Roulette A Challenge 2 - for Turbo M

Bobby, I tried your idea of just betting one number several years ago. Worked great for the first 10,000 spins and then sank. The annoying thing was when you just came off betting a number and switched to a new one and lo and behold, the previous number you were betting pops up on the very next spin. Very annoying when you get a session where it keeps happening.

I know we are going around the houses, but I think betting for the second number that hits twice could be a good angle with the right strategy.
The first repeat comes around the 7th-8th spin on average and the second repeat comes around the 12th-13th spin on average. So you have a short spin gap a lot of the time between spins 7-8 and 12-13. Not enough time to lose your shirt chasing.

 

The neat thing about it is that you only need one hit per session to break even or better. You don't start the wager, like you said 7th or 8th. It gets a bit crazy toward the end of the session as all of the repeats hit.

Just looking at it on a couple known sessions, my mythical 12 hit session only pulled 75 units compared to 322, but what was more interesting was that my 4 hit session pulled 44 units instead of 3. Another thought is that you pull repeats until you get a hit. Once hit the session starts over. It would avoid the chaos at the end of the session. With any data analysis and ode to the frequency curve from before, newer info should be more relevant even with independent individual spins.

Wouldn't be hard to add one unit per losing session either... once you get a hit, that is a lot of chips.

Just thinking outloud again, waiting for my wife before we go to Trivia night. LOL

 

After a lot of trial and error, I found something which is holding up so far which kind of goes along with what TG is explaining.

*cycle 1. Bet any number that comes up twice. If a number comes up for a third time, place an extra chip on it and add an extra chip for all subsequent hits up to the end of the first cycle (37 spins).

*cycle 2. You would now bet 1 chip on any number that comes up for the third+ time with 1 chip. Raise a chip on any subsequent hit up until the end of the second cycle (74 spins). Because it's a new cycle, any number that comes up twice, place a chip on it and raise a chip on all subsequent hits up until the end of cycle 2. In effect, you are playing cycle 2 as both cycle 2 and a new cycle 1.

*cycle 3. Bet on any number that comes up for the fourth+ time with 1 chip. Raise a chip on any subsequent hit up until the end of the third cycle (111 spins). Because it's a new cycle, any number that comes up twice, place a chip on it and raise a chip on all subsequent hits until the end of cycle 3. So again, you are playing cycle 3 as cycle 3, but also as cycle 1 all over again.

In essence, you are betting on numbers that are above expectation when they appear in a cycle ONLY. (This stops you wasting chips on numbers that are above expectation, but don't appear in a new cycle.) Of course, there are still no guarantees that they will again for the second time in the cycle, but it's a kind of countermeasure.

You are also taking advantage of numbers that were cold for a few cycles and then wake up by betting any number that hits twice in a particular cycle. It just means the number is above expectation in that particular cycle. In one of my tests, number 28 had not appeared at all in cycles 1, 2 and 3. It hit 6 times in cycle 4. I managed to win on it 4 times at x1 chip, x2 chip, x3 chip and x4 chip. If I had waited for it to reach 5 hits in cycle 4 meaning 1 hit above the expectation, I would have only had a 1 chip win on it's sixth hit. I am therefore not allowing cold numbers waking up to take too many hits away from me.

I think that's all just common sense and as close as I can get for now. It works well in my tests so far.

 

Increase your betting horizon to 300 or even 1000, qualify the betting conditions so you know when conditions are stable, and you're method will perform better. Also, makes sure that you separate by spin direction.

 

I'm going to give an example about why I believe this way of betting is wrong;

Let's say you start betting and by your 30th spin number 30 hits for 2nd time so you put 1 chip on it, the game goes on and after 7 spins/bets number 30 hasn't hit again, thus you are removing it from your bet list because your cycle ends and by that very moment I sit on the same table and watch on the matrix the last 12 spins number 30 showed up 2 times and I begin betting it...after 5 spins number 30 hits for 3rd time and my net stands at +31 units while yours is -7.

I'm not sure if I explained it clearly, all I'm trying to say is that the cycles are constant, they have no frames, frames or limits if you prefer exist only in our mindsets.

Also I'd like to add some objections I've from other posts, whether you wait for 2 hits to become 3 or 3 to become 4 or 4 to become 5...etc you could win or lose with any of them!
There is no magic amount of hits to the next which will guarantee your win, you have to focus on the continuous stream / flow of results...sometimes tables are "hot" which favor repeaters while other times are "choppy"/ balanced which don't favor repeaters.

There is not 1 size fits all!

 

Eugene, I think it works nicely as stop loss but Blue is right. In a way your limiting yourself to that 37/38 cycle where 3 is the average high outcome. However, take into consideration the repeat count for each number including ended cycles, and use a progression for the stake. e.g. #7 has hit twice but no 3rd in the first cycle. Then it shows at spin 40, into your second cycle Play it as 2 units rather than 1 as its now repeated 3 times overall.

Or rather than cycles of 37/38. Why not take into account when a number repeats on average. e.g. a 2 repeat will occur within 14 spins and on average the first 3 repeat shows around spin 23. Any 2 repeats within the last 14 spins, bet on. Any 3 repeats within last 23 spins, bet on, etc using average for each level of repeat. Your when to drop a number; if that 2 repeat hasn't turned 3 within a set range, remove it. Bit more complex this but based on average repeat outcomes.

 

Or could be a rotating 37 spins cycle by removing the 1st result (oldest) and replacing it with the last (newest).
This way you will not stuck with hotties which go for sleeping ;-)

 

Sorry guys but your missing the point!....Like most methods its based on the law of the third. 37 spin cycle.

 

Hi Eugene,its nice to see someone with enthusiasm and willing to share there work thumbs up

 

Is this topic going anywhere really or lost its way home?

 

Rona the moaner

 

Not really. LOT doesn't rely on the cycle being 37. Its always there.

 

All are relevant, for example if you bet numbers their cycle is 37 spins for the European wheel and 38 for the American, but if you bet splits their cycle is 18 spins, for streets is 12 spins, for corners is 9, for lines is 6, for dozens/columns is 3, for EC's is 2.
Just keep in mind that LOT is always there regardless of the amount of numbers and spins, on an ongoing, evolving and revolving fashion.

 

Blue,

These days, do you know why people naively believe that the law of the third is the holy grail?

 

No but I assume that you are going to tell me, I'm all ears (not literally).

 

The law of the third has actually been around for quite a long time. It only became popular after 1982 because of two gamblers that were involved in an incident in North Hampton. Specifically the Rubicon Club Casino.

The two men were playing visual ballistics and were busted using while using a hidden communication device. (The device enabled the vb observer to discretely say the predicted number into the player's ear so that he could then bet a 12 number section of the wheel.) (It was not a computer.) They had been winning quite a bit of money, all over Europe with their method. When interrogated by the police, the Polish member of the group, Paul Phillips, claimed to be a mathematical genius that had invented a method based on the "Phillip's Law of The Third." Of course, both the name of the man and the system were just a cover story for the visual ballistics.

After being arrested and spending the night in jail, the police chose to let them out of jail and offered them a chance to prove that they weren't cheating by demonstrating their 12 number betting method. So they did, over five whole spins. LOL! When they hit three or four times, the casino and police were flabbergasted at their hit rate. (Keep in mind the police and gaming were basically as stupid and naive as they are now.) Consequently, reports of the law of the third's success spread like wild fire! Everyone wanted in on the system. Even to this day people naively believe that the law of the third can win. All because of a cover story!

Of course, later on, people like Ron Shelly and George Melas came to realize what was really taking place. The men were visual ballistic/wheel watchers. They continued onward, making millions on their tour across Europe. As did some German teams. Their success led to the invention and production of the low profile wheel.

So their you have it. The law of the third is a farce. It's a built upon a cover story created by two clever visual ballistic players that made it popular back in 1982.

 

I'm wondering what TG has to say about it, thanks.

 

By the way, you can look this information up. It's documented by the engineer for Huxley, and Ron Shelly (consultant and wheel mechanic). You'll also find some mention of them on Wiki.

Meanwhile there are a lot of people that believe that they can beat the game by observing the normal binomial distribution of the numbers. All because of a cover story created by some APs. On a side note, during a gaming investigation I explained to gaming officials that the reason I was winning so much was because I was exploiting the regression to the mean and the statistics on the reader board. LOL!

 

So nothing to do with over 2000 year old Phi math. Funny how 37/1.618 =23. Also the average of when a 3rd repeat hits in a cycle.
It's not the holy grail. Who said it was? It's just a present fact throughout nature that in the case of this game presents itself as a useful tool.
Loved the story though!