A simple test that would gain you a Nobel prize

[Bayes]

We can be sure that in 3rd measured group we can't have such situation again because that would be std that isnt recorded in roulette history. But again is now sure that we will must have over 50% of wins?

How regression would behave now?

You can't be sure that in the 3rd session you would get at least 50% wins, but you can be pretty sure that you wouldn't get a repeat of the first 2 sessions (12 or less wins). I've seen this scenario in some of the program output, where both sessions produced only 12 wins (giving a total z-score over the 100 spins of -5.2  ).

Maybe I'll add some code to the program so that it looks at the 3rd session if the 2nd session is very close to the results of the 1st.

[Robeenhuut]

You can't be sure that in the 3rd session you would get at least 50% wins, but you can be pretty sure that you wouldn't get a repeat of the first 2 sessions (12 or less wins). I've seen this scenario in some of the program output, where both sessions produced only 12 wins (giving a total z-score over the 100 spins of -5.2  ).

Maybe I'll add some code to the program so that it looks at the 3rd session if the 2nd session is very close to the results of the 1st.

Nothing really surprising in my opinion. Z-score of an extreme value can continue for a long time. Number 50 is just a number. Whats the number of spins after it goes down and does that mean that one EC hits more than the other in this period? On other hand if i saw RED hit 30 times in 100 spins i would flat bet BLACK for a while     Would you?

[Gizmotron]

Hey Mr. "living proof that Roulette can be beat every time you set out to beat it",

Apart from arrogance is there anything constructive you have to offer to the masses?

Now that you are beginning to see the light of day, look at this. If you were
willing to wait for 50/12 to occur, to get a trigger, then look at this phenomena.
Almost every 150 spins one to three of the dozens/columns sleeps for at least
15 consecutive spins. Now who among you can't figure out a way to exploit that?
I do it by trial and error. I use flat betting and all the other opportunities found
in randomness to stay even while waiting to get in on any of these 1-3 opportunities.
Once you win 2 units in each attempt you are in +. Go ahead and program for the
existence of sleeping doz / col. Randomness, and nothing else, kicks these opportunities
out day in and day out. 150 spins on a real table only takes five hours. That's a
practical reality.

[Robeenhuut]

Now that you are beginning to see the light of day, look at this. If you were
willing to wait for 50/12 to occur, to get a trigger, then look at this phenomena.
Almost every 150 spins one to three of the dozens/columns sleeps for at least
15 consecutive spins. Now who among you can't figure out a way to exploit that?
I do it by trial and error. I use flat betting and all the other opportunities found
in randomness to stay even while waiting to get in on any of these 1-3 opportunities.
Once you win 2 units in each attempt you are in +. Go ahead and program for the
existence of sleeping doz / col. Randomness, and nothing else, kicks these opportunities
out day in and day out. 150 spins on a real table only takes five hours. That's a
practical reality.

So Gizmo if i understand it correctly you would flat bet 2 dozens or columns that hit last and hope to gain few units by having 15 straight wins if you catch a sleeper?  Can you elaborate more on this?

[Gizmotron]

So Gizmo if i understand it correctly you would flat bet 2 dozens or columns that hit last and hope to gain few units by having 15 straight wins if you catch a sleeper?  Can you elaborate more on this?

What I mean by trial and error is that I use four sleepers in a row and then try it. Now I know full well that some sessions work better than others using four in a row before jumping in. So if a session works better with three or five then I use those. I watch closely the effectiveness. Does any of that make any sense?

[Robeenhuut]

What I mean by trial and error is that I use four sleepers in a row and then try it. Now I know full well that some sessions work better than others using four in a row before jumping in. So if a session works better with three or five then I use those. I watch closely the effectiveness. Does any of that make any sense?

Not sure if i understand what you mean by four sleepers in a row?  Do you bet on four consecutive dozens or columns that you consider sleepers? And what do you consider a sleeper?  Just one spin or more without showing?

[Gizmotron]

Let's say that the sleeping dozen is 1-12. I wait for those numbers not to hit four
spins in a row. Then I start betting on the other two dozens that are hitting. I need
to get to step six just to break even. So any sleeper bet that reaches at least step
seven puts me up one unit. Say step eight lands on the number eleven. I lose that
bet. So I'm up one unit for the attempt. But if I do hit the long sleeper I win a lot.

[Robeenhuut]

Let's say that the sleeping dozen is 1-12. I wait for those numbers not to hit four
spins in a row. Then I start betting on the other two dozens that are hitting. I need
to get to step six just to break even. So any sleeper bet that reaches at least step
seven puts me up one unit. Say step eight lands on the number eleven. I lose that
bet. So I'm up one unit for the attempt. But if I do hit the long sleeper I win a lot.

Thanks for an explanation. Now its clear

[Tamino]

Post deleted wrong topic.

[Robeenhuut]

Let's say that the sleeping dozen is 1-12. I wait for those numbers not to hit four
spins in a row. Then I start betting on the other two dozens that are hitting. I need
to get to step six just to break even. So any sleeper bet that reaches at least step
seven puts me up one unit. Say step eight lands on the number eleven. I lose that
bet. So I'm up one unit for the attempt. But if I do hit the long sleeper I win a lot.

I like the idea of using evenly  balanced flat bet and wait for the opportunity to capitalize on some streaks like sleepers here. Its like opposite of waiting for SD to correct itself. Kav started this thread with this approach. But both offer some chances. The drawback is that it is sometimes a slow process. There is a tracker made by Stef in the original FIVE thread that shows you a behavior of dozens in series of 500 spins.