Roulette New Thread

Anyone who claim he has the winning strategy must refer to entropy. That's how you know his claim is true.

TwoUp wrote the complete physics and math used for the systems betting strategy.

He is in the company of THE EXPERTs in systems betting.

 

Not! But has has given some of us a good laugh! I may share it on the WOV forum for everyone to enjoy as well.

 

Your post confirmed to TwoUp and me that the bunch of so-called experts on WoV don't have this knowledge.

We don't laugh, we don't mock.
Real winners don't do such nonsensical stuff.

I know.
So does TwoUp.

 

Tell us how brilliant and successful you are again!

 

TwoUp, stop responding to the MJ, SirAnyone and their crew.

They have started socket puppet accusation linking every possible poster to us.

If you don't stop, they will NEVER stop.
That's their scam posting strategy.
They use this to easily convince a forum full of losers.

I wanted to point out his buddy MJ contradiction, but who cares. Lol

 

The correct question is: how can I identify a link within groups of elements (37) that does not play all the cycles of 37 rotations?
This generates a break of the symmetry of the game avoiding to play all negative deviations, but instead playing many of the positive ones.

The graph I posted is based on Flat Bet by determining an EV + and it's over the 5 sigma of variance.

Roulette is won.

@Luckyfella:
I am an expert in mathematics and physics, I have solved the game for many years now and I started from the physics of the game where the randomness can be reduced with instrumental forecasts to arrive to face the pure randomness.
Writing on a forum without a goal for me is just a hobby.....

It makes no sense for me to write more ....... if you don't believe you continue on your way.

Greetings, RAF

 

Thank you, Raf. Your graph shows that you are betting every spin. How do you choose to not to play some cycles when you are constantly betting?



Can I ask for more details about this link between the first 24 numbers and the last 13? What should I be looking for? The number of the uniques, repeats, etc? Comparing the cycle to its previous one? A few hints so we can get into statistical tests...

 

Sure. I've refuted where I felt it necessary to draw a line, future travellers will hopefully be able to see that they make fallacious arguments and attempt to twist one statement into something else entirely which they made up and then ridicule.

 

TwoUp, you've refuted nothing.

 

You are right, it is 96,356 shots played with a base bet of 1 piece on a real stay of 120,000 shots and the final case closes at +39,231 pieces. Therefore 7,412 games of 13 strokes where the variance of the box, which also represents that of the game, is represented by the trend of the curve. They are closed cycles, played independently from the case with an excursion from a minimum of -250 to a maximum of 285 pieces.

If I tell you how to do the statistical research, then I have explained the solution to you.

Raf

 

Yeah, just ignore me. I'm only here to sit at the feet of THE EXPERT. LOL!

 

Twoup,

Tell us again why all the experts, mathematicians and history are wrong.

 

No, you are wrong .. you're just using them as a prop to seemingly stand upright.

 

You have already been exposed in a fallacy of linking past events to current ones. You say the sessions are linked and that house edge is paid on a loss which is wrong.

I don't have to explain anything more.

 

@Luckyfella
Dear Sir, maybe I missed some your posts but I cannot find what kind of wagers you play. Do you play outside even chances, like are red/black bets, dozens/columns or even streets and line bets???

I guess you not play straight up bets.


You also said you place 1 unit for each bet. Does this mean 1 unit per spin, or can be 1 unit per red/black and also other unit(s) on some other wagers????

 

@Luckyfella

I dont know your email. I ask you in the forum. And if you're not reply what i ask.

If someone angry or scold, just ignore them. I dont angry or scold because i know you dont owe me or someone else in the forum.

Maybe if you owe someone just lke turbogenius or someone else that help you to make you this day.

I really admire who want to help others like u, turbo, twoup, dutchcrown, thereddiamanthe or somebody who give positive comment although dont get anything like money or medal.

For me all of u like hero with no medal.

 

Something to think about...

69 spins provides an expectation for at least 2 hits on a single number with 55.96% probability.

Really? Yes it's better than 55% to make a win of at least 1 unit flat betting. The "at least" is significant.

The more curious might want to understand the expected losses and investigate why 69 and the significance of that through calculating probabilities and cummulative wins vs losses for each spin level, as well as the average net per spin up to say 500 spins.

You need to do the hard work analysing things, work out how to use variance to your advantage, remembering even with losses you are not getting taxed house edge when you lose as some on here would have you believe. How can you bet to ensure sufficient variance and minimise the average house edge paid in a session.

Understand that each bet, singles, streets and quads perform differently than dozens and EC's in the short game and in respect of the variance offered their probability distributions and average house edge paid. They are not all the same as the rabble would have you believe.

In the land of infinity and the heat death of the universe where the Sir and co clowns live everything has to lose, so don't play near the edge.

 

Thanks for the post. I have been working on this idea lately, using low hit ratios to ensure my system gets through the hardest times and closes the games asap. But most of the time I find myself betting too few numbers to get hits I expected (variance kicking in). Two questions:

1) Let's say we are expecting 3 hits, but we don't know when and on what exposition. What would be a good strategy to continue betting? These might help:

2) The key is in detecting variance. Actually, I find it easy to "detect" it, but it's most probably "done" when I catch it. I mean, you can never confidently bet according to variance. I say this because you design your systems based on the worst cases possible and the level of confidence. Maybe I lack a proper understanding of variance and its nature. Could you please elaborate on this? What do I need to learn to use variance to my advantage?

 

The above, along with the following quote below, are my two favorite examples from you in terms of explaining how a player has to forget everything they think they know, forget all of the conventional wisdom of the forums, and embrace the opposite of what you would expect. In the below scenario, I would bet FOR the repeat, not an unhit, and never would think otherwise. Wrong:

(From CHT): I have written about entropy as the basis for the betselection. I assume roulette outcomes do show this entropic quality.

Here's a simple basic model from this idea for you to code and test with large data sample.

Wait for 18 different singles(zero not counted) in a row to hit without repeats. Bet the 19th spin to hit the other remaining 18 numbers. Look for the next 18 different singles in a row to hit without repeats. Bet the 19th spin to hit the other remaining numbers. Repeat this betselection.

Show the result in a sequential graph. Example,
W, w, w, x, x, w, x, w, x, x, w, x, w, w, x......

My specific question is,

If I betted with a bankroll of 10 units with a negative progression betsize 1,1,2,2,2,2 reset when in profit, and restart if bankroll loss does this strategy win or lose the bankrolls more over a large sample size?

I decided to pursue this a couple months back just to experiment, thinking there was no possible way it would return anything other than -EV in terms of hitrate, I didn't even think twice as I began.

Shockingly, at least to me, it performed significantly better than that, enough to make me question the exact conventional logic most of us subscribe to.

Damn interesting.

 

Mako, interesting that you brought this up. I tested this method intensively. Billions of spins simulated. I still got the same 18/37 expected hit rate, resulting in the same results as playing any other EC. At the same time, I can "see" that the game has specific characteristics sometimes, like spitting singles or repeats or whatever. There must be some way to exploit it.