Roulette POSITIVE expectation CAN be PROVED MATHEMATICALLY!

Dear readers,

this is a thread which requires your full attention in order to fully comprehend the hidden opportunity.

Let's start with the basic about the Law Of the Third:

In every 37 spins cycle there are 24 numbers which have appeared once or more and 13 sleepers
(numbers which haven't appeared within the last 37 spins)
Those are average numbers and deviations exist, for example I've seen up to 30 different numbers to show up within the 37 last spins and the least were 18 different numbers.
Those extremes are from my experience during gambling sessions and not from simulations.
In order to find the average we should determine the extremes,or in other words the limits, in that case 18 and 30 are the limits.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 start by discarding the outer numbers from both sides:

First discarding 18 and 30
Second discard 19 and 29
Third discard 20 and 28
Fourth discard 21 and 27
Fifth discard 22 and 26
Sixth discard 23 and 25

And we conclude to 24 which is the average total of the appeared numbers within 37 last spins.
Another way to calculate the average is to add all the totals and then divide the total sum with the total of the averages,for example:

18 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 1 time
19 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 2 times
20 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 3 times
21 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 4 times
22 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 5 times
23 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 6 times
24 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 7 times
25 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 6 times
26 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 5 times
27 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 4 times
28 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 3 times
29 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 2 times
30 different numbers within the last 37 spins happened 1 times

[(1 x 18)+(2 x 19)+(3 x 20)+(4 x 21)+(5 x 22)+(6 x 23)+(7 x 24)+(6 x 25)+(5 x 26)+(4 x 27)+(3 x 28)+(2 x 29)+(1 x 30) / 49] =>

[(18+38+60+84+110+138+168+150+130+108+84+58+30) / 49]=>

1176 / 49 = 24

This means that if someone was betting one number for 37 spins, 24 times he/she would have won and 13 times he/she would have lost.
To calculate the total sum of lost bets is easy:
13 times multiplied by 37 (1 x 37) equals minus 481 units.

In order to find the total amount of won bets, we should again calculate the averages as we did above,let's see:
We start from the middle numbers within a 37 spin cycle and add 2 more numbers from both sides till we have a total of 24.
18th and 19th spins
17th and 20th spins
16th and 21st spins
15th and 22nd spins
14th and 23rd spins
13th and 24th spins
12th and 25th spins
11th and 26th spins
10th and 27th spins
9th and 28th spins
8th and 29th spins
7th and 30th spins
So we have 24 wins from different spins, now let's calculate the total amount of net profit.

29+28+27+26+25+24+23+22+21+20+19+18+17+16+15+14+13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6 = 420

But since we would lose 481 - 420 = -61 loss, therefore the definition negative expectation.

Do we agree so far?
Is everything clear?

Let's see how we could turn the negative expectation into positive without changing a thing in terms of probability, in fact with exactly the same results which have lead us to the negative balance above.

The average expectation is to get twice the wins for every loss, with my method you only need approximately 1 positive cycle for every negative cycle, which means that the proportion of 2 to 1 changed to 1 to 1.

Let me explain how this is possible, the only thing which I'm not going to reveal you here is the criteria which I'm using to select the betting number.
You could pick a random number, or your "lucky" number or anything else you like.

I start flat betting 1 number with 1 unit for 36 spins.
When the betting number appears, no matter in which spin, I re-bet the same number plus its neighbour regarding the wheel layout (right or left doesn't matter)

So now I'm flat betting 2 numbers with 1 unit each for the next 18 spins.
When one of the two betting numbers hits within eighteen spins, then I re-bet those two numbers and adding the other wheel neighbour, thus in total three numbers for the next 12 spins, always flat bet 1 unit each.

When one of the three betting numbers comes, I add one more neighbour,this time from the table layout.
So far we have 4 numbers to flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 9 spins.
Let's see if you keep on winning what happens:

5 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 7 spins
6 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 6 spins
7 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 5 spins
8 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 4 spins
9 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 4 spins
10 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 3 spins
11 numbers flat bet with 1 unit each for the next 3 spins

Eleven is the maximum numbers you could bet, this may happen if your first number was 17 for example, because 17 has 2 neighbours on the wheel's layout (like every number) and 8 neighbours regarding the table layout 13,14,15,16,18,19,20,21 (yes,the diagonals too).

What if someone is lucky enough and after adding all neighbours one by one continues to win?
In this case you start adding 1 unit each time you win to only 1 of your betting numbers, you should start from your first selection and continue with the same order.
The minimum total of betting numbers are 6, for example 34 has 2 neighbours at the wheel's layout (17,6) and 3 neighbours at the table (31,32,35)
All together with 34 are six numbers.

We have seen how it might proceed if you are lucky and win frequently, this is not so rare because sometimes the croupiers are hitting specific sectors/numbers frequently (more than their probability)
Personally I've reached two times the 6 numbers bet selection after not many trials, of course this is not always the case.
Let's see what happens when we eventually lose, when you lose during 2 numbers bet selection or more, then you just pick another number and start from scratch, which means flat bet 1 number for the next 36 spins.

There is only one exception, if you lose during 1 number bet selection, in that case you pick another number but this time the betting wouldn't be flat, each and every time our number fails to hit we would add some interest by adding 1 unit.
So the bet on our number would be like this:
1st spin 1 unit
2nd spin 2 units
3rd spin 3 units
4th spin 4 units and so on till your number eventually appears or till you have lost for 37 spins in a row.

If you lose for second consecutive time your 37 bet cycle,this means that somewhere ahead are 4 more winning cycles/rounds but you would only need 2 of them in order to overcome the 2 negative ones.
You change again the number and continue with the dynamic progression till your winning cycles/rounds equals your losing ones.

Let's calculate the losing and winning totals by betting with the dynamic progression instead of the flat bet.
Remember that the average expectation is to lose 13 times within 37 cycles/rounds, so the total loss will be:
[13 x (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28+29+30+31+32+33+34+35+36+37)]=>
13 x 703 = -9139 units

Now let's calculate the total amount of profit:

[(7 x 35) - 21] + [(8 x 35) - 28] + [(9 x 35) - 36] +[(10 x 35) - 45] + [(11 x 35) - 55] + [(12 x 35) - 66] + [(13 x 35) - 78] + [(14 x 35) - 91] + [(15 x 35) - 105] + [(16 x 35) - 120] + [(17 x 35) - 136] +[(18 x 35) - 153] + [(19 x 35) - 171] + [(20 x 35) - 190] + [(21 x 35) - 210] + [(22 x 35) - 231] + [(23 x 35) - 253] + [(24 x 35) - 276] + [(25 x 35) - 300] + [(26 x 35) - 325] + [(27 x 35) - 351] + [(28 x 35) - 378] + [(29 x 35) - 406] + [(30 x 35) - 435] =>

(245 - 21) + (280 - 28) + (315 - 36) + (350 - 45) + (385 - 55) + (420 - 66) + (455 - 78) + (490 - 91) + (525 - 105) + (560 - 120) + (595 - 136) + (630 - 153) + (665 - 171) + (700 - 190) + (735 - 210) + (770 - 231) + (805 - 253) + (840 - 276) + (875 - 300) + (910 - 325) + (945 - 351) + (980 - 378) + (1015 - 406) + (1050 - 435) =>

224 + 252 + 279 + 305 + 330 + 354 + 377 + 399 + 420 + 440 + 459 + 477 + 494 + 510 + 525 + 539 + 552 + 564 + 575 + 585 + 594 + 602 + 609 + 615 = +11080

We deduct 9139 from 11080 and we find 1941 net profit, therefore the negative expectation has been turned into positive!
But wait, there are more good news!

Since always the first losing cycle/round costs us 36 units instead of 703, that's why you don't need the exact probability to happen (2 winning cycles for every 1 losing cycle), you need approximately equal winning/losing cycles.
I say approximately because you never know in which spin your number is going to appear, thus the net gain differs.
Let me put it this way,if after 2 losing cycles you have 2 winning ones, then you are in profit and re-start from 1 number flat bet with 1 unit for 36 spins.

But after 3 or more consecutive losing cycles you would need the same amount of winning cycles plus 1 more.
Even in such situation, you can be in the positive with worst results than what probability theory supports.
For example in order to overcome 3 losing rounds, I just need 4 instead of 6 which probability dictates as average.
Of course,the results could also be better than average!

Just remember that in the first phase, while we flat bet, we try to find the possibility to win by frequent repeaters.
We build slowly and safely a net gain and we don't limit the possibility for more profits (sky is the limit!) but we limit the loss.

During any stage of the 1st phase (flat bet) the maximum amount we risk is 36 units or less, if you don't lose during the 1st (1x36) or 2nd stage (2x18) of the first phase, then you would be in the positive.
The longer you keep on winning with the flat bets, the more would be the profit, it's all about what happens first.

Under any circumstance you will know what to do next, I'd recommend a total bankroll of 2000 minimum, 6000 average and 10000 units maximum in order to overcome occasional distribution anomalies.

Angelo A.

 

Knowledge of the law of the third is like knowing that red will hit on average 18 times every 38 spins, or that a single number will hit about once every 38 spins (on a double zero wheel). Knowledge of the probability doesn't enable you magically side step the odds, and it doesn't increase the accuracy of predicting the next spin. Unfortunately the odds will remain the same from one spin to the next and the house payoff will still be short of the odds, since the same number of pockets remain on the wheel from one spin to the next.

Your proof is bunk.

 

According to you, in fact if you really tried to understand what I've demonstrated here, you would realised that I don't need better probability, odds, payout in order to win long term.
But you only see what you want to see, you care only for reassuring yourself of what you already know, but have you ever thought that there might be more things than those you already know??
I can't change the probability and the payouts neither I need to do so in order to win.

The most common mistake gamblers do is to try to win every possibility by risking more than what they could win.
Eventually they bite more than what they can chew...

You look but don't see, you are eager and rush to discard/disprove anything which is different from what you know/doing.
So if you are not here to learn something new, what's your purpose?
Repeat like a parrot the same things on every forum, every thread, every post???
You are not helping anyone and most of all you are not helping yourself!

 

Listen, when you select neighboring numbers on the wheel or neighboring numbers on the layout, you can select numbers that are 90 to 180 degrees away from your neighbor numbers on the wheel and furthest away from your table layout numbers, and still get the same results on average. There are no magic slots on the wheel and no magic connections to locations on the felt.

My recommendations is to sell your house and take that money and move to any gambling mecca. Put it all on the line if you really think you have it. I know that you don't. That perfect sequence that will kill your method is in fact a neighboring sequence. You can't avoid it. It will happen enough to make all this effort a waste of your time.

 

The 180 degrees is directly opposite, on the antipode of the wheel's layout, while 90 degrees is half that distance.
Is there any magic proximity or distance which could be clearly predetermined?
The short answer is no, you might use Fibonacci numbers for calculating distances (1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34) but nothing works every time and of course PI and FI ratios/proportions are not the exceptions.
The key is to know when they are working, in other words positive synch (timing).

 

I'm the master of knowing when something is working. It's the one and only reason to attempt to take away the casino's money. It's the only legal way to rob a business. How could that not be the most fun. People don't get this reading randomness thing. They think I'm saying that you will always win if you target the coincidences. I'm just saying that you will have quality win streaks if you target the characteristics of coincidences. If you fall victim to your own biological cerebral chemistry then knowing how to act agile and executing it become two different things. There are reasons why betting on the trends don't work. They are random reasons. My conclusion is that whenever you use rules you get sequences of loss. The art of winning is in knowing how to deal with wins and losses. Having a bet selection technique only gets you a chance to identify win streaks and losing streaks. The process of leaving the casino a winner has to do with awareness. These blind attempts to beat the math into submission are entertaining at most. If you really think you can win then go for it. Dazzle us all. This law of third dog has already been beaten to death.

 

I don't like to be dogmatic, what you see, the moment you see it could be just one of the several possible ways to victory.
Every way is good as long as it places you on the winning side, what differs is the perception.

 

I don't have the brain capacity to consider every way that could be a winner. I just focus on a few common ways that trends line up nicely. In every 200 spin session I see many great chances to beat the casino. I'm in on all of them in time to make it worth the trouble. I know how to stay close to even while waiting. I always make the first win pay for the speculation to follow. I know how to stay at break even while waiting. So when the chances come I pounce on the coincidence. It makes no sense to have your mind rapped around every way that can win.

BTW, these mathematical attempts to beat the house edge all have dismal outcomes. They pay dog shit. The only up side to all this is winning the Nobel Prize. ... And when will that be?

 

...at the tables!
Why bothering to prove something which works when the only person you need to prove it is yourself!

 

Well that leaves something to be desired regarding these threads on expectations from a depleting uranium.

Just look at the craven image one expects to get just from the title of this thread. Turbo has not done it and you have not done it. So by all means, take your Rube Goldberg contraption to the casino.

 

Wish you were there too, hah?!

 

It wouldn't be a Nobel Prize, it would be a Fields Medal.

No.... you have not done it - you can sadly speak for no one other than yourself.

 

You didn't beat any arithmetic. and it's a medal for advances in economical science. There is no way that the long streaks of wins you are seeing is a breakthrough. You just have not power tested it for millions and millions of spins. I think it's a wonderful ploy though. I have not seen so much hysteria over a progression since I started reading gambling forums on-line. You did that without giving yourself away or seeking validation from a peer review that matters. You are king of tall stories. You spoofed everyone. You might as well have said that because the moon goes round and round that you can beat the math. I congratulate you for this years best laugh. The depletion of radioactive decay. That's a good one.

 

Wrong again (uses my Trump "Wrong" voice)
I didn't validate it to "YOU". It's been validated. You can take it as a joke if you'd like, it's your loss and no one else's.
We are all free to take whatever position we wish to take.

 

I talked to people that you think you validated it with. I power tested many principles of it by their many discussions you had with them.. I wrote programs to test your ideas. You failed with me. I matter. So try to impress somebody that will listen. I'm satisfied with what I tested. The only thing that you can do is to prove it works and disclose it to the many capable of proving it doesn't work. All you have is words. Like I said, thanks for the joke.

P.S. I have the emails.

 

lol. You should write screenplays with that level of absurdity.
I meet "those kind of people" in person, not via email(s).
But hey - you're still as entertaining as always.

 

2 guys when are long time casino losers arguing who "system" loses less. And yea, there are plenty of people willing to bet against your theories. You guys are the joke.

 

Maybe the forum can add a "translate" button when you highlight text.
I have no clue what that means lol

I guess you're saying (in your own special way) that we are both losers and people are willing to bet against our ideas ? Shit, I have no idea what you're saying, I take it back.

 

I think it's hilarious that people don't research to the very end the possibility of finding a working progression and exactly how well it works. But to have to listen to neo-gamblers that just grew up past the Martingale stage is like having an endless supply of fat headed apprentice know it all goofs that have almost no playing experience. They pose like they know something but it's what they don't know that makes them look comical. It's all part and parcel of being a poster.

 

The Happening.

Ken