Long time ago i proposed the following thought experiment (disguised as a question).
Lets assume someone claims how to win consistently within roulette.
Now this person plays roulette while you are watching.
You just watch, nothing else.
You see this person placing bets, winning some, loosing some. But overall her bankroll is increasing. You can't believe what you are seeing.
so you decide to focus on one specific possible bet, say, a bet on zero (0) with 1 unit (lets call this a constant bet: the same unit on the same straight over and over again). Whenever 1 unit is placed on zero, it does not matter that more units are on the table at the same time, you track the results.
What would you expect to see?
As the spins are random: a constant bet is a loosing bet. Randomness implies that the spin results are independent of the past results. This clearly holds for straigths.
But every combination of bets can be seen as a combination of constant bets!
So there is no way this person can have a consistent winner... ???
Unless, unless, she came up with a way to make the spin results dependent on past results :o
For straights etc this not possible: no prediction is possible. We do not know what to bet when.
So either we come up with a completely new interpretation of what events to bet on, or we are stuck...
So the question of roulette basically drills down to:
can we redefine roulette in such a way that we introduce dependencies?
And if so: what do we actually bet on? On something we think that will happen?
Or on nothing at all, we just place bets, knowing that we will win.
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 18, 05:50 AM 2017can we redefine roulette in such a way that we introduce dependencies?
And if so: what do we actually bet on? On something we think that will happen?
We introduce dependency by starting a new cycle with last closing element. So actually we bet for an event, and this event will surely happen 100%.
This is one example indeed. The problem being however that we know to bet what, but not when.
why not try to think about a method where we do NOT bet on an event. Sure, we use cycles as defined like you did, but instead of waiting for it to happen, why not try to go with the flow within a cycle? Like the tides...
Just asking
The flow is not constant.
It's built up from waves,bigger and smaller which sum up.
Almost no 2 waves are the same, because of the own dynamics of the smaller and bigger waves.
I always loved the saying, all ships rise with the tide. Thanks for the visual.
Happy Father's Day to you and all Dad's here!
Quote from: 3Nine on Jun 18, 06:38 AM 2017
all ships rise with the tide
Titanic maybe not; for the visual :ooh:
Quote from: Herby on Jun 18, 06:51 AM 2017
Titanic maybe not; for the visual :ooh:
Ha, yes, my methods all perform that way! Herein lies the problem with metaphors... always an exception.
Yes indeed, happy fathersday!
So although praline's statement is not untrue, the question is how to utilize it. And before you know it, you have a system that waits for a repeat.
But as Herby indicated: a lot is happening in, and inbetween cycles.
It is very difficult to grasp, not betting on events. All, yes all systems discussed on this forum are about betting on events. Some really stupid systems, some very sophisticated, but all, all loose. Why? Think about the thought experiment.
If there is a method, it MUST use the fact that there are indeed dependencies. This is the only loophole out to avoid the law of large numbers.
But it must be a fragile method: at the moment one tries to predict an event, it collapses onto the law of large numbers again.
So to complicate things: how to NOT bet on events? What is the alternative??
Please note: using random is just a way to bet on events (the randomly generated numbers are the new predictions). So if such a method exists, it needs to be a little bit more sophisticated
Would NOT betting on events be an event itself? Just a thought.
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 18, 07:03 AM 2017
So to complicate things: how to NOT bet on events? What is the alternative??
Bet on the Anti event.
Quote from: Herby on Jun 18, 07:38 AM 2017
Bet on the Anti event.
As in the complimentary set??
As Priyanka showed in some of her films.
I don't rember which one, but I found the idea interesting.
Why wait for an event?
Use a Non Random system, like VDW, where past spins are dependent.
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 18, 07:03 AM 2017
Yes indeed, happy fathersday!
So although praline's statement is not untrue, the question is how to utilize it. And before you know it, you have a system that waits for a repeat.
But as Herby indicated: a lot is happening in, and inbetween cycles.
It is very difficult to grasp, not betting on events. All, yes all systems discussed on this forum are about betting on events. Some really stupid systems, some very sophisticated, but all, all loose. Why? Think about the thought experiment.
If there is a method, it MUST use the fact that there are indeed dependencies. This is the only loophole out to avoid the law of large numbers.
But it must be a fragile method: at the moment one tries to predict an event, it collapses onto the law of large numbers again.
So to complicate things: how to NOT bet on events? What is the alternative??
Please note: using random is just a way to bet on events (the randomly generated numbers are the new predictions). So if such a method exists, it needs to be a little bit more sophisticated
Happy Fathers Day Everyone!!!
ok we know that cycles create a small dependence...As you posted in the holy grail thread; after the repeat the partition has a very small tendency for the opposite. But the repeat seems to be the same.
The problem with that is that we dont know when the repeats will come exactly.
Unique numbers might be better but the problem with that is more numbers to be played and early repeat...
Agree with RRBB and it's something I have always thought myself. Why would anyone want to play roulette (or any game for that matter) the way the casino/game operators would like you to play. It's a guaranteed sucker bet.
Antibets, bets, i do not know. This to me all seems like betting on event (spins).
Whenever you play the waiting game you loose...
How i know? Just read the post on the rouletteforum, whatever forum.
Play the waiting game and you loose...
what about "processes"? They also do happen right? They are continues. What are (could be) processes related to roulette?(please do not start about table and prng, so irrelevant, so beneath the point...)
Great evening, or night, or morning (wow how relative things are)
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 18, 04:51 PM 2017
what about "processes"? They also do happen right? They are continues. What are (could be) processes related to roulette?(please do not start about table and prng, so irrelevant, so beneath the point...)
Can you give more detail on what you mean by the word 'processes'?
Actually: no, i won't. Google it! Play with it! Can the events be a result if underlying processes???
This might all be b@*shâ,¬t. You decide.
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 18, 05:01 PM 2017
Can the events be a result if underlying processes???
Im just trying to have a better understanding how you are using the word and what it means to you in the sentence.
process- 1. a series of actions that you take in order to achieve a result
2.a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end
Your saying that roulette itself is using a series of steps in order to achieve a result. If this is the case then your saying that roulette in general is not random and the game is choosing the numbers based on some past event.
Is this what you are saying? Or am i using the word process different from the point you are trying to make?
Hi moneyT,
That is not what i mean. Usually we focus on events: things that happen like spins. And yes, repeats.
The question is, can we define (find, think of, construct), something that happens continuesly?
Roulette is random, no discussion about that. But as priyanka so nicely showed, depending on the view, we can find some non-randomness.
What i would like to propose: get rid of thinking about discrete events. Discrete events force us in the waiting mode...
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 18, 05:01 PM 2017
This might all be b@*shâ,¬t. You decide.
Before I decide, would you be willing to play on Steve's local process long enough to show an extraordinary win rate?
Quote from: Still on Jun 19, 07:19 AM 2017
Before I decide, would you be willing to play on Steve's local process long enough to show an extraordinary win rate?
Haven't we been down that road already?
Quote from: Still on Jun 19, 07:19 AM 2017
Before I decide, would you be willing to play on Steve's local process long enough to show an extraordinary win rate?
No. So why should the checking of a statement that can be checked be conditional on something else? And for the record. I do not trust Steve, so no.
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 09:24 AM 2017
No. So why should the checking of a statement that can be checked be conditional on something else? And for the record. I do not trust Steve, so no.
I would like to know which unique statement you've made (one that hasn't been made many times before here) can be checked yes or no on face value.
Let's talk about why trust in Steve would be important in regards taking a little time to post an extraordinary win rate as did Priyanka.
Is it because Steve might record bets, and, may be able to decipher what is your process based on those bets?
If so, then only Steve could answer that, and so, i invite Steve to comment.
My understanding of the multiplayer was largely so that people who make extraordinary statements can show extraordinary results. Having done so, they can then come in and teach without being called out for baiting the forum with interesting, but empty tidbits. But i might misunderstand the purpose of Steve's game.
But steve made it harder to bet the starting larger group, like the casino, he/they don't like large spread of #'s, not betting 2 doz on outside there you are trapped, but 24 non-hit from the starting 37#'s is s different ball game, so to stop this he cut the bet time by 15 seconds, now that is a lot of time that would do so much damage.
Example of a casino.
Aspers, why Aspers because they have got all touchscreen players playing just one wheel with 40 sec spin time, before on touchscreen you could bet the live tables, but at night when gets busy, spin times take longer so large spreads could be placed on mat. But no more all the mugs now play a wheel high up on a podium where you can just about see the wheel if tall enough, otherwise its down to the old monitor on the wall like smartlive, it might be a video feed.
Quote from: Still on Jun 19, 09:49 AM 2017
I would like to know which unique statement you've made (one that hasn't been made many times before here) can be checked yes or no on face value.
Let's talk about why trust in Steve would be important in regards taking a little time to post an extraordinary win rate as did Priyanka.
Is it because Steve might record bets, and, may be able to decipher what is your process based on those bets?
If so, then only Steve could answer that, and so, i invite Steve to comment.
My understanding of the multiplayer was largely so that people who make extraordinary statements can show extraordinary results. Having done so, they can then come in and teach without being called out for baiting the forum with interesting, but empty tidbits. But i might misunderstand the purpose of Steve's game.
Did I ever say unique statement? Neither did I state my statements are extraordinary. And No, I'm not going to discuss my feelings for Steve. Why not: first of all he facilitates this discussion which I totally respect. Secondly my inner thoughts are mine and mine alone and not open for debate.
I do understand your mistrust. However, could it just be that instead of using our reasoning powers would have protected us from our disappointment? Whom do you mistrust? People with extraordinary statements, or your own power of assessment (sorry, could not find the word I was looking for: not a native speaker)
I do not ask you to trust me, as far as I know I have stated falsifiable statements, just proof me wrong or right: I actually do not care. Do not expect me to hold your hand and guide you through it. It is therefor my believe that I do not have to convince you or anyone.
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 02:02 AM 2017
Hi moneyT,
That is not what i mean. Usually we focus on events: things that happen like spins. And yes, repeats.
The question is, can we define (find, think of, construct), something that happens continuesly?
Roulette is random, no discussion about that. But as priyanka so nicely showed, depending on the view, we can find some non-randomness.
What i would like to propose: get rid of thinking about discrete events. Discrete events force us in the waiting mode...
1.The singles and series for the EC are constantly changing(going back and forth)
2.Straight from last spin will be different from next spin straight more then 99%
Only continuous thing i can think of......
I know some people are not posting because they dont want to look dumb. so if anyone has ideas you can pm and i will post for you!
Anyone else have any ideas? please post or pm me and ill post :thumbsup:
QuoteSuggest continuity: all outcomes that are not equally-likely must eventually recover and catch up based on maths expectation.
And the process: we are betting on more wins than losses.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jun 19, 10:19 AM 2017
1.The singles and series for the EC are constantly changing(going back and forth)
2.Straight from last spin will be different from next spin straight more then 99%
Only continuous thing i can think of......
I know some people are not posting because they dont want to look dumb. so if anyone has ideas you can pm and i will post for you!
Anyone else have any ideas? please post or pm me and ill post :thumbsup:
Hi N2H this is great thanks! I truly hope that people are not afraid of appearing dumb. Better post and have discussion etc than not posting and not having discussion
Some discussions may riune the hard work made by others. Or can lead to new thoughts.
Who knows...
Here’s a thought.
What if the process is the generation of numbers themselves, either by the wheel or RNG.
What will we encounter during this process, perhaps some further processes, like a branching process for repeaters, a non-hit branch, a Standard Deviation branch, etc.
All of these branching processes will occur during the process of generating numbers.
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Jun 19, 11:15 AM 2017
Here’s a thought.
What if the process is the generation of numbers themselves, either by the wheel or RNG.
What will we encounter during this process, perhaps some further processes, like a branching process for repeaters, a non-hit branch, a Standard Deviation branch, etc.
All of these branching processes will occur during the process of generating numbers.
Nick
Nick i like what i see, but wow, WTF, looks complicated to the untrained, so i'll leave you all to it, thanks, best of luck to all
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 10:08 AM 2017
Did I ever say unique statement?
You implied that there are statements you are making that can be verified yes or no, true or false.
If you are repeating things that have been said before, which of those statements can be verified yes or no?
If you are making unique statements, which of those statements can be verified true or false?
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 10:08 AM 2017Neither did I state my statements are extraordinary.
You're posture, whether asking rhetorical questions (as would a teacher), or making statements (as would a teacher) are extra ordinary here, as not every forum member postures as having a process or method that beats the wheel via a system...and poses as a teacher without any credentials.
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 10:08 AM 2017And No, I'm not going to discuss my feelings for Steve.
No, i'm not asking you to discuss your feelings for Steve.
I'm asking Steve to comment on the only two reasons you will not post an extraordinary win-rate on his game.
The only two reasons you could possibly float to avoid proving anything is:
1. You think Steve records bets.
2. You think Steve can decipher your bets and obtain your system.
You would only be concerned about this if you are claiming you have a winning system, since who cares if Steve records and deciphers losing systems.
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 10:08 AM 2017
Why not: first of all he facilitates this discussion which I totally respect.
Yes, but you think he will record and decipher your winning system. Yes or no?
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 10:08 AM 2017Secondly my inner thoughts are mine and mine alone and not open for debate.
I think your motives are up for debate, if they encroach upon breaking the rules of this forum.
Otherwise, i would invite you to keep ALL your thoughts to yourself.
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 10:08 AM 2017I do understand your mistrust.
I don't think you do. Maybe you could explain why you think i mistrust you?
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 10:08 AM 2017However, could it just be that instead of using our reasoning powers would have protected us from our disappointment? Whom do you mistrust? People with extraordinary statements, or your own power of assessment (sorry, could not find the word I was looking for: not a native speaker)
Clearly, you are asking forum members to use reasoning power.
The word for this is group-sourcing.
My question is, why are you asking the group to use it's reasoning power for you?
Is it because,
A) You need help testing a system? Help testing an idea?
B) You are posturing as a teacher, and are expecting students to do some work.
Either way, it is not looking good for you, if you are not willing to post any extraordinary win-rate that qualifies you as a teacher.
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 10:08 AM 2017I do not ask you to trust me, as far as I know I have stated falsifiable statements, just proof me wrong or right: I actually do not care.
It's clear you do not care about the group based on your statements so far.
Again, what are these falsifiable statements, whether unique or common place?
Again, before proving one of your ideas right or wrong, what are you basing your request for group resources on?
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 10:08 AM 2017Do not expect me to hold your hand and guide you through it. It is therefor my believe that I do not have to convince you or anyone.
Here again, you've more than implied that you have something that beats the wheel, otherwise there is no question of hand-holding or convincing.
But you won't reveal what that is.
That is a violation of the rules here.
As a compromise, so that you CAN violate the rules, i have asked you to establish your teaching credentials first, by posting an extraordinary win-rate on Steve's machine.
I am simply noting, for the record, that you are refusing to do so for reasons that are neither clear, nor acceptable, if Steve is an honest person.
Quote from: Still on Jun 19, 12:10 PM 2017Otherwise, i would invite you to keep ALL your thoughts to yourself.
Rrbb, he is just kidding. Please do not keep your thoughts only for yourself.
Still, there are a lot of members that accept rrbb as teacher and would love to hear more from him... If you aren't one of us just don't click on this topic.
I studied and worked a lor with his posts and views, thats why i don't need any proof from him. Its all logical and make sense even without steve's game.
Quote from: praline on Jun 19, 12:21 PM 2017
Rrbb, he is just kidding. Please do not keep your thoughts only for yourself.
Still, there are a lot of members that accept rrbb as teacher and would love to hear more from him... If you aren't one of us just don't click on this topic.
I studied and worked a lor with his posts and views, thats why i don't need any proof from him. Its all logical and make sense even without steve's game.
I don't have to click on anything, and rrbb doesn't have to break the rules. So we are even so far.
Quote from: Still on Jun 19, 12:27 PM 2017rrbb doesn't have to break the rules
Or you can see it as "new ideas"... And not a rules violation
Lets call this proposed VIEW N2H in honor of N2H:
we only distinguish between hit and unhit.
1. A number of part of hit when it first belonged to unhit; and the wheel (or pnrg) spit this number out:
2. A number is part of unhit when it first belonged to hit, and a repeat occurs on that number:
e.g. dozen (just to illustrate)
unhit 1,2,3 hit: none roulette: 1
unhit 2,3 hit: 1 roulette: 2
unhit ,3 hit: 1,2 roulette: 2
unhit 2,3 hit: 1 ...
So the only thing roulette does, is moving numbers from hit to unhit and the other way around. We have to start somewhere, and than we just move numbers from hit to unhit and visa versa.
If we like we can even decide where roulette puts these numbers: for example, in the case of the hits, lets put the new numbers in front. In the case of unhit, let's put them in the back (but that's entirely up to you)
- This is a continues process, not unlike the one N2H is using.
- If we like we can reset the hit and/or unhit on a repeat
- We can combine betting on the (some of) the hit and the unhit
- its totally up to us, it will of course help if we could find a pattern: a reason to bet on the the hit or unhit (or parts of them)
Does this really happen in roulette? Well no. But who cares
Is this a consistent winner? No it illustrates "finding" a process
Most people here played around for years with certain systems, why not spend a couple of days in this view? Who knows, you might come up with a (much better) and view yourself. The only boundary is your imagination...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: praline on Jun 19, 12:31 PM 2017
Or you can see it as "new ideas"... And not a rules violation
I think we've had enough of the think-about-roulette-differently meme as an excuse to go around the rules.
This is beyond "think differently".
Way beyond.
Please all,
I'm not a teacher! And not a guru really I'm not. I can only advocate to see roulette for what it is: it is a promise of enormous wealth - and I leave it up to you how you define wealth. There are some posters here who have really really beautiful life lessons to share, some of them are directly related to roulette.
I posted one last post (besides this one), for this year. My cup of negativity is full.
The post is kind of related to N2H's system: it describes a view of roulette as a "breathing" living thing: in this view numbers are shifted from "hit" to "unhit". This is an example of a continues process. Maybe combine it with some other ideas/thoughts from this forum. It's fun.
Btw: there are some guys here who are fluent with excel (I might even have helped some them out in the past...), use their skills as this will make testing a lot easier. Always keep the "constant bet" in mind (unless you play for fun). Within 10 seconds you should be able to recognize if a system has potential or not.
Good luck!
And Still, I really do not need this. You are right to be skeptical, but I'm not going over all my posts and credentials.
have fun!
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 01:22 PM 2017
Please all,
I'm not a teacher! And not a guru really I'm not. I can only advocate to see roulette for what it is: it is a promise of enormous wealth - and I leave it up to you how you define wealth. There are some posters here who have really really beautiful life lessons to share, some of them are directly related to roulette.
I posted one last post (besides this one), for this year. My cup of negativity is full.
The post is kind of related to N2H's system: it describes a view of roulette as a "breathing" living thing: in this view numbers are shifted from "hit" to "unhit". This is an example of a continues process. Maybe combine it with some other ideas/thoughts from this forum. It's fun.
Btw: there are some guys here who are fluent with excel (I might even have helped some them out in the past...), use their skills as this will make testing a lot easier. Always keep the "constant bet" in mind (unless you play for fun). Within 10 seconds you should be able to recognize if a system has potential or not.
Good luck!
And Still, I really do not need this. You are right to be skeptical, but I'm not going over all my posts and credentials.
have fun!
Good bye.
If you need any more help solving these puzzles and problems, come on back and try again.
If you want to frame your posture as a guru or teacher you can post an extraordinary win-rate on Steve's machine.
Thank you still :thumbsup:
OK, rrbb, I hear you.
Attached is an excel sheet that shows the Hits, Unhits and repeats in a 37 spin cycle.
Simple press Function Key F9 for another set of RNG spins.
Any ideas anyone has about expanding this sheet to see if we can find a constant bet, just shout out and I will be glad to re-code and try.
Cheers
Nick
User 'rrbb' can not receive personal messages.
Strange one...
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 01:22 PM 2017I posted one last post (besides this one), for this year. My cup of negativity is full.
What a disappointment. ..
However i hope to read more from you in the future. I wish you all the best!
sucks to be away for a couple hrs and come back to this BS!
rrbb, some of us have been looking forward to posting again. Is it possible to continue and ignore some ppl or block....maybe we can move the convo to someones non random forum.
Btw about the topic. If label dozens as hit and unhit. It becomes an EC!
Quote from: Nickmsi on Jun 19, 02:09 PM 2017
OK, rrbb, I hear you.
Attached is an excel sheet that shows the Hits, Unhits and repeats in a 37 spin cycle.
Simple press Function Key F9 for another set of RNG spins.
Any ideas anyone has about expanding this sheet to see if we can find a constant bet, just shout out and I will be glad to re-code and try.
Cheers
Nick
Nick, can you adjust the sheet to make it look like an EC?
Hit or Unhit....H and U example
H
H
U
H
U
Notto mentioned several times to keep in mind the averages.
I added an Expected Repeat to this sheet. It compares what the Expected Repeat is to the Actual Repeat and shows the Variance (Repeat Variance).
Now you can play around and see what happens at different Variances. For example, I did 100 sessions (press F9 for 100 times and write down the results each time) for a Variance of -10.
What it shows is that 82% of the time a Repeat occurs within the first 3 spins.
See if there is something better.
Hi Mel, this sheet is for Straight Numbers so I don't get what you want with the Dozens or EC. Can you explain further?
Thanks
Nick
The example rrbb gave was with dozens...
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 19, 12:56 PM 2017
e.g. dozen (just to illustrate)
unhit 1,2,3 hit: none roulette: 1
unhit 2,3 hit: 1 roulette: 2
unhit ,3 hit: 1,2 roulette: 2
unhit 2,3 hit: 1 ...
If you follow the same rules but just track Hits vs Unhits...the dozens becomes an EC
its either a Hit or Unhit!
Understanding of smaller groups might help implement something for larger groups
Looking at straights from the beginning will not let us see the picture because we dont know what we are looking for. Smaller groups should be easier.
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jun 19, 03:00 PM 2017
sucks to be away for a couple hrs and come back to this BS!
rrbb, some of us have been looking forward to posting again. Is it possible to continue and ignore some ppl or block....maybe we can move the convo to someones non random forum.
Btw about the topic. If label dozens as hit and unhit. It becomes an EC!
That's a good idea. Another idea is people can PM rrbb and get one on one coaching on how to think about roulette differently.
Quote from: Nickmsi on Jun 19, 03:28 PM 2017What it shows is that 82% of the time a Repeat occurs within the first 3 spins.
Hi nick higher level maths here to me, but a question. In topic Are there really 37 possible outcomes? reply 44 is the info the same 2 unique happened 3210, as the repeat happened at spin 3, is it 82%, just nice to see the maths working side by side or do they differ.
Thanks.
Of 165 daily games i have had 11 games with a repeat in 1st 3 spins, looks a bit out
Hi Notto,
The 82% win ratio only pertains to betting when the Repeat Variance was -10. Your system does not use the Repeat Variance so your results will not match.
To give an example, if at Spin 16, the Expected number of repeats is 5 but the actual repeats is only 1, then that is a Repeat Variance of -10 and if we bet all the numbers that have hit, we would expect to win 82% of the time within the next 3 spins.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Still on Jun 19, 03:48 PM 2017Another idea is people can PM rrbb and get one on one coaching on how to think about roulette differently.
No, they can't.
Thank you, again!
The attached sheet is my interpretation of what Dozens Hits and Unhits would look like.
This is one way and I am sure there are others.
See what you think.
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Jun 19, 11:19 PM 2017
The attached sheet is my interpretation of what Dozens Hits and Unhits would look like.
This is one way and I am sure there are others.
See what you think.
Nick
Ok i will look now....i will also do 20 spins manually so you can see what i mean
Hey nick check it out
I only did 21 spins and i did it manually but you should get the idea.
link:s://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KnOmoJ1PprXTQkr5qzluvl9DJBhV_Nn-mQNGEG0mTCs/edit?usp=sharing
Hits 9
unhits 9
so it was even
Thanks Mel,
Attached is the process of Dozens in Hit and Unhits.
Kindly F9 this sheet and see if anyone has any ideas on how we can use the process or any other process.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Nickmsi on Jun 19, 04:55 PM 2017
Hi Notto,
The 82% win ratio only pertains to betting when the Repeat Variance was -10. Your system does not use the Repeat Variance so your results will not match.
To give an example, if at Spin 16, the Expected number of repeats is 5 but the actual repeats is only 1, then that is a Repeat Variance of -10 and if we bet all the numbers that have hit, we would expect to win 82% of the time within the next 3 spins.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Nick
Thanks Nick :thumbsup:
Quote from: Nickmsi on Jun 20, 11:19 AM 2017
Thanks Mel,
Attached is the process of Dozens in Hit and Unhits.
Kindly F9 this sheet and see if anyone has any ideas on how we can use the process or any other process.
Cheers
Nick
Ill take a look in a few.....I will disable the manual sheet i made since nick posted an updated sheet. I apologize if anyon didnt get a chance to see it. Ill post a screenshot of it later :thumbsup:
Hi Mel
Hoping that screenshot is on its way.
Unfortunately I missed your idea before you removed excel, so am not sure about the math of converting 3 dozens to 50:50 chance there.
Thanks
Sorry i forgot hahaha
It was a manual test so only 21 spins. Stays pretty much even, but no solid method on choosing yet. I believe it needs to be combined with something else
Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jun 21, 03:16 PM 2017
I believe it needs to be combined with something else
Yeah, at least... 8)
Quote from: rrbb on Jun 18, 07:03 AM 2017So to complicate things: how to NOT bet on events? What is the alternative??
All ships rise with the tide.
There are no bets at this place? (shown in green)
Does this process require progress?
What I played with does not win at a fixed rate ...
I was looking for some good film and found this man that is trying, but I don't like much his works (matter of preference). However you can check out his works if you like. His name is Gabriel Ochoa Peri's (seems a Dutch name to me LOL).
Btw there are a lot of ship companies out there in Der Haag
I'm would rather rename this topic in "Let's play"