Roulette Using parameters to hit sleepers

I got it now thanks. Still can't figure out how it affects this project. I have supplied all
the info here. I go to a casino write down the numbers for 28 spins. The parameters
come from a number of Tables maximum 28 spins. So for example to start this
process, wait for a number that has taken around 100 spins to come in. This could
take 10 Tables. Lets say it's 105, then 105 -56 will give a parameter of 49/105.

I think what a lot of people can't get there heads around is why should one number
be different from any other number, the comments I got earlier in this topic.
It is a fact and people like Turbogenius will always refuse to accept, that moving
from Table to Table, with a maximum of 28 spins will alter the probability and
alter the numbers, in a way that creates the parameters that I produced. You
will see as I produce more results, what happens to the parameters and everyone
can decide for themselves, what is happening and why every number has it's
own parameter. Not only that, but some numbers have a much more favourable
parameter than many others!!!

 

I get it. It's Magic.

 

And it's a good question. The differences you're seeing are not significant from a statistical point of view. As I said earlier, they are explained by variance. Do you know what I mean by variance?

But if doing this floats your boat, go ahead. In the end you'll see for yourself.

 

Then explain how some numbers have a more favourable parameter than others?

 

The number 1 is number one in my book. The number 2 is an American expression for the way some things come out, in the bathroom.

You actually believe that any number in the next few spins can have favorable parameters. Amazing. So all you have to do is discover the secrets and you will be rich. I give up.

 

Well, according to Turbo he relies on the wheel being random and randomness in order to win. So using his method you can move back and forth between tables every spin if you want. (But the system still is a loser. )

 

I have already produced here a Strength Index (SI) Table. So it's a fact some
numbers have a more favourable parameter.

 

It's amazing when I started this project I did not know how it would work
out. Instead of commenting on the details I get some irrational
comments. I intend to continue with this project and will ignore
any future irrational comments. May be it's too advanced for some
to comment on the details, that's unfortunate.

 

You might get more feedback at Steve's forum. They love systems over there.

 

L P 4

01 071/127 003 01 05 027
02 171/227 056 02 15 026
03 094/150 047 03 16
04 114/170 006 04 31
05 147/203 027 05 29
06 137/193 010 06 21 022
07 118:174 128 07 10 021
08 123/179 007 08 09 020
09 178/234 020 09 31
10 199/255 021 10 33 018 062
11 129/185 017 11 11 017
12 151/207 043 12 32
13 135/191 004 13 31 015
14 146/202 011 14 29
15 169/225 026 15 32 013
16 186/242 025 16 14
17 077/133 071 17 14 011
18 098/154 052 18 06 010
19 102/158 054 19 29
20 044/100 036 20 23 008
21 105/161 022 21 08 007
22 094/150 032 22 04
23 146/202 008 23 29 005
24 179/235 127 24 13 004
25 127/183 031 25 01 003
26 096/152 053 26 16 002
27 052/108 000 27 04 001
28 156/212 098 28 27 000 076
29 109/165 005
30 069/125 028
31 141/197 015
32 173/229 013
33 048/104 018
34 115/171 070
35 123/179 030
36 116/172 037
37 148/204 066

 

Well so far Jerome has not replied to my question "explain how some numbers have a more
favourable parameter than others" ?

 

Strength Index (SI) update

01 01
03 01
04 02
06 01
08 01
13 01
17 02
20 09
21 01
22 03
24 01
26 02
27 07
29 02
30 04
33 11
34 01
36 01

 

For the same reason than on a sample of 10k spins not all numbers will come out around 270 times...

 

No that answer doesn't stack up. In a sample of 10,000 spins various numbers
will take the lead. There will not be a group of numbers that continually take
the lead. Here a selection of numbers will have parameters, that will always
be ahead of the other numbers and their parameters.

If you look at the numbers 2, 9, & 10 and their parameters, they will never
take the lead over 20, 27, & 33.

I am convinced now that this project is very similar to my model and I am
surprised how well it has performed. If 2, 9 or 10 overtakes 20, 27 or 33
in the SI I will admit defeat and stop. Lets see how it looks in 5 years time

 

Well you should try to get some numbers on different wheels... you'll will see sometime group of numbers (stuck on the wheel or not) that lead and persist to lead, that you could easily believe the wheel is biased and actually this is just variance.

 

Variance is not going to hack it. I mentioned somewhere previously that I go to
various casino's along the south coast and in London, where there is a choice
of 20 casino's. It's great come out of Victoria station walk to St James's Park,
then up Green Park to Piccadilly, then to Piccadilly Circus. Choice of at least
6 casino's my idea of heaven.

 

delectus,

How exactly are you finding these parameters? If you show me how you're doing it I can prove to you that it IS variance, and save you a lot of work. Isn't that kind of me?

 

Delectus,

Are your spins from a live wheel?

How many standard deviations from the norm are your results? What's the chi square on your wheel data?

I suspect you need to read a bit more on what's statistically relevant and what's not as well as variance.

 

See Post 121

 

If you read the posts you would know what sort of wheel.

If you want to sort out the mathematics, then help yourself to the L P Tables,
that I am producing here. All the info is there.

So far I have trawled through over 3000 spins. See the posts relating
to the SI Table.