### Author Topic: My approach to selection  (Read 553 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### McCoy

• New
• Posts: 95
• Thanked: 60 times
##### My approach to selection
« on: October 22, 2017, 02:29:26 PM »
Since I take a statistical approach to sports betting it's only natural that I should do the same for roulette. In my limited experience of playing roulette and reading roulette forums I've formed the opinion that there is no simple selection process which will consistently win. Not surprising really because individually none of them has an edge unless you're using some kind system based on the physical conditions, but for a purely statistical approach I've found that the following works pretty well. It uses the idea of 'hot' numbers and applies to any bet on the table but the higher odds bets will require a lot more work, so my example uses the even chances red & black. The step by step procedure is

1) Create a number of simple selections based on patterns or other criteria. In this example I've used 6 selections.

2) Generate a list of wins and losses for each selection from the red & black outcomes. This list should be 'rolling' so after a maximum number of outcomes (I used 27 in this example) the first element should be removed.

3) For each selection process calculate the percentage of wins and update this on every spin.

4) For each selecton process give the next bet for that process, so for red & black there will be only 2.

5) To make a bet, look for the majority of predictions being on one outcome and calculate the average percentage win. If it is higher than the average percentage win for the minority predictions, make the bet.

So on this spin 4 of the 6 selections are predicting black, and the average win percentage is (0.51 + 0.66 + 0.66 + 0.77)/4 = 0.65. This is obviously higher than the average win percentage of red, so the bet is on black. If there are an equal number of predictions on red & black - this would be 3 of each here -then no bet is made.

My findings have been that this 'system' results in fewer losses and less extreme deviations than anything else I've tried. Much of the time it wins using level stakes. It's really more of a framework than a system because it can be applied to any bet.

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth

#### MrPerfect.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1924
• Thanked: 1026 times
##### Re: My approach to selection
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2017, 03:20:51 PM »
On 2 past horse races favourite lost. Does it mean that on current race favourite will loose? Is there any sequence correlation between all 3 races?  After all what ran there are horses as well and stadium is same...
Same way as these are different horses and different races,  these are different red numbers and different spins. You would not use fallacious correlations in horse racing( l hope), why would you do it in roulette?
Other example... you can group every second horse to represent black and every first to represent red. Red horses win more often in last 10 games, your conclusion?  Would you bet on red horses egain or black ones?
Or horses winning depends on something other? Well, with numbers it's the same story, Bro.  Here we have 37 horses and each one has different probability to win on every individual race.

#### scepticus

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2586
• Thanked: 578 times
##### Re: My approach to selection
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2017, 03:26:03 PM »
Mc Coy
Are you suggesting waiting for 6 series of 27 spins before betting ? Or betting the majority of the last 27 spins ?

#### Sputnik

• Veteran Member
• Posts: 702
• Thanked: 579 times
##### Re: My approach to selection
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2017, 03:28:51 PM »

I will give my advice - one loss has the value of 1 and one win has the value of 1
Same with one red has the value of 1 and one black has the value of 1

Then you can calculate using math and probability

That 68.3% of the time the divergence would be one SD or less. Either side of the MEAN.
That 95% of the time the divergence would be  2 SD's or less.  Either side of the MEAN.
That 99.7% of the time the divergence would be 3 SD's or less. Either side of the MEAN.
That only 0.3% of the time would the divergence exceed 3 SD's

This way you can follow and observe how variance unfold
You can also search for regression towards the mean and other similar topics

When it comes to probability calculations and you want to get a more easy way out variance - then i suggest you look at the law of series and apply the correct math value for each event and look at how the strong and weak variance unfold - the advantage using does solutions and selections methods is that you can aim to win more then once in a row

Cheers

The following users thanked this post: kav, Reyth