### Author Topic: Simple Roulette Counter  (Read 1584 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Bayes

• Moderator
• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 562 times
• roulettician.com
##### Simple Roulette Counter
« on: February 15, 2017, 02:48:06 PM »
Tracks numbers, splits (only the 18 mutually exclusive ones) and streets and sorts each list by the most hit on every spin.

The following users thanked this post: kav, december, Reyth

#### Bayes

• Moderator
• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 562 times
• roulettician.com
##### Re: Simple Roulette Counter
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2017, 04:49:52 PM »
Here's a simple system which so far I haven't seen fail, flat betting.

Bet up to a maximum of the 5 "hottest" numbers. How many to bet on depends on how many numbers share the same number of hits; the idea is to add numbers (starting from the top of the list) until picking any more would leave some numbers which have hit the same number of times.

For example, on the screenshot in my previous post, you bet on 24 and 7, but no more because the numbers which have hit twice, if added, would have you betting on more than 5 numbers. Suppose the list had been this:

24 --3
7 --3
2 --2
21--2
8 --2
22 --1
12--1
etc

Then it would be ok to bet the top 5 numbers (up to #8) because numbers which have hit twice only go down as far as the 5th number in the list, so you would be betting the maximum amount of numbers (5). However, if the list looked like this:

24 --3
7 --2
2 --2
21--2
8 --2
22 --2
12--1
etc

You would only be betting one number (#23), because numbers which have hit twice go down to the 6th numbers, and as you don't leave any numbers which have hit the same number of times as numbers you've already picked, you just bet on the first number. If the 2's started from the first on the list, like this:

24 --2
7 --2
2 --2
21--2
8 --2
22 --2
12--1

That would be a no-bet situation, because the numbers which have hit twice extend down to the 6th (if they had only gone down to #8, you would bet all 5).

Hope that's clear.

The following users thanked this post: kav, december, Reyth

#### TheGenner

• New
• Posts: 53
• Thanked: 16 times
##### Re: Simple Roulette Counter
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2017, 07:33:23 PM »
Bayes, whenever I try to open the counter, it comes out with ''unable to initialize EuWinGUI.DLL!
Press any key to abort!

I tried it on two different p.c's using Chrome and Explorer. So not sure if I am doing something wrong or there is a problem with the programme.

Thanks

#### Bayes

• Moderator
• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 562 times
• roulettician.com
##### Re: Simple Roulette Counter
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2017, 08:10:39 PM »
Hi TheGenner,

There should be a file called EuWinGui.dll in the zip folder. This file must be put in the same folder that you start the program from otherwise you'll get that error message.

#### jefra

• New
• Posts: 8
##### Re: Simple Roulette Counter
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2017, 09:22:09 PM »
I have same problem.  In Zip map is no such a file!!
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 09:25:12 PM by jefra »

#### Bayes

• Moderator
• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 562 times
• roulettician.com
##### Re: Simple Roulette Counter
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2017, 07:38:35 AM »
Ok, dunno how that happened, but I've attached the file. Let me know if you still have problems.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2004
• Thanked: 1005 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Simple Roulette Counter
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2017, 09:27:48 AM »
Thanks for sharing Bayes

The following users thanked this post: Bayes, Reyth

#### Bayes

• Moderator
• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 562 times
• roulettician.com
##### Re: Simple Roulette Counter
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2017, 12:51:44 PM »
This way of identifying  hot numbers (sorting by the number of hits) and just betting on the "top" numbers is a bit naive because it doesn't take account of the reality that numbers currently "in the lead" may suddenly turn cold, or that numbers near the bottom of the list may experience a sudden rush of hits. In the former case you're betting on numbers which are no longer hot (although they may remain at the top of the list) and in the latter case you're missing numbers which begin to run hot (but still remain relatively low in the list).

A betting scoring scheme might be to do something like this:

• Each number starts with a score of zero.
• Track the gap length between hits for each number.
• If the gap length is between 25 (chance of hit = 50%) and 37 (still in profit or at least break even) add a point to that number's score.
• If the gap length is less than 25, add 2 points to its score.
• If the gap length is more than 37, subtract a point from the score (unless the score is already 0 - scores should not be less than zero).
Other criteria could be added, perhaps based on the physical conditions, and points added/subtracted accordingly.

This scoring system might give superior results, or maybe not. Anyway, I'll give it a try.

#### kav

• www.Roulette30.com
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2004
• Thanked: 1005 times
• Gender:
##### Re: Simple Roulette Counter
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2017, 01:01:21 PM »
If you take your stats always from the latest say 30 numbers you are following the trend more closely than taing stats from the last 100 spins.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Bayes

• Moderator
• Veteran Member
• Posts: 688
• Thanked: 562 times
• roulettician.com
##### Re: Simple Roulette Counter
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2017, 02:39:03 PM »
Ah, if only it were that easy. I've tried that before and what happens is that the shorter the spin window, the worse the whipsaw effect. Something like that could be incorporated in a points system though.

The following users thanked this post: Reyth

#### Reyth

• Global Moderator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4065
• Thanked: 1352 times
##### Re: Simple Roulette Counter
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2017, 05:12:08 PM »
That's always the question that has bothered me:  What is the relevant spin sample anyway?  I never have been able to find out except to know that after a few million spins, results tend to stabilize.