Roulette The horse race analogy and set completion

https://www.vlsroulette.com/index.php?topic=1037.0

 

These are just betting examples of the min. Intervals.
Not the strategy itself.
He also notes in the prologue ".. as covered in the min. Interval strategy.."

 

Yo.... I could be way off the mark here but....

I think we are looking at this wrong.

We have been looking for sets of numbers,


I think we need to be looking at sets of PATTERNS.


Am I crazy?

What always happens in 37 spins
What never happens?

If we can make "pattern sets" and watch spins unfold, towards the end of the race (37 spins) we can begin betting and as long as we are on the right pattern. And if a different set comes up and is "neck and neck" we can toss some chips on that!

Turbo says he bets between one and four numbers... Well if we know (I don't yet) what must happen using math within a cycle (maybe 2 cycles I don't know that either) and what must not happen, maybe, just maybe he only needs to bet one to four numbers because if horse A ( pattern A) is well in the lead then he bets one number. if horse B (pattern B), is neck and neck with A he will bet 2 numbers... And if all 4 patterns are pumping hard then he bets 4 numbers...

I'm So sure this horse race is about patterns and not numbers..

Not so sure about how he deals with the 1-4 numbers...

BUT!!! IF math proves one of these patterns must form before a cycle ends, and he waits till it's close to the end, this explains how he can flatbet and come well ahead!

Now I'm gonna have a drink.. or 2..

I hope I'm on the right path

 

To add to my post.. it is about numbers but it's the patterns units and repeaters form... I Think..

 

I think the patterns are specific sets of numbers.

So looking at a string of 37 numbers, there is a relationship between the begining and end.

Example, the relationship between singles and repeaters could be a set (pattern).. or the ratio?

I dunno. Anyone think I'm way off course?

 

I must aploud to you, this is very out of the box thinking, and you may well be very right.
I have given this subject alot of thought the last few days, but i'm not getting much further then you guys at the moment. I hope that turbo finds the time and energy to help us a littlw further with this subject.

 

Alright so, turbo has said the following right? And he also said that important info is knowing the average number of spins each number takes to show up. In his set it was 6.3 spins.

The important info is the 6.3 in my opinion.

Other important info is when that last number in the leading set hits, we should know where set 2 and 3 are...

 

I think we are betting on that last number that hasn't shown up yet. Because we are expecting it to hit within x amount of spins. If it does not within a expected (6.3 spins) then we remove it. And that's ok! Because when there is one horse left in the lead we are creating a new race with new sets. And go at it again! Because on average the numbers will/should hit within the casino payout.

Any thoughts?

 

And I think these sets should be built with repeaters.

 

Interesting..Care to elaborate?

 

I don't know what is special about a leading horse, if it was so simple to win the race, then all jockeys/drivers would take the lead from the start and be the winner. If you watch plenty of races all day long like I'm doing, then you will notice that a lot of races are won by waiters.

 

Sure. Please note I had a few drinks in me and these were ideas that I simply wanted to toss out here and maybe others could help expand.

Now remember turbo saying the longer the set, the better the prediction should be?

What if we took a set of 37 spins and jotted down the repeaters.

Then took the next 37 and jotted down the repeaters.

Maybe a third set and jotted down those repeaters.

Now take those repeaters and make sets. Yes some will have duplicates but not every set will.

Regardless, in the next 37 when numbers in your sets are getting hit we cross them off till we have one set in the lead...

I think what's going on is as we test this, the average "winner" might be in X amount of spins. For example, maybe we ran 100 tests and the winning set has an average of 6.3 spins for a winning number to show.

We would now have a mathematical constant no?

Maybe the "pattern" is the average number of spins it takes for a horse (set) to win.

If the last number does not perform we can remove it. Maybe if the average is 6 spins we bet from 4 to 8 spins.. I don't know.. but if it does not perform then we remove it.. all while building new sets and new races. With new numbers to play. What do you think?

 

I highly doubt that anyone would sit 111 spins and then start betting for a series of spins as well.
At least if you're gonna go online (RNG turbo mode) yes you can click through 111 spins, but then why use sets when you enter the numbers in RX and just bet those with above 1 STD.

Its a really large sample all Im saying..

 

I agree it is (crosses off idea "waiting for many many spins" from the white board).


An observation and a question..

I observed the exact same thing...

After multiple test runs I realized that it does not happen all the time but plenty of times to possibly help us exploit?

 

Working on a scorecard to track TG's horse race and just tossing it out there...
Using a horizontal baccarat card (plenty of room on most cards)...and writing 1-36 across the top row...for the 11 lists, marking off 6 horses (blank) of 6 each on the second row...and offsetting 5 horses (6 each) under that on the third row...down near the bottom, recording the number of spins...when 5 blocks fill up top, circling the remaining empty block to start betting..and recording what spin (and number) the betting started..it's primitive, but it's a start..
Looking for some help on a couple of points on the main idea of TG's horse race...he charted and pointed out that the average number of spins in his example was 6.3 for the "Winning" horse...I think this was asked in the thread, but if you reach 6, 7, 8 spins or something close, without a win on the remaing single number and another horse is available, (under 6 cold spins), do you get off the first horse or keep riding both ? Also, he made the comment that this wasn't about repeating numbers, but about repeating "sets" of numbers..any help on that one would be appreciated..
Also, great job of keeping this particular thread civil and somewhat free of the trash talk....

 

Hi RickK

I agree, this thread has been fairly civil. It's a welcome change. Sorry, I'm unable to help with your question because I've just come unstuck.

I followed Turbo's rules which were described on page one of this thread. I wagered on the double street or line to complete (all six numbers to be crossed off). As per Turbo's chart it should take 38.1 spins for the first set (double street) to be completed. I initially achieved very strong results. Please see below.

Session 1: +22 (21 spins)
Session 2: +30 (48 spins)
Session 3: +22 (37 spins)
Session 4: +16 (47 spins)
Session 5: +14 (43 spins)
Session 6: +25 (36 spins)
Session 7: +13 (49 spins)
Session 8: +10 (41 spins)
Session 9: +18 (40 spins)
Session 10: -15 (56 spins) *Progression was used
Session 11: +10 (44 spins)
Session 12: +22 (46 spins) *Progression was used
Session 13: +9 (55 spins) *Progression was used
Session 14: +7 (50 spins) *Progression was used
Session 15: +8 (34 spins)
Session 16: +3 (43 spins)
Session 17: +24 (33 spins)
Session 18: +7 (20 spins)
Session 19: +9 (45 spins)
Session 20: -345 (68 spins and counting)

The averages say a set should complete every 38.1 spins. The average set completion for my 20 games was 42.1 spins. As you can see, everything is fine while the set completes around average. There was a small loss at session 10 with 56 spins, and then back in profit for the next 9 games.

Unfortunately, everything comes unstuck at session 20 when everything goes cold. The set finally completed at spin 68. Too late, all profit is lost.

At this stage, I don't believe I have anything to combat a set finishing way above average. Until I do, this method can only be considered a short term winner. Unless anyone has any ideas. Perhaps I was doing something wrong?

 

I think... When you have that last number in your set we wait for it to hit before we bet. You NEVER bet on a number that has not shown. TG also says that when we have a winning set we know where horse 2 and 3 are?

I noticed the following:

In my sets, I had 4 numbers (yes I should have more in my sets..I'm just testing here). The last number in the winning horse was #15... It was not hit but because it was the last number in my lead set I began to play it..

From there I created a new race... Long story short number 27 was the next last number in the winning set. 15 hit before 27..

From here I'm stuck, but there is a relationship with 15 hitting before 27..

 

Sorry if this was touched on in this thread.earlier....but..any chance he is saying that the set fills in with singles...then it is when all but one of the numbers repeat and that is when you bet on that "single" number to repeat...which completes a "set of numbers repeating" ?

 

Seems like 3 of the clues point toward that possibilty...the 2 above and...
"Betting a long term cold number, or "the last of anything" is terrible and I'd never suggest doing that."
Taken together, the "long term cold number" and "the last of anything" could be the last single to complete the group....the last repeater to finish out the group would be less likely to fit both categories..
Might be a stretch on that one, but seems his clues are well disguised....which is understandable and no harsh criticism intended TG....can fully understand you being protective..

 

So you're betting on the 2nd and 3rd place? I hadn't thought about that. That's worth a try.... Thanks Bitrock