Roulette Law of the third analysis

What does this mean: 1-3-5-7&30
Its, note the word usually how repeats come over 60 spins.
You will not always see 1 repeat in spins 1-10; but sometimes there can be three repeats.
usually you get 3 repeats in spins 11-20; if repeats have shown to this average, you'll have had 4 repeats for 20 spins.
Then 5 repeats usually show.
And for 40 spins, spins 31-40 usually gives 7.
That accounts for the 1-3-5-7. 16 repeats in 40 spins. So, there must be 24 of the starting 37.
Is 24 not the LOTT.
The poster Dr SAA as mentioned posted 10'330 live spins. These broke into groups of 148. I choose 148 as Dane at VLS; said usually all 37 have gone in 148 spins. I was only interested in the 1st 60 spins and this is where the 1-3-5-7& 30 came from.
It even shows using the Dr SAA's tout for random org.
Plus air-ball spins and everyones choice for live spins, Wiesbaden.
Over at roulette forum in real spins are the non-hit time tables.
60 spins usually has 30 of the starting 37 and 30 repeats.

 

As in your last paragraph, you are missing something very simple about the horserace. You are over analyzing everything.

In Turbo's Advantage of Repeaters threads, you see how he charts the top 3. Charting all 37/38 numbers. The behaviour of the numbers in the chart tells you which numbers are getting hotter and which are getting colder. Or staying hot or cold. It follows the waves that 6th sense is talking about. It follows the 1-3-5-7 that Naughty is talking about. It definately tells you what to bet and when if applied in the way Turbo outlines.

 

Regarding the 'horserace' analogy which is interesting, I started looking at when things were expected to come to see if I could detect a way to take advantage from it.

I used the following little chart (this one is for dozens) to guide me. The numbers with the * tell you when a hit should happen. So the third hit in the first column should hit by spin 5 etc...



When you are filling these in, you see what's performing better than expected and what's lagging behind. If a column is running slow, then you can leave it out. Other times I found it remarkable how one particular column would hit like clockwork according to the numbers with the *.
It just means that you don't end up betting everything and are trying to be more selective. I did get some good results with this but at the time was also doing some research on Baccarat and eventually dropped looking into this but I have time to take another look now.

I will do a few examples and explain a few things as to what's going on to make it clear.

 

Dozens can be a bit volatile because of only the three of them compared to the six-lines or straight-up but that's ok.

So here after 10 spins, the dozens are a bit mixed but column 1 is underperforming, the other two columns are hitting on or under expectation and the rows are filling out in a uniform way and so there are clues provided as to what to bet and when. I will fill this one out further to see how it goes.

 

Next pic and I have highlighted in red when something is lagging behind.

So looking at it, the first column is generally lagging, the second column is pretty stable with the second dozen and on cue for the most part and the third column is coming out earlier than expected. Nothing is running away with it!

This kind of analysis might not be for everyone because it requires a fair bit of thought as you go along which can be taxing but I think the premise is sound in the fact that you are trying to play what's in front of you and currently happening which in my opinion is a prerequisite for any successful gambling.

 

For anybody who wants to play around with this, here is the grid for the six-lines.



So looking at that, you can see that you should get around 10 hits in Column 1 and only 4 hits in Column 6 around the mid 40 spin mark.

I will fill one of these out from Table 4 today (Wiesbaden)

 

ok, so looking at this pic with the six-lines and it's at spin 21.
The 3rd hit in the third column is late (should have hit around spin 16) but you can see why because the 3 and 4 six-lines are dominating coming out early in the first and second columns. These 'grids' are just analysis tools to hopefully aid as the spins come out.

I will start a separate thread and do some more of these grids and explain a few things because this is Chronos's thread for his discoveries and findings and it wouldn't be fair for it to get bogged down with all of this.

Thanks

 

Yeah I have a tendency to over analyze. I just don't know how I could simplify it any more than I have.

Reading horizontally, vertically I'm not seeing where I'd be able to tell which numbers are becoming hot and cold. Even numbers that jump down and left a couple spaces it seems to happen and then stop. I can see that on average repeaters happen at x spin count, but there's still too many numbers to choose from for it to be profitable. Occurence 2 rank 0 (first to 3x) happens around spin 31. But on average there's like 11 numbers you'd have to bet on, and no progression is going to make up the profit needed. I tested this with probable 5+ million spins and like 8 or 9 variations, different rolling windows cycle lengths. Best results I got was betting all 3x hoping for a 4x at spin 30 for 11 spins (I think) then resetting. Betting 2x -> 3x was way too many numbers.

These charts I replaced the pocket number with the initial spin number it came out on. I did it so I can see the behavior of numbers by their 'age' (first out, last out, whatever..). Anything with a 0 is actually a 1, so the 0 occurences is actually 1 occurence, 1 is 2, etc.. Just +1 to every number everywhere on the charts. I didn't want to change the list indicies so that's why it's like that - less chance for bugs in the code.



I'm just not seeing it, and I don't know how else to look at it? I guess the only thing I haven't really looked at is the way baccarou was charting the stuff above. Including the expectation of when it should hit vs when it does it.. the horse race thing is frustrating as hell.

 

Thanks for posting this stuff baccarou. I mentioned above this is probably the only way I haven't tried looking at the horse race yet. Very insightful. It's all helpful and I don't mind you posting in here.

Might be a stupid question, but how did you come up with the expectation spin counts?

 

Thanks. I think I came across some of them while searching old posts etc.. It's definitely an annoying process - and it's a lot of effort to test things. But I think it's possible. Too many posts from people saying they figured it out or had years ago. Stories not changing over the course of like 15 - 20 years. The only contradictions I could see from turbo were that at first it needs a progression, then it doesn't. I think there was another but I cant remember it.

I dunno, stories from various people lining up and not changing over years and years is too weird for me to not investigate.

 

I found 2 interesting Repeaters, let's called them A and B.
Tested for 250 days from Table 4 Wiesbaden.
In Holland Casino, there is a high Stake possibility, 10 euro min-300 euro max for the single Numbers.
It's not perfect, but it seems, it's Winning more than Losing.

The Prpgressions do their Work.

A + 137 k euro
B + 103 k euro

Will do the whole Year.

And because every Spin is independant, will do the whole year for Table 1.

And will start comparing.

 

Hello Chrono,

What I did is similar to above using the dozens as an example.

1) Write down the numbers
2) Write down their appearances (how many times they have came out)
3) work out the averages

For working out the averages, you can see in the example above that the different dozens appeared for the first time on spins 1,2 and 7.

They appeared for the second time on spins 3,4,12 etc...

So you need to take these figures when you have what you consider enough of them to come to a reliable working average.





So from row 1, take the 1 and 1, add them together = 2 and divide by 2 = 1.

Next, take the 2 and 3 from row 1, add them together = 5 and divide by 2 = 2.5.
Next, take the 7 and 5 from row 1, add them together = 12 and divide by 2 = 6.

And obviously do this for all the rows to arrive at your averages.

I did them for the doz, quads, six-lines, splits. (took me ages) Unfortunately, I can't programme but it would be a good way to find out the exact averages although I think I have them pretty close.

Thanks

 

I did an analysis on a spin by spin basis to see what was the most common outcome. I've added more data so I'm now working with 6480 cycles of 37. The report shows num of occurences/num cycles then that number expressed as a percentage.

After spin 26 repeaters are the more common outcome than uniques and after spin 8 the gap between repeaters hitting begins to shrink instead of grow.

Spin by spin analysis

Spin 1:
Unique: 6480/6480 (100.00%)
Spin 2:
Unique: 6310/6480 (97.38%)
2x,: 170/6480 (2.62%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.00
Spin 3:
Unique: 6160/6480 (95.06%)
3x,: 3/6480 (0.05%)
2x,: 317/6480 (4.89%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.98
Spin 4:
Unique: 5977/6480 (92.24%)
2x,: 490/6480 (7.56%)
3x,: 13/6480 (0.20%)
Average gap since last repeat: 2.87
Spin 5:
Unique: 5791/6480 (89.37%)
2x,: 657/6480 (10.14%)
3x,: 32/6480 (0.49%)
Average gap since last repeat: 3.52
Spin 6:
Unique: 5691/6480 (87.82%)
2x,: 750/6480 (11.57%)
3x,: 39/6480 (0.60%)
Average gap since last repeat: 4.26
Spin 7:
Unique: 5499/6480 (84.86%)
2x,: 902/6480 (13.92%)
3x,: 78/6480 (1.20%)
4x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 4.58
Spin 8:
Unique: 5315/6480 (82.02%)
2x,: 1085/6480 (16.74%)
3x,: 76/6480 (1.17%)
4x,: 4/6480 (0.06%)
Average gap since last repeat: 4.85
Spin 9:
Unique: 5243/6480 (80.91%)
2x,: 1125/6480 (17.36%)
3x,: 109/6480 (1.68%)
4x,: 3/6480 (0.05%)
Average gap since last repeat: 4.70
Spin 10:
Unique: 5124/6480 (79.07%)
2x,: 1207/6480 (18.63%)
3x,: 138/6480 (2.13%)
4x,: 11/6480 (0.17%)
Average gap since last repeat: 4.66
Spin 11:
Unique: 4956/6480 (76.48%)
2x,: 1352/6480 (20.86%)
3x,: 164/6480 (2.53%)
4x,: 8/6480 (0.12%)
Average gap since last repeat: 4.57
Spin 12:
Unique: 4732/6480 (73.02%)
2x,: 1534/6480 (23.67%)
3x,: 200/6480 (3.09%)
4x,: 14/6480 (0.22%)
Average gap since last repeat: 4.22
Spin 13:
Unique: 4680/6480 (72.22%)
2x,: 1508/6480 (23.27%)
4x,: 32/6480 (0.49%)
3x,: 258/6480 (3.98%)
5x,: 2/6480 (0.03%)
Average gap since last repeat: 3.64
Spin 14:
Unique: 4500/6480 (69.44%)
2x,: 1659/6480 (25.60%)
3x,: 289/6480 (4.46%)
4x,: 31/6480 (0.48%)
5x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 3.60
Spin 15:
Unique: 4319/6480 (66.65%)
2x,: 1773/6480 (27.36%)
3x,: 349/6480 (5.39%)
4x,: 38/6480 (0.59%)
5x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 3.04
Spin 16:
Unique: 4289/6480 (66.19%)
4x,: 49/6480 (0.76%)
2x,: 1787/6480 (27.58%)
5x,: 5/6480 (0.08%)
3x,: 350/6480 (5.40%)
Average gap since last repeat: 2.77
Spin 17:
Unique: 4168/6480 (64.32%)
3x,: 350/6480 (5.40%)
2x,: 1911/6480 (29.49%)
4x,: 47/6480 (0.73%)
5x,: 4/6480 (0.06%)
Average gap since last repeat: 2.37
Spin 18:
Unique: 4090/6480 (63.12%)
2x,: 1887/6480 (29.12%)
3x,: 448/6480 (6.91%)
4x,: 48/6480 (0.74%)
5x,: 7/6480 (0.11%)
Average gap since last repeat: 2.06
Spin 19:
Unique: 3904/6480 (60.25%)
2x,: 2013/6480 (31.06%)
3x,: 484/6480 (7.47%)
4x,: 72/6480 (1.11%)
5x,: 7/6480 (0.11%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.96
Spin 20:
Unique: 3894/6480 (60.09%)
3x,: 493/6480 (7.61%)
2x,: 2007/6480 (30.97%)
4x,: 81/6480 (1.25%)
5x,: 5/6480 (0.08%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.76
Spin 21:
Unique: 3688/6480 (56.91%)
2x,: 2104/6480 (32.47%)
4x,: 96/6480 (1.48%)
3x,: 578/6480 (8.92%)
5x,: 13/6480 (0.20%)
6x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.66
Spin 22:
Unique: 3607/6480 (55.66%)
2x,: 2202/6480 (33.98%)
3x,: 557/6480 (8.60%)
4x,: 100/6480 (1.54%)
5x,: 13/6480 (0.20%)
6x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.47
Spin 23:
Unique: 3580/6480 (55.25%)
2x,: 2122/6480 (32.75%)
3x,: 651/6480 (10.05%)
5x,: 13/6480 (0.20%)
6x,: 4/6480 (0.06%)
4x,: 109/6480 (1.68%)
7x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.38
Spin 24:
Unique: 3488/6480 (53.83%)
2x,: 2182/6480 (33.67%)
3x,: 669/6480 (10.32%)
4x,: 114/6480 (1.76%)
5x,: 23/6480 (0.35%)
6x,: 4/6480 (0.06%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.32
Spin 25:
Unique: 3373/6480 (52.05%)
2x,: 2245/6480 (34.65%)
3x,: 698/6480 (10.77%)
4x,: 143/6480 (2.21%)
5x,: 21/6480 (0.32%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.19
Spin 26:
Unique: 3246/6480 (50.09%)
2x,: 2275/6480 (35.11%)
4x,: 168/6480 (2.59%)
3x,: 764/6480 (11.79%)
5x,: 21/6480 (0.32%)
6x,: 6/6480 (0.09%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.21
Spin 27:
Unique: 3149/6480 (48.60%)
4x,: 190/6480 (2.93%)
2x,: 2300/6480 (35.49%)
3x,: 807/6480 (12.45%)
5x,: 32/6480 (0.49%)
6x,: 2/6480 (0.03%)
Average gap since last repeat: 1.09
Spin 28:
Unique: 3049/6480 (47.05%)
2x,: 2373/6480 (36.62%)
3x,: 831/6480 (12.82%)
4x,: 186/6480 (2.87%)
5x,: 37/6480 (0.57%)
6x,: 3/6480 (0.05%)
7x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 0.98
Spin 29:
Unique: 3064/6480 (47.28%)
5x,: 28/6480 (0.43%)
4x,: 195/6480 (3.01%)
2x,: 2271/6480 (35.05%)
3x,: 914/6480 (14.10%)
6x,: 7/6480 (0.11%)
7x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 0.94
Spin 30:
Unique: 2924/6480 (45.12%)
2x,: 2380/6480 (36.73%)
5x,: 55/6480 (0.85%)
4x,: 211/6480 (3.26%)
3x,: 901/6480 (13.90%)
7x,: 2/6480 (0.03%)
6x,: 6/6480 (0.09%)
8x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 0.92
Spin 31:
Unique: 2769/6480 (42.73%)
3x,: 987/6480 (15.23%)
4x,: 301/6480 (4.65%)
2x,: 2361/6480 (36.44%)
5x,: 48/6480 (0.74%)
6x,: 10/6480 (0.15%)
7x,: 4/6480 (0.06%)
Average gap since last repeat: 0.87
Spin 32:
Unique: 2791/6480 (43.07%)
2x,: 2417/6480 (37.30%)
5x,: 57/6480 (0.88%)
3x,: 950/6480 (14.66%)
4x,: 253/6480 (3.90%)
6x,: 9/6480 (0.14%)
7x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
8x,: 2/6480 (0.03%)
Average gap since last repeat: 0.80
Spin 33:
Unique: 2794/6480 (43.12%)
2x,: 2332/6480 (35.99%)
3x,: 1019/6480 (15.73%)
4x,: 269/6480 (4.15%)
5x,: 60/6480 (0.93%)
6x,: 6/6480 (0.09%)
Average gap since last repeat: 0.77
Spin 34:
Unique: 2648/6480 (40.86%)
5x,: 60/6480 (0.93%)
3x,: 1029/6480 (15.88%)
2x,: 2437/6480 (37.61%)
4x,: 294/6480 (4.54%)
6x,: 9/6480 (0.14%)
7x,: 2/6480 (0.03%)
9x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 0.74
Spin 35:
Unique: 2521/6480 (38.90%)
2x,: 2422/6480 (37.38%)
4x,: 350/6480 (5.40%)
3x,: 1107/6480 (17.08%)
5x,: 68/6480 (1.05%)
6x,: 10/6480 (0.15%)
7x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
8x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 0.73
Spin 36:
Unique: 2525/6480 (38.97%)
2x,: 2430/6480 (37.50%)
5x,: 73/6480 (1.13%)
4x,: 352/6480 (5.43%)
3x,: 1085/6480 (16.74%)
6x,: 14/6480 (0.22%)
7x,: 1/6480 (0.02%)
Average gap since last repeat: 0.67
Spin 37:
Unique: 2426/6480 (37.44%)
4x,: 385/6480 (5.94%)
2x,: 2407/6480 (37.15%)
3x,: 1168/6480 (18.02%)
5x,: 78/6480 (1.20%)
6x,: 16/6480 (0.25%)
Average gap since last repeat: 0.65

 

Thanks baccarou, I have to head out so I couldn't look at your data too long but I'm not seeing where the 2 and 3 are from row 1, or 7 and 5?

I want to replicate your approach exactly and then post all the 'truth tables' here for the various types of bets. Since I can program it and run it against currently 240k records I think people may find it helpful.

When I am back I'll see if I can get something like this posted in here.

 

Here we are Chrono,

 

From some numbers today (table 4 as usual)



The last two six-lines to show took a while to appear!

What I also look out for is six-lines that are moving relatively quickly from right to left (marked in green). Often they are sleepers that wake up and if you don't spot them / bet them, they are costing you!

 

Well I guess I was counting repeats a bit differently earlier, because I did indeed find that at spin 37 repeats are always 1 lower than unhit.

What I did was calculate the repeat, unhit, and unique counts for each cycle, averaged every spin and then plotted it. So spin 1 is averaged across 6480 cycles, spin 2, etc... So there could be no mistake.

This is 240k records so I am confident using the word always.

Here's 2 graphs. One that shows a 37 spin cycle, another where the cycle was changed to 38 spins.



Here's another showing 2 cycles. Just for fun.



Kinda looks like GUT eh?

Here's the raw data.

 

Something got messed up when I pasted the raw data in. This is the correct data.

 

Another interesting phenomena about the law of the third is the following!



As we all know, TLOTT permeates all the way through the game of roulette and so how do you cut the LOTT in half?

By running a second stream parallel with the original numbers using pocket distances.

Could this be used with the horseracing analogy?

In the threads on Turbo's forum, one of the things mentioned often was how sometimes you were getting long gaps between the numbers appearing (filling in the positions). It struck me that this might be a way to bridge the gap.

The problem with pocket distances added on to the original numbers is that you would have to place two bets if you wanted to cover both the original number and a matching pocket distance number. So for instance, suppose the last number out was 32 and now you wanted to cover number 15. So you would need to bet the number 15 and also count around 15 pockets from number 32 to arrive at the correct pocket distance number (assuming that's the way you were counting the pocket distance number because there are different ways to do it) but for arguments sake and counting around 15 pockets from number 32 takes you to number 8. So you would place a bet on number 15 and number 8 and if either one of those numbers appeared, you would have a winner and a 15 would be registered in one of your numbers column. On the flip side, if it's coming quicker because of the reduced waiting times by using a turbo charged LOTT, is that better?