Roulette Using sets to Create an HG

Jerome, briefly I mentioned previously in the thread "Want an HG? Here's One"
that using 90 sets would be ideal in creating an HG. At this stage I am not
suggesting it's an absolute certainty, but if carefully worked out it could well
continue for thousands of continuous spins and show a profit at the end of
an agreed target.

You mentioned the possibility of 40,000 spins, that's for 4 numbers flat bets.
It's difficult because as I said the bets are in two parts. When two or more
sets are equal then flat betting will take place at 10c for each of the 4
numbers in a set, a 40c bet every spin. As soon as a set takes the lead
from the other 89 sets then, the bets change to $1 bets. There will be a
progression applied to each of the four numbers, but I have yet to work
it all out, that is one of the difficult parts of this project.

I am slowly working through a thousand spins, which will hopefully
resolve any problems, especially the betting process. I very much like
the idea the $1 and 40c process, which I think will be a big advantage.

The large number of sets should also be advantageous, as 2 or more sets
should always be close to the leading set and therefore close to taking
the lead when the leading run ends.

I will provide more details having worked through the 1000 spins

 

delectus, in the other thread I wrote :

This isn't quite right as I discovered when I wrote a simulation. It's not that the theory is wrong but I made a mistake with the degree of certainty, which is not 99% but more like 96%. This means that the threshold should be higher than 40,000 bets if you want to be more certain that your result couldn't have occurred by chance. Anyway I've attached the simulation program here so you can play around with it. It's not restricted to 4 numbers (you can input any number of numbers). It runs from a windows command prompt, just input the number of numbers and the session length, press ENTER and it will simulate 100 sessions each of the specified length, betting numbers picked randomly. The output lists the final bank for each of the 100 sessions and tells you how many of them ended in profit (marked with a "P"). eg -





You can do the same thing multiple times without having to re-run the program. Try increasing the length of a session beyond 40,000 until there are no sessions in profit; this will be the threshold beyond which it's almost impossible that a bet selection without an edge will win.

Incidentally, running the program a few times using different amounts of numbers and session lengths will demonstrate that for a random selection (or one without an edge), betting few numbers will always give you a much higher percentage of winning sessions compared to betting many numbers (theory tells you this will happen but it's nice to see an actual demo of it). For example if you're betting 30 numbers with a session length of only 5000, there will likely be NO sessions in profit, but betting 2 numbers over a much longer session (say 20,000) will result in about 15 profitable sessions.

Something else you can learn from the program is how easy it can be to jump to the conclusion that because you've tested your system over many spins and it shows a profit, it must be a winner. The simulation shows that even with a completely random bet selection (and not even a progression), a significant number of sessions will result in profit, especially if you're only betting on a few numbers.

Regarding your system based on sets, probably better if I don't comment until I know more about how it works.

 

Jerome, thanks very much for the simulation program, will get round to it soon.

My early assumption of what's required for this project were only partially
correct. I assumed incorrectly, that a leading set would appear soon after
a previous hit! The fact is that it could take 200 to 250 spins between hits.
Ordinarily this would be disastrous, but the 10c bets reduces substantially
the need to apply the $1 bets.

At present I am using the same progression I use for the ' A Date with
Probability' thread. At one point there was a step 96, that's a $8 bet,
profit $7. The largest so far steps 119, that's a $16 bet, profit $22. As
I write the progression shows steps 82:88:02:01 for the four numbers
of a set. I am at spin 329, so just about a third of the way to 1000
spins.,

The 90 sets produces what I call 'clusters' (borrowed from eggs )
of hits, example set 06:07:26:32 = 07,26,32,06,06,07,06. If this is
a theme of the 90 sets, that would be great.

I am also considering using just one number for the 10c bet and will
work out how the number will be chosen. As you have shown it is
possible to make winning sessions with just one number.

Most probably I will have to work through the 1000 spins 2 or 3 times,
to be absolutely certain, that I can't make any further improvements.

The biggest concern is the progression, perhaps I will think of
something as I work through the spins.

 

@Jerome

As i told you i don't have your skills about Mathematics but i had asked a similar test from a german forum, long time ago, where some people had real skills also in mathematics and the fork i had differ from yours...

Actually it's a bit like i ask what is the extreme right position possible limit of the Gauss curve and it concerns only spins played of course (no observed spins), in order to claim that we got something with "x" system. (i don't have the numbers in my head, i just remember)

6 numbers = 60k spins flat bet (i have a doubt about that one, but i'm pretty sure that i remember correctly about the two others)
3 numbers = 120K spins flat bet
1 number = 250K spins flat bet

Could it possible that it differs from the fact that you play all consecutives spins randomly & with nothing built to play a certain % of spins?

 

Sharp, if you're betting randomly skipping spins shouldn't make any difference, and I would argue that a specific bet selection makes no difference either (others here would disagree though. ).

Regarding the limits you posted, I guess it depends on what your criteria is. The standard is usually 5% but 1% gives you more certainty, meaning that on average 99 sessions out of 100 will finish losers. I ran the simulation with your numbers and 60k seems too high for 6 numbers (should be more like 40,000), but the others seem about right (assuming 99%). Download the program for yourself and give it a try.

 

Hopefully , i just wanted to make it sure that my memory failed to remember the number for 6 spins.

Thanks for the program, this is beast knowledge you got imo!... I'm curious about progressions, how can you determine it? do you have to build it progression by progressions? I'm curious also about the numbers of spins!

 

I'm at spin 375 and the step progression for the four set numbers stands
at steps 10:01:03:35. Number 11 hit at step 106, $11 bet, profit $17.
Number 19 hit at step 122, $17 bet, profit $8.

Previously I mentioned about clusters of hits (got the eggs wrong last
time that's clutches not clusters oh the English language ) and the
last two sets produced 29,29,32,29 and 11,26,19. The last set
11,19,26,36 is currently 54 numbers long. 12,14,27,34 is only 28
numbers long. Unlikely to become a leading set any time soon.

I'm hoping that the above hits will be a repeat cycle maximum of
300 to 400 spins.

I will work at the 10c spin over the weekend.

 

Not sure what you mean? There's no progression used in the sim; flat bets only. Actually it would be interesting to put one in and see how much difference it makes to the number of winning sessions.

 

Yeah, i have seen that you were running it flat bet. But i was wondering if some progressions could perform better than others and could put the limit further or if them are also all equal. Also it would be very interesting to see how long you could resist also than if you were flatbetting.

Thanks!

 

@Jerome

Up, in case you haven't seen it. (If you need me to reformulate, don't hesitate) I really would like to know (curious) about that.

 

I'm working on it and will post in another thread so as not to derail this one.

 

Great! Thanks Jerome

 

Progress on this project is slow but sure. I got to nearly 400 spins
and decide the way I presented it on my work sheets was
unsatisfactory so back to spin 1. The good thing is I am able to
correct mistakes, which is easy to do, having so many rows of
numbers.

I have decided on the way to place a 10c bet, when 2,3 or 4 sets
are equal and will explain at spin 1000 to make sure it works
satisfactorily.

I have never created such long sets before, so I am finding it
very interesting.

 

Jerome, I haven't posted here for a while, not because I have given up on the contrary
I am very enthusiastic about it. It is a far bigger project than I first imagined.
What else would you expect from an HG lol. Certainly a great deal of work
with 90 rows of numbers and errors never far away. I have however created
checks that should eliminate hopefully all errors.

I have gone back 3 times to the beginning, having reached 3 to 400
spins each time, hence the slow progress. I am content now that it should work
well. The obvious question is why should it work and reach 40,000 + spins and
show a healthy profit! All your theories will demand a negative result. As far as
I am aware no one has produced a project using 90 sets with a number of
advantages, so it will be interesting to see how it progresses.

I will show next post a sample of spins. I keep getting logged out after a while
so annoying.

 

Here are the first 58 spins from my workbook, Bold numbers are $ bets

20
03
02
23
36
14
17
32
35
0
17
10
33
37
05
29
11
13
11 <......hit
18
35
31
20
19
07
16
10
19
14
07
23
25
24
26
17
30
08
10
32
12
01
06
23
32
30
06 <.....hit
28
29
11
35
12
26
35
26 <....
26 <....hit
18
20
04

 

At spin 500 I will provide more details and show the current profit.

In order to progress with the 10 cent spins a digit count takes place.
If we start with 20 (the 1st spin) 2+0 =2 therefore looking for number
2 to repeat in the next 2 spins. 02 produces another 2 spins at 2.
Now 36 therefore 3 + 6 = 9, so looking for 36 to appear during the
next 9 spins and so on. Unfortunately the 26 was $ bet so no win,
but was still part of the count and the next 26 was a 10c win

 

Jerome, I have now reached 500 spins and very pleased with the results. The 90 sets
have produced leading sets, with a cluster of hits, many with repeat numbers. In
addition 2 or 3 sets are close to a leading set in order to take over after a certain
number of spins. If the leading sets are equal at any time, then the spin at 10c kicks
in until there is again a clear leading set. I previously explained (see post 16) how
the 10c spin operates and it should almost pay for itself, but is not expected to show
a profit. It will however keep the progressions lower than would normally be possible
when using the $ bets. So far there are 166 10c spins at a loss of $5.80 and 3 hits.

The progression for the $ bets is very long at 196 steps, with a potential loss of
$4987. This is the worse case scenario and as this project has a number of
advantages, I don't expect to be close to the 196 steps. There may be a possibility
of introducing a safety net, but that will be discussed much later.

 

Every roulette project must have a tricky problem and this project is no exception.
I have recorded the steps of the progressions in two different ways as follows:

Usual continuation

11 19 26 36 set
09 32 42 30
11 13 27 29 set
10 33 43 31
11 34 44 32
12 35 45 33 hit
13 36 46 01

Switch

11 19 26 36 set
84 35 30 09
11 13 27 29 set
85 36 31 10
86 37 32 11
87 38 33 12 hit
01 34 39 88


The 'switch' will be wanting repeat numbers

With the 'normal continuation' the progression reached 158 steps
and with the 'switch' 122 steps. At this stage I favour the switch
method to take advantage of a cluster of hits produced by a
leading set. Ideally I would not want the steps of the progression
to go above 130 steps, with a maximum of 140 steps.

 

At spin 500 the profit is as follows:

Usual continuation

The first column is the steps 2nd $ profit 3rd accumulated profit

002 34
012 24 058
027 09 067
035 01 068
029 07 075
042 23 098
012 24 122
047 13 135
070 17 152
050 07 159
119 22 181
007 29 210
025 11 221
019 17 238
023 13 251
011 25 276
106 17 293
158 31 324
004 32 356
029 07 363
010 26 389
038 31 420
005 31 451
039 29 480
043 21 501
091 10 511
012 24 535
005 31 566
042 23 589
033 03 592
052 03 595
046 15 610
003 33 643
015 21 664
002 34 698

 

Switch

The first column is the steps 2nd $ profit 3rd accumulated profit

002 34
012 24 058
027 09 067
035 01 068
012 24 092
030 06 098
054 34 132
048 11 143
045 17 160
060 16 176
112 16 192
122 08 200
025 11 211
093 31 242
023 13 255
041 25 280
010 26 306
029 07 313
052 03 316
008 28 344
014 22 366
048 11 377
074 01 378
039 29 407
014 22 429
009 27 456
019 17 475
002 34 507
033 03 510
012 24 534
045 17 551
011 25 576
100 07 583
001 35 618
049 09 627