random VS repeater
We know that we can expect a first repeat around spin 8.
Now try to bet a RANDOM number instead of the last number and see when you will get your first repeat.
Dont necessarily repeat the last number when you bet your second set of 2 numbers, simply bet one random number first, then bet 2 random numbers, then 3 random numbers and so on untill you get a hit.
Will the averages be the same?
Bob
Can you give example. Your post is confusing.
Sorry the post was confusing,
i am trying to compare the repeat strategy vs random numbers
adding the last spun number to our list untill hit
or
random, starting with 1 random number, then 2, then 3 and so on untill a hit
Hi Bob.
I copied this off another members post. I cannot remember his name else I would give him credit.
On average, how many trials would you need in 38-number roulette before any number is repeated?
Counting the first trial, I show the mean is 8.408797, the median is 8, and the mode is 7.
The probability of two numbers without a repeat is 37/38 = 97.37%.
The probability of three numbers without a repeat is (37/38)×(36/38) = 92.24%.
The probability of four numbers without a repeat is (37/38)×(36/38)×(35/38) = 84.96%.
Following this pattern, the probability of no repeats in 8 numbers is (37/38)×(36/38)×(35/38)×...×(31/38) = 45.35%.
So the probability of a repeat within 8 numbers is 100% - 45.35% = 54.65%.
I think it's the same. Basically the more numbers that come out, the more chance of a repeat.
Thanks badger, this is true but its the other part i want to compare to this existing one.
The only difference is that we dont bet on repeats. We simply start with one random nr, then after a loss, we take 2 random numbers, then after a next loss we take 3 random numbers and so on.
The betting structure will look the same in terms of odds. But i would like to compare both results and make sure they are the same.
This can prove that betting a repeat or just a random number results in the same average outcome.
Looking forward to finaly find some closure on the never ending repeat topics.
I copied this off a post long ago. If someone could explain it to me, I, being maths challenged, would appreciate it. :question:
Probability Distribution of Unique Numbers in 10 Consecutive Spins.
Based on 10,000 simulations.
Unique Numbers Probability
1 0%
2 0%
3 0%
4 0%
5 0%
6 1%
7 6%
8 24%
9 42%
10 27%
This is a test over 65000 sequences
It shows after spin there are x% no repeaters(keineF), y% 1 repeater (1F) and so on
Thanks Winkel.
Do you have the same for streets?
Guys we are missing the point here. The last thing i want to do is to "repeat" old knowledge about repeaters. There is tons of info about that in numerous other posts.
This post relates to the comparission viewed from another angle ie: a random set starting with 1 nr that goes accumulating until a first win. The second set has two random numbers. The third bet has 3 random numbers. Its just as if we would start with the last spun nr and go adding each last nr to our set untill a first win. Only here we dont relate to the spun numbers. We use the same analogy but simply pick random numbers on EACH bet instead of sticking to previous used numbers.
The question that needs to be answered is: when will we get our first hit averagely?
😉
Why dont you guys use software to check if a set of specific spins sequence ever happens more than random sequences?
That would solve the debate about repeaters. After all, if spin sequences dont happen more than random sequences, then theres no point, right?
Yes Steve, this would be helpfull and probably help in ending a few debates on the repeater (mis)conceptions...
You could start with the free software i already published, but you need to check each sequence manually. I have a version that checks random sequences and it clearly shows repeaters have no merit. But the software os bundled with parts i dont want released. Still the version i did release is sufficient.
Quote from: foreverBOB on Aug 03, 06:28 PM 2018We use the same analogy but simply pick random numbers on EACH bet instead of sticking to previous used numbers.
The question that needs to be answered is: when will we get our first hit averagely?
I already uploaded software which compares a random selection of numbers against hot numbers or repeaters, but I don't believe any proof will settle the debate because there are just too many systems. There will always be someone who says "ah, but you're not picking the hot numbers properly, it does work if you know how". ;-) And they won't ever tell exactly how they pick the numbers, so the arguments will go on and on. That's just the nature of forums, like it or not.