Roulette Forum
Roulette Forum => Questions and Answers => Topic started by: BlueAngel on December 23, 2015, 02:32:27 AM

I made this topic because I would really love to hear your opinions about the following:
If you had to bet one of the two following options, which would be your selection??
1) Flat bet the same number
a) Till it hits
b) For 111 spins
2) Flat bet different number on each and every spin
a) Till first win
b) For 111 spins
As you see each of the two main options has two alternatives, the important thing here is to listen the reasoning behind a selection.
If you believe (like I do) that the key to victory is a matter of selection and secondly matter of amounts, then you realize the importance of WHY this instead of the other.
Please justify your answer, your selection, because without reasoning has little to no value.
All numbers from 0 up to 36 add up to 666, the square root of 666 is approximately 25.81
Since there are no decimals in roulette, number 26 is closer to the square root.
The position of 26 is next to 0, if you consider 666 as "evil",then the root of all evil is 26.
Root could be interpret as the beginning,the originator,also 0 confirms this because it's the begin of all negative and positive numbers.
Now what do all these mean in practical terms, if for example someone would bet number 26 only,he/she would realize (sooner or later) that it doesn't have better probability from the rest of the numbers.
But of course this doesn't say everything because you have to consider it in a metaphorical sense...

TWO options are TOO few for me to give a reasoned answer BA.

1) Cutting your losses makes sense here as it can go yet still over 300 additional spins and a more recent number is more likely to occur (in my opinion).
2) Keep betting till it hits. At least the numbers won't be continuously stale.
I refuse to flat bet so I don't endorse this as a viable system or anything.

Any wager start on a number has the risk to wager a cold number There are nearly Always 4 numbers that has not fallen for more than 100 spins.Flat betting on a single chance is very dull.
lll do you mean 3 samples of 37 spins??

Any wager start on a number has the risk to wager a cold number There are nearly Always 4 numbers that has not fallen for more than 100 spins.Flat betting on a single chance is very dull.
lll do you mean 3 samples of 37 spins??
Yes,I agree.

What was the original purpose of Blaise Pascal when he invented roulette?
Was just an experiment in an effort to create a mechanism with perpetual motion?
If that was the case then why he placed numbers on the circumference of the wheel?
He could just make the same wheel without numbers and still being moved, right?
Why the roulette numbers are from 0 to 36 and not a round number like 50?
Why those numbers have randomly placed around the wheel and not with their arithmetic sequence (0,1,2,3...)?
If you really want to master the game then you must think like Blaise Pascal.
I strongly believe that if Blaise was here with us today, he would be the greatest roulette player of all time.
Who knows better this game than its inventor!
Does a method must be appealing to your reasoning?
How important is something to apply to your logic?
Do results follow a certain logic?
What's more important, results or reason which makes sense?
If you cannot have both in one pack, what would you select?
If you want to follow sensible options, then perhaps you should reconsider because regarding the science of mathematics we are all losers before we even step in the front door!
What all these mean in practical terms? Everything or nothing?
The answer and choice is yours.

I think like you say, everything comes down to the law of the third & sd.

2) Flat bet different number on each and every spin
Do you mean bet each number 036 on successive spins and then start over when you get to 36?
Whether you choose 1) or 2) there is no difference logically speaking and should be no difference in final statistics.

If the wheel is spinning the same direction at each spin, bet on the last number to have hit. Simulated over zillions of live spins this ever so slightly does appear to reduce to the house edge. The reason has to do with wheel bias and dealing procedures.

If the wheel is spinning the same direction at each spin, bet on the last number to have hit. Simulated over zillions of live spins this ever so slightly does appear to reduce to the house edge. The reason has to do with wheel bias and dealing procedures.
Have you ever thought that what you consider bias could happen even on leveled wheels...??
Some sectors and/or numbers are hitting more anyway, it doesn't have to exist a physical flaw to make this happen.
But you prefer to perceive it this way in order to consider yourself superior to the rest.
Perhaps it's time to open your eyes and face the truth.

Blue Angel,
What makes you think that I'm not fully aware of wheel bias? When it comes to that subject I can certainly take you to school. I have one of the largest archives of biased wheel data in the world, if not the largest. I've made one hell of a living off of it for many years. By the way, a wheel doesn't have to be off level to have a number biased.

Blue Angel,
What makes you think that I'm not fully aware of wheel bias? When it comes to that subject I can certainly take you to school. I have one of the largest archives of biased wheel data in the world, if not the largest. I've made one hell of a living off of it for many years. By the way, a wheel doesn't have to be off level to have a number biased.
So what's the point for looking into the technical part when this has be proven time and time again statistically?!
What matters is that it HAPPENS not why happens.
What I want to know is HOW I can expose this FACT, not to explain why.
It seems to me that you took the loooong way around instead of the shortcut...!

It seems to me that you took the loooong way around instead of the shortcut...!
I did? How do you figure?
Simply betting the last number to have hit isn't enough to consistently win. True, on some wheels it actually is, but it's pretty if'y.
When a wheel is biased there are far better ways to play it than just betting the last number to have hit.

It seems to me that you took the loooong way around instead of the shortcut...!
I did? How do you figure?
Simply betting the last number to have hit isn't enough to consistently win. True, on some wheels it actually is, but it's pretty if'y.
When a wheel is biased there are far better ways to play it than just betting the last number to have hit.
For example the last five numbers?
Skepticus was right about you...

No, not the last five numbers. That will reduce the house edge, but it's not usually enough to overcome it.
Skepticus was right about you..
Good.

2) Flat bet different number on each and every spin
Do you mean bet each number 036 on successive spins and then start over when you get to 36?
Whether you choose 1) or 2) there is no difference logically speaking and should be no difference in final statistics.
No,I mean to bet the last number or always the same number.
If we think about it in mathematical terms it is exactly the same 1 in 37 chance to hit.
The reason I started this topic was to realize if and why a criterion is superior over another.
According Caleb J. betting the last number is better than betting the same and he explained his reasoning.
But if we are betting always the last number isn't against ''law of third'' ?
In order to have 66% chance to win you should bet the same number for 37 successive spins or till it hits.
If I'm not wrong,changing the bet always to the last number you don't have 66% chance as you would have regarding ''law of thirds''.
What do you think?

Its so funny I was just thinking about this and was going to post about it in my Bullseye thread which I see you have also responded to my latest post there.
I am working on a theory of "virtual scatter" where if the last hit occurred within 37 spins the next spin well tend to be outside 37 spins and vice versa. I was just going to go to my Bullseye thread and look at the data dump I did to see if there is any pattern like that.
Using the law of the third, it seems to me that once you step outside that 37 spin window, the chances are greater to continue to sleep BUT they also get better with every spin that the number will wake up. That is such a weird concept that I feel forced to print out a full loss distribution on a single number:
(http://i63.tinypic.com/16h6ko7.jpg)
The number 4137 represents the 37th spin and the odds of it hitting within that time frame I am showing as 63.68%. The next 37 spin window is spin number 73 which is shown as 997 and which odds I am showing to be 86.43%. The next 37 spin window is spin number 109 which is shown as 176 and the odds I have not calculated recently. In order to find the odds of that number occurring add up each entry up to and including that 176 entry and then divide that total by 432331 to find the percentage chances.
I think the key is that even though the odds increase with each spin for the number to wake up, each successive spin has less relevance statistically to those increasing chances. I dunno, these are my thoughts and efforts anyway... :shrug:

So does it make it more possible?
Let's assume you bet always the same number, it could come on next spin or very late.
I think by betting the most recent,therefore different number, doesn't make difference regarding probability theory,but it does make in my empirical overviews.
It's quite paradox when a number can be repeated for three or more times in a row, while the same number at another time and/or place reappeares after 360 spins.
What does this means? Balance or inbalance??
I believe both in one.
How could someone win by knowing this?
By waiting for a delayed number to come back and then bet steady till it balances with its probability.
But wait a minute,did you said waiting?
Yes, waiting is time consuming and time is money, so there must be a more practical way to win, right?
Yes there is, follow trends, for example 1 number is hard to repeat 3 times but 3 numbers are 3 times easier to repeat 3 times.
Bet that the first three repeated numbers will repeat once more within a timeframe of 37 spins.

Right, that the repeater will either repeat (33%) or show up within 37 spins (33%). The problem is the progression and the goal is to do better than the 139etc of the 2 dozens?
On imbalance I have shown a "snap back effect" with the "short term trend system" where the odds increase for the second subsequent hit after a significant deviation (85+ spins). There is definitely short term trending going on in cycles that is serving the long term trend for overall balance.
Ya that's how I play the Bullseye now. If it is less than expectation, I will bet every spin but if it is greater than expectation I will not bet unless a deviation of 85 spins or greater occurs and I will play immediately after that first hit (wake up). This "bet the wake up" strategy I think fits perfectly with your "repeater philosophy" and both fit perfectly with the Law of the Third. : D
HEY! I had a question. Can the Law of the Third be divided into sections? Kinda sucks that 37 is a prime number but like can we see the Law of the Third in like every 12 or 13 spins?

Right, that the repeater will either repeat (33%) or show up within 37 spins (33%). The problem is the progression and the goal is to do better than the 139etc of the 2 dozens?
On imbalance I have shown a "snap back effect" with the "short term trend system" where the odds increase for the second subsequent hit after a significant deviation (85+ spins). There is definitely short term trending going on in cycles that is serving the long term trend for overall balance.
Ya that's how I play the Bullseye now. If it is less than expectation, I will bet every spin but if it is greater than expectation I will not bet unless a deviation of 85 spins or greater occurs and I will play immediately after that first hit (wake up). This "bet the wake up" strategy I think fits perfectly with your "repeater philosophy" and both fit perfectly with the Law of the Third. : D
You may also try the first six repeated numbers for 18 spins, I consider it slightly better than 3 numbers for 37 spins.

I remember reading away back  a similar idea .
Wait until a number repeats 3 times then start betting each and every qualifying number.
I never tested it so don't know it's value.

I remember reading away back  a similar idea .
Wait until a number repeats 3 times then start betting each and every qualifying number.
I never tested it so don't know it's value.
I didn't said three times, the selection includes only numbers which have appeared twice, then I bet those numbers till only 1 of them has three hits within 37 spins (including charting for numbers selection)
Reyth,
yes you can tailor the duration according to your liking.
For example instead of 3 numbers with 2 hits only, you could wait till there are 6 or 9 numbers with two hits only.
By doing so you should reduce the event's horizon proportionally.
If for 3 numbers the horizon is 37 spins, for the double amount of numbers you bet half the duration (18 spins)
There is something very important which is easy to miss, the main principle is at least 1 number to hit 3 times within 37 spins.
Therefore if you wait for 6,7,8,9...etc one of the already repeated numbers could hit for third time,thus you shouldn't expect second 3 timer within the same cycle, you should expand the event horizon to 2 cycles in order to average out expectation.
The expectation should be always the minimum possible regardless of the event we choose.

That is interesting. I should run code on the 3 repeater theory and see what the percentage is of this occurring every 37 spins. Is it proper to run it continuously so that every spin generates a new 37 spin snapshot?

That is interesting. I should run code on the 3 repeater theory and see what the percentage is of this occurring every 37 spins. Is it proper to run it continuously so that every spin generates a new 37 spin snapshot?
Yes, it's recommended this way because you may average out the cycles and there's suitable progression for such distribution.

Ok. I think I will do that this morning.
Wow the max loss streak on this is only 33 in a row which makes me think it is profitable versus a 351 payout!? The problem is the progression has to withstand betting every 2 repeater for the next 33 spins  if that can be accomplished, this is a winning and profitable system.
The actual win rate is 93.06% per set of 37 spins.
Let's count the max 2 repeaters... Ok its 16 which is obviously too big for the loss streak.
Ok so the question is, what is the maximum number of stations that we can handle on a 33 step progression? Its 12 but that is impractical because it requires a bankroll of
8398944 dollars which is too formidable even at a penny table.
8 stations is:
Spin Bet Spots Profit Bankroll
1 1 8 28 8
2 1 8 20 16
3 1 8 12 24
4 1 8 4 32
5 2 8 24 48
6 2 8 8 64
7 3 8 20 88
8 4 8 24 120
9 5 8 20 160
10 6 8 8 208
11 8 8 16 272
12 10 8 8 352
13 13 8 12 456
14 17 8 20 592
15 22 8 24 768
16 28 8 16 992
17 36 8 16 1280
18 46 8 8 1648
19 59 8 4 2120
20 76 8 8 2728
21 98 8 16 3512
22 126 8 16 4520
23 162 8 16 5816
24 208 8 8 7480
25 268 8 24 9624
26 344 8 8 12376
27 442 8 0 15912
28 569 8 20 20464
29 731 8 4 26312
30 940 8 8 33832
31 1209 8 20 43504
32 1554 8 8 55936
33 1998 8 8 71920
The reason I identify this is towards the strategy of betting any single group of 37 spins where there are 8 or less repeaters, knowing that the maximum loss in a row is 33 spins and running the above progression regardless?
Btw I just thought of the "reverse snap back" which occurs when there is a prolonged run of a number all within 37 spins. It would be very interesting to measure this too.

Ok. I think I will do that this morning.
Wow the max loss streak on this is only 33 in a row which makes me think it is profitable versus a 351 payout!? The problem is the progression has to withstand betting every 2 repeater for the next 33 spins  if that can be accomplished, this is a winning and profitable system.
The actual win rate is 93.06% per set of 37 spins.
Let's count the max 2 repeaters... Ok its 16 which is obviously too big for the loss streak.
Ok so the question is, what is the maximum number of stations that we can handle on a 33 step progression? Its 12 but that is impractical because it requires a bankroll of
8398944 dollars which is too formidable even at a penny table.
8 stations is:
Spin Bet Spots Profit Bankroll
1 1 8 28 8
2 1 8 20 16
3 1 8 12 24
4 1 8 4 32
5 2 8 24 48
6 2 8 8 64
7 3 8 20 88
8 4 8 24 120
9 5 8 20 160
10 6 8 8 208
11 8 8 16 272
12 10 8 8 352
13 13 8 12 456
14 17 8 20 592
15 22 8 24 768
16 28 8 16 992
17 36 8 16 1280
18 46 8 8 1648
19 59 8 4 2120
20 76 8 8 2728
21 98 8 16 3512
22 126 8 16 4520
23 162 8 16 5816
24 208 8 8 7480
25 268 8 24 9624
26 344 8 8 12376
27 442 8 0 15912
28 569 8 20 20464
29 731 8 4 26312
30 940 8 8 33832
31 1209 8 20 43504
32 1554 8 8 55936
33 1998 8 8 71920
The reason I identify this is towards the strategy of betting any single group of 37 spins where there are 8 or less repeaters, knowing that the maximum loss in a row is 33 spins and running the above progression regardless?
Btw I just thought of the "reverse snap back" which occurs when there is a prolonged run of a number all within 37 spins. It would be very interesting to measure this too.
You are making basic mistake by reducing the total number of repeaters because this way you reduce win rate too.
The solution is not in reduction but in the expansion, didn't I told you that you should expand and reexpand if necessary the event's horizon??
If our expectation could not be accomlished within 1 cycle, it will within 2,3...etc
How much is the average net gain in the results you've found?

Are you flat betting 6 numbers for 18 spins and/or 3 numbers for 37 spins?

Are you flat betting 6 numbers for 18 spins and/or 3 numbers for 37 spins?
No,that's another thing.
Could you answer the following question?
How much is the average net gain in the results you've found?
By knowing this we can proceed further to the solution...

Ok I can measure the net gains but what about when the gains are negative? Do you just want the positive gains?

Ok I can measure the net gains but what about when the gains are negative? Do you just want the positive gains?
Yes, only the positive ones.
May I ask you a favor?
Could you please do what you did here with the "simple system" of dr Talos?
I'd like to compare the repeaters' systems.
Thanks in advance!

Constant Deja Vu Turns Your Life Into A Terrifying Time Loop
Now imagine living with the feeling of going in circles all day, every day.
No matter what you do, the moment you do it, you feel this jarring sense that you've done the exact thing you're doing and that you're living in a goddamned time loop.
It's kind of like Groundhog Day, only without the gift of knowing what's coming  only after you experience the thing you say, "Yep, I now remember doing this exact same thing."
Deja vu, as you experience it, is just a momentary glitch where your brain tells you that something you've just seen is actually being fed to you by your longterm memory.
It feels weird for five seconds and then you move on into a double deja vu experience ("I remember doing this before, and feeling like I had done it before").
Until slowly all of us will realize that we're all living our lives over and over, in a repeating cycle of circular time, with no escape.
Does this remind you something...?

Yep, my posts.

Ok I can measure the net gains but what about when the gains are negative? Do you just want the positive gains?
Reyth,
I'm still waiting for your response.
Did you forget it?

Yep, my posts.
Or perhaps roulette wheel and ball...!:)