Roulette Why Dr. Sir Anyone Anyone is correct, almost.

There are two kinds of players in this world. By the end of this tome you will figure out which one of these types that you are. Any player can be known by how they act at a casino when they play. So let's start with the basics, that you should at least be aware of the odds.

I'm going to use my own playing strategy to illustrate good odds management. Dr. Sir / Caleb / Snowman would say that my method is "Hit and Run," in other words, a claimer that short termed play is not effected by the long termed odds.

So let's take a look at what must happen to my play for that to be true. I play to win $200 per session. I live in a world where Dr. Sir says that I will do just below the line of perfect balance, that being that for every five wins I must lose my $1000 bankroll on a sixth session.

The real true odds say that I must lose an additional $54 when I aggregate my mathematical losses when I play. Now that can be by not making the full $200 on each winning session or all at once in a big loss session. Anyway, barring that real $54, I balance with five wins and one loss for every six sessions played.

This never occurs as a perfect pattern or sequence like 200, 200, 200, -1000, 200, 200, like an exact 5 out of six. That should tell you something too. I mentioned two kinds of players in this world. There are the unrealistic players that try to get back to even in one session. Then there are the players that understand the odds and just play to get back in balance. They know that they must win several 200 unit sessions to bring themselves back into the long termed expected outcome of playing for a lifetime. That is why it is best to know the real playing odds if you gamble. It is also best to know that you must grind out your game just to stay close to balance, or for that matter, the real odds.

So, assuming that the best you can do is the slow grind downward, for me, -$54 per average of six sessions at the stated values, this must happen. I believe that I can kill off the balancing act by shear willpower alone. For me to have a full $1000 losing session I must get 8 net losses in order for it to clean me out. But I play an awareness style where I recognize a very difficult session. I can opt out of those sessions and not take the full $1000 loss. Now I can still get ground down slowly for a full $1000 loss if I try to wait out the slow grind downward. And that would just be some kind of playing mistake. Because I know that such sessions will happen.

I play the candlestick movements in my progress charts when I play any session. Even though there are slow grinds downward, there are also slow and fast upward trends too. These up and down movements are natural. I play to see them. When I see them and take action so that I am no longer a slave to participating in every balancing action. If you play blindly, or if you play to get back to even in one session, then you are going to have far more worst results than even playing the very difficult balanced game I suggest above.

Dr. Sir will say that I can't avoid the losses by sitting them out. I know this because that is what he always says, even for the past 12 years. But I play a game that depends on fighting for each net win, one net win at a time. If it takes forever to get a single net win, then I determinate that I'm in a bad stretch. I don't play the bad stretches. The bad stretches are needed to bring about the statistical balance. I can't prove that I can do it and Dr. Sir can't prove that I can't do it.

These forums are made up of noobs and very experienced players alike. Those with experience know what I'm talking about. They know what Dr. Sir says all the time. So my conclusion is that Dr. Sir is right about the odds but wrong about all sessions being connected. It's impossible to stay at a casino and play for ten years without interruption. If I use one single rule to play by, that I will not play during any difficult sessions, then I believe that I have changed the equation of balance illustrated above.

I will predict the future though. Dr. Sir will both not agree with me and will also not defend his position. I don't think he can defend his position. The only way I can defend mine is to actually go out and do it.

So that remains to be seen. I just feel that because I play so close to a balanced game that I have the best chance to outfox the odds. I don't believe in systems that just plod along following mindless rules and triggers. I don't believe in progressions either. Neither of these styles play close to a balanced game. I believe that is very important too.

 

Let's suppose you have a wheel at home, you spin it 100 times a day, at different hours each day. Do you believe the interruptions would affect the future outcomes versus spinning the wheel continuously without interruption?.

 

I would say that the interruptions would not change the nature of the mini movements, the candlesticks in my charts. To use Snowman's longest running argument, "all roulette spins are independent events." They are not connected. Therefore they have no effect on future events. They neither predict nor effect the existence of the candlestick movements. Independent spins can't force me to place badly timed bets. I have decided to attribute meaning to session difficulty. The length of a session does not determinate its complexity. That being said. Independent events can't force me to make bad bets. How do you equivocate good and/or bad streaks?

 

Good/bad streaks exist but the beginning and the end of it is known afterwards. But maybe you have a power like TurboGenius, a time-machine to know when to enter and exist the session.

 

That would be nice to have that. Could I have a Spandex suit to go with it, perhaps a magic scepter too.

Just look at what you tried to pass off as real. You said "...but the beginning and the end of it is known afterwards." That's a true statement but is not the whole objective truth. The fact is I base all my bet selection options on the middle of a trend, while it is occurring. On each spin I have a 63% chance to win as it is an independent event. Those are the real odds before I get the results. The trend or the very fact that a trend is not occurring are only excuses to make bet selections from. The trend does not make the win/loss, the good/bad streaks occur. Making bets, irregardless of them being good bets or bad bets creates the win/loss record. I just happen to know that I get less back to back losses if I keep track of the randomness characteristics as opposed to just blind guessing. If I take my mind off of the search for trends I get very few win streaks. But that does not matter anyway. You mathBoyz like to think that nobody has control over what happens. I can beat this game with any bet selection technique as long as I keep track of the wL lists. I could just bet on the numbers 1 thru 24 only and make a winning system out of the candlesticks it would produce in a graph. That would suggest that I do need a Spandex suit as far as you are concerned. I know when I'm in the middle of a streak. On the next spin I can tell if I'm still in the middle or in fact that the streak ended. Not all streaks end the same too. There are things like domination that are peppered with few losses while still being winning streaks. Please acknowledge that there are also middles to streaks. It's possible to live in the middle. In my game they only have a 37% chance of ending on independent events.

 

If you are betting the even chances, wL list is not necessary, just have to track Red/Black for example if your bet selection is Red exclusively, then R is W and B is L And seriously I don't know how you know for example that after: R-R-R-R-R-R-...... you are at the beginning of a winning streak, in the middle or the end of it, even with a stock market candlesticks chart.

 

I'm betting on 24 to 26 numbers at a time. So I need the charts. Anyway, I have four groups of dozens that are made up of 12 unique dozens. I do this so that I can find something you will really think is out there. I'm searching for the global effect. I don't really want to explain it. It's a kind of super trend that continues to occur from 30 to 100 spins. You've never seen it I'm sure. But that does not answer your question. I never know when I'm at the beginning of a win streak in the characteristic trends. I know exactly where I am in the bet trends, win/loss chart. Here is the correct question to ask. Do you know when a trend characteristic continues? It does not predict that the next bet will win. But it does allow you to get in on a sleeping dozen that lasts for 16 spins. I can't allow myself to ignore a long lasting sleeping dozen. They are not that rare. I see sleeping dozens that last at least 10 spins all day long. I see them because I have so many dozens that I track at the same time. The good news is that sleeping dozens or swarms of singles will dominate for a while. There is no reason for it. But when something like that happens I see a swarm of wins in my wL list.

I'm not trying to say that following trends causes win streaks to happen. I'm saying that trends happen. They start, have middles, and eventual endings. I just use them. I like using them. I love the global effect. Now that perhaps is a mathematical phenomenon that deserves more research.

 

As a long time EC player I know what I would do with the above given example of 6 R in a row . The long term odds for a Seventh R would be 127 : 1 .

N.D.

 

Ok, so when you said "any bet selection" you were exaggerating if you are playing dozens, also how can you bet on 26 numbers by charting dozens?.

 

No Nathan, it is 18/37 for a seventh R to come, and the odds of seing 7 reds in a row is: 1 in 155 (single Zero)

 

Like this: I ran 100 spins in my practice chart without bets. I'll have to explain the groups, I always do have to explain them.

Just look down a column for blank spaces. Those are the sleepers. I fill these out in real time on index cards while I play.

Code:

| 1  2  3 | A  B  C | 0  3  6 | P |
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 23
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 13
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 20
| X       |    X    |    X    |   | -- 8
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 33
|    X    |       X |    X    |   | -- 24
|       X |    X    | X       |   | -- 26
|    X    |       X |    X    |   | -- 24
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 7
|       X |    X    | X       |   | -- 35
| X       | X       | X       | P | -- 1
|    X    | X       |       X |   | -- 22
|       X |    X    |       X | P | -- 32
| X       | X       | X       |   | -- 10
| X       | X       | X       |   | -- 10
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 7
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 4
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 33
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 4
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 31
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 4
|    X    |       X |    X    |   | -- 15
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 6
| X       | X       | X       | P | -- 1
| X       |    X    |    X    |   | -- 8
| X       |    X    | X       | P | -- 2
|    X    |       X |    X    |   | -- 15
| X       |       X |    X    | P | -- 3
|    X    |       X |       X | P | -- 18
|    X    |       X |       X | P | -- 18
| X       |    X    |    X    | P | -- 11
|       X |       X | X       | P | -- 27
|    X    |       X |    X    |   | -- 24
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 13
|    X    |       X |       X | P | -- 18
| X       |    X    |       X | P | -- 5
|    X    |    X    | X       |   | -- 14
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
| X       |    X    |    X    | P | -- 11
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 33
|    X    |    X    |       X | P | -- 17
|    X    | X       |       X |   | -- 19
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 23
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 20
|       X |    X    | X       |   | -- 26
|       X | X       | X       | P | -- 28
|    X    | X       |       X |   | -- 22
| X       | X       | X       |   | -- 10
| X       |    X    |    X    | P | -- 11
|    X    |       X |       X | P | -- 18
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 20
|-------------------| X       | P | -- 38
| X       |    X    | X       | P | -- 2
|-------------------| X       | P | -- 37
| X       | X       |    X    | P | -- 4
|       X | X       |       X | P | -- 31
|       X |       X | X       | P | -- 27
|       X |    X    |       X | P | -- 32
|       X |       X | X       |   | -- 36
| X       |       X | X       |   | -- 9
|    X    | X       |    X    |   | -- 16
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 23
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 33
|       X | X       |       X |   | -- 34
|    X    |    X    |       X |   | -- 20
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 7
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
| X       |    X    |       X | P | -- 5
|       X | X       |       X |   | -- 34
|-------------------| X       | P | -- 38
| X       |       X |    X    | P | -- 3
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 23
| X       |    X    | X       | P | -- 2
|       X |    X    |    X    |   | -- 29
|       X |    X    |    X    |   | -- 29
|       X |       X |       X |   | -- 33
|       X |    X    | X       |   | -- 35
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 13
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 13
|       X | X       | X       |   | -- 25
|    X    |    X    |    X    |   | -- 23
| X       |       X |       X | P | -- 6
|    X    | X       | X       |   | -- 13
|       X |       X | X       | P | -- 27
|       X |       X |    X    |   | -- 30
|       X |    X    |       X | P | -- 32
|       X |    X    |       X | P | -- 32
|       X |    X    |    X    |   | -- 29
| X       | X       |    X    |   | -- 7
|       X |    X    |       X | P | -- 32
|    X    |       X |    X    |   | -- 24
|    X    |       X |       X |   | -- 21
| X       |       X |    X    | P | -- 3
| X       | X       | X       |   | -- 10
|    X    |       X |    X    |   | -- 24
| X       |    X    |       X | P | -- 5
| X       | X       | X       |   | -- 10
|       X |       X | X       | P | -- 27

The "0" from the 0 3 6 column group includes the zero and double zero.

 

Here are the numbers:

Code:

put "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12," into d1
   put "13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24," into d2
   put "25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36," into d3
   put "1,4,7,10,13,16,19,22,25,28,31,34," into c1
   put "2,5,8,11,14,17,20,23,26,29,32,35," into c2
   put "3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30,33,36," into c3
   put "38,37,1,2,9,10,13,14,25,26,27,28,35,36," into p1
   put "3,4,7,8,11,12,15,16,23,24,29,30," into p2
   put "5,6,17,18,19,20,21,22,31,32,33,34," into p3
   put "1,2,3,4,5,6,11,12,17,18,27,28,31,32,37,38," into prime1

 

Excuse dude, I was with the belgian prick but he is gone, hopefully forever. So if I see well, your charting shows 1,2,3 for dozens, a,b,c for columns, but 0,3,6 I don't see the list of numbers that belong to those categories?

 

P1 = 0
p2 = 3
p3 = 6

These are based on positions on the American Wheel.

Prime1 is 16 numbers, their opposites are the 22 numbers not listed.

 

Ok and the P column means?

 

So Star Kid is gone. His movie is on moviePlex right now: A shy boy finds his new calling as a turbocharged high-tech superhero when he discovers and wears a powerful suit of alien armor - a device which gives him the power to defend the Earth from an evil race of alien warriors.

 

P stands for prime. These were spokes on the American wheel that I memorized a decade or more ago when I thought positions on the wheel meant something of value that it actually doesn't. P1 set was the original prime. But I added the center spots for the p2 set to the new prime. Those added numbers are 3, 4, 11, and 12.

 

Gizmo,

This thread describes you well. https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/hit-and-run-system-players-are-like-vampires.9790/

 

Here is what happened in the world of gambling in the past ten years. Turbo found a way to beat hot numbers. Ken found a way to beat hot numbers. Nathan found a way to beat sessions, he probably always could. Several other players not here found ways to beat randomness in their own ways. I found out that I was fixated on the huge win streaks and found a way to grind away on the mini randomness swings that are there 30 times per hour. I know something you don't!

Here is the point. I don't need this anymore. I really don't. I don't even need to come back and say I did it. So here is the deal. I'm gone unless someone drags me back in. I don't need the maggot infested corps of Dr. Sir. He is a person that feeds off suckers on the internet. Just talking to him is a malignant adventure in self discovery. You had better know your shit or you will be prayed upon. I'm done feeding his gut bucket. I know these other people can beat Roulette. It's because they trained themselves to beat it. So I'm gone before I said I could do it myself. Nobody needs me to confirm my gambling ideas. They all have their own experiences. It's been a great adventure. Keep up the good work.

 

Gizmo,

Chill. All is well. Some people enjoy your opinions.