Roulette Making a simple system based on statistical data

I'm a proud misfit, but I agree that the Law of the Third exists; I just don't don't agree that using it (or any other statistic) has any merit or helps in any way to predict the next number, or series of numbers.

My justification for this is that outcomes are independent events (yes, boring I know). What a pity that this is a fact, because if only they weren't, systems would actually mean something and we could really win by using them.

 

Jerome, if law of the third excist, thet this game wouldn't be random. But it is, so it doesn't excist.
You can't say averages are the same as a law., because this would mean, if the law did aply to roulette, you would always have 12,333333333333 in 37 spins, wich you won't.
It remains an average, every cycle you play. And even cycles are a make believe on it's own.

 

jek,

Is an average a "law"? debatable I suppose, but there's no harm in calling it a law as long as you understand what an average is. The average really is 12-13 non hits in 37 spins, as anyone can verify for themselves. But if you want to call it a law you must also say that there is a "law of the half", meaning that in 100 spins about half will be red and half will be black, and there is also another "law of the third" which says that in 100 spins, the first dozen will account for about a third of the hits. So there is nothing special about THE law of the third.

The point is that you can't take a sequential probability or count of outcomes over a series of spins and having observed a PARTIAL sequence (eg, wait for 1 spin remaining out of a sequence of 12, as Turbo is doing here), and then predict with any more accuracy than random than the sequence will COMPLETE in a way which satisfies the sequential probability (or average).

What's different about what Turbo is doing than, say, waiting for a sequence of 9 reds and then betting black, reasoning that the "law of the half" says that there should be 5 blacks in the sequence, and therefore the probability is higher once you get to 9 reds that black is more likely on the next spin? Or perhaps not counting on the NEXT spin to deliver (Turbo always says that the mistake we make is to only look to the next spin), but the next several spins. e.g. there should be about 25 reds and 25 blacks in 50 spins, so wait for 40 spins and if there are too many blacks in those 40 spins, bet red for the next 10 spins. The logic is the same and it's all based on the fallacy that future spins are dependent on past spins.

We can't bet DIRECTLY on the outcome of a sequence of spins, but only on one spin at a time. Once the sequence has begun we must RECALCULATE the probability of the remainder of the sequence (because outcomes are independent) - and that probability is ALWAYS different than the probability of the original sequence. So after recalculation you will see that any apparent advantage has disappeared.

 

Agree, can't add anything more.

 

I just want to mention ''Conquer the Casinos'' by Philip Koetsch

Because you mention even money bets and flat betting.
Various methods have been tested with 100 placed bets samples up to statistically significant results 60.000 placed bets.
The simulation has been done with 1.7% House Edge, so the results are perfect with a La Partage Rule.

Here are some stats ...

The worst that theoretical could happen with 100 placed bets (flat betting) is to lose 100 placed bets.
This never happens during 60.000 placed bets, the worst drawdown was minus 35 units and happens once.

Average peak loss ratio minus 8 units and average peak winning ratio plus 7 units.
83% of all sessions that start with a negative result had at least one reversal, back to back result reaching break even.
25% of all sessions reach above plus 10 units during 100 placed bets samples for 60.000 placed bets.

I have the charts and can post all the stats for the flat betting.

Problem is that you can win 25 to 30 sessions in a row - then suddenly from nowhere comes the losing sequences and eat up all the profits.

Cheers

 

The (flawed) logic is that at this point, after 11 spins, it's only 6...6 and if the average is to manifest, the wheel should produce the outcome which more closely approaches 8...4. Therefore you bet on the final spin for this to happen. Presumably because now there is some kind of statistical "pressure" which raises the probability higher than 18/37.

But if you actually repeat this experiment many times you'll see that the data shows no such thing. And why should it?

@ sputnik,

Same with all those stats in the book. The only way to use them is if you do something like the above, which doesn't and can't work.

 

And what would be the odds that these same 12-13 non hits remain non hits in the next 37 cycle?
Exploit that with the right progression recalibrating your bets (making up for the wrong predictions) where you need to.
You could stop at any profit as you do not need to wait for all non hits to hit.

 

@Jerome

This reply is not proving anything and my intention is to ask for a complex answer to the complex question.

Now one topic from 2016 describes one person winning two years of income during one year of play, gambling.
The method is to win two in a row using a four-level progression with six attempts on each level.
The first level is the one who makes a profit and the other three levels are to break even and recover when there is a bad sequence from hell.

And yes he bust once during that year, first, he made 30.000 Euro and then bust and had 25.000 Euro and continue to play as nothing happens.
Several other members who took his writing seriously and copy he's play also had success making profits from 1000 to 5000 Euro during pretty short period of play and does who succeed were they who spend several hours playing each day.

That is the information and background to my question.

1) How long would it take for a 1.35% House Edge (La Partage Rule) to eat up and take around 20.000 to 30.000 Euro profit each year?
And yes I understand it is not the House Edge that destroys the profits and more likely the variance and sequence from Hell.

2) My second question is an experiment I have done, I test this method using a classical method that has been known for decades and as above I never bust during one year of play and made one year of income and now to the question.
The selection is starting betting from 2.30 STDV sequence and aims to win two in a row before that sequence reaches 3.03 STDV.
For the method to bust you need to get six sequences that reaches 3.03 STDV after each other or you need to get more than several 3.03 STDV sequences hitting very close after each other with no chance to recover to break even and start over using a six-level progression with five attempt attacks each.
This never happen during one year of playing daily with minium 100 trails observations.
So what is the chance to get six sequences from 2.30 to reach 3.03 STDV six times in a row?

I don't want to prove anything, I just wanted to succeed doing the same thing that was claimed in the topic I read about winning two in a row and make one year of income.

Notes and comments about my two questions!

When there are life experiences and not simulations and stories of success I tend to take such writing seriously.
My belief is that you can win using both physics (advantage play) and be a system player.

For me is the notion of succeeding trading a random market with success the same thing as trading a roulette wheels random mechanism.

But I made a decision and keep my day job because if I compare spending time in a casino several hours each day or being in a nice atmosphere at my job with friends and nice social space, I stick to my job and use the other option as extra income as conservative player/gambler.

Cheers Patrik From Sweden

 

The same odds as any other 12-13 numbers. Try it and see for yourself.

@ sputnik,

Anecdotes from players who have bragged about results would not be good evidence even if you could prove that they were true.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

And they really have nothing to do with the specific point I'm making with regard to using past outcomes to predict future outcomes. Show me the data which contradicts what I've said.

 

I understand your point of view and we can agree that we don't agree ...
My opinion is that the video TG post - wish I recorded and save if it vanishes from Youtube again- has all the winning elements for a successful gambling carrier.

My opinion is that I don't need to prove anything and I only make claims, just like TG, then is up to each individual to google and search for information.
My personal favorite is to use STDV values with Statistical Frequency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_(statistics)
With other words periodic events or phenomena (cycles) - this does not prove anything other than several successful simulations, by me.

I come to the conclusion that hand testing has more value than several million trial simulations that show that all systems fail or bust.
No one will experience such many trails during a lifetime and even if a method bust once, does not mean it is not winning, the same as sports betting where you accept loses and winning for what they are.

(From one of my Marigny De Grilleau books)...
There is a known Matematican that also made more than one year of income playing roulette using one of the random video experiments as selection for he's betting, no one knows how he did it, the only known available information is the selection.
When you collect samples and observe the tendency is not hard to see two distinct events to emerge from the norm.
I mention both for TG, but he rejected my private message and did not reply, It would have been great having such a great mind comment on the subject.

And again we have the anecdote dilemma, where I again try to confirm and validate what has been done in the past.

Cheers

 

Bro !

I got your message and replied.
Now it's that I rejected it and didn't reply ?

Man, I get it from all directions don't I
Spend a moment in my PMs and Emails and then tell me how to reply to everyone at
that very moment, because if I could find a way to do that - I'd be set.

 

You want so much to believe that you would listen to any story that going in the same way.

That guy had just a lucky position on the gauss curve, others people had another positions and those who had a bad position simply didn't claim they lost. Haven't you notice that people talk when they win and won't post to say " hey i tried this and i lost a lot" maybe it is a bad idea huh?

 

So you know the average outcome for something happening,
yet say this isn't help in predicting.
Makes no sense to me, but it's your opinion.

A) I'll make a "prediction" based on what you agree exists. 00
In the next 38 spins there will be 24 numbers that appear and 14 that won't.
(it ended up being 23)
Do it again
(it ended up being 24)

Amazing that I could predict that and get it right on only the 2nd try, but then again it will
be 24 more than it will be any other number. But not predictable I suppose according to you,
even though it's clearly predictable.

Now if I get to spin 37 with 1 spin to go, (and 23 numbers have appeared to this point)
Then it's not absurd at all to say that a number that hasn't appeared yet is likely to on the next
spin.

HOW else would you come up with the 24 average unless on average this value was 24 ???

Will one of the other numbers showing again fill in this blank to make it 24 somehow ? Impossible.
Numbers that have already appeared won't make it 24, it will stay at 23.

Can it happen and the test end at 23 and not 24 - of course - but this isn't what is common,
or else the 24 average wouldn't exist.

You're not at spin 37 with 1 spin to go up against "the unknown" and your chances of winning
by playing no-shows at this point is better than if you played numbers that had already appeared.

You can't know the average of something and then deny that average exists, or deny that
it's not relevant when it comes to predicting the future outcomes.
Sure, if there were no way of knowing it would be 24 then you would be lost - we have the
info we need though.

Did it again, 20
24
27
24
25
24
24
27

Strange, the 24's have it and always will.
But now if you go back 1 spin where you're at 23 - and you know reliably that it will be 24 on
the next spin - then bet the numbers that haven't appeared yet because they are the only
ones that could fill in the blank to reach 24.
This is common sense, your chances of winning and losing are nowhere near what they would
be just trying to guess each spin.

Your even money example is fine, but just because it's 20 spins and you have 14 red and 5 black
with one spin to go - yes - bet black. There is an average of 10-10 for these 20 spins.
If it wasn't true, there would be no average at 10.

This can go around and around in circles, I posted results and explained why it works.
Others can say it's nonsense as much as they want I suppose, yet argue that it works at
the same time (I'm the only one accused of contradictions though)

 

Turbo, would you play online if your fan club open you an account with their money?

 

Turbo what you still dont seem to grasp time after time again. The 24 is a COMBINED result off all cycles. So including the cycles with 27 (above) and 21 ( below) fir example.

No you wont play these cycles right? You play the cycles where on spin 37 there are 23 numbers out. Now guess what hitrate you get after playing 1000 of just these 23 appearing cycles...

 

I would have lost on any attempt where the final outcome was not 24 - correct.

However it is 24 much much more than any other number
(remember the bell curve in the "random" video that was posted.)

If the value with 1 spin to go was 24 or more, then I would clearly bet repeats -
numbers that have shown already, the 24 was already reached - playing the no-shows
would be opposite of what makes sense here. You can win either way which I showed in the streets test.

So having that info you can surely predict and be right more than enough.
I would think everyone would agree on this, it's fact.

 

Like I said in the other thread - save the video so that you have it when youtube deletes it (again)
You can do with with a browser add-on or there are sites that will take the URL and let you download
the video. Or I can send it to you via email.



https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001002.htm

 

Ok then do you want me to program this for you? So you can SEE it doesnt change a thing in the end!

Then you'll admit that the facts were wrong and dont say it was another example. Agreed?

 

I don't understand how TG shares all this information - I am grateful and TG should have all the respect he deserves.

Take for example what he wrote above - take the second layer only and play-based upon the principals.
I might not do exactly the same procedure but I win as much as TG using the same principle, can I can others...

I use a simple progression that has several layers and I play for the statistical frequency values and make 500 Euro - just like that ...
If I would bust I would reach the Guinness World Record Book ...

Today's short mini session based upon TG statement in the post above "only using the second layer" ...

+9 level 1 freq 0
+18 level 1 freq 0
+17 level 1 freq 0
+32 level 1 freq 0
+28 level 1 freq 0
-81 level 1 freq 1
+93 level 1 freq 0
+23 level 1 freq 0
+16 level 1 freq 0
+8 level 1 freq 0
-68 level 1 freq 1
-180level 1 freq 2
+74 level 2 freq 0
-112level 2 freq 1
+168level 2 freq 0
+42 level 2 freq 0
+48 level 2 freq 0
+62 level 2 freq 0

Profit +638 Units
Loss -441 Units

Total profit +197 Units = 500 Euro

The norm is reaching 3 STDV and above in my favour the majority of the time and not the other way around - sweet dreams

 

Why don't you bet with real money at an online casino if you are sure it is not possible to lose with your system?.