For anyone interested in the truth about roulette repeater systems, see link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/can-repeaters-systems-win-at-roulette/
Repeaters are as old as gambling itself. They dont work.
Binomial distribution guarantees that repeaters 100% hit.
The only problem is which pockets repeat and when they repeat.
Solve this 2 related problems and you have a winning mechanical repeaters systems bet.
Repeaters mean these pockets hit higher than mean, positive variance.
Sleepers mean these pockets hit lower than mean, negative variance.
That's why I wrote for mechanical repeaters systems bet to work it has to predict variance accurately to generate alpha.
To do this the bet must be placed on the correct pockets and right time that the repeaters hit higher than mean, ie. positive variance.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 28, 08:30 PM 2019To do this the bet must be placed on the correct pockets and right time that the repeaters hit higher than mean, ie. positive variance.
What's the "right time"? I tested this a long time ago to exhaustion. So have others.
The previous winning number has no correlation to the future winning numbers, except in specific conditions - none of which are anything discussed in typical repeaters threads.
To predict which pocket hit higher than mean at the right time is equivalent to variance prediction.
Variance is liken to luck.
How is it possible to predict luck ?
Impossible !
That's the narrative on forum.
Instead of a serious discussion of what aspects to look at about,
1. right pocket, and
2. right timing.
End of a very predictable negative conversation as usual.
Note to those who seek this solution,
The solution has to be based on MATH.
There is nothing, repeat NOTHING posted on all forums that is close to this math that's required for the solution.
Do you claim to have the solution?
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 28, 08:36 PM 2019
To predict which pocket hit higher than mean at the right time is equivalent to variance prediction.
Variance is liken to luck.
How is it possible to predict luck ?
Impossible !
That's the narrative on forum.
Instead of a serious discussion of what aspects to look at about,
1. right pocket, and
2. right timing.
End of a very predictable negative conversation as usual.
Note to those who seek this solution,
The solution has to be based on MATH.
There is nothing, repeat NOTHING posted on all forums that is close to this math that's required for the solution.
Any clues,,? Repeaters are balance,, house edge prove mathematically,, it's not possible to beat roulette long term , group of numbers or variance can be before repeats or after,long term,, how can it work,,,
All theories, binomial,, maths prove,,, in long term,,, it will loose,,,, in roulette,,, not know why reading truth, still insist,, there a mechanical system can be,,, but tracking that way,,, can give some hints,,, but tracking,,, monitoring for small profit cannot lead to success,,, and will cost player time,,,
Quote from: Elite on Oct 29, 02:16 AM 2019
Any clues,,? Repeaters are balance,, house edge prove mathematically,, it's not possible to beat roulette long term , group of numbers or variance can be before repeats or after,long term,, how can it work,,,
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 16, 06:52 PM 2019
For dependent outcome it must have two unconnected points of reference.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 28, 08:36 PM 2019Instead of a serious discussion of what aspects to look at about,
1. right pocket, and
2. right timing.
Sounds like VB. ;)
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 03:19 AM 2019
[/quote
For 5 no, there will be 15 no. To cover suppose and it can span more also,, risk,, always there,, as more numbers to cover,, profit, loss together and at the end house edge will overcome,,, only it can survive if luck is there at right time with high value bets, else it will go up and down,, how to cope that,,,
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 28, 08:36 PM 2019The solution has to be based on MATH.
You mentioned the binomial distribution, which models roulette wins and losses well and assumes independent outcomes. If outcomes were not independent the binomial model would be a crap model. But for maths to help with right pocket and timing (and I'm assuming you're not talking about AP) it must assume dependent outcomes. A mathematical model which works well and assumes independent outcomes cannot coexist with another which assumes dependent outcomes and also works well.
QuoteEnd of a very predictable negative conversation as usual
Perhaps, but it's also predictable that the conversation will raise contradictions, which means that one of the premises is false. Nobody who advocates systems and makes big claims ever resolves them, so the same old topics come and go endlessly.
Below extract for binolial distribution,
how it can usefuln
Let's return to the coin-tossing experiment. The coin was tossed 12 times, so N = 12. A coin has a probability of 0.5 of coming up heads. Therefore, π = 0.5. The mean and variance can therefore be computed as follows:
μ = Nπ = (12)(0.5) = 6
σ2 = Nπ(1-π) = (12)(0.5)(1.0 - 0.5) = 3.0.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 29, 04:36 AM 2019
You mentioned the binomial distribution, which models roulette wins and losses well and assumes independent outcomes. If outcomes were not independent the binomial model would be a crap model. But for maths to help with right pocket and timing (and I'm assuming you're not talking about AP) it must assume dependent outcomes. A mathematical model which works well and assumes independent outcomes cannot coexist with another which assumes dependent outcomes and also works well.
Perhaps, but it's also predictable that the conversation will raise contradictions, which means that one of the premises is false. Nobody who advocates systems and makes big claims ever resolves them, so the same old topics come and go endlessly.
Binomial distribution guarantees repeaters hit 100%.
We know repeaters must hit. The question is which pockets and when the pockets hit.
Spend time figure this out instead of writing posts that cast aspersions of credibility that doesn't help anyone one bit.
You don't need the Binomial to guarantee repeaters; the pigeonhole principle also tells you that.
Yes, we 'just' need to know which pocket and when, LOL! simples.
And the maths can show you the way without assuming dependent trials?
Quote from: Joe on Oct 29, 04:58 AM 2019
You don't need the Binomial to guarantee repeaters; the pigeonhole principle also tells you that.
Yes, we 'just' need to know which pocket and when, LOL! simples.
And the maths can show you the way without assuming dependent trials?
There are dumbfarks on forums that write posts to say everything is possible with roulette outcomes.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,.......
1,1,1,1,1,1,1.......
I have to set the expectations right.
This is a real typical roulette outcomes with #22 repeat. Just won. :thumbsup:
Repeaters ALWAYS happen with roulette outcomes guaranteed 100%.
Figure out why it happens ???
I already posted everything that's required.
Too bad nobody reads.
Hint, predict only the predictable not every repeater.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 05:01 AM 2019There are dumbfarks on forums that write posts to say everything is possible with roulette outcomes.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,.......
1,1,1,1,1,1,1.......
I have to set the expectations right.
If you think this makes the case for dependent outcomes you are badly mistaken. The fact that you rarely, if ever, see sequences like that has nothing to do with dependence -
NOTHING!QuoteHint, predict only the predictable not every repeater.
What a great hint. It's about as useful as Turbo's 'for a number to hit twice it must have hit once', lol.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 29, 05:44 AM 2019
If you think this makes the case for dependent outcomes you are badly mistaken. The fact that you rarely, if ever, see sequences like that has nothing to do with dependence - NOTHING!
What a great hint. It's about as useful as Turbo's 'for a number to hit twice it must have hit once', lol.
This time I have to make this post.
You may be educated in math.
BUT, you are just some random dumbfark who knows nuts about roulette.
Your posts about math is good.
BUT beyond that you are another dumbfark of forum that post
NOTHING how to place winning bets.
Now fark off.
Don't waste everyones time.
You're a smart fella; Luckyfella
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 05:19 AM 2019
This is a real typical roulette outcomes with #22 repeat. Just won. :thumbsup:
Repeaters ALWAYS happen with roulette outcomes guaranteed 100%.
Figure out why it happens ???
I already posted everything that's required.
Too bad nobody reads.
Hint, predict only the predictable not every repeater.
Good to see 22 on your way,, how many spins it took to get that,, is bet that time on all numbers?
What about money management?
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 05:01 AM 2019There are dumbfarks on forums that write posts to say everything is possible with roulette outcomes.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,.......
1,1,1,1,1,1,1.......
Does anyone else think that because you never see sequences like this it means outcomes must be dependent?
luckyfella is the one who is wasting everyone's time, not me. He's clueless.
If anyone is taking notes, put that in the long list of Luckyfellow contradictions. It also happened in the same topic.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 05:19 AM 2019
I already posted everything that's required.
Yet a few hours before he claimed...
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 28, 08:36 PM 2019
There is nothing, repeat NOTHING posted on all forums that is close to this math that's required for the solution.
Since cannabis got legalized, the percentage of this type of incoherent posts has increased dramatically.
Look at all these pics, focus on the sleepers, see what happens with your own eyes.
That's all the help I give on forums.
Last pic
This happens 100% of the time due to binomial distribution.
For every sleeper is an equal and opposite repeater.
Use your brains to figure out how sleepers give you the advantage to pick repeaters to hit.
I agree with most of what Steve has written about repeater systems in his link, but it isn't necessary to test for tens of thousands of spins.
Use the Chi-Square test for independence because all repeater and hot number systems assume that outcomes are dependent. If you're confused about what dependence and independence means, do the test. You don't need many spins, a couple of hundred is plenty, then if you get a positive result (I don't mean profit, I mean a significant result from the test), then do more tests and get more data, then repeat the test.
For instance, I'll take a typical hot number system as the 'Hypothesis'. Suppose the system is that you look at the last 15 spins and if there are at least 2 repeats you bet on the repeat numbers for the next 15 spins, and then stop. You've had quite good success playing this system and want to know if you've just been lucky or whether there really is a dependence going on.
You need to set up a table like this :
(link:s://img.techpowerup.org/191029/screenshot.png)
In this example I made up the numbers to show a dependence. The conclusion is :
(link:s://img.techpowerup.org/191029/screenshot-1.png)
Whatever your system is, the NULL hypothesis is that it doesn't work. The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is that it does. What you're hoping for is that the NULL hypothesis is rejected, because that would suggest there is some dependence between your trigger and the results.
You can do the test online :
link:s://mathcracker.com/chi-square-test-of-independence. Just think about what is going to be in your table, get the data to put into the table, and the program does the rest. Use a significance level of 0.05.
Or use Excel which I'm pretty sure has this test in it.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 29, 12:21 PM 2019
I agree with most of what Steve has written about repeater systems in his link, but it isn't necessary to test for tens of thousands of spins.
Use the Chi-Square test for independence because all repeater and hot number systems assume that outcomes are dependent. If you're confused about what dependence and independence means, do the test. You don't need many spins, a couple of hundred is plenty, then if you get a positive result (I don't mean profit, I mean a significant result from the test), then do more tests and get more data, then repeat the test.
For instance, I'll take a typical hot number system as the 'Hypothesis'. Suppose the system is that you look at the last 15 spins and if there are at least 2 repeats you bet on the repeat numbers for the next 15 spins, and then stop. You've had quite good success playing this system and want to know if you've just been lucky or whether there really is a dependence going on.
You need to set up a table like this :
(link:s://img.techpowerup.org/191029/screenshot.png)
In this example I made up the numbers to show a dependence. The conclusion is :
(link:s://img.techpowerup.org/191029/screenshot-1.png)
Whatever your system is, the NULL hypothesis is that it doesn't work. The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is that it does. What you're hoping for is that the NULL hypothesis is rejected, because that would suggest there is some dependence between your trigger and the results.
You can do the test online :
link:s://mathcracker.com/chi-square-test-of-independence. Just think about what is going to be in your table, get the data to put into the table, and the program does the rest. Use a significance level of 0.05.
Or use Excel which I'm pretty sure has this test in it.
Chi square test for independence shows that you don't need a few million spins to determine the repeaters bet has positive edge. Put an end to another rubbish about million spins test posted on forums.
Chi square test won't tell you which pocket to bet and when to bet.
I made that key post on this thread, just read. I'm not afraid that somebody might decipher it. If that smart person can do that he deserves this breakthrough. Let him collect $$$ from the casino. :thumbsup:
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 04:53 AM 2019Binomial distribution guarantees repeaters hit 100%.
We know repeaters must hit. The question is which pockets and when the pockets hit.
You're making the classic mistake explained at link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/can-repeaters-systems-win-at-roulette/
QuoteRepeats are normal probability, and don’t “have to†happen
If you observe 37 consecutive spins, the chances are you wont ever see 37 unique numbers. At least some will be repeated numbers. This is very poorly understood. The math for it is simple.
You begin with 1 spin. Say it was #32. It’s a unique number. The probability it will repeat in the next spin is 1 in 37.
On spin 2, the number is #8. It’s also a unique number. The probability either #32 or #8 will repeat on the next spin is 2 in 37.
On spin 3, the number is #4. It’s also a unique number. The probability either #32, #8 or #4 will repeat on the next spin is 3 in 37.
So as we see more spins, the probability that one of the previous numbers will repeat increases.
How is this special? It’s not. It’s really basic probability.
One of the “blinders†for gamblers is thinking they’ll never see 37 unique numbers in 37 spins. Actually, if you see enough spins, you will. For example, do you think you’ll ever see a winning number sequence like 1,2,3,4,5,6? You probably wont. But will you ever see the sequence 32,4,16,9,2,30? You probably wont see it either. Given enough spins, each of these sequences will happen just as often as each other. The wheel doesn’t care what numbers look like a pattern to you.
It's not something to argue about. The proof is really clear.
Joe, with statistics you can never 100% prove something. Simply the more data you have, the more assured you are.
Even if you test over 100,000 spins with the same system, sometimes the player will profit - especially when the system uses triggers, and ends up betting only on 10,000 spins. And especially with progression, where perhaps 1000 of those spins are high bets, and 9,000 are low bets. In such a case, there would only be 1,000 significant bets - which is still short term.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 29, 06:12 PM 2019
You're making the classic mistake explained at link:s://:.roulettephysics.com/can-repeaters-systems-win-at-roulette/
It's not something to argue about. The proof is really clear.
100% certain no mistakes on my part.
Won't waste time argue with you.
100% certain repeaters hit in my roulette lifetime when I place my bets at the rate shown below.
How I know I win 100% with math designed repeaters systems bet ?
This are the facts of my repeaters systems bet,
1. Flatbet,
2. 50:50 even chance payout,
3. Longterm hiitrate - 70%,
4. Max drawdown - 30%
With this real stats I have no chance to lose.
With math based repeaters designed systems bet, I don't try to predict the next spin, I simply can't do that. The repeaters hit because math dictates
where and when the repeaters pockets hit.
***You can posts whatever name-calling below till your face turn blue, it won't change a thing. You can't change math.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 29, 06:17 PM 2019
Joe, with statistics you can never 100% prove something. Simply the more data you have, the more assured you are.
Even if you test over 100,000 spins with the same system, sometimes the player will profit - especially when the system uses triggers, and ends up betting only on 10,000 spins. And especially with progression, where perhaps 1000 of those spins are high bets, and 9,000 are low bets. In such a case, there would only be 1,000 significant bets - which is still short term.
Agreed!
There is no easy way to evaluate roulette methods. Or at least there is no easy way to evaluate really good roulette methods - some garbage is obvious.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Even random bets can profit. It doesn't mean the system is a "winning" one (in the context "winning system" and "losing system" are used).
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 06:58 PM 2019You can posts whatever name-calling below till your face turn blue, it won't change a thing. You can't change math.
The math is like I said. You just aren't understanding it. Repeaters change nothing. You don't change accuracy. Your payout is always lower than the odds.
But if I'm wrong, why be here? Just make your fortune. You have the HG. Or is your system not yet perfected? You will have it figured out soon though.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 29, 07:08 PM 2019
Even random bets can profit. It doesn't mean the system is a "winning" one (in the context "winning system" and "losing system" are used).
This is plain nonsense with the intention to cast doubt.
I challenge you, steve, to play with 10units bankroll with the following conditions -
1. Flatbet 1unit,
2. Hitrate -70%,
3. Max drawdown - 30%,
4. Target bankroll - 100units
Prove that you can do this.
You can try a million times and cherry pick to post only the successful attempt. Now go ahead prove it.
If you can't provide the proof I reserve the right to tell you to fark off. :xd: :xd: :xd:
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 07:17 PM 2019
I challenge you, steve, to play with 10units bankroll with the following conditions -
1. Flatbet 1unit,
2. Hitrate -70%,
3. Max drawdown - 30%,
4. Target bankroll - 100units
You are talking such low volume its not worth anyone's time. Just go make money. Make a fool of every professional in this industry.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 29, 07:14 PM 2019
But if I'm wrong, why be here? Just make your fortune. You have the HG. Or is your system not yet perfected? You will have it figured out soon though.
I am here with the sole purpose to point out all the false rubbish you post on forums to mislead other people with your own lack of knowledge. That's my
ONLY purpose.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 29, 07:22 PM 2019
You are talking such low volume its not worth anyone's time. Just go make money. Make a fool of every professional in this industry.
So, when posed a real challenge to provide proof, you simply run away.
Now, fark off. Don't waste everybodys time.
Anyone else have anything to say, provide proof of my challenge to back up your post.
SHOW ME THE MONEY !Else,
FARK OFF
I am very happy that some people have reported they finally see what I have tried to show them with my posts here. This makes me happier than my regular winning sessions. :thumbsup:
This is only the beginning on what's possible with math based repeaters systems bet. Read every of my posts on this thread, especially the final key to the complete solution. I have taken special care to be specific and explicit with my choice of words and the selected pics presented in the manner as they were.
Quote from: Tesla369 on Oct 29, 03:22 PM 2019
We are waiting all of you..
(link:s://i.postimg.cc/QCqPFzfV/gamblers-3-6-9.jpg)
Tesla369 is a unique way to regroup numbers. Compare this tesla369 groups to the regular carpet dozen to see the difference. Math based repeaters systems bet can be played with tesla369 groups to yield similar results.
Personally, I recommend to try out tesla369 groups for starters, understand the underlying math then you can expand to all other permutations.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 07:24 PM 2019I am here with the sole purpose to point out all the false rubbish you post on forums to mislead other people with your own lack of knowledge
Tell me your #1 thing that demonstrates my lack of knowledge. Be VERY specific. Show me where I was wrong (in my own posts), and the proof I'm wrong. Give it your best shot.
Dont back down now. Remember, you've now revealed your sole purpose is to show everyone I'm full of shit. So do it.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 07:27 PM 2019So, when posed a real challenge to provide proof, you simply run away.
A real challenge? No. You said 10 units start, target bankroll 100 units? So you challenge me to bet 3 units on one number, for 3 spins. I'll achieve the 100 unit profit 1 in 12 tests. Wow, big challenge. Like I said, it's so short term it isnt worth any attention.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 07:34 PM 2019I have taken special care to be specific and explicit with my choice of words and the selected pics presented in the manner as they were.
No you havent. You even fell over yourself with the contradiction Kav highlighted. You say many other stupid things, but who has time to keep track?
Quote from: Steve on Oct 29, 08:35 PM 2019
A real challenge? No. You said 10 units start, target bankroll 100 units? So you challenge me to bet 3 units on one number, for 3 spins. I'll achieve the 100 unit profit 1 in 12 tests. Wow, big challenge. Like I said, it's so short term it isnt worth any attention.
Show us the proof steve.
Everyone is waiting which we already know you can't do it.
You don't deserve further response.
Now, fark off.
Proof of what exactly?
Be very specific.
If you mean betting 1 number 3 times will average a win 3/37? You need more proof?
You just can't beat roulette.
The wheel doesn't give a crap on past spins.
Repeaters, uniques, non hits, trends, patterns, etc, are only in your f**"* heads.
Stop wasting you time, money and even your mental health.
If you're looking for some chance to win some money, try playing baccarat.
I've seen people destroying their lives obsessed on roulette systems.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 07:34 PM 2019
I am very happy that some people have reported they finally see what I have tried to show them with my posts here. This makes me happier than my regular winning sessions. :thumbsup:
This is only the beginning on what's possible with math based repeaters systems bet. Read every of my posts on this thread, especially the final key to the complete solution. I have taken special care to be specific and explicit with my choice of words and the selected pics presented in the manner as they were.
Thanks Luckyfilla, you gave new insight , i will do test on your ideas
Quote from: Andre Chass on Oct 29, 09:58 PM 2019You just can't beat roulette.
You can. There are only just a handful of ways it can be done, and they all revolve around winning number prediction.
Firefox (a user here) was right about not using past spins imo.
(For example) You know every dozen has an equal chance of winning, right?
Why not bet equal parts all three dozens (the same numbers every time)
-or-
a sequence of your own: bet first dozen , third dozen, second dozen, repeat steps?
Same with even chances: Bet Odd, then Even, then Odd
-or-
Bet Odd twice, then even twice, then Odd twice....
Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on Oct 29, 10:45 PM 2019Why not bet equal parts all three dozens (the same numbers every time)
-or-
a sequence of your own: bet first dozen , third dozen, second dozen, repeat steps?
Same with even chances: Bet Odd, then Even, then Odd
-or-
Bet Odd twice, then even twice, then Odd twice....
If your accuracy is same as random, then what has the system changed?
If your accuracy is same as random, then what has the system changed?-Steve
You can test various combinations for the best hit-rate.
Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on Oct 30, 12:24 AM 2019You can test various combinations for the best hit-rate.
Yes that's the start. You'll find some combinations perform better.
Next, you need to be sure your results aren't just luck. After all, you could bet red for 100 spins and profit. Then you may think betting red is always best. You'd be missing the bigger picture.
So you must test as many spins as is practical AND what's required for statistical relevance (ie almost eliminate the chance of luck playing a part).
In my experience, and the experience of countless others, you'll find all the combinations you thought might work actually have ZERO effect on prediction accuracy. This puts you back to square one, because if you dont change accuracy, you changed nothing.
Is there no hope? No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying try NEW things.
I think I've said it before.
And recognize when something you think is new is actually the same old thing repackaged.
And the reason I think 369 may have a clue is everything in the universe has an order. Even RNG, radio chatter from space etc are not "without cause". There is always cause and effect. But we cant so easily model cause and effect when there are countless variables.
Roulette computers essentially look at the most obvious variables, but that's after ball release. But what about with bets before ball release? There are still some usable variables. But what about the HG with bets before ball release or even RNG? That's a different story, because there are countless variables - everything from the dealer's itchy nose, to algorithms, when you click a button, to a bee fart. It's too much to calculate everything. So maybe look for fractals in the overall behavior, so you can predict waves.
Yes predicting waves like streaks has been done countless times before - in the proven wrong way. I don't think it's going to work, but if you're going to try, it should be in ways that haven't been done before.
If I had the time I'd design a program to:
1. Define "events". They must have clear definition.
2. Look specifically at proportions between the events, with parameters like 3,6,9.
An earlier program I made (programmer coded it) randomly looked for patterns. I mean everything like to see if a sequence of something like 34,5,1,7,19 had any relation to 2,6,15 etc. I'd leave it running for days at a time. I have no idea how many spins I tested. Billions or trillions maybe. I set it to check for repeaters too. And except in specific conditions and with real wheel data, the past spins had no correlation to future spins. I'm not the only one to have done such a thing.
It could be adapted to do this but I dont have the source code anymore. But there are programmers here. Why not have a structured discussion about what should be tried, then raise some funds as a community to have the software coded? Its better than a free coder because then it's unfair to them, and besides paid coders are faster.
Ok, how about some parameters for a possible HG:
Flat-bet or positive progression.
Easy-to-remember bet-selection
Must be in plus (double bankroll or better) after 500 bets.
Time management: In profit
within 15 minutes for a typical session.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 29, 06:17 PM 2019Joe, with statistics you can never 100% prove something. Simply the more data you have, the more assured you are.
Even if you test over 100,000 spins with the same system, sometimes the player will profit - especially when the system uses triggers, and ends up betting only on 10,000 spins. And especially with progression, where perhaps 1000 of those spins are high bets, and 9,000 are low bets. In such a case, there would only be 1,000 significant bets - which is still short term.
Steve, the point I was trying to make is that you don't need to make a huge number of bets to show statistical significance. It's very inefficient and not necessary. The point of statistical testing, confidence intervals etc is to draw conclusions by taking a sample from a population. In the real world you can rarely get the whole population, and even if you could it would probably be too expensive or require too many resources, that's why statistical methods were invented.
And in the case of testing roulette systems if a large number of bets are needed it would mean that either you need to be able to code your system or would have to spend many hours manually testing. By using a test like the Chi-square, you need only make a few hundred bets. If the results are significant, that's not the end of the matter; of course you can't conclude that you have a holy grail from that alone. It would be a good start though, and from there you could either get another sample, this time using a lower significance level to reduce the chance of a false-positive, or maybe get the system coded.
You may think you have something 'significant' because you're making a profit, but making a profit doesn't necessarily mean that. Normal variance can keep you in profit for thousands of bets, especially if you're using a progression. Yes coding a million spins will ultimately reveal the truth, but you could do a hypothesis test on a few hundred spins which might tell you that your results are due to luck. Few people can code complex systems or have the patience to manually test thousands of spins. If a system seems to be working on paper the temptation is go out and play it for real money, which may be a really bad idea if your results were just a lucky streak. Hypothesis testing is a practical alternative to either coding or intensive manual testing.
Quote from: luckyfella on Oct 29, 06:58 PM 20191. Flatbet,
2. 50:50 even chance payout,
3. Longterm hiitrate - 70%,
4. Max drawdown - 30%
A 40% edge, that would be impressive.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 30, 06:02 AM 2019
A 40% edge, that would be impressive.
Exactly. And Steve that was the challenge he threw.
Hi LuckyFella, attach are the numbers, can you test this and give some suggestion, if your system in profit
Hello to all!
Any thoughts on how to limit variance?
I think that if you create a space in which there is a property of the presence of some constant (for example, 37 unique ones will not seem). Then the dispersion will have a weaker effect.
This is my idea, but possibly erroneous from the point of view of mathematics.
Get a template with controlled drawdown properties, see what is there? Sleepers, and those who woke up, some of them are more active. How about the fact that they can turn into pairs or can be lonely. And all this rotates against a background of binomial distribution, which can be compared with the sky, where there are no clouds)
Quote from: Joe on Oct 30, 06:02 AM 2019A 40% edge, that would be impressive.
If I bet black for 3 spins, and win twice, do I have an "edge", or is it just a "result"?
Quote from: Tinsoldiers on Oct 30, 06:45 AM 2019Exactly. And Steve that was the challenge he threw.
Unfortunately I dont have time to prove mundane facts like bet 3 x 1 numbers for a 3/37 chance of winning. I guess I'm an unknowledgeable chicken.
Quote from: Person S on Oct 30, 12:06 PM 2019Any thoughts on how to limit variance?
You cant. Variance is a word for "unpredictable".
You can try decreasing bets when you think variance is unpredictable, but your accuracy is unchanged. You could miss big wins, or hit them. Chances are you'll have a bit of both, but mostly lose due to unfair payouts (hours edge).
Quote from: Person S on Oct 30, 05:08 PM 2019Sleepers, and those who woke up, some of them are more active. How about the fact that they can turn into pairs or can be lonely.
This has nothing to do with future spins.
Quote from: Proofreaders2000 on Oct 30, 01:33 AM 2019Flat-bet or positive progression.
Unless you first increase accuracy of prediction, progression wont help. All you'll have is different size bets on different spins with the same expectation.
Quote from: Joe on Oct 30, 06:00 AM 2019Yes coding a million spins will ultimately reveal the truth, but you could do a hypothesis test on a few hundred spins which might tell you that your results are due to luck.
Yes you can take shortcuts, like when looking at wheel bias, you can correlate with other data like wheel observation. But with pure statistical analysis, you can extrapolate but still because of variance the only way to know for sure is large-scale tests. Even then it's not 100% assured, but it doesn't need to be. 99.99% is close enough. Most players wouldn't have the knowledge to interpolate/extrapolate, but using automated testers over a large amount of spins is easier, and a better option for typical players.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 30, 06:05 PM 2019I guess I'm an unknowledgeable chicken.
Stop advising people, if that’s the case. And don’t just read what you want to and understand what you want to, He is not asking you to bet 3 numbers, go back and read his post. May be you don’t have time for that as well.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 30, 06:05 PM 2019If I bet black for 3 spins, and win twice, do I have an "edge", or is it just a "result"?
It is just a result. But if you can do that consistently for sets of 100 spins and win 66% of time for 5 sets, then it starts edging towards edge. You don’t need a 100s of thousands of spin test.
Tin, you're not all there either. Waste your own time.
Or maybe go win a fortune with his invaluable advice.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 30, 06:05 PM 2019A 40% edge, that would be impressive.
If I bet black for 3 spins, and win twice, do I have an "edge", or is it just a "result"?
He said those were long term results, so that would be his edge, if true. And I'm not saying I believe him, I don't.
Quote from: Steve on Oct 29, 10:23 PM 2019Yes you can take shortcuts, like when looking at wheel bias, you can correlate with other data like wheel observation. But with pure statistical analysis, you can extrapolate but still because of variance the only way to know for sure is large-scale tests. Even then it's not 100% assured, but it doesn't need to be. 99.99% is close enough. Most players wouldn't have the knowledge to interpolate/extrapolate, but using automated testers over a large amount of spins is easier, and a better option for typical players.
Most of the time in the real world you don't have the data for large scale tests. Even if using an RNG there are limits. Suppose you want to test the hypothesis that after 15 reds in a row at least one black is more likely in the next few spins than after a mix of r/b in the last 15 spins. Because 15 in a row is so rare (only happening once in every 32,768 spins), it means to get only 1000 such events you need over 32 million spins. That would take a while to generate on most computers, now multiply it by 100 which is what you would need (at least) for a large-scale test. If you want more certainty you can increase the significance level to 1% or 0.1%. That generally means you need more data, but still not nearly as much as using a brute-force approach.
In a case like that, see what happens after 3,4,5 or 6 consecutive reds. Its smaller scale but same result.
It helps for players to consider the logic. WHY would a trend continue or change? Has it been tested before? Etc..
Well, Steve, like a regular poker player, I can tell you that there is variance in this game. And there are ways to influence this. One of the tips that good players give is that you should play carefully and fold more cards for any action in order to be able to influence it.
Why not draw a parallel with roulette, there are good lanes, there are glitches.
All this goes in waves, and if a player increases the ACCURACY of bets, then the variance does not cripple him much. The cycles give us an understanding of this, all 37 will not work, maybe once every billion billions of years. Yes, there is a possibility of generally striving for E.
It remains to come up with a strategy on this basis and create a gold 🦄
But this is all my theory, mistakes are possible ....
Quote from: Joe on Oct 29, 12:21 PM 2019
I agree with most of what Steve has written about repeater systems in his link, but it isn't necessary to test for tens of thousands of spins.
Use the Chi-Square test for independence because all repeater and hot number systems assume that outcomes are dependent. If you're confused about what dependence and independence means, do the test. You don't need many spins, a couple of hundred is plenty, then if you get a positive result (I don't mean profit, I mean a significant result from the test), then do more tests and get more data, then repeat the test.
For instance, I'll take a typical hot number system as the 'Hypothesis'. Suppose the system is that you look at the last 15 spins and if there are at least 2 repeats you bet on the repeat numbers for the next 15 spins, and then stop. You've had quite good success playing this system and want to know if you've just been lucky or whether there really is a dependence going on.
You need to set up a table like this :
(link:s://img.techpowerup.org/191029/screenshot.png)
In this example I made up the numbers to show a dependence. The conclusion is :
(link:s://img.techpowerup.org/191029/screenshot-1.png)
Whatever your system is, the NULL hypothesis is that it doesn't work. The ALTERNATIVE hypothesis is that it does. What you're hoping for is that the NULL hypothesis is rejected, because that would suggest there is some dependence between your trigger and the results.
You can do the test online :
link:s://mathcracker.com/chi-square-test-of-independence. Just think about what is going to be in your table, get the data to put into the table, and the program does the rest. Use a significance level of 0.05.
Or use Excel which I'm pretty sure has this test in it.
check last 15 spin bet repeat ...minum 3 numbers bet 15 spin if win no bet to 15 spin reset wait 15 spin for new trigger
i want rx code or excel check this method