Subscribe for more free professional tips.

puntoit and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

#### ati

• 500+ posts Member
• 724
• Roulette Forum .cc | Lurker
• Rated: +78
##### Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Jul 16, 04:27 PM 2021
I haven't found a way to exploit this (or to beat roulette), but it certainly shows that we

a) don't have to look at past spins in order to create "cycles", and
b) that we can link them to certain betting positions by chosing our numbers accordingly.

Thanks for the great ideas Red.

I was thinking though for your cycles of how many #'s do I have to bet for a hit, u could also look at the opposite for an unhit, so...
Bet 35 numbers/ hit
Bet 34 numbers/ hit
Bet 33 numbers/ hit
Bet 32 numbers/No hit = cycle length 4

Yeah, there are probably many ways to create and define cycles. We could also rearrange the number in our cycle, after all past spins have no value, right?

Let's say for example the random stream we get is:

1
29
12
11
30
32
3
25
11

But after every spin, we could rearrange the numbers in an ascending order, so at the end the cycle would look like this:

1
3
11
12
25
29
30
32
11

We could also rearrange the numbers on the table after every spin, to create a desired pattern. But the issue is that the patterns would only be there after the spin and after our rearrangement, so we wouldn't be able to bet on them.

The question is, does this messing around with cycles have any use? I don't think so. Or at least I couldn't find any. All of this leads to waiting for a repeat or a trigger. So what exactly are the events or the repeats that we are looking for?
Perhaps we need to forget the numbers and not wait for them to repeat.
If I'm not mistaken the famous Dyk said that a repeating number is not an event we need to look for. Every spin is an event, and how you define those events completely depends on your perspective. The same event is a repeat and a unique at the same time. There are always opposite sides. So what else can repeat, other than numbers?
There has to be something, the HG supposed to be based on the pigeonhole principle, which is based on repeats.

#### mickavelli

• 50+ posts Member
• 72
• Member
• Rated: +2
##### Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Jul 16, 09:35 PM 2021
Agree there are endless ways to create games and cycles.......

The same event is a repeat and a unique at the same time.

I think your talking about 1 stream(straights) repeating and at the same time 1 stream(positions) staying unique??
And vica versa???
You could combine a repeat and a unique into 1 stream let me show u how with another view haha....
Just thinking out loud lol...
So let's say a high number is placed at the beginning of the sequence....
For every high number placed in Low positions, a Low number is forced into the high
But what is the difference between the High number on Low and the Low number on High?? Like the guy above said roulette doesn't know what u have labelled a hit...
Shouldn't the low numbers on high also hit 99% of the time before all high numbers are moved to low??
So u could also pair these... A high straight is paired with the low straight it forces into high.....
It is no different to chasing straight  repeats on low....
But now u have 1 stream and when u have a unique(straights) u also have a hit on repeat....

#### Blueprint

• 250+ posts Member
• 372
• Member
• Rated: +19
##### Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Jul 19, 10:27 AM 2021
b) that we can link them to certain betting positions by chosing our numbers accordingly.

#### ati

• 500+ posts Member
• 724
• Roulette Forum .cc | Lurker
• Rated: +78
##### Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Jul 24, 02:58 PM 2021
I think your talking about 1 stream(straights) repeating and at the same time 1 stream(positions) staying unique??

No, that's not what I mean. Look at the other topic by rrbb, when he suggested that we should look into "processes". We can always have two sides or groups of numbers. For example the hit and the unhit numbers in a cycle. Those are two sides, after a spin event we get a new number, which we call unique and move it to the "hit group". But there is an other perspective, if you look at unhit number as a group, that group repeated when we got a unique number. So the same event is an unhit and a repeat, relative to your point of view.
The question should probably be, how do we cover both sides at the same time? I have had lots of ideas but in many years I couldn't come up with a working betting plan. But I will never give up.

But what is the difference between the High number on Low and the Low number on High?? Like the guy above said roulette doesn't know what u have labelled a hit...
Shouldn't the low numbers on high also hit 99% of the time before all high numbers are moved to low??

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. You are talking about both Low (1-18) and High (19-36) numbers and low and high numbers (positions) in the dynamic set, right?
I personally don't see the use of the dynamic set and the derived set that were introduced in this thread. I have spent hundreds of hours working with these, and I find this a very nice way to see how random streams behave, how uniques and repeats are statistically connected, etc. But do we really need all that information? Every cycle supposed to be a new beginning and it shouldn't matter what numbers came 5 cycles ago and in what order.

#### mickavelli

• 50+ posts Member
• 72
• Member
• Rated: +2
##### Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Jul 28, 03:58 AM 2021
Look at the other topic by rrbb, when he suggested that we should look into "processes". We can always have two sides or groups of numbers. For example the hit and the unhit numbers in a cycle. Those are two sides, after a spin event we get a new number, which we call unique and move it to the "hit group". But there is an other perspective, if you look at unhit number as a group, that group repeated when we got a unique number. So the same event is an unhit and a repeat,
Cheers Ati , oh my bad I see what your saying, I've looked at the hit and unhit,  quick observation though.... the way u explained = "Hit" can never actually win the first cycle...

#### ati

• 500+ posts Member
• 724
• Roulette Forum .cc | Lurker
• Rated: +78
##### Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Jul 28, 07:24 AM 2021
Yeah, these terms are a bit confusing. In this case a "hit" doesn't mean a win, just a number that already appeared within the cycle.

#### ati

• 500+ posts Member
• 724
• Roulette Forum .cc | Lurker
• Rated: +78
##### Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Jul 28, 07:47 AM 2021
a) don't have to look at past spins in order to create "cycles"

This got me thinking, what if we choose only the starting number of a cycle, then write down whatever roulette gives us? Would the statistic that the repeat will happen on the same EC more than 50% still hold?
So if we only choose red numbers for our first spins, would then the repeat happen also on red more the 50% of the time? Or is this structure only exists if we have one long continuous random stream?

It's just a thought. Even if it held, it wouldn't be any more useful than a totally random stream.

#### Blueprint

• 250+ posts Member
• 372
• Member
• Rated: +19
##### Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Aug 01, 08:56 AM 2021
Why would it matter where first came from?

#### ati

• 500+ posts Member
• 724
• Roulette Forum .cc | Lurker
• Rated: +78
##### Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Aug 01, 12:54 PM 2021
I'm unsure. The view introduced in this topic and most things shown by Priyanka is based on cycles and statistics that are defined by the repeats. If we ignored the positions where the repeats happened and always made up are own position as the first element in a new cycle, the statistics would still hold. So it makes me question what use all of these have if any.

For example, without looking at past results and doing any spins, I could just say every time that the first dozen in a cycle is dozen 1. In this case >60% of dozen repeats would happen on dozen 1.
I think this proves that the repeat statistics aren't really dependent on actual past results. The repeats can statistically depend even on virtual results.

#### Blueprint

• 250+ posts Member
• 372
• Member
• Rated: +19
##### Re: Outside the box: a different view on roulette numbers
Aug 01, 01:36 PM 2021
It will hold as soon as you designate something as “first” much like it will hold no matter what you determine as a half.