Roulette Want a HG? Here's One

What's the math which backs it up?

 

12+12=24-12=12

I doubt you'll be able to appreciate the elegance of my equation.

 

Buffalo,

Ermm...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there at least 37 or 38 pockets on your wheel?

Just estimating here, but I think you're coming up a bit short aren't you?

 

No I wouldn't use LOTT or equilibrium and I thought I'd already explained more than once why they are useless (hint, all future outcomes are independent of past outcomes, whether you're talking about 1 spin or multiple spins).

Imagine an athlete throwing a discus or javelin and you want to predict where it will land. Stands to reason that you will take note of the things which actually make a difference to where the discus ends up (the causes). So you might measure the speed at which it's released and the angle at which it's released, and you may take into account the wind speed and direction. That's what the AP (advantage player) does.

The system player ignores all of that. He prefers to mark the spot where the discus lands, then he waits for another throw, marks that spot, etc etc until he's left with a lot of marks. Then he tries to find some pattern in the marks and that basis tries predict where the next mark will be.

Which approach do you think makes more sense?

 

What about streets 0 1 2 and 0 2 3 on the single o wheel ? streets 13 and 14 ?

 

I was being facetious, dear. But anyway, thanks for the gif!

 

To be honest the Equilibrium would be the right approach..
The Law if the Third which in Sir anyonea mind is a made up ..a fallacy i think was the right word ..
The mechanics of roulette is only 3 stages..
Unhit
Unique
Repeats

It doesn’t matter about the numbers they could be bunny rabbits..giraffes..even Sir anyone’s amazing Giffs..

Let me enlighten the pair of you of the mechanics which I don’t think any of you have a clue about ..

The game may produce random numbers in your mind but it’s all about the three stages

There is no fallacy of Lott or Equilibrium

There is the dynamics only..if the game was truly random this wouldn’t happen

I’ll explain as I would to my child to make it easier for you to understand

37 spins will produce unhits and repeats excactly

38 spins will produce unhits and repeats with a difference by 1 excactly

Ie 38-37 =1

39 spins will produce unhits
And repeats with a difference of 2 excactly

Ie 39-37=2

You can go all the way up to whatever 80 spins 90 spins above 37 the mechanics is excactly the same ..

If 74 spins are out the difference will be 37 between unhits and repeats

You get my drift ..that’s the mechanics of the Equilibrium

That’s the mechanics and maths of roulette

And that is certainly not random..

Now if anyone can say that’s a fallacy..a coincidence put as many 1000s of spins in ayk tracker and take a look..

Systems in part especially the unhit will work for so long during this mechanical Equilibrium course but not forever..the mechanics won’t allow it to go beyond a certain point without a reset

Your hg lies in this knowledge..

So I would suggest re evaluate what turbo ..eddy are saying..why systems in your mind don’t work and what’s stopping it..

And the stupidest thing to do here right now is post a stupid giff..call this fallacy ..maybe even shake your head..or even put your head back in the sand..

Equilibrium..unhits ..unique..repeats is all you need to work out..rabbits and giraffes

And before you mention the little green zero it’s included in any of the three states

 

You're talking like the Law of Third that isn't a law actually have been discovered yesterday.

The only fact is when you're dropping a chip on the layout, why are changing probabilities...? Are you you still paid *35+your bet while there are 37 numbers? Yes? So it doesn't worth anything, even not a carrot for the rabbit... Any other thing is about variance which make those guys running like headless chickens... nothing more nothing less

 

Again you’ve not understood what I’ve just posted..or are not able to comprehend..
Let’s take an example of the wobbly wheel with bias..
Why do you have an edge?
Why doesn’t payout effect this type of betting?
I’ll leave you to think on that..

 

You got an edge because the number you're betting on doesn't come up once every 37 spins but for example once every 28 spins what will give you an edge.

If those people would only ask themself :

everytime before looking at a system, they wouldn't need to waste time to make stupid graphs that is only variance... I could also find a new Hg like they do everytime i'm going to the toilet on the morning...

 

To Turbo, Jek and everyone else interested in this thread -

I have myself pondered the idea on page 2, that is, if we have approx 12 unhits in the 1st 37 spins, at least 1 will hit in the next 37.
Why? Because if not, the same group of numbers will be hits, and the same group non-hits, in the next cycle.
So I'm with you on that, Turbo.
The problem is, if we flat-bet, we need more than 1 from 3 successful spins to be in profit. If we play 37 spins, depending how the wins fall, we may need 13 successful spins. BUT, we could easily get less than this, surely?
The alternative is to use a negative progression, then we have the problem of where to stop. ( Unless we are playing numbers that hit once, but I can't get my head around that one!)
Any advice is, of course, appreciated!

 

Sharptracker..you’ve answered correctly

 

@ 6th-sense,

I've already explained multiple times why it's not possible to win using LOTT and equilibrium, and I'm not going to repeat myself ad-infinitum. By the way, I have a degree in mathematics with Statistics so I do know what I'm talking about. Eventually you and the other Turbo fan boys may see the light and realize the error of your ways. I think Turbo himself is a hopeless case though, which is a pity because he's sending people down the wrong path. Oh well.

What fascinates me is that it's really simple - blindingly obvious in fact - that past spins don't influence future spins, and yet people are trapped in this maze of possibilities which roulette seems to offer when you ignore this fact.

 

What fascinates me is that it's really simple - blindingly obvious in fact - that past spins don't influence future spins, and yet people are trapped in this maze of possibilities which roulette seems to offer when you ignore this fact.

I think the roulette mechanics disagree with you here blatantly..
If this was the case unhits and repeats wouldn’t be in sync on any of the levels I’ve talked about...

They are never out of sync

There is no possible way your statement is valid when the evidence is there.

 

Exactly right. "At least one in the next 37" won't cut it. As you say, you need at least 13 for a flat bet profit. And still the basic question remains unanswered : WHY should those particular numbers have a greater chance of hitting than any of the others when all numbers have the same chance on every spin?

 

Hey Eddy,

One question.. When after 111 we are not in profit, and u start new tracking 37 and start with a 2u base bet.
Do you continue within the new 37 spins after a new high OVERALL or how do you behave when u are not in profit after 111 spins

 

@Jerome

Actually it is simple, it is called the Principle of Consistency which is even much more powerful once you associated your identity with a fact in public. (cf R. Cialdini)

 

The thing is, what i noticed..
U are absolutely right eddy BUT for me I'm not in profit after betting 37 spins or then one another, BECAUSE U are right.. IT IS FACT that some of the unhits will hit within these 37 spins, but for our bet selection it is not enough.. THEY HAVE TO REPEAT ALSO because we are not betting on it when they show up their first time.
So.. Sometimes I'm in -100 or - 200 units after betting two times 37 spins and then I dont know how to handle this even when I start with 2u at the next

 

[QUOTE = "Jerome, post: 64633, miembro: 3874"] @ sexto sentido,

Ya he explicado varias veces por qué no es posible ganar con LOTT y el equilibrio, y no voy a repetirme hasta el infinito. Por cierto, tengo un título en matemáticas con estadísticas, así que sé de lo que estoy hablando. Eventualmente, usted y los demás fanáticos de Turbo podrán ver la luz y darse cuenta del error de sus formas. Sin embargo, creo que el propio Turbo es un caso perdido, lo cual es una pena porque está enviando a la gente por el camino equivocado. Oh bien.

Lo que me fascina es que es realmente simple, de hecho cegadoramente obvio, que los giros pasados no influyen en los giros futuros y, sin embargo, las personas están atrapadas en este laberinto de posibilidades que la ruleta parece ofrecer cuando ignoras este hecho. [/ QUOTE]

Estoy totalmente en desacuerdo contigo, tendrás un título en matemáticas y estadística, pero lo que dicen tus libros en la universidad no es lo que muestran la práctica y la experiencia, al menos no en la ruleta.
No es necesario ser una persona con licencia para hacer millones de pruebas y demostrar que estás equivocado, solo pasión, tiempo y esfuerzo.
Ahora, caballero de las matemáticas, te sugiero que vayas a la física nuclear y a la ley de la descomposición radioactiva, seguramente cambies de opinión sobre lo que dicen tus matemáticas y te pongas del lado de los turbo.

Saludos

 

So now that an actual detailed method has been posted using Turbo's ideas, then the naysayers should be able to post some publicly available spins (spielbank-wiesbaden) to prove that the method doesn't work right?

Unless of course..........they don't have the courage of their convictions.

Seems like it would be pretty easy to show this method's failure if Turbo really is just trolling........right?

Now.......will they choose to prove him wrong........or just sling colorful insults?

This should be fun!!!