Roulette Van De Waerden Theorem of Mathematics (VDW)

Interesting that, personally I don't mind skipping wins if it means avoiding losses (rather protect my BR than make profit, profit can be made later), therefore talking out loud, why not just restrict placed bets to outcomes, 7, 8 or 9?

You would have a 62.5% chance of winning one of those bets, if a bet opportunity still presented itself.

 

I agree trying to find ways to reduce the risk of too many consecutive losses in one game is a good idea.
My thoughts were similar to yours and doing some kind of countback of spins making sure an AP has not formed yet is one way of doing it.
That combined with using the best stats could be a good angle of attack.

 

Good thought.

I have tested spins 7-8-9 and have attached pictures of the graphs for 2 10,000 spin sessions. The problem with spins 7-8-9 is that they are the ONLY spins which the Mutual Bet will apply. For this demonstration, I assumed NO BET if a Mutual Bet would occur.

The bigger problem is the lack of betting opportunities. As you can see, this bet only 2.7 times per 100 spins/hands.

 

I was thinking along the lines of betting one-side only, excluding all possibility of mutual bets.

 

Much better idea.

Attached is graph of betting only Black for spins 7-8-9 avoiding the Mutual Bet. I used the same data files as I did for betting RB.

Still only 5.9 bets per 100 spins/hands.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about bet frequency, rather the overall strike rate, you could always increase the unit value to compensate for lack of bet opportunities. Don't you use a bot anyway, therefore you'd let it run??

Interesting to note, the profit is much greater than the draw-downs

 

Here is a good short video that NickMsi shared on another forum which deals with coin flips but can be converted to R/B, O/E, L/H, P/B, S/D etc..



Now I am no great mathematician but it did get me wondering if there is a relation between what's going on in this video and why certain AP combinations seem to win more games than some of the others. To put it in real simple terms, it seems like the chop plays a significant part.

 

Just to add that obviously 50 coin tosses is nothing. Somebody in the comments section wrote some code for a 1,000,000 coin toss experiment and got the same results and I can vouch for it based on my own results.

HT + TH = an average waiting time of 4.
HH + TT = an average waiting time of 6.

It's good for example if you are just looking to play one side with VdW.

 

I've seen that video before.

You lost me on this, how does knowing chops are more frequent than doubles bolt into VdW?

 

Here is a run from yesterday.


So as the video explains, you can see that the HH is missing here. So when you have the missing HH, play for L and when you have the missing LL, play for H.
If you are playing for the L because HH is missing, when the H appears, it will chop straight back to the L should the HH remain missing.
These absent LL and HH long absences are more frequent than 'terrible two' scenarios which can be a real pain if playing VdW however there is a way around that which I will show later.



In this 'terrible two' scenario, the losses are mostly a constant of 1 and not a chop.

When you get more common distribution and not the extreme like the 24 L vs 6 H as above, it might look something like L,H,L,L,H,L,H,L,H. Here the winning AP is 468 on the L. So if playing for the L because of the missing HH, you lost on 135 and 147 but won on 468.

 

I get it, but it breaks the premise of VdW, you ned up playing something else.

 

Yep, I suppose everybody ends up playing their own thing depending on what tweaks they add to things.

I don't play loads of Roulette anymore, but when I do, I am more looking to catch a few numbers and I try to use some of the 'non-random' concepts that I have learned about and tweaked to isolate my betting targets.

Here is the framework...



From left to right, I am charting the dozen cycles, registering the hits for the numbers, charting the six-lines bearing in mind what I posted above, trying to incorporate the furthest back six-line as they can go missing for ages and then tracking the Low/High which works well with the six-lines angle. It maybe looks like a 'dogs dinner' but it is very rare I will lose if I stay focussed and match up to what's happening or not happening.

So for instance...that very last number (11) The Cycle is S on the first dozen. (S outperforms D in cycles by 2/1) Low is outperforming High and the 1-6 sixline came up 2 spins ago meaning it's over 50% that it will be something different. Well, if I am right, it's going to the 7-12 sixline and the only numbers from the 7-12 sixline to appear so far are 7 (1 hit) 10 (1 hit) and 11 (2 hits) and the 11 hits.

It's not as difficult as it maybe sounds but I have spent years with this stuff and can figure out what to play based on what's happening pretty quickly. Sure, there are no guarantees with this or anything else but I wouldn't play any Roulette any other way because it works way more than it doesn't.

cheers

 

JK,


since 789 produve mutual bets & overal 3456 offer rare bet options far in•between;

1. why not leave the mutual out of the picture completely
2. apply not just all 3 predesigned EC bets [RB,EO,HL], but also add some extra EC groups to 3467 & so enlarge betting options pool.

I have no roulette testing software.
Why don't you run an above 1000000 spin simulation to see what comes out & post the results?

 

I have tested your idea for the 3 standard EC betting both sides of the EC as follows:

Spin 1: No Bet

Spin 2: No Bet

Spin 3: Bet for 123 AP

Spin 4: Bet for the 234 AP

Spin 5: Bet for the 345 AP or the 135 AP

Spin 6: Bet for the 456 AP or the 246 AP

Session ends on a Profit of 1 Unit or end of 6 Spins.

Test was done for 3 Sessions of 50,000 spins each with No Zero RNG data.

Results attached.

Cheers

Nick

 

Hello nick,
These results are not bad to keep in mind that only more than 500 bets were made.
Would it be possible to program an excel or program, which says to bet on each spin?
Would it be possible to try the VDW B all AP 7-8-9 program with about 300.000 spin?

Thanks in advance!!

 

I agree, the 500 bet results looked pretty good to my eyes, I would also like to see a bigger sample.

 

No you can't.

 

Per your request, I have tested this system for 300,000 spins (100,000 each for 3 tests).

I used RNG data as VDW does the same with RNG or Live Spins because numbers are numbers and they must behave according to the math of VDW.

As you can see the test generated almost 18,000 PLACED BETS which is a sufficient to validate if a system is good.

The results are consistent with the previous shorter test.

Cheers

Nick

 

You tested 300k spins? You shouldn't have had to test a single spin! You should have been able to use logic and common sense in order to determine that it was a complete waste of time.

 

Thanks Nick