Roulette Cold vs. overdue?

It doesn't really make sense to say "on average" together with "every single time". If after 36 spins only 23 numbers have hit at least once instead of 24, would you bet your life savings that one of the remaining 14 numbers will come up on the next spin? Of course not. In fact the probability of one of those 14 numbers hitting is 14/37 regardless of where you are in the cycle, and it always has the same variance too.

 

Yes, you can certainly use probabilities for things like bankroll requirements and such, but knowing stats or patterns will not help to increase the likelihood of any number or group of numbers coming up, either on the next spin or series of spins, because the probabilities are fixed. You could pick any 4 numbers other than your "finals" and the results would be just the same, on average.

 

Yes.....I know. 4 Stellas and noodling on my guitar at the same time.
on average-everytime is an oxymoron
This is why "law of the 3rd" is misleading
Law suggests it happens every time.
Law of SD may be better as +/-4 SD is possible....like a plane crash.

 

Going to leave the maths to the experts, from my simple perspective it's quite obvious:
First, lets look at this in the context of one session ...
Hot numbers are numbers that repeat periodically, cold numbers are numbers that came up one a while ago, maybe at the start of the session and haven't appeared since. Overdue numbers were ones that never showed up during that session.
Now after playing 3 sessions ...
The hot ones keep repeating (some of the cold become hot), cold ones haven't showed up for a while (some hot ones may have turned cold), AND ... overdue ones haven't showed up at all during the 3 sessions played.

 

.....and btw....I still think the best way to get to spain is by plane...regardless of the odds of death

 

Guess what I am trying to say is that I dont believe 5 hitting 28 times in the last 300 spins means 5 is hot. Last 300 spins is the key and they are in the past.
I only consider the latest cycle moving forward as an indication how coincidences may hit.

 

Yep leave the math to the broke assed experts, lol, they got the math and cannot win with it! LMAO. Fact!!!!

 

In recent play using sets the following result from two of the sets:

4 12 26 28 = 28

9 13 16 21 = 9 9 9 13 16 16 21 9 21 13

So what you are saying is I should ignore the active set ahead of all the other sets and bet on 4 12 26 28 with 28 showing
just the once!!!!!

Your theoretical nonsense does not stand up to the reality of actual play at a roulette Table.

I would strongly advise you not to play roulette, perhaps you would be better suited to bingo.

 

LOL Bingo or Keno might not be such a bad suggestion after all. Not to forget the 3 number daily lottery .


Opinion only . Play t your own risk .



ND

 

lol. You're the one with the theoretical nonsense. Why should the numbers you select be any more likely to hit than any others? It's the question that nobody can answer. It's just common sense that they aren't, and you have to make up "theoretical nonsense" in order to argue that they are.
You don't really need to know why something works if it seems to work, but don't just ASSUME that something works without testing properly. You guys have pet theories but you don't know how to test them; if you did you would abandon them. Sure makes for good entertainment though!

 

He reminds me of a guy who called himself "Mr Chips". He was into finals and elaborate systems too.

 

He was/is another poster somewhere. I can spot it a mile out.

Ken

 

We Know that 1 to 36 plus 0 will not all appear once in 37 spins. I have never seen it and nor has anyone else. 7 may
come in three times 31 did not appear etc. The question is why should any numbers I "select be any more likely to hit than
any others". Ok, when the first number comes in I of course haven't a clue what that number will be. It's 32. I therefore
record this number on 5 of the sets, as 5 of the 45 sets has 32. Next 29, 28, 8. Now this is a good example as two of the
numbers 29 & 8 at this stage are in the lead triggering a bet. I don't know if this set will continue in the lead, as that all
depends how active the numbers are going to be. Next number 9, 33. At this stage I stop placing bets. Four sets now
record two numbers, therefore no set is in the lead. Depending how active each of the numbers are will determine, which
set will be in the lead. When one of the sets is again in the lead, I will resume placing bets. If at any time a set levels with a
leading set then no bet and so on. Eventually a leading set will be ahead of the other sets and hit the numbers, as shown
above 9 13 16 21.

It's a fact all sets won't be equal, the same as every number won't come in 1 in 37 times. The sets simply take advantage
when numbers repeat very often or less often. The example above showed 9 come in very often then it changed to less
often. 13 less often. The combined combination made 9 13 16 21 the leading set.

However much you say that something can't work, it does in fact work very well or I wouldn't waste my time on it.
Don't get bogged down in theory. Most of it is rubbish and you will end up like a parrot, like a certain member on this
forum "gamblers fallacy", "gamblers fallacy", "gamblers fallacy". He will be flying in soon lol.

 

delectus,

There are 66,045 possible sets of 4 from 37 numbers. What makes your 45 so special? How long have you been playing the system and what makes you think you haven't just been lucky so far? The fact that you're betting on the leading set doesn't prove anything because a set can start sleeping at any time, the same applies to hot numbers. What makes the set you've selected stay hot when there are 66,000 other sets which aren't even on your radar?

 

Where are the winnings of the math boys ? NO PROOF ! Jus imagination and posts and posts of BS.


That has been observed the past a6 years on various forums . Never seen any proof .


After all reading 16 years of fiction on several forums combined .



Let`s have it once and for all .



ND

 

My idol! Nathan NY.

 

I have never seen any proof from any individual, you included, in the forums for 10 years I've been looking at them, and as an avid reader, I have looked at 100 times as many posts than I took part in.

Show your tax returns proving you and John Patrick had it nailed.....no? I didnt think so.

When have you ever proven anything?

To be fair to myself, I have tried and tested every washhoo2 hallaballoo you ever posted. It fails....but still you play the very critical Pro Gambler.

You brought this tirade on, not me. Sometimes I bite my lip so hard that the pain is just too much

 

The 45 sets have carefully been worked out and they are linked. More could possibly be worked out, but it would not
be practical at the roulette Table. I have discovered that 45 sets is ideal, as it will produce leading sets. As I have said
when a set levels with the leading set there is a no bet, and therefore reduces losses until a leading set appears.

I started work on sets 5 years ago. Sets are an important part of mathematics and are ideal for using random numbers from
a roulette wheel.

You mentioned that a set can start sleeping at anytime. Yes of course, but it doesn't matter. It often happens where a leading
set having produce 2 hits does not show for a few spins. Perhaps one or two other sets draw level. Then a new leading set where
numbers were less often coming in, now perhaps two numbers appear very often. There is also the set that races ahead from
all the other sets and is very rewarding.

I often use sets together with my roulette model, which hopefully I will have fully tested by the end of this year. The most
difficult project I have ever worked on.

 

Are you a software programmer? How are you power testing all this?

 

He never will either cuz he has no proof because most likely he doesn't even do what he says he does except by Theory. you brought it out he cannot say anything in concrete proof. Lol!