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

Credit where its due

Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 20, 01:07 PM 2017
Credit where its due

What's going on here?

All credits goes to TG. I simply figured his stuff out with some others. But seriously. .... BET THE NUMBERS THAT HIT ABOVE AVERAGE! !!!!!!!  :thumbsup:

Quote from: denzie on Jul 20, 03:16 PM 2017EC's ? Dozens? Naaaah. BET THE NUMBERS THAT HIT ABOVE AVERAGE! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  Forget my old topics. I've moved on. And so should we all do. Don't stay stuck in the same methods that didn't work and never will......

I've moved on.  Don't stay stuck in the same methods that didn't work all the time.  BET THE NUMBERS THAT HIT ABOVE AVERAGE.

So Den it seems we've studied well, taken on board the good, thrown out the chaff. But we still have to watch non-hit as they give the repeat, so lessons learned from non-hit class are a must. Like how often do we see a repeat in spins1-10, answer more than we see 10/10, how many 1 hit from 1-10 can we take to spins 11-20. Why does 8 and i'm not meaning the number 8 come into the play of so many methods. Just part of lessons learnt on this forum.

The only time numbers hit above average is with a biased wheel.  Its a very well established and thoroughly tested fact.

I give full credit to Denzie for getting me initially interested in the profit potential of hot numbers (or "hotties").

I also give credit to Nottop in this matter -- he is also a big proponent of betting on repeaters. I just wish his explanations for all his charts were a little bit more understandable. 
:) :)

But, just to reiterate, I give total credit (and thanks) to Denzie and Nottop for getting me interested in this repeater number bet selection methodology.

You are going to eventually find hot numbers spin just as often as cold numbers, after you decide if a number is hot or cold.

Don't take my word, just test properly.

@steve

Run some cycle of spins and show us its no different. Let us learn something from you. Not just throw a theory. We already know the game is negative cant be beaten in long run in theory. But in practicle lots of people r winning continiously

QuoteThe only time numbers hit above average is with a biased wheel.

so every time i run spin file of say 200 spins is from biased wheel...because i can see that there is always a group of numbers being wacked more than others....so many biased wheels :question: :question: :question:

Quote from: Madi on Jul 20, 08:07 PM 2017Run some cycle of spins and show us its no different.

I even published free software so anyone can do this for themselves. Problem is people arent using it so they waste time on approaches that have NO EFFECT on the accuracy of predictions. And when there's no change in accuracy, and the payouts are still the same, then NOTHING CHANGES. The player still loses.

Quote from: maestro on Jul 20, 11:43 PM 2017so every time i run spin file of say 200 spins is from biased wheel...because i can see that there is always a group of numbers being wacked more than others....so many biased wheels

You are probably referring to the likelihood that the odds are some numbers will be repeats. That's not bias, it's statistics. It is grade 4 statistics.

Payout is same in all cases. If i use devices to predict does it change the payout? What happen actually when a system is based on fallacy? Does it lose very frequently? How many spin does it need to pass?

yeah i am not that good in math.. :sad2:

Quote from: Madi on Jul 21, 12:57 AM 2017If i use devices to predict does it change the payout?

Nothing changes the payouts. Odds of winning and the amount paid for wins are two different things.

Quote from: Madi on Jul 21, 12:57 AM 2017What happen actually when a system is based on fallacy? Does it lose very frequently?

Depends on how many spins. A progression system can quite easily survive 10,000 spins. But when you lose, you lose all winnings and more.

There could be 100 people all using the same system on different tables.

55% of them lose, 45% of them win. The system overall has lost. The page link:://:.roulettephysics.com/roulette-strategy/ has more detail.

Quote from: Madi on Jul 20, 08:07 PM 2017
But in practicle lots of people r winning continiously

Damn right  :thumbsup:
And without that expensive electronics

Quote from: maestro on Jul 20, 11:43 PM 2017
so every time i run spin file of say 200 spins is from biased wheel...because i can see that there is always a group of numbers being wacked more than others....so many biased wheels :question: :question: :question:

Yes it's bias. Steve says so. If it's a perfect balanced wheel each number gonna hit 5,4 times .  :twisted:


:girl_to:

Quote from: Steve on Jul 21, 01:22 AM 2017
Nothing changes the payouts. Odds of winning and the amount paid for wins are two different things.

A progression system can quite easily survive 10,000 spins. But when you lose, you lose all winnings

That's true in most cases. Yup.
But not always   :smile:

Quote from: Steve on Jul 20, 06:13 PM 2017

Don't take my word, just test properly.

I won't,  I did.
Of course if you play long enough all numbers will balance at some point. Cold get hot. Hot get cold.

But in short sessions. .....   ::)

Quote from: denzie on Jul 21, 02:11 AM 2017That's true in most cases. Yup.

Most of the time, a progression system will win in the short time

Quote from: denzie on Jul 21, 02:15 AM 2017But in short sessions.

100 players all playing short sessions is still long-term. Who decides which players win or lose? It comes down to luck.

Quote from: Steve on Jul 21, 02:21 AM 2017Most of the time, a progression system will win in the short time

Bets i've seen from you, Short time is what you play, not 1000's of spins per session, so when we know we'll see numbers repeat in groups of 10 spins, we know that some of these will start to hit above average (can't believe i said hit above avg,LOL), think about it, 4 groups of 10 spins will have shown the LOTT, whats avg for LOTT, 24 #'s, 13 repeats, I'll leave you to ponder that, 13 repeats

QuoteBets i've seen from you, Short time is what you play

That's because i have other supporting data to know it's not luck. For example, plainly seeing where the ball hits the rotor, and logging how far it bounces. It isn't just blind sessions.

Like the charts i show. The chances of nearly precise peaks forming on 2 different sets, and with more supporting data, are virtually negligible.

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 20, 05:41 PM 2017I also give credit to Nottop in this matter -- he is also a big proponent of betting on repeaters. I just wish his explanations for all his charts were a little bit more understandable.
:) :)

But, just to reiterate, I give total credit (and thanks) to Denzie and Nottop for getting me interested in this repeater number bet selection methodology.

Doc, in "so whats left" reply 46, it shows the Morts 1st 10 spins of his session, 9/10.
Reply 47 is all the spins broke into groups of 10 spins, which never gave a 10/10, a group with out a repeat, but lets not get carried away as 10/10 does happen.

So reply 48, i thought lets see if we start in a different position, how would the groups of 10 spins look, still got repeats, so if Mort had started 37 spins later, his starting 37 non-hit numbers( dont dismiss the non-hit, wins are available if you know what to watch for) still gave plenty of repeats.

Moving off topic here, but if you believe in spins 11-40 we average to get 15.8 non-hit in those 30 spins, look at the 500 game avg doc that shows (link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/07/21/temp_505085.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/B910) is the avg for 30 spins in those 500 games, so with knowing you could see 15 repeats in spins 11-40, the smaller group, ie, one hits will hit,repeat again as they grow to 37, then wont they repeat as #'s repeat more than once.

How do we know this, well GUT tracker will show #'s hit more than once, so #'s that hit more than once are surely HOT STEVE

Quoteso #'s that hit more than once are surely HOT STEVE

Sure they may be "hot", but does it mean any number is more likely to spin again anytime soon?

NO. The odds don't change, at all, unless there's bias.

Ask anyone in the gaming industry. Check wikipedia. Do proper testing. This is all seriously old news and the casinos profit from the ignorance. Its all really basic stuff and casino staff laugh at the fallacies.

I understand though. Most of us had such beliefs at some stage. But when the basic facts are understood, you'll wonder what you were thinking. Just test. Use the software i published. The facts that will save everyone time and money are just sitting in front of you.

 regarding the 500 spin avg, its insignificant.  Do more testing.

Consider this...

What is a hot number?

Its just a number that has won more frequently than other numbers in the recent past.

You know a number will repeat 1 in 37 times. Like:

3,
3,

So 3 is a hot number?

Or maybe 1 in 37 spins this just happens?

Its meaningless.  Its primary school math.

Thinking 3 is a hot number is just wrong and ignorant

Then think after 3 then 3, 1 in 37 times it will become 3, 3, 3.

So what? Thats also meaningless. Just basic statistics.

It only becomes relevant of there's something like bias.  Thinking otherwise is not understanding primary school math.

Quote from: Steve on Jul 21, 06:46 AM 2017
regarding the 500 spin avg, its insignificant.  Do more testing.

Don't need more testing as data for rng,airball and live wheel performs as to the data, 15.8 non-hit in 30 spins and 30.5 non-hit in 60 spins, the max amount of spins for any non-hit has hardly changed in over a year, but max could increase but would it increase everytime i play, as you and others so remind us the wheel has no memory. If betting for a non-hit consideration to its max spins is paramount, lets just say after the year a non-hit has a max of 9 spins, you can bet for 4 spins, the ? is how many games win within 4 spins or better to wait which costs nothing, if missed for 5 spins you could now bet for that non-hit or wait 1 more spin, in case it increases by 1 more to max 10, but of course it's still a gamble, but one has increased there chance of getting the win.
Plenty of sheets are posted from your MPR that hit the avg's of 15.8 and 30.5 over 60 spins,
Even the Green charts that make mr T sick using efbet by Mort show the averages work fine, but it is still a gamble when we/I play

There's an argument for picking hot numbers which says it's safer because if the wheel happens to be biased, then you'll be betting on the right numbers. For the same reason, it's a bad idea to bet on cold numbers. But let's be reasonable; how many wheels these days are likely to have that kind of bias?

Then there's the view that yes, all numbers will balance out in the long-term, but in the short term they can bunch together (be hot). After all, you never see all 37 numbers hit in 37 spins do you?

Trouble is, there's no reliable indicator or trigger of how long currently hot numbers will remain hot in the short term. If, say, it could be shown that if a number hit twice in the last 20 spins, it more often than not would hit at least once more in the next 10 spins, you would have your holy grail. You can substitute your own system of the kind:


If you could find an X, Y trigger which results in enough wins in the Z spins, you'll have a winner. But without taking into account information other than the raw stats and probabilities which apply to the ideal game (not to a particular wheel), how could such a trigger be possible? Future outcomes are independent of past outcomes unless you're including data about the initial conditions (basically, the physics of the wheel in question). Where the ball lands is not independent of these initial conditions, but looking at where the ball landed in the last Y spins (plus how many times it did so), and only looking at that, tells you nothing.

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 21, 08:13 AM 2017
If you could find an X, Y trigger which results in enough wins in the Z spins, you'll have a winner. But without taking into account information other than the raw stats and probabilities which apply to the ideal game (not to a particular wheel), how could such a trigger be possible? Future outcomes are independent of past outcomes unless you're including data about the initial conditions (basically, the physics of the wheel in question). Where the ball lands is not independent of these initial conditions, but looking at where the ball landed in the last Y spins (plus how many times it did so), and only looking at that, tells you nothing.

It's like this... predicting the next spin is equally-likely, but predicting the next event over several spins is not equally-likely. So we can predict the most-likely event - and that event has nothing to do with random numbers or the fact we produced them using a random number generator. It doesn't matter what number arrangement we have - we are able to predict certain events/structures that apply to all of them. The X,Y trigger and dependency comes from the fact that each playing section/group is dependent on each other: If a street repeats then a line has a good chance of also repeating because they share common numbers.

Quotepredicting the next spin is equally-likely, but predicting the next event over several spins is not equally-likely

It's still equally likely.

Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 21, 04:35 AM 2017
Doc, in "so whats left" reply 46, it shows the Morts 1st 10 spins of his session, 9/10.
Reply 47 is all the spins broke into groups of 10 spins, which never gave a 10/10, a group with out a repeat, but lets not get carried away as 10/10 does happen.

So reply 48, i thought lets see if we start in a different position, how would the groups of 10 spins look, still got repeats, so if Mort had started 37 spins later, his starting 37 non-hit numbers( dont dismiss the non-hit, wins are available if you know what to watch for) still gave plenty of repeats.

Moving off topic here, but if you believe in spins 11-40 we average to get 15.8 non-hit in those 30 spins, look at the 500 game avg doc that shows (link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/07/21/temp_505085.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/B910) is the avg for 30 spins in those 500 games, so with knowing you could see 15 repeats in spins 11-40, the smaller group, ie, one hits will hit,repeat again as they grow to 37, then wont they repeat as #'s repeat more than once.

How do we know this, well GUT tracker will show #'s hit more than once, so #'s that hit more than once are surely HOT STEVE

Nottop,
It is a somewhat clearer explanation compared to your previous ones. I will take a more detailed look at it soon -- thanks for your above reply.

Ok forget repeaters,  dozens,  streets , ec ,....

So what's next ? Buy that Nintendo?
Seriously not sure what you try to do here but your not a roulette miracle. This game gets beaten every day. And without any bs electronics. So how about that ? Are those cats lucky each day ? Or is it possible you don't know everything there is to know about this game?  And each session always have hot numbers. And in case that rare event would come I wouldn't lose nothing.

So to conclude. ... You can't win with repeaters and I can. (Every session played and tested in rx  and available in wiesbaden )

It is what it is. Anyway happy winnings everyone.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 21, 09:34 AM 2017
The X,Y trigger and dependency comes from the fact that each playing section/group is dependent on each other: If a street repeats then a line has a good chance of also repeating because they share common numbers.

Yes there is a dependency between groups of course, but only with regard to a single outcome. Obviously if a street repeats then the line which contains the street must also repeat, but I'm talking about dependency between successive spins. Why should the street repeat in the first place? because it has been repeating often? because it hasn't repeated in the last Y spins? You can come up with all kinds of "reasons" why it should repeat based on complex events or statistics. You could even redesign the layout and generate more stats based on this. I'm not denying there are hot numbers and repeaters but only that it's possible to predict them on the basis of past spins without other information.

long time no see Bayes..i wanted to ask you if you dont mind,have ever had a look on a thing multi arm bandit thats kind of applet on wolfram demonstration....do you think should work on roulette..thanks

Denzie, I'm really trying to help. I spend spare time trying to give accurate advice, which is mostly ignored. And as you have done, sometimes I get attacked.

I even released free software so people see facts. But it isn't being used.

Quote- So what's next ?

Maybe stop wasting time with what we know fails. Try something new.

I gave some suggestions in the outside the box area

Quote- Buy that Nintendo?

I don't think its your thing.

Quote- Seriously not sure what you try to do here but your not a roulette miracle.

Never claimed to be. But I do understand primary school math. And when my systems were nonsense like repeaters, I quickly learned because i actually wanted the truth, convenient or not.

What am i trying to do? Imagine you saw someone walking of a cliff, and you told then to watch their step. Then they say "wtf you are trying to do"

Denzie in your signature, what are u trying to do? Ive been in that loop before too. Im telling you that you don't have it figured out yet. Im not being arrogant about it. I've been where you are before.

Quote- This game gets beaten every day. And without any bs electronics. So how about that ?

For every 10 winners, there are perhaps 20 losers. That's what you call "beaten"?

Quote- Are those cats lucky each day ?

Its like the multiplayer roulette game. Some players win, most lose. Some players are lucky for longer, but the longer they play, the closer they get to 0.97 win rate.

Quote
- Or is it possible you don't know everything there is to know about this game?

Of course not. I at least know the basics.

Quote- And each session always have hot numbers.

See what i wrote earlier. What you call hot numbers is just normal probability.

Quote- And in case that rare event would come I wouldn't lose nothing.

Systems based on rare events fail because the odds of failure at any point don't change.

Quote- So to conclude. ... You can't win with repeaters and I can. (Every session played and tested in rx  and available in wiesbaden )

I hope you continue to win. Many times before i thought i had it figured out. Then i learned harsh reality. I went through the cycle of disappointment many times until i fully understood why the systems eventually tanked.

BTW, for years Turbo was an advocate of cold numbers and "furthest back". Take a look at the archived posts on GG. Ok, so we all (well, some maybe) learn from our mistakes, but it's worth mentioning that during that time he claimed that he never lost, just as he does now!

For me, that doesn't inspire much confidence in Turbo's assessment of what's good and what isn't when it comes to roulette systems. It just seems as though whatever system he comes up with, it's a winner, regardless of whether it's based on hot or cold numbers, singles, even chances, whatever.  ;D

I do like the guy though, and at least he does try to demonstrate that his systems work by posting stats and charts, even if they are misleading and in my opinion, cherry-picked for forum readers.

I agree bayes. He makes contradictory and incorrect statements.

He publishes misleading information too, although it mostly appears to be unintentional.

I agree he's not a bad guy.  It looks like he's simply mistaken again. Cold numbers are just as bad as hot numbers.

He doesn't deserve the flak. Other people make mistakes too.

But this whole crap with parx is stupid. The math behind parx is not the same. Real casinos don't give you free $100,000 to play with. I previously explained parx math to explain why parx ranks are meaningless.

Anyone serious about roulette needs to take pride and emotion out of it. The facts are actually quite sinple.

But if you just like to dabble for fun, nobody cares. It only becomes an issue when misleading and potentially harmful advice are given to people who do take roulette seriously. That's why this site has the warning at the top. People following bad advice lost money and complained to me. Sure they need to take responsibility, but i still have some responsibility to at least point people in a beneficial direction. Not to ram truth down throats.. just to give people both sides to consider.

Problem is people need to pay a high price with unbearable pain b4 they're prepared to listen(even after that not all). They don't want their hope to evaporate since it means they got nothing staring at them, that's the thing they can't possibly accept this end of the road thing when it looks so promising yet nothing.

So telling is nothing not going to achieve anything, change nothing but ironically it's the right thing to do.

its all part of the process. I think we all go through the same stages. For me the super stubborn and ignorant stage took about 5 years. Retrospectively, I have been an ignorant ass much of my life. I know I will never know everything, and will still make mistakes. But i also need to be realistic and call a spade a spade. We are all not so different. Just different stages.

The hardest part is that knowing right now, on some level, you are as stupid now as you were 10 or 20 years ago. Compared to all knowledge, we all know nothing. But we think right now we understand. We dont.

We never fully "know" anything. So our understanding relies on reasonable testing (observation). But you need understanding to know what reasonable testing is.

Personally, roulette led me to be unexpected areas. Conparatively, the financial aspect is secondary and irrelevant. Mostly roulette is a hobby for me.

When we come to the point that we realise we know nothing even with all that 'knowledge' collected over the years of stubborn stupidity it means we have learnt a little something - very little. That includes we know nothing and that's a good place to start. And we always remain in this place of knowing nothing, almost.

So we seek the tiniest of tiny something to know that hopefully might mean something. I said 'hopefully might' because even with all that painstaking historical data testing doing it right it might just turn out absolute wrong - roulette listens to nothing, just does it's thing all day long without a care.

The stupid stubbornness stage, the twin terror, goes out the window, aha that's something we've gained  - not nothing now strangely still nothing.

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 22, 04:24 AM 2017
Yes there is a dependency between groups of course, but only with regard to a single outcome. Obviously if a street repeats then the line which contains the street must also repeat, but I'm talking about dependency between successive spins. Why should the street repeat in the first place? because it has been repeating often? because it hasn't repeated in the last Y spins? You can come up with all kinds of "reasons" why it should repeat based on complex events or statistics. You could even redesign the layout and generate more stats based on this. I'm not denying there are hot numbers and repeaters but only that it's possible to predict them on the basis of past spins without other information.

The repeat of the street depends on the uniques that came before it. If there's already been one appearance of a street then it only needs one more appearance to repeat. And in terms of successive spins, if a line repeats early then we expect the street to repeat early; if the line repeats late then we expect the street to repeat late (or is it vice-versa?) - so there is more to that dependency than first meets the eye. Again, as I stated elsewhere: we cannot predict the next spin - but we can predict things about any arrangement of numbers over multiple spins.

As I said....Well Tested.   :thumbsup:

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 22, 09:00 AM 2017
we cannot predict the next spin - but we can predict things about any arrangement of numbers over multiple spins.

Sure we can, that's what probability does. But the casino doesn't pay us for making correct predictions about what the next sequence of spins will be; we have to bet on one spin at a time.  And we can't make our predictions any better by looking (only) at what has already passed. This is a surprisingly hard lesson to learn even though it's obvious on one level. Turbo says "random has limits", and also admits that roulette outcomes are independent. That's a contradiction because if random really did have limits then the spins wouldn't be independent.

However, it really doesn't do any harm to believe that what you're doing has merit, as long as you don't start risking too much because you "can't lose".  The problem is that people tend to draw conclusions about the success of their systems prematurely. A few hundred or thousand spins of testing isn't nearly enough for systems which only bet on a few numbers.

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 22, 03:34 PM 2017
Sure we can, that's what probability does. But the casino doesn't pay us for making correct predictions about what the next sequence of spins will be; we have to bet on one spin at a time.  And we can't make our predictions any better by looking (only) at what has already passed. This is a surprisingly hard lesson to learn even though it's obvious on one level. Turbo says "random has limits", and also admits that roulette outcomes are independent. That's a contradiction because if random really did have limits then the spins wouldn't be independent.

However, it really doesn't do any harm to believe that what you're doing has merit, as long as you don't start risking too much because you "can't lose".  The problem is that people tend to draw conclusions about the success of their systems prematurely. A few hundred or thousand spins of testing isn't nearly enough for systems which only bet on a few numbers.

The casino doesn't pay for sequences, but we can bet for combinations as one event, and Roulette can even be made a 72 number game by stitching bets across events. So the problem isn't about numbers or spins - it's the unfair payout odds - and how to bet in different dimensions other than on a single spin basis (or "capture more wins or spins" as quoted previously).

Random does have limits as stated and backed up countless times on this forum, and when you have multiple events working within overlapping limits ("short and finite"; sounds familiar?) then current events become dependent on past events, i.e. a sequence/combination of spins becomes dependent on a previous sequence/combinations of spins - particularly if one is wrapped up in the other. And all streams are dependent on each other over successive spins, including official and self-defined, so at least one parallel stream is required - but see topic "Funny Sequences", as there exists another phenomenon that I would describe as the "Butterfly effect" - straight from Chaos Theory and Fractals.

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 22, 03:34 PM 2017
Sure we can, that's what probability does. But the casino doesn't pay us for making correct predictions about what the next sequence of spins will be; we have to bet on one spin at a time. And we can't make our predictions any better by looking (only) at what has already passed.  This is a surprisingly hard lesson to learn even though it's obvious on one level. Turbo says "random has limits", and also admits that roulette outcomes are independent. That's a contradiction because if random really did have limits then the spins wouldn't be independent.

However, it really doesn't do any harm to believe that what you're doing has merit, as long as you don't start risking too much because you "can't lose".  The problem is that people tend to draw conclusions about the success of their systems prematurely. A few hundred or thousand spins of testing isn't nearly enough for systems which only bet on a few numbers.

Says who

Hi Bayes.
I have a question what type of progression you would recommend to play on doublestreet?
I noticed that the very stable bet selection is play hottest doublestreet up to 42 spin.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 22, 04:24 PM 2017
Random does have limits as stated and backed up countless times on this forum...

falkor, can you give me an example of how the apparent limits give the player a practical advantage? Yes I know it's often repeated that you never see 100 reds in a row or every number hitting in 37 spins, but that doesn't mean there is any "hard-wired" limit, it just means that longer sequences like this become increasingly rare. Even if you impose some arbitrary limit, to take advantage of it you have to use "virtual" losses and wins, which would only be valid if outcomes were not independent. The standard mathematical model which most systems implicitly use is good for the casino, bad for the player.  :)

Quote from: nottophammer on Jul 22, 04:27 PM 2017
Says who

Says maths.  :P  And it's also backed up by empirical results. I wrote an article about the "long run (link:://:.roulettician.com/articles/article2.html)" on my site and included a table which gives an approximation of how many spins a system could survive before it tanks. Note that this is flat betting; if using a progression it could be much more (or less) because a progression increases the variance.

Quote from: ozon on Jul 22, 04:29 PM 2017
I have a question what type of progression you would recommend to play on doublestreet?

If you have an edge then 3% of your bankroll is good. This will minimise losses and maximise wins.

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 23, 03:12 AM 2017
falkor, can you give me an example of how the apparent limits give the player a practical advantage? Yes I know it's often repeated that you never see 100 reds in a row or every number hitting in 37 spins, but that doesn't mean there is any "hard-wired" limit, it just means that longer sequences like this become increasingly rare. Even if you impose some arbitrary limit, to take advantage of it you have to use "virtual" losses and wins, which would only be valid if outcomes were not independent. The standard mathematical model which most systems implicitly use is good for the casino, bad for the player.  :)

I already gave you an example, with lines and streets... No limit applies to reds in a row - an example of such limit is that red OR black MUST repeat within 3 spins (or there must be 3 reds or 3 blacks forming an arithmetic progression with equal distance within 9 spins). And if a red appears once then there's 75% chance that red will repeat instead of black - but the casino won't pay you for that 75% prediction - unless of course you can tap into it using the appropriate method to break the unfair payout odds problem of Roulette. Virtual wins/losses may be required for "capturing more spins" (the poor man's edge!) - but "capturing more wins" doesn't.

That's a very confusing and unclear explanation. But there is no sequence of winning numbers that ever "must" happen.

If you show me otherwise, and it increases accuracy of predictions, i will grow a monkey tail.

Make it simple. Give a super clear example of what you're talking about.

falkor, your example of lines and streets doesn't give any advantage as I have already explained. And I agree with Steve; please give a clear example if you're trying to make a point. Obfuscation isn't a virtue in my book.

Regarding the VDW theorem, It's been thrashed over many times and ultimately offers no advantage because there are times when you face a choice of bets. So in the end it amounts to guessing in spite of the appearance of "non randomness".

Quote from: Steve on Jul 23, 06:48 AM 2017


Make it simple. Give a super clear example of what you're talking about.

(link:s://media0.giphy.com/media/nWg4h2IK6jYRO/200w.gif)

I've already stated many facts and provided clear examples for them...
Fact: Lines and Streets are dependent on each other
Example: when a line repeats then a street also has a high chance of repeating; when one repeats early the other is likely to do the same (or vice versa; I can't remember). Try it and see!

Fact: A repeat of red/black must happen within 3 spins (excluding zeroes)
Example: red appears once; now there is 75% chance that red will repeat within the next 2 spins. Try it and confirm what I am saying is true!

R... now 75% finish R (excl. zeroes), i.e. RR or RBR = super clear example.

What else you need example of?

 People will believe what they want to believe. So if they think it works it will work until it fails.

Quote from: denzie on Jul 20, 03:16 PM 2017
But seriously. .... BET THE NUMBERS THAT HIT ABOVE AVERAGE! !!!!!!!  :thumbsup:

Hi denzie

Hmm.. it is really that simple?   :-\

Anyway while trying to figure it out, I can obviously congratulate you entry in the hall of fame   ;)

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 23, 08:08 AM 2017Fact: A repeat of red/black must happen within 3 spins (excluding zeroes)
Example: red appears once; now there is 75% chance that red will repeat within the next 2 spins. Try it and confirm what I am saying is true!

I understand enough of what you're saying. What you described is basic probability. It does not help AT ALL.

You need to understand why I'm a broken record saying "you need to increase accuracy of predictions".

BECAUSE IF THE ODDS DONT CHANGE (INCREASE ACCURACY), AND THE PAYOUTS DON'T CHANGE, THEN EACH SPIN IS THE SAME DAMN THING. EVEN IF YOU INCREASE BET SIZE, ALL YOU DO IS INCREASE AMOUNT YOU RISK. PROGRESSION CHANGES NOTHING. STATISTICS CANT BE USED THE WAY YOU SAID. IT IS NOT MY OPINION. IF YOU CHANGE NOTHING AND NOTHING, NOTHING CHANGES.

Guys, I know it's frustrating, and it took me a whole year to figure it out due to Priyanka's deliberate misguidance. Regarding repeats, these 3 dependencies happen to be the key to edge (they can also be used together):
(link:s://s13.postimg.org/5rb3211nr/dependency.png)

1) All streams generated from the original straights stream are dependent on each other - practice parallel games for at least 6 months.
2) The repeat is dependent on the starting pigeon. What pigeons can you create other than red or black or official groups that are equally-likely? What other characteristics can the unique pigeons have?
3) Study the topic "Funny Sequences" - how do you explain them?
4) Bookmark this page. I'm more generous than Priyanka: I've informed you all about the truth of the flat earth, the twin towers being turned to dust and disappearing, the New Testament being a joke book to big up the Roman emperors, the FEMA camps of 2023, half of USA being under water in 2045 - not to mention the keys to edge that can enable you to save up and finance the building of a bunker in time for that cataclysmic event - rather than having to endlessly search for an oasis.

Playing the above dynamically can enable you to end up with more wins than losses. Unfortunately, I cannot give out a winning method for obvious reasons, but am happy to discuss the concepts and what are FACTS, like the above. And I am not even considered a good player; a real professional could win or break even at the close of every repeat and never lose a single game!

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 23, 08:03 PM 20171) All streams generated from the original straights stream are dependent on each other - practice parallel games for at least 6 months.

There is no such connection like what you described. You described basic probability. That's not a connection.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 23, 08:03 PM 20172) The repeat is dependent on the starting pigeon. What pigeons can you create other than red or black or official groups that are equally-likely? What other characteristics can the unique pigeons have?

No a repeat happens only when specific cause and effect align to cause a winning number to be whatever it is. If you are not specifically using those or related variables to predict, then your accuracy will be random. Basically things happen because something makes things happen.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 23, 08:03 PM 20173) Study the topic "Funny Sequences" - how do you explain them?

I've seen some really funny sequences before. If you watch enough spins, you see them. It's all just basic probability, like three exact same consecutive numbers. It happens to every number. It's meaningless.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 23, 08:03 PM 20174) Bookmark this page. I'm more generous than Priyanka: I've informed you all about the truth of the flat earth, the twin towers being turned to dust and disappearing, the New Testament being a joke book to big up the Roman emperors, the FEMA camps of 2023, half of USA being under water in 2045 - not to mention the keys to edge that can enable you to save up and finance the building of a bunker in time for that cataclysmic event - rather than having to endlessly search for an oasis.

I looked into the flat earth crap seriously, because I actually wanted to know the truth. And all these so-called "proof" videos were full of ignorant, inaccurate and stupid arguments. As for the other things you mentioned, so much information on the internet is twisted deluded bullshit. Often there is some truth to parts, but the full truth is twisted.

Really I have an open mind. But there is NOTHING, NOT ONE PIECE OF VALID PROOF to support flat earth nonsense. It was someone's idea of a bad joke, and so many people actually fell for it. It just distracts from real matters. And what you're saying about roulette is incorrect too. I dont want to argue especially about flat earth. Please dont bring it here again. You were allowed to go on about it and have ample say about it. But in the end it was very clearly just a load of crap from people with really bad logic and understanding. And now it's at the point where it's just pollution on the internet.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 23, 08:03 PM 2017
Guys, I know it's frustrating, and it took me a whole year to figure it out due to Priyanka's deliberate misguidance.

What's frustrating is that you guys seem to be totally ignorant of basic probability and statistical inference. Maybe it's just laziness, because the concepts do take some effort to understand, and gamblers as a group aren't known for their work ethic. I'm all in favour of innovation and research, but at least learn to walk before you can run. These "Guess My Grail" threads are a huge waste of time IMO and only lead to petty bickering. I also suspect that in some cases they're a way for some members to sell systems by the back door, although IMO the usual motive is simple attention-seeking and ego-inflation. People love to think they're privy to information unknown by the unwashed masses, it makes them feel special.

This is not about "guessing grails" because there isn't a single grail being described here. This is about concepts and FACTS, such as 3+ types of dependencies existing in Roulette where everyone assumed each set of spins were independent of the previous. The facts and evidence is what leads to the truth. Do not trust people - trust the facts and evidence.

Yes but the facts and evidence contradict what you say. And even when i point out one clear example, you ignore it.

You arent the only person who does this.

Now join his forum

It's private and confidential.

Carrot on a string.

Falkor thinks people are stupid.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 24, 05:42 AM 2017
The facts and evidence is what leads to the truth. Do not trust people - trust the facts and evidence.

Couldn't agree more. The trouble is there is disagreement about what counts as "evidence" and facts. That's why I say you should start with clearing up misunderstandings about probability, and learn something about how to make inferences from data. An understanding of basic logic would also help. Discussion is pointless if we can't even agree about basic terms.

Your statements are so vague and confused that it's hard to know what the hell you're on about. After reading a few of your posts I start losing the will to live. And all that stuff about the flat earth and other conspiracy theories doesn't help either.

QuoteThis is not about "guessing grails" because there isn't a single grail being described here. This is about concepts and FACTS, such as 3+ types of dependencies

If you want us to understand the concepts and "facts" then give some concrete examples using actual data and numbers, not just a picture with arrows on it, which is about as much use as a fart in a hurricane. But of course you can't do that because it would be giving the game away, so yes, ultimately it comes down to "guess my grail".  ::)

1) Fact 1: All streams generated from the original straights stream are dependent - some more than others - disprove this FACT!
(link:s://s22.postimg.org/h2wzodd5t/trot.png)

2) Fact 2: Repeats depend on the uniques that appeared before. R... 75% chance red will repeat - disprove this FACT!
R... BB = 25%
R... R or BR = 75%

3) Fact 3: HL and LH here have only 1 difference - disprove this FACT!
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/25/temp_289780.png)
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18814.0

Quote1) Fact 1: All streams generated from the original straights stream are dependent - some more than others - disprove this FACT!

An example of vague.

What's a stream? What's as original straights stream? Dependent on what? Nobody has any idea what you're on about. And the parts that are clear are incorrect.

Quote from: Steve on Jul 24, 08:14 AM 2017
An example of vague.

What's a stream? What's as original straights stream? Dependent on what? Nobody has any idea what you're on about. And the parts that are clear are incorrect.

Stream = collection of spins:
Straight Up Numbers stream - 30 23 9 15...
Dozens stream - 3 2 1 2...
High/Low stream - H H L L...
Dependent on each other!

How's that vague!? I beg to differ...

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 24, 07:47 AM 2017

2) Fact 2: Repeats depend on the uniques that appeared before. R... 75% chance red will repeat - disprove this FACT!
R... BB = 25%
R... R or BR = 75%

No, that's wrong. It's true that there is a 75% chance of red appearing at least once in the next 2 spins (actually, a little less because of the zero), but it doesn't depend on what went before. It would still have a 75% chance of showing if the previous spin was black. That's what independence means.

Quote
3) Fact 3: HL and LH here have only 1 difference - disprove this FACT!
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/25/temp_289780.png)
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=18814.0

Seriously? falkor, this is a one-off coincidence. You're seeing patterns which are statistically insignificant. Try generating that table several more times and see if you get the same numbers. You won't.

As for "fact" 1, I'm still trying to figure out what your tables are supposed to be telling me.

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 24, 08:51 AM 2017
No, that's wrong. It's true that there is a 75% chance of red appearing at least once in the next 2 spins (actually, a little less because of the zero), but it doesn't depend on what went before. It would still have a 75% chance of showing if the previous spin was black. That's what independence means.

Not talking about 2 spins - we describing the repeat as an event (could be 1 or 2 spins). We want to predict if Red or Black will repeat, so the fact is: if R appears once then it has 75% chance to be that repeat, hence repeats depends on the uniques that came before.

QuoteSeriously? falkor, this is a one-off coincidence. You're seeing patterns which are statistically insignificant. Try generating that table several more times and see if you get the same numbers. You won't.

As for "fact" 1, I'm still trying to figure out what your tables are supposed to be telling me.

No coincidence here; you are obviously not seeing it. Look closer at the table and compare HL and LH; note there's only a difference of 1 in the tally/registry - agree/disagree?

Quoteif R appears once then it has 75% chance to be that repeat, hence repeats depends on the uniques that came before.

No they don't. It's your wording that's misleading. If R appears once then of course it doesn't have a 75% chance of appearing again on the next spin, but it does have a 75% chance of appearing again (repeating) in the next two spins. If Black appeared once then red would still have a 75% chance of appearing in the next 2 spins, although in that case it won't be repeating.

Regarding the table with HL and LH, yes I knew what you were referring to because I had a look at Priyanka's "funny sequences" thread. The pattern has no significance whatsoever as you'll see if you generate more tables. You appear to have a severe case of Apophenia (link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia).

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 24, 07:47 AM 2017


3) Fact 3: HL and LH here have only 1 difference - disprove this FACT!
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/25/temp_289780.png)

Gilius-Falkor,
Yes, I agree it is NOT a one-off result, but a general result.

However, there is a reason for that.

It is the way Priyanka "defined" or "generated" those H/L pairs. As is well-known, she is obsessed with dependency (just as you are).

To achieve this dependency, what she did was this:
For each TWO consecutive pairs of an H/L combination, she used the SECOND element of the FIRST pair as the FIRST element of the SECOND pair.

Doing the above -- inevitably -- resulted in HL and LH having a difference of either 0 or 1.

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 24, 09:24 AM 2017
If R appears once... it does have a 75% chance of appearing again (repeating) in the next two spins instead of black

Who is correct - Bayes or Doctor...?

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 24, 09:24 AM 2017Regarding the table with HL and LH, yes I knew what you were referring to because I had a look at Priyanka's "funny sequences" thread. The pattern has no significance whatsoever as you'll see if you generate more tables. You appear to have a severe case of Apophenia (link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia).

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 24, 09:42 AM 2017
Gilius-Falkor,
Yes, I agree it is NOT a one-off result, but a general result.

However, there is a reason for that.

It is the way Priyanka "defined" or "generated" those H/L pairs. As is well-known, she is obsessed with dependency (just as you are).

To achieve this dependency, what she did was this:
For each TWO consecutive pairs of an H/L combination, she used the SECOND element of the FIRST pair as the FIRST element of the SECOND pair.

Doing the above -- inevitably -- resulted in HL and LH having a difference of either 0 or 1.

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 24, 09:42 AM 2017
Gilius-Falkor,
Yes, I agree it is NOT a one-off result, but a general result.

However, there is a reason for that.

It is the way Priyanka "defined" or "generated" those H/L pairs. As is well-known, she is obsessed with dependency (just as you are).

To achieve this dependency, what she did was this:
For each TWO consecutive pairs of an H/L combination, she used the SECOND element of the FIRST pair as the FIRST element of the SECOND pair.

Doing the above -- inevitably -- resulted in HL and LH having a difference of either 0 or 1.

Good that DocS finally pointed the obvious out else ppl might think that it's a magical distribution based on some newly discovered math law.

Falkor shows all the signs of an internet troll or someone whose life depends on attention

Creating a confidential forum is just a tell tale sign

Believing conspiracies is one thing. I know I do. But the flat earth thing just makes someone a crack pot. Buy a weather balloon and a go pro. Prove it's flat. Because elementary experiments show a sphere with go pros attached to balloons.

the magician over at bet selection forum gave him a proper response in his thread

It's the standard carrot on a stick. He's nuts.

If you want to waste time read his threads

(link:s://media0.giphy.com/media/CUXglttwoVwJy/giphy.gif)

Quote from: Priyanka on Apr 25, 07:10 AM 2017


Then I ran this experiment again and again and again.  Results of 10 such runs are below.  Then I noticed a peculiar thing.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/25/temp_611825.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/RkFU)

Hmm! Then I ran the same experiment for 5000 spins for 5 times and looked at the results. I still noticed the same peculiar thing. Do you see what I am seeing in the stats of opposites (HL and LH)? What do you think?

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/04/25/temp_289780.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/RoAg)

Cht,
You can be as sarcastic  as you like. That is your prerogative.

Take a look at the above quote -- that is Priyanka's first post to start that Funny Sequences thread.

Focus on the parts that I highlighted -- evidently, Priyanka thought that she had made a notable discovery.

Now take a look at this... any resemblance to what Pri did with HL?
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=kbKtFN71Lfs

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 24, 11:02 AM 2017

Cht,
You can be as sarcastic  as you like. That is your prerogative.

Take a look at the above quote -- that is Priyanka's first post to start that Funny Sequences thread.

Focus on the parts that I highlighted -- evidently, Priyanka thought that she had made a notable discovery.

That's why I said that it's GOOD you took the trouble to point that out for others to realise the obvious.

Sarcastic, oh well it's my simple way of driving home the point(hightlighting) your post make to the readers. Hope they get it anyway.

And yes I agree the way Priyanka put it across sounds though he made a notable discovery.

Btw did I get it right ? He ?

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 24, 09:42 AM 2017
To achieve this dependency, what she did was this:
For each TWO consecutive pairs of an H/L combination, she used the SECOND element of the FIRST pair as the FIRST element of the SECOND pair.

Doing the above -- inevitably -- resulted in HL and LH having a difference of either 0 or 1.

Thanks for clearing that up. But a created dependency isn't a "natural" dependency, so I don't really see much value in it.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 24, 07:47 AM 20172) Fact 2: Repeats depend on the uniques that appeared before. R... 75% chance red will repeat - disprove this FACT!
R... BB = 25%
R... R or BR = 75%

This is incorrect.

BB, BR, RR, RB - there're 4 combinations, you missed one out - the last one.

In 3 spins minus the zero, there MUST be a repeat.

Wow. Want a trophy?

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 24, 11:25 AM 2017
Thanks for clearing that up. But a created dependency isn't a "natural" dependency, so I don't really see much value in it.

Don't give up yet... keep brainstorming! It's one of the 3 keys to edge... watch the fractals video... what is happening here? what is a "created dependency" exactly? You're almost there...

Quote2) Fact 2: Repeats depend on the uniques that appeared before. R... 75% chance red will repeat - disprove this FACT!

Outcomes are symmetrical, so you could say if the first spin is B, then there is a 75% chance B will repeat in the next 2 spins. Exactly the same for R. So this so-called dependency seems to suggest that you would have an advantage betting the same-as-last outcome, yes?

Why, then, don't you see any advantage when you actually do it? (falkor)

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 24, 11:44 AM 2017
Don't give up yet... keep brainstorming! It's one of the 3 keys to edge... watch the fractals video... what is happening here? what is a "created dependency" exactly? You're almost there...

Why don't you share your roulette trot heatmap so that others can join in the test of this 'dependency' that you're going on about ? That visual tool can help progress your intended brainstorming right ?

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 24, 11:55 AM 2017
Outcomes are symmetrical, so you could say if the first spin is B, then there is a 75% chance B will repeat in the next 2 spins. Exactly the same for R. So this so-called dependency seems to suggest that you would have an advantage betting the same-as-last outcome, yes?

Why, then, don't you see any advantage when you actually do it? (falkor)

Yep - there is advantage - but only if you can penetrate the unfair payout odds problem of Roulette. You either need to use it in combination with dependency 1 (capture more wins) or dependency 3 - or you can create self-defined pigeons instead to be able to use it alone = capture more spins.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 24, 12:07 PM 2017

You either need to use it in combination with dependency 1 (capture more wins) or dependency 3 - or you can create self-defined pigeons instead to be able to use it alone = capture more spins.

Gilius-Falkor,
Okay, so there are different types of dependencies -- 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

Can you explain clearly what these different types of dependencies are? Use concrete examples involving actual spins, if you can.

That way we can all be on the same page -- and then we can all go and hunt down some of these pigeons that you keep harping about all the time.

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 24, 02:09 PM 2017
Gilius-Falkor,
Okay, so there are different types of dependencies -- 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

Can you explain clearly what these different types of dependencies are? Use concrete examples involving actual spins, if you can.

That way we can all be on the same page -- and then we can all go and hunt down some of these pigeons that you keep harping about all the time.

I've already explained what they are and given clear examples, so you need to go back and read properly, otherwise we are just going around in circles.

Falkor. ..I really love your signature. Pretty cool. But you miss the mark with All your rambling in this thread. As to Steve and Bayes....You guys know a lot about this game but yet you can't see  how easy it actually could be. There are things happen in EACH AND EVERY session. If you know that then how hard it can be to win them ? Not that hard. I'm serious. It ain't rocket science.

Anyway I only came back here to reply to misses J. He act like he's a big dog at the other forum when all his methods posted are coded and lost much more than my stuff. (Yes more than the HE) And my old stuff loses too after 100k spins. It is what it is. I've learned and moved on.

Btw misses J.....i challenge you to kick my ass in roulette. You wanna do it on Celtic?  Fine by me. Say when and let's do this. Actions speaks louder than words. They asked you to play here and Celtic but not once you accepted. Why? Pussy

So let's make it official : Mr J...I challenge you in a roulette face off... Steve And Bayes and others are welcome too. Enough with the Internet warriors. Put your money where your mouth is. Sounds fair right ?

I'm done with the forums as I'm making my money on a daily basis. And some here know that as they see me play at unibet and talk to me on the chat.

But before I go......common You f*c king pussy....accept My challenge and show me how stupid I am at this game and how good you are. (Strange though after all these years you don't leave your city to play or sell your house to bet bigger ---> your words hot shot)

SO ENOUGH TALK....LET'S GET IT ON MR J

:)

Denzie,
Since you are having success with betting on repeaters, can I ask you a couple of questions:

1. Let's say you start betting for repeaters in, say, cycle no. 1. Does your betting "spill over" into the next cycle of 37 spins? Or do you end your betting for one cycle at the end of that specific cycle (regardless of whether you are in loss/profit)?

2. On average, how many numbers are you betting on? And, again, on average how high into the progression do you usually go (that is, what is the maximum number of units you bet on each individual number?)?

If I am asking too much information that you don't want to reveal publicly, then I totally understand that. You don't have to reveal anything that you do not feel comfortable sharing.

Falkor, I understand enough of what you're saying now to understand you really don't know what you're talking about. What I don't understand is how and why you don't understand. I think you should carefully think about the logic. You arent the only person to misunderstand something - we all do at some point. But some of what you said is particular bad understanding.

Quote from: denzie on Jul 24, 04:19 PM 2017So let's make it official : Mr J...I challenge you in a roulette face off... Steve And Bayes and others are welcome too. Enough with the Internet warriors. Put your money where your mouth is. Sounds fair right ?

I dont think comparing to roulette computers is fair to other methods. There are other methods that work, without relying on progression. Imagine if they did apply a progression. Often we do but it isnt needed.

Denzie, what you have is random bets with progression. I know you've been winning so far. Most progressions are profitable for a while. You'll eventually see what I mean but for now you can believe I'm wrong.

I believe he wont answer.
I am answering you.

Play 3 to 4 cycle of 37 spin. Maximum number bet 3-5 some cases 6. Average 3 better. Progression 1-5-25 . Could be any depend how deep u gone. 1-5-10 or 1-3-9. U always dont need progression. Sometimes it win flat sometimes u need progression

It's pretty cut and dry

In 37 spins you won't have 37 different numbers

In most cycles you will have a 3 peater at a minimum

That's where the profit comes in

Sure, the math guys say the house edge doesn't change. BUT if you play a progression on the numbers that repeat you will profit. If not this cycle, then the next cycle.

Go into zumma or any other roulette number source. Cut out 37 spin logs. Almost all will have a 3 peater

As far as falkor goes, Steve the forum ignore feature doesn't work. Which means we have to see this clown

RG I posted instructions to ignore users. Are you adding the username in the box?

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 24, 09:07 PM 2017Sure, the math guys say the house edge doesn't change. BUT if you play a progression on the numbers that repeat you will profit. If not this cycle, then the next cycle.

You never know which will repeat, with any change in accuracy.

You know steve even ahead of time. No need to know which number. Block the road where the thief enter. After 37 spin u got
3s: 27
18
23
2 this comes on 3s
Bet 2 and 27
35 is on 3s bet on
25
30
17 3s bet on
24
2 u got it.

See u know from those 4 u will get one even ahead of time that they will land on 4s

This sequence is from ur multi player.

It's that easy to beat roulette?

No. Not all time u get this easy. Sometimes u will fail or there will be a lot of number and nothing will work. Then have to accept loses in my opinion.but in that way i can bet small amount of number

Then that's no different to random bet selection. Sometimes win, sometimes lose. Mostly you lose.

I think most of the time u win. U can do with random number but that number could end up as sleeper.hot can get cold and then sleeper as well.But as u changing number continiously chance is less. Its cant happen all time that the hot numbe u r on get sleep immidiately u bet on that. May be you r right as u r more experienced. That the logic till now

Quote from: Madi on Jul 24, 08:44 PM 2017
I believe he wont answer.
I am answering you.

Play 3 to 4 cycle of 37 spin. Maximum number bet 3-5 some cases 6. Average 3 better. Progression 1-5-25 . Could be any depend how deep u gone. 1-5-10 or 1-3-9. U always dont need progression. Sometimes it win flat sometimes u need progression

Thanks for your answer. I have done a lot of paper testing on repeaters during the last few months. My experience has been that sometimes the 3-peaters and the 4-peaters come early in the cycle -- in that case, you win flat betting.

When they don't come in a reasonable amount of time, you are forced into negative progression territory -- and depending on how many numbers you are betting, that territory can be quite deep and scary !!

Quote from: Madi on Jul 24, 08:44 PM 2017
I believe he wont answer.
I am answering you.

Play 3 to 4 cycle of 37 spin. Maximum number bet 3-5 some cases 6. Average 3 better. Progression 1-5-25 . Could be any depend how deep u gone. 1-5-10 or 1-3-9. U always dont need progression. Sometimes it win flat sometimes u need progression

Very nice but we all know that won't work on the long run

Quote from: Steve on Jul 24, 07:02 PM 2017

Denzie, what you have is random bets with progression. I know you've been winning so far. Most progressions are profitable for a while. You'll eventually see what I mean but for now you can believe I'm wrong.

Steve...If i'm not mistaken it's now 2017 right ? So that means we don't have to test with pen and paper anymore right ? In fact there are things that do that for us with a speed so fast you can run million of sessions in just a day. So.....Is 100 million spins enough to know if something works ? Or we need more? Billions,  kazillions, ....

As I said....Well Tested  :thumbsup:

Talk is cheap. But if you or anyone really had the hg, Id pay a fortune for it. Then id have my teams use it with remote access software that doesn't require disclosure. This would mean millions easily. If you had the hg, you could do the same. But you would do better by using my established teams. But i don't think you'd do that. You're happy with smaller wins right?

The clues from you and turbo indicate an ongoing tracking of hot numbers. That approach doesn't work but really id love to be proven wrong.

I can't prove you haven't tested millions of spins. I just don't believe you have.

Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 04:21 AM 2017
But i don't think you'd do that. You're happy with smaller wins right?

Depends what you call small. If I can make few k each session I'm ok with that.



I can't prove you haven't tested millions of spins. I just don't believe you have.

That's cool. Can't believe everything in life right. Especially on these type of forums.

Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 04:21 AM 2017
Talk is cheap. But if you or anyone really had the hg, Id pay a fortune for it. Then id have my teams use it with remote access software that doesn't require disclosure. This would mean millions easily. If you had the hg, you could do the same. But you would do better by using my established teams. But i don't think you'd do that. You're happy with smaller wins right?

The clues from you and turbo indicate an ongoing tracking of hot numbers. That approach doesn't work but really id love to be proven wrong.

I can't prove you haven't tested millions of spins. I just don't believe you have.

How does the idea get protected as it's revealed ?

Quote from: denzie on Jul 25, 03:15 AM 2017
Very nice but we all know that won't work on the long run
[/quote
U r not doing anything different to that

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 24, 12:07 PM 2017
Yep - there is advantage - but only if you can penetrate the unfair payout odds problem of Roulette. You either need to use it in combination with dependency 1 (capture more wins) or dependency 3 - or you can create self-defined pigeons instead to be able to use it alone = capture more spins.

No, there's no advantage. Fact 2 is disproved because I've explained why there is no dependency. You're confusing yourself with using the word "repeat" instead of just looking at the probability of a win in the next 2 spins, which what it amounts to. Regardless of what came before (spin 1), there is a 75% chance of at least one win in spins 2 & 3. That's all you need to know. This FACT doesn't depend in any way on what came before.

I watched the video on chaos. It's interesting stuff all right but how does it apply to roulette? I assume the take-away message is that you can create predictable patterns using random inputs. Again, vague and of no use without further details. Also, it takes a lot of data to build up a fractal, which suggests it wouldn't be a practical approach for roulette, even if fractals were evident in the outcomes.

Fact 3 is a table which shows the results when you manufacture a dependency. I can't disprove it but so what? How does it give you advantage? Again, too vague.

Fact 1 is just a table which you haven't explained, so I can't say whether it shows dependencies or not. But it should be obvious that given the physical setup of the wheel, and that each pocket is available on every spin, past spins alone cannot tell you what's coming next. It doesn't matter how you manipulate or arrange or transform the past spins, without taking into account data related to the physical conditions you won't get an edge. See here (link:s://phys.org/news/2012-10-chaos-theory-outcome-roulette-table.html) for an example.

And you're not making sense when you say you can get an advantage only if you solve the unfair payout "problem".  An advantage consists of getting a higher probability of a win than the payout odds, so obviously if you can achieve a win rate high enough then the problem is solved. Simple maths.

Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 04:21 AM 2017
I can't prove you haven't tested millions of spins. I just don't believe you have.

Neither do I. Or if you have, check the code, then check it again.  :)

I've seen some systems (in fact I've coded a few myself) which do come out ahead over millions of spins, but the drawdowns are so big and the profits so small that they wouldn't be worth playing.

Quote from: cht on Jul 25, 04:52 AM 2017
How does the idea get protected as it's revealed ?

Thats something we'd need to figure out together. I know I would pay entitlements, but word alone isnt enough.

falkor, you seem to be confusing statistical dependence with physical dependence. There are both kinds in roulette. Obviously if a group of numbers is contained in another group (like a street within a line) there is statistical dependence; if a street is hitting frequently then the line which contains it is too. But how does this help you to predict the outcome of the next spin? The dependency is not between past and future spins, but between groups of numbers. There is physical dependence between the initial physical conditions and where the ball lands, but not between successive spins, as there is for example when cards are removed from a deck and not replaced.

The only situation I can think of where there might be dependence between spins, that is, a regular predictable pattern occurring, is if the casino is cheating. For example, there are magnets under the wheel and a whale is using a marty on the even chances. Every time there are 5 reds in a row, he starts betting heavily on black. When he does this a dealer turns on the magnets which deflect the ball away from black. In that case there is a regular pattern; you can look at past spins and every time there are 5 reds in a row, start betting on red!

1) Bayes, I told you many times: we cannot predict the next spin - only the next variable-spin event - and must break the unfair payout odds problem at the same time. There is dependency between Line and Street events - not individual spins. Mainstream education doesn't teach us to think in this way - the reason I created the Random Thoughts forum - for discussing these Non-Random concepts and facts in particular.

2) Red (50%) > Black (50%) > Red (repeat) = no advantage.

But what if you had:
X (45%) > Y (55%) > Y (repeat)

Or what if you had:
Red + X...  > Repeat.

Red is dependent on X, and the repeat is dependent on Red + X!

3) You still haven't explained exactly what is happening with "Funny Sequences" yet?

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 25, 06:44 AM 2017
falkor, you seem to be confusing

That's all ya had to say. Would have summed him up.

@ RG,  :thumbsup:

falkor, what's the difference between the next spin and the next variable-spin event? And how does this magically make events dependent?

And actually, you're wrong about not being able to predict the next spin. We can predict it, if using the right methodology, with a probability greater than the payout odds, and that's good enough.

QuoteThere is dependency between Line and Street events - not individual spins.

So we agree, then.

QuoteMainstream education doesn't teach us to think in this way

Think in which way?

Quote2) Red (50%) > Black (50%) > Red (repeat) = no advantage.

But what if you had:
X (45%) > Y (55%) > Y (repeat)

Or what if you had:
Red + X...  > Repeat.

Red is dependent on X, and the repeat is dependent on Red + X!

I've no idea what this means.

Quote3) You still haven't explained exactly what is happening with "Funny Sequences" yet?

Do I need to? DrSudoku already explained it.

Next spin = equally-likely
Next event = NOT equally-likely

Spin > Spin = independent
Spin > event = dependent

R... next repeat event dependent on first unique = R (75/25)
R... next spin independent = R or B (50/50)

Funny sequences... did you not see how powerful fractals are? Can create nature using random input. Each new line drawn with every roll of the dice is based on the location of the last line - influencing the location of the next line. We can then predict the resulting pattern. How can you dismiss variance with only 0 or 1 difference as too vague or having no value? Don't you think you are being a bit naive there, Bayes? How can you use funny sequences to predict a pattern in Roulette?

Have you tried using Funny Sequences to play Cycles? There are several possible "processes" available...
(link:s://s2.postimg.org/4h0bfhbrd/principlecomparison.png)

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 25, 09:42 AM 2017
R... next repeat event dependent on first unique = R (75/25)
R... next spin independent = R or B (50/50)

As I've said at least twice, it's your use of "repeat" which is leading you to think there is a dependency.

Quote
Funny sequences... did you not see how powerful fractals are? Can create nature using random input.

Not exactly "create" nature. They can create art, and they have other uses. They might be able to tell you the sorts of events which can happen, but they can't predict them.

QuoteEach new line drawn with every roll of the dice is based on the location of the last line - influencing the location of the next line.

That's not what we want to know. We want to know what the next roll of the dice is given the location of the last line, which is the inverse problem. To do that we can use good ol' fashioned physics. Cause and effect.

QuoteHow can you dismiss variance with only 0 or 1 difference as too vague or having no value?

Because it's "manufactured" variance and means nothing, as I've already told you.

QuoteDon't you think you are being a bit naive there, Bayes?

Who me?

(link:s://s11.postimg.org/872nncq9f/naive.png) (link:s://postimg.org/image/ekrqqlv5b/)

QuoteHow can you use funny sequences to predict a pattern in Roulette?

I'm getting bored with the "Guess My Grail" game. You tell me.

i am 250£ straight on butterfly....it must be gooood pay out :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd: :xd:

QuoteAs I've said at least twice, it's your use of "repeat" which is leading you to think there is a dependency.

Let's try one more time, but using Dozens instead of Red and Black...
Which Dozen will "repeat" I wonder..?

Spin 1: 3...

I predict 63% chance that it will be Dozen 3 that will repeat next!

Spin 2: 31...

I predict 89% chance that it will be Dozen 3 or Dozen 1 that will repeat next.

Dozen 3 and Dozen 1 both have a single appearance and need only one more appearance to be awarded the repeat (89% chance).
Dozen 2, on the other hand, requires two appearance to overtake Dozens 3 and 1 to get the repeat award instead (only 11% chance).

Any clearer?

QuoteNot exactly "create" nature. They can create art, and they have other uses. They might be able to tell you the sorts of events which can happen, but they can't predict them.

Might it be more powerful than you ever thought possible?
link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology

QuoteThat's not what we want to know. We want to know what the next roll of the dice is given the location of the last line, which is the inverse problem. To do that we can use good ol' fashioned physics. Cause and effect.

Unfortunately, maths cannot predict the same, but we can predict something of the pattern formed by the drawn lines from several rolls of the dice - just not the very next individual result - hence, we need to aim our predictions towards the next event, aided with at least 3 dependencies. We aren't trying to beat random here. We are trying to win over any number arrangements that contain Non-Random structures, including hacked RNGs.

QuoteBecause it's "manufactured" variance and means nothing, as I've already told you.

"Manufactured Variance" you say? We have a factory at our disposal to create our own variance and you say it "means nothing"!? Isn't variance one of the main problems with Roulette that is usually out of our control?

QuoteI'm getting bored with the "Guess My Grail" game. You tell me.

No grail being discussed here. This is about evidence, concepts and facts: observations that should not be ignored, things we can predict in Roulette, such as 4 repeats of a dozen in 13 spins (excl. zeroes), line events affecting street events over successive spins, repeats depending on uniques, or controlling variance like the weather. It's also about things we cannot predict (from a maths perspective at least), such as the next spin.

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 25, 10:55 AM 2017


I'm getting bored with the "Guess My Grail" game. You tell me.

The "missing piece"

The "1% that's missing"

"Join my confidential forum"

Or how about

A gorgeous carrot on a stick.

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 25, 12:27 PM 2017

The "missing piece"

The "1% that's missing"

The missing 1% that will give you the HG is being hidden by the butterfly in the diagram above.

All you have to do is just find a way to make the butterfly fly away and -- la voilà -- you will have gained access to roulette's Holy Grail.

QuoteAll you have to do is just find a way to make the butterfly fly away

ohhh..do not make it go away is my bloody bet in there... :'(

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 25, 12:41 PM 2017All you have to do is just find a way to make the butterfly fly away

Which is very hard when wearing a straight jacket. Lots of blowing of air (of the hot variety)

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 25, 12:41 PM 2017
The missing 1% that will give you the HG is being hidden by the butterfly in the diagram above.

All you have to do is just find a way to make the butterfly fly away and -- la voilà -- you will have gained access to roulette's Holy Grail.

link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Quote from: maestro on Jul 25, 12:44 PM 2017

ohhh..do not make it go away is my bloody bet in there... :'(

Put a lid on your optimism -- either the 0 or the 00 will appear next.

And instead of getting the Holy Grail, you will end up with the Holy Fail.

i knew it...that butterfly looked too good to be true...oh well another 250£ gone..never mind...i will bet 500£ next time and with little touch of fate it will be ok...

(link:s://s22.postimg.org/w3if1ubup/fire.png)

Quote from: maestro on Jul 25, 01:25 PM 2017

oh well another 250£ gone..never mind...i will bet 500£ next time and with little touch of fate it will be ok...

Going from 250 to 500 -- hoping Lord Martingale will bail you out, huh?

Then just a little touch of fate ain't gonna cut it -- you will need a gigantic hug of fate ...... and even then there are no guarantees.

Quote from: Madi on Jul 25, 05:16 AM 2017

Quote from: denzie on Jul 25, 03:15 AM 2017
U r not doing anything different to that

Oh ok. Then nevermind. I really thought it was that easy.  :thumbsup:

In 4 spins it is GUARANTEED that a dozen will repeat

Forget the fact that this piece of info won't help you win but oh how we forget the pesky 0

No gurantee. 000 1st dozon. 00 1st and 2nd dozon. Couple of more. We cant exclude 0 when making a system. Its same as other number.

There's 2 ways to overcome the unfair payout odds problem of Roulette - zoom in or zoom out:
(link:s://s24.postimg.org/i47h6py45/edge.png)

QuoteIts same as other number

not exactly..it is a bit green and round

falkor why did you stop getting your pills...used to be calm place and now your picaso style crappp is all over the shop :question:

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 25, 05:35 PM 2017
There's 2 ways to overcome the unfair payout odds problem of Roulette - zoom in or zoom out:
(link:s://s24.postimg.org/i47h6py45/edge.png)

Instead of taking the time to create graphics why don't you explain, in English, how. Bet ya can't.

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 25, 06:54 PM 2017
Instead of taking the time to create graphics why don't you explain, in English, how. Bet ya can't.

Okay, let's say you had Straight Up number 1 hit:
Number 1...
Low...
Dozen 1...
Line 1...
Street 1...

Your first bet needs to be the OPPOSITE:
High
Dozen 2+3
Lines 2-6
Streets 2-12
Zero

Now you need to work out how many units to "hedge" on the High, Dozens, Lines, Streets, and Zero. On the next spin if any group repeats then it's excluded from the next bet - so only carry on playing with those groups that haven't repeated. You now need to start betting on the repeat for the lower groups like Low and Dozen 1 - based on average repeat stats - take the winnings from the first spin and parlay them with your original BR, spreading them out over the remaining groups that haven't repeated - make sure zero is covered too. If you didn't make any profit from spin 1 then you need start afresh. So now you'll be playing for repeats for lower groups and uniques for higher groups - you need figure out exactly when to change from OPPOSITE bet to REPEAT bet and how many units to hedge at any time across all remaining groups. You keep playing till all or most have repeated and therefore been excluded. Anytime you don't make a profit you start over. If you get it right then you'll never lose a game - only win or break even! Unfortunately, I can't document the exact rules, as it's more of an art! :)

Falkor, the first thing i saw in your image was PIGEONS. Little flappy birds.

What is going on up there?

Seriously Falkor your explanations are so warped nobody can make sense of them. The image looks more like an advertisement.

And the parts that are clear are actually INCORRECT. And when someone points it out to you, you still argue the point. What are we supposed to do? Keep arguing the point when you either dont understand or dont care?

It's on purpose Steve. He gets willies off disinfo.

This is how I imagine Falkor's random thoughts forum






(link:s://media.tenor.com/images/710217264da49b28e4a565c1127307ae/tenor.gif)

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 25, 07:59 PM 2017
Okay, let's say you had Straight Up number 1 hit:
Number 1...
Low...
Dozen 1...
Line 1...
Street 1...

Your first bet needs to be the OPPOSITE:
High
Dozen 2+3
Lines 2-6
Streets 2-12
Zero

Gilius-Falkor,
For the US double zero wheel, any method worth its salt needs to include the columns.

If you ignore the columns, you will do so at your own peril !

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 25, 10:12 PM 2017
Gilius-Falkor,
For the US double zero wheel, any method worth its salt needs to include the columns.

If you ignore the columns, you will do so at your own peril !

American wheel

Columns

I've heard the rumors

But haven't seen the meat and potatoes

RG, it's hard to know if someone's serious or not. Or if its like you said and he's just trying to get attention.

If you recall CEH, he told me personally that he did all he did because he "liked to make people think". So in his mind, he was helping people. He knew he didn't have a winning system. He was just telling people IDEAS he had, and he wanted people to test them for him.

It's dishonest. It's a bad thing to do. It was manipulating people into thinking his methods worked, when really they were just unfounded concepts. His belief he was helping people to think and develop methods was partly delusion. It does not help people to send them off on wild goose chases.

But then again, some other members are equally ignorant about roulette. But they are mostly still learning, not deliberately misleading others.

Is Falkor the same? I could argue he just ignores basic facts and keeps going regardless. But he isn't the only person to do this.

And what about the flat earth crap? No logical person could believe that crap, especially when there's not a single valid piece of information to support it.

With all things considered, I think it's a bit of everything. He's not too bright. He expresses unfounded ideas. He is willfully ignorant of basic facts. And he knowing misleads people and sends them on wild goose chases.

Alternatively, it's an intelligence issue. Again though I don't believe that's entirely the case. It's a mixture of issues.

It doesn't mean he should be banned. He is being moderated. I just think everyone needs to say it as it is with him, and to notify new members of his history of posts. And warn people that others have tried paying attention, but end up on wild goose chases. In this case I think we've had ample patience.

Falkor, understand it from our view. You have pigeons in your charts. Your charts are twisted and time-wasting jargon. It looks deliberate. They look more like attempts to get attention and advertising. And anything you say that is clear is incorrect.

But if in the off chance you are sincere, understand the issues and please change your approach. ie give crystal clear examples in correct context, and leave pigeons, flat earth and roofing out of it.

Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 10:22 PM 2017
and leave pigeons, flat earth and roofing out of it.[/b]

I forgot about the roof!

Saxon house was it?

(link:s://media2.giphy.com/media/g8A1eJhTQ7Iic/giphy.gif)

I'm of the opinion that falkor does all this to try discuss his ideas without revealing his method. His last post describes the earlier heatmap trot he posted.

Falkor, if you want a discussion about your 'dependency' findings you need to provide details else no can understand you. Even if anyone do understand anything he wouldn't be too interested to reconstruct that heatmap trot when you haven't shown any proof it's worth the while to do it.

So, share that heatmap with the members here, provide crystal clear explanations of what you're going on about or else you're you're getting the brickbats, your choice.

What I understand from the last few post of falkor.. he is saying to play multiple things at the same time with a specific strategy.

When one thing wins, it will win in different areas. 

I believe this is the direction to the HG, I've been attempting for months but it's very difficult to put together 😫

** CHE system was similar!

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jul 25, 10:44 PM 2017he is saying to play multiple things at the same time with a specific strategy.

There is only one event. The winning number. It has the same payout, and the only thin you can possibly change is the odds of winning.

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jul 25, 10:44 PM 2017
What I understand from the last few post of falkor.. he is saying to play multiple things at the same time with a specific strategy.

When one thing wins, it will win in different areas. 

I believe this is the direction to the HG, I've been attempting for months but it's very difficult to put together 😫

** CHE system was similar!

You are correct. You need to construct that relationship of multiple variables in a visual manner to see this 'dependency' he's talking about. That's where the percentages he talked about, rightly or wrongly, comes in.

Falkor, I repeat - share it.

Where is any evidence of dependency?

i think that falkos pictures will be very good if printed on toilet paper so as you are there doing what you doing you can study in deep all relations and all... :lol:

Quote from: cht on Jul 25, 10:51 PM 2017
You are correct. You need to construct that relationship of multiple variables in a visual manner to see this 'dependency' he's talking about. That's where the percentages he talked about, rightly or wrongly, comes in.

Falkor, I repeat - share it.

That is correct...

CHE system was basically a mix between columns/dozens/EC... I came close to figuring out all the steps but i just got a new job and been distracted and overwhelmed.  I will share this tho... CHE played in a way where he will almost always win minimum 1 unit or break even.  The loss is so rare in a session of 100 spins, break even was the worst outcome.  Best outcome was 20-60 units per session flatbet.

Falkor is sharing good info, he just chooses to explain it in a complicated way.

ive been struggling for months trying to put it together because i get distracted to test out other ideas but the main concept of what falkors speaks of is this....

EC>Dozens>Lines>Streets>Splits>Straight

straight is all the way zoomed in, EC is all the way zoomed out

if you know dozen 1 should win, you can play LOW and cover more numbers and win.  just an idea! 

now mix that up with multiple plays and imagine winning all at the same time or missing zoomed in but winning zoomed out.( just like CHE bets!)

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 25, 10:12 PM 2017
Gilius-Falkor,
For the US double zero wheel, any method worth its salt needs to include the columns.

If you ignore the columns, you will do so at your own peril !

American wheel or not, columns are another legitimate zoom feature.

And if you care to leave the comfort of the table layout, you could add a plethora of other significant zoom features to you preferred complications.

Wow great response Mr j.  Well at least you've learned how to post images. Very impressive.  :thumbsup:

Btw I knew you ain't got the balls to go head to head with me or anyone. Thx for proving that you are just...a keyboard warrior  (your words again)

Anyway im out. Best to all and keep winning
:thumbsup:

Not many people left at GF. Ken, Turbo, and bots. Only a matter of time with a dickhead admin.

B team? Like the systems he published are any better.

Poor Ken.

Let's forgive him all his trespasses and deliver us from evil.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 25, 07:59 PM 2017
Now you need to work out how many units to "hedge" on the High, Dozens, Lines, Streets, and Zero.

Hedging doesn't work if bets have a negative expectation.

(link:s://s4.postimg.org/gzhuyvmgt/hedging.png) (link:s://postimg.org/image/qwsvrxu2h/)

But at least your description of the method was fairly clear, so at least members can test it.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 25, 07:59 PM 2017

Now you need to work out how many units to "hedge" on the High, Dozens, Lines, Streets, and Zero.

That's easy.

Put the same chip on all your hedges as you do on your straights.


..........now that's gold!

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 25, 10:12 PM 2017
Gilius-Falkor,
For the US double zero wheel, any method worth its salt needs to include the columns.

If you ignore the columns, you will do so at your own peril !

But there's hardly any common numbers between columns and all the main groups running perpendicular, hence less dependency.

Quote from: Steve on Jul 25, 09:18 PM 2017
Falkor, the first thing i saw in your image was PIGEONS. Little flappy birds.

What is going on up there?

Seriously Falkor your explanations are so warped nobody can make sense of them. The image looks more like an advertisement.

And the parts that are clear are actually INCORRECT. And when someone points it out to you, you still argue the point. What are we supposed to do? Keep arguing the point when you either dont understand or dont care?

All concepts and facts surrounding repeats are based on this discipline of maths:
link:s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 25, 10:30 PM 2017
I forgot about the roof!

Saxon house was it?

(link:s://media2.giphy.com/media/g8A1eJhTQ7Iic/giphy.gif)

The roof is the first unique number; all the other groups represent the foundation that the Straight Ups depend on (and vice versa). If you bet street 1 then you are also betting on-behalf of number 1.

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jul 26, 12:33 AM 2017
straight is all the way zoomed in, EC is all the way zoomed out

if you know dozen 1 should win, you can play LOW and cover more numbers and win.  just an idea! 

You are correct about betting on-behalf, but the "zooming in/out" refers to something else...
Zoom in = add more single spin pigeon streams for more potential simultaneous wins = capture more wins.
Zoom out = use only a single stream, but ensure it comprises variable-spin pigeons = capture more spins.

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 26, 02:54 AM 2017
Hedging doesn't work if bets have a negative expectation.

(link:s://s4.postimg.org/gzhuyvmgt/hedging.png) (link:s://postimg.org/image/qwsvrxu2h/)

It's not as simple as that since there's a few "dynamic" processes going on here, and they're not happening over a static number of spins nor using static bets:
*Closing off several group repeats via the OPPOSITE starting unique followed by the SAME starting unique is one large variable-spin event, made up of mini-events, and working as one dependent system.
*The hedging will produce different sub-total profits depending on how quick the repeats close - each sub-profit is then parlayed and redistributed for the next hedge as part of the larger event.
*Now, this is the hardest part to describe: each dependent group provides a different dimension in terms of payout odds (main problem we face with Roulette), and we are providing "overwhelming" influence towards the smaller and larger repeat events that depend on the previous uniques. Picture how Straight Ups are equally-likely - yet the repeat will always happen before 37 uniques have each had a single appearance - or picture the Birthday Paradox and the repeats happening in the last 18. Here, if we don't get a repeat on a dozen then it's compensated by another group. Apologies for the crude explanation, but that's the best I can do.

It's also recommended to slowly bring in the splits and straight ups in this strategy with the intention of closing them off alongside the other aforementioned groups for extra compensation.

Quote from: Taotie on Jul 26, 02:42 AM 2017
Poor Ken.

Let's forgive him all his trespasses and deliver us from evil.

Amen

@falkor ...falkor pigeon hole will not work due to payout...sometimes you will get event you looking for but will not get the profit simply because you dont know exactly when event will happen so you are forced to cover every spin..in some short hits you will get profit in some long ones  you will lose....at the end you know where it heads -2.7%

The better response than a negative response is no response. Think about that et al.

Imagine betting on a coin toss. A win is +1 and loss is -1. Mostly you break even.

But every few tosses, even if you win, you lose your bet. Thats like the HE. You dont know exactly when youll have that guaranteed disadvantage. You can try overcoming it with progression, but you just risk more money.

There are no patterns. No way to know the toss outcome. No way to know anything. Your guesses are as good as random.

Pigeon holes, roofing, forcing outcomes, streaks, hot sides, cold sides, all bullshit. The only way to profit long term is know in advance which side will win, with significantly better than random accuracy. Reading random, follow the trot, more bullshit.

When you look for patterns in random, you are actually looking at cause and effect. Thats exactly what all AP is. Cause and effect.

You can do this either by correlating variables to spin outcomes, OR by looking for a mathematical relationship in spin results alone (fractals).

There are other potential ways of changing odds, but most people look at patterns like trots, rrbbrb crap etc. The next step if you want that is use software to find anomalies for you, or waste decades of your life with manual trial and error. I already freely published software to help.

Quote from: maestro on Jul 26, 06:51 AM 2017
@falkor ...falkor pigeon hole will not work due to payout...sometimes you will get event you looking for but will not get the profit simply because you dont know exactly when event will happen so you are forced to cover every spin..in some short hits you will get profit in some long ones  you will lose....at the end you know where it heads -2.7%

In theory that's what we would expect - the reason I've outlined a series of evidences, concepts and undeniable facts in this topic that we should aim to apply in order to overcome this problem. If the Random trot map looked the same as the Roulette trop map, or repeats were not dependent on uniques, or we had no control over variance, then your out of date conclusion would not have come into question. There's also several other concepts we've discussed here that you haven't taken into account. In the end your reply amounts to memorizing what you learnt about -2.7% years ago and repeating it ad hoc - in the face of new contradictory evidence that warrants investigation of it's own merit.

@cht...what happen with fractals are you going to explain more about it or that was it...<not that i understood previous ones>

I don't think anyone should discuss mr j. He uses a terrible no good forum as a platform to only bash others

It's sad

Let him be

Yes its a waste of time. You could not mention him for a year and he'd still be there attacking you.  Cant say Im not glad to watch gf crash. Mike dug his own hole.

Turbo, come back to the light. You will still have fair criticism, but at least you wont have to deal with trolls.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 26, 05:02 AM 2017

But there's hardly any common numbers between columns and all the main groups running perpendicular, hence less dependency.

Gilius-Falkor,
That is why I made my original columns comment specifically in regard to the US double zero wheel.

Many people who are knowledgeable about the distribution of numbers on the double zero wheel will know what I am alluding to.

Quote from: maestro on Jul 26, 07:15 AM 2017
@cht...what happen with fractals are you going to explain more about it or that was it...<not that i understood previous ones>

About fractals, lets take red/black and the outcomes are plotted as a line graph, red=+1, black=-1

Assume for some reason you know the larger fractal points up(net red), then there's the smaller fractal that forms which points down(net black).

Since you know about this larger net red fractal, then it makes sense to start betting red at the apex of this smaller net black fractal with the expectation that the larger net red fractal will form eventually.

Hope this short explanation helps.

QuoteHope this short explanation helps

no..

when say <assume> and< for some reason> does not help...+1,-1 is just red hit or black what about zero...and how do i know what will hit more :question:

Quote from: maestro on Jul 26, 09:18 AM 2017
no..

when say <assume> and< for some reason> does not help...+1,-1 is just red hit or black what about zero...and how do i know what will hit more :question:

I use 'assume for some reason' because I'm aware you don't know about fractal formations.

Look, I've a long background in fx learnt speculation with that asset that is fractal in nature. All I did was to upload roulette outcomes onto my fx charts which I constructed on excel, bet the way I would as if they were fx trades.

Ofc in the translation from one asset to another there's the challenge to calibrate it to replicate the original fx setup.

Now this fractal explanation above is a short description of how fractal plays the role to determine betselection. Just the concept. The details is immense, yes immense both in technicalities as well as the practical aspect.

Some readers who are familiar with fx and writing codes might pick up useful pointers from what I've posted to try do the same. I know of 1 regular member on here who did . it gives him a new perspective to ponder.

Quote from: Steve on Jul 26, 08:05 AM 2017
Yes its a waste of time. You could not mention him for a year and he'd still be there attacking you.  Cant say Im not glad to watch gf crash. Mike dug his own hole.

Turbo, come back to the light. You will still have fair criticism, but at least you wont have to deal with trolls.

To use a forum to bash another isn't worth it

The energy that your body converts from the calories we eat which then causes the fingers to type on the keyboard isn't worth it

Especially for a tool like J

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 26, 02:54 AM 2017
Hedging doesn't work if bets have a negative expectation.

(link:s://s4.postimg.org/gzhuyvmgt/hedging.png) (link:s://postimg.org/image/qwsvrxu2h/)But at least your description of the method was fairly clear, so at least members can test it.

Depends on how you look at it!

i don't know if hedging is the correct word.

Let's say a session is 7 spins.  From 1 to 7 spins I need to make a profit or break even.  If I'm playing for a repeat and the repeat comes most likely I made my money if I was playing splits.  At the same time if I was hedging playing dozens to cover any losses on splits I also make money or break even by the end of the 7 spins.

That's the idea, playing multiple games at the same time.  AT CERTAIN POINTS EACH GAME WINS!  With different payouts and the effect is breaking even or profit!

Some people have figured this out..advanced Method(Dyksexlic, reddwarf/rrbb, Priyanka)and Che which played more of a trigger game and less layers.

Priyanka admired his teachings were not a holy grail

You people are delusional

QuoteI use 'assume for some reason' because I'm aware you don't know about fractal formations

once again<like i did in school> i think i will skip lessons..thanks for your time

Quote from: Taotie on Jul 26, 12:41 AM 2017

American wheel or not, columns are another legitimate zoom feature.

And if you care to leave the comfort of the table layout, you could add a plethora of other significant zoom features to you preferred complications.

But the peculiar distribution of the column numbers on the US double zero wheel does justify paying special (i.e. extra or greater) attention to the columns (vis-a-vis, say, a competing zoom feature like the dozens).

Yes the 00 wheel distribution of the columns allows you to potentially "play the wheel" using columns on American wheels.

Quote from: falkor2k15 on Jul 25, 12:09 PM 2017
Let's try one more time, but using Dozens instead of Red and Black...
Which Dozen will "repeat" I wonder..?

Spin 1: 3...

I predict 63% chance that it will be Dozen 3 that will repeat next!

Spin 2: 31...

I predict 89% chance that it will be Dozen 3 or Dozen 1 that will repeat next.

Dozen 3 and Dozen 1 both have a single appearance and need only one more appearance to be awarded the repeat (89% chance).
Dozen 2, on the other hand, requires two appearance to overtake Dozens 3 and 1 to get the repeat award instead (only 11% chance).

Any clearer?

falkor, I don't know how you arrived at these probabilities, can you explain?

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 26, 11:56 AM 2017
falkor, I don't know how you arrived at these probabilities, can you explain?

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=15938.msg155266#msg155266

Quote from: Bayes on Jul 26, 11:56 AM 2017
falkor, I don't know how you arrived at these probabilities, can you explain?

Apparently in an insanely complex mind, riddled with conspiracy, it is difficult to grasp the fact that the next spin has an equal chance to be any of the three dozens.

Dafuq am I reading.

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 26, 11:09 AM 2017
Priyanka admired his teachings were not a holy grail

You people are delusional

Priyanka said it, the teachings can lead to an edge just needs to be used differently.   After being attacked to share the concept instead of teaching the whole tone changed.

That's beside the point.  Believe what you want on that but my point is there is a way to play with an edge based on playing different layers( multiple games at the same time)

Like a parrondo paradox but not exactly because roulette is negative expectation.  But a game can be created to have similar features.

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jul 26, 10:51 AM 2017
That's the idea, playing multiple games at the same time.  AT CERTAIN POINTS EACH GAME WINS!  With different payouts and the effect is breaking even or profit!

Sounds good. But at a certain point all games will fail. At that point you may be well ahead, or maybe not. The way I see it is every system has its nemesis event. It's not that hard to find the nememis, just keeping picking numbers which make the system fail. then you can work out the probability of it happening. For the holy grail, the probability of the nemesis event occurring is zero.  You might get close to it, but you'll never quite reach it.

falkor, thanks for the link. I really can't make any sense of what that calculation is supposed to be showing, but let's look at it from a common sense point of view; forget tree diagrams and probability calculations.

Spin 1 : 3rd dozen arrives.

Now, I'm assuming that you agree that we don't know which dozen is going to come next (ignore zero for simplicity), so in that case it's reasonable to say that there are 3 equal chances corresponding to the 3 dozens, yes?

We're looking for a repeat of dozen 3. There are 2 ways we can be wrong and 1 way we can be correct, agree with me so far?

The poor soul legitimately doesn't understand that the next spins can be any dozen.

Hi Denzie,
long time no see.
I see you finally figured it out. Congrats man! :thumbsup:
From the little I know you, I think you have had some breakthrough results, or else you wouldn't have come up with the challenge. you aint a bullshitter. Unfortunately nobody else have a winning system to challenge you. It would have been an interesting challenge to watch.

Unfortunately im still on the pen and paper. but I think your theory is that you wont have 3 losing sessions in a row. from the few tests that I have done I never even got 2 in a row. em I right? (I hope you answer me ;) )

I really hope you have found it and it keeps holding on.


To Steve,

After many years I came to the same conclusion as you, a year ago. You have to increase the prediction to have an edge of winning. I have read and tried most strategies but none works. I think ignatius have proved that to everyone, as he has tested every possible combination. many thanks to him. Your computers costs more than most people are willing to give for something not that are not 100% (Im not saying it doesn't work Im just says you never know until you have tried it). but how about proving to everyone that it works by having it tested in an B&M casino that is broadcasted online. like dragonara or similar. you could say the prediction of the computer and any one interested could follow it online and be convinced.

Or how about just letting people test them on any wheel they want? I already do that.

Sorry Steve! i wasn't aware of that. We don't have any B&M casinos in Norway unfortunately. I was thinking it would be easier to do it at an online broadcasted wheel. since then it would be impossible to get detected. It would also be great if it worked on airball machines. is that something that might come in the future?

Some airballs are easier, most are harder to beat. Airball isn't real roulette. Its manipulated junk. Half rng.

thanx :) ill keep away from the airball then

Airball is a touchy subject. I'm sure they can be manipulated

I do believe some are random. The rotor speeds just change

Quote from: MoneyT101 on Jul 26, 12:17 PM 2017
Priyanka said it, the teachings can lead to an edge just needs to be used differently.   After being attacked to share the concept instead of teaching the whole tone changed.

That's beside the point.  Believe what you want on that but my point is there is a way to play with an edge based on playing different layers( multiple games at the same time)

Like a parrondo paradox but not exactly because roulette is negative expectation.  But a game can be created to have similar features.

The edge cannot be changed.

Quote from: denzie on Jul 20, 03:16 PM 2017
What's going on here?

All credits goes to TG. I simply figured his stuff out with some others.Who are the others? But seriously. .... BET THE NUMBERS THAT HIT ABOVE AVERAGE! !!!!!!!  :thumbsup:

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Jul 28, 10:16 AM 2017Airball is a touchy subject.Well Morts and J247 play ok.

Quote from: Steve on Jul 28, 08:38 AM 2017
Some airballs are easier, most are harder to beat. Airball isn't real roulette. Its manipulated junk. Half rng. Yeah, BLA,BLA,BLA

So start after 20th betting 6#'s, as they hit move them down, so 1st of hot 6 is #33, who remains hot

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_843552.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mSni)

If you can't see i'll place all hit #'s at there position, but come on work it out.

So there we have it.. 1 whole hour of spins that prove nottos HG.

Quote from: Steve on Aug 31, 04:23 AM 2017
So there we have it.. 1 whole hour of spins that prove nottos HG.

Not mine Steve perhaps theres a clue in the tittle  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
At least ef-bet have sensible spin time, unlike your ridiculous MPR, which is only playable if you use outside bets.
With the idea coming from the clue in the tittle, you can place units on field, but when a game starts all 37 are due the larger group, which MPR does not allow unlike ef-bet where one could place the larger group, even Grosvenor has longer spin time than MPR
So you'll have to be jizzed

Heres another look even Steve might get it this way

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_287306.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mxSA)

You could walk with 1st profit, if you'd bet from spin 1 you'd be even.
What did Vaddi say, the wheel has to balance so, is it not 0x's v 1x's, then 0x's v 1x+>1x's, so there is the game of roulette summed up for you.

Quote from: nottophammer on Aug 31, 05:09 AM 2017Not mine Steve perhaps theres a clue in the tittle

Oops sorry, TG's HG. This concept of hot numbers is so good. Never seen anything like it. Surely a hot number means it will continue to be hot. I mean it must, right? I bet nobody ever thought of that and tested it before, and least nowhere near 111 spins.

Quote from: nottophammer on Aug 31, 05:09 AM 2017So you'll have to be jizzed

Go for it.

lol

Quote from: Steve on Aug 31, 06:42 AM 2017Oops sorry, TG's HG. This concept of hot numbers is so good. Never seen anything like it. Surely a hot number means it will continue to be hot. I mean it must, right? I bet nobody ever thought of that and tested it before, and least nowhere near 111 spins.

More old BLA,BLA,BLA

Quote from: nottophammer on Aug 31, 07:37 AM 2017
More old BLA,BLA,BLA

Im sorry did you expect truth to  constantly change?

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_475107.jpg) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mMus)

Quote from: Steve on Aug 31, 07:53 AM 2017
Im sorry did you expect truth to  constantly change?

No i don't expect you to change your view, like me, my view.
Oh yes 3 games in different shops (FOBT) +106 units
Using known avg for non-hit, no bullshit

Math is not my "view". It's just what is.

Quote from: Steve on Aug 31, 11:48 AM 2017
Math is not my "view". It's just what is.

Not worried by math, it's only 0x V 1x  then 0x V 1x+>1x, it's that simple

Now as you've christen this my HG, but its only looking at turbo topic and could be doing it nothing like he does, so don't say its an HG, or you'll get everyone going.

so the sheet that i posted, i was watching the trot as i always do as its a game of  0x V 1x  then 0x V 1x+>1x, so Turbo way not even looking at it, but as you try to undermine turbo way and even you dont know if you have it right, lets see if i can curve fit Turbo/denzie

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_368602.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mQ87)

well -55 as all spins done.

So now Notto walks down to corals, thinking Steves laughing this wont work, Notto thinks what a wanker.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_859858.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/m1lQ)

Look +64
Notto's +9 units

Thats profit so Notto goes to Betfred

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_305220.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/m3ay)

another 8 units Notto is +17

What if Notto is trying his luck, and forgets all he knows about streams of #'s

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_557021.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mAPL)

Look run out of #'s and -66
So now betfred

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_668066.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mVtS)

Look +78 cleared the -66, +12
Notto walks to the car laughing to himself, thinking what a wanker that Steve is  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So i went back to bet fred, been in about 40 minutes, but if you are observant you'll see the bottom of this sheet is the reset from the sheet earlier, bet fred 1, well machine #4 has not been touched since i left it, so its machine #3.

Now you all know what i'm doing, if not i'm just watching the trot, not thought of T/D untill around spin 40, so when is an R3 coming, but i'm not that worried as i'm watching the game of 0x V 1x+>1x. End +97 units.

Well now lets see if T/D can win.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_428746.jpg) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mX1o)

So its 10/10 like so often on MPR where 10/10 happens all the time,strange that. Suppose Steve be on soon going BLA,BLA, yeah we know steve improve accuracy

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_366542.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/ma4p)

Well it seems Den's right -24 not bad, but i'll still just watch "Trotity trot, trotity trot, the noughts became overtly hot! Merily, merily, merily, merily, the 2s went gently down the stream..."¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪:

Theres a few members on here who read and take on board whats being said about Avg, they understand the 15.8 in spins 11-40 and 30.5 in 60 spins.
So can you see betfred 1 it got its 15, in 11-40, now if you except 30.5 in 60, aren't we going to see we could/should get 7 more non-hit, well 10 came, does this mean the machine is paying out what a load of bollox, how does it know who to payout


(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_806469.jpg) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mby0)                                                                                  Then look at the 2games just now, 24,-1 so gave 14, but again 6 more 0x's could come, and there they are.
No need to try and improve your accuracy as you already have it.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/08/31/temp_647183.jpg) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mCSH)

Game set and match to NOTTO

notto what the heck are dots... :xd:

Maestro, just me counting how many possible repeats could come as the 19th is well early, you see i bet he 18 to repeat but it put the 19th in, so bet the 19 at 2 units, win, then bet at 1 unit, win, now stop,as 20th avg to hit in 3 spins and it did,and you see i bet the 20 to repeat, and as up i left with the money, but the 21st 0x has an avg of 3 spins to hit, max of 12 on FOBT and 10 on airball.

Any more just ask.
At least it we'rnt BLA,BLA,BLA, like some idiot :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Maestro
the last 2games 10/10 then 9,+4 game below 8/10 then 9,+4 see fast, now if your observant game 1 spin reg is 2,1,7  below showing 1,1,1,7 i said to the player who's playing reels, look #26 spin 29, 6 repeats so bet the 17 non-hit, not hard is it,  :thumbsup:

Quote from: Steve on Aug 31, 07:53 AM 2017
Im sorry did you expect truth to  constantly change?

Just my view....but

Some people dont take advice, and some dont listen to the truth.

Generally, those not listening to the truth are doing really well with an idea, and getting great success.
The truth only gets in the way, and hey, its not the truth anyhow because I am winning

Thats great...and I wish them all the luck in the world, but there lies a big problem.

when the truth arrives, they wont believe it and soldier on and lose a lot of money.

Runs from hell are just the truth all coming at once, and you have already had warning signs because it hasnt been coming all at once, just in dribs and drabs. They already have an explanation for this and it is "I win more than I lose"

Thats my understanding

That's basically it. If we look at MPR leader board we see exactly what happens in a real casino: :.rouletteplayers.org/leaderboard

There are winners and losers. Most are losers. The players who start out winning are convinced their system "works", but really it's just normal probability. Eventually the winners lose their winnings and more.

Casinos need the temporary winners to convince other players they can win. The casino doesn't care who wins or loses, or what players think they know, as long as most are losers.

Quote from: Steve on Aug 31, 06:30 PM 2017Eventually the winners lose their winnings and more.

Of course, and as some know, it is called the "hold"
The "hold" is where the casinos make their money.

They couldnt survive on the HE.
Its quite simple, and in my view, makes a mockery of the well worn phrase that is " playing with the casinos money"

Man, they really want you to do that because each time they pay you, they pay short (HE), so they pay you short twice, and 3 times, depending how much winnings you plough back in.

The average is somewhere near 25%, and we can see this as punters recycling their winnings, on average, 5 times.

So, forget the HE as their income as being 2.7% or 5.26% per se, but think of multiple HE's added up averaging 25%.

This is indeed hopeful to players. People slate Hit and Run, and to some extent, it is avoiding the hold.

If you try to play in a fashion of avoiding being a player who contributes to the hold, and is only exposed to the HE as 2.7 and 5.3%, and you get some luck....you may actually do rather well. :thumbsup:

The upshot is that if you know all this, you should then know you are doing well due to luck alone.

If you dont know all this (you do now), then you will believe you have some edge over the casino with your "System", or as some puts it, "Method".

I cant see where I havnt portrayed the truth here.

sounds like...<give a man a mask and he will tell you the truth>.. :xd:

Firstly, I play a method, not a strategy!

Secondly, I play a game within a game within a game within a game within a game using PhP (pigeon hole principle)

Thirdly, I have gained an edge this way (although mathematically impossible)

Fourthly, I will only share with a small group of people! On my forum! Oh and I play on Christmas instead of seeing my family.

How much do you want for your "method"?

Only way to find out is to join my exclusive forum!

Turner puts it pretty accurate and is the truth. I browse through this forum a bit and I go wtf, you mean you don't know ? The comments and response clearly shows those guys don't know, period.

Here're examples -

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 29, 06:08 PM 2017
Hey notto,

thought I may need a magnifying glass, until I clicked it to enlarge

I tested the 1st 100 spins there

I bet every trigger not just once every 10 spin sequence

in the 1st 100 spins i had:

-16 triggers
-all wins

luck? perhaps

more i test this thing, more i like it....just curious if the wins outweigh the losses. time will tell

i expect losses, in a negative expectation game

the question is does the strategy produce enough wins to battle a loss

up 16 units there. a loss sets me back 26 units. so risky, yes

Thanatos posted this link, 121 pages about nothing ?

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?PHPSESSID=f07f8a548f64b5e4c5238496fe3d95fb&topic=19315.msg180898;topicseen#msg180898

I'm not putting RG and Thanatos on the spot by calling both out. Nope I'm not, these are recent examples and normal happenings. But that's the forum full of it, people don't know they really really don't know. Mainly because they don't have the means to know, by means I refer to the tools to enable one to know. Nickmsi said that somewhere and I agree. So Turner is absolutely spot on with his detailed comments.

Now, I have 2 questions for those of you who know that the punter will eventually lose no matter what the method or strategy or system used because of the math - the house always win.

Assume this scenario, that the roulette wheel does not have the green zero - 36# and payout remains the same. Now this means there's no edge for both the punter and the house. Will the punter now have a chance to win and the house lose ?

British gamblers lost a record £13.8bn in the year ending September 2016, including an all-time high of £1.82bn on controversial fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs). ----- The Guardian

Without the house edge the house might lose this equivalent sum just the same, or no ?

2nd question, since the house have the house edge, wtf do they place so many restrictions onto punters, like online log punters out for inactivitity over a fews spins, betting window that's under 30secs, sudden reduced betting window and the like that we all know about ?

Why disallow the use of handphones aka roulette computers ? I can appreciate those that measure the parameters of the wheel are banned BUT why disallow on a blanket basis in some jurisdiction that I read about ? These computers will lose eventually right ? So why not let the gambler's fallacy modeled computers be used, the house will still win since the math told us so ?

Why show winning punters the door since their winnings are merely on hold ? Hey, if the house refuse to continue do business with them then the house has acknowledged to take a loss. Hey the house take a loss, that's unthinkable with roulette right ?

And there's the refusal to pay winnings and in some cases the deposit as well, I'm referring to so-called reputable online casino ? Why do that when eventually this 'hold' winnings/profits will return to the fold and much more, right ?

Hey pitboss, why do you guys do all that for ?

Quote from: cht on Aug 31, 09:56 PM 2017
Turner puts it pretty accurate and is the truth. I browse through this forum a bit and I go wtf, you mean you don't know ? The comments and response clearly shows those guys don't know, period.

Here're examples -

Thanatos posted this link, 121 pages about nothing ?

link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?PHPSESSID=f07f8a548f64b5e4c5238496fe3d95fb&topic=19315.msg180898;topicseen#msg180898

I'm not putting RG and Thanatos on the spot by calling both out. Nope I'm not, these are recent examples and normal happenings. But that's the forum full of it, people don't know they really really don't know. Mainly because they don't have the means to know, by means I refer to the tools to enable one to know. Nickmsi said that somewhere and I agree. So Turner is absolutely spot on with his detailed comments.

Now, I have 2 questions for those of you who know that the punter will eventually lose no matter what the method or strategy or system used because of the math - the house always win.

Assume this scenario, that the roulette wheel does not have the green zero - 36# and payout remains the same. Now this means there's no edge for both the punter and the house. Will the punter now have a chance to win and the house lose ?

British gamblers lost a record £13.8bn in the year ending September 2016, including an all-time high of £1.82bn on controversial fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs). ----- The Guardian

Without the house edge the house might lose this equivalent sum just the same, or no ?

2nd question, since the house have the house edge, wtf do they place so many restrictions onto punters, like online log punters out for inactivitity over a fews spins, betting window that's under 30secs, sudden reduced betting window and the like that we all know about ?

Why disallow the use of handphones aka roulette computers ? I can appreciate those that measure the parameters of the wheel are banned BUT why disallow on a blanket basis in some jurisdiction that I read about ? These computers will lose eventually right ? So why not let the gambler's fallacy modeled computers be used, the house will still win since the math told us so ?

Why show winning punters the door since their winnings are merely on hold ? Hey, if the house refuse to continue do business with them then the house has acknowledged to take a loss. Hey the house take a loss, that's unthinkable with roulette right ?

And there's the refusal to pay winnings and in some cases the deposit as well, I'm referring to so-called reputable online casino ? Why do that when eventually this 'hold' winnings/profits will return to the fold and much more, right ?

Hey pitboss, why do you guys do all that for ?

Elaborate on exactly what I "don't know"

I openly state I expect losses, it is a negative expectation game, and I cannot change the house edge

I also state I try to play methods that are ahead after a loss

So what exactly don't I know

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 31, 10:04 PM 2017
Elaborate on exactly what I "don't know"

I openly state I expect losses, it is a negative expectation game, and I cannot change the house edge

I also state I try to play methods that are ahead after a loss

So what exactly don't I know

If you truly understand that bolded part, you should know no matter what fancy betting pattern/scheme the punter will lose eventually. Not just lose eventually but the variance could be monstrous, the punter don't know neither do the house(are you surprise?) - only time travellers and for the religious God only knows the future +- variance in what form or shape.

Again, I'm not picking on you or anybody on this forum nothing personal. Just taking both cases as EXAMPLES for discussion purposes, that's all.

And I have to say this which may get me a lot of flak, a lot of you openly declare you understand the gambler's fallacy then go on threads to show that you don't exactly understand the gambler's fallacy. Again I'm not putting YOU(rhetorical) in the spotlight. You need to examine your understanding and mindset about gambler's fallacy. Else YOU're in the rabbit hole yourself while YOU're looking at others stumbling around the rabbit hole. Not putting anybody down, nor elevating myself but this might help YOU.

On betselection forum, Nickmsi asked the question and Bayes replied and he's spot on.

Quote from: Nickmsi on June 05, 2016, 02:12:32 am

What criteria could we use to verify the claim?

If in profit after 100,000 spins? Probably not as any good 50/50 system could be ahead.

The Van Keelen test?

What would an edge look like?

What would a test look like?

Hi Nick,

I assume you're talking about raw bet selection here and not any kind of MM/Progression. According to the "long run" a series of EC bets will only make a profit  in roughly 1 in 20 sessions of 5000 placed bets, so that would be a good starting point. If it's in profit after this you could get the z-score which is :

z = (w - n*p) / sqrt(n*p*(1-p))

If this is steadily increasing then there's a good chance you may have something. A score of +3 would only occur about 0.3% of the time, and anything higher even less, so for example if you have placed 5000 actual bets (not just spins) and have 2600 wins and 2400 losses, the score would be

z = (2600 - 5000 * 0.4865) / sqrt (5000 * 0.4865 * 0.5135) = 4.74 standard deviations above the mean, which would be pretty impressive.

I'm not picky but there're plenty cases where people freely use statistics, probability and odds interchangeably. They're not the same. I can't get a better video that explains the difference between statistics and probability. Get your understanding correct.

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu4x2DKn12g

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=4r_EWA3FXfM

Quote from: cht on Aug 31, 09:56 PM 2017Why disallow the use of handphones aka roulette computers ? I can appreciate those that measure the parameters of the wheel are banned BUT why disallow on a blanket basis in some jurisdiction that I read about ? These computers will lose eventually right ? So why not let the gambler's fallacy modeled computers be used, the house will still win since the math told us so ?

I heard those computer things are scams. There's no way on Earth you can predict where the ball will bounce. All random.

Regarding the probability vs odds videos, it's a long way of explaining a simple concept. The payouts never change.

The odds of a ball landing on a specific number are actually 100%, not 1 in 37. That's because the ball landed where it did because of the variables like rotor speed and many other variables.

If you had all the variables you could correctly predict the winning number 100% of the time. In reality there are too many variables for us to calculate, at least to be 100% accurate. So instead we take some shortcuts and consider the major variables. And this is all we need to have enough accuracy to overcome a slight -2.7% house edge.  A 5% edge is very easy with roulette computers. 30-80% is common. Sometimes you get over 120%.

Beating roulette is not impossible. Many people say it's totally impossible. But actually it's ridiculously easy once you know what you're doing. The problem isnt beating wheels. It's avoiding detection.

There are more than one ways of beating roulette. You don't need a roulette computer. I've suggested numerous ways to explore. The typical systems don't work because they don't at all change the odds. The odds of winning on the next spin are the same for the player. For 1 number, always 1 in 37 (Eu wheel). Use progression, fancy bet selection like repeaters.... but still you wont change the odds.

Progression is no different to a bunch of different sized bets from different people. Overall the group of players still lose. And you think one player doing the same bets makes a difference?

You can lay on your back with your legs in the air and run your arse off. You wont get anywhere despite your effort. Put your feet on the ground and the result is different. Most system players have their feet in the air, clueless to why their systems eventually fail. and they are convinced with their new system they finally "got it", until they do more testing. And you can be sure millions of others have tested almost an identical system, with varied results. Varied because the result just depends on what spins you get at the time - not the actual effectiveness of the system.

I'm not trying to push advantage play like computers or VB. I'm just saying focus on bet selection and actually changing the odds. Unless you change your odds, they stay at 1 in 37, and you wont beat the unfair payout. It's impossible. It's like transferring water between two cups of equal size, in extreme heat while the water evaporates....  while you wait for one cup to overflow. It wont happen unless you actually add more water. Its a dumb analogy but there have been even clearer ones, which arent understood anyway.

I dont agree that players dont have the means to find out the truth. They often have it rammed down their throats. It is willfully ignored. I think they are often lazy or are just looking for some magical way that requires no thought or effort at the table. I was like that before too.

I'm all for an easier way. But at least try something NEW. That's why I created the "outside the box" area: link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=104.0

And my suggestions for new things are at link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19212.0

wow 12 hrs go by, you have been busy, only readTurner reply, so why the fuck are you lot still on here if you believe you can't beat roulette.
Maths gunna get ya LOL.
Leave you all to it  >:D

Quote from: nottophammer on Sep 01, 04:49 AM 2017
wow 12 hrs go by, you have been busy, only readTurner reply, so why the f*** are you lot still on here if you believe you can't beat roulette.
Maths gunna get ya LOL.
Leave you all to it  >:D

for me its a case of "keep your friends close" (yourself and your systems) "and your enemies even closer" (the casino, the maths, the unfair payout)

just picked up morts #'s all win KTF,T/D  carry on looking at the outside bets,  :lol:

Notto its not that roulette cant be beaten. Its that you cant  do it without changing the odds. Debating that is just not understanding primary school math.

Ignoring the math is ignoring reality. Again math is not a view or opinion. I don't think you'll ever get it at this rate. Nobody cares how anyone plays. If you are winning your way, just keep doing it. Go ahead, jizz on me.

QuoteWhy show winning punters the door since their winnings are merely on hold ? Hey, if the house refuse to continue do business with them then the house has acknowledged to take a loss. Hey the house take a loss, that's unthinkable with roulette right ?

And there's the refusal to pay winnings and in some cases the deposit as well, I'm referring to so-called reputable online casino ? Why do that when eventually this 'hold' winnings/profits will return to the fold and much more, right ?

Hey pitboss, why do you guys do all that for ?

i like it :xd: :xd:

Quote from: Steve on Sep 01, 01:02 AM 2017
I heard those computer things are scams. There's no way on Earth you can predict where the ball will bounce. All random.

If that's the case why this blanket ban the use of those mobile computers, they will lose right ? Contradiction ?

Quote from: Steve on Sep 01, 01:21 AM 2017
Beating roulette is not impossible. Many people say it's totally impossible. But actually it's ridiculously easy once you know what you're doing. The problem isnt beating wheels. It's avoiding detection.

There are more than one ways of beating roulette. You don't need a roulette computer.

Good to know that you hold this belief that the roulette game is beatable.

You said "it's ridiculously easy", I don't quite agree with this. If your statement refer to the practical part of tracking the spins, laying the chips on the felt then I do concur that it's not difficult but rather boring.

The design and details of the method/strategy/system/whatever is not easy, definitely not.

I have always alluded to the fact that VB, AP and roulette physics computers are not the only way.

I've tracked dublinbet spins for a while and the final test is to play with real money. I deposited a small 50euros as test and without changing the stakes at all, The balance now stands at 207euros(approx. quadruple the initial deposit) after 1200 spins(3days) in line with my expectation. No more online play but this play will be done at the local b&m with minimal restriction there. The withdrawal will be made later today, I hope there's no hiccup, this I'm not sure of. :-\

The point I make is there's a lot of claims made about VB, AP, roulette computers this and that but there's zero proof of actual real money performance except a lot of cryptic claims.

There's also lots of claims from system players but there's zero proof as well.

Do I believe any of that ? Should anyone ?

I believe my account balance and I believe my chips stack, that's what I believe.(You don't expect me to post a pic of my account as proof, right ?)

As to the questions I posed in my earlier post above, the contradiction is glaring. I truly wish what you guys say on forums hold true that there're no mechanical method that beat roulette and that you're the pitbosses that allow me to freely play the roulette game with my mobile indefinitely.

Quote from: Steve on Sep 01, 05:26 AM 2017
Notto its not that roulette cant be beaten. Its that you cant  do it without changing the odds. Debating that is just not understanding primary school math.

Ignoring the math is ignoring reality. Again math is not a view or opinion. I don't think you'll ever get it at this rate. Nobody cares how anyone plays. If you are winning your way, just keep doing it. Go ahead, jizz on me.

Steve i know what you spout, but the Fobt plays to LOTT, end of, but what helps is countback.
If math says you can't beat it,then why you still here

steve Mort today
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/01/temp_962170.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mDud)
so it got 16 in spins 11-40 well aint that 15.8 rounded up, but i prefer to just drop the point.
60 spins theres the 30 what is avg for 60 spins 30.5
Back to you steve

steve the +10 is wrong but me no excel and pri said try something, but could not change, but it don't matter as i know what it means and thats the only person that needs to know
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/01/temp_672957.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mNZU)
Now i'm finished crossing swords on this avg, if you don't get fine, but i do and thats the bit that matters

I think cht doesn't understand the physics end of it

Scientists and universities have beaten roulette.

Release point, and speed

Cht doesn't know science.

link:s://:.google.com/amp/s/:.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/05/23/how-physicists-used-science-to-beat-the-odds-at-roulette/amp/

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 01, 07:33 AM 2017
I think cht doesn't understand the physics end of it

Scientists and universities have beaten roulette.

Release point, and speed

Cht doesn't know science.

It doesn't matter what I know or doesn't know, assumption and speculation. And cht has no value or interest to anyone.

Stick to the core of the subject matter.

Simple question question -

Do you think anyone on forums who claim they beat roulette with VB, AP and physics computer are for real ?

Have you seen any real live proof done at the casino ?

Assume you have not, then do explain what then molds your belief that such and such claim is true.

Then again I'm not even interested in that, what I'm truly interested in is this misguided claim that those are the only means to beat roulette. If that were true then handphone computers that do not measure the physical attributes of the wheel and ball..... should not be banned. The betting window before the ball is spun should not be short or shortened. But we all know that's not the case.

I don't believe people do it here

But I know it's science and can be done.

Quote from: RouletteGhost on Sep 01, 08:49 AM 2017
I don't believe people do it here

But I know it's science and can be done.

RG, we are on the same page now. I agree totally. Not just here but on every other forum.

RG, can I engage you and everyone else to share your views why you think -

1. Handphones are banned in some jurisdiction

2. For online live casino, the betting window is short and at times abruptly shortened to below 10-15seconds

3. Customers are disconnected(of some form) when they are inactive for a number of spins

4. Some winning customers are refused play at their casino

Really its not so amazing. I have days worth of video of my computers beating roulette in real casinos. But i only publish videos like my public demos. And besides anyone can test them free. If you really want answers about them, it's not hard. Read the sites in my signature.

And again I'm not saying they are the only way to win.

Also the Forbes article is good but the writer had no expertise or experience, and some info is inaccurate. Again its not hard to see for yourself

The point is this

The roulette wheel can't defy physics as we know it to be

So yes roulette is predictable with proper equipment.

Quote from: Steve on Sep 01, 04:24 PM 2017
Really its not so amazing. I have days worth of video of my computers beating roulette in real casinos. But i only publish videos like my public demos. And besides anyone can test them free. If you really want answers about them, it's not hard. Read the sites in my signature.

And again I'm not saying they are the only way to win.

Also the Forbes article is good but the writer had no expertise or experience, and some info is inaccurate. Again its not hard to see for yourself

It's not limited to what you think are ways to win either.

We are now at a time where the advances in technology that's made available to the man in the street is phenomenal. So, the casino game will definitely be explored in ways that were not possible earlier. The 3 ways are the use of physics, math and the combination of both. With physics, the physical variables of the current spin has to be measured. To combat that the casino can impose a no more bet then followed by the spin, instead of spin followed by no more bet. They have not yet done so indicating this threat is not yet real to them. If you try use hidden electronics at the b&m casino, they can easily catch you. Again I'm not taking a knock at physics, just sharing the obvious obstacles in practical use.

With math, there's no input of physical attributes. The casino has no defence against math. They have no defence against fractals, precognition..... But with fractals and math, both of which I explore in-depth, requires the mobile computer to assist with the calculations. That's why casinos both, online and b&m, impose wider restrictions that I highlighted in the post earlier to combat more then the use of physics.

Of course they know computers are a threat. They allow late betting because it speeds up the game and makes other players lose more. If computer users are detected, only then they close bets sooner. Then when the player leaves, normal procedure resumes.

Its actually really easy to win $1000-$5000 and avoid detection on most tables. Higher amounts need careful planning. it depends on the casino.

RG
recognise these #'s, there from somewhere that the owner of this forum is called a blatant liar, LOFL.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_245277.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mmtf)

Well there's 75 spins in total, but lets look here 1st. Old Mr J bless him says forget LOTT, and what is the trot, so will leave him scratching his block of wood.
Rg you should know that spins 11-40 15.8 non-hit can come, the LOTT just says 23,24,25 could happen, but countback  through the 15 expected can help you to make a decision whether to bet 0x or 1x, or even 0x v 1x + >1x.
well we see +1 so 16 came in spins 11-40, now with the known avg of 30.5 non-hit in 60 spins will we get the 4, 0x's to get to 30 in 60, or if you rounded up 31 in 60, leave that to all of you.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_396742.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mr31)

heres the extra 15 spins, the blue is if you was resetting, but 33,0x came in 75 spins.
The blue 8/10, 9th and 10th are in and 10th is early, 11th has an avg of 2 spins, so here is decision time if you where just watching

Now why we worked on countback, to see how these 75 spins behaved.
So here is T/D.
Not going to go on about it, but i suppose the blatant liar will bash old Turbo idea that i don't even know if he plays like this. Hope it helps the Yid army member :thumbsup:

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_475041.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/m475)

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_421410.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/m7yr)

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_559637.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mfWx)

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_464935.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mhuK)

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_915383.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/miZB)

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_143386.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mgw9)

Rg just chipping up a unit, not aggressive 1,5,25
Now we better lets this get lost in the archive

Quoterecognise these #'s, there from somewhere that the owner of this forum is called a blatant liar, LOFL.

What else could mike claim to defend himself after i published proof he used fake members on his own forum to lie about me to boost his quiet forum? Hide the proof and call me a liar, which is what he did.

Sorry notto. You aren't too bright.

And if I'm a blatant liar notto, just win your billions with turbos ststem and make a fool of everyone that understands grade 3 math. Why are you still here??

unfortunately telling the truth makes honest people a target. And people with even less integrity quote liars to support bad arguments.

why am i still here, to wind you up by the look of it

Wouldnt it be more productive for you to win billions and prove Im a liar or ignorant fool?

Notto I believe does well

It's why he is so passionate

I appreciate him posting his sheets

He actually uses the place for its for rather then the other BS.

do you remember Rg talking to Turbo about these #'s  Just like old posted #'s can't say there been doctored
1.   1. 36
2. 28
3. 34
4. 14
5. 34 start betting 34
6. 0
7. 14 start betting 14 and 34
8. 1
9. 32
10. 31
11. 27
12. 25
13. 24
14. 27 start betting 27, 34, and 14
15. 11
16. 33
17. 3
18. 25 25, 27, 34, 14
19. 5
20. 30
21. 3 3, 25, 27, 34, 14
22. 15
23. 27 heres our 3rd hit (27)
24. 15
25. 27
26. 31
27. 19
28. 3
29. 27
30. 35
31. 20
32. 6
33. 7
34. 4
35. 16
36. 33
37. 16

did not profit flat bet though.....damn close though....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

38. 3
39. 30
40. 31
41. 7
42. 12
43. 23
44. 7 start betting 7
45. 2
46. 29
47. 15
48. 23 7, 23
49. 9
50. 32
51. 21
52. 27
53. 2 7, 23, 2
54. 33
55. 12 7, 23, 2, 12
56. 9 9, 7, 23, 2, 12
57. 19
58. 31 31, 9, 7, 23, 2, 12
59. 15 15, 9, 31, 7, 23, 2, 12
60. 13
61. 12 3rd hit right here
62. 11
63. 12
64. 19
65. 29
66. 34
67. 30
68. 19
69. 25
70. 27
71. 18
72. 1
73. 30
74. 30
75. 22
1. 00
2. 33
3. 11
4. 31
5. 12
6. 14
7. 10
8. 5
9. 15
10. 36
11. 34
12. 0
13. 30
14. 22
15. 33 33
16. 18
17. 33 3rd hit
18. 9
19. 10
20. 17
21. 24
22. 2
23. 14
24. 30
25. 27
26. 2
27. 18
28. 18
29. 21
30. 26
31. 13
32. 11
33. 22
34. 24
35. 14
36. 00
37. 18

------------------------------------------------------------------
38. 25
39. 6
40. 0
41. 5
42. 0 0
43. 26
44. 21
45. 25 0, 25
46. 15
47. 10
48. 4
49. 24
50. 24 24, 0, 25
51. 2
52. 4 4, 24, 0, 25
53. 00
54. 25 3rd hit
55. 24
56. 14
57. 1
58. 12
59. 12
60. 24
61. 23
62. 29
63. 20
64. 35
65. 1
66. 36
67. 5
68. 13
69. 22
70. 00
71. 9
72. 20
73. 1
74. 28
75. 14
------------------------------------------------------------

1. 24
2. 31
3. 32
4. 21
5. 1
6. 12
7. 16
8. 00
9. 32 32
10. 13
11. 3
12. 29
13. 23
14. 0
15. 29
16. 36
17. 1 1, 32
18. 31 1, 32, 31
19. 22
20. 19
21. 24 24, 1, 32, 31
22. 0 0, 24, 1, 32, 31
23. 9
24. 12 12, 0, 24, 1, 32, 31
25. 32 3rd hit
26. 10
27. 36
28. 9
29. 17
30. 27
31. 2
32. 1
33. 34
34. 22
35. 0
36. 14
37. 13

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_397750.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mjbZ)

Run out #'s but +111

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_975814.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mcgD)

Again run out of #'s, but carry over the +111 still +19, nice one Denzie, i'll keep on testing, even thou the experts keep saying it will fail

been on T/D forgot Morts #'s
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/02/temp_290682.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mHTl)

Now hwere do you start reading about Hotties from Turbo, its allover the place, but i just found this,
That was using the 5/25/100 progression. I wouldn't suggest anyone do that though. Sticking with 1/5 or 5/25 is easier to handle. For the feint of heart you could use 1/2/3/4/5 etc also.
Seems i'm on the right path, well maybe

Now where i'm reading about Turbo, it seems some don't know when to start, student Denzie said spin 1.
But spin 1 is not hot, for a # to be hot, does it not need to repeat?
If any of you have looked at the avg document posted recently, what happens in most opening 10 spins?

I suppose no answer will come, I think Nextyear knows the answer, so he does not have to reply, till then goodbye.

It starts with repeat and finish with hot.trying to catch first repeat can be expensive. I would suggest strat after 10th.

Thanks Madi, bet steve hoped no one replied then i'd not be here.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/03/temp_192758.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mkzF)
So today its 8/10 repeat came on spin 4, +30
so it's down to individual choice me thinks.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/03/temp_795523.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/mvWi)

Mort today

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/05/temp_387705.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/rT7o)

So openning 10 spins 76% chance of not beinging 10/10, so if start from spin 1, does it win?

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/05/temp_465947.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/rFzp)

-9, but #6 is now classed hot so do we up to 5 or the steady 2 units

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/05/temp_564401.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/rUx0)

Quote from: Steve on Sep 01, 01:21 AM 2017
Regarding the probability vs odds videos, it's a long way of explaining a simple concept. The payouts never change.

The odds of a ball landing on a specific number are actually 100%, not 1 in 37. That's because the ball landed where it did because of the variables like rotor speed and many other variables.

If you had all the variables you could correctly predict the winning number 100% of the time. In reality there are too many variables for us to calculate, at least to be 100% accurate. So instead we take some shortcuts and consider the major variables. And this is all we need to have enough accuracy to overcome a slight -2.7% house edge.  A 5% edge is very easy with roulette computers. 30-80% is common. Sometimes you get over 120%.

Beating roulette is not impossible. Many people say it's totally impossible. But actually it's ridiculously easy once you know what you're doing. The problem isnt beating wheels. It's avoiding detection.

There are more than one ways of beating roulette. You don't need a roulette computer. I've suggested numerous ways to explore. The typical systems don't work because they don't at all change the odds. The odds of winning on the next spin are the same for the player. For 1 number, always 1 in 37 (Eu wheel). Use progression, fancy bet selection like repeaters.... but still you wont change the odds.

Progression is no different to a bunch of different sized bets from different people. Overall the group of players still lose. And you think one player doing the same bets makes a difference?

You can lay on your back with your legs in the air and run your arse off. You wont get anywhere despite your effort. Put your feet on the ground and the result is different. Most system players have their feet in the air, clueless to why their systems eventually fail. and they are convinced with their new system they finally "got it", until they do more testing. And you can be sure millions of others have tested almost an identical system, with varied results. Varied because the result just depends on what spins you get at the time - not the actual effectiveness of the system.

I'm not trying to push advantage play like computers or VB. I'm just saying focus on bet selection and actually changing the odds. Unless you change your odds, they stay at 1 in 37, and you wont beat the unfair payout. It's impossible. It's like transferring water between two cups of equal size, in extreme heat while the water evaporates....  while you wait for one cup to overflow. It wont happen unless you actually add more water. Its a dumb analogy but there have been even clearer ones, which arent understood anyway.

I dont agree that players dont have the means to find out the truth. They often have it rammed down their throats. It is willfully ignored. I think they are often lazy or are just looking for some magical way that requires no thought or effort at the table. I was like that before too.

I'm all for an easier way. But at least try something NEW. That's why I created the "outside the box" area: link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=104.0

And my suggestions for new things are at link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=19212.0

Only for the right price e.g. free to 100k, I presume.

Arm - Shanks more to check
Look at checkpoint, +2 non-hit at spin 40 and 31 at 60, always spot on or very close to the avg.
The repeat came in spins 1-10 just to late, but #4 did the job, just look it came again

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/16/temp_305086.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/4OVD)

thought i'd let shanks get back from watching the yid army.
+90 be enough and another #4 not far.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/16/temp_447457.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/4Uhl)

 :thumbsup:  Frustrating to say the least!
Got a lot of catching up to do and i'll get my roulette head on after match of the day.

I would have stopped on spin 13 and gone and done something else or played a different method for a while and then started again. I now always stop on first profit as im wary of having to go to high with a progression even though i think with a big enough BR it would recover and has done on Parx(i know monopoly money) and other tests with really spins. I only raise the progression once i get a hit and try and keep the amount of numbers bet on as low as possible as posted by Turbo on GF. I did use to wait for a repeat before betting but have started betting from the off as your info shows you get a lot of early wins in that first 10

enlarge the checkpoint box, there is the usual, 9/10 repeat came, at a good point, so 9+ the 15 non-hit from remaining 28 we expect at spin 40, 9+15=24 and the usual 30 at spin 60.

Mr Taotie, remaining 9,8,7,6,5  :thumbsup:

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/17/temp_405552.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/4lGc)

Well using 1,2,3,4 etc gets there

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/17/temp_836432.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/4wQa)

This in the ADD topic.
Shanks should we stop a # when hit 3 times? This is FOBT, in 2 bookies theres a roulette that gives the 5 hot and 5 cold plus zero, well i'd been better to played TD/DT, +272 against break even
In spins 11-20 i was +17, if TD/DT would been +26 spins 1-10, look at the groups of 10's 76% chance of repeat in 10 spins

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/28/temp_927696.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/4a9H)

Hay Notts,
The way i mostly play i stop at first profit (often in the first 10 spins  :thumbsup: ) reset and go again but if needed id always go for 3 to 4.

Shanks had these hour ago on MPR, i'll let you decide if you trust the spins there.
Now with Mortagons games, it always seems to come good, so decided to carry on as these spins are supposed to be from live wheel.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/28/temp_328440.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/4DUg)

Same spins just show how the non-hit came using the old +1/-1, checkpoints meet the averages at spin 40 and 60

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/28/temp_442744.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/4NXV)

Notto....My apologies if this comes over bad but....

We all see you post many stuff and sheets....ktf...wtf...last 9 nonhit...GUT. ..Etc. ..

Im Not sure but I think most members have this question for you :

What is it that you play ? I mean you walk in those shops and just pick any method you feel like or what's going on ?   :)

Den i just watch how the starting 37 non-hits come and make decisions along the way, plenty of opportunities pop up.
Oh yeah and in the bookies i'm the only one recording spins, so what are the mugs doing, wiggy knows

Den
When my game starts theres the 37#'s, i know  that the 1st 19 non-hit have an average of 2 spins to come, i also have on the sheet each non-hit maximum spins to come in, i mark on the sheet countback that indicates the trot, i can reference the 15.8 against spin 37 where LOTT says could see 23,24,25 , look at ladbrokes game got myself in a big hole but they had to slow 25 non-hit in 31 spins.
As said TD/DT paid better but i generally just watch the trot for betting opp's

Alright so basically you see what's happening and make decisions as you go  :thumbsup:

You should do some open sessions here with members giving you the #. Then you can say why you bet and what you bet. I'm sure many members don't fully grasp how you do it. Mainly coz I have problems trying to follow-up what you do. Lol. Yup. So I'm guessing I'm not the only one ? Anybody? Don't keep me hanging here  :o

Quote from: denzie on Sep 28, 03:06 PM 2017
You should do some open sessions here with members giving you the #. Then you can say why you bet and what you bet. I'm sure many members don't fully grasp how you do it. Mainly coz I have problems trying to follow-up what you do. Lol. Yup. So I'm guessing I'm not the only one ? Anybody? Don't keep me hanging here  :o

Some live sessions with Notto would be very usefull. I don't understand any of his posted pictures. It all goes way too fast and he using all types of shorts for all kind of words.

Quote from: RayManZ on Sep 28, 03:21 PM 2017
Some live sessions with Notto would be very usefull. I don't understand any of his posted pictures. It all goes way too fast and he using all types of shorts for all kind of words.

Exactly  :thumbsup:

Den i don't get it right all the time, but i do manage to get back infront and it can be hard on FOBT's as all say RNG is a different beast, But the FOBT's do play to the LOTT and as its a machine quoted like a friut machine idiots say it has to payout, so how does an FOBT know who to payout.
With a max bet of £100 and thats if you have had £50+ spins activated and you're going to use a progression you have to start on the smallest unit or it'll have you at max bet before you no it.

You don't have to believe me that 15.8 is average for spins 11-40 and 30.5 is avg for spin 60, but that MPR game posted meets those averages and they are supposed to be live spins, to me more like RNG

I try to follow but I don't get it.

Quote from: nottophammer on Sep 28, 03:25 PM 2017
Den i don't get it right all the time, but

You don't have to believe me that 15.8 is average for spins 11-40 and 30.5 is avg for spin 60, but that MPR game posted meets those averages and they are supposed to be live spins, to me more like RNG

I do believe you. It are facts.

And Geez rng....If it's a fair rng it's just as good as a live wheel ( unless you doing some sort of dealer signature thing or bias stuff)

Ok Ray.
I always have 10 spins to find out how many of the starting 37 are left at spin 10. collected data shows on average during spins 11-40, 15.8 non-hit could/should show.
Now i can write in countback, all countback is the 15.8 rounded down to 15, so starting at spin11/12 i mark lets use the checkpoints, 10 have come so at spin 39/40 i'd have wrote 25, the checkpoint shows 15 came.
Now 60 spins from data shows 30.5 could come and 60th on checkpoint shows 31 have come.

Ok this was MPR, its fast spin and to KTF with +1/-1 is hard at the start so all i do on MPR is bet for a repeat in the groups of 10 spins, which to my collected data has a 76% chance, But if it was on the FOBT i'd be just watching, the 26 remaining non-hit at spin12 lose, but it averages to hit in 2 spins, so i'd wait to see if it loses and it does, now i'd start to bet the remaining 26 and win. Now it would be watch the spins again it's not costing provided the zero don't come.

Now the remaining 24 have missed twice thats there avg to hit gone, there known max is 5 spins, and on the FOBT can bet for 3 and would win as you watched them miss their avg to hit.

If you've got the BR and bollox to just bet look what you could walk with, that 50/+50 that PRYianka set with her tester.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/28/temp_352088.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/4Bsf)

this is what the sheet would look like, countback showing the 15 expected non-hit.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/28/temp_173372.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/4IY1)

Quote from: nottophammer on Sep 28, 03:50 PM 2017
so all i do on MPR is bet for a repeat in the groups of 10 spins, which to my collected data has a 76% chance

There ya go.....put The MM from Steven1212 on that   :thumbsup:

there you are 60 of the 80 spins, download it cover the #'s and use countback to see if fast trot or slow trot.
Up to 19th non-hit they avg to hit in 2 spins, then upto 26th 3 spins and then upto 30th 4 spins, there max spins to come in you'd need to find the latest avg doc posted somewhere

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/28/temp_644412.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/4Lr5)

Quote from: denzie on Sep 28, 04:01 PM 2017
There ya go.....put The MM from Steven1212 on that   :thumbsup:

Den the 10 spins costs me 92 units if no repeat in 10 spins and +1/-1 works ok

Quote from: nottophammer on Sep 28, 04:07 PM 2017
Den the 10 spins costs me 92 units if no repeat in 10 spins and +1/-1 works ok

No bet... Spin 1 .... We Wait
1u....spin 2.... -1
2u...spin 3.... -3
3u...spin 4.... -6
4u....spin 5....-10
5u....spin 6 ....-15
6u....spin 7.....-21
7u... spin 8... -28
8u...spin 9...-36
9u....spin 10...-45

And it doesn't need 80 wins to cover 1 loss

:thumbsup:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
16
18
30

Play no zero wheel . Red black . 50% chance.

start 1375 now 1438

so the above #11, betting the 1st 5 +21
2nd 10 #9 , betting 1st 5 +21
76 % chance

Mr Taotie no green chart
Here are todays #'s J247.
What do you see? blocks of 10 spins, so whats the chance of getting a repeat in 10 spins and Mr J and co can f*** off, there you go RG, answer 76% chance.
8/10, 9/10, 8/10, 8/10, 9/10, 9/10

Use 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3

Repeat in 10 spins 76% chance.

Well as you members say you don't get my postings, why do i bother :ooh:, but here is todays #'s.
On this sheet its 9/10, 9/10, 9/10, 10/10, 8/10, 7/10, on the extra 21 #'s, 10/10, 10/10.
All are winners :thumbsup:, why, spins 31-40 wins because spin 41 is #7, same goes for the other 2, 10/10's. #5 then #9.

Dont worry some 10/10 are losers, but on data collecting it's in front

so why started the thread.
As  ArmitageShanks and i say take 1st profit, but even like Turbos top student Den say's it always get close to coming back to starting BR.
I think the 1,2,3,4,5 is best as you can see going to 5 from 1 and to 25 would be dear.
But think where did the 1st profit come from, 76% chance  :thumbsup:

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/09/30/temp_576866.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/47NK)

Just now on MPR BR 2408 end 2430, played 1st 10 at 1unit,2nd 10 at 2 unit all though win still below starting BR, so played 3rd group for 2 unit, again win, but still below starting BR, but dropped to 1 unit as close, win, but just shy of starting BR, so used 1 unit again, #22 got to new high. Used 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3

19  18  21  21  17
06  04  19  36  08
02  08  26  07  36
12  18  12  30  18
05  32  05  16  27
- 0  27  33  22  22
10  24  29  28  21
01  18  05  24  16
11  07  07  06  22
14  04  19  36 

ok going back on mpr no one else seems to be on, so dont usually play as reckon its software, but here goes.

41 spins 2430 now 2454 , i'll write up now the #'s

16  22  12  35  20
12  30  36  31
31  - 0  26  24
13  11  18  34
20  - 0  02  20
30  03  05  06
33  17  02  28
18  10  08  03
05  29  06  21
29  07  26  17

played 1, 2, 2, 2, 3  the 3 unit got the new BR, using 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3

No one else played so missed these spins

Forgot to say if you understand this method of a repeat in 10 spins, stop on the repeat even if it was say spin 4, why ? from collected data so far 9/10 is the largest group, meaning only 1 number repeated, so why risk hoping say get 2 or 3 of the 10 spins repeat, which does happen, but mainly it's just 1 repeat in the 10 spins.

Boyd
These are the spins from MPR at 9:50.
Now like me and Armitage shanks say take1st profit. +8

Now reset let the 10 spins finish or start fresh straight away if you want.

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/10/09/temp_194713.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/7zwK)

Me start at spin 11 now means spin 1, the +8 is betting KTF not hotties

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/10/09/temp_260908.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/J5dB)

+26

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/10/09/temp_608459.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/JGj9)

+8

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/10/09/temp_898894.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/J2TZ)

+15
should you not now move to another wheel or casino, remember my data shows a 76% chance of repeat in 1st 10 spins, also this is betting hot #'s

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/10/09/temp_319401.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/JtAD)

well if you stayed +30

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2017/10/09/temp_153424.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/JTJl)

+8, but what if you was to bet the #19 like Turbs

Also remmeber what the wise sage Steve says, theres to much so i'll shorten it to BLA,BLA

Bla, bla bla notto's a dick bla bla, house edge, bla, bla lose.

Bla, bla, bla.

Ps, blah.

Blaaa fallacy.. bla bla ignorant.. bla-bla bla bla.

Blaaa bla bla





Blaaaaaa. Ok?
Seriously. Bla.

Classic Gamblers Fallacy in all its glory.

Quote from: kingmaq on Oct 09, 08:09 AM 2017
Classic Gamblers Fallacy in all its glory.

Steve in one of his many disguises

Quote from: nottophammer on Oct 09, 10:57 AM 2017
Steve in one of his many disguises

The casino knows you don't want leave as a loser, the casino loves you and laughs at you!!!

Stop believing all these gambling fallacies.. stop right now!!!

where the ? you turn up from, Moron sums you up right, one of maestros fave words

Quote from: nottophammer on Oct 09, 02:23 PM 2017
where the ? you turn up from, Moron sums you up right, one of maestros fave words

You officially win the "biggest dickhead of the day" award, get it from your roulette table!

live and learn you better move to GF where the losers go

Quote from: nottophammer on Oct 09, 05:54 PM 2017
live and learn you better move to GF where the losers go

Now thats a bit too harsh.

That’s a punishment no one deserves

It IS the forum of misfits

It was a dead forum until banned wov members went there to complain. The trash was allowed because it was the only activity. Anyone credible didn't stay. Now it has the reputation of being forum for rejects, because that's literally what it now is.

Mike was a biased mod at baccaratforums and he thought the problem was he wasn't anonymous, so people blamed him for being moderated. He said it himself, but said he learned it from "other forums" without specifically mentioning BF. That's why he hides behind "admin" and craps on about "we" and "us" as if he wasn't alone. But he eventually showed his true colors again. Then even most of the rejects abandoned the forum. I enjoyed it after the stunt he pulled.

He thought he'd create a new forum and make it all uncensored, because he thought people get upset when they get moderated. And his reputation as an admin was already ruined. He was biased. Still biased, which is why many rejects left.

 Rejects. *coughs* Ouch.  :o
There was a lot of Bago bullshit going down. But quality information was discussed and remains there. Almost without too much crap inbetween. Bit quiet though.

Denzie cracked on with repeats with Turbo idea for the repeat.
Now look to pump it up by winkel, think what winkel is doing, you'll need to widen the horizon  >:D

Quote from: nottophammer on Nov 04, 10:51 AM 2017
Denzie cracked on with repeats with Turbo idea for the repeat.
Now look to pump it up by winkel, think what winkel is doing, you'll need to widen the horizon  >:D

All credits go to TG for sending me in the right direction. He made me try countless ways to approach repeaters. Although steveypoo say its stupid...we all know they come. Yup in fact after spin 37 they have no choice. Lol.

But TG said...I know when they come. And so do I.  And so do you Notto. And so does cht. And so on.......

It aint that difficult right ? Now which one to bet ? I told it in "the Denzie Way " and cht also. And you told many times too Notto.

Don't over think this....It's beatable.
And no not by adding all repeaters as they come. That's gonna lose.

:thumbsup:

Theres more than one way to skin that cat, Look to ignatus with his wheel neighbours, i'm saying no more  :thumbsup:

Quote from: nottophammer on Nov 04, 12:16 PM 2017
Theres more than one way to skin that cat, Look to ignatus with his wheel neighbours, i'm saying no more  :thumbsup:

About ignatus.... When I see a new method I start to read and mostly I see.... high red , oneven this or that. And honestly I don't read any further. Why would I ? It can NEVER win. But don't get me wrong here. I respect the guy for trying and motivation.

But only a few of his methods actually make sense. And those get forgotten so easily. But I know 2 of his methods that can actually win  :thumbsup:
(If played right)

But I think he doesn't know that  :(

Today i was at the casino and was schocked how many people work there, then i asked myself, who paying the salaries of all these people, suddenly i thought of you :)

just for fun :)

Quote from: Roulettebeater on Nov 04, 12:43 PM 2017
who paying the salaries of all these people, suddenly i thought of you :)

Me ?

Quote from: denzie on Nov 04, 12:47 PM 2017
Me ?

all of us

Quote from: DoctorSudoku on Jul 20, 05:41 PM 2017But, just to reiterate, I give total credit (and thanks) to Denzie and Nottop for getting me interested in this repeater number bet selection methodology.

Den and the Doctor
A question for you, how many of the 1st 10 spins in the many games you play end 10/10, does 9/10 show more?

Well theres away to bet the 1st 10 spins in away that neither of you mention

Quote from: nottophammer on Jan 31, 06:22 AM 2018
Well theres away to bet the 1st 10 spins in away that neither of you mention

10/10 is normally more rather than the 9/10 if we get to 10th spin. It is about 3 times more than 9/10.  If you count the games that doesn’t get to 10th spin as well then 9/10 is approximately 3 times more than 10/10.  What is that way you are talking about.

Tin,Den and the Doctor

What i want to know is which do you see more of, a game with 10 spins no repeat, or 10 spins and at least one repeat.

Tin here's 140 spins from MPR around 4am, Mcuth was on for a little while and near the end test came on, is test steve or the coder.
So how would groups of 10 spins go.
(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/01/31/temp_122351.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/Gt8VU)

(link:://:.pichost.org/images/2018/01/31/temp_913110.png) (link:://:.pichost.org/image/GtZfg)

dont let the above fool you, 10/10, 10/10, 10/10 happens
But the question is how often will 10/10 turn up

Quote from: nottophammer on Jan 31, 06:55 AM 2018
Tin,Den and the Doctor

What i want to know is which do you see more of, a game with 10 spins no repeat, or 10 spins and at least one repeat.

I tried testing 1000 games.  738 had a repeat and rest didn’t.

Quote from: nottophammer on Jan 31, 06:55 AM 2018
Tin,Den and the Doctor

What i want to know is which do you see more of, a game with 10 spins no repeat, or 10 spins and at least one repeat.

If you monitor long, really long - you will see that there is no difference ... they gonna neutralize at some certain point

Quote from: nottophammer on Jan 31, 06:55 AM 2018
Tin,Den and the Doctor

What i want to know is which do you see more of, a game with 10 spins no repeat, or 10 spins and at least one repeat.

At least 1 repeat

Quote from: Roulettebeater on Jan 31, 11:18 AM 2018
If you monitor long, really long - you will see that there is no difference ... they gonna neutralize at some certain point

False statement. Repeat is always going to be more than 10/10

Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Jan 31, 09:53 AM 2018I tried testing 1000 games.  738 had a repeat and rest didn’t.

yeah i have a sample that gives 76% chance that you'll have a repeat in 10 spins

Quote from: denzie on Jan 31, 12:24 PM 2018At least 1 repeat

:thumbsup: