - naturally the most bread will be in the middle, but it all depends on the baker. ;Д
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 27, 01:46 PM 2022
Hey people know there are cycles 1,2,3.
For example, cycle 1 is common to all dozens and is equal to 33%. If you look at the cycle for each dozen - it will not be 33%, but 11%.
I don't know yet how it can be useful, just out loud...
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 27, 02:52 PM 2022
Quote from: Person S on Sep 27, 01:46 PM 2022Hey people know there are cycles 1,2,3.
For example, cycle 1 is common to all dozens and is equal to 33%. If you look at the cycle for each dozen - it will not be 33%, but 11%.
I don't know yet how it can be useful, just out loud...


Can you give an example, please
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 27, 05:25 PM 2022
We know that cycle 1 can be on any of the 3 dozen. For example - 11,22,33.
Probability of this cycle = 33%.
But this probability covers all 3 combinations.
Correctly? My idea is that if we take a lot of cycles - for example 100 and look not at all 3 dozen together, but SEPARATELY - then for each there will be only 11%.
100-200 spins can be generated and see how many times the combination 11 is repeated, how many times -22, and -33.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 27, 05:34 PM 2022
Here, for example, cycle 1 on a dozen 2 - appeared 6 times.
On a dozen 3-3 times. A dozen 1 did not work at all yet.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: winkel on Sep 28, 04:11 AM 2022
perhaps this stats can help

Form count %

111 443 3,18
112 499 3,58
113 501 3,59
121 460 3,30
122 532 3,82
123 513 3,68
131 508 3,64
132 558 4,00
133 494 3,54
211 474 3,40
212 495 3,55
213 541 3,88
221 513 3,68
222 523 3,75
223 549 3,94
231 527 3,78
232 560 4,02
233 542 3,89
311 526 3,77
312 509 3,65
313 520 3,73
321 535 3,84
322 531 3,81
323 561 4,02
331 527 3,78
332 518 3,72
333 483 3,46

tot 13942
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 28, 11:21 AM 2022
No, it won't help.
A cycle of length 1 is a combination of exactly 2 dozen.
Here is an example
121 -CL2
11 -CL1
1323 -CL3
33 -CL1
322 -CL2
22 -CL1
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: alexlaf on Sep 28, 02:39 PM 2022
on the first three spins, we have (1 2 1) What is the probability that the fourth is ( 3 )?
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 28, 03:22 PM 2022
If you count by probabilities, the probability will be 33% - on the 4th spin or on the 14th, this probability will be unchanged.
But I'm talking about cycles - let's take a cycle of length 2, its probability is 44%. With a rough approximation of 100 cycles, we will have 44 cycles of length 2. In these 44 cycles, there will be all 3 dozen. So we can divide 44/3 = 14.6. This means that each of the defining dozens will appear an average of 15 times. Maybe we can keep count. It will be like a regression.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 28, 03:24 PM 2022
It's just a thought and maybe it's not playable.
Title: Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Post by: Person S on Sep 28, 03:32 PM 2022
Well, or they will fall out unevenly, which means something
will be 100% behind. And you can try to catch replays.