
Es muy sencillo y se entiende aún para quienes no sean ingleses parlantes. Por favor, si necesitan ayuda en español, me avisan.
Flat bet...
Could I ask for the award, although it is not suitable for real roulettes and I have not discovered it, Steve?

lol..its all here for free on ayks tracker
http://ayk.bplaced.net/tracker8/ put 37 spins in and click on unhit tab..the unhits will all light up..
...and heres a proper explanation of what you think you are seeing..
https://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=4960.0

Instead of betting on the unhit numbers after 37 spins, try betting the same number of numbers picked randomly. You'll find that the results are the same. Why? because outcomes are independent and past spins don't influence future spins.

You'll find that the results are the same. Why? because outcomes are independent and past spins don't influence future spins.
If past spins don't influence future spins how can we have law of the third then?

There is no such thing as law of the third. It would be a law if the probability was a definite 100% for the repeats. Which is not.
Past doesn't influence the future in random, the so called law of the third is simply the result of the birthday problem.
You either see 24 numbers repeat in 37 spins, or you don't. Anything can happen, and if you bet on it, you will lose from time to time.

lol..its all here for free on ayks tracker
http://ayk.bplaced.net/tracker8/ put 37 spins in and click on unhit tab..the unhits will all light up..
...and heres a proper explanation of what you think you are seeing..
https://rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=4960.0
Nice new traccker. Congrats.
Question what is the T and W under sectors and Quads and the rest?

It seems like:
T  Table
W  Wheel
Nice Tracker btw, congrats :)
Cheers

I could be wrong but T> Table and W> Wheel would be hard to do for lines and street dozen and columns

If past spins don't influence future spins how can we have law of the third then?
You might as well ask why the chance of red in the next spin is 18/37 if past spins don't influence future spins. It's a non sequitur. Actually, the law of the third only 'works' because spins are independent!

I could be wrong but T> Table and W> Wheel would be hard to do for lines and street dozen and columns
correct..all placed as it should be interpreted on the wheel

There is no such thing as law of the third. It would be a law if the probability was a definite 100% for the repeats. Which is not.
Past doesn't influence the future in random, the so called law of the third is simply the result of the birthday problem.
You either see 24 numbers repeat in 37 spins, or you don't. Anything can happen, and if you bet on it, you will lose from time to time.
Is roulette TRULY random? Are these next statements True or False? The basic definition of random is “Having no specific pattern”. So does roulette really have no specific pattern?
The fact of the matter is nothing ever has “no specific pattern”, so nothing is “random”. People call things “random” when they don’t see or understand the “cause and effect”. In other words, events occur because of the variables that cause the event to happen. In the context of roulette, the roulette ball lands where it does because of real physical variables such as ball release speed, ball physical properties, wheel (rotor) speed and so on. This should be obvious, so the question is not whether or not roulette is “random”, but more whether or not we can determine the variables and predict the winning number with sufficient accuracy to overcome the casino’s “unfair payouts”. I'm not sure if its True or false, mainly because I believe I can read randomness.

In other words, events occur because of the variables that cause the event to happen.
Yep, its random. The wheel & ball combo produces random outcomes. But those random outcomes sometimes come in the shape of figure formations, all caused by coincidence. They are not deterministic. But they do exist. Each formation is unique and without connection to any other coincidence. Yet they can miraculously swarm as a type all across multi channeled tracking systems. These are sort of perfect moments. Then there are the micro trends or patterns. That's a science all unto itself too. The deeper you look the more you can see. The casinos have no defense against a skilled expert of reading randomness. In fact they don't even know there are experts at it.
Sure there have been trend players for centuries. But nobody has postulated a notion of the perfect pattern, "Elegant Patterns," or swarms of the same characteristic, "Global Effect." When this coincidence of randomness occurs you can take thousands off the casino. Then there are the skeptics that don't believe any of this. They are real and they really think it is all baloney. So we live in a world of possible missed opportunity. You can protect yourself from learning this skill by doing nothing and waiting until it is proven to you. You will be fine without it. I will be fine with it. It all works out in the end. Either I'm the stupid donkey or those that reject it are the stupid donkeys. It's all very simple. There is no need to get all in a huff over it. It's here. Take it or leave it.

law of the third only 'works' because spins are independent!
Wrong !
Right is:
If the spins are independent the "law of the third" (law of the turd as firefox said) 'works' in the long term.
Jo, I'm sure you are able to see the difference.

In the context of roulette, the roulette ball lands where it does because of real physical variables such as ball release speed, ball physical properties, wheel (rotor) speed and so on. This should be obvious
Yes it's obvious. What's not obvious is why people persist in ignoring those variables which actually determine where the ball lands and focus instead on 'the law of the third' and their ilk. It's mistaking the map for the territory. The territory 'caused' the map, not the other way round. Previous numbers and stats can't tell you what the next spin or spins are going to be on their own any more than the map can tell you what it feels like to actually walk up the hill.
Either I'm the stupid donkey or those that reject it are the stupid donkeys.
I'll go with the first option. :thumbsup:

If the spins are independent the "law of the third" (law of the turd as firefox said) 'works' in the long term.
Herby, I didn't say that the law of the third doesn't work. Let's clarify what I mean by 'work'. I mean that after 37 spins the average numbers unhit really is about 1213. But it doesn't 'work' in the sense that knowing this gives you any advantage or helps to predict what the next number or numbers are going to be.
What I meant was that the probability distribution which is used to prove the law of the third assumes that outcomes are independent. If they weren't there would be no law of the third as we know it.

I didn't say that the law of the third doesn't work
Nobody said that you said this above.
Reading, understanding and logic ....

the law of the third only 'works' because spins are independent!
The word only is wrong.

Of course Joe is right with most of what he says, but here is a (very) little logical mistake.

Previous numbers and stats can't tell you what the next spin or spins are going to be on their own any more than the map can tell you what it feels like to actually walk up the hill.
I'm glad that we all agree on that point. So to be clear as crystal, past spins have no ability to predict the future. So to beat Roulette you must use something other than prediction. Math will not predict when a trend will start, how long it will last, and when it will end. So you can't use math to beat Roulette either. So what do you have to work with? There is coincidence and luck. Both of these things exist. They don't use math and they don't use prediction. They do exist.
There are phases of good luck and phases of bad luck. They occur in randomness as coincidence. There is no predictability to them either. But they do have a common characteristic to them. They have time. They have a length to them that can be used against them or for them. That is the skill of this.
But you mathZombies want it to always be about prediction and how right you are to point out that prediction is impossible. That makes you the donkey. You are a donkey that is stuck up to his eyeballs in mud. I'm glad too. You will be last in line and a day late to the party.

I'm glad that we all agree on that point. So to be clear as crystal, past spins have no ability to predict the future. So to beat Roulette you must use something other than prediction. Math will not predict when a trend will start, how long it will last, and when it will end. So you can't use math to beat Roulette either. So what do you have to work with? There is coincidence and luck. Both of these things exist. They don't use math and they don't use prediction. They do exist.
There are phases of good luck and phases of bad luck. They occur in randomness as coincidence. There is no predictability to them either. But they do have a common characteristic to them. They have time. They have a length to them that can be used against them or for them. That is the skill of this.
But you mathZombies want it to always be about prediction and how right you are to point out that prediction is impossible. That makes you the donkey. You are a donkey that is stuck up to his eyeballs in mud. I'm glad too. You will be last in line and a day late to the party.
I have you gotten laid yet. It's on me.

I have you gotten laid yet. It's on me.
That needs translation.

I have you gotten laid yet. It's on me.
This kind of trolls makes this board very very unpleasant.
This board is a product of Steve , the quality of this board is a sign of the quality of his other products.

Sorry, moxy is no that bad,
the name who I meant was something like " precoxman", I forgot, it was not important enough to remember.

The word only is wrong.
Herby, try proving the law of the third without assuming spins are independent. It can't be done. :thumbsup:

Math will not predict when a trend will start, how long it will last, and when it will end. So you can't use math to beat Roulette either.
I'm not trying to. But physics? Yes, that can beat roulette.

That needs translation.
It's a good stress reliever. Vegas is open. My treat.

proving the law of the third
proving was not the question,
the law of the third can be fullfilled if the spins are not independent

the law of the third can be fullfilled if the spins are not independent
Prove it. >:D

Newbie players 🤔

Instead of betting on the unhit numbers after 37 spins, try betting the same number of numbers picked randomly. You'll find that the results are the same. Why? because outcomes are independent and past spins don't influence future spins.
Here're the 3 sessions where I rolled 37spins for history data then make a 37units(cover zero) even chance bet for every spin for the next 18spins to spin55. The result for each spin is either breakeven=1, win=+35, loss=37
Summary
session1 9w 5L 4BE 18bets
session2 6w 4L 8BE 18bets
session3 7w 4L 7BE 18bets
41% 24% 35%
54bets, 41%win, 24%loss and 35% breakeven(1)
Small sample size bets based on historical data.
I provide this sample proof to disagree what you wrote.

Herby, I didn't say that the law of the third doesn't work. Let's clarify what I mean by 'work'. I mean that after 37 spins the average numbers unhit really is about 1213. But it doesn't 'work' in the sense that knowing this gives you any advantage or helps to predict what the next number or numbers are going to be.
You may not have figured out how to use this knowledge to predict BUT if you spend time to think deeper and explore the permutations in detail you might understand this distribution better to design a bet that increase the accuracy of the prediction considerably over random selection.
LOTT plus 2LoTD combined gives a natural positive edge in the prediction of future outcomes based on historical spins.
Ofc in all other cases they don't work with history spins appearing as independent spins confirming gamblers fallacy.

proving was not the question,
the law of the third can be fullfilled if the spins are not independent
The law of third works because the spins are independent, in other words, if a number falls we don't cover the hole. It stays open.
If the spins were dependant, which means as soon as the number hits we cover the whole the number can't repeat.
I might have said it the other way around, however you get the idea.

@ Azim, right. It doesn't make sense to say the law of the third holds true if spins aren't independent.
@ Cht,
In the first place, your sample results are really too small to 'prove' anything, and how do we know they weren't cherrypicked to look good?
Secondly, good results compared to what? Without a comparison bet selection the results don't mean much. I don't know exactly how you've selected the numbers to bet but let's say you're betting on all the unhit numbers after 37 spins plus some which have only hit once. So when you make your bet on this selection also pick 18 numbers randomly (or just bet on red) and compare the results with your LOTT bet selection. You'll find that there is no difference.
Most system players just assume that their ideas have merit but hardly ever check that they actually do, partly because they don't know how to, or they are just too lazy. You should always test to find out whether your system's results are better than random, and if they're not, all the tracking and triggers are a complete waste of time and energy.
It's so obvious that spins are independent. There is no counterargument which makes any sense whatsoever. And if spins are independent, how can using the spin history help at all in guessing what will come next? Logic says it can't and empirical data confirms it.
LOTT plus 2LoTD combined gives a natural positive edge in the prediction of future outcomes based on historical spins.
And what is '2LoTD'?

@ Cht,
In the first place, your sample results are really too small to 'prove' anything
I already said in my post this is a small sample.
We all know that we require large sample rx testing as proper proof.
Eventhough it's a small sample, can you produce similar results that can measure up to what i have posted to prove that your random bets perform this similar result.
Don't just talk, post the proof.
Why small sample ?
Large sample requires a lot of playing time which I am not prepared to do.
how do we know they weren't cherrypicked to look good?
This account is a real account which few members here can confirm that it's real and not cherry picked.
Read the name.
Your objections are the usual,
1. not large enough sample size,
2, cheating by cherry picking.
You have nothing else to offer.
I have tested with large enough sample size to confirm that this result will hold the same for long term every 55 spins session.

@ Cht,
Rules for your random selection bets are,
1. Flatbet,
2. even chance bet,
3. Bet every spin.
4. continuous betting for 18spins per session,
5. 3 sessions,
6. account name  my54randombets
POST THE PROOF.
I have posted my sessions of 54spins.
Lets compare if your random selection bets can produce similar results as you claim.

And what is '2LoTD'?
2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Cht, I'm not the one claiming the LOTT system works, you are. So the onus is on you to show that it works better than random.
If you give the rules of the system you're using then I can prove that it's no better than random bets, but you won't do that, will you?
So it's the usual story; members claiming they have a system which works, but they never tell you the rules so nobody can verify it. It's just empty claims, cherrypicked data, charts, and hot air. ::)

Instead of betting on the unhit numbers after 37 spins, try betting the same number of numbers picked randomly. You'll find that the results are the same. Why? because outcomes are independent and past spins don't influence future spins.
You made this claim.
Don't just talk.
PROOF IT.
Check my past posts.
I am the only member to post proof played on Rsim sessions.
I am 100% of what I posted on this forum.
Read my post how I designed this bet which naturally wins.
It shows how when you use one math law(LOTT) combined with physics law(2LoTD), both will reveal the pockets that are naturally carry higher probability to win. It's based on math and science.

Rules for your random selection bets are,
1. Flatbet,
2. even chance bet,
3. Bet every spin.
4. continuous betting for 18spins per session,
5. 3 sessions,
6. account name  my54randombets
POST THE PROOF.
I have posted my sessions of 54spins.
Lets compare if your random selection bets can produce similar results as you claim.
lol, so supposing I post results from random bets which are as good as yours. Will you not suspect that I cherrypicked them? But when I accuse you of cherrypicking, that's not ok. See how it works?

You made this claim.
Don't just talk.
PROOF IT.
You really are clueless. How can I prove what you're asking me to prove without having the rules for the system which you've used? I can prove that a system based on LOTT doesn't work, but if I do that you will say 'that's not MY system! MY system works!'.
Logic. It's always in the way. :xd:

It shows how when you use one math law(LOTT) combined with physics law(2LoTD), both will reveal the pockets that are naturally carry higher probability to win. It's based on math and science.
Bollocks. It's just talk. You guys are nothing but hot air and empty claims. Give the rules of a system (any system you like) which you think does better than random bets and I'll prove it doesn't. But I have to have YOUR rules. Using MY rules doesn't count for anything, does it? :xd:

People, don't let Joe derail the point I want to show to you guys.
He has no basis for objection. Lets not waste time.
Forums has explored LOTT the wrong way.
12unhit, 24hits and 12 repeats...... this stats will NOT give you any advantage to select pockets with higher probability hitrate.
You are brainwashed into the wrong perception of LOTT.
Used the correct way it points to winning bets as I have posted so many examples on this forum.
Check my posts.
2LoTD is about entropy. It occurs every in nature. Even in roulette spins.
Less than 54spins and you will have won enough to walk away from the casino without them noticing you.
Some of you wrote to me for help.
Read my posts.
Okay I'm gone from the forum.

Summary
session1 9w 5L 4BE 18bets
session2 6w 4L 8BE 18bets
session3 7w 4L 7BE 18bets
41% 24% 35%
54bets, 41%win, 24%loss and 35% breakeven(1)
Cht, even without comparing to random bets, these results don't show anything. They are entirely within expectation, so you have proved nothing.

Bollocks. It's just talk. You guys are nothing but hot air and empty claims. Give the rules of a system (any system you like) which you think does better than random bets and I'll prove it doesn't. But I have to have YOUR rules. Using MY rules doesn't count for anything, does it?
This is what I wrote to someone searching for a way to beat the casinos with software:
Out of interest, do you think people care about which software drives their favorite online casino game?
I think that people learn to gamble in stages.
The first stage is gambling for entertainment. They come to the casino to lose a set amount of money set aside for entertainment purposes.
The next stage is progressions in hopes that they have discovered a way to beat the casino every time.
Next comes magical beliefs and superstitions. They can combine this with the progression period.
Next comes the money management phase. They try to use math to overcome a mathematical disadvantage.
Last comes you can't win and anyone that tries is a fool phase. This is where they become what they really are, assholes. I have given them a name that is a progression of names given to them over decades of discussion. First they were the mathBoyz. Then came the mathNazis. Now it's the mathZombies because of that great song by the Cranberries, "Zombie." "What's in your head, Zombie?"
It turns out that a very old axiom in gambling is the way to beat the casino. It goes like this: " Bet big when you are winning and bet small any other time than that." You might ascribe this to luck. I do. That is what the Reading Randomness thread is about. It just uses trends and patterns to identify win streaks. When a trend or pattern is working it is in a state of a win streak. But you must also look at these same trends that at times are not a win streak. They then tell you when a win streak is occurring or not. That becomes a construct where characteristics become the syntax of communication. Therefore the process of looking for data is identifiable as reading.
At know time does any of this looking for data process go back to the magical thinking stage. The mathZombies try to treat us by assuming that trends have a claimed power of prediction. Reading Randomness does not have that power and a person reading randomness has never relied on trends or patterns to attempt that. But the minds of these magical thinking obnoxious tools can't break from that assumption. So they erect straw man arguments just to win them in discussions. They might as well try to say that man was never meant to fly because he doesn't have wings. For some reason they are stuck in a magical belief that trends can't predict the future and they want to make sure that everyone respects their intellect. So discussion forums go on and on dealing with gamblers in different phases of learning.
There is no software to take you thru these stages. You must experience them for yourself and decide for yourself whether to give up or keep going. If you do keep going and you do get past all these stages, with knowledge, then you will have real playing experience. This is a subject even more valuable than tactics or methods. You must deal with impulses to take risky chances. You can't gamble without dealing with risk. That is why phase one is mindless progressions and mechanical rule based systems that allow you to sit back and let the system make you money. They want the casino to be their personal private ATM machine. They want it to change their lives forever.
So good luck finding software to take you thru these stages and changes in life."

This is what I wrote to someone searching for a way to beat the casinos with software:
I think that people learn to gamble in stages.
The first stage is gambling for entertainment. They come to the casino to lose a set amount of money set aside for entertainment purposes.
The next stage is progressions in hopes that they have discovered a way to beat the casino every time.
Next comes magical beliefs and superstitions. They can combine this with the progression period.
Next comes the money management phase. They try to use math to overcome a mathematical disadvantage.
Last comes you can't win and anyone that tries is a fool phase. This is where they become what they really are, assholes. I have given them a name that is a progression of names given to them over decades of discussion. First they were the mathBoyz. Then came the mathNazis. Now it's the mathZombies because of that great song by the Cranberries, "Zombie." "What's in your head, Zombie."
I challenge you to a acct ban challenge.
Loser asks for IP ban and leaves. Forever.
So at least the public members of this forum will only have to put up with either weird long winded novellas (you) or troll quips/retorts (me). Not both. Cause one is leaving for good.
What say you? Chummmmmm.......

Next comes magical beliefs and superstitions.
Gizmo, this is where Cht is now. So are you. You forgot the last stage though. The last but one stage is the realization that systems don't work and neither does reading randomness or educated guessing. The final stage is where you realize that there are ways to win but you have to make use of the factors which determine where the ball will land (d'uh). I don't think you'll ever get there, so I guess in your eyes I'm an asshole. I can live with that. Those who agree with you will probably go on to waste another 20 years of their life searching for something which can't exist.

I challenge you to a acct ban challenge.
Loser asks for IP ban and leaves. Forever.
So at least the public members of this forum will only have to put up with either weird long winded novellas (you) or troll quips/retorts (me). Not both. Cause one is leaving for good.
What say you? Chummmmmm.......
I have a better idea. Don't read my comments. Meanwhile people are learning to read randomness. When enough of them can display the skill then that will become irrefutable validation. You will just be a scum sucking door knob polisher. Don't read that insult. oops, too late, you got this far.

Gizmo, this is where Cht is now. So are you. You forgot the last stage though. The last but one stage is the realization that systems don't work and neither does reading randomness or educated guessing. The final stage is where you realize that there are ways to win but you have to make use of the factors which determine where the ball will land (d'uh). I don't think you'll ever get there, so I guess in your eyes I'm an asshole. I can live with that. Those who agree with you will probably go on to waste another 20 years of their life searching for something which can't exist.
prove it!

I have a better idea. Don't read my comments. Meanwhile people are learning to read randomness. When enough of them can display the skill then that will become irrefutable validation. You will just be a scum sucking door knob polisher. Don't read that insult. oops, too late, you got this far.
Bawwwwwk bawk bawk bawk.

Here're the 3 sessions where I rolled 37spins for history data then make a 37units(cover zero) even chance bet for every spin for the next 18spins to spin55. The result for each spin is either breakeven=1, win=+35, loss=37
Summary
session1 9w 5L 4BE 18bets
session2 6w 4L 8BE 18bets
session3 7w 4L 7BE 18bets
41% 24% 35%
54bets, 41%win, 24%loss and 35% breakeven(1)
Hi CHT, that was a very nice 54 Bets. Especially considering that the average for 18 Bets is 4.3w L4.7L 9BE 18bets.

Hi CHT, that was a very nice 54 Bets. Especially considering that the average for 18 Bets is 4.3w L4.7L 9BE 18bets.
Another 10sessions with simple rule of take profit at 90+ units and stop loss at 300units. Stop session at breakeven if 100units drawdown.
Result  8wins, 2 breakeven, 0 loss.
2LoTD ensures that entropy must happen everytime.
This is the first and only system bet with flatbet, betting continuously every spin covering zero that wins consistently intl.

One more thing, I don't use a tracker, no pen and paper recording. I just look at past 37numbers to make the bets.
Big big thank you to 6th and the gang. Thank you TurboG.
Biggest thank you goes to ayk, whoever you are. Your creation makes this possible. Thank you sir.

Cht why are you not posting rx chart as proof to show us that it really beats flat bet at longterm(1m spins) the wheel?

I received a email query so I provide the answer on this thread.
" i'm looking al last 37 spins...but then, i've tried bet hottest and coldest (no hit) in straight bet and also in dozen in the same bet."
Hot numbers(repeaters) that hit more than once do not carry a higher hitrate in the future spins.
Cold numbers(sleepers) that do not hit at all do not carry a higher hitrate in future spins.
I wrote that I look at the last 37spins list then place a 37units even chance bet.
How can I know which are the hot numbers(repeaters) or cold numbers(sleepers) just by staring at the 37 numbers history ?
Not possible.
All we need is this 37numbers list to know what pockets are more likely to hit than other pockets most of the time.
Stare at that list then place your 37units bet, that's all you need. Do this for every spin.
LOTT will naturally play out that gives 12unhits, 12hits and 12repeats on average.
2LoTD will ensure that entropy is seen in the spin outcomes.
100% sure to happen every time. Casino can't do anything about this unless they cheat the spins.
Think through what do both this math and physics laws mean.
Figure out what I was thinking in my mind while I place this 37units bet on the table with so many other players at the table.
How can I be sure that I don't make mistake in placing the bets on the wrong pockets ?
When I play at the electronic table I have a 30seconds window to place the bets in the b&m casino.
***Try placing 37units bets based only on this 37spins history, see if you can produce the result I posted betting every spin continuously.
I don't place outside bets as hedge bets.
All bets are inside numbers 100%

I received a email query so I provide the answer on this thread.
" i'm looking al last 37 spins...but then, i've tried bet hottest and coldest (no hit) in straight bet and also in dozen in the same bet."
Hot numbers(repeaters) that hit more than once do not carry a higher hitrate in the future spins.
Cold numbers(sleepers) that do not hit at all do not carry a higher hitrate in future spins.
I wrote that I look at the last 37spins list then place a 37units even chance bet.
How can I know which are the hot numbers(repeaters) or cold numbers(sleepers) just by staring at the 37 numbers history ?
Not possible.
All we need is this 37numbers list to know what pockets are more likely to hit than other pockets most of the time.
Stare at that list then place your 37units bet, that's all you need. Do this for every spin.
LOTT will naturally play out that gives 12unhits, 12hits and 12repeats on average.
2LoTD will ensure that entropy is seen in the spin outcomes.
100% sure to happen every time. Casino can't do anything about this unless they cheat the spins.
Think through what do both this math and physics laws mean.
Figure out what I was thinking in my mind while I place this 37units bet on the table with so many other players at the table.
How can I be sure that I don't make mistake in placing the bets on the wrong pockets ?
When I play at the electronic table I have a 30seconds window to place the bets in the b&m casino.
***Try placing 37units bets based only on this 37spins history, see if you can produce the result I posted betting every spin continuously.
I don't place outside bets as hedge bets.
All bets are inside numbers 100%
Here's the completed session that hit the profit target.
It's so simple.
Imagine I have to place the bets then create the screenshot. Yet it's so fast.
300units bankroll you win 100% of your bankroll in 3 sessions at 3 different tables, cash out leave the casino. They won't even notice you.

I have given all the hints and help possible.
Read my posts.
You use your brains think how I manage to place those winning bets.
Perhaps I use precog techniques after going through a course with precogman. >:D

Perhaps I use precog techniques after going through a course with precogman. >:D
I dont think so ;D

Nice work cht. Simple is best.

Perhaps I use precog techniques after going through a course with precogman.
lol.
People need to just let the data speak for itself.
Anyone can claim anything.
Prove it on MPR or roulette simulator, first and then come back and claim it works.
Cht if you are already on roulette simulator. Get to first position on Roulette simulator and MPR.

Let me give you some explanation.
This bet is based on the 37history spins. Start bet spin38 betting every spin continuously with 1unit cover zero and 36units inside bets.
2LoTD is about entropy.
In roulette terms it means we won't see 1 1 1 1 1 1...... , or
1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3....... for 37spins.
The outcomes has to grow to what is governed by LOTT,
ie. 12unhits, 12hits,and 12peaters on average. That's what we see in 37spins.
However, we are betting the future spins. There will be 12unhits, 12hits and 12peaters but they are unrelated to this first 37spins. This means that whatever unhits, hits and peaters of the past 37spins will not help to predict the future spins. That's why all the testing based on past spins fails to yield profit. All the statistical count also fail. All the trend also fail. Because they occurred in the past.
This bring us to a tricky situation how to recognise if a particular pocket has higher or lower probability to hit in the future based on past spins?
This brings us to the very core of the problem. Do the past 37spins don't give us any hint at all???? Or do they???? Are they truly independent????
This much I can tell you. If you look for prediction in the manner that you are brainwashed to understand it, it won't work. There's no way to predict future pockets that will hit with higher probability, example #3 hits 3times and #25 hits twice in the future because they hit 3times in the past and so on.....
The past is a revolving spin by spin past that changes with every spin. Each player sees the past differently depending on when he joins the table. The past that applies to you is the spins that are already spun.
We bet future spins, this future spins is the same for all the players at the table. Each future spin has the same 37past spins.
And this past spins tells us what the future holds that LOTT will play out. This current spin can be the 13th, 21st or 32nd spin of different LOTT cycles, incomplete cycles. This current spin can also be the 37th spin of LOTT.
I will say this point blank, take it or leave it. Past 37spins points to the future 37spins LOTT distribution. It's right there. You just have to remove your previous understanding that's repeated so many times by so many people. They are all wrong. They are not even logical at all.
Stare at ayk tracker that shows LOTT clearly in the manner it should be, spin by spin. Watch every individual spin. Until you know where LOTT will hit next spin in the distribution graph as we all know it. You should be correct 40+% of the time with negative and positive variance. Wrong 20+% of the time and the rest of the spins have nothing to do with you, ie. breakeven results. That's the positive edge that LOTT and 2LoTD give naturally. The devil is in the details.
Ofc there's this roll from hell filled with negative variance. The good thing is we know why we lose. We look for tables that are less likely to happen based on past spins. The answer lies in the dealer, choose the correct dealer you hardly see this rfh. RNG look at more history, identify if the past spins show this rfh characteristics. My advice don't play RNG, real dealer wheel is so much more predictable especially with the right dealer. Even if it does happen it happens at a less than 10%rate which we lose our bankroll, ie. stoploss. Take the loss, come back tomorrow.
I learnt everything from this forum.
This is my give back.
Time to move on.
Cheers

Ok newbies.
It is 12 unhits, 24 hits and 12 repeaters.

Ok newbies.
It is 12 unhits, 24 hits and 12 repeaters.
Questo è chiaro da tanti anni, legge del terzo.. il problema è cosa giocare al giro successivo

Questo è chiaro da tanti anni, legge del terzo.. il problema è cosa giocare al giro successivo
Per scoprirlo devi pagare 100.000 €

...
I will say this point blank, take it or leave it. Past 37spins points to the future 37spins LOTT distribution. It's right there. You just have to remove your previous understanding that's repeated so many times by so many people. They are all wrong. They are not even logical at all.
Stare at ayk tracker that shows LOTT clearly in the manner it should be, spin by spin. Watch every individual spin. Until you know where LOTT will hit next spin in the distribution graph as we all know it. You should be correct 40+% of the time with negative and positive variance. .
You think that isn´t tested yet? YOU are wrong.
You just haven´t seen enough 37spingroups.
Not "They are all wrong . They are not even logical at all."
It is you, who is completely wrong.

Ok newbies.
It is 12 unhits, 24 hits and 12 repeaters.
where is the 37th number?
by the way the absolutely correct average:
13 or 14 unhit, 13 or 14 once hit, 7 two hit, 3 more than 2 hit.

where is the 37th number?
by the way the absolutely correct average:
13 or 14 unhit, 13 or 14 once hit, 7 two hit, 3 more than 2 hit.
Ok here it is
13 unhits, 24 hits, 13 repeaters
or
11 unhits, 26 hits, 11 repeaters

Ok here it is
13 unhits, 24 hits, 13 repeaters
or
11 unhits, 26 hits, 11 repeaters
Where do you get this numbers from? They are absolutely fantasy!

This is the distribution of 4575 37spingroups
You won´t find a 12 12 12 as most results nor your fantasy distributions

by the way the absolutely correct average:
13 or 14 unhit, 13 or 14 once hit, 7 two hit, 3 more than 2 hit.
Check this forum. Winkel posted the distribution graph many years ago. I always remember that graph. I learnt this from him. This is how I started my journey on this forum.
HOWEVER, the big huge wrong is how to use this distribution knowledge that we call LOTT to design a betselection that has higher hitrate than odds.
This is the biggest brain washing WRONG that followed LOTT. That was what I meant by wrong in my post. I believe I did explain this in detail.
So long as you continue to be guided by all that's posted on forums about LOTT, you simply missed the true meaning of this distribution.
In this aspect, I agree with the mathboys, LOTT statistical distribution by itself is useless to predict which pockets has higher or lower probability to hit for future spins.
Anyone can disagree, you are entitled to your opinion. I have stated mine. I have no wish to quarrel. I just want to clarify what I wrote so that readers don't misunderstand or misinterprete.
If anyone found what I wrote helpful good for him. If not ignore my posts.

This is the count out of 37 spins continuosly (first out/next in)
I don´t think this allows any prediction. Especially not if you thin in 12 24 and 12
If you want you can have thousands of these counts
R37 N37 F37
16 12 9
17 12 8
14 15 8
15 14 8
17 12 8
16 12 9
14 15 8
14 15 8
17 9 11
15 12 10
13 17 7
18 10 9
16 10 11
17 9 11
18 10 9
13 17 7
16 12 9
16 11 10
14 15 8
14 13 10
14 12 11
14 13 10
18 7 12
14 12 11
15 11 11
16 11 10
18 9 10
16 12 9
15 12 10
17 10 10
15 13 9
14 15 8
15 15 7
16 13 8
16 12 9
16 12 9
15 15 7
17 11 9
16 12 9
16 10 11
15 11 11
18 9 10
18 10 9
17 7 13
17 7 13
15 12 10
13 14 10
19 7 11
18 8 11
16 9 12
16 11 10
16 10 11
15 11 11
15 10 12
13 15 9
17 11 9
16 11 10
16 10 11
15 13 9
14 16 7
14 13 10
13 16 8
11 19 7
19 8 10
17 8 12
16 8 13
16 11 10
16 11 10
15 12 10
14 15 8
14 13 10
13 17 7
13 15 9
13 15 9
16 14 7
17 9 11
16 11 10
16 10 11
15 12 10
15 11 11
15 11 11
15 10 12
14 14 9
14 13 10
13 14 10
17 11 9
14 13 10
13 15 9
13 15 9
12 15 10
15 14 8
14 15 8
14 13 10
13 15 9
13 14 10
12 17 8
11 20 6
14 12 11
13 15 9
12 16 9
14 15 8
14 15 8
14 14 9
20 7 10
17 11 9
20 6 11
17 11 9
17 11 9
18 9 10
16 10 11
15 14 8
20 6 11
18 11 8
18 10 9
17 9 11
17 11 9
16 12 9
16 10 11
16 10 11
14 14 9
17 10 10
15 13 9
14 14 9
17 8 12
17 8 12
16 9 12
14 11 12
16 11 10
16 12 9
17 11 9
15 13 9
19 9 9
17 10 10
16 9 12
16 10 11
15 13 9
15 13 9
15 11 11
15 11 11
15 11 11
14 13 10
16 10 11
15 8 14
15 10 12
14 12 11
17 11 9
15 14 8
15 13 9
14 16 7
14 16 7
12 19 6
17 9 11
15 13 9
15 11 11
14 13 10
13 16 8
13 14 10
13 14 10
12 18 7
12 17 8
16 11 10
15 14 8
14 15 8
13 15 9
17 7 13
16 10 11
15 12 10
15 12 10
15 11 11
14 14 9
13 16 8
16 10 11
15 10 12
14 14 9
14 12 11
13 15 9
14 12 11
13 15 9
12 17 8
14 12 11
11 18 8
11 18 8
16 10 11
14 11 12
13 12 12
14 14 9
12 15 10
11 20 6
15 10 12
16 9 12
19 5 13
18 9 10
16 9 12
14 15 8
17 10 10
15 12 10
14 13 10
14 15 8
15 10 12
14 13 10
17 9 11
16 9 12
16 12 9
15 12 10
14 13 10
13 16 8
16 8 13
16 12 9
15 11 11
15 11 11
14 14 9
14 14 9
18 9 10
14 16 7
15 12 10
18 8 11
18 11 8
19 6 12
19 7 11
18 9 10
18 7 12
18 8 11
17 10 10
16 13 8
18 8 11
17 9 11
17 10 10
15 13 9
15 12 10
14 15 8
12 17 8
17 10 10
16 11 10

I too have the excel sheets for this winkel ...knicksmi made my rolling wave sheets for this excact thing you’ve posted..always said 12 is just that ..an average..I’ve posted a few pics here and there and an actual sheet on the other forum too to confirm this..zero is if course in any of the groups which it’s stuck in ist that time
Cht isn,t referring to just the 12 ..He is talking something a bit different than the usual thoughts ..

This reminds me of the nipple system
:lol: :lol: system junkies will never learn.

Plus anyone with any sense can just import there numbers into the Ayk tracker and set config to 37 and see what you are saying and I’ve said for a long time..
Just click step and watch the counts go up and down..not rocket science

In this aspect, I agree with the mathboys, LOTT statistical distribution by itself is useless to predict which pockets has higher or lower probability to hit for future spins.
What else is there to look at? There is no 'aspect' of past spins which will influence future spins. You can look at the frequency of certain numbers and/or their place in the sequence. There's nothing else to see, and neither of those will tell you anything about what's going to come up in the next spin or few spins.
Long run stats can tell you the shape of the distribution, which can reveal some anomaly or bias. But that has nothing to do with independence. There's a lot of confusion about this, hence you read on forums that because X or Y event happens regularly it means spins aren't independent. Wrong. Independence means that having seen X it means Y is no more likely to happen than if X hadn't occurred. I guess this must be a subtle concept because many don't understand it.

Cht you wrote some interesting things about LOTT here, thanks for the infos

Okay, here's the result for betting randomly selected 18 numbers for 36 spin cyles, for a total of 5 times 100,000 spins.
(https://i.ibb.co/LnnbFxm/Ezgifcomgifmaker1.gif)

[img width= height= alt=ScreenShot20191123at85500PM" border="0]https://i.ibb.co/JkWsh4v/ScreenShot20191123at85500PM.png[/img] (https://ibb.co/kcVSdf4)

[img width= height= alt=ScreenShot20191123at85500PM" border="0]https://i.ibb.co/JkWsh4v/ScreenShot20191123at85500PM.png[/img] (https://ibb.co/kcVSdf4)
The problem rest when and what play...

The problem rest when and what play...
I'm only here to provide data and information. What you do with that data is up to you.

The problem rest when and what play...
Problem exist if you play on luck. But, if you have a working concept based on LOT then this problem will disappear.

blueprint isn,t lott ..its based on dependence...can,t believe this obscure thread has had this impact...
with no word from the op.....
this forum is dying in a way you can,t understand...three forces against each other....absolutley no progress here ..
i feel older members think the same...i,ve been on the watched list for quite a while and i have no idea why...

Problem exist if you play on luck. But, if you have a working concept based on LOT then this problem will disappear.
this and dependence....people say its all voodoo...but is it...hell even on the other forum roulette life how i descrbed Dr talos bet he said i was spot on...

6th sense reveal your winning method and then we can close the forum and discussion will be over 😋

6th sense reveal your winning method and then we can close the forum and discussion will be over 😋
i,m not here to do that..so jog on...who would....
i havent given a system...i can only give advice...and the comment you made on the youtube video as in why you don,t understand the experiment i,m doing concerning the neighbours and numbers does not make me have to prove anything to you...hell i did it for free with that application for online playtech downloaded sites...
and that application was fully adjustable,,,,but with playing with the settings ,, for any style of play if you can,t win money then you should just give up...
from one number ..no neighbours...or neighbours and the amount of numbers or neighbours too...wheel or table side..or both...for or against the selection...and can bet within the 15 second time frame
the unit size bet up or down if needed.....
very slick...lots of ways too use this..not just the normal way of thinking...
people like you makes me think why do i bother..
i could make a lot with subscription..

One final very important point to understand correctly to properly understand LOTT.
The relationship between independent spins and LOTT, ie frequency distribution.
Mathboys assume future spins are independent that has no memory of past spins.
If future spins are truly independent, can there be a LOTT frequency distribution for every 37spins cycle with the numbers posted by Winkel?
Why we don't see 1,1,1,1,1........ Or 1,2,3,4,5.........? Not even close.
Can both coexist in roulette spins?
Define in detail the exact meaning of independent, as in no memory.
Assumption of broadbrush use of independent spins has to be investigated in detail to see if this is true.
Discuss these questions of the relationship between independent spins and frequency distribution aka LOTT.
Openminded discussion will benefit everyone. Sarcasm, mocking, belittling , ego masturbation benefit no one. Your forum, your choice.
If you don't get this right you have no chance to progress as a roulette player.
Thank you for reading.
Cheers

If future spins are truly independent, can there be a LOTT frequency distribution for every 37spins cycle with the numbers posted by Winkel?
Why we don't see 1,1,1,1,1........ Or 1,2,3,4,5.........? Not even close.
Can both coexist in roulette spins?
Define in detail the exact meaning of independent, as in no memory.
I already did. Your comment about 'Why don't we see...?' is exactly the kind of misunderstanding I referred to in my previous post.
You don't see those kinds of events because the probabilities are so small, although they could in theory happen, given a large enough sample.
This has nothing to do with independence or dependence!!
Definition of Independence :
Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other
So successive spins in roulette are independent (and also successive series of spins). They are independent because on each spin of the wheel the number of pockets on the wheel doesn't change. Obvious? of course. Then why is there so much debate about it? :xd:
There is no force or 'statistical pressure' which makes outcomes conform to balance (or unbalance), either in the next few spins or over many future spins. Therefore, whatever has occurred in the past (any aspect or characteristic of it) doesn't affect what will happen in the future.
I can't make it any more clear.

I already did. Your comment about 'Why don't we see...?' is exactly the kind of misunderstanding I referred to in my previous post.
You don't see those kinds of events because the probabilities are so small, although they could in theory happen, given a large enough sample.
This has nothing to do with independence or dependence!!
When you are correct I will call it out.
You are correct on this specific part. :thumbsup:
Pls delete(ignore) that part I wrote.
I realised my mistake but I could not edit it.
The rest remain intact unless someone can point out any errors.
This is how progress is made.
@Joe, you don't know anything more than what the theory says. Zero.
It's easy to do what you do. Most educated people get it.
You have nothing to be proud of.

The rest remain intact unless someone can point out any errors.
What is 'the rest'? You agree with me that past results do not influence future results, but seem to be saying that nevertheless there is a 'loophole' somewhere and that sometimes past results DO influence future results. Where to go from this contradiction? Since you're not going to give a concrete example of what you believe to be dependence between spins, it seems there is nothing more to discuss.

@Joe, you don't know anything more than what the theory says. Zero.
It's easy to do what you do. Most educated people get it.
You have nothing to be proud of.
No, I'm not proud of stating the obvious. But it seems that a lot of people who read this forum don't get it, so I guess they're not educated. Instead of attacking the messenger why not give an example of your dependence theory? Then everyone will see what an obnoxious closedminded mathboy I am and you will be vindicated and hailed as a hero and a genius. :thumbsup:

But it seems that a lot of people who read this forum don't get it, so I guess they're not educated.
So why the fark do you care if they don't get it?
At the rate you post on this forum calling ppl uneducated shows that you got insecurity issues.
You go posting "Look at me Joe, I am educated in math. You are uneducated."
That's all you post.
You have serious issues. Screw loose in your head. Nutcase. Whatever.
Make a appointment with your psychiatrist. And don't skip the med.
People should see you for what you are.
I have called you out.
Done with you.

YAWN!
So, no proof of dependence then?

YAWN!
So, no proof of dependence then?
@NutcaseWaitingForProofJoe, do you read English?
No one will post the proof on public forum.
The real work is done outside forums.
Serious nutcase. *facepalm*

You agree with me that past results do not influence future results, but seem to be saying that nevertheless there is a 'loophole' somewhere and that sometimes past results DO influence future results. Where to go from this contradiction?
What a loser you are Joe. You admit what people are trying to tell you and in the same sentence deny it. Just go back to the first part, " ...past results do not influence future results." Now accept that much. You are not some Spandex clad savior. We all get that much. Past spins have NO influence on the results of future spins. You are not a revelation to anyone. Now keep the earwax out of your ears one more time. In randomness more than one spin at a time can appear as figure formations caused by nothing more than coincidence and without any chance of cause or effect. Your ears still open Joe Blow the math boy? You think that a gambler must play independent of each spin because the odds are configured one spin at a time yet you depend on that same long term math from multiple spins to give validation to your reasoning. You get to use multiple spins to make your notions real. Yet anyone coming along that uses multiple spins to target figure formations is somehow beyond the rights granted to arithmetic fanatics. You are a math bigot. This is not your command post and you don't control everything used to effectively beat a casino. You are just a self important big mouth with less than normal common sense. I expose you. You are nothing but a typical control freak with a messiah complex. Take your " past results do not influence future results," mantra and throw yourself under the bus.

You think that a gambler must play independent of each spin because the odds are configured one spin at a time yet you depend on that same long term math from multiple spins to give validation to your reasoning.
No, idiot. The proof of independence doesn't depend on multiple spins, it comes from the fact that the number of pockets on the wheel doesn't change between spins.
Charlatans like you and cht can bluff and bluster all you like. If you could come up with a plausible, or at least more sophisticated theory for why you believe spins are dependent, that at least would be worth reading, but you don't even have that. All you have left is attacking the messenger; the classic response for those who have run out of arguments! ;D

I see nothing has changed here. My goodness.

Serious nutcase. *facepalm*
lol, but I'm not the one claiming that outcomes are determined by some mysterious magical force.

I see nothing has changed here. My goodness.
No, nothing. Still the same voodoo merchants peddling their crappy wares.

No, nothing. Still the same voodoo merchants peddling their crappy wares.
Why didn't you call out the other Joe on Roulettelive forum ?
You even did some statistical count on clearcut shitty system.
What different result were you expecting @NutcaseJoeMathGenius ? >:D
You didn't even recognise that poster has multiple monickers always making the same kind of threads.
You got conned big time. What a joke.
You are big time nutcase beyond help.

You don't get it, do you? What irritates me about forums is not people who post systems which can be tested, but lowlife scumbags like you and gizmo who make claims without any substance, and then turn nasty when they're challenged. Why do you do it? One can only assume it's because you're narcissists who need the attention or are trying to sell something by PM. In fact gizmo has been quite open about it, selling his 'skills' to the gullible and desperate. Some of you even pretend to be helping others by giving them hope that a winning system is possible. What a stinking pile of disingenuous bullshit that is.

You don't get it, do you? What irritates me about forums is not people who post systems which can be tested, but lowlife scumbags like you and gizmo who make claims without any substance, and then turn nasty when they're challenged. Why do you do it? One can only assume it's because you're narcissists who need the attention or are trying to sell something by PM. In fact gizmo has been quite open about it, selling his 'skills' to the gullible and desperate. Some of you even pretend to be helping others by giving them hope that a winning system is possible. What a stinking pile of disingenuous bullshit that is.
What you did on roulettelive forum is clear proof of bullshit math, you are either a NUTCASE. Or STUPID.
Your choice. :twisted:
Sell on forums is your problem?
Show proof I sold anything on forum.
Where's your proof?
@NutcaseproofJoe
Steve, forum owner is your biggest target.
Why don't you call him out ?
@NutcaseNoballsJoe
I did that's why I'm on watched and targetted for ban.
@NutcasePoliceBallsLickerJoe.

...or at least more sophisticated theory for why you believe spins are dependent,
There you go again. You have a clear fallacy in attempting to define what you clearly don't understand. I can't prove dependence because I don't believe there can be dependence. But that is the argument that you want to be right in having. You are a stupid retard. You are so blinded by your opinion's and assumptions that you can't see your own ignorance. Talking with you is like talking with a child that says he will hold his breath until he turns blue if you don't give him what he wants. You called me a "Charlatan." You don't know how to reason objectively. All you have are platitudes and straw man objectives. You are clearly the poster child for mathZombies. I'm done with you. You are not worth discussion.

lol, but I'm not the one claiming that outcomes are determined by some mysterious magical force.
That is not an argument. That is deflection and transference.
How many times must you be told that coincidence is not magic? Do believe I think that coincidence is a magical force? Get real.

What irritates me about forums is not people who post systems which can be tested, but lowlife scumbags like you and gizmo who make claims without any substance,
Juts look what people have to put up with when I clearly ex[lain everything and give people practice tools to prove everything for themselves if they just apply themselves. But they must apply themselves. Unfortunately for you Joe, many have. They are my proof. You are just shit left at the side of the road that fades into dust.

In fact gizmo has been quite open about it, selling his 'skills' to the gullible and desperate.
Lies.
I offer to teach one on one for several thousands of dollars or they can go get it all for free at the teaching thread. Not one person has asked me for one on one instructions once I show them where they can get it all for free. You are a liar. I taught two people two years before I gave it all away for free. One of them is validation. There other may have given up. But all the rest are all free. I'm not really selling anything you crackpot. Nobody wants to pay for something they can get for free. So that clearly makes you a fabricator of fake news.

I see nothing has changed here. My goodness.
Hehe, it won't ever change. :D A few weeks ago I was reading old forums from 10+ years ago, and the same thing was going on. ::)
Someone posts a claim or a statement on the forum. Other people don't agree with him, and they make logical arguments against the claims. And usually this is where the problem starts and people very quickly turn everything into personal attacks and name calling.
If something is winning, it must have a very good and explainable reason how it can avoid the basic proofs, like the independence of spins, the negative EV of each bet, and the problem of the constant bet, so that the law of large numbers doesn't apply.
A real proof is never a simulation. I posted the charts yesterday to shown that random bets can win thousands of units for thousands of spins, but they can also lose.
If someone doesn't want to share the secret, that's fine. I wouldn't. But the responses should be better than "you're an idiot, blinded by your math facts".
I strongly believe that it's possible to win with a system, but not if that system claims to bend mathematical proofs, tries to predict individual spin outcomes, or change the odds. It should be a system with a very special betting plan that can cover every possibility, so no matter what happens, the winner side always covers the losers.

Anyway, it's good to have any kind of discussion going. Most members check the forum several times a day, hoping to see new posts. So even personal attacks have entertainment value. :twisted:

Hehe, it won't ever change. :D A few weeks ago I was reading old forums from 10+ years ago, and the same thing was going on. ::)
Someone posts a claim or a statement on the forum. Other people don't agree with him, and they make logical arguments against the claims. And usually this is where the problem starts and people very quickly turn everything into personal attacks and name calling.
If something is winning, it must have a very good and explainable reason how it can avoid the basic proofs, like the independence of spins, the negative EV of each bet, and the problem of the constant bet, so that the law of large numbers doesn't apply.
A real proof is never a simulation. I posted the charts yesterday to shown that random bets can win thousands of units for thousands of spins, but they can also lose.
If someone doesn't want to share the secret, that's fine. I wouldn't. But the responses should be better than "you're an idiot, blinded by your math facts".
I strongly believe that it's possible to win with a system, but not if that system claims to bend mathematical proofs, tries to predict individual spin outcomes, or change the odds. It should be a system with a very special betting plan that can cover every possibility, so no matter what happens, the winner side always covers the losers.
"You wouldn't" is normal.
2nd bolded sentence.
Win more than lose.
Have to bet every spin.
No way to predict when the betselection shall win spin by spin.
That's impossible.
All we know is some pockets will hit more than others and better than payout.
We know this happens in 37spins cycle.
We don't know when it happens.
Triggers is based on prediction.

No one will post a mathematical "proof" bc there isn't one  which is very different from whether or not something works.
(https://i.ibb.co/DDQ7NQ0/ScreenShot2.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

What you did on roulettelive forum is clear proof of bullshit math, you are either a NUTCASE. Or STUPID.
Don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean Joe Ferguson's FIVE system? what about it? I proved it was all bullshit and he was making up the stats.

No one will post a mathematical "proof" bc there isn't one  which is very different from whether or not something works.
It depends what kind of 'system' you're talking about. For the kind of systems which are generally posted on forums (meaning nonAP) there must be a mathematical proof if the method really does win consistently long term, because you're talking about a closed system, namely, the GAME of roulette which has fixed probabilities and payout rules etc.
But it's hard to see how such a proof could be found, because there is already a proof that no such system is possible, and it's a simple proof too, so it's not as though there could have been a mistake which only some genius mathematician could track down.

It depends what kind of 'system' you're talking about. For the kind of systems which are generally posted on forums (meaning nonAP) there must be a mathematical and or science law proof if the method really does win consistently long term, because you're talking about a closed system, namely, the GAME of roulette which has fixed probabilities and payout rules etc.
But it's hard to see how such a proof could be found, because there is already a proof that no such system is possible, and it's a simple proof too, so it's not as though there could have been a mistake which only some genius mathematician could track down.
I agree with your bolded sentence.
I have said it repeatedly.
The bet design must be based on some math and or science law.
Your 2nd para I disagree.
It's not easy to explain the how and why math and science part.
That's at a much different level.
This is about just designing a winning systems bet making money from the casino.
The math science part is way over everyone's heads to put up a intellectual paper for peer review.
We're interested only on the MONEY. >:D

I received many PMs that made offers to code my system into betting bot.
This is my answer.
I live in a country where online gambling is illegal.
No access to online gambling sites.
I only bet in b&m casino.
So I won't have any use of this online betting bot.
Thank you for your offer.

All of you are cheated by the casino.
Let's say instead of 1,2,3,4,5,6......
We have a, b, c, d, e, f.........
As pockets.
There will be no high low, red black, odd even and so on........
Just pockets with whatever identifier you want to attach to it.
Analysing pockets based on red black, odd even and so on is plain nonsense.
How is 9red connected to 21red?
It's connected just because the casino colored both pockets red.
Nonsensical connection.
What if the casino colored 9red and 21 violet, I'm sure you will do analysis on red and violet.
You have been fooled by the casino.
Wake up people.
There are 37pockets which you can label whatever you wish.
Look at that 37numbers spun, place your bets. That's all to it.
And no fancy computer calculations, tracker, bot........ If it works all the coders here would have made money.
Use your brains.
And register for precogman's course, it works. 😍

Seems like Dyksexlic's way

One final very important point to understand correctly to properly understand LOTT.
The relationship between independent spins and LOTT, ie frequency distribution.
Mathboys assume future spins are independent that has no memory of past spins.
If future spins are truly independent, can there be a LOTT frequency distribution for every 37spins cycle with the numbers posted by Winkel?
...
Thank you for reading.
Cheers
refer to Markov:
result N is independent from result n1
result N+1 is independent from result N
N1 movementx N movementy N+1
but it is possible that the movementx that formed result N out of result N1 is familiar to movementy

There are 37pockets which you can label whatever you wish.
Might as well label them like this:
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$

I learnt about Markov chain from Winkel's post many years ago.
Watch this video.
Think about the 2 challenges at the end.
I designed the betselection based on this theory keeping 2LoTD and LOTT in mind.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=63HHmjlh794

What happened in the last 37spins history is useless to predict the next 37spins.
Unhits, hits, peaters happened in the past. Past statistics contribute nothing to future spins.
The only important thing is where the last spin is. The last spin will not tell you the next 37spins. It only tells you about the next spin. And the next spin about the next next spin and so on.....
That's why you look at the updated to last spin history to know where you are now that tells you about where you more likely will be the next spin. That's the connection of markov chain.
You won't be correct for all spins. You should be correct 40+% of the time, wrong 20+% and the rest you don't know. And you don't know which spin you are correct. Your balance will go up and down with a slight tilt towards correct. End session when it hits your set take profit target.
Watch this video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i5oND7rHtFs

Ok so only positions.

Unhits, hit, peaters accaduti in passato. Le statistiche passate non contribuiscono in alcun modo ai giri futuri.
L'unica cosa importante è dove si trova l'ultimo giro. L'ultimo giro non ti dirà i prossimi 37 giri. Ti dice solo del prossimo giro. E il prossimo giro sul prossimo giro successivo e così via .....
E allora a che serve LOTT ? Perchè avere 37 spin e poi iniziare a puntare?

Unhits, hit, peaters accaduti in passato. Le statistiche passate non contribuiscono in alcun modo ai giri futuri.
L'unica cosa importante è dove si trova l'ultimo giro. L'ultimo giro non ti dirà i prossimi 37 giri. Ti dice solo del prossimo giro. E il prossimo giro sul prossimo giro successivo e così via .....
E allora a che serve LOTT ? Perchè avere 37 spin e poi iniziare a puntare?
The connection to Lott is explained in this video how it is formed.
Without Lott there is no chance to gain any edge. Casinos want their spin in the most unbiased manner. Modern wheels have computers monitoring spins to detect bias where they are immediately recalibrate if detected. This unbias spins in toto mostly produce the perfect frequency distribution aka Lott.
Look at Winkel's frequency distribution number he posted earlier. There are a few distorted distribution, mostly stay quite close to the average numbers. The closer to average the better. The skews are the nemesis.
So, when I wrote select your dealer carefully, you're selecting the dealer who spins the frequency distribution staying close to average. Look at lots of dealers from novice to veterans, plot their frequency distribution. Then make the connection. What is your guess which dealer produce Lott distribution best? Last group of spins is from RNG, compare them to know which wheel to play at.
I have given you guys the most math and science base info on this entire forum. Educate yourself and use it. Use your brain to figure the rest.
I found this about letters and words in another video. After the letter "q", which letter(s) that follow make a word? The 25 other letters carry different probability.

The connection to Lott is explained in this video how it is formed.
Without Lott there is no chance to gain any edge. Casinos want their spin in the most unbiased manner. Modern wheels have computers monitoring spins to detect bias where they are immediately recalibrate if detected. This unbias spins in toto mostly produce the perfect frequency distribution aka Lott.
Look at Winkel's frequency distribution number he posted earlier. There are a few distorted distribution, mostly stay quite close to the average numbers. The closer to average the better. The skews are the nemesis.
So, when I wrote select your dealer carefully, you're selecting the dealer who spins the frequency distribution staying close to average. Look at lots of dealers from novice to veterans, plot their frequency distribution. Then make the connection. What is your guess which dealer produce Lott distribution best? Last group of spins is from RNG, compare them to know which wheel to play at.
I have given you guys the most math and science base info on this entire forum. Educate yourself and use it. Use your brain to figure the rest.
I found this about letters and words in another video. After the letter "q", which letter(s) that follow make a word? The 25 other letters carry different probability.
I generally like the cut of your jib but methinks entropy and decay has little to do with random distribution save for the obvious fact of eventual worn down material, i.e., the wheel, ivorine ball, etc.,.

I generally like the cut of your jib but methinks entropy and decay has little to do with random distribution save for the obvious fact of eventual worn down material, i.e., the wheel, ivorine ball, etc.,.
You are correct about the condition of the wheel and the type of ball used.
Plot the frequency distribution based on wheel condition, ball, dealer and size of playing crowd(activity). The right type of dealer spinning at the ideal wheel and ball produce the best frequency distribution giving the best chance to win. Bettor has to do the prelim work.

cht, you seem confused and your statements are contradictory, and I guess I have to make allowances for the fact that English isn't your first language. All the references to Markov chains are irrelevant because the theory applies to events in which the NEXT event depends on the previous event (only). This doesn't apply to roulette because the next spin doesn't depend in any way on the last spin (just as it doesn't depend on multiple previous spins, as you admit), so there is no way to predict the next spin using Markov chains.
But you also say that success depends on the LOTT, which is a probability statement about a SEQUENCE of roulette outcomes. Do you see that this is contradictory? Whether you're talking about multiple past spins or just the last one doesn't matter as far as roulette is concerned; the probability of the next spin is always 1/37.
And then you go on to talk about dealer influence and physics. You're correct that these factors do influence the outcomes, but why not just stick to AP methods? Forget the LOTT and Markov chain nonsense.

Members need solution for LOT so please be kind you two and go to private chat, thank you.

Whether you're talking about multiple past spins or just the last one doesn't matter as far as roulette is concerned; the probability of the next spin is always 1/37.
Funny how you always come back to that as some kind of Kryptonite to Superman. So let's see how powerful it really is.
1.) Does the power of 1/37 prevent win streaks from occurring?
2.) If a win streak were to occur does the power of 1/37 keep you from knowing it?
3.) Does the power of 1/37 predict when a win streak will start?
4.) Does the power of 1/37 tell anyone when a win streak will end?
5.) Does the power of 1/37 cause a mathZombie to pretend that no one can know if they can notice a win streak?
These questions are intended to manipulate your mind into being impressed by a charlatan. They are in no way used to defame or discriminate against the perceived prowess of any discerning judgment made by dissenters. You can still keep your magical mathematical beliefs.

As I mentioned before:
If you reduce a spincycle of 37 spins to e.g. 14 13 10 (non hit, hit once, hit more than once) you know
 that in the next spin with a probability of 14/37 an unhit wil hit
 that in the next spin with a probability of 13/37 a hitonce will hit
 that in the next spin with a probability of 10/37 a more than once will hit.
By this way we can ignore the 1/37probability.
What can happen next?
If we cut of the 1st spin of that past cycle we
 can lose a "hit once", that will form a 15 12 10
 can lose a "more than hit once" with two possibilities
 if we lose a 2hit it will form to 14 14 9
 if we lose a 3hit it will form to 14 13 10
 we can never lose an unhit #
Whatever the result is, we have a new probability scale for the new 37th spin.
Than we can use Markov again and get a combined probability.
pls refer to my "math proof that GUT works"

If you reduce a spincycle of 37 spins to e.g. 14 13 10 (non hit, hit once, hit more than once) you know
 that in the next spin with a probability of 14/37 an unhit wil hit
 that in the next spin with a probability of 13/37 a hitonce will hit
 that in the next spin with a probability of 10/37 a more than once will hit.
By this way we can ignore the 1/37probability.
:( :( :(
Winkel, how many pockets are on the wheel when you make that bet? It should be 37. If you're not sure, try counting them. Now count how many numbers you'll be betting on. Divide this number by the number of pockets, and there's your probability.
Guys, I know this is a roulette systems forum, but there must be some people here who can apply basic probability. Anyone?

If something is winning, it must have a very good and explainable reason how it can avoid the basic proofs, like the independence of spins, the negative EV of each bet, and the problem of the constant bet, so that the law of large numbers doesn't apply.
Yes exactly. Other than physics, I've never seen a plausible explanation of how systems can win.
A real proof is never a simulation. I posted the charts yesterday to shown that random bets can win thousands of units for thousands of spins, but they can also lose.
I have to disagree with this. A real mathematician would probably agree with you, but if you run the simulation over enough spins the probability will converge very closely to what you would get by using an analytic method (mathematical proof).

Guys, I know this is a roulette systems forum, but there must be some people here who can apply basic probability. Anyone?
For sure, you are not one of those people who can teach basic probability.
Otherwise you would know Kolmogoroff!
Try again to proof your nonknowledge

As I mentioned before:
If you reduce a spincycle of 37 spins to e.g. 14 13 10 (non hit, hit once, hit more than once) you know
 that in the next spin with a probability of 14/37 an unhit wil hit
 that in the next spin with a probability of 13/37 a hitonce will hit
 that in the next spin with a probability of 10/37 a more than once will hit.
By this way we can ignore the 1/37probability.
What can happen next?
If we cut of the 1st spin of that past cycle we
 can lose a "hit once", that will form a 15 12 10
 can lose a "more than hit once" with two possibilities
 if we lose a 2hit it will form to 14 14 9
 if we lose a 3hit it will form to 14 13 10
 we can never lose an unhit #
Whatever the result is, we have a new probability scale for the new 37th spin.
Than we can use Markov again and get a combined probability.
pls refer to my "math proof that GUT works"
ok joe look here as a basic probability...winkel is explaining the rolling 37 spins very clear...
spin by spin....
lets say a minimum of 8 unhits hit on a rolling basis do for the very least come out....as numbers do change each spin..for the most part...
knowing this..and lets say on a rolling basis you have uniques and repeats come out in a streak say 6 times...
you now know that in front of you as winkel shows...that probability to hit a unhit....
you know your getting a maximum of 8 unhits in the next 31 spins...which 8 of them are going to win bringing that down to mm ...two probabilities in combination where you worst case scenario is 23 losses...which won,t happen in a row...please don,t say anything can happen in row in this scenario as i,ll tell you 100 percent it won,t ..this is an example using past spins...but on a constant rolling basis not a static set of numbers...but the whole combination of all three states...using past numbers..the probability ratio for payout which changes for the most part every spin...
two probabilities in combination ...this is a good example how to use past spins..and a case of expectation
CHT is thinking a little bit different than what you are use to...its a bit more than your basic player...

you know your getting a maximum of 8 unhits in the next 31 spins.
misquote...minimum of 8

6th, I was pretty sure I understood what Winkel was getting at, but thanks for the clarification. I don't want to become like the general and just be repeating 'it won't work', because that gets boring and annoying, so I'll run some tests and come back with the stats. Numbers don't lie, so I'll let the numbers do the talking, and STFU (which will probably be a relief to some). :thumbsup:

was an example joe...to look a bit differently...but go ahead..

Whether you're talking about multiple past spins or just the last one doesn't matter as far as roulette is concerned; the probability of the next spin is always 1/37.
This is very much correct. However things get more complicated when you consider conditional probability.
We can always have two dynamic halves, one containing the most recent 18 numbers, the other half can be called the sleepers. And this is where things get interesting. Under the condition of no repeat on the next spin, the probability that the next number will be from the sleeper half, is over 50%
Do we always have the same probability that a repeat will happen? I don't think so. The more unique numbers we have the higher the probability of a repeat. Of course the risk and payout is always in balance, but that's a different matter.
So while I fully understand the independence of spins and how random sequences behave. I cannot convince myself that all numbers have 1/37 probability of appearing at all times. For this view we always need to look at cycle of spins instead of individual spins, and the condition of the probability is in the future, so it cannot simply increase our accuracy of prediction.

So while I fully understand the independence of spins and how random sequences behave. I cannot convince myself that all numbers have 1/37 probability of appearing at all times. For this view we always need to look at cycle of spins instead of individual spins, and the condition of the probability is in the future, so it cannot simply increase our accuracy of prediction.
Yes, you can use the balance of expectation as a bet selection tactic. For me it's just like always searching for the strong side while one looks like it exists. I know that it fades to chaos and to the other side and back and forth. But you can see the strong side weak side while it occurs. It never balances out all the time. If it did you could target that and win every time. I like looking at this your way too.

For this view we always need to look at cycle of spins instead of individual spins, and the condition of the probability is in the future, so it cannot simply increase our accuracy of prediction.
You described the 2 necessary parts required. I put forward the concepts I used for the design in my previous post.
The reason for those posts is for readers like you to look at actual math which contains specific concepts that you can extract to adapt with reason for your own systems bet design to explore. This way you can progress in you own research journey based on some sound math principles and science laws.
I also explained that I am not putting up academic paper for peer review type explanation.
Joe can write whatever he wish and assume my lack of education, it's his right to express his opinion that's based on the basics of roulette spins of extra pocket and unfair payout.
But it has no relevance to what I try to do, ie. help members especially those who ask in pm for pointers. It's these people I try to help as much as I can. Without directly revealing what I found as empirical evidence for my personal consumption.

To those trying to figure out the solution, this is the best layman explanation I put to you.
In 37spins cycle, we know the LOTT frequency distribution.
Answer this question in the context of the above para, do all numbers retain this basic probability of 1:37?
If your answer is yes which means you can't see beyond the basic 1:37 probability then you have to conclude that there's no way to design a systems bet with positive edge.
If your answer is no, then you have to take a step further to address what ati has written above for it to be useful in your bet design.
The only way to guide your yes answer has to be from empirical evidence. You may not be able to properly explain the exact math principle which is only necessary if your purpose is to put up a academic paper.
May I remind everyone our purpose on this gambling forum is to make money from the casino. Period.
I will not respond to Joe's repeated basic roulette probability which we are all well aware of.

If anyone look closely, there's a missing part I intentionally left out.
That is to walk through spin by spin then explain how I use the math principles and science law with every single spin. This is followed by test of every math and science assumption that's applied if they hold true.
Collate the empirical evidence.
This is how it should be conducted. But ati wrote previously he wouldn't reveal it. He has given the answer. This is a gambling forum.

Without directly revealing what I found as empirical evidence for my personal consumption.
I noticed on one of your past posts the result for each of your spins is either break even = 1, win = +35, loss = 37. The only way to put up 37 Bets to get a Win 35, and a Loss 37, and a Break Even is to put up, for instance, 18 on Even, 18 on Low, and 1 on Zero. Or any combination of the EC’s: E/L  O/L  E/H  O/H  E/R  O/R  E/B  O/B  R/L  B/L  R/H  B/H. So I guess after the 37th Spin you look at all the EC’s and Bet on the 2 that came up the most. Am I close to your Bet Selection?

I noticed on one of your past posts the result for each of your spins is either break even = 1, win = +35, loss = 37. The only way to put up 37 Bets to get a Win 35, and a Loss 37, and a Break Even is to put up, for instance, 18 on Even, 18 on Low, and 1 on Zero. Or any combination of the EC’s: E/L  O/L  E/H  O/H  E/R  O/R  E/B  O/B  R/L  B/L  R/H  B/H. So I guess after the 37th Spin you look at all the EC’s and Bet on the 2 that came up the most. Am I close to your Bet Selection?
I don't place outside bets as hedge bets.
All bets are inside numbers 100%
The key point I intentionally wrote is what guides me to place so many inside bets in such a short betting window.

I noticed on one of your past posts the result for each of your spins is either break even = 1, win = +35, loss = 37. The only way to put up 37 Bets to get a Win 35, and a Loss 37, and a Break Even is to put up, for instance, 18 on Even, 18 on Low, and 1 on Zero. Or any combination of the EC’s: E/L  O/L  E/H  O/H  E/R  O/R  E/B  O/B  R/L  B/L  R/H  B/H. So I guess after the 37th Spin you look at all the EC’s and Bet on the 2 that came up the most. Am I close to your Bet Selection?
If you think a little deeper you will realise I have given the answer to the 1st step in a 2steps solution. It's not difficult to figure it out. Because I want to help others the same way others have helped me.
The 2nd step is the betselection itself. I have posted the videos for you to again think deeper into it. Details and not just superficial.
2nd step answer lies in LOTT which must form the next spin and next and next on and on.........
The next spin will always sustain the LOTT frequency distribution for this distribution to remain intact from whatever starting spin you plot from. This is a fact. And where the positive edge lies in the last 37spins.

Lets say the wheel rolled a completely unique series with no repeats for 18spins,
Example,
14, 33,1,23,1,5,36,11,15,17,29,28,7,12,21,32,2,25
The next 19spins it will still produce the LOTT distribution.
You can check past datas to confirm this fact.
Can anyone produce a spin sequence where this is false ?
The real question is how can you use this fact to identify individual numbers that carry higher and lower probability.
That's the million dollar question. >:D
That can be answered by precogman who has been posting phenomenal results. >:D >:D >:D
I am repeating myself. So I stop posting.
Good luck. :thumbsup:

"The prevaiIing wisdom among gaming experts and mathematicians is that every tabIe decision (at games Iike rouIette or craps) is an independent event. The opposing view (that a number can be “due”) is derided as being a fooIish viewpoint and is referred to as the premise of the GambIer’s FaIIacy.
As it turns out, this socaIIed faIIacy is in itseIf faIse. The foIIowing are the in congruencies of this ‘independent events’ issue that the experts have not addressed:
At American RouIette, for exampIe:
Experts agree that every number has a 1 in 38 chance of appearing on the next spin.
This 1 in 38 chance is aIso known as that number’s statisticaI expectation.
If an entity has or takes on any kind of expectation, it ceases to be independent.
If these numericaI events did not have an inherent predictabiIity, there wouId be no way to assign a statisticaI expectation to them. And anything that has a predictabIe quaIity to it cannot be “independent.”
As Frank Barstow said in his book, Beat the Casino, “Dice and the wheeI are inanimate, but if their behavior were not subject to some governing force or principIe, sequences of 30 or more repeats might be commonpIace, and there couId be no games Iike craps or rouIette, because there wouId be no way of figuring probabiIities and odds.” This, of course, goes against the thinking and teachings of aII other gaming authors, but that, in itseIf, does not prove that statement to be wrong.
This truth becomes more cIear when one considers that the ‘independent events’ premise gaming experts embrace actuaIIy contradicts itseIf. TabIe resuIts at rouIette are in an ongoing state of conforming to their probabiIities, but anything that is truIy ‘independent’ does not conform. Many gaming authors contradict themseIves as weII, by advising their readers to hoId out for a specific tabIe condition (Iike the “fivecount” at craps).
But if aII tabIe resuIts were as independent as they cIaim, it wouId not make the sIightest difference when a pIayer pIaced his bets. Anything that occurred in the past wouId have no reIevance whatsoever.
Gaming authors, statisticians and math experts aII agree that the numbers wiII conform to the probabiIities given a Iarge enough sampIing. What they’re saying is that numbers conform in Iarge groups but not in smaII groups. Another contradiction.
An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group.
For Iack of a better expression, each number is a tiny part of a greater "conspiracy" that wiII uItimateIy reveaI itseIf as the triaIs accumuIate.
It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation. The ‘other guys’ wiII teII you that there is no cause; that the effect is the resuIt of wiIIyniIIy random chance that conforms through unabated coincidence! And the entire worId has been buying this iIIogicaI horsepuckey for a hundred years...
Truth is, these numbers are infIuenced by the equivaIent of a countdown that adjusts itseIf with every spin, which is programmed into the device itseIf. The more precise the manufacturing technique of that device, the more accurate (unbiased) the tabIe decisions wiII be.
How did so many experts arrive at such an erroneous concIusion? Their viewpoint rested IargeIy on the seemingIy incontrovertibIe argument that “the wheeI has no memory.” Hard to argue with that, because it does sound Iike the rantings of a madman to cIaim that the wheeI can remember what has happened, then compensate accordingIy.
That impIies that the wheeI possesses some form of inteIIigence! Ah, but what they overIook is the fact that man does possess the technoIogy to create a baIanced device that distributes the numbers evenIy. And that is aII the wheeI is doing when it performs this artificiaI “thinking” task that they aII say is impossibIe!
So, the rouIette wheeI does not actuaIIy ‘think’, but it lS constructed to perform the equivaIent task, insofar as the fair distribution of numbers is concerned. It was designed, through precision crafting, to produce numbers that match the probabiIities.
The iIIusion of memory is an inherent part of the construction. So, in effect, it does have a memory. In effect, it ‘knows’ when number 5 is underperforming, and, given enough time, it wiII compensate for that. It is seIfcorrecting.
This Iogic appIies to anything that has been formaIIy assigned a statisticaI expectation. At craps, the dice are precision ground to within 1/10,000th of an inch. The dice don’t need to have a memory to act as if they did; they are just doing what they were constructed to do.
The numbers that are generated wiII automaticaIIy pursue a state of baIance among themseIves. What this means is that a craps or rouIette number can be technicaIIy “due,” after aII. Its appearance may be sidetracked by an opposing trend, but that is just a temporary deIay of the inevitabIe.
WeII then, if these events are not independent, shouIdn’t gaming systems work? Not necessariIy. There are two forces at pIay: statisticaI propensity (the Iaw of averages), and trends. At times, these two work in concert with each other; at other times they cIash. But in any such contest, trends have the strategic advantage.
Think of statisticaI propensity as the underIying constant, which wiII frequentIy be disrupted by trends, which don’t take orders from anyone!
AII those experts, aII these years, have been wrong. And it took the 3qA, which defies expIanation by those same experts, to bring this new reaIity to Iight. This is the true reaIity. This is the one expIanation that wouId not cause the scientific community to stutter and grope for meaning when trying to expIain why the numbers do what they do."

6th, I was pretty sure I understood what Winkel was getting at, but thanks for the clarification. I don't want to become like the general and just be repeating 'it won't work', because that gets boring and annoying, so I'll run some tests and come back with the stats. Numbers don't lie, so I'll let the numbers do the talking, and STFU (which will probably be a relief to some). :thumbsup:
use nottos tracker good for looking just import real spins
http://ayk.bplaced.net/notto/


use nottos tracker good for looking just import real spins
Thanks, but I was going to get stats for the number of singles, unhits and repeaters first. Average and standard deviations of them in 37 spins. Usually only averages are given, but averages are misleading. Most systems seem to be predicated on betting for outcomes to conform to an average in the next spin or spins. Isn't that what Winkel is saying?

What people here need is video proof of live roulette playing to show them how LOT real works . I think no one here can provide that thing, or am I wrong?

Most systems seem to be predicated on betting for outcomes to conform to an average in the next spin or spins. Isn't that what Winkel is saying?
Don't mix what Winkel post with mine.
I have not given any design parameters.

What people here need is video proof of live roulette playing to show them how LOT real works . I think no one here can provide that thing, or am I wrong?
This video is seen in private. Not for public viewing. This was explained in earlier post.

Thanks, but I was going to get stats for the number of singles, unhits and repeaters first. Average and standard deviations of them in 37 spins. Usually only averages are given, but averages are misleading. Most systems seem to be predicated on betting for outcomes to conform to an average in the next spin or spins. Isn't that what Winkel is saying?
here joe to save you the trouble...a basic rolling 37 spin excel sheet
http://www.mediafire.com/file/pwofbx2zy5onqla/37__Rolling_Waves.xlsx/file

Don't mix what Winkel post with mine.
I have not given any design parameters.
Ok, but you're sending mixed messages. You have said that we need to just stare at the numbers, and look at precogmile's results. So is this precognition or a system? because you also talk about results conforming to maths and science laws.

here joe to save you the trouble...a basic rolling 37 spin excel sheet
Nice! Thanks 6th. :)
I was going to roll my own but this will save me the trouble.

here joe to save you the trouble...a basic rolling 37 spin excel sheet
http://www.mediafire.com/file/pwofbx2zy5onqla/37__Rolling_Waves.xlsx/file
just hit f9 for a new set of 1000 numbers...the max and lows of everything is there spin by spin or just import your own numbers...
winkel is nothing do with Cht..i already told you this is an example to look at to get by the basic odds and combine probabilities with expectation

Ok, but you're sending mixed messages. You have said that we need to just stare at the numbers, and look at precogmile's results. So is this precognition or a system? because you also talk about results conforming to maths and science laws.
The reference to precogman is a joke. :xd:
He has posted good results using his precog methods hasn't he ?
He's the topgun of this forum. :thumbsup:
Now back to that bolded part, it's exactly what I do to place 37units after the last spin for every spin.
I wrote a post describing in detail.
There is no possibility I know what numbers are unhit, hit and peaters.
I also wrote a post to explain that red black, odd even and so on labels are also useless to help the bettor.
Pls read my posts else I have to repeat them again and again.
My concentration is to make sure I place the 37units bet on the correct numbers inside the betting window.
Can you picture this in your mind now?

The reference to precogman is a joke. :xd:
He has posted good results using his precog methods hasn't he ?
He's the topgun of this forum. :thumbsup:
Now back to that bolded part, it's exactly what I do to place 37units after the last spin for every spin.
I wrote a post describing in detail.
There is no possibility I know what numbers are unhit, hit and peaters.
I also wrote a post to explain that red black, odd even and so on labels are also useless to help the bettor.
Pls read my posts else I have to repeat them again and again.
My concentration is to make sure I place the 37units bet on the correct numbers inside the betting window.
Can you picture this in your mind now?
Non guardi EC, guardi LOTT , ma senza programmi...Guardi solo l'ultimo numero, non sai e non ti interessa sapere unhits ecc ecc
A me sembra un rompicapo...guardare solo un numero, ma c'entra la legge del terzo. MHA !!

here joe to save you the trouble...a basic rolling 37 spin excel sheet
http://www.mediafire.com/file/pwofbx2zy5onqla/37__Rolling_Waves.xlsx/file
Why aren't the numbers on the right dynamic?

Can you picture this in your mind now?
Not really. You continually stress the importance of the LOTT but at the same time you say that : There is no possibility I know what numbers are unhit, hit and peaters. But this is exactly what the LOTT is about. If you don't make use of that information what is guiding the next bet? Winkel seemed to know the answer but you dismiss his post as being irrelevant. Now I'm just confused.
I'm trying to pretend that I don't know spins are independent, but please go easy on the contradictions. There's only so many I can take in a day, lol.

Why aren't the numbers on the right dynamic?
This is just a basic rolling 37 not the streams tracker
You can post yours if you want or email it me 🤪 ..nice to see you posting again

Not really. You continually stress the importance of the LOTT but at the same time you say that : There is no possibility I know what numbers are unhit, hit and peaters. But this is exactly what the LOTT is about. If you don't make use of that information what is guiding the next bet? Winkel seemed to know the answer but you dismiss his post as being irrelevant. Now I'm just confused.
The Lott frequency distribution after 37spins history is painted by the last 37spins with the unhits, hits and peaters that happened in the last 37spins.
Everyone by now should understand that there's no magic in the unhits, hits and peaters that can help you predict the outcome of the LOTT frequency distribution of the next 37spins.
There's no math or science explanation to back up this assumption. ZERO
This is the minimum you get from my posts.
Now read carefully word by word what I write below.
The spin history of the last 37spins will point to the LOTT distribution of the next 37spins.
Played another 3 sessions, this time I run the 37spins through a analysis tracker, start session when spins are optimal.
Won the 300units bankroll easily.
This time I post the charts of each session and the numbers for you to see.
I am certain, no one has posted such thing of flatbet on any forum before.
I remove the account name so no one can access.

Not really. You continually stress the importance of the LOTT but at the same time you say that : There is no possibility I know what numbers are unhit, hit and peaters. But this is exactly what the LOTT is about. If you don't make use of that information what is guiding the next bet? Winkel seemed to know the answer but you dismiss his post as being irrelevant. Now I'm just confused.
I'm trying to pretend that I don't know spins are independent, but please go easy on the contradictions. There's only so many I can take in a day, lol.
And I had to respond to your post on the other thread.
Yet I can play this 3sessions at the same time and made all these posts with pics attached.
Do you realise how easy to identify the high probability numbers to place those 37units winning bets spin by spin ?
The casino can hardly take my chips eventhough I place 37units bets every spin.8):
I give you the easier answer, photoshop :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Or hack rsim website.
Cook up whatever excuse you may think of. >:D
Ok I have to post 1million spins. :thumbsup:
Wait for it in your next life. :xd:

The spin history of the last 37spins will point to the LOTT distribution of the next 37spins.
Ok, so the spin history of the last 37 IS important, but it's not the LOTT distribution of the last 37 which points to the LOTT distribution of the NEXT 37, right? So all I have to do is figure out which aspect of the spin history is the pointer.
Well, there are literally thousands of ways you can analyze the last 37 spins. Any more clues? otherwise it's going to be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Just so we're on the same page, I assume by LOTT distribution you mean the numbers which didn't hit, hit once, and repeated, together with their frequencies, right?

Do you realise how easy to identify the high probability numbers to place those 37units winning bets spin by spin ?
No, lol.

If it has a drawdown greater than 1 it’s too risky for my blood. >:D

This is just a basic rolling 37 not the streams tracker
You can post yours if you want or email it me 🤪 ..nice to see you posting again
You too, man. Hope all is well in your world.

Well, there are literally thousands of ways you can analyze the last 37 spins. Any more clues?
I wrote about understanding LOTT frequency distribution, 2LoTD, Markov chains and posted a few videos. I wrote I adapted concepts from them. It's up to each individual what they do.
otherwise it's going to be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Just so we're on the same page, I assume by LOTT distribution you mean the numbers which didn't hit, hit once, and repeated, together with their frequencies, right?
Lott frequency distribution of the last 37spins, I am not interested. I use only the history numbers to identify high probability pockets that will form the Lott distribution of the next 37spins.
I give you the obvious explanation.
I'm a time traveller, mutant. :xd:

I am a kind person, those who do the work that I give on this forum, open YOUR EYES that you can SEE. I have given the bet.
Like I said some unknown guy in this world helped me, now I help someone else out there.

You too, man. Hope all is well in your world.
Has had its ups and downs and few relatives falling victim to the covid and passed away..
But all is well..
Not seen a thread by an op take off in the way it has without anything from the op..
It’s like a a Chris Eubank and a Nigel Ben fight In here ..With lots of spectators..
My money is on Cht the underdog

Has had its ups and downs and few relatives falling victim to the covid and passed away..
But all is well..
Not seen a thread by an op take off in the way it has without anything from the op..
It’s like a a Chris Eubank and a Nigel Ben fight In here ..With lots of spectators..
My money is on Cht the underdog
Richard Steele had to stop the fight. :xd: :xd: :xd:

Ok I have to post 1million spins.
No, but for your sake I hope you test the system over at least several thousand. Betting 18 numbers shouldn't take too many spins to lose, if it's a longrun loser.

No, but for your sake I hope you test the system over at least several thousand. Betting 18 numbers shouldn't take too many spins to lose, if it's a longrun loser.
Ofc I have tested over thousands of bets.
That bolded part is what everyone should read for education.
If the systems bet is a mechanical rules even chance flatbet, especially if the design is based on math and/or science the test population is required is say 10thousand bets.

So what is the edge? By this formula:
Edge = Profit / Total Staked

So what is the edge? By this formula:
Edge = Profit / Total Staked
Total units won in 10thousand bets/total units staked(37*10000=37000units)
Is it correct?

Has had its ups and downs and few relatives falling victim to the covid and passed away..
But all is well..
Not seen a thread by an op take off in the way it has without anything from the op..
It’s like a a Chris Eubank and a Nigel Ben fight In here ..With lots of spectators..
My money is on Cht the underdog
Really sorry to hear that. What a world.

So what is the edge? By this formula:
Edge = Profit / Total Staked
Session1 profit = 89units
Session2 profit = 100units
Session3 profit = 114units
Total profit = 303units
Session1 = 29bets x 37units = 1073units
Session2 = 8bets x 37units = 296units
Session3 = 19bets x 37units = 703units
Total Staked = 1073+296+703 = 2072units
Edge = 303/2072 *100 = 14.6%

Session1 profit = 89units
Session2 profit = 100units
Session3 profit = 114units
Total profit = 303units
Session1 = 29bets x 37units = 1073units
Session2 = 8bets x 37units = 296units
Session3 = 19bets x 37units = 703units
Total Staked = 1073+296+703 = 2072units
Edge = 303/2072 *100 = 14.6%
Session1 edge = 89/1073 = 8.3%
Session2 edge = 100/296 = 33.8%
Session3 edge = 114/703 = 16.2%
Good to learn math from Joe :thumbsup:

So what is the edge? By this formula:
Edge = Profit / Total Staked
Joe, casino House Edge is 2.7%
If my betselection gives net 10% edge then my betselection edge is 5times larger than the casino he, correct? :love:
Quite sure larger than blackjack card counter's edge.

Much better than your ichimoku cloud strategy :thumbsup:

I've got news for you. More and more people are getting very close to 2 to 1 win to loss ratios from Reading Randomness and playing on my practice software. They are even using my simple "New Chart" software for live play on online casinos. I use lined index cards and an ink pen at B&M casinos. So are others. Just so you know. After 100's of games and no progressions players are winning twice as much as they lose on average. That obliterates the so called house edge and dismantles the accepted notions of math based probability predictions. The gang is rising slowly. Can't stop it now. It will be out of my hands as it spreads. Do me a big favor if you are a mathZombie and be too late to the party.
It's one thing if I am the only one that can do this and to display the skills. It's entirely another if many people become skillful at it and they don't care what others think.

Much better than your ichimoku cloud strategy :thumbsup:
Yea, you remind me of the first ichi cloud plus bollinger band strategy.
Complete with MACD histogram.
Worlds first of it's kind. :thumbsup:
Can't use these stuff in b&m casino.
Perhaps I should earn some money sell all these creations to online gamblers. >:D
What say you USD50 a piece for the work and research ? :question:
Complete position stream tracker for all outside bets and straight numbers.

That's awesome. I could geek out with you anytime on all this.

Much better than your ichimoku cloud strategy :thumbsup:
For ichi cloud strategy, I have to charge a lot more because the complete package includes a course in ichimoku that can be used for forex trading which is a must have knowledge to use the cloud excel sheet for roulette. That means the knowledge can be used in fx trading as well. That cost a lot of money bro. >:D

That's awesome. I could geek out with you anytime on all this.
Look at the pic I posted, it should be easy for you to construct the cloud and overlay with the BBand.
MADC histo is also not difficult to construct.
This gives a complete visual with fx indicators to view the roulette spins.
Good for those playing trend following or return to the mean strategy.
One chart for one EC.

Yes, mine is much more simple.
(http://<img src="https://i.ibb.co/0K6N7sF/ScreenShot20200831at113502AM.png" alt="ScreenShot20200831at113502AM" border="0">)

img not working
(https://i.ibb.co/0K6N7sF/ScreenShot20200831at113502AM.png) (https://ibb.co/C6YdcPM)

img not working
(https://i.ibb.co/0K6N7sF/ScreenShot20200831at113502AM.png) (https://ibb.co/C6YdcPM)
Sell when it pokes into the cloud the 2nd time spin 98 at the zero line resistance zone and hold your bet.
It's so easy to bet with this tool. :thumbsup:
I can't figure out why there's no discussion on roulette forums about this? :question:
There's one catch about this method, you must load a history of 82 spins before the cloud paints.

I've got news for you. More and more people are getting very close to 2 to 1 win to loss ratios from Reading Randomness and playing on my practice software. They are even using my simple "New Chart" software for live play on online casinos. I use lined index cards and an ink pen at B&M casinos. So are others. Just so you know. After 100's of games and no progressions players are winning twice as much as they lose on average. That obliterates the so called house edge and dismantles the accepted notions of math based probability predictions. The gang is rising slowly. Can't stop it now. It will be out of my hands as it spreads. Do me a big favor if you are a mathZombie and be too late to the party.
It's one thing if I am the only one that can do this and to display the skills. It's entirely another if many people become skillful at it and they don't care what others think.
Oh for the love of...
Alas, such coincidence everyone comes out of the woodwork to converge here atm. I give you credit for their inspiration though.

For ichi cloud strategy, I have to charge a lot more because the complete package includes a course in ichimoku that can be used for forex trading which is a must have knowledge to use the cloud excel sheet for roulette. That means the knowledge can be used in fx trading as well. That cost a lot of money bro. >:D
Isn't everyone an expert in the speculating market?
And by that I don't mean you at all and I don't mean expert.
YouTube has got tons of those. I get there ads every single time. Makes perfect sense to garner pennies on the dollar selling courses to people rather then make a killing for yourself.

@ cht, how many bets have you made and how many of them won? You always bet 18 numbers, right?

@ cht, how many bets have you made and how many of them won? You always bet 18 numbers, right?
56bets, 21wins, 24breakeven and 11loss
Every bet 37units, win +35, breakeven  1, loss  37

I thought you said you've made thousands of bets? I'm talking about ALL bets made using your system since you started testing it. With the following information I can tell you how likely it is that the results are just luck. I need :
Total number of BETS made.
Total number of BETS won.
How many numbers bet per spin (if this varies, then an average will do).

I thought you said you've made thousands of bets? I'm talking about ALL bets made using your system since you started testing it. With the following information I can tell you how likely it is that the results are just luck. I need :
Total number of BETS made.
Total number of BETS won.
How many numbers bet per spin (if this varies, then an average will do).
I added all the test files from different sources.
Total bets made 4121
Total bets won 1478
Average numbers per bet 18.
1478win, 1773breakeven, 870loss, 4121 total bets

Alas, such coincidence everyone comes out of the woodwork to converge here atm. I give you credit for their inspiration though.
Actually there is some more activity at the teaching thread on the other forum. Some guy with 20 years gambling experience is giving it a try and has already reached 2 to 1 win to loss ratio. He wins twice as much as he loses. I've never seen anyone do this well so fast and with so few of the characteristics. One person gave up publicly. The rest have succeeded. I guess they are keeping it to themselves. I wonder why. I mean if you found something that really works would you blab it all to the world? I can't say. But eventually it will begin to effect the casinos. I can wait. I knew this would be a very slow process.

I mean if you found something that really works would you blab it all to the world? I can't say. But eventually it will begin to effect the casinos. I can wait. I knew this would be a very slow process.
I wouldn't 8)

Actually there is some more activity at the teaching thread on the other forum. Some guy with 20 years gambling experience is giving it a try and has already reached 2 to 1 win to loss ratio. He wins twice as much as he loses. I've never seen anyone do this well so fast and with so few of the characteristics. One person gave up publicly. The rest have succeeded. I guess they are keeping it to themselves. I wonder why. I mean if you found something that really works would you blab it all to the world? I can't say. But eventually it will begin to effect the casinos. I can wait. I knew this would be a very slow process.
Let it go to your head why don't you. It was moreso a observation then anything.
Quit making numbers up as if this is some kind of numbers Olympics in the slums of a message board. Get a fing grip.

I wouldn't 8)
So.... Are there experts in the market?

So.... Are there experts in the market?
I have tracked few traders with live trades on FF, they know their stuff. :thumbsup:

But eventually it will begin to effect the casinos. I can wait. I knew this would be a very slow process.
I can't figure if your a former mental patient, a once scorned individual, or just an old guy taking one more shot at glory in a roundabout way.

I have tracked some traders with live trades on FF, they know their stuff. :thumbsup:
Everyone has an above average pp too on the internet...

I can't figure if your a former mental patient, a once scorned individual, or just an old guy taking one more shot at glory in a roundabout way.
I'm just a murder suspect looking for your address.

I'm just a murder suspect looking for your address.
Are you an anarchist? It's perfectly fine if you are.

Every bet 37units, win +35, breakeven  1, loss  37
[/quote]
Every bet 37 units, win +35, breakeven  1, loss  37
You are Betting 2 on 18 Numbers and 1 on 0
Number = 70 34 1 = 35
0 = 35 36  = 1
Lose on 1 Number = 37
The average for this Bet for 37 Spins is:
Win on 18#s = W18 x 35 = 630
L0 = L1 x 1 = 1
L 18#s = L18 x 37 = 666
TOTAL = 630 667 = 37
The average for your 18 Spins is relatively half of this.
This is a Losing Bet.
Your Bet Selection will have to be a little above 50% to make this a Winning Bet.
It seems like you are doing this.

Your Bet Selection will have to be a little above 50% to make this a Winning Bet.
It seems like you are doing this.
I can't reveal this part.
18 is an average number.
You can try figure out the exact betting number from the facts I posted and confirmed by the graphs. It's not difficult. That's why I wrote that I have revealed step1 in my earlier post, just not directly.

The bet it could be 1 on 0, 2 on twelve numbers and 1 on twelve numbers.

Turning into an MMA slugfest now lol..
Like the convergence on this thread..
Choose your tag team wisely
But it’s nothing to do with what gizmo is on about

just waiting for the babbling spaniard now to enter the cage :xd:

Where we are now is important to determine where we will be in the future. The now state can be used to predict the future state.
That's why we must only look at the now state. And not further backward.
Watch this video.

Makes perfect sense!

Quit making numbers up as if this is some kind of numbers Olympics in the slums of a message board. Get a fing grip.
I take you are the hall monitor handing out demerits? It must be so rewarding to have a command post to rule the day and the night.

Makes perfect sense!
maybe...just waiting for joe to get back on the stuff i gave him to work on...explanation and sheet as a theoritical model with actual payouts each spin to devise something as in
1 can you work the maths out for this...with the payouts changing...which are in front of you combined with the expectation of results where ever you are on a rolling basis..
2 is there something beyond this simple expectation...and more in depth
3 is it all voodoo..
4 simply bypass the 1/37 ...and collate previous states
5 answers on a postcode
6 is it all nonsense
a wheel has a frequency .. just download that tracker i gave...just post an answer..1..2..3..4...5...6..

I take you are the hall monitor handing out demerits? It must be so rewarding to have a command post to rule the day and the night.
I can say with good authority: you are a little cuckoo.
A little dab of honesty will do ya.

I don't place outside bets as hedge bets.
All bets are inside numbers 100%
[/quote]
Your past post stated that you don't place outside Bets, just inside Bets.
Then here in your rule #2 you place Even Chance Bets.
Rules for your random selection bets are,
1. Flatbet,
2. even chance bet,
3. Bet every spin.
4. continuous betting for 18spins per session,
5. 3 sessions,
6. account name  my54randombets

I don't place outside bets as hedge bets.
All bets are inside numbers 100%
Your past post stated that you don't place outside Bets, just inside Bets.
Then here in your rule #2 you place Even Chance Bets.
Rules for your random selection bets are,
1. Flatbet,
2. even chance bet,
3. Bet every spin.
4. continuous betting for 18spins per session,
5. 3 sessions,
6. account name  my54randombets
Even chance bet means the net effect of my inside bets produce a even chance payout as seen in the win and loss which is the same except for the extra zero. The graph confirms this.
I made a post to explain why even chance bet is a loser.

For the benefit of your betting, if you place bets on the following they are confirmed losers in the long run unless you use specific math methods to help you time* your selection,
1. Outside bets,
2. Unhits  sleepers,
3. Hits,
4. Peaters  hotties
All these bets are offered by the casino together with hot and cold numbers analysis. They are all losers.
*One way to time your even chance bet is the ichicloudroulette analysis I posted.

Timing the bets at optimal spin series that's analysed by specific software can significantly change the result.
If you compare the 10sessions in my first post and this latest 3sessions that starts based on the spin sequence analyser, you see a clear difference where the results hit profit target in shorter number of spins and the drawdowns are smaller.

This is a must watch video with the application of markov chain on roulette. The math is a little difficult to grasp but once you get the handle you can use it to calculate for your betting model to make better decisions.

This is a must watch video with the application of markov chain on roulette. The math is a little difficult to grasp but once you get the handle you can use it to calculate for your betting model to make better decisions.
First entropy, now Markov's?

First entropy, now Markov's?
2LoTD video is a lot more to chew.
Even Engineering students find it hot to handle.
This math and science discussion is way better than the usual voodoo systems and money management magic.

Total bets made 4121
Total bets won 1478
Average numbers per bet 18.
cht, something wrong here. With 1478 wins your average can't be 18, it must be less. Even assuming you have NO edge, the proportion equates to betting about 13 numbers. ie:
Win Rate = 1478/4121 = x/37
=> x = 1478 * 37/4121 = 13.27
But since you have an edge, the actual numbers bet must be less than this.

cht, something wrong here. With 1478 wins your average can't be 18, it must be less. Even assuming you have NO edge, the proportion equates to betting about 13 numbers. ie:
Win Rate = 1478/4121 = x/37
=> x = 1478 * 37/4121 = 13.27
But since you have an edge, the actual numbers bet must be less than this.
I don't know what's the correct answer for the variable you require.
https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244382#msg244382
Since according to your calculations must be less than 13 then let's assume the average is 12.
Base on the numbers provided is the result luck or there's a real edge?
Pls show the actual calculation.

Since according to your calculations must be less than 13 then let's assume the average is 12.
Ok, assuming 12 numbers bet, the theoretical proportion of wins should be 12/37 = 0.32432. The ACTUAL (observed) proportion is 1478/4121 = 0.35865. The question is, is the difference between these proportions statistically significant? You got a higher proportion than the expected value, but could it just be variance?
To find out you can do a Hypothesis test for one proportion. You can look up Hypothesis tests on youtube for details but the basic idea is that you assume your results are due to chance (this is called the 'Null Hypothesis'), and then do the test, which computes a probability. If this probability is very low (the convention is less than 5%), then you reject the Null Hypothesis, ie the the result is NOT due to luck, but something else (in this scenario, it means you probably do have an edge). The detailed calculations aren't important and are tedious, but there are lots of calculators online which do them. I picked one here :
https://www.scistat.com/statisticaltests/test_one_proportion.php#
These are the values I put in for your scenario :
(https://img.techpowerup.org/200901/screenshot.png)
In the results section it says that P = 0.6983, which is the probability that your result is due to chance. Since it's more than 5%, the result isn't significant.
So now you should be able to do your own tests using different values.

Ok, assuming 12 numbers bet, the theoretical proportion of wins should be 12/37 = 0.32432. The ACTUAL (observed) proportion is 1478/4121 = 0.35865. The question is, is the difference between these proportions statistically significant? You got a higher proportion than the expected value, but could it just be variance?
To find out you can do a Hypothesis test for one proportion. You can look up Hypothesis tests on youtube for details but the basic idea is that you assume your results are due to chance (this is called the 'Null Hypothesis'), and then do the test, which computes a probability. If this probability is very low (the convention is less than 5%), then you reject the Null Hypothesis, ie the the result is NOT due to luck, but something else (in this scenario, it means you probably do have an edge). The detailed calculations aren't important and are tedious, but there are lots of calculators online which do them. I picked one here :
https://www.scistat.com/statisticaltests/test_one_proportion.php#
These are the values I put in for your scenario :
(https://img.techpowerup.org/200901/screenshot.png)
In the results section it says that P = 0.6983, which is the probability that your result is due to chance. Since it's more than 5%, the result isn't significant.
So now you should be able to do your own tests using different values.
Thanks, learnt something here again. :thumbsup:
Now we know the result isn't significant.
Playing on tables with variance favouring the bets.
Too bad.

Ok, assuming 12 numbers bet, the theoretical proportion of wins should be 12/37 = 0.32432. The ACTUAL (observed) proportion is 1478/4121 = 0.35865. The question is, is the difference between these proportions statistically significant? You got a higher proportion than the expected value, but could it just be variance?
To find out you can do a Hypothesis test for one proportion. You can look up Hypothesis tests on youtube for details but the basic idea is that you assume your results are due to chance (this is called the 'Null Hypothesis'), and then do the test, which computes a probability. If this probability is very low (the convention is less than 5%), then you reject the Null Hypothesis, ie the the result is NOT due to luck, but something else (in this scenario, it means you probably do have an edge). The detailed calculations aren't important and are tedious, but there are lots of calculators online which do them. I picked one here :
https://www.scistat.com/statisticaltests/test_one_proportion.php#
These are the values I put in for your scenario :
(https://img.techpowerup.org/200901/screenshot.png)
In the results section it says that P = 0.6983, which is the probability that your result is due to chance. Since it's more than 5%, the result isn't significant.
So now you should be able to do your own tests using different values.
How to interprete zstatistic ?
How to interprete "95% CI of observed proportion" ?

All these bets are offered by the casino together with hot and cold numbers analysis. They are all losers.
Actually at times they are losers and winners. If you stay on them for a very long time then they are losers in the aggregate. If you defund them at times then they exist as losers without consequences. What is hard to believe in is an ability to chose when to defund them without a capability of a mathematical power of prediction. Since we know that you can't have a mathematical power of prediction you must use another form of prediction. I liken this to a kind of inertia. A pattern remains in motion until it doesn't. It's not acted on by an external force. It just stops. But while it is in motion it will display a process of continuing to be in motion. This inertia is an observable state. It will start and stop by no mathematical force applied to it. It's just coincidence, variance, or luck. Where is the computer app for that? What are the statistics on the observation of a continuing coincidence? The ability to chose when to fund a bet must be included in this style of gambling or there is some kind of mathematical heresy that dictates conditions that must happen. I say there is missing and undiscovered math.

The ability to chose when to fund a bet must be included in this style of gambling or there is some kind of mathematical heresy that dictates conditions that must happen. I say there is missing and undiscovered math.
This part I agree with you.
Systems betting falls under this hidden segment.
This missing and undiscovered math shouldn't stray too far from mainstream math.
It should provide the framework and guide to retain the structure.

I say there is missing and undiscovered math.
Eventually you mathBoyz will have to come to grips with the overwhelming reality that Reading Randomness exposes a flaw in the hypothesis of the absolutism of probability. The only evidence so far in favor of RR are the people that have publicly tried it. So far everyone that has tried it has come close to a 2 to 1 win to loss ration except one person from this forum. That person has admittedly explained that he prefers precognition, a form of ESP. And he went back to it. But I looked at his results too. They, for the most part, show a better than 1 to 1 ratio that is still supposed to be impossible with today's known probability predictions.
The number of people trying it, honestly trying to master these skills, is huge compared to more than a year ago. Before July of last year there were only two people that had mastered these skills. There appears to be from 6 to 10 more now that have publicly shown their results of trying it. I have no doubt that there are people that have worked on this in secret. As of this moment 108 people have downloaded the free to use practice software used for teaching and discussion. It is moving forward despite all the resistance and effort to cancel it by skeptics.

Systems betting falls under this hidden segment.
Reading Randomness is not a rule based system. It is a skill to watch for times when things are in a state of supporting upward results like in support and resistance changes in moving averages of stock pricing. It follows and speculates on waves of up and down conditions in bet selections that display upward motion before betting on them. It is nothing more than observation of current conditions. Perhaps there is math statistics for stock traders that buy and sell on moving averages found in stock charts? There might be controversial math that already exists for this? It would not surprise me that there is mathZombie absolutism in the stock trading world as well.

Eventually you mathBoyz will have to come to grips with the overwhelming reality that Reading Randomness exposes a flaw in the hypothesis of the absolutism of probability. The only evidence so far in favor of RR are the people that have publicly tried it. So far everyone that has tried it has come close to a 2 to 1 win to loss ration except one person from this forum. That person has admittedly explained that he prefers precognition, a form of ESP. And he went back to it. But I looked at his results too. They, for the most part, show a better than 1 to 1 ratio that is still supposed to be impossible with today's known probability predictions.
The number of people trying it, honestly trying to master these skills, is huge compared to more than a year ago. Before July of last year there were only two people that had mastered these skills. There appears to be from 6 to 10 more now that have publicly shown their results of trying it. I have no doubt that there are people that have worked on this in secret. As of this moment 108 people have downloaded the free to use practice software used for teaching and discussion. It is moving forward despite all the resistance and effort to cancel it by skeptics.
The mathboyz are correct about the known math.
In the absence of evidence that's all we can go on with.
We are merely searching for evidence if there's this hidden segment.
Ofc we saw enough evidence, that's why we have to approach this search the proper way based on math. Don't want to fool ourselves. Joe posted that test score calculator serves as a yardstick if the evidence we collated means something significant or not. That's the starting point on solid ground.
Anyway none of us are bothered with some undiscovered math.
Our purpose is to gain a edge over the wheel to make money.

Joe, lets assume this is the result.
What's the interpretation of this result ?
What's this zstatistic means ?
What does the last number mean ?

We are merely searching for evidence if there's this hidden segment.
Ofc we saw some evidence, that's why we have to approach this search the proper way based on math. Joe posted that test score serves as a yardstick if the evidence we collated means something significant or not. That's the starting point.
I use the same yardstick. I use the 1/37 or 1/38 principle to determinate the baseline value for expectations. If I bet 1000 spins on Red only I will get up and down moving average waves that slowly decline along an axes that is in correlation with the math for 1/37 by example. I must do better than that axis line. In fact I must do better than the break even line above it or the session is wasted. Yet, in the shorter runs I have several opportunities to quit while I'm ahead before falling below that axis point or break even point and remaining forever in a lost session condition. For me it is a consideration for conditions and selection of timing. I chose to quit while I'm ahead. These wave forms are indisputable. Because they exist they must be subject to some kind of math. We have actuary tables in car accident insurance. They use some kind of math for future unknown events. Perhaps they do have common sense when it comes to local activities? I know they do for theft of cars.

So to take this to the final understanding regarding a possible unknown math I must ask a simple question. What are the large number expectations for how many times or by how large waves occur above the break even points? If by example you graph 1 million spins all bet on Red at the same flat bet price. And then you select random entry points for starting your break even points, ( a new session for example, ) you then get (how many and by how much) waves that are above those starting points?
It's a simple process to demonstrate. Has this been discussed by gamblers at forums before? Are there large number statistics for this question already?

Video on zscore
Video on Confidence Interval

Reading Randomness is not a rule based system. It is a skill to watch for times when things are in a state of supporting upward results like in support and resistance changes in moving averages of stock pricing. It follows and speculates on waves of up and down conditions in bet selections that display upward motion before betting on them. It is nothing more than observation of current conditions. Perhaps there is math statistics for stock traders that buy and sell on moving averages found in stock charts? There might be controversial math that already exists for this? It would not surprise me that there is mathZombie absolutism in the stock trading world as well.
Here we go again with the arbitrary inflation of numbers. Again, my challenge is on the table yet you're afraid of this persona non grata.

Again, my challenge is on the table yet you're afraid of this persona non grata.
Your challenge is proving what an idiot you really are. You don't count. Your opinion of what I have shared with others doesn't matter. Those that try it out and see for themselves is all that matters. Their numbers are all that count. They have published what they have found. More will try it out. You can't persuade them. The proof is that they keep trying it out. They keep succeeding. You keep harping on your own perceptions. You are rapidly become irrelevant. You might want to change your name from Moxy to Oxy, like in Oxy Moron.

Your challenge is proving what an idiot you really are. You don't count. Your opinion of what I have shared with others doesn't matter. Those that try it out and see for themselves is all that matters. Their numbers are all that count. They have published what they have found. More will try it out. You can't persuade them. The proof is that they keep trying it out. They keep succeeding. You keep harping on your own perceptions. You are rapidly become irrelevant. You might want to change your name from Moxy to Oxy, like in Oxy Moron.
I can say with with complete confidence your numbers are off. Way off. Balls in your court, chief.

@ cht, good news!
I was in a hurry this morning when I posted and didn't notice the Confidence Interval value was a bit strange, and also, thinking about it, the Pvalue seemed too high for the difference in the proportions over the sample size, so I found another calculator site, which has given completely different results that seem much more plausible:
(https://img.techpowerup.org/200901/screenshot904.png)
Again, this is assuming you're betting 12 numbers. I will check them by doing manual calculations later, but I think they're reliable. These results are highly significant, statistically. :thumbsup:
The site is here :
https://www.medcalc.org/calc/test_one_proportion.php
Also I will explain CI and Zstatistic later too. Not enough time at the moment.

@ cht, good news!
I was in a hurry this morning when I posted and didn't notice the Confidence Interval value was a bit strange, and also, thinking about it, the Pvalue seemed too high for the difference in the proportions over the sample size, so I found another calculator site, which has given completely different results that seem much more plausible:
(https://img.techpowerup.org/200901/screenshot904.png)
Again, this is assuming you're betting 12 numbers. I will check them by doing manual calculations later, but I think they're reliable. These results are highly significant, statistically. :thumbsup:
The site is here :
https://www.medcalc.org/calc/test_one_proportion.php
Also I will explain CI and Zstatistic later too. Not enough time at the moment.
Ok, I have this funny feeling some numbers don't look right so I try play around with it.
It has to be 12 for the result to be as I explained earlier. Now I have some confidence that these selected number carry higher probability to hit identified at the last spin in the 37spins history. I explained the math principles with the posted videos.

I can say with with complete confidence your numbers are off.
Prove it.

@ cht, good news!
I was in a hurry this morning when I posted and didn't notice the Confidence Interval value was a bit strange, and also, thinking about it, the Pvalue seemed too high for the difference in the proportions over the sample size, so I found another calculator site, which has given completely different results that seem much more plausible:
(https://img.techpowerup.org/200901/screenshot904.png)
Again, this is assuming you're betting 12 numbers. I will check them by doing manual calculations later, but I think they're reliable. These results are highly significant, statistically. :thumbsup:
The site is here :
https://www.medcalc.org/calc/test_one_proportion.php
Also I will explain CI and Zstatistic later too. Not enough time at the moment.
The CI percentage may be a little low, I think. Not sure what's the acceptable threshold.

Prove it.
It's on like donkey kong. Where shall we meet?

It's on like donkey kong. Where shall we meet?
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I'll be right over. Where's a good place to eat. I love Asian food.

"The prevaiIing wisdom among gaming experts and mathematicians is that every tabIe decision (at games Iike rouIette or craps) is an independent event. The opposing view (that a number can be “due”) is derided as being a fooIish viewpoint and is referred to as the premise of the GambIer’s FaIIacy.
As it turns out, this socaIIed faIIacy is in itseIf faIse. The foIIowing are the in congruencies of this ‘independent events’ issue that the experts have not addressed:
At American RouIette, for exampIe:
Experts agree that every number has a 1 in 38 chance of appearing on the next spin.
This 1 in 38 chance is aIso known as that number’s statisticaI expectation.
If an entity has or takes on any kind of expectation, it ceases to be independent.
If these numericaI events did not have an inherent predictabiIity, there wouId be no way to assign a statisticaI expectation to them. And anything that has a predictabIe quaIity to it cannot be “independent.”
As Frank Barstow said in his book, Beat the Casino, “Dice and the wheeI are inanimate, but if their behavior were not subject to some governing force or principIe, sequences of 30 or more repeats might be commonpIace, and there couId be no games Iike craps or rouIette, because there wouId be no way of figuring probabiIities and odds.” This, of course, goes against the thinking and teachings of aII other gaming authors, but that, in itseIf, does not prove that statement to be wrong.
This truth becomes more cIear when one considers that the ‘independent events’ premise gaming experts embrace actuaIIy contradicts itseIf. TabIe resuIts at rouIette are in an ongoing state of conforming to their probabiIities, but anything that is truIy ‘independent’ does not conform. Many gaming authors contradict themseIves as weII, by advising their readers to hoId out for a specific tabIe condition (Iike the “fivecount” at craps).
But if aII tabIe resuIts were as independent as they cIaim, it wouId not make the sIightest difference when a pIayer pIaced his bets. Anything that occurred in the past wouId have no reIevance whatsoever.
Gaming authors, statisticians and math experts aII agree that the numbers wiII conform to the probabiIities given a Iarge enough sampIing. What they’re saying is that numbers conform in Iarge groups but not in smaII groups. Another contradiction.
An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group.
For Iack of a better expression, each number is a tiny part of a greater "conspiracy" that wiII uItimateIy reveaI itseIf as the triaIs accumuIate.
It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation. The ‘other guys’ wiII teII you that there is no cause; that the effect is the resuIt of wiIIyniIIy random chance that conforms through unabated coincidence! And the entire worId has been buying this iIIogicaI horsepuckey for a hundred years...
Truth is, these numbers are infIuenced by the equivaIent of a countdown that adjusts itseIf with every spin, which is programmed into the device itseIf. The more precise the manufacturing technique of that device, the more accurate (unbiased) the tabIe decisions wiII be.
How did so many experts arrive at such an erroneous concIusion? Their viewpoint rested IargeIy on the seemingIy incontrovertibIe argument that “the wheeI has no memory.” Hard to argue with that, because it does sound Iike the rantings of a madman to cIaim that the wheeI can remember what has happened, then compensate accordingIy.
That impIies that the wheeI possesses some form of inteIIigence! Ah, but what they overIook is the fact that man does possess the technoIogy to create a baIanced device that distributes the numbers evenIy. And that is aII the wheeI is doing when it performs this artificiaI “thinking” task that they aII say is impossibIe!
So, the rouIette wheeI does not actuaIIy ‘think’, but it lS constructed to perform the equivaIent task, insofar as the fair distribution of numbers is concerned. It was designed, through precision crafting, to produce numbers that match the probabiIities.
The iIIusion of memory is an inherent part of the construction. So, in effect, it does have a memory. In effect, it ‘knows’ when number 5 is underperforming, and, given enough time, it wiII compensate for that. It is seIfcorrecting.
This Iogic appIies to anything that has been formaIIy assigned a statisticaI expectation. At craps, the dice are precision ground to within 1/10,000th of an inch. The dice don’t need to have a memory to act as if they did; they are just doing what they were constructed to do.
The numbers that are generated wiII automaticaIIy pursue a state of baIance among themseIves. What this means is that a craps or rouIette number can be technicaIIy “due,” after aII. Its appearance may be sidetracked by an opposing trend, but that is just a temporary deIay of the inevitabIe.
WeII then, if these events are not independent, shouIdn’t gaming systems work? Not necessariIy. There are two forces at pIay: statisticaI propensity (the Iaw of averages), and trends. At times, these two work in concert with each other; at other times they cIash. But in any such contest, trends have the strategic advantage.
Think of statisticaI propensity as the underIying constant, which wiII frequentIy be disrupted by trends, which don’t take orders from anyone!
AII those experts, aII these years, have been wrong. And it took the 3qA, which defies expIanation by those same experts, to bring this new reaIity to Iight. This is the true reaIity. This is the one expIanation that wouId not cause the scientific community to stutter and grope for meaning when trying to expIain why the numbers do what they do."
[/b]

"The prevaiIing wisdom among gaming experts and mathematicians is that every tabIe decision (at games Iike rouIette or craps) is an independent event. The opposing view (that a number can be “due”) is derided as being a fooIish viewpoint and is referred to as the premise of the GambIer’s FaIIacy.
As it turns out, this socaIIed faIIacy is in itseIf faIse. The foIIowing are the in congruencies of this ‘independent events’ issue that the experts have not addressed:
At American RouIette, for exampIe:
Experts agree that every number has a 1 in 38 chance of appearing on the next spin.
This 1 in 38 chance is aIso known as that number’s statisticaI expectation.
If an entity has or takes on any kind of expectation, it ceases to be independent.
If these numericaI events did not have an inherent predictabiIity, there wouId be no way to assign a statisticaI expectation to them. And anything that has a predictabIe quaIity to it cannot be “independent.”
As Frank Barstow said in his book, Beat the Casino, “Dice and the wheeI are inanimate, but if their behavior were not subject to some governing force or principIe, sequences of 30 or more repeats might be commonpIace, and there couId be no games Iike craps or rouIette, because there wouId be no way of figuring probabiIities and odds.” This, of course, goes against the thinking and teachings of aII other gaming authors, but that, in itseIf, does not prove that statement to be wrong.
This truth becomes more cIear when one considers that the ‘independent events’ premise gaming experts embrace actuaIIy contradicts itseIf. TabIe resuIts at rouIette are in an ongoing state of conforming to their probabiIities, but anything that is truIy ‘independent’ does not conform. Many gaming authors contradict themseIves as weII, by advising their readers to hoId out for a specific tabIe condition (Iike the “fivecount” at craps).
But if aII tabIe resuIts were as independent as they cIaim, it wouId not make the sIightest difference when a pIayer pIaced his bets. Anything that occurred in the past wouId have no reIevance whatsoever.
Gaming authors, statisticians and math experts aII agree that the numbers wiII conform to the probabiIities given a Iarge enough sampIing. What they’re saying is that numbers conform in Iarge groups but not in smaII groups. Another contradiction.
An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group.
For Iack of a better expression, each number is a tiny part of a greater "conspiracy" that wiII uItimateIy reveaI itseIf as the triaIs accumuIate.
It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation. The ‘other guys’ wiII teII you that there is no cause; that the effect is the resuIt of wiIIyniIIy random chance that conforms through unabated coincidence! And the entire worId has been buying this iIIogicaI horsepuckey for a hundred years...
Truth is, these numbers are infIuenced by the equivaIent of a countdown that adjusts itseIf with every spin, which is programmed into the device itseIf. The more precise the manufacturing technique of that device, the more accurate (unbiased) the tabIe decisions wiII be.
How did so many experts arrive at such an erroneous concIusion? Their viewpoint rested IargeIy on the seemingIy incontrovertibIe argument that “the wheeI has no memory.” Hard to argue with that, because it does sound Iike the rantings of a madman to cIaim that the wheeI can remember what has happened, then compensate accordingIy.
That impIies that the wheeI possesses some form of inteIIigence! Ah, but what they overIook is the fact that man does possess the technoIogy to create a baIanced device that distributes the numbers evenIy. And that is aII the wheeI is doing when it performs this artificiaI “thinking” task that they aII say is impossibIe!
So, the rouIette wheeI does not actuaIIy ‘think’, but it lS constructed to perform the equivaIent task, insofar as the fair distribution of numbers is concerned. It was designed, through precision crafting, to produce numbers that match the probabiIities.
The iIIusion of memory is an inherent part of the construction. So, in effect, it does have a memory. In effect, it ‘knows’ when number 5 is underperforming, and, given enough time, it wiII compensate for that. It is seIfcorrecting.
This Iogic appIies to anything that has been formaIIy assigned a statisticaI expectation. At craps, the dice are precision ground to within 1/10,000th of an inch. The dice don’t need to have a memory to act as if they did; they are just doing what they were constructed to do.
The numbers that are generated wiII automaticaIIy pursue a state of baIance among themseIves. What this means is that a craps or rouIette number can be technicaIIy “due,” after aII. Its appearance may be sidetracked by an opposing trend, but that is just a temporary deIay of the inevitabIe.
WeII then, if these events are not independent, shouIdn’t gaming systems work? Not necessariIy. There are two forces at pIay: statisticaI propensity (the Iaw of averages), and trends. At times, these two work in concert with each other; at other times they cIash. But in any such contest, trends have the strategic advantage.
Think of statisticaI propensity as the underIying constant, which wiII frequentIy be disrupted by trends, which don’t take orders from anyone!
AII those experts, aII these years, have been wrong. And it took the 3qA, which defies expIanation by those same experts, to bring this new reaIity to Iight. This is the true reaIity. This is the one expIanation that wouId not cause the scientific community to stutter and grope for meaning when trying to expIain why the numbers do what they do."
[/b]
But why male models?

At times, these two work in concert with each other; at other times they cIash. But in any such contest, trends have the strategic advantage.
Think of statisticaI propensity as the underIying constant, which wiII frequentIy be disrupted by trends, which don’t take orders from anyone!
I think it's more important to focus on timing than on trying to figure out if trends work in concert with the law of averages or not.
So when is the sales pitch going to start?

"The prevaiIing wisdom among gaming experts and mathematicians is that every tabIe decision (at games Iike rouIette or craps) is an independent event. The opposing view (that a number can be “due”) is derided as being a fooIish viewpoint and is referred to as the premise of the GambIer’s FaIIacy.
As it turns out, this socaIIed faIIacy is in itseIf faIse. The foIIowing are the in congruencies of this ‘independent events’ issue that the experts have not addressed:
At American RouIette, for exampIe:
Experts agree that every number has a 1 in 38 chance of appearing on the next spin.
This 1 in 38 chance is aIso known as that number’s statisticaI expectation.
If an entity has or takes on any kind of expectation, it ceases to be independent.
If these numericaI events did not have an inherent predictabiIity, there wouId be no way to assign a statisticaI expectation to them. And anything that has a predictabIe quaIity to it cannot be “independent.”
As Frank Barstow said in his book, Beat the Casino, “Dice and the wheeI are inanimate, but if their behavior were not subject to some governing force or principIe, sequences of 30 or more repeats might be commonpIace, and there couId be no games Iike craps or rouIette, because there wouId be no way of figuring probabiIities and odds.” This, of course, goes against the thinking and teachings of aII other gaming authors, but that, in itseIf, does not prove that statement to be wrong.
This truth becomes more cIear when one considers that the ‘independent events’ premise gaming experts embrace actuaIIy contradicts itseIf. TabIe resuIts at rouIette are in an ongoing state of conforming to their probabiIities, but anything that is truIy ‘independent’ does not conform. Many gaming authors contradict themseIves as weII, by advising their readers to hoId out for a specific tabIe condition (Iike the “fivecount” at craps).
But if aII tabIe resuIts were as independent as they cIaim, it wouId not make the sIightest difference when a pIayer pIaced his bets. Anything that occurred in the past wouId have no reIevance whatsoever.
Gaming authors, statisticians and math experts aII agree that the numbers wiII conform to the probabiIities given a Iarge enough sampIing. What they’re saying is that numbers conform in Iarge groups but not in smaII groups. Another contradiction.
An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group.
For Iack of a better expression, each number is a tiny part of a greater "conspiracy" that wiII uItimateIy reveaI itseIf as the triaIs accumuIate.
It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation. The ‘other guys’ wiII teII you that there is no cause; that the effect is the resuIt of wiIIyniIIy random chance that conforms through unabated coincidence! And the entire worId has been buying this iIIogicaI horsepuckey for a hundred years...
Truth is, these numbers are infIuenced by the equivaIent of a countdown that adjusts itseIf with every spin, which is programmed into the device itseIf. The more precise the manufacturing technique of that device, the more accurate (unbiased) the tabIe decisions wiII be.
How did so many experts arrive at such an erroneous concIusion? Their viewpoint rested IargeIy on the seemingIy incontrovertibIe argument that “the wheeI has no memory.” Hard to argue with that, because it does sound Iike the rantings of a madman to cIaim that the wheeI can remember what has happened, then compensate accordingIy.
That impIies that the wheeI possesses some form of inteIIigence! Ah, but what they overIook is the fact that man does possess the technoIogy to create a baIanced device that distributes the numbers evenIy. And that is aII the wheeI is doing when it performs this artificiaI “thinking” task that they aII say is impossibIe!
So, the rouIette wheeI does not actuaIIy ‘think’, but it lS constructed to perform the equivaIent task, insofar as the fair distribution of numbers is concerned. It was designed, through precision crafting, to produce numbers that match the probabiIities.
The iIIusion of memory is an inherent part of the construction. So, in effect, it does have a memory. In effect, it ‘knows’ when number 5 is underperforming, and, given enough time, it wiII compensate for that. It is seIfcorrecting.
This Iogic appIies to anything that has been formaIIy assigned a statisticaI expectation. At craps, the dice are precision ground to within 1/10,000th of an inch. The dice don’t need to have a memory to act as if they did; they are just doing what they were constructed to do.
The numbers that are generated wiII automaticaIIy pursue a state of baIance among themseIves. What this means is that a craps or rouIette number can be technicaIIy “due,” after aII. Its appearance may be sidetracked by an opposing trend, but that is just a temporary deIay of the inevitabIe.
WeII then, if these events are not independent, shouIdn’t gaming systems work? Not necessariIy. There are two forces at pIay: statisticaI propensity (the Iaw of averages), and trends. At times, these two work in concert with each other; at other times they cIash. But in any such contest, trends have the strategic advantage.
Think of statisticaI propensity as the underIying constant, which wiII frequentIy be disrupted by trends, which don’t take orders from anyone!
AII those experts, aII these years, have been wrong. And it took the 3qA, which defies expIanation by those same experts, to bring this new reaIity to Iight. This is the true reaIity. This is the one expIanation that wouId not cause the scientific community to stutter and grope for meaning when trying to expIain why the numbers do what they do."
[/b]
My thoughts exactly. And why my betselection performs as it does, at a rate higher than the odds.
Joe's stat calculator shows the null hypothesis is rejected.
This means the results I posted of my typical sessions are not due to luck. That random betselection cannot produce similar results. That's the reason why I posted the rsim results with graphs of individual sessions.
Last important point, I place 37units inside bets by looking at the the updated to last spin 37spins history. This means my betselection is dependent on history spins.

My thoughts exactly. And why my betselection performs as it does, at a rate higher than the odds.
Joe's stat calculator shows the null hypothesis is rejected.
This means the results I posted of my typical sessions are not due to luck. That random betselection cannot produce similar results. That's the reason why I posted the rsim results with graphs of individual sessions.
Last important point, I place 37units inside bets by looking at the the updated to last spin 37spins history. This means my betselection is dependent on history spins.
Is there an after party?

I think it's more important to focus on timing than on trying to figure out if trends work in concert with the law of averages or not.
If during game, I take your roulette wheel and replace it with another, will you then have to start all over again, or maybe will you be able to continue your game as if nothing had happened..?

If during game, I take your roulette wheel and replace it with another, will you then have to start all over again, or maybe will you be able to continue your game as if nothing had happened..?
If any system bet can continue as if nothing happened then there is no need for history data.
Let me explain.
Let's say there are 10 roulette wheels arranged in a row that have spun 37spins.
Your question is,
If this single betselection that has no connection to any of those wheels,
And if the betselection is played exactly the same on all wheels, will these wheels yield the same winning result on average?
The answer has to be no.

If any system bet can continue as if nothing happened then there is no need for history data.
Let me explain.
Let's say there are 10 roulette wheels arranged in a row that have spun 37spins.
Your question is,
If this single betselection that has no connection to any of those wheels,
And if the betselection is played exactly the same on all wheels, will these wheels yield the same winning result on average?
The answer has to be no.
So does this mean that, in your opinion, this kind of historical data cannot be only the result of the "observer effect" ..?

So does this mean that, in your opinion, this kind of historical data cannot be only the result of the "observer effect" ..?
I believe this process of collating historical data followed by analysis has at no time interacted actively in the data generation.

That little essay by R.D. Ellison copy & pasted by Ares289 (Ellison?) is a masterclass in sophistry.
cht,
My thoughts exactly. And why my betselection performs as it does, at a rate higher than the odds.
But you agreed with my previous post when I said the fact that you don't see 'impossible' sequences has nothing to do with independence. Have you changed your mind already?
The main fallacy in Ellison's argument is the ambiguity of the terms 'independent', and 'expectation'. Some words have different meanings in different contexts, which the case here. In everyday discourse, the word 'independent' means 'free from control or outside authority', or 'having the power to do what it likes'. So, logically, if roulette events are independent, doesn't that mean that anything can happen at the table? But we don't see just anything happen; outcomes are predictable to some extent (at least in the longer term). Therefore (Ellison argues), roulette events are not independent. Same for 'expectation'. If something is 'expected', it must in a sense be 'due'. And if it's due, it makes no sense to say it's independent (in the sense just defined).
The problem is, these terms are not used in the same sense in the context of probability and statistics. In probability theory, 'independence' refers to statistical independence, which is defined as :
Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.
Or, more precisely, as
Two events A and B are independent if and only if their joint probability equals the product of their joint probabilities:
P(A & B) = P(A) * P(B)
There is nothing in either of these definitions which says anything about events being free from outside authority or being able to do what they like.
Similarly with expectation. What's 'expected' or 'due' in usual speech doesn't have the same meaning as mathematical expectation or 'expected value' in probability. The definition of expected value is purely mathematical (a weighted average) :
EV = x_{1}p_{1} + x_{2}p_{2} + x_{3}p_{3} + ... + x_{n}p_{n}
Where the xs are outcomes (values) and the ps are their corresponding probabilities.
So if you understand those terms as they're intended to taken in the context of roulette (as technical terms), Ellison's argument falls apart, because his entire thesis depends on their equivocation (ambiguity).
Then he talks about 'statistical pressure'. He's right of course that there has to be a cause, but the cause is the geometry and physics of the roulette 'system' as a whole, which includes all the physics relating to the wheel, ball, dealer and environment. It's the physical symmetries and regularities of the system which causes the corresponding regularities in the outcomes, not some nonsensical statistical pressure.
Don't fall for it guys. It's utter bullshit, but it probably helped to sell more of his books!

Joe's stat calculator shows the null hypothesis is rejected.
cht, yes it did. But you have to be careful. Although 4.7 standard deviations above the mean is a high zstatistic, it's still in within the interval of 'chance'. I would advise you to get more data. When you test and retest and try system after system for years on end (as I assume you've been doing ;)), eventually you're going to find what seems to be an amazing system, but in reality, you've just hit an exceptional run of positive variance. So I wouldn't go out and put a deposit on that Ferrari just yet. ;D

If during game, I take your roulette wheel and replace it with another, will you then have to start all over again, or maybe will you be able to continue your game as if nothing had happened..?
Every serious gambler will say Yes, if I play on 10 wheels it will be 10 different bet selections.

cht, yes it did. But you have to be careful. Although 4.7 standard deviations above the mean is a high zstatistic, it's still in within the interval of 'chance'. I would advise you to get more data. When you test and retest and try system after system for years on end (as I assume you've been doing ;)), eventually you're going to find what seems to be an amazing system, but in reality, you've just hit an exceptional run of positive variance. So I wouldn't go out and put a deposit on that Ferrari just yet. ;D
I agree with this. :thumbsup:
If you think a little further, it wouldn't be a problem for me to code this then test it with large live data ?
The ferrari has to wait.
More work ahead but the path is clear as daylight.
I have upgraded this betselection into multidimensional to make it transient in nature.
Ofc with the added complexity this bet has to be placed by a team of bettors or automated online bot.
So the casino will never suspect the bets were mathematical calculated because of the chaotic manner of the bets.
No way to reengineer the bets even if someone sees it.

If you think a little further, it wouldn't be a problem for me to code this then test it with large live data ?
coding a system and testing over a large number of spins is always recommended because it will remove all doubt. What irritates me is people who say their 'system' can't be coded (like Gizmo's reading randomness) because it isn't 'rulebased'. What a baloney festival that is! ;D
The exception is precognition (if you believe in it), but that's not really a system anyway.

coding a system and testing over a large number of spins is always recommended because it will remove all doubt. What irritates me is people who say their 'system' can't be coded (like Gizmo's reading randomness) because it isn't 'rulebased'. What a baloney festival that is! ;D
The exception is precognition (if you believe in it), but that's not really a system anyway.
You know by now that I code in excel.
I am bias towards fully mechanical rules based systems for any form of speculation, including gambling.
I don't think discretionary systems can sustain long run results.
Precognition, I have no opinion about something I have not spend any time with.
My comments will be useless.

That little essay by R.D. Ellison copy & pasted by Ares289 (Ellison?) is a masterclass in sophistry.
cht,
But you agreed with my previous post when I said the fact that you don't see 'impossible' sequences has nothing to do with independence. Have you changed your mind already?
No change of mind, I agree with you on this part.
I think what we disagree is the possibility of dependence.
Let me explain it this way.
If I adopt the stance of accepting complete independence then no systems bet works. History spins is useless to predict future spins. That's what math says. I am well aware of this.
However, if AP is the only way to win I will not look at roulette at all. I am not prepared to go down this rabbit hole. Not saying it doesn't work but I have no interest in this approach.
I am curious if there's any dependence so I explored and collated tons of data with all the voodoo systems posted by past Gurus on this forum. None of them work. Or least I could not find anything that work. My criteria has to be flatbet. Not some magic money management stuff that magically turns a losing bet into a winning bet. I don't believe in that i have my opinion about this which is math based that's related to variance which according to the math is unlimited which means risk of ruin is certain.
It's not an every day thing that someone can find such dependence characteristic. Yes I accept that the sample is small. That's where it stands now. Ofc I will be moving forward to remove this last stumbling block.
The main fallacy in Ellison's argument is the ambiguity of the terms 'independent', and 'expectation'. Some words have different meanings in different contexts, which the case here. In everyday discourse, the word 'independent' means 'free from control or outside authority', or 'having the power to do what it likes'. So, logically, if roulette events are independent, doesn't that mean that anything can happen at the table? But we don't see just anything happen; outcomes are predictable to some extent (at least in the longer term). Therefore (Ellison argues), roulette events are not independent. Same for 'expectation'. If something is 'expected', it must in a sense be 'due'. And if it's due, it makes no sense to say it's independent (in the sense just defined).
The problem is, these terms are not used in the same sense in the context of probability and statistics. In probability theory, 'independence' refers to statistical independence, which is defined as :
Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.
Or, more precisely, as
Two events A and B are independent if and only if their joint probability equals the product of their joint probabilities:
P(A & B) = P(A) * P(B)
There is nothing in either of these definitions which says anything about events being free from outside authority or being able to do what they like.
Similarly with expectation. What's 'expected' or 'due' in usual speech doesn't have the same meaning as mathematical expectation or 'expected value' in probability. The definition of expected value is purely mathematical (a weighted average) :
EV = x_{1}p_{1} + x_{2}p_{2} + x_{3}p_{3} + ... + x_{n}p_{n}
Where the xs are outcomes (values) and the ps are their corresponding probabilities.
So if you understand those terms as they're intended to taken in the context of roulette (as technical terms), Ellison's argument falls apart, because his entire thesis depends on their equivocation (ambiguity).
Then he talks about 'statistical pressure'. He's right of course that there has to be a cause, but the cause is the geometry and physics of the roulette 'system' as a whole, which includes all the physics relating to the wheel, ball, dealer and environment. It's the physical symmetries and regularities of the system which causes the corresponding regularities in the outcomes, not some nonsensical statistical pressure.
Don't fall for it guys. It's utter bullshit, but it probably helped to sell more of his books!

There is a difference between intuition and precognition.
If roulette can be beaten using a rule based system then all you would need is to play enough games until your subconscious learns those rules. This is well documented and demonstrated using the Iowa gambling task.
Again even a sophisticated enough AI using deep learning would be able to find the rules to beat roulette.
However, if roulette is truly a chaotic system then you need precognition, as in, some way of accessing nonlocal information. Unfortunately for skeptics the data is in support of precognition, but the scientific community has a philosophical and ideological bias against it, therefore the layman's judgement becomes clouded with confusion over a topic which is as clear as daylight for anyone who takes even a cursory glance at the evidence.

precog, nice video. It's a point I've made before regarding precognition; how do you know it's precognition you're using when your results can be explained by intuition, as demonstrated in the video?
But as you point out, intuition can only be the explanation if outcomes aren't random. And yes, we know roulette outcomes are not  when you take into account the physical variables (at least sometimes), buts stats on the same set of past numbers alone will usually show that outcomes ARE random. This need not be a contradiction because you're taking into account different factors in each case. Physical variables are causally related to the next outcome, past numbers alone are not.
The problem with your argument about the scientific community is that it's circular. Why is the evidence for precog not accepted by mainstream science? because of ideological bias; why is there ideological bias? because scientists say there is no evidence!
I'm not taking one side or the other, just saying. However, I don't believe there is any conspiracy of silence or a deliberate coverup, just that the scientific community has more rigorous standards of what constitutes evidence than the precognition community. And I think we should be thankful for that. That doesn't necessarily mean that precog is all bunk. There is strong evidence that some people can do it at least some of the time, but that's not nearly good enough to announce a new scientific law.

However, I don't believe there is any conspiracy of silence or a deliberate coverup, just that the scientific community has more rigorous standards of what constitutes evidence than the precognition community. And I think we should be thankful for that. That doesn't necessarily mean that precog is all bunk. There is strong evidence that some people can do it at least some of the time, but that's not nearly good enough to announce a new scientific law.
If precog community wants recognition then they must play by the rules of the scientific community. Does the evidence stand up to scrutiny? Are the experiments set up rigorous enough?
Instead of cry baby the better and only way forward is to measure up to the level of the science community to gain accreditation. Right now they aren't.

how do you know it's precognition you're using when your results can be explained by intuition, as demonstrated in the video?
This is because I get the same results on games other than roulette. There are tests that target precognition specifically, which I also score above average on. So therefore it makes sense to conclude it is in fact from precognition and not simply intuition
But as you point out, intuition can only be the explanation if outcomes aren't random. And yes, we know roulette outcomes are not  when you take into account the physical variables (at least sometimes), buts stats on the same set of past numbers alone will usually show that outcomes ARE random. This need not be a contradiction because you're taking into account different factors in each case. Physical variables are causally related to the next outcome, past numbers alone are not.
I agree, I've always maintained you can use physics to increase your accuracy.
The problem with your argument about the scientific community is that it's circular. Why is the evidence for precog not accepted by mainstream science? because of ideological bias; why is there ideological bias? because scientists say there is no evidence!
If you say so. But let me put it another way, let's assume the scientific community accepted precognition. Could you not see the Implications that would have for all forms of theoretical science. Funding for science would dry up overnight.
I don't believe it is a conspiracy just the cold hard facts of capitalism.
Watch from 1 hour 25mins onwards.
Listen to how to scientists that want to do real science are treated. If you do not tow the line expect to be ostracized.

If precog community wants recognition then they must play by the rules of the scientific community. Does the evidence stand up to scrutiny? Are the experiments set up rigorous enough?
Instead of cry baby the better and only way forward is to measure up to the level of the science community to gain accreditation. Right now they aren't.
If you have not done the research how can you make such a claim?

If you have not done the research how can you make such a claim?
I met a precognition gambler in the casino. I asked him if it works.
He said: Of course! Look just the 22 came in. I have written the 22 somewhere on my papers. (After a while of searching) Look here it is 22 on this piece of paper.
You can´t never proof by statistics that you method has done it or you thought you had preconited it.

If during game, I take your roulette wheel and replace it with another, will you then have to start all over again, or maybe will you be able to continue your game as if nothing had happened..?
I've actually conducted that experiment in large numbers using many different players. They don't know it because I kept it a secret. My practice software does not use the same selection method for American double zeros wheels as I once did years ago for European single zero wheels. I use to make up my custom sets and groups based on the same figure formation like spokes of the wheels for each wheel in use. But when I wrote the new EC version I didn't bother. They are the same groups and nearly the same sets. But the wheel configurations are completely different in sequence.
As I have suspected those that have chosen the double zero wheels to practice on are achieving very much the same results as those that play the single zero wheels. That's because the wheels are random. They are random enough that exchanging the wheels does not matter. The same goes for changing the dealers. It's all random enough to use Reading Randomness. The win streaks and the losing streaks still occur regularly. Sure, a changed pace by a rude dealer can change things if they intentionally rush you. But a crowded table prevents that no matter how fast they want to push players. So I don't get worried if they try to change the wheels. In fact the Native American casinos in California replace the order of the cards in the Roulette wheel slots every hour or so. It makes no difference to me. I just wait for the trends that are working as win streaks.

coding a system and testing over a large number of spins is always recommended because it will remove all doubt. What irritates me is people who say their 'system' can't be coded (like Gizmo's reading randomness) because it isn't 'rulebased'. What a baloney festival that is!
More Joe Blowisms. I said it could be coded if you want to write millions of lines of Object Oriented Programming algorithms. That means that if you were to "Hard Code" it this would take tens of millions of lines of codes.
I also made it clear that people are much easier to program and have higher brain function than AI because they can recognize a working pattern that has never been seen before. AI has to learn and remember these things. So RR can be rule based. It just won't work as well as people do. But I could write a version that only hunts for singles on the weak side and combined with virtual bets would beat Roulette in long run "Large Number" testing. I said that too JoeBlow. What irritates me about you is that you argue in pretend scenarios. You win all your straw man debates. You might want to try mustard on your baloney. The last thing I want to do is write that software because I'm still using RR. You creeps have not made me want to validate my abilities to the point of wrecking it all yet. So this slow rollout is working as expected. You are even doing your part to make it come of age slowly.
I'm surprised that you don't actually give it an honest try. I wonder if you have the kind of character it takes to be objective?

I'm surprised that you don't actually give it an honest try. I wonder if you have the kind of character it takes to be objective?
I agree with this.
Joe, it's only fair and right to test drive the system before you come to any rational and objective conclusion.
I don't subscribe to discretionary type systems bet that require live analysis and decision making. It's my choice similar to AP bets that I stand outside, and I have no opinion about them since they are not relevant like precog. They all fall under the same bunch of interactive live betting.

I don't subscribe to discretionary type systems bet that require live analysis and decision making. It's my choice similar to AP bets, but I have no opinion about them since they are not relevant like precog.
It's not that hard to be discretionary with Reading Randomness. You make a bet selection on every spin. You then watch to see if those selections are in a phase of being effective enough to put you in an at least upward grinding trend. Your skill is in choosing the quality of the effectiveness as it is currently occurring. If you like what you see you speculate and fund the next bet selection. So it's just a skill of watching how well you are seeing the working bet selection. I use trends & patterns because I can pick them out of a live play data chart using a skilled example of visual dexterity. I can instantly see the working bet selections if I were to place bets on them. It's fast. It's not a magical claim. It's just using real data as it occurs. I only bet on working trends. Do they end on the first try? Yes. But they don't all the time. In fact they end on the first try way less than 50/50 as independent events suggests that they should. Even if they did act 50/50 they still only swarm as a swarm of first try events seldom. And it makes my point completely too. You can know if you are in a swarm of first try losses. You then know the current conditions. You know to make funded bet selections or not.
So I'm curious to know what your opinion is as to if this is too difficult? Is looking for the working trends and checking for first try swarms too difficult a task to think about when playing at a game?

I said it could be coded if you want to write millions of lines of Object Oriented Programming algorithms. That means that if you were to "Hard Code" it this would take tens of millions of lines of codes.
I also made it clear that people are much easier to program and have higher brain function than AI because they can recognize a working pattern that has never been seen before.
gizmo, this is hogwash and you know it. If it's a case of recognizing patterns, then obviously your patterns are going to be different from mine, so it's not a case of betting on the 'right' patterns (ie, only certain patterns will continue and others will tend to be shorter).
You've said this yourself more than once, that the actual bet selection is irrelevant. And just the other day you said it's the oldest system in the book : bet big when things are going your way and small when they aren't. In fact a few months ago you actually congratulated me on being the first person to suggest a mechanical procedure for reading randomness. Track a large number of EC bet selections and monitor their performance. Rank them in terms of which are doing well, and pick the bet selection which is currently topranked. Update on a spinbyspin basis, and if you lose, bet the next best performing bet selection in the list. Rinse & Repeat.
This is a 100% mechanical system. And you can easily generate 100s or even thousands of bet selections for an EC. The algorithm is really simple.
So why don't you do it?

gizmo, this is hogwash and you know it. If it's a case of recognizing patterns, then obviously your patterns are going to be different from mine, so it's not a case of betting on the 'right' patterns (ie, only certain patterns will continue and others will tend to be shorter).
Stop trying to pass off an argument based on sophistry. You don't know what I have taught others. It's their different patterns that are beating you too. That's because they worked to get the skills. You haven't.

So why don't you do it?
You are an idiot Joe. I don't perform tricks for idiots. All you do is resist. You are not actually impressing anyone. Well, you are making the uninformed impression that you know without checking. Learn it or not. Nobody cares.

So why don't you do it?
Ok, so why haven't I written it? I could, but all the hot number and trending systems I've ever coded have failed; results are no better than betting randomly. Why should this be any different?
And what's more, if and when it fails you will tell me that it's because I've left it in the hands of a dumb algorithm and that I need to practice reading randomness, learning the effectiveness states, working patterns, etc. In other words, you will shake your head sadly and tell me that a mindless machine won't cut it.
But here's the contradiction about that : If you have learned through practice and experience which are the right decisions to make, you can catalog them and create a mechanical system, in which case you are no longer reading randomness; you have cracked randomness and the human element is no longer necessary because you have an algorithm. But if you don't yet have the algorithm, it means you're still in the research phase, so why would you bet for real money when you don't yet know the rules to follow?
IMO, insisting that a rulebased system won't work and only reading randomness will is just a copout. It's a way of simultaneously agreeing with the mathboyz (spins really are independent, and you're not trying to predict anything), and also the system junkies, because yes, there is a way to win at roulette after all!
This way you get to have your cake and eat it, and at the same time you're insulated from ever having to write a simulation (there are too many patterns! and anyway it can't be coded because it's a skill not an algorithm!)
You've been giving us the same old tripe for YEARS.

Joe, it's only fair and right to test drive the system before you come to any rational and objective conclusion.
I don't subscribe to discretionary type systems bet that require live analysis and decision making.
I have tried it. It's just a trending system like hundreds of others which don't work. And there is no room in a system for discretionary bets. Discretionary means using your best judgement, but either you have done the research and found that a bet selection or trigger or whatever works, or you haven't. If you have, then no judgement is needed because you have a rule, but if you haven't, then you're just guessing which is no better than betting randomly.
So either way, discretionary bets make no sense.

If any system bet can continue as if nothing happened then there is no need for history data.
Let me explain.
Let's say there are 10 roulette wheels arranged in a row that have spun 37spins.
Your question is,
If this single betselection that has no connection to any of those wheels,
And if the betselection is played exactly the same on all wheels, will these wheels yield the same winning result on average?
The answer has to be no.
😲

My thoughts exactly. And why my betselection performs as it does, at a rate higher than the odds.
This means the results I posted of my typical sessions are not due to luck. That random betselection cannot produce similar results. That's the reason why I posted the rsim results with graphs of individual sessions.
Last important point, I place 37units inside bets by looking at the the updated to last spin 37spins history. This means my betselection is dependent on history spins.
[/quote]
CHT, my friend, concerning the Graphs you posted on Aug. 27.
On your 38th Spin you have a Winning Bet of 35 and have a Total of +35
On your 42nd Spin you have a Winning Bet of 35 and have a Total of +103
Which means on the 39th40th41st Spins you won twice of 35 and one Loss of 37.
It was WWL or WLW or LWW.
The 38th Spin was 5, you Won, 5 was an UNHIT #.
The 39th Spin was 12, 12 was an UNHIT #.
The 40th Spin was 34, 34 was an UNHIT #.
The 41st Spin was 10, you Won, 10 was an UNHIT #.
The 42nd Spin was 3, you Won, 3 was an UNHIT #.
You Lost either the 39th, 40th, or 41st Spin. Too bad you didn’t choose all the UNHIT #s. After the 38th Spin there were 12 UNHIT numbers.
You said you leave the Unhit numbers alone, but you do Bet on them with the 18 numbers that you choose.
SLOPEZ007 started this merrygoround thread and never came back.
Oh, there’s LOTT giving out Even Distribution combining with 2LoTD (Cold number going into a Hot Number and a Hot Number going into a Cold Number, leaving Order to go into Disarray) with entropy, and Lo, going into a Markov Chain. A CONVOLUTED system indeed designed to find the proper Bet Selection. I’ve seen many using calculus, algebra, string theory, many with tricky math equations, all trying to make an EDUCATED GUESS at a Bet Selection. This one take the cake.
Now I do believe this Wins IN THE SHORT RUN. But there is no system where you Bet 37 units on 1819 numbers and Win CONSISTENTLY. I have a system which is a losing system but it wins 80% in the short run. Only lose 1 or 2 out of 5. I believe many Roulette Players on this Forum also have their pet systems that Win 70% to 80% in the short run.
CHT, my friend, your system is well thought out and will probably Win 70+% of the time IN THE SHORT RUN. So far I think you’ve been very fortunate.

My thoughts exactly. And why my betselection performs as it does, at a rate higher than the odds.
This means the results I posted of my typical sessions are not due to luck. That random betselection cannot produce similar results. That's the reason why I posted the rsim results with graphs of individual sessions.
Last important point, I place 37units inside bets by looking at the the updated to last spin 37spins history. This means my betselection is dependent on history spins.
CHT, my friend, concerning the Graphs you posted on Aug. 27.
On your 38th Spin you have a Winning Bet of 35 and have a Total of +35
On your 42nd Spin you have a Winning Bet of 35 and have a Total of +103
Which means on the 39th40th41st Spins you won twice of 35 and one Loss of 37.
It was WWL or WLW or LWW.
The 38th Spin was 5, you Won, 5 was an UNHIT #.
The 39th Spin was 12, 12 was an UNHIT #.
The 40th Spin was 34, 34 was an UNHIT #.
The 41st Spin was 10, you Won, 10 was an UNHIT #.
The 42nd Spin was 3, you Won, 3 was an UNHIT #.
You Lost either the 39th, 40th, or 41st Spin. Too bad you didn’t choose all the UNHIT #s. After the 38th Spin there were 12 UNHIT numbers.
You said you leave the Unhit numbers alone, but you do Bet on them with the 18 numbers that you choose.
SLOPEZ007 started this merrygoround thread and never came back.
Oh, there’s LOTT giving out Even Distribution combining with 2LoTD (Cold number going into a Hot Number and a Hot Number going into a Cold Number, leaving Order to go into Disarray) with entropy, and Lo, going into a Markov Chain. A CONVOLUTED system indeed designed to find the proper Bet Selection. I’ve seen many using calculus, algebra, string theory, many with tricky math equations, all trying to make an EDUCATED GUESS at a Bet Selection. This one take the cake.
Now I do believe this Wins IN THE SHORT RUN. But there is no system where you Bet 37 units on 1819 numbers and Win CONSISTENTLY. I have a system which is a losing system but it wins 80% in the short run. Only lose 1 or 2 out of 5. I believe many Roulette Players on this Forum also have their pet systems that Win 70% to 80% in the short run.
CHT, my friend, your system is well thought out and will probably Win 70+% of the time IN THE SHORT RUN. So far I think you’ve been very fortunate.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Read on why your opinion means nothing. Help yourself instead. Read my posts.
I am not here to sell anything.
I won't convince you.
I couldn't care less.
I post to tell you systems bettors that outside of maths and science you have zero chance to win. That's my main message. Joe is spot on correct with his math. And I only trust math, nothing else.
This is what the math calculator says.
I expected those numbers to confirm what I already know. The only weak number is Confidence Interval. I am fully aware of that. And taking this to the next level with big data.
https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244405#msg244405
You only saw a single dimension of this bet. I have expanded it into an array of multidimension. This means that a single 37spins history will generate multiple arrays of numbers with high probability. This result in a diversified portfolio betting for each spin reducing further the risk. Each of this array carries the same kind of outcome as the one I posted on forum.
All these requires coding to achieve this goal. That's the level I work at. No way to do this manually. The stuff on this forum is primitive. No reason for me to remain on this forum.

I leave you systems bettors with this design requirement for a systems bet with positive edge.
Good luck and goodbye
https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244177#msg244177

I leave you systems bettors with this design requirement for a systems bet with positive edge.
Good luck and goodbye
https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=27403.msg244177#msg244177
Why are you people so sensitive? Giz gets a conniption everytime someone responds. You threaten to leave.
Every one thinks I'm a fruitcake. And I'm still here.

Why are you people so sensitive? Giz gets a conniption everytime someone responds. You threaten to leave.
Every one thinks I'm a fruitcake. And I'm still here.
What purpose I remain here? :question:

What purpose I remain here? :question:
Stay the course. If you're right. You're lauded. If you're wrong, you admit you're wrong and everyone forgives you.
You've left off other projects before. No one called you out then. Sure this forum may come across as primitive but you are coming off snobbish asf where no one can critique you. Come on, Chief.

Giz gets a conniption everytime someone responds.
No I don't you demented jerk. I engage and try to answer all questions regarding Reading Randomness that are presented as actual efforts to understand what I'm presenting in my teaching sources. My responses to you are because you are not interested in learning. You are only interested in pestering & posturing. So I treat you like shit. Frankly you deserve it. You have proclaimed yourself expert while having never worked on it to find out if it works or not. You use BS like 1/37 and it's all written in stone. You challenge me to some symbolic dual yet you are afraid to discover the truth on your own. I'm an amusement toy for you. I hate the mathZombies and have done this to feed them a level of retribution that they will never forget. I let them spout all they want how wonderful they are with their 100% for sure opinions on what works and what does not. You without reservations refer to Reading Randomness as not possible to work. Yet others are still working on gaining the skills that make it work for them. There just are not enough of us to embarrass you yet. When it is validated you will have to go back 15 years and read how I toyed with you guys. You are my toy too.

No I don't you demented jerk. I engage and try to answer all questions regarding Reading Randomness that are presented as actual efforts to understand what I'm presenting in my teaching sources. My responses to you are because you are not interested in learning. You are only interested in pestering & posturing. So I treat you like shit. Frankly you deserve it. You have proclaimed yourself expert while having never worked on it to find out if it works or not. You use BS like 1/37 and it's all written in stone. You challenge me to some symbolic dual yet you are afraid to discover the truth on your own. I'm an amusement toy for you. I hate the mathZombies and have done this to feed them a level of retribution that they will never forget. I let them spout all they want how wonderful they are with their 100% for sure opinions on what works and what does not. You without reservations refer to Reading Randomness as not possible to work. Yet others are still working on gaining the skills that make it work for them. There just are not enough of us to embarrass you yet. When it is validated you will have to go back 15 years and read how I toyed with you guys. You are my toy too.
We're best buddies. You just don't know it yet.

At least you are not the most pretentious member anymore. That claim goes to Ares or whoever wrote that world's most boring preamble.
Jesus, can the author be anymore full of himself.

Wtaf is a Confidence Interval?
Forget that I just answered my own question. Not sure how to work it out though!

"If every tabIe game resuIt is an independent event, how can we ever expect any particuIar number to come up at aII? We can’t, because there wouId be nothing to stop the wheeI from seIecting a different number, every time. And yet, the same peopIe who say that these numericaI events are immacuIateIy independent, expect the numbers to conform with the probabiIities. But if such events were truIy independent, there wouId never be a moment, or even a sustained period, when any number couId be expected to show up.
There is a causative force that compeIs numericaI events to seek their Iegitimate pIace within their assigned probabiIities. Whether the dice or wheeI have a memory is irreIevant. The infIuence originates from the effects of statisticaI propensity, the authority that governs the probabiIities of random numericaI events.
The key to getting a cIear handIe on this Iies in seeing the difference between viewing tabIe decisions one at a time, or in groups. On a onebyone basis, it is true that there wiII never be a time when any number is mandated to appear or not appear. But even in a sampIing as smaII as 3000 spins, you wiII never see what might be regarded as a catastrophic deviation from the statisticaI expectation. There’s not an unbiased rouIette tabIe on earth that can make it through that many spins without our number 8 coming up at Ieast two or three dozen times times.
To understand why this is the case, one must know a IittIe something about the characteristics of the numbers that form the tabIe decisions at rouIette. Toward that end, Iet us Iook at the 15,000 actuaI casino spins, as they appear in Erick St. Germain’s RouIette System Tester. These spins are broken down into thirteen sessions in a SingIe Number Distribution Chart that appears at the end of the book. This chart shows how many times each of the 38 pIayabIe rouIette numbers came up in the course of thirteen groups of 1,140 documented spins apiece.
To get the baII roIIing, we wiII Iook at the occurrences of the number 7. In aII of the groups of 1,140 spins, the 7 came up at Ieast 25 times, but never more than 38 times. That averages out to an occurrence every 30 spins on the Iow end, and every 45.6 spins on the high end. What’s the average of those two figures? 37.8. That’s just twotenths away from the exact statisticaI expectation of 1 in 38.
Something is making that happen! Independent events are not that obedient or precise, particuIarIy in a sampIing that smaII.
But then, couId that just be a fIuke? Might we get a whoIe different set of resuIts from another one of those numbers? Let’s take a Iook at the entire group:
Taking aII 38 numbers into consideration, the Ieast number of times any number showed up was 16, and the most number of times was 50. This is a wider range, which accounts for the greater possibiIity of unconventionaI trends in a Iarger sampIing, but not one of the 38 numbers tried to escape from the corraI. Meaning, each one was compeIIed to show up a minimum number of times, but not too many times.
This is pretty much how the numbers faII in any group that size. Conformity with this pattern, by and Iarge, is as reIiabIe as a Swiss watch. You never know when a given number wiII appear, but at the end of the day, every number wiII have taken its turn in the spotIight. The numbers have not the incIination or the means to overIook the mathematics of statisticaI DESTINY.
If every gaming resuIt were truIy independent, then it wouId be possibIe for a rouIette tabIe to faiI to produce the number 7 in twenty miIIion consecutive spins, because there wouId be nothing to enforce that occurrence. But in the reaI worId, unIess the wheeI is biased, there is a 100 percent chance that won’t happen. Anyone who understands the numbers knows that an unbiased tabIe wouId never make it past the first thousand spins without a 7 coming up.
Assuming the above is true, the onIy IogicaI concIusion that can be drawn is that it is not possibIe for gaming resuIts to be truIy independent, for those resuIts are constantIy bending, however imperceptibIy, toward a state of perfect statisticaI baIance. To presume that this is nothing more than a persistent coincidence (that never stops occurring) is not a credibIe argument..."

SLOPEZ007 started this merrygoround thread and never came back.
Could've been Sergio Lopez.
Haunting forums...

Taking aII 38 numbers into consideration, the Ieast number of times any number showed up was 16, and the most number of times was 50. This is a wider range, which accounts for the greater possibiIity of unconventionaI trends in a Iarger sampIing, but not one of the 38 numbers tried to escape from the corraI. Meaning, each one was compeIIed to show up a minimum number of times, but not too many times.
Given enough spins, all numbers will appear less than 15 times and more than 45 times. It has to do with the bellshaped curve. Just give it enough spins. No law here, just normal distribution.
Here is a chart of 200 x 1140 spins, 38 nrs. It tells you how often a nr hits from 1050 times in 1140 spins.

Given enough spins, all numbers will appear less than 15 times and more than 45 times. It has to do with the bellshaped curve. Just give it enough spins. No law here, just normal distribution.
Here is a chart of 200 x 1140 spins, 38 nrs. It tells you how often a nr hits from 1050 times in 1140 spins.
Of course but what you wrote doesn't really change anything in the context of the whole that is discussed, because the key information resulting from this fragment is that: "not one of the 38 numbers tried to escape from the corral. Meaning, each one was compelled to show up a minimum number of times"

Of course but what you wrote doesn't really change anything in the context of the whole that is discussed, because the key information resulting from this fragment is that: "not one of the 38 numbers tried to escape from the corral. Meaning, each one was compelled to show up a minimum number of times"
Thanks, Captain Obvious!

Thanks, Captain Obvious!
Instead of thanking you can apologize on behalf of "Bigbroben" for the fact that I have to explain such obvious things! :thumbsup:

Even more obvious is the fact that the number of pockets on the wheel doesn't change between one spin and the next. ::)
And why are you spamming the forum with Ellison's garbage?
"If every tabIe game resuIt is an independent event, how can we ever expect any particuIar number to come up at aII? We can’t, because there wouId be nothing to stop the wheeI from seIecting a different number, every time. And yet, the same peopIe who say that these numericaI events are immacuIateIy independent, expect the numbers to conform with the probabiIities. But if such events were truIy independent, there wouId never be a moment, or even a sustained period, when any number couId be expected to show up.
The main fallacy in Ellison's argument is the ambiguity of the terms 'independent', and 'expectation'. Some words have different meanings in different contexts, which the case here. In everyday discourse, the word 'independent' means 'free from control or outside authority', or 'having the power to do what it likes'. So, logically, if roulette events are independent, doesn't that mean that anything can happen at the table? But we don't see just anything happen; outcomes are predictable to some extent (at least in the longer term). Therefore (Ellison argues), roulette events are not independent. Same for 'expectation'. If something is 'expected', it must in a sense be 'due'. And if it's due, it makes no sense to say it's independent (in the sense just defined).
The problem is, these terms are not used in the same sense in the context of probability and statistics. In probability theory, 'independence' refers to statistical independence, which is defined as :
Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.
Or, more precisely, as
Two events A and B are independent if and only if their joint probability equals the product of their joint probabilities:
P(A & B) = P(A) * P(B)
There is nothing in either of these definitions which says anything about events being free from outside authority or being able to do what they like. Because a distribution conforms to a pattern in the long run, does this mean that spins aren't independent? No. Because knowing what has occurred in the last 10, or 50, or 100 spins doesn't influence what will happen in the next 10, or 50 or 100. The distribution is predictable in the long run and as an aggregate but knowing the past order of spins will not help to predict the future order.
It's no good just knowing that the numbers will show up in the end. You have to know WHEN they will come, and that's what dependence means. Independence means that the 'triggers' don't work. Triggers are supposed to signal the imminent arrival of some event or set of numbers, but Ellison seems to think that just because outcomes conform to longrun probabilities it means the triggers work. In the first place, longrun probabilities are just that : they don't materialize in the short term (at least, not reliably). Secondly, probabilities are proportions, so they don't tell you how many in terms of absolute numbers. Thirdly, and most importantly for triggers, they say nothing about what order the spins will come in. So outcomes conforming to long run probabilities doesn't mean spins are dependent, in the sense that the triggers will work.
In aII of the groups of 1,140 spins, the 7 came up at Ieast 25 times, but never more than 38 times. That averages out to an occurrence every 30 spins on the Iow end, and every 45.6 spins on the high end. What’s the average of those two figures? 37.8. That’s just twotenths away from the exact statisticaI expectation of 1 in 38.
Something is making that happen! Independent events are not that obedient or precise, particuIarIy in a sampIing that smaII.
So what? Those averages won't help to predict what order the spins are going to come out in. And there is no 'law of small numbers'; that's the gambler's fallacy. The law of large numbers says that in the long run the proportion of number 7s will approach the theoretical value of 1/37. This is of no use whatsoever in predicting whether it will turn up in the next few spins, or even the next 100 spins.
And again, this is completely irrelevant to the concept of independence. Read the definitions I gave above; they involve TWO events A and B. What are the two events which Ellison is referring to? There is only one! For an example of nonindependence you have to define at least two events and state the relationship between them, but he hasn't even done that, so his example isn't even about independence, it's about probability and the law of large numbers, and distributions.

And again, this is completely irrelevant to the concept of independence. Read the definitions I gave above; they involve TWO events A and B. What are the two events which Ellison is referring to? There is only one! For an example of nonindependence you have to define at least two events and state the relationship between them, but he hasn't even done that, so his example isn't even about independence, it's about probability and the law of large numbers, and distributions.
Joe is spot on correct.
Triggers and due is nonsense.
Averages is nonsense.
Statistic count is history, also nonsense.
The WHEN question is the next spin and not more, followed by every other next spin.
Math wise it all comes down to this; events A and B
I avoided/ignored this part because you guys will be asking what is A and B.
That's why I have to disappear else some russian guy appears at my door with his AK37.>:D

Triggers and due is nonsense.
Averages is nonsense.
Statistic count is history, also nonsense.
What about the independence of something that is continuing to occur that can only continue to occur unless it has already been in a condition of continuing to occur? For that to be independent it must continue to occur.

gizmo, where are the events A and B in your question?
What about the independence of something
Ok, let's call this 'something' event A. What is event B? unless you specify B the question is meaningless. We all know events or patterns can continue to occur. The question is, does that pattern or event (A) correlate with some OTHER pattern or event (B). If it does, you have dependency, otherwise, you don't.
Actually, the event B could be the same as A, meaning that patterns tend to repeat. B need not be different than A.
What is the point of looking for your patterns if you don't know whether there is any correlation between it and what's coming next. You keep saying it's about tapping into coincidences, but if you have no way of filtering some patterns for others then you're going to be attacking any arbitrary pattern, and that can't result in any edge because the losing attempts will nullify the win streaks, such that the end result is the house edge.

What about the independence of something that is continuing to occur that can only continue to occur unless it has already been in a condition of continuing to occur? For that to be independent it must continue to occur.
Something is event A.
What is so special about event A?
You compared it to another something event, that's event B that somehow made event A special.
Why you seperate normal spins into event A and event B?
What's your reason for this separation?
How is event A related to event B?
You saw pecularity in the entire population of spins or you saw pecularity in the last 10spins?
If last 10spins, are you suggesting this last 10spins is a mirror into the future?
How deep into the future?
Recency bias.
Thousands of questions to ask about patterns. :question:
This relationship between eventA and B.
Start with the simplest and most immediate.
Definition.
What is eventA?
What's so special about eventA?
Answer = eventB
If eventB do not exist there's no eventA.
How does eventB make event A special?
Are you sure your imagination didn't fantasised about eventB that created fantasy eventA?
Apophenia and pareidolia is common.
How about cognitive bias?
Step by step and so on.....

Are you sure your imagination didn't fantasised about eventB that created fantasy eventA?
Apophenia and pareidolia is common.
Child's play.
Apophenia is the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena.
Pareidolia is the tendency for incorrect perception of a stimulus as an object, pattern or meaning known to the observer, such as seeing shapes in clouds, seeing faces in inanimate objects or abstract patterns, or hearing hidden messages in music. Pareidolia can be considered a subcategory of apophenia.
7 red numbers in a row is not an illusion or a figure formation that means something is due. But it is illusion to project meaning that these capabilities are implied in order to make an argument. That argument here is clearly sophistry.
Event (A) is 7 reds in a row. Event (B) is the unknown future before it occurs. If event (B) occurs as a red then Event (A) has performed a condition of continuation. If Event (B) occurs as Black or Green then this is not a condition of continuation. It is real data and not a perception of Apophenia or Pareidolia.
Event (A) can also be a partial sequence of 50 recent past spins where swarms of repeats larger than 4 in a row have been observed as real data. In these swarms of real data a formation of continuation has occurred in showing that although this formation structuring was not continuous in one grouping it was observable as being continuous somewhere simultaneously in the data tracking charts. Again this is real structuring and not the illusions of perceptions best defined as Apophenia or Pareidolia.
I prefer real data over fallacy, magical beliefs, or false perceptions of meaning that suggest an ability to predict outcomes. That goes for rule based mechanical systems that have no use for conditional awareness.

Gizmo, I found that post that I was talking about. This is what I said :
There is no standout pattern there in terms of R/B, but the win/loss trend is clearly up for that particular bet selection (12 wins out of 17 bets). You may be tracking a halfdozen other bet selections, but DBL is doing better than any of the others at this point, so you play it. When another bet selection is doing 'better', you switch to it.
And this was your reply :
Congratulations Joe. You are the first person in 14 years, including all the students, to see that the bet selection does not matter to this method and to illustrate it with your example. Now try to keep that a secret. I managed to get people to get pissed off about the trends while leaving the real truth right underneath their noses. You just blabbed it to the world.
This is the thread, and your reply is in the 2nd page, last post.
https://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=3306.15

So what's the big deal Joe? It's the results that matter. It's not the bet selection. Win streaks are streaks of wins not streaks of trends. I'm just saying that when trends are working they are also win streaks. There is a different point to be made.
Your quote: There is no standout pattern there in terms of R/B, but the win/loss trend is clearly up for that particular bet selection (12 wins out of 17 bets). You may be tracking a halfdozen other bet selections, but DBL is doing better than any of the others at this point, so you play it. When another bet selection is doing 'better', you switch to it.
This is reading randomness in its simplest form. Do you no longer believe it?

Quando un'altra selezione di scommesse sta andando "meglio", passi ad essa.
E quando un'altra selezione va meglio? Dopo che ha dato 4 spin di fila, dopo che ne ha dato 5? Quale si considera "meglio" ?
grazie

Una selezione sta andando meglio se ha più vittorie virtuali sullo stesso numero di giri di un'altra selezione.

Even more obvious is the fact that the number of pockets on the wheel doesn't change between one spin and the next. ::)
The number of pockets on the wheel is not a magical force forcing a particular result, and even if it were, it would only mean that then there would also be no "independence", so the conclusion from this is that the constant number of pockets DOES NOT in any way contradict the theory that says about the lack of complete independence of each individual event.
The main fallacy in Ellison's argument is the ambiguity of the terms 'independent', and 'expectation'. Some words have different meanings in different contexts, which the case here. In everyday discourse, the word 'independent' means 'free from control or outside authority', or 'having the power to do what it likes'.
The problem is only in your head because the word of INDEPENDENT doesn't change its meaning depending on the context (no matter what you say), so all you do is introduce unnecessary conceptual chaos without discovering anything new.
Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.
EXACTLY, so instead of misinterpret just learn the meaning of the word "IF", because used in this definition only indicates that everything written after it is only a form of ASSUMPTION and nothing more.
The distribution is predictable in the long run and as an aggregate but knowing the past order of spins will not help to predict the future order.
It is only your unfounded inference, which you are not able to prove in any way, besides, if something is "predictable in the long run", it only makes it possible to deduce that it must be ALSO predictable in the short run, just to a lesser degree.

This is my stand about this ongoing debate.
I know what the math says.
I also have evidence which says differently.
So which is correct from a theoretical standpoint?
I cannot deny the evidence before me.
At the same time I am not schooled well enough to explain for this dichotomy.
Can both coexist?
Based on most literature, no.
I have practically used this evidence
Beyond this line there's nothing further I can offer to be of value to move this forward.
Best to take a back seat as a spectator.

To Cht and anyone else who believes you can beat roulette by using a rule based system.
Stop trying too hard. It is not that complex.
If you honestly believe there is a rule based system which can beat roulette then just get someone to code an AI algorithm to play roulette. If it starts to win consistently then you can carry on your search since you now know there is a system which can win.
However, what you will find is that the AI won't be able to win. Simply because roulette outcomes are not based on any rules what so ever.
Roulette produces chaotic results, that is why systems fail.
How many more decades are system junkies going keep wasting before this simple concept goes into their heads? :question: :yawn: :yawn:
I can actually predict this one without any precognition. I predict this futile obsession with systems will never end until roulette as a game has ceased to exist.

This is my stand about this ongoing debate.
I know what the math says.
I also have evidence which says differently.
So which is correct from a theoretical standpoint?
I cannot deny the evidence before me.
At the same time I am not schooled well enough to explain for this dichotomy.
Can both coexist?
Based on most literature, no.
I have practically used this evidence
Beyond this line there's nothing further I can offer to be of value to move this forward.
Best to take a back seat as a spectator.
Would love a field trip report similar to those vegas message boards. I mean that's the meat and potatoes drama right there + casino chips porn. That is the point to all this, right?
Nothing really to gleam off of it but plain entertainment value. I also actually love the math geeks and the programmers having civil discourse for a change.
Cool beans.

To Cht and anyone else who believes you can beat roulette by using a rule based system.
Stop trying too hard. It is not that complex.
If you honestly believe there is a rule based system which can beat roulette then just get someone to code an AI algorithm to play roulette. If it starts to win consistently then you can carry on your search since you now know there is a system which can win.
However, what you will find is that the AI won't be able to win. Simply because roulette outcomes are not based on any rules what so ever.
Roulette produces chaotic results, that is why systems fail.
How many more decades are system junkies going keep wasting before this simple concept goes into their heads? :question: :yawn: :yawn:
I can actually predict this one without any precognition. I predict this futile obsession with systems will never end until roulette as a game has ceased to exist.
Which finger am I holding up?
Wrong. It's the thumbs up. You had a naughty thought, didn't you. So much for precog.

If you honestly believe there is a rule based system which can beat roulette then just get someone to code an AI algorithm to play roulette. If it starts to win consistently then you can carry on your search since you now know there is a system which can win.
And you are not aware that there are coders together with systems bettors hard at work behind the scene doing that?
Are you naive or stupid? :question:

And you are not aware that there are coders together with systems bettors hard at work behind the scene doing that?
Are you naive or stupid? :question:
Do you know any rich investors? Asking for Gizmo. He's too shy to ask.

Do you know any rich investors? Asking for Gizmo. He's too shy to ask.
Let me help
#BluewhalewantedforGizmoparty

Do you know any rich investors? Asking for Gizmo. He's too shy to ask.
I already went down that road. Did you get left out? It's really kind of fun. You get to dream big. You sure had better be ready though. It's really something when a total stranger gives you money. It's like in the movies. It's makes the story on you even more interesting. It happened to Ed Thorp who wrote 'Beat the Dealer' back in the early 60's.

I already went down that road. Did you get left out? It's really kind of fun. You get to dream big. You sure had better be ready though. It's really something when a total stranger gives you money. It's like in the movies. It's makes the story on you even more interesting. It happened to Ed Thorp who wrote 'Beat the Dealer' back in the early 60's.
🎶Dream a little dream. Dream dream dream.🎶

And you are not aware that there are coders together with systems bettors hard at work behind the scene doing that?
Are you naive or stupid? :question:
Forget about their amature attempts.
Casino's hire teams of professional data analysts who conduct these tests on a daily basis. It is their job!
Roulette is still available as a game. It is quite obvious why.
It is only for your own sanity that I advice you conduct the tests yourself so you can stop wasting your time with systems.
But as I predict, system junkies will never learn.

But as I predict, system junkies will never learn.
They learn. It's just part of the phases of growing as an experienced player. First it's the progressions. Next it's the magical thinking period. Then comes the Money Management systems period. If someone gets this far without giving up then they have learned what does not work. So to win they must evolve and try things that other gamblers have said would work. I settled on bet big when you are winning and bet small any other time. Some others have settled on ESP. Still others have settled on some form of physics based methodology. But Roulette is still there to entice the daring.

It is only for your own sanity that I advice you conduct the tests yourself so you can stop wasting your time with systems.
Who gives you the authority and the right to advice other people what to do and what not to do?

They learn. It's just part of the phases of growing as an experienced player. First it's the progressions. Next it's the magical thinking period. Then comes the Money Management systems period. If someone gets this far without giving up then they have learned what does not work. So to win they must evolve and try things that other gamblers have said would work. I settled on bet big when you are winning and bet small any other time. Some others have settled on ESP. Still others have settled on some form of physics based methodology. But Roulette is still there to entice the daring.
🎶Why cant we be friends? Why cant we be friends?🎶

🎶Why cant we be friends? Why cant we be friends?🎶
You know what they say in Washington DC?
They say if you want a friend, get a dog.

But as I predict, system junkies will never learn.
Are you aware how many systems betting ideas that were tested that ended tits up?
Ofc we learn, we learn the thousands upon thousands systems that don't work.
Are you aware how many times we gave up to admit that it's impossible to get around the math?
I was such a person. Me.
That's why I take the trouble to post what don't work. Not that these guys don't know. Just that when it comes from their kind it's easier for them to believe, I speak their language. Nothing new to them. Just a confirmation of what they already know.
I also post what might work. To direct their effort in the right place. I posted the math and science videos. Next question from them is, how? We don't get it.
Here's the further help I provide.
You have to think in terms of math and science. You must discard this attraction and addiction of fancy patterns. If you are still addicted to patterns with no basis it makes you a junkie.
Back to school. What math and science structures in the videos that can be adapted to roulette spin outcomes to guide your design? Test it if it works.
Example, 2LoTD on entropy.
What does entropy mean?
Do this entropy characteristic exist in roulette spins?
According to science that's the natural state of nature.
Do you recognise it?
Use your eyes and brain.
You're the expert who have honed your pattern recognition skills.
If I did it, so can you.
Step by step guys.
Small tiny step at a time. No hurry.
And don't assume nonsense that's not math and science again.
We all have been down that road a million times.
Don't make that mistake again.
That's junkie stuff and you know it.

MAYBE i understood, can i share here an example?

MAYBE i understood, can i share here an example?
No you shouldn't.
It's for your personal consumption.
You deserve it. :thumbsup:
There's enough info on this thread and my posts for those who are truly interested to help themselves.
I shared on this forum to help people like you.
The same way what others before us have helped us. Let's keep it this way.
I am happy to hear that someone benefitted that the earlier people and now my effort did not go to waste.
Cheers

No you shouldn't.
It's for your personal consumption.
You deserve it. :thumbsup:
There's enough info on this thread and my posts for those who are truly interested to help themselves.
I shared on this forum to help people like you.
The same way what others before us have helped us. Let's keep it this way.
I am happy to hear that someone benefitted that the earlier people and now my effort did not go to waste.
Cheers
Get out on field, Chief. What's left to do now?
Waiting for that Trip Report.

ares289, I'll respond to your comments one by one.
The number of pockets on the wheel is not a magical force forcing a particular result, and even if it were, it would only mean that then there would also be no "independence", so the conclusion from this is that the constant number of pockets DOES NOT in any way contradict the theory that says about the lack of complete independence of each individual event.
No, it's not a magical force, but if you're choosing your bets based on past numbers alone, and each number is equally likely from one spin to the next, why should past outcomes matter? You could say that it's an assumption that numbers are equally likely, but that's why I said 'past numbers alone'. In that case there is physical independence; there is no physical connection between successive spins, and where there is physical independence there is always statistical independence.
While it's true that you can't prove independence, there are lots of cases where it's intuitively obvious. I would argue that roulette is one such case because there is clearly no connection between one spin and the next, assuming normal conditions. But if it isn't intuitively obvious, there are statistical tests such as the Chisquare test for independence which you can use for any events A and B. If you can find a dependence between them and it's strong enough, you have your holy grail.
the lack of complete independence of each individual event.
Again, this is a poor understanding of 'independent'. An event cannot be independent on its own. You must always specify another event with respect to which the event is independent from, otherwise it has no meaning.
The problem is only in your head because the word of INDEPENDENT doesn't change its meaning depending on the context (no matter what you say), so all you do is introduce unnecessary conceptual chaos without discovering anything new.
Actually, I partly agree with you here in that I probably overemphasized the ambiguity of the word. The main fallacy isn't so much that there is a difference between 'independent' as used normally, and 'statistically independent' as used in the context of probability, but that Ellison has ignored (either intentionally or because he was careless) the fact that independence is a relation between two events. Nowhere in his article does he refer to this; he just talks about the single 'event' of outcomes conforming to a pattern or distribution:
If every tabIe game resuIt is an independent event, how can we ever expect any particuIar number to come up at aII? We can’t, because there wouId be nothing to stop the wheeI from seIecting a different number, every time. And yet, the same peopIe who say that these numericaI events are immacuIateIy independent, expect the numbers to conform with the probabiIities. But if such events were truIy independent, there wouId never be a moment, or even a sustained period, when any number couId be expected to show up.
It doesn't even make sense to say that 'If every table game result is an independent event', because independence is a relationship between two events. But on the other hand, if he said : 'if events A and B in roulette are independent, how can we expect any particular number to come up at all?', even though now the first part is correct, it makes the second part nonsense, because if A and B are independent, of course it doesn't stop any particular number coming up.
What he's actually talking about is The Law of Large Numbers, which he has conflated with independence. Outcomes conform to probabilities because of the LLN.
The Law of Large Numbers :
In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value and will tend to become closer to the expected value as more trials are performed.
(Wiki)
So Ellison seems to be making a valid point, but it's only because he has misinterpreted the concept of independence, and as a result has confused it with the law of large numbers. But these concepts don't depend on each other. Events A & B can be independent, meaning that there is no connection between A & B, and outcomes can also conform to probabilities in the long run.
Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.
EXACTLY, so instead of misinterpret just learn the meaning of the word "IF", because used in this definition only indicates that everything written after it is only a form of ASSUMPTION and nothing more.
No, 'if' doesn't indicate an assumption here, because the statement is a definition and could be written without using 'if'. e.g.
Two events being independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent means that the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.
Or as :
For two events to be independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent, the occurrence of one must not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.
The 'if' only separates the two parts of the definition, and the purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may not be very clear in terms of more familiar terms which are understood.
It is only your unfounded inference, which you are not able to prove in any way, besides, if something is "predictable in the long run", it only makes it possible to deduce that it must be ALSO predictable in the short run, just to a lesser degree.
No, not really. There is no law of small numbers.
It is important to remember that the law only applies (as the name indicates) when a large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).
(Wiki)
Ellison has used the fact that the LLN means you can 'predict' that a certain pattern or distribution will form in the long term to argue that this is really the same as saying that outcomes aren't independent. But it's a fallacious argument. The pattern isn't that you can predict the position of a certain outcome in a sequence (as would be the case if successive outcomes or events were dependent), but that you can predict the distribution of outcomes in a sufficiently large sample.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

ares289, I'll respond to your comments one by one.
No, it's not a magical force, but if you're choosing your bets based on past numbers alone, and each number is equally likely from one spin to the next, why should past outcomes matter? You could say that it's an assumption that numbers are equally likely, but that's why I said 'past numbers alone'. In that case there is physical independence; there is no physical connection between successive spins, and where there is physical independence there is always statistical independence.
Where there's physical independence can there be statistical dependence ? :question:
While it's true that you can't prove independence, there are lots of cases where it's intuitively obvious. I would argue that roulette is one such case because there is clearly no connection between one spin and the next, assuming normal conditions. But if it isn't intuitively obvious, there are statistical tests such as the Chisquare test for independence which you can use for any events A and B. If you can find a dependence between them and it's strong enough, you have your holy grail.
The evidence is out there. I "see" them in every spin.
The evidence contradicts what the math says as you wrote it.
That's the problem now.
So the only conclusion to bridge the 2 is the sample is not large enough.
So, this sample result from multiple sources is misleading.
What if we set aside this assuming a big data test remains consistent with this probe sample ? What next ? HG ?
Work has started in this direction.
I am confident since I recognise eventsA and B, and will know soon.
I want to be the first to know.

...
You could say that it's an assumption that numbers are equally likely, but that's why I said 'past numbers alone'. In that case there is physical independence; there is no physical connection between successive spins, and where there is physical independence there is always statistical independence.
Same Casino, same dealer, same wheel, same ball, same day, same guests.
Is that enough physical connection?
there are statistical tests such as the Chisquare test for independence which you can use for any events A and B.
You know that CHISqare is very very slow and it has to be an enormes deviation?

Same Casino, same dealer, same wheel, same ball, same day, same guests.
Is that enough physical connection?
Winkel, that's why I said past numbers alone. If you're not taking into account those physical variables you mention, why should they matter? System players generally look only at past numbers.
Even if you're an AP and take into account wheel speed etc, the dependence isn't between successive spins, it's between the initial conditions and where the ball lands. Event A = initial conditions, Event B = where ball lands. There is a physical connection there between A and B, but the events are with reference to the same spin.
Physically independent events are always statistically independent.

System players generally look only at past numbers.
You mean the systemplayers that you think are the "systemplayers"!
For me that is not true!

System players generally look only at past numbers.
Perhaps there should be another category of math&science nonAP players.
Earlier I also wrote at length that if the physical attributes are taken into account the outcome is more certain.
So far I posted results from rsim which is RNG and since I recognise eventsA and B easily I am able to recognise the spins are not optimal.

You mean the systemplayers that you think are the "systemplayers"!
For me that is not true!
Isn't your GUT system based on past numbers only?
You know that CHISqare is very very slow and it has to be an enormes deviation?
There are alternatives to ChiSq.

All this discussion about the independence of spins based on 37 slots is sort of a straw man argument. The Roulette wheel is nothing more than a mechanical machine that produces random outcomes. It is either fair or it is biased. But these days it is mostly fair.
So each spin has an equally good chance of selecting a random outcome. This process on its own is independent. But a sequence of spins can be a win streak or a losing streak. Are these streaks independent? Why would it be important to care if these kind of streaks were independent or not? I don't think it matters.
For an example in the next 100 spins I'm going to have three win streaks that last more than ten spins in a row in their respective sequences. I'm also going to have three or four losing streaks with similar duration. Do these outcomes depend on independence? I don't think they do. They are the cause and effect of bet selections and randomness. They could have been blind bet selections that came up with the exact same results.
Does independence prevent a player from seeing win or loss sequences? This question explodes in the minds of those that are sure that all spins are independent. They can't move to the idea that all streaks must be independent also. My past win streak is independent of my now occurring losing streak.
I make sense and you guys that insist that past spins don't matter are afraid to answer the questions that I have asked in these comments. Why do you always go silent when I make a valid argument that forces you to think beyond what you insist is the only possible meaning? Are there too many questions? Do you need them in a list of questions?

Isn't your GUT system based on past numbers only?
No, it isn´t

All this discussion about the independence of spins based on 37 slots is sort of a straw man argument. The Roulette wheel is nothing more than a mechanical machine that produces random outcomes. It is either fair or it is biased. But these days it is mostly fair.
Them are fighting words.

No, it's not a magical force, but if you're choosing your bets based on past numbers alone, and each number is equally likely from one spin to the next, why should past outcomes matter?
In the reality where we exist, there is no way that "each number is equally likely from one spin to the next" because ALL numbers are FORCED to strive towards a statistical balance, so in practice this means that every number that is a continuation of the distribution of numbers, must obey the rules prevailing in this reality, so this means that each such number is only part of a larger whole which in the final effect always must show a specific "picture", which in this case is the STATISTICAL BALANCE.
I would argue that roulette is one such case because there is clearly no connection between one spin and the next, assuming normal conditions.
The assertion that there no any connection between one spin and the next is illogical from a mathematical point of view, because all numbers must constantly strive to maintain a balance with each other, which may be disturbed ONLY temporarily, but in the end ALWAYS MUST BE A STATISTICAL BALANCE, which could not exist without this "dependence", because there is no effect without a cause. (Of course, this does not mean that the next spin will be depend on the previous spin, because in this case the connection between these two events will be only partial/indirect)
No, 'if' doesn't indicate an assumption here, because the statement is a definition and could be written without using 'if'. e.g.
Two events being independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent means that the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other.
You misunderstood me, the point was that IN THE CONTEXT we are talking about, this part of the text "the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other"  is only an ASSUMPTION, because it has never been proven, so if it does influence in any degree, it means that it CANNOT BE independent.
No, not really. There is no law of small numbers.
It doesn't matter, because in this case it is enough to use the method of deduction to reach the appropriate conclusions: "An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group."  "It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation."

In the reality where we exist, there is no way that "each number is equally likely from one spin to the next" because ALL numbers are FORCED to strive towards a statistical balance, so in practice this means that every number that is a continuation of the distribution of numbers, must obey the rules prevailing in this reality, so this means that each such number is only part of a larger whole which in the final effect always must show a specific "picture", which in this case is the STATISTICAL BALANCE.
So you're saying that the wheel somehow knows what numbers came up previously and adjusts future outcomes so the statistical balance is formed? It's an appealing thought, but what actually 'forces' the proportion in the long run to conform to balance isn't any mysterious force, but just the characteristics and properties of the physical system as a whole, and primarily the wheel. Because this is true, there is no necessity for balance at all, because if the wheel became biased for some reason, there would be no balance, which proves that it's the physical variables which cause the longrun pattern, not 'statistical pressure'.
The assertion that there no any connection between one spin and the next is illogical from a mathematical point of view, because all numbers must constantly strive to maintain a balance with each other, which may be disturbed ONLY temporarily, but in the end ALWAYS MUST BE A STATISTICAL BALANCE, which could not exist without this "dependence", because there is no effect without a cause. (Of course, this does not mean that the next spin will be depend on the previous spin, because in this case the connection between these two events will be only partial/indirect)
It's not mathematics which is at issue here, but physics, as I've already explained. Yes, there is no effect without a cause, and the cause of statistical BALANCE is primarily the symmetry of the wheel (the fact that it's unbiased). If the symmetry is removed, there will be no balance. Logically, then, what is the cause? The statistical 'pressure' must obey the physics, not the other way round.
You misunderstood me, the point was that IN THE CONTEXT we are talking about, this part of the text "the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other"  is only an ASSUMPTION, because it has never been proven, so if it does influence in any degree, it means that it CANNOT BE independent.
No, I don't think I misunderstood your previous post. The statement was a definition of independence, so it's beside the point to talk about proof. But since you mention it, are you saying that it has never been proven that spins are independent? It's actually been proven many many times. How many systems have been created which use triggers based on events A and B which are supposedly related, only to find that there is no connection at all, and that you might as well have bet a random set of numbers? Gambling forums are full of such systems.
Actually, what has never been proven is that there is any dependence, not independence.
It doesn't matter, because in this case it is enough to use the method of deduction to reach the appropriate conclusions: "An accumuIation of smaII groups wiII form a Iarge group; therefore, anything that appIies to a Iarge group wiII aIso appIy to a smaII group, in a smaIIer way. So, the statisticaI pressure for numbers to conform to their probabiIities wiII be feIt in aII numbers that form any smaII group, just as they do for a Iarge group."  "It comes down to this: in a controIIed environment that invokes a statisticaI certainty, there has to be a cause, and an effect. The effect is that the numbers conform to their statisticaI expectation."
Ok, so as I said in my previous post, Ellison is making the argument that spins aren't independent because outcomes conform to probabilities. But if there really was a 'law of small numbers', as you are suggesting, then he would be correct.
If outcomes conformed to their longrun probabilities in the short run (say 50 spins if playing the ECs), then you could easily make a fortune very quickly, because knowing that in 50 spins the probability of at least 20 reds is over 90%, you would only have to wait for say 35 spins with only 10 reds, then you would be overwhelmingly likely to make a flat bet profit in the next 15 spins. Therefore, this means that spins would be effectively dependent, because knowing that event A occurred, the probability of event B has changed.
The problem is, there are countless systems based on this kind of logic, and none of them work. There is a reason why 'The Law of Small Numbers' is called the gambler's fallacy, it's because there is no such thing. You can argue that what happens in the longrun must happen in the short run, to a 'lesser extent', but then you haven't really understood what 'the long run' means. Mathematically, it means infinity. Try simulating some events (like the one I suggested above) and see how many spins you need to get close to the theoretical probabilities. And realize that probabilities are proportions, they don't tell you anything about exactly how many reds or whatever will be in the next X spins, and they certainly can't tell you which ORDER the reds will come in.

No, I don't think I misunderstood your previous post. The statement was a definition of independence, so it's beside the point to talk about proof. But since you mention it, are you saying that it has never been proven that spins are independent? It's actually been proven many many times. How many systems have been created which use triggers based on events A and B which are supposedly related, only to find that there is no connection at all, and that you might as well have bet a random set of numbers? Gambling forums are full of such systems.
If there was 1 systems bet that work veteran members on forums would have found it.
Actually, what has never been proven is that there is any dependence, not independence.
Lots of claims, including mine, which can be separated into 2categories,
1. Claims with full details that can be tested, eh. John Legend, and
2. Claims with insufficient details that can't be properly tested.
ZERO proof.
If outcomes conformed to their longrun probabilities in the short run (say 50 spins if playing the ECs), then you could easily make a fortune very quickly, because knowing that in 50 spins the probability of at least 20 reds is over 90%, you would only have to wait for say 35 spins with only 10 reds, then you would be overwhelmingly likely to make a flat bet profit in the next 15 spins. Therefore, this means that spins would be effectively dependent, because knowing that event A occurred, the probability of event B has changed.
The problem is, there are countless systems based on this kind of logic, and none of them work.
There are plenty of competent rx and excel coders who have done the test.
Your bolded statement is true.
Armed with this fact, it's important that members understand what it means.
The chance of finding something that works is next to impossible.
The simple reason is the math of extra pocket(s) and unfair payout.
Modern wheels are built with precision to spit out unbiased spins. There's computerised monitoring of spins that detect deviation real time. The casino is first to know if that happens.
Many have paid the cost in terms of lost money, fortune, time, relationships trying to beat the wheel. Lives are lost. This is the reality.
Some of you here fall inside this category.
I am one of them. I placed my first bet at the age of 26 that's 3 and half decades ago in a b&m casino. I live in casino paid by comp points. Pitboss or AM(Assistant Floor Managers) have become friends. For those who have done the same know what I mean.
My advice, quit roulette.
Stop gambling.
Your chance of finding a consistent winning bet, ie. Systems bet with positive edge is ZERO.
Your get rich quick dream remains a fantasy.
Your dream ferrari remains in the showroom.
Your dream of gambling to replace your farking job remains a fantasy.
Your hope to find the money in roulette to fund your financial requirement won't happen.
I understand it's hard to face up to reality. But that's the hard truth.
Don't go running to AP because Joe said physics work.
It's another rabbit hole, the same as systems bet. No different.
I had to make this post after reading the PMs.

Solid advice

It's an appealing thought, but what actually 'forces' the proportion in the long run to conform to balance isn't any mysterious force, but just the characteristics and properties of the physical system as a whole, and primarily the wheel.
Presenting the matter in this way is manipulation, because the operation of roulette wheel is ONLY a reflection of the way our reality works, which manifests itself in constantly FORCING everything to tends to a state of balance and the way that were generated numbers doesn't change anything, so it doesn't have to be a wheel.
"No matter if you Iook at a singIe atom or the our soIar system, you wiII find that they are in baIance. A stabIe atom has the same number of protons and eIectrons. The positive protons canceI out the negative eIectrons. When the number of eIectrons does not equaI the number of protons, the atom is ionized and wiII try to get rid itseIf of the extra eIectrons… in other words, naturaIIy get to its baIanced state."
"EquiIibrium is neither good nor bad. It is simpIy a force in pIay aII of the time. StructuraI tension, which is the prime structure we use in the creative process, is a deIiberate set up of nonequiIibrium. The difference between the desired state (the outcome we want to create,) and the actuaI state (current reaIity in reIationship to our desired outcome,) forms a tension because of the nonequiIibrium factor."
In conclusion: The existence of this connection between past and future numbers results directly from the way our reality works, which enforces to tends everything towards a state of perfect balance. In other words: "There is a causative force that compels numerical events to seek their legitimate place within their assigned probabilities"
No, I don't think I misunderstood your previous post. The statement was a definition of independence, so it's beside the point to talk about proof.
I don't understand what you don't understand. This EFFECT: "Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent"  cannot exist WITHOUT this CAUSE: "the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other"  And it is obvious (in my opinion) that the mention of the lack of evidence REFERRED TO THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF OUR CONVERSATION, so not to the correctness of this definition.
Actually, what has never been proven is that there is any dependence, not independence.
It's not true. The biggest proof of the existence of a dependence between past and future events is the LIFE OF EVERY BEING, because the mechanism of action of this reality is that where you are now and what you are doing now is the result of your entire life so far (even if you don't understand it) because can be no effect without a cause, the effect is the current state of affairs, and the cause is the past state.
If outcomes conformed to their longrun probabilities in the short run (say 50 spins if playing the ECs), then you could easily make a fortune very quickly, because knowing that in 50 spins the probability of at least 20 reds is over 90%, you would only have to wait for say 35 spins with only 10 reds, then you would be overwhelmingly likely to make a flat bet profit in the next 15 spins.
The existence of a dependency between numbers doesn't mean that this form of connection must be compatible with your assumptions.

In conclusion: The existence of this connection between past and future numbers results directly from the way our reality works, which enforces to tends everything towards a state of perfect balance. In other words: "There is a causative force that compels numerical events to seek their legitimate place within their assigned probabilities"
As I keep saying, this has nothing to do with whether event A and event B are correlated. You are still talking about the law of large numbers. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't somehow make it relevant.
I don't understand what you don't understand. This EFFECT: "Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent"  cannot exist WITHOUT this CAUSE: "the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other"  And it is obvious (in my opinion) that the mention of the lack of evidence REFERRED TO THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF OUR CONVERSATION, so not to the correctness of this definition.
The statement is a definition, not a statement of cause and effect. It's a an explanation of what independence MEANS.
It's not true. The biggest proof of the existence of a dependence between past and future events is the LIFE OF EVERY BEING, because the mechanism of action of this reality is that where you are now and what you are doing now is the result of your entire life so far (even if you don't understand it) because can be no effect without a cause, the effect is the current state of affairs, and the cause is the past state.
If you're going to say that EVERYTHING is dependent on everything else, the concept of dependence becomes meaningless. And if you want to prove that this universal dependence applies to roulette outcomes, post some empirical evidence of just one example where it's true, and can be demonstrated with actual data, not just philosophical assertions. Make clear what is event A, event B, and how much the probability of B has increased with A having occurred. That's the only kind of dependence readers of this forum are interested in.

causal relation is a trap

... (Wall of text) ...
You got some holes to fill in, mate. Anyways, have you heard of brevity? If so, what's your opinion on it?

a consistent winning bet,
Here are instructions to find a consistent winning roulette formula....
https://web.archive.org/web/20100105123304/http://win3million.com/
Here's a tip: Stop going on these roulette forums. Everyone just messes each other up with delusions with scammers mixed in. I should take my own advice. I hope I am not a forum freak according to Charles.

As I keep saying, this has nothing to do with whether event A and event B are correlated.
I don't know which events you mean, but those related to the context of discussion cannot be uncorrelated.
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't somehow make it relevant.
I repeat the points that are ignored because they are RELEVANT, even if you don't understand it.
The statement is a definition, not a statement of cause and effect.
This particular definition describes reality THROUGH a statement saying that a specified effect is a consequence of a specified cause.
If you're going to say that EVERYTHING is dependent on everything else, the concept of dependence becomes meaningless.
Your entire argument is based on a false assumption.
And if you want to prove that this universal dependence applies to roulette outcomes, post some empirical evidence
If you want evidence that the roulette must obey the laws of reality in which exist, then you must first present evidence that it could be different.

Here are instructions to find a consistent winning roulette formula....
https://web.archive.org/web/20100105123304/http://win3million.com/
Here's a tip: Stop going on these roulette forums. Everyone just messes each other up with delusions with scammers mixed in. I should take my own advice. I hope I am not a forum freak according to Charles.
lol...most will think that is a weird statement with quoting win3million.com and charles...
you do know that i transcribed the whole win3million.com site into an ebook on amazon word for word...
when simon had it....didn,t do the guestbook part though i still have all that too...
bad reviews..though it was only a transcription so not to lost in time..

I don't know which events you mean, but those related to the context of discussion cannot be uncorrelated.
Then let me be very specific. We're talking about roulette, not the universe in general. What I'm saying is that if there is some pattern of numbers or statistical event A which has occurred (such as 12 numbers unhit in the last 37 spins, aka LOTT), there is no correlation between it and what occurs in the following sequence of spins, which you can call event B. For example, if it turned out that one of those 12 numbers were to hit sooner, on average, than a randomly picked set of 12 numbers, that would be a correlation.
If that were the case, the probability of a hit would have increased for those numbers, which would violate the definition of independence.
There are countless other events A and B which could have been used. The thing they all have in common is that for there to be dependence, some pattern or distribution of numbers which has already occurred DOES affect the probability of outcomes which haven't yet occurred. It doesn't matter if the probability is increased or decreased, just that it changes. Of course, the event B must concern the same number of numbers as in event A otherwise the probability will change (but not because of dependence).
If you want evidence that the roulette must obey the laws of reality in which exist, then you must first present evidence that it could be different.
I'm not the one who is saying there is dependence, you are. Where is your evidence for it? As I already mentioned, there is a huge amount of evidence that independence is the reality for roulette, which is what this discussion is about. Please don't go off on a tangent about the universal laws, stick to roulette.

I'm not the one who is saying there is dependence, you are. Where is your evidence for it? As I already mentioned, there is a huge amount of evidence that independence is the reality for roulette, which is what this discussion is about. Please don't go off on a tangent about the universal laws, stick to roulette.
Any time these people that have these beliefs expect something to be due because something else happens in the recent past then they are just making pretentious remarks over cleverly disclosed forms of "Gambler's Fallacy." Sounds like you Joe. But where I make a distinction regarding recent past spins is in recognizing it as coincidental and without cause or effect. There is no meaning or capacity for prediction. There is just one thing and one thing only. A thing can't continue unless it has already continued. Chaos can continue. A losing streak can continue. A win streak can continue. This is a form of connecting. It's not a connection based on prediction though. It just coincidental.

I make a distinction regarding recent past spins is in recognizing it as coincidental and without cause or effect. There is no meaning or capacity for prediction.
Giz, thanks for owning up. I'm talking about correlation though. And that doesn't necessarily mean causation, it just means association. I have really no idea what Ares289 is on about, perhaps it's deliberate obfuscation. I'm just trying to make clear what I mean. I'm not interested in New Age fluff about everything in the universe being connected. I don't have a beard, wear sandals, or like lentil loaf.

Sounds reasonable.

This is just an example, not a system:
Let s say event A is the last 18 different numbers without any repeat, and order this event A into this
order/pattern that have two groups 1 and 2 :
121212121212121212
If we start to bet, the enemys are the unhit numbers
and the hit numbers which hit in the same order as the
pattern. When the unhit numbers hit we put them into the same pattern .....121212......
Even with that enemys , we can start to bet the last
group to repeat (event B). The both groups will grow
(most probably), but......
At some point event A will
change from 121212......to event B ....122( or....211).
Past spins do matter, and event B do depend by event A(past spins), because we have an order(ordered groups) which will change to disorder/aka random, so
the positions between same group Will change.

you do know that i transcribed the whole win3million.com site into an ebook on amazon word for word...
I hope no one buys it. All the information you need is for free here.... https://web.archive.org/web/20100105123304/http://win3million.com/
Also, it would be really stupid to put your personal information (that can be traced) online or anywhere that's connected to Charles/win3million.

Then let me be very specific. We're talking about roulette, not the universe in general.
So I would like to inform you very specifically that ROULETTE IS PART OF THIS UNIVERSE and you will not change this fact.
What I'm saying is that if there is some pattern of numbers or statistical event A which has occurred (such as 12 numbers unhit in the last 37 spins, aka LOTT), there is no correlation between it and what occurs in the following sequence of spins, which you can call event B. For example, if it turned out that one of those 12 numbers were to hit sooner, on average, than a randomly picked set of 12 numbers, that would be a correlation.
There are countless other events A and B which could have been used. The thing they all have in common is that for there to be dependence, some pattern or distribution of numbers which has already occurred DOES affect the probability of outcomes which haven't yet occurred. It doesn't matter if the probability is increased or decreased, just that it changes.
I already mentioned in one of the posts that what I am saying DOES NOT MEAN that the next spin must be dependent on the previous spin, but that DOES NOT MEAN that the correlation between the numbers does not exist and it DOES NOT MEAN that the numbers are independent, because I have explained many times where the dependence comes from and the correlation is simply a consequence of the existence of this dependence.
I'm not the one who is saying there is dependence, you are. Where is your evidence for it?
My conclusions is based on COMMONLY KNOWN FACTS, but you don't want to accept this facts, because they don't speak DIRECTLY about roulette.
As I already mentioned, there is a huge amount of evidence that independence is the reality for roulette
There is much more evidence that roulette cannot be independent of reality.

I hope no one buys it. All the information you need is for free here.... https://web.archive.org/web/20100105123304/http://win3million.com/
Also, it would be really stupid to put your personal information (that can be traced) online or anywhere that's connected to Charles/win3million.
Questo sito non funziona o mancano delle pagine esempio 7 8 15 ecc

I hope no one buys it. All the information you need is for free here.... https://web.archive.org/web/20100105123304/http://win3million.com/
Also, it would be really stupid to put your personal information (that can be traced) online or anywhere that's connected to Charles/win3million.
It’s free on kindle unlimited lol
Plus the link you provide is not the full Simon site

Hi, I'm new here, can you tell me where to find that book?

It’s free on kindle unlimited lol
Plus the link you provide is not the full Simon site
Ciao, come si fa a leggere su kindle

So I would like to inform you very specifically that ROULETTE IS PART OF THIS UNIVERSE and you will not change this fact.
I already mentioned in one of the posts that what I am saying DOES NOT MEAN that the next spin must be dependent on the previous spin, but that DOES NOT MEAN that the correlation between the numbers does not exist and it DOES NOT MEAN that the numbers are independent, because I have explained many times where the dependence comes from and the correlation is simply a consequence of the existence of this dependence.
My conclusions is based on COMMONLY KNOWN FACTS, but you don't want to accept this facts, because they don't speak DIRECTLY about roulette.
There is much more evidence that roulette cannot be independent of reality.
Just what we needed, more wall of text

Just what we needed, more wall of text
If necessary, there will be much more! :thumbsup:

If necessary, there will be much more! :thumbsup:
Good posts from a different perspective to fill the current gaps. 👌
I have seen the darkside. There's no way I can "unsee". To unsee is to ignore and to feint stupidity. That makes no sense.
Keep going.

If necessary, there will be much more! :thumbsup:
Trust me. We don't.

Good posts from a different perspective to fill the current gaps. 👌
I have seen the darkside. There's no way I can "unsee". To unsee is to ignore and to feint stupidity. That makes no sense.
Keep going.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion; I've seen Cbeams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain..
Time to dye.

Es muy sencillo y se entiende aún para quienes no sean ingleses parlantes. Por favor, si necesitan ayuda en español, me avisan.
Flat bet...
Could I ask for the award, although it is not suitable for real roulettes and I have not discovered it, Steve?
Just to show he won’t be winning the money ..

Herby, I didn't say that the law of the third doesn't work. Let's clarify what I mean by 'work'. I mean that after 37 spins the average numbers unhit really is about 1213. But it doesn't 'work' in the sense that knowing this gives you any advantage or helps to predict what the next number or numbers are going to be.
What I meant was that the probability distribution which is used to prove the law of the third assumes that outcomes are independent. If they weren't there would be no law of the third as we know it.
la legge del terzo esiste, ma in modo diverso, non bisogna guardare all'uscita media dei numeri usciti 1 volta in 36 colpi, ma bensi al numero dei numeri differenti sortiti, ovvero in 36 colpi la media reale dei numeri differenti sortiti 1 volta deve essere 23,201 sortiti 2 volte 9,403 sortiti 3 volte 2,695 sortiti 4 volte 0,575, quindi in base a quanto ho scritto, saprai con accuratezza cosa e dove andrai a vincere, nel caso di 36 colpi, se avremo ogni 36 colpi questa disposizione, significa che possiamo attaccare i numeri dei numeri sortiti 2 volte, perche a breve gli stessi daranno una ripetizione e fara' diventare i numeri da 3 3,695, , attenzione a 37 colpi la disposizione cambia, e mano mano che aumentano le boule, e difficile da spiegare, ma se non si ha il vero quadro completo della legge del terzo, si perde